critical thinking for science

• MISSION / VISION
• DIVERSITY STATEMENT
• CAREER OPPORTUNITIES
• Kide Science
• STEMscopes Science
• Collaborate Science
• STEMscopes Math
• Math Nation
• STEMscopes Coding
• Mastery Coding
• DIVE-in Engineering
• STEMscopes Streaming
• Tuva Data Literacy
• NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR STEM EDUCATION
• STEMSCOPES PROFESSIONAL LEARNING
• RESEARCH & EFFICACY STUDIES
• STEM EDUCATION WEBINARS
• LEARNING EQUITY
• DISTANCE LEARNING
• PRODUCT UPDATES
• LMS INTEGRATIONS
• STEMSCOPES BLOG
• FREE RESOURCES
• TESTIMONIALS

Critical Thinking in Science: Fostering Scientific Reasoning Skills in Students

ALI Staff | Published  July 13, 2023

Thinking like a scientist is a central goal of all science curricula.

As students learn facts, methodologies, and methods, what matters most is that all their learning happens through the lens of scientific reasoning what matters most is that it’s all through the lens of scientific reasoning.

That way, when it comes time for them to take on a little science themselves, either in the lab or by theoretically thinking through a solution, they understand how to do it in the right context.

One component of this type of thinking is being critical. Based on facts and evidence, critical thinking in science isn’t exactly the same as critical thinking in other subjects.

Students have to doubt the information they’re given until they can prove it’s right.

They have to truly understand what’s true and what’s hearsay. It’s complex, but with the right tools and plenty of practice, students can get it right.

What is critical thinking?

This particular style of thinking stands out because it requires reflection and analysis. Based on what's logical and rational, thinking critically is all about digging deep and going beyond the surface of a question to establish the quality of the question itself.

It ensures students put their brains to work when confronted with a question rather than taking every piece of information they’re given at face value.

It’s engaged, higher-level thinking that will serve them well in school and throughout their lives.

Why is critical thinking important?

Critical thinking is important when it comes to making good decisions.

It gives us the tools to think through a choice rather than quickly picking an option — and probably guessing wrong. Think of it as the all-important ‘why.’

Why is that true? Why is that right? Why is this the only option?

Finding answers to questions like these requires critical thinking. They require you to really analyze both the question itself and the possible solutions to establish validity.

Will that choice work for me? Does this feel right based on the evidence?

How does critical thinking in science impact students?

Critical thinking is essential in science.

It’s what naturally takes students in the direction of scientific reasoning since evidence is a key component of this style of thought.

It’s not just about whether evidence is available to support a particular answer but how valid that evidence is.

It’s about whether the information the student has fits together to create a strong argument and how to use verifiable facts to get a proper response.

Critical thinking in science helps students:

• Actively evaluate information
• Identify bias
• Separate the logic within arguments
• Analyze evidence

4 Ways to promote critical thinking

Figuring out how to develop critical thinking skills in science means looking at multiple strategies and deciding what will work best at your school and in your class.

Based on your student population, their needs and abilities, not every option will be a home run.

These particular examples are all based on the idea that for students to really learn how to think critically, they have to practice doing it. 

Each focuses on engaging students with science in a way that will motivate them to work independently as they hone their scientific reasoning skills.

Project-Based Learning

Project-based learning centers on critical thinking.

Teachers can shape a project around the thinking style to give students practice with evaluating evidence or other critical thinking skills.

Critical thinking also happens during collaboration, evidence-based thought, and reflection.

For example, setting students up for a research project is not only a great way to get them to think critically, but it also helps motivate them to learn.

Allowing them to pick the topic (that isn’t easy to look up online), develop their own research questions, and establish a process to collect data to find an answer lets students personally connect to science while using critical thinking at each stage of the assignment.

They’ll have to evaluate the quality of the research they find and make evidence-based decisions.

Self-Reflection

Adding a question or two to any lab practicum or activity requiring students to pause and reflect on what they did or learned also helps them practice critical thinking.

At this point in an assignment, they’ll pause and assess independently. 

You can ask students to reflect on the conclusions they came up with for a completed activity, which really makes them think about whether there's any bias in their answer.

Addressing Assumptions

One way critical thinking aligns so perfectly with scientific reasoning is that it encourages students to challenge all assumptions. 

Evidence is king in the science classroom, but even when students work with hard facts, there comes the risk of a little assumptive thinking.

Working with students to identify assumptions in existing research or asking them to address an issue where they suspend their own judgment and simply look at established facts polishes their that critical eye.

They’re getting practice without tossing out opinions, unproven hypotheses, and speculation in exchange for real data and real results, just like a scientist has to do.

Lab Activities With Trial-And-Error

Another component of critical thinking (as well as thinking like a scientist) is figuring out what to do when you get something wrong.

Backtracking can mean you have to rethink a process, redesign an experiment, or reevaluate data because the outcomes don’t make sense, but it’s okay.

The ability to get something wrong and recover is not only a valuable life skill, but it’s where most scientific breakthroughs start. Reminding students of this is always a valuable lesson.

Labs that include comparative activities are one way to increase critical thinking skills, especially when introducing new evidence that might cause students to change their conclusions once the lab has begun.

For example, you provide students with two distinct data sets and ask them to compare them.

With only two choices, there are a finite amount of conclusions to draw, but then what happens when you bring in a third data set? Will it void certain conclusions? Will it allow students to make new conclusions, ones even more deeply rooted in evidence?

Thinking like a scientist

When students get the opportunity to think critically, they’re learning to trust the data over their ‘gut,’ to approach problems systematically and make informed decisions using ‘good’ evidence.

When practiced enough, this ability will engage students in science in a whole new way, providing them with opportunities to dig deeper and learn more.

It can help enrich science and motivate students to approach the subject just like a professional would.

Share this post!

Related articles.

STEMscopes Texas Math Meets TEKS and ELP Standards!

There is quite a bit of uncertainty out there about the newly established Instructional Materials Review and Approval...

10 Quick, Fun Math Warm-Up Activities

Creating an environment that allows students to engage with fun math activities, versus rote memorization, helps...

Overview of Instructional Materials Review and Approval (IMRA) and House Bill 1605

In May 2023, Texas approved a transformative bill (House Bill 1605) that significantly impacts educational funding for...

STAY INFORMED ON THE LATEST IN STEM. SUBSCRIBE TODAY!

Which stem subjects are of interest to you.

STEMscopes Tech Specifications      STEMscopes Security Information & Compliance      Privacy Policy      Terms and Conditions

© 2024 Accelerate Learning

• Call for Volunteers!
• Our Team of Presenters
• Fellows of the Foundation
• Dr. Richard Paul
• Dr. Linda Elder
• Dr. Gerald Nosich
• Contact Us - Office Information
• Permission to Use Our Work
• Create a CriticalThinking.Org Account
• Contributions to the Foundation for Critical Thinking
• Testimonials
• Center for Critical Thinking
• The National Council for Excellence in Critical Thinking
• International Center for the Assessment of Higher Order Thinking
• Library of Critical Thinking Resources
• Professional Development
• Inservice Information Request Form
• The State of Critical Thinking Today
• Higher Education
• K-12 Instruction
• Customized Webinars and Online Courses for Faculty
• Business & Professional Groups
• The Center for Critical Thinking Community Online
• Certification in the Paul-Elder Approach to Critical Thinking
• Certification Online Course
• Professional Development Model - College and University
• Professional Development Model for K-12
• Workshop Descriptions
• Online Courses in Critical Thinking
• Critical Thinking Training for Law Enforcement
• Consulting for Leaders and Key Personnel at Your Organization
• Critical Thinking Therapy
• Conferences & Events
• Upcoming Learning Opportunities
• 2024 Fall Academy on Critical Thinking
• Daily Schedule
• Transportation, Lodging, and Leisure
• Call for Proposals
• Academy Presuppositions
• Conference Archives
• 44th Annual International Conference on Critical Thinking
• Focal Session Descriptions
• Guest Presentation Program
• Presuppositions of the 44th Annual International Conference on Critical Thinking
• Recommended Reading
• 43rd Annual International Conference on Critical Thinking
• Register as an Ambassador
• Testimonials from Past Attendees
• Thank You to Our Donors
• Presuppositions of the Conference
• 42nd Annual International Conference on Critical Thinking
• Overview of Sessions (Flyer)
• Presuppositions of the Annual International Conference
• Testimonials from Past Conferences
• 41st Annual International Conference on Critical Thinking
• Recommended Publications
• Dedication to Our Donors
• 40th Annual International Conference on Critical Thinking
• Session Descriptions
• Testimonials from Prior Conferences
• International Critical Thinking Manifesto
• Scholarships Available
• 39th Annual International Conference on Critical Thinking
• Travel and Lodging Info
• FAQ & General Announcements
• Focal and Plenary Session Descriptions
• Program and Proceedings of the 39th Annual International Conference on Critical Thinking
• The Venue: KU Leuven
• Call for Critical Thinking Ambassadors
• Conference Background Information
• 38th Annual International Conference on Critical Thinking
• Call for Ambassadors for Critical Thinking
• Conference Focal Session Descriptions
• Conference Concurrent Session Descriptions
• Conference Roundtable Discussions
• Conference Announcements and FAQ
• Conference Program and Proceedings
• Conference Daily Schedule
• Conference Hotel Information
• Conference Academic Credit
• Conference Presuppositions
• What Participants Have Said About the Conference
• 37th Annual International Conference on Critical Thinking
• Registration & Fees
• FAQ and Announcements
• Conference Presenters
• 37th Conference Flyer
• Program and Proceedings of the 37th Conference
• 36th International Conference
• Conference Sessions
• Conference Flyer
• Program and Proceedings
• Academic Credit
• 35th International Conference
• Conference Session Descriptions
• Available Online Sessions
• Bertrand Russell Distinguished Scholar - Daniel Ellsberg
• 35th International Conference Program
• Concurrent Sessions
• Posthumous Bertrand Russell Scholar
• Hotel Information
• Conference FAQs
• Visiting UC Berkeley
• 34th INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE
• Bertrand Russell Distinguished Scholar - Ralph Nader
• Conference Concurrent Presenters
• Conference Program
• Conference Theme
• Roundtable Discussions
• Flyer for Bulletin Boards
• 33rd INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE
• 33rd International Conference Program
• 33rd International Conference Sessions
• 33rd International Conference Presenters
• The Bertrand Russell Distinguished Scholars Critical Thinking Conversations
• 33rd International Conference - Fees & Registration
• 33rd International Conference Concurrent Presenters
• 33rd International Conference - Hotel Information
• 33rd International Conference Flyer
• 32nd INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE
• 32nd Annual Conference Sessions
• 32nd Annual Conference Presenter Information
• 32nd Conference Program
• The Bertrand Russell Distinguished Scholars Critical Thinking Lecture Series
• 32nd Annual Conference Concurrent Presenters
• 32nd Annual Conference Academic Credit
• 31st INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE
• 31st Conference Sessions
• Comments about previous conferences
• Conference Hotel (2011)
• 31st Concurrent Presenters
• Registration Fees
• 31st International Conference
• 30th INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON CRITICAL THINKING
• 30th International Conference Theme
• 30th Conference Sessions
• PreConference Sessions
• 30th Concurrent Presenters
• 30th Conference Presuppositions
• Hilton Garden Inn
• 29th International Conference
• 29th Conference Theme
• 29th Conference Sessions
• 29th Preconference Sessions
• 29th Conference Concurrent Sessions
• 2008 International Conference on Critical Thinking
• 2008 Preconference Sessions (28th Intl. Conference)
• 2007 Conference on Critical Thinking (Main Page)
• 2007 Conference Theme and sessions
• 2007 Pre-Conference Workshops
• 2006 Annual International Conference (archived)
• 2006 International Conference Theme
• 2005 International Conference (archived)
• Prior Conference Programs (Pre 2000)
• Workshop Archives
• Spring 2022 Online Workshops
• 2021 Online Workshops for Winter & Spring
• 2019 Seminar for Military and Intelligence Trainers and Instructors
• Transportation, Lodging, and Recreation
• Seminar Flyer
• 2013 Spring Workshops
• Our Presenters
• 2013 Spring Workshops - Hotel Information
• 2013 Spring Workshops Flyer
• 2013 Spring Workshops - Schedule
• Spring Workshop 2012
• 2012 Spring Workshop Strands
• 2012 Spring Workshop Flier
• 2011 Spring Workshop
• Spring 2010 Workshop Strands
• 2009 Spring Workshops on Critical Thinking
• 2008 SPRING Workshops and Seminars on Critical Thinking
• 2008 Ethical Reasoning Workshop
• 2008 - On Richard Paul's Teaching Design
• 2008 Engineering Reasoning Workshop
• 2008 Academia sobre Formulando Preguntas Esenciales
• Fellows Academy Archives
• 2017 Fall International Fellows Academy
• 4th International Fellows Academy - 2016
• 3rd International Fellows Academy
• 2nd International Fellows Academy
• 1st International Fellows Academy
• Academy Archives
• October 2019 Critical Thinking Academy for Educators and Administrators
• Advanced Seminar: Oxford Tutorial
• Recreational Group Activities
• Limited Scholarships Available
• September 2019 Critical Thinking Educators and Administrators Academy
• 2019 Critical Thinking Training for Trainers and Advanced Academy
• Academy Flyer
• Seattle, WA 2017 Spring Academy
• San Diego, CA 2017 Spring Academy
• 2016 Spring Academy -- Washington D.C.
• 2016 Spring Academy -- Houston, TX
• The 2nd International Academy on Critical Thinking (Oxford 2008)
• 2007 National Academy on Critical Thinking Testing and Assessment
• 2006 Cambridge Academy (archived)
• 2006 Cambridge Academy Theme
• 2006 Cambridge Academy Sessions
• Accommodations at St. John's College
• 44th Annual International Conference Hub
• Conference Welcome Page
• Assessment & Testing
• A Model for the National Assessment of Higher Order Thinking
• International Critical Thinking Essay Test
• Online Critical Thinking Basic Concepts Test
• Online Critical Thinking Basic Concepts Sample Test
• Consequential Validity: Using Assessment to Drive Instruction
• News & Announcements
• Newest Pages Added to CriticalThinking.Org
• Online Learning
• Critical Thinking Online Courses
• Critical Thinking Blog
• 2019 Blog Entries
• 2020 Blog Entries
• 2021 Blog Entries
• 2022 Blog Entries
• 2023 Blog Entries
• Online Courses for Your Students
• 2023 Webinar Archives
• 2022 Webinar Archives
• 2021 Webinar Archive
• 2020 Webinar Archive
• Guided Study Groups
• Critical Thinking Channel on YouTube

Translate this page from English...

*Machine translated pages not guaranteed for accuracy. Click Here for our professional translations.

Critical Thinking: Where to Begin

• For College and University Faculty
• For College and University Students
• For High School Teachers
• For Jr. High School Teachers
• For Elementary Teachers (Grades 4-6)
• For Elementary Teachers (Kindergarten - 3rd Grade)
• For Science and Engineering Instruction
• For Business and Professional Development
• For Nursing and Health Care
• For Home Schooling and Home Study

If you are new to critical thinking or wish to deepen your conception of it, we recommend you review the content below and bookmark this page for future reference.

Our Conception of Critical Thinking...

"Critical thinking is the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action. In its exemplary form, it is based on universal intellectual values that transcend subject matter divisions: clarity, accuracy, precision, consistency, relevance, sound evidence, good reasons, depth, breadth, and fairness..."

"Critical thinking is self-guided, self-disciplined thinking which attempts to reason at the highest level of quality in a fairminded way. People who think critically attempt, with consistent and conscious effort, to live rationally, reasonably, and empathically. They are keenly aware of the inherently flawed nature of human thinking when left unchecked. They strive to diminish the power of their egocentric and sociocentric tendencies. They use the intellectual tools that critical thinking offers – concepts and principles that enable them to analyze, assess, and improve thinking. They work diligently to develop the intellectual virtues of intellectual integrity, intellectual humility, intellectual civility, intellectual empathy, intellectual sense of justice and confidence in reason. They realize that no matter how skilled they are as thinkers, they can always improve their reasoning abilities and they will at times fall prey to mistakes in reasoning, human irrationality, prejudices, biases, distortions, uncritically accepted social rules and taboos, self-interest, and vested interest.

They strive to improve the world in whatever ways they can and contribute to a more rational, civilized society. At the same time, they recognize the complexities often inherent in doing so. They strive never to think simplistically about complicated issues and always to consider the rights and needs of relevant others. They recognize the complexities in developing as thinkers, and commit themselves to life-long practice toward self-improvement. They embody the Socratic principle: The unexamined life is not worth living , because they realize that many unexamined lives together result in an uncritical, unjust, dangerous world."

Why Critical Thinking?

The Problem:

Everyone thinks; it is our nature to do so. But much of our thinking, left to itself, is biased, distorted, partial, uninformed, or down-right prejudiced. Yet the quality of our lives and that of what we produce, make, or build depends precisely on the quality of our thought. Shoddy thinking is costly, both in money and in quality of life. Excellence in thought, however, must be systematically cultivated.

A Brief Definition:

Critical thinking is the art of analyzing and evaluating thinking with a view to improving it. The Result: 

  A well-cultivated critical thinker:

• raises vital questions and problems, formulating them clearly and precisely;
• gathers and assesses relevant information, using abstract ideas to interpret it effectively;
• comes to well-reasoned conclusions and solutions, testing them against relevant criteria and standards;
• thinks openmindedly within alternative systems of thought, recognizing and assessing, as need be, their assumptions, implications, and practical consequences; and
• communicates effectively with others in figuring out solutions to complex problems.

Critical thinking is, in short, self-directed, self-disciplined, self-monitored, and self-corrective thinking. It requires rigorous standards of excellence and mindful command of their use. It entails effective communication and problem-solving abilities, and a commitment to overcoming our native egocentrism and sociocentrism. Read more about our concept of critical thinking .

The Essential Dimensions of Critical Thinking

Our conception of critical thinking is based on the substantive approach developed by Dr. Richard Paul and his colleagues at the Center and Foundation for Critical Thinking over multiple decades. It is relevant to every subject, discipline, and profession, and to reasoning through the problems of everyday life. It entails five essential dimensions of critical thinking:

At the left is an overview of the first three dimensions. In sum, the elements or structures of thought enable us to "take our thinking apart" and analyze it. The intellectual standards are used to assess and evaluate the elements. The intellectual traits are dispositions of mind embodied by the fairminded critical thinker. To cultivate the mind, we need command of these essential dimensions, and we need to consistently apply them as we think through the many problems and issues in our lives.

The Elements of Reasoning and Intellectual Standards

To learn more about the elements of thought and how to apply the intellectual standards, check out our interactive model. Simply click on the link below, scroll to the bottom of the page, and explore the model with your mouse.

Why the Analysis of Thinking Is Important If you want to think well, you must understand at least the rudiments of thought, the most basic structures out of which all thinking is made. You must learn how to take thinking apart. Analyzing the Logic of a Subject When we understand the elements of reasoning, we realize that all subjects, all disciplines, have a fundamental logic defined by the structures of thought embedded within them. Therefore, to lay bare a subject’s most fundamental logic, we should begin with these questions:

Going Deeper...

The Critical Thinking Bookstore  

Our online bookstore houses numerous books and teacher's manuals , Thinker's Guides , videos , and other educational materials .  

Learn From Our Fellows and Scholars

Watch our Event Calendar , which provides an overview of all upcoming conferences and academies hosted by the Foundation for Critical Thinking. Clicking an entry on the Event Calendar will bring up that event's details, and the option to register. For those interested in online learning, the Foundation offers accredited online courses in critical thinking for both educators and the general public, as well as an online test for evaluating basic comprehension of critical thinking concepts . We are in the process of developing more online learning tools and tests to offer the community.  

Utilizing this Website

This website contains large amounts research and an online library of articles , both of which are freely available to the public. We also invite you to become a member of the Critical Thinking Community , where you will gain access to more tools and materials.  If you cannot locate a resource on a specific topic or concept, try searching for it using our Search Tool . The Search Tool is at the upper-right of every page on the website.

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.

Eight Instructional Strategies for Promoting Critical Thinking

• Share article

(This is the first post in a three-part series.)

The new question-of-the-week is:

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

This three-part series will explore what critical thinking is, if it can be specifically taught and, if so, how can teachers do so in their classrooms.

Today’s guests are 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.

You might also be interested in The Best Resources On Teaching & Learning Critical Thinking In The Classroom .

Current Events

Dara Laws Savage is an English teacher at the Early College High School at Delaware State University, where she serves as a teacher and instructional coach and lead mentor. Dara has been teaching for 25 years (career preparation, English, photography, yearbook, newspaper, and graphic design) and has presented nationally on project-based learning and technology integration:

There is so much going on right now and there is an overload of information for us to process. Did you ever stop to think how our students are processing current events? They see news feeds, hear news reports, and scan photos and posts, but are they truly thinking about what they are hearing and seeing?

I tell my students that my job is not to give them answers but to teach them how to think about what they read and hear. So what is critical thinking and how can we integrate it into the classroom? There are just as many definitions of critical thinking as there are people trying to define it. However, the Critical Think Consortium focuses on the tools to create a thinking-based classroom rather than a definition: “Shape the climate to support thinking, create opportunities for thinking, build capacity to think, provide guidance to inform thinking.” Using these four criteria and pairing them with current events, teachers easily create learning spaces that thrive on thinking and keep students engaged.

One successful technique I use is the FIRE Write. Students are given a quote, a paragraph, an excerpt, or a photo from the headlines. Students are asked to F ocus and respond to the selection for three minutes. Next, students are asked to I dentify a phrase or section of the photo and write for two minutes. Third, students are asked to R eframe their response around a specific word, phrase, or section within their previous selection. Finally, students E xchange their thoughts with a classmate. Within the exchange, students also talk about how the selection connects to what we are covering in class.

There was a controversial Pepsi ad in 2017 involving Kylie Jenner and a protest with a police presence. The imagery in the photo was strikingly similar to a photo that went viral with a young lady standing opposite a police line. Using that image from a current event engaged my students and gave them the opportunity to critically think about events of the time.

Here are the two photos and a student response:

F - Focus on both photos and respond for three minutes

In the first picture, you see a strong and courageous black female, bravely standing in front of two officers in protest. She is risking her life to do so. Iesha Evans is simply proving to the world she does NOT mean less because she is black … and yet officers are there to stop her. She did not step down. In the picture below, you see Kendall Jenner handing a police officer a Pepsi. Maybe this wouldn’t be a big deal, except this was Pepsi’s weak, pathetic, and outrageous excuse of a commercial that belittles the whole movement of people fighting for their lives.

I - Identify a word or phrase, underline it, then write about it for two minutes

A white, privileged female in place of a fighting black woman was asking for trouble. A struggle we are continuously fighting every day, and they make a mockery of it. “I know what will work! Here Mr. Police Officer! Drink some Pepsi!” As if. Pepsi made a fool of themselves, and now their already dwindling fan base continues to ever shrink smaller.

R - Reframe your thoughts by choosing a different word, then write about that for one minute

You don’t know privilege until it’s gone. You don’t know privilege while it’s there—but you can and will be made accountable and aware. Don’t use it for evil. You are not stupid. Use it to do something. Kendall could’ve NOT done the commercial. Kendall could’ve released another commercial standing behind a black woman. Anything!

Exchange - Remember to discuss how this connects to our school song project and our previous discussions?

This connects two ways - 1) We want to convey a strong message. Be powerful. Show who we are. And Pepsi definitely tried. … Which leads to the second connection. 2) Not mess up and offend anyone, as had the one alma mater had been linked to black minstrels. We want to be amazing, but we have to be smart and careful and make sure we include everyone who goes to our school and everyone who may go to our school.

As a final step, students read and annotate the full article and compare it to their initial response.

Using current events and critical-thinking strategies like FIRE writing helps create a learning space where thinking is the goal rather than a score on a multiple-choice assessment. Critical-thinking skills can cross over to any of students’ other courses and into life outside the classroom. After all, we as teachers want to help the whole student be successful, and critical thinking is an important part of navigating life after they leave our classrooms.

‘Before-Explore-Explain’

Patrick Brown is the executive director of STEM and CTE for the Fort Zumwalt school district in Missouri and an experienced educator and author :

Planning for critical thinking focuses on teaching the most crucial science concepts, practices, and logical-thinking skills as well as the best use of instructional time. One way to ensure that lessons maintain a focus on critical thinking is to focus on the instructional sequence used to teach.

Explore-before-explain teaching is all about promoting critical thinking for learners to better prepare students for the reality of their world. What having an explore-before-explain mindset means is that in our planning, we prioritize giving students firsthand experiences with data, allow students to construct evidence-based claims that focus on conceptual understanding, and challenge students to discuss and think about the why behind phenomena.

Just think of the critical thinking that has to occur for students to construct a scientific claim. 1) They need the opportunity to collect data, analyze it, and determine how to make sense of what the data may mean. 2) With data in hand, students can begin thinking about the validity and reliability of their experience and information collected. 3) They can consider what differences, if any, they might have if they completed the investigation again. 4) They can scrutinize outlying data points for they may be an artifact of a true difference that merits further exploration of a misstep in the procedure, measuring device, or measurement. All of these intellectual activities help them form more robust understanding and are evidence of their critical thinking.

In explore-before-explain teaching, all of these hard critical-thinking tasks come before teacher explanations of content. Whether we use discovery experiences, problem-based learning, and or inquiry-based activities, strategies that are geared toward helping students construct understanding promote critical thinking because students learn content by doing the practices valued in the field to generate knowledge.

An Issue of Equity

Meg Riordan, Ph.D., is the chief learning officer at The Possible Project, an out-of-school program that collaborates with youth to build entrepreneurial skills and mindsets and provides pathways to careers and long-term economic prosperity. She has been in the field of education for over 25 years as a middle and high school teacher, school coach, college professor, regional director of N.Y.C. Outward Bound Schools, and director of external research with EL Education:

Although critical thinking often defies straightforward definition, most in the education field agree it consists of several components: reasoning, problem-solving, and decisionmaking, plus analysis and evaluation of information, such that multiple sides of an issue can be explored. It also includes dispositions and “the willingness to apply critical-thinking principles, rather than fall back on existing unexamined beliefs, or simply believe what you’re told by authority figures.”

Despite variation in definitions, critical thinking is nonetheless promoted as an essential outcome of students’ learning—we want to see students and adults demonstrate it across all fields, professions, and in their personal lives. Yet there is simultaneously a rationing of opportunities in schools for students of color, students from under-resourced communities, and other historically marginalized groups to deeply learn and practice critical thinking.

For example, many of our most underserved students often spend class time filling out worksheets, promoting high compliance but low engagement, inquiry, critical thinking, or creation of new ideas. At a time in our world when college and careers are critical for participation in society and the global, knowledge-based economy, far too many students struggle within classrooms and schools that reinforce low-expectations and inequity.

If educators aim to prepare all students for an ever-evolving marketplace and develop skills that will be valued no matter what tomorrow’s jobs are, then we must move critical thinking to the forefront of classroom experiences. And educators must design learning to cultivate it.

So, what does that really look like?

Unpack and define critical thinking

To understand critical thinking, educators need to first unpack and define its components. What exactly are we looking for when we speak about reasoning or exploring multiple perspectives on an issue? How does problem-solving show up in English, math, science, art, or other disciplines—and how is it assessed? At Two Rivers, an EL Education school, the faculty identified five constructs of critical thinking, defined each, and created rubrics to generate a shared picture of quality for teachers and students. The rubrics were then adapted across grade levels to indicate students’ learning progressions.

At Avenues World School, critical thinking is one of the Avenues World Elements and is an enduring outcome embedded in students’ early experiences through 12th grade. For instance, a kindergarten student may be expected to “identify cause and effect in familiar contexts,” while an 8th grader should demonstrate the ability to “seek out sufficient evidence before accepting a claim as true,” “identify bias in claims and evidence,” and “reconsider strongly held points of view in light of new evidence.”

When faculty and students embrace a common vision of what critical thinking looks and sounds like and how it is assessed, educators can then explicitly design learning experiences that call for students to employ critical-thinking skills. This kind of work must occur across all schools and programs, especially those serving large numbers of students of color. As Linda Darling-Hammond asserts , “Schools that serve large numbers of students of color are least likely to offer the kind of curriculum needed to ... help students attain the [critical-thinking] skills needed in a knowledge work economy. ”

So, what can it look like to create those kinds of learning experiences?

Designing experiences for critical thinking

After defining a shared understanding of “what” critical thinking is and “how” it shows up across multiple disciplines and grade levels, it is essential to create learning experiences that impel students to cultivate, practice, and apply these skills. There are several levers that offer pathways for teachers to promote critical thinking in lessons:

1.Choose Compelling Topics: Keep it relevant

A key Common Core State Standard asks for students to “write arguments to support claims in an analysis of substantive topics or texts using valid reasoning and relevant and sufficient evidence.” That might not sound exciting or culturally relevant. But a learning experience designed for a 12th grade humanities class engaged learners in a compelling topic— policing in America —to analyze and evaluate multiple texts (including primary sources) and share the reasoning for their perspectives through discussion and writing. Students grappled with ideas and their beliefs and employed deep critical-thinking skills to develop arguments for their claims. Embedding critical-thinking skills in curriculum that students care about and connect with can ignite powerful learning experiences.

2. Make Local Connections: Keep it real

At The Possible Project , an out-of-school-time program designed to promote entrepreneurial skills and mindsets, students in a recent summer online program (modified from in-person due to COVID-19) explored the impact of COVID-19 on their communities and local BIPOC-owned businesses. They learned interviewing skills through a partnership with Everyday Boston , conducted virtual interviews with entrepreneurs, evaluated information from their interviews and local data, and examined their previously held beliefs. They created blog posts and videos to reflect on their learning and consider how their mindsets had changed as a result of the experience. In this way, we can design powerful community-based learning and invite students into productive struggle with multiple perspectives.

3. Create Authentic Projects: Keep it rigorous

At Big Picture Learning schools, students engage in internship-based learning experiences as a central part of their schooling. Their school-based adviser and internship-based mentor support them in developing real-world projects that promote deeper learning and critical-thinking skills. Such authentic experiences teach “young people to be thinkers, to be curious, to get from curiosity to creation … and it helps students design a learning experience that answers their questions, [providing an] opportunity to communicate it to a larger audience—a major indicator of postsecondary success.” Even in a remote environment, we can design projects that ask more of students than rote memorization and that spark critical thinking.

Our call to action is this: As educators, we need to make opportunities for critical thinking available not only to the affluent or those fortunate enough to be placed in advanced courses. The tools are available, let’s use them. Let’s interrogate our current curriculum and design learning experiences that engage all students in real, relevant, and rigorous experiences that require critical thinking and prepare them for promising postsecondary pathways.

Critical Thinking & Student Engagement

Dr. PJ Caposey is an award-winning educator, keynote speaker, consultant, and author of seven books who currently serves as the superintendent of schools for the award-winning Meridian CUSD 223 in northwest Illinois. You can find PJ on most social-media platforms as MCUSDSupe:

When I start my keynote on student engagement, I invite two people up on stage and give them each five paper balls to shoot at a garbage can also conveniently placed on stage. Contestant One shoots their shot, and the audience gives approval. Four out of 5 is a heckuva score. Then just before Contestant Two shoots, I blindfold them and start moving the garbage can back and forth. I usually try to ensure that they can at least make one of their shots. Nobody is successful in this unfair environment.

I thank them and send them back to their seats and then explain that this little activity was akin to student engagement. While we all know we want student engagement, we are shooting at different targets. More importantly, for teachers, it is near impossible for them to hit a target that is moving and that they cannot see.

Within the world of education and particularly as educational leaders, we have failed to simplify what student engagement looks like, and it is impossible to define or articulate what student engagement looks like if we cannot clearly articulate what critical thinking is and looks like in a classroom. Because, simply, without critical thought, there is no engagement.

The good news here is that critical thought has been defined and placed into taxonomies for decades already. This is not something new and not something that needs to be redefined. I am a Bloom’s person, but there is nothing wrong with DOK or some of the other taxonomies, either. To be precise, I am a huge fan of Daggett’s Rigor and Relevance Framework. I have used that as a core element of my practice for years, and it has shaped who I am as an instructional leader.

So, in order to explain critical thought, a teacher or a leader must familiarize themselves with these tried and true taxonomies. Easy, right? Yes, sort of. The issue is not understanding what critical thought is; it is the ability to integrate it into the classrooms. In order to do so, there are a four key steps every educator must take.

• Integrating critical thought/rigor into a lesson does not happen by chance, it happens by design. Planning for critical thought and engagement is much different from planning for a traditional lesson. In order to plan for kids to think critically, you have to provide a base of knowledge and excellent prompts to allow them to explore their own thinking in order to analyze, evaluate, or synthesize information.
• SIDE NOTE – Bloom’s verbs are a great way to start when writing objectives, but true planning will take you deeper than this.

QUESTIONING

• If the questions and prompts given in a classroom have correct answers or if the teacher ends up answering their own questions, the lesson will lack critical thought and rigor.
• Script five questions forcing higher-order thought prior to every lesson. Experienced teachers may not feel they need this, but it helps to create an effective habit.
• If lessons are rigorous and assessments are not, students will do well on their assessments, and that may not be an accurate representation of the knowledge and skills they have mastered. If lessons are easy and assessments are rigorous, the exact opposite will happen. When deciding to increase critical thought, it must happen in all three phases of the game: planning, instruction, and assessment.

TALK TIME / CONTROL

• To increase rigor, the teacher must DO LESS. This feels counterintuitive but is accurate. Rigorous lessons involving tons of critical thought must allow for students to work on their own, collaborate with peers, and connect their ideas. This cannot happen in a silent room except for the teacher talking. In order to increase rigor, decrease talk time and become comfortable with less control. Asking questions and giving prompts that lead to no true correct answer also means less control. This is a tough ask for some teachers. Explained differently, if you assign one assignment and get 30 very similar products, you have most likely assigned a low-rigor recipe. If you assign one assignment and get multiple varied products, then the students have had a chance to think deeply, and you have successfully integrated critical thought into your classroom.

Thanks to Dara, Patrick, Meg, and PJ 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

8 Science-Based Strategies For Critical Thinking

The development of beliefs based on critical reasoning and quality data is much closer to a science-based approach to critical thinking.

What Are The Best Science-Based Strategies For Critical Thinking?

contributed by Lee Carroll , PhD and Terry Heick

Scientific argumentation and critical thought are difficult to argue against.

However, as qualities and mindsets, they are often the hardest to teach to students. Einstein himself said, “Education is not the learning of facts, but the training of the mind to think.”

But how? What can science and critical thinking do for students? And further, what can teachers learn from these approaches and take to their classrooms?

Outside of science, people are quick to label those who question currently accepted theories as contrarians, trolls, and quacks. This is, in part, because people are sometimes not aware of how science moves forward.

Interestingly, professional teaching journals point out that a common myth students bring to school is that science is already all discovered and carved in stone–a fixed collection of knowledge–rather than the simple approach to thinking and knowledge it actually represents. 

Below are 8 science-based strategies for critical thinking.

1. Challenge all assumptions

And that means all assumptions.

As a teacher, I’ve done my best to nurture the students’ explorative questions by modeling the objective scientific mindset. Regardless of our goals in the teaching and learning process, I never want to squelch the curiosity of students . One way I accomplish this is by almost always refraining from giving them my personal opinion when they’ve asked, encouraging them instead to tackle the research in order to develop their own ideas.

Students are not used to this approach and might rather be told what to think. But wouldn’t that be a disservice to their development, knowing we need analytical minds to create progress? And knowing how fast technology converts science fiction into fact? Concepts that were pure imagination when I grew up, like time travel, have now been simulated with photons in Australia. Could this happen if we never challenged our assumptions?

Question everything. In that regards, questions are more important than answers.

2. Suspending judgment

If a student shows curiosity in a subject, it may challenge our own comfort zone. Along these lines, Malcolm Forbes—balloonist, yachtsman, and publisher of Forbes magazine—famously declared, “Education’s purpose is to replace an empty mind with an open one.”

Although it’s human nature to fill a void with assumptions, it would halt the progress of science and thus is something to guard against. Admittedly, it requires bravery to suspend judgment and fearlessly acquire unbiased data. But who knows, that data may cause us to look at things in a new light.

3. Revising conclusions based on new evidence

In adopting student-centered learning, the Next Generation Science Standards feature scientific argumentation . Can we agree that change based on new evidence may be useful in creating a healthier world?

Resisting confirmation bias, scientists are required to revise conclusions–and thus beliefs–in the presence of new data.

4. Emphasizing data over beliefs

In science, ‘beliefs’ matter less than facts, data, and what can be supported and proven. The development of beliefs based on critical reasoning and quality data is much closer to a science-based approach to critical thinking.

While scientists certainly do ‘argue’ amongst themselves, helping students frame that disagreement as being between data rather than people is a very simple way to teach critical thinking through science. Seeing people and beliefs and data as separate is not only rational, but central to this process.

5. The neverending testing of ideas

At worst, new tests are designed to again test those new conclusions. Theories are wonderful starting points for a process that never stops!

6. The perspective that mistakes are data

Viewing mistakes as data and data as leading to new conclusions and progress is part and parcel to the scientific process.

Just so, one of the fallouts of teaching critical thinking skills is that students may bring home misunderstandings. But exploring controversy in science is the very method that scientists use to propel the field forward.

Otherwise, we would still be riding horses and using typewriters. Did you know that it was once considered controversial to put erasers on pencils? People thought it would encourage students to make mistakes.

7. The earnest consideration of possibilities and ideas without (always) accepting them

However valuable it has proven to explore controversy in science, some students may not be able to wrap their heads around (one of) Aristotle’s famous quote about education: “It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.”

Without teachers and parents together supporting students through this, children may lose the context of why they should challenge their own assumptions via evidence and analytical reasoning inside and outside of the classroom.

8. Looking for what others have missed

Looking over old studies and data–whether to draw new conclusions or design new theories and tests for those theories–is how a lot of ‘science’ happens. Even thinking of a new way to consider or frame an old problem–to consider what others may have missed–is a wonderful critical thinking approach to learning.

TeachThought is an organization dedicated to innovation in education through the growth of outstanding teachers.

• Partnerships

Critical thinking

Effective lifelong learning

Executive summary

• One of the most striking characteristics of the XX and XXI centuries is the “exponential growth” of knowledge generated in any discipline, which is available to most of the world’s citizens.
• As it is no longer possible to comprehend all the information available, in relation to disciplines or even subdisciplines, education should promote the acquisition of learning abilities related to modes of thought rather than solely the accumulation or memorization of, in many cases, information that may be only infrequently useful.
• One mode of thought, reflective thinking or critical thinking, is a metacognitive process—a set of habituated intellectual resources put purposefully into action—that enables a deeper understanding of new information. It also provides a secure foundation for more effective problem-solving, decision-making, and appropriate argumentation of ideas and opinions.
• The global output of teaching critical thinking is adding new competences to everyone’s basic capacities for greater cognitive development and freedom.

“… Nothing better for the mental development of the child and the adolescent than to teach them superior ways of learning that complement, continue, rectify and elevate the spontaneous ways. Originality is a precious heritage that the pedagogue must not only guard, but lead, in the domain of values, to its maximum expression. And with superior ways of learning, culture and originality grow in parallel. To teach superior ways of learning is to add to the native powers, new powers for greater independence of the spirit in all its manifestations. It is teaching to move only upwards…Teaching to observe well, to think well, to feel good, to express oneself well and to act well is what, in sum, every pedagogical doctrine, new or old, revolutionary or conservative, of now and forever, is materialized.” (Clemente Estable, 1947 1 ).

Introduction and historical background

The brain is the organ that allows us to think. This confronts us with a philosophical challenge that has been accompanying human civilization for more than 2,500 years: H ow can the brain help us to understand how the brain enables us to understand? 2

Ancient Greek philosophers have already questioned themselves about the source of knowledge and cognitive functions and hypothesized about the fundamental role of the brain, in opposition to the heart or even the air or fire 3-6 . The Socratic method, involving the introspective scrutiny of thought guided by questioning, paved the long-lasting way to contemporary approaches and conceptions about “good thinking,” also called “reflective thinking,” 7 and more recently, “critical thinking” 8 .

As in any area of knowledge, most of the accumulated content—which is vast and always evolving—is nowadays accessible to everyone who has access to the internet. Thus, it can be argued that educational efforts should concentrate on improving the next generation’s modes of thinking. It is desirable to promote engagement with knowledge rather than transmitting the requirement of accumulating data—usually disposable information—through mastery or memorization 9 .

Critical thinking is a fundamental pillar in every field of learning within disciplines as diverse as science, technology, engineering, and mathematics as well as the humanities including literature, history, art, and philosophy 5,9,10 .

No matter the discipline, critical thinking pursues some end or purpose, such as answering a question, deciding, solving a problem, devising a plan, or carrying out a project to face present and future challenges 11 . Hence, it is also applicable to everyday life and is desirable for a plural society with citizenship literacy and scientific competence for participation in diverse situations, including dilemmas of scientific tenor 7,12 .

In spite of the explicit valuing of critical thinking, and iterative efforts to promote its effective incorporation in the curricula at different levels of education of science, humanities, and education itself, difficulties for deeper grasping of critical thinking and challenges for its fruitful integration in educational curricula persist 13,14 . Such difficulty is in part caused by a lack of consensus regarding a definition of critical thinking.

Defining critical thinking

Critical thinking is a mental process 11 like creative thinking, intuition, and emotional reasoning, all of which are important to the psychological life of an individual 10 . It pertains to a family of forms of higher order thinking, including problem-solving, creative thinking, and decision-making 15 . However, there is not a single or direct definition of critical thinking, probably reflecting the emphasis made on different features or aspects by several authors from diverse disciplines as education, philosophy, and neurosciences 7,10,16-18 .

Some of the distinguishing features of critical thinking and critical thinkers are ( 7, 11, 12, 16, 19, 20 ; see Figure 1):

Figure 1. Diagram of the principal features of critical thinking, including some of the necessary cognitive functions and intellectual resources. The arrows indicate the main mechanisms of modulation: top-down, involving the effect of upper on lower level intellectual resources (for example, the effect of metacognition on motivation that in turn affects perception), and bottom-up (such as the influence of self-analysis and habituation on self-regulation and metacognition).

• Critical thinkers pursue some end or purpose such as answering a question, making a decision, solving a problem, devising a plan, or carrying out a project to cope with present or future challenges.
• Accordingly, critical thinking is purposively put into action and driven by .
• As a result of this top-down influence, critical thinking is an attitude which does not occur spontaneously.
• Critical thinking also involves the knowledge, acquisition, and improvement of a spectrum of intellectual resources such as: –  methods of logical inquiry; – information literacy to gather significant information about the problem and the context for embracing comprehensive background knowledge; – operational knowledge of processing skills for generation of concepts and beliefs: analysis, evaluation, inference, reflective judgment.
• To accomplish these intellectual resources, critical thinkers need to put into action the most basic cognitive functions such as perception, motor coordination and action, sensory-motor coordination, language perception and production, memory, and decision-making.
• Critical thinkers apply these procedures and methods in a systematic and reasonable way.
• As a result, critical thinking is not an immediate cognitive event but a process .
• The main outcome of critical thinking is a reflective, ordered, causal flow of ideas .
• Critical thinkers self-analyze and self-assess the mode of thinking.
• Consequently, critical thinking is a metacognitive process .
• Self-evaluation launches a bottom-up process for modulation and improvement of critical thinking, enabling greater adaptability to different situations.
• Thus, critical thinking also requires training and habituation .
• As a global outcome, critical thinking, as a metacognitive process, also refines self-regulation (i.e., the ability to understand and control our learning environments) 20 .

In sum, critical thinking is a purposeful, intellectually demanding, disciplined, plastic, and trainable mode of thinking in which motivation, self-analysis, and self-regulation play key roles. Several of these aspects were stressed by Santiago Ramón y Cajal (see Figure 2A). Cajal—founder of modern neuroscience and Nobel Prize of Medicine in 1906—hypothesized about the role of brain plasticity, metanalysis habituation, and self-regulation for the acquisition of knowledge about objects or problems: “When one thinks about the curious property that man possesses of changing and refining his mental activity in relation to a profoundly meditated object or problem, one cannot but suspect that the brain, thanks to its plasticity, evolves anatomically and dynamically, adapting progressively to the subject. This adequate and specific organization acquired by the nerve cells eventually produces what I would call professional talent or adaptation, and has its own will, that is, the energetic resolution to adapt our understanding to the nature of the matter.” 20

Figure 2. Left: Portrait of Santiago Ramón y Cajal. Oil painted by the Spanish Postimpressionist painter Joaquín Sorolla in 1906, the year Cajal received the Nobel Prize in Medicine 21 . Right: Microphotography of an original preparation of Cajal showing a pyramidal neuron of the human brain cortex. Staining: Golgi staining. Original handwritten label: Pyramid. Boy 22 .

Neural basis of critical thinking

Figure 3. Mapping of cognitive functions. The diagram superposed on the lateral view of the human brain indicates the location of distributed neural assemblies activated in relation to cognitive functions. Note that the indicated cognitive functions are involved in the same or successive phases of critical thinking. (Modified from ref. 26 ).

The cognitive functions and intellectual resources involved in critical thinking are emergent properties of the human brain’s structure and function which depend on the activity of its building blocks, the neurons (see Figure 2B). Neurons are specialized cells which are almost equal in number to nonneuronal cells in human brains. Of the total amount of 86 billon neurons, 19% form the cerebral cortex and 78% the cerebellum 23 . Neurons are interconnected and intercommunicate through specialized junctions called synapses, of which there are about 0,15 quadrillion in the cerebral cortex 24 and more than 3 trillion in the cerebellar cortex (considering the total number of Purkinje cells and the total amount of synapses/Purkinje cell 25 ). These stellar numbers help us imagine the density of the entangled brain web. This web is not fully active at any time. Instead, distributed groups of neurons or “distributed neural assemblies” are more active at certain topographies when particular cognitive functions are taking place 26 . Considering the spectrum of cognitive functions involved in the process of critical thinking, it will increase activation in much of the brain cortex (see Figure 3).

Teaching critical thinking

 “It is not enough to know how we learn, we must know how to teach.” (Tracey Tokuhama-Espinosa, 2010 27 ).

Teachers have the invaluable potential power of fostering knowledge in the next generations of students and citizens. However, this power is expressed when teachers, instead of teaching what they know—and hence limiting students’ knowledge to their own—teach students to think critically and so open up the possibility that students’ knowledge will expand beyond the borders of the teachers’ own knowledge 28 . Thus, it is important to be aware that—similar to electrical circuits and Ohm’s law—the wealth and depth of students’ knowledge that is achieved or expressed depends not only on the energy or effort that students put in the task but also their own (internal) resistance as well as teachers’ (external) resistance. This metaphor exemplifies that the expected outcomes of education may be better achieved if teachers are familiar with the foundations of critical thinking, better appreciate its worth, and themselves become proficient at thinking critically, particularly in relation to their professional activity.

Now more than ever it is possible for teachers to build a framework to improve the teaching and learning of critical thinking in the classroom 29 thanks to a wealth of information and guidelines resulting from contributions of diverse disciplines since the renewed interest in critical thinking and its promotion in education pioneered by Dewey 7 at the dawn of the 20th century.  According to Boisvert (1999 28 ), up to the 1980s, education focused on the abilities of critical thinking as goals to achieve.

Since then, a growing movement of critical thinking has been characterized by iterative attempts to define critical thinking, as well as by instructing teachers about this process and how to teach it. In parallel, several tools for assessment have been created 11, 30, 31, 32, 33 .

Nevertheless, the long-lasting aim has not been achieved. In trying to envisage more fruitful strategies, it is worth noting the difficulty of transmitting critical thinking as just a skill that can be trained without considering the context. On the contrary, the domain of knowledge and the development of critical thinking should be considered in parallel as related intellectual resources—as pointed out by Willimham 33 . It is worth pointing out that, parallel to the critical thinking movement, there has been an increasing simultaneous interest in the neural bases of critical thinking, leading to the emergence 5,34 of “educational neuroscience” 35 and “brain, mind and education” 36 . These interdisciplinary fields have been elucidating the fundamental mechanisms involved in critical thinking as well as the role of factors that impact on this ability. This, along with the tight collaboration between scientists and teachers, is forging a new (Machado) path or bridge over the “gulf” between these fields 35 .

References/Suggested Readings & Notes

• Estable, C. 1947. Pedagogía de presión normativa y pedagogía de la personalidad y de la vocación. An. Ateneo Urug., 2ª ed., 1, 155-156. http://www.periodicas.edu.uy/Anales_Ateneo_Uruguay/pdfs/Anales_Ateneo_Uruguay_2a_epoca_n2.pdf
• Shepherd, G, M. 1994. Neurobiology, 3rd edn , Oxford University Press.
• Cope, E. M. 1875. Plato’s Phaedo, Literally translated , Cambridge University Press.
• Adams, L. L. D. 1849. Hippocrates Translated from the Greek with a preliminary discourse and annotations. The Sydenham Society.
• Vieira, R. M., Tenreiro-Vieira, C. & Martins, I. P. Critical thinking: conceptual clarification and its importance in science education. Science Education International 22,43–54 (2011).
• Panegyres, K. P. & Panegyres, P. K. The ancient Greek discovery of the nervous system: Alcmaeon, Praxagoras and Herophilus. Journal of Clinical Neuroscience 29, 21–24 (2016).
• Dewey, J. How we think. The Problem of Training Thought 14 (1910). doi:10.1037/10903-000
• Glaser, E. M. (1941). An experiment in the development of critical thinking . New York: Columbia University Teachers College.
• Edmonds, Michael, et al. History & Critical Thinking: A Handbook for Using Historical Documents to Improve Students’ Thinking Skills in the Secondary Grades. Wisconsin Historical Society, 2005. http://www.wisconsinhistory.org/pdfs/lessons/EDU-History-and-Critical-Thinking-Handbook.pdf
• Mulnix, J. W. Thinking critically about critical thinking. Educational Philosophy and Theory 44, 464–479 (2012).
• Bailin, S., Case, R., Coombs, J. R. & Daniels, L. B. Conceptualizing critical thinking.  Journal of Curriculum Studies 31, 285–302 (1999).
• Dwyer, C. P., Hogan, M. J. & Stewart, I. An integrated critical thinking framework for the 21st century. Thinking Skills and Creativity 12, 43–52 (2014).
• Paul, R. The state of critical thinking today. New Directions for Community Colleges 130, 27–39 (2005).
• Lloyd, M. & Bahr, N. Thinking critically about critical thinking in higher education. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching & Learning 4, 1–16 (2010).
• Rudd, R. D. Defining critical thinking. Techniques. 46 (2007).
• Siegel, H. (1988) . Educating reason: Rationality, critical thinking, and education . Philosophy of education research library. Routledge Inc.
• Siegel, H. in  International Encyclopedia of Education 141–145 (Elsevier Ltd, 2010). doi:10.1016/B978-0-08-044894-7.00582-0
• Bailin, S. Critical thinking and science education. Science & Education (2002) 11: 361. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016042608621
• Facione, P. A. Critical Thinking: A Statement of Expert Consensus for Purposes of Educational Assessment and Instruction.  California Academic Press 1–19 (1990). doi:10.1080/00324728.2012.723893
• Schraw, G., Crippen, K. J., & Hartley, K. (2006). Promoting self-regulation in science education: metacognition as part of a broader perspective on learning. Research in Science Education  36(1–2), 111–139. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-005-3917-8
• Ramon y Cajal, S.  Recuerdos de mi vida .  Juan Fernández Santarén, Barcelona. Editorial Crítica ( 1899); Of Joaquín Sorolla y Bastida, Public domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=32562506).
• From: http://www.montelouro.es/Cajal.html.
• Herculano-Houzel, S. The human brain in numbers: a linearly scaled-up primate brain. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 3, (2009).
• Pakkenberg, B.  et al. Aging and the human neocortex. Experimental Gerontology 38, 95–99 (2003).
• Nairn JG, Bedi KS, Mayhew TM, Campbell LF. On the number of Purkinje cells in the human cerebellum: unbiased estimates obtained by using the “fractionator”. J Comp Neurol. 290(4), 527-32 (1989).
• Pulvermüller, F., Garagnani, M. & Wennekers, T. Thinking in circuits: toward neurobiological explanation in cognitive neuroscience.  Biological Cybernetics 108, 573–593 (2014).
• Tokuhama-Espinosa, T. The New Science of Teaching and Learning: Using the Best of Mind, Brain, and Education Science in the Classroom.  Teachers College Press (2010).
• Chavan, A. A. & Khandagale V. S. Development of critical thinking skill programme for the student teachers of diploma in teacher education colleges. Issues Ideas Educ. http://dspace.chitkara.edu.in/xmlui/handle/1/159.
• Paul, R. & Elder, L. Guide for educators to critical thinking competency standards: standards, principles, performance indicators, and outcomes with a critical thinking master rubric. Foundation for Critical Thinking. (2007).
• Paul, R. W. Critical Thinking: What Every Person Needs to Survive in a Rapidly Changing World. Foundation for Critical Thinking. (2000). Retrieved from http://assets00.grou.ps/0F2E3C/wysiwyg_files/FilesModule/criticalthinkingandwriting/20090921185639-uxlhmlnvedpammxrz/CritThink1.pdf
• Paul, R. W., Elder, L. & Bartell, T. California Teacher Preparation for Instruction in Critical Thinking: Research Findings and Policy Recommendations. (1997). Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.1001.1087&rep=rep1&type=pdf
• Vieira, R. M. Formação continuada de professores do 1.º e 2.º ciclos do Ensino Básico para uma educação em Ciências com orientação CTS/PC. Tese de doutoramento (não publicada), Universidade de Aveiro. (2003). Retrieved from: http://www.redalyc.org/pdf/374/37419205.pdf
• Willingham, D. T. Critical Thinking: Why Is It So Hard to Teach? American Educator 31, 8-19. (2007). Retrieved from http://www.aft.org/sites/default/files/periodicals/Crit_Thinking.pdf
• Zadina, J. N. The emerging role of educational neuroscience in education reform.  Psicología Educativa 21,71–77 (2015).
• Goswami, U. Neurociencia y Educación: ¿podemos ir de la investigación básica a su aplicación? Un posible marco de referencia desde la investigación en dislexia.  Psicologia Educativa 21, 97–105 (2015).
• Schwartz, M. Mind, brain and education: a decade of evolution. Mind, Brain, and Education 9, 64–71 (2015).

3. Critical Thinking in Science: How to Foster Scientific Reasoning Skills

Critical thinking in science is important largely because a lot of students have developed expectations about science that can prove to be counter-productive. 

After various experiences — both in school and out — students often perceive science to be primarily about learning “authoritative” content knowledge: this is how the solar system works; that is how diffusion works; this is the right answer and that is not. 

This perception allows little room for critical thinking in science, in spite of the fact that argument, reasoning, and critical thinking lie at the very core of scientific practice.

Argument, reasoning, and critical thinking lie at the very core of scientific practice.

In this article, we outline two of the best approaches to be most effective in fostering scientific reasoning. Both try to put students in a scientist’s frame of mind more than is typical in science education:

• First, we look at  small-group inquiry , where students formulate questions and investigate them in small groups. This approach is geared more toward younger students but has applications at higher levels too.
• We also look  science   labs . Too often, science labs too often involve students simply following recipes or replicating standard results. Here, we offer tips to turn labs into spaces for independent inquiry and scientific reasoning.

I. Critical Thinking in Science and Scientific Inquiry

Even very young students can “think scientifically” under the right instructional support. A series of experiments , for instance, established that preschoolers can make statistically valid inferences about unknown variables. Through observation they are also capable of distinguishing actions that cause certain outcomes from actions that don’t. These innate capacities, however, have to be developed for students to grow up into rigorous scientific critical thinkers. 

Even very young students can “think scientifically” under the right instructional support.

Although there are many techniques to get young children involved in scientific inquiry — encouraging them to ask and answer “why” questions, for instance — teachers can provide structured scientific inquiry experiences that are deeper than students can experience on their own. 

Goals for Teaching Critical Thinking Through Scientific Inquiry

When it comes to teaching critical thinking via science, the learning goals may vary, but students should learn that:

• Failure to agree is okay, as long as you have reasons for why you disagree about something.
• The logic of scientific inquiry is iterative. Scientists always have to consider how they might improve your methods next time. This includes addressing sources of uncertainty.
• Claims to knowledge usually require multiple lines of evidence and a “match” or “fit” between our explanations and the evidence we have.
• Collaboration, argument, and discussion are central features of scientific reasoning.
• Visualization, analysis, and presentation are central features of scientific reasoning.
• Overarching concepts in scientific practice — such as uncertainty, measurement, and meaningful experimental contrasts — manifest themselves somewhat differently in different scientific domains.

How to Teaching Critical Thinking in Science Via Inquiry

Sometimes we think of science education as being either a “direct” approach, where we tell students about a concept, or an “inquiry-based” approach, where students explore a concept themselves.  

But, especially, at the earliest grades, integrating both approaches can inform students of their options (i.e., generate and extend their ideas), while also letting students make decisions about what to do.

Like a lot of projects targeting critical thinking, limited classroom time is a challenge. Although the latest content standards, such as the Next Generation Science Standards , emphasize teaching scientific practices, many standardized tests still emphasize assessing scientific content knowledge.

The concept of uncertainty comes up in every scientific domain.

Creating a lesson that targets the right content is also an important aspect of developing authentic scientific experiences. It’s now more  widely acknowledged  that effective science instruction involves the interaction between domain-specific knowledge and domain-general knowledge, and that linking an inquiry experience to appropriate target content is vital.

For instance, the concept of uncertainty  comes up  in every scientific domain. But the sources of uncertainty coming from any given measurement vary tremendously by discipline. It requires content knowledge to know how to wisely apply the concept of uncertainty.

Tips and Challenges for teaching critical thinking in science

Teachers need to grapple with student misconceptions. Student intuition about how the world works — the way living things grow and behave, the way that objects fall and interact — often conflicts with scientific explanations. As part of the inquiry experience, teachers can help students to articulate these intuitions and revise them through argument and evidence.

Group composition is another challenge. Teachers will want to avoid situations where one member of the group will simply “take charge” of the decision-making, while other member(s) disengage. In some cases, grouping students by current ability level can make the group work more productive. 

Another approach is to establish group norms that help prevent unproductive group interactions. A third tactic is to have each group member learn an essential piece of the puzzle prior to the group work, so that each member is bringing something valuable to the table (which other group members don’t yet know).

It’s critical to ask students about how certain they are in their observations and explanations and what they could do better next time. When disagreements arise about what to do next or how to interpret evidence, the instructor should model good scientific practice by, for instance, getting students to think about what kind of evidence would help resolve the disagreement or whether there’s a compromise that might satisfy both groups.

The subjects of the inquiry experience and the tools at students’ disposal will depend upon the class and the grade level. Older students may be asked to create mathematical models, more sophisticated visualizations, and give fuller presentations of their results.

Lesson Plan Outline

This lesson plan takes a small-group inquiry approach to critical thinking in science. It asks students to collaboratively explore a scientific question, or perhaps a series of related questions, within a scientific domain.

Suppose students are exploring insect behavior. Groups may decide what questions to ask about insect behavior; how to observe, define, and record insect behavior; how to design an experiment that generates evidence related to their research questions; and how to interpret and present their results.

An in-depth inquiry experience usually takes place over the course of several classroom sessions, and includes classroom-wide instruction, small-group work, and potentially some individual work as well.

Students, especially younger students, will typically need some background knowledge that can inform more independent decision-making. So providing classroom-wide instruction and discussion before individual group work is a good idea.

For instance, Kathleen Metz had students observe insect behavior, explore the anatomy of insects, draw habitat maps, and collaboratively formulate (and categorize) research questions before students began to work more independently.

The subjects of a science inquiry experience can vary tremendously: local weather patterns, plant growth, pollution, bridge-building. The point is to engage students in multiple aspects of scientific practice: observing, formulating research questions, making predictions, gathering data, analyzing and interpreting data, refining and iterating the process.

As student groups take responsibility for their own investigation, teachers act as facilitators. They can circulate around the room, providing advice and guidance to individual groups. If classroom-wide misconceptions arise, they can pause group work to address those misconceptions directly and re-orient the class toward a more productive way of thinking.

Throughout the process, teachers can also ask questions like:

• What are your assumptions about what’s going on? How can you check your assumptions?
• Suppose that your results show X, what would you conclude?
• If you had to do the process over again, what would you change? Why?

II. Rethinking Science Labs

Beyond changing how students approach scientific inquiry, we also need to rethink science labs. After all, science lab activities are ubiquitous in science classrooms and they are a great opportunity to teach critical thinking skills.

Often, however, science labs are merely recipes that students follow to verify standard values (such as the force of acceleration due to gravity) or relationships between variables (such as the relationship between force, mass, and acceleration) known to the students beforehand. 

This approach does not usually involve critical thinking: students are not making many decisions during the process, and they do not reflect on what they’ve done except to see whether their experimental data matches the expected values.

With some small tweaks, however, science labs can involve more critical thinking. Science lab activities that give students not only the opportunity to design, analyze, and interpret the experiment, but re -design, re -analyze, and re -interpret the experiment provides ample opportunity for grappling with evidence and evidence-model relationships, particularly if students don’t know what answer they should be expecting beforehand.

Such activities improve scientific reasoning skills, such as: 

• Evaluating quantitative data
• Plausible scientific explanations for observed patterns

And also broader critical thinking skills, like:

• Comparing models to data, and comparing models to each other
• Thinking about what kind of evidence supports one model or another
• Being open to changing your beliefs based on evidence

Traditional science lab experiences bear little resemblance to actual scientific practice. Actual practice  involves  decision-making under uncertainty, trial-and-error, tweaking experimental methods over time, testing instruments, and resolving conflicts among different kinds of evidence. Traditional in-school science labs rarely involve these things.

Traditional science lab experiences bear little resemblance to actual scientific practice.

When teachers use science labs as opportunities to engage students in the kinds of dilemmas that scientists actually face during research, students make more decisions and exhibit more sophisticated reasoning.

In the lesson plan below, students are asked to evaluate two models of drag forces on a falling object. One model assumes that drag increases linearly with the velocity of the falling object. Another model assumes that drag increases quadratically (e.g., with the square of the velocity).  Students use a motion detector and computer software to create a plot of the position of a disposable paper coffee filter as it falls to the ground. Among other variables, students can vary the number of coffee filters they drop at once, the height at which they drop them, how they drop  them, and how they clean their data. This is an approach to scaffolding critical thinking: a way to get students to ask the right kinds of questions and think in the way that scientists tend to think.

Design an experiment to test which model best characterizes the motion of the coffee filters. 

Things to think about in your design:

• What are the relevant variables to control and which ones do you need to explore?
• What are some logistical issues associated with the data collection that may cause unnecessary variability (either random or systematic) or mistakes?
• How can you control or measure these?
• What ways can you graph your data and which ones will help you figure out which model better describes your data?

Discuss your design with other groups and modify as you see fit.

Initial data collection

Conduct a quick trial-run of your experiment so that you can evaluate your methods.

• Do your graphs provide evidence of which model is the best?
• What ways can you improve your methods, data, or graphs to make your case more convincing?
• Do you need to change how you’re collecting data?
• Do you need to take data at different regions?
• Do you just need more data?
• Do you need to reduce your uncertainty?

After this initial evaluation of your data and methods, conduct the desired improvements, changes, or additions and re-evaluate at the end.

In your lab notes, make sure to keep track of your progress and process as you go. As always, your final product is less important than how you get there.

How to Make Science Labs Run Smoothly

Managing student expectations . As with many other lesson plans that incorporate critical thinking, students are not used to having so much freedom. As with the example lesson plan above, it’s important to scaffold student decision-making by pointing out what decisions have to be made, especially as students are transitioning to this approach.

Supporting student reasoning . Another challenge is to provide guidance to student groups without telling them how to do something. Too much “telling” diminishes student decision-making, but not enough support may leave students simply not knowing what to do. 

There are several key strategies teachers can try out here: 

• Point out an issue with their data collection process without specifying exactly how to solve it.
• Ask a lab group how they would improve their approach.
• Ask two groups with conflicting results to compare their results, methods, and analyses.

Download our Teachers’ Guide

(please click here)

Sources and Resources

Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2007). Scientific thinking and scientific literacy . Handbook of child psychology , Vol. 4. Wiley. A review of research on scientific thinking and experiments on teaching scientific thinking in the classroom.

Metz, K. (2004). Children’s understanding of scientific inquiry: Their conceptualizations of uncertainty in investigations of their own design . Cognition and Instruction 22(2). An example of a scientific inquiry experience for elementary school students.

The Next Generation Science Standards . The latest U.S. science content standards.

Concepts of Evidence A collection of important concepts related to evidence that cut across scientific disciplines.

Scienceblind A book about children’s science misconceptions and how to correct them.

Holmes, N. G., Keep, B., & Wieman, C. E. (2020). Developing scientific decision making by structuring and supporting student agency. Physical Review Physics Education Research , 16 (1), 010109. A research study on minimally altering traditional lab approaches to incorporate more critical thinking. The drag example was taken from this piece.

ISLE , led by E. Etkina.  A platform that helps teachers incorporate more critical thinking in physics labs.

Holmes, N. G., Wieman, C. E., & Bonn, D. A. (2015). Teaching critical thinking . Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 112 (36), 11199-11204. An approach to improving critical thinking and reflection in science labs. Walker, J. P., Sampson, V., Grooms, J., Anderson, B., & Zimmerman, C. O. (2012). Argument-driven inquiry in undergraduate chemistry labs: The impact on students’ conceptual understanding, argument skills, and attitudes toward science . Journal of College Science Teaching , 41 (4), 74-81. A large-scale research study on transforming chemistry labs to be more inquiry-based.

Privacy Overview

• History & Society
• Science & Tech
• Biographies
• Animals & Nature
• Geography & Travel
• Arts & Culture
• Games & Quizzes
• On This Day
• One Good Fact
• New Articles
• Lifestyles & Social Issues
• Philosophy & Religion
• Politics, Law & Government
• World History
• Health & Medicine
• Browse Biographies
• Birds, Reptiles & Other Vertebrates
• Bugs, Mollusks & Other Invertebrates
• Environment
• Fossils & Geologic Time
• Entertainment & Pop Culture
• Sports & Recreation
• Visual Arts
• Demystified
• Image Galleries
• Infographics
• Top Questions
• Britannica Kids
• Saving Earth
• Space Next 50
• Student Center
• What was education like in ancient Athens?
• How does social class affect education attainment?
• When did education become compulsory?
• What are alternative forms of education?
• Do school vouchers offer students access to better education?

critical thinking

Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.

• Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy - Critical Thinking
• Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy - Critical Thinking
• Monash University - Student Academic Success - What is critical thinking?
• Oklahoma State University Pressbooks - Critical Thinking - Introduction to Critical Thinking
• University of Louisville - Critical Thinking

critical thinking , in educational theory, mode of cognition using deliberative reasoning and impartial scrutiny of information to arrive at a possible solution to a problem. From the perspective of educators, critical thinking encompasses both a set of logical skills that can be taught and a disposition toward reflective open inquiry that can be cultivated . The term critical thinking was coined by American philosopher and educator John Dewey in the book How We Think (1910) and was adopted by the progressive education movement as a core instructional goal that offered a dynamic modern alternative to traditional educational methods such as rote memorization.

Critical thinking is characterized by a broad set of related skills usually including the abilities to

• break down a problem into its constituent parts to reveal its underlying logic and assumptions
• recognize and account for one’s own biases in judgment and experience
• collect and assess relevant evidence from either personal observations and experimentation or by gathering external information
• adjust and reevaluate one’s own thinking in response to what one has learned
• form a reasoned assessment in order to propose a solution to a problem or a more accurate understanding of the topic at hand

Theorists have noted that such skills are only valuable insofar as a person is inclined to use them. Consequently, they emphasize that certain habits of mind are necessary components of critical thinking. This disposition may include curiosity, open-mindedness, self-awareness, empathy , and persistence.

Although there is a generally accepted set of qualities that are associated with critical thinking, scholarly writing about the term has highlighted disagreements over its exact definition and whether and how it differs from related concepts such as problem solving . In addition, some theorists have insisted that critical thinking be regarded and valued as a process and not as a goal-oriented skill set to be used to solve problems. Critical-thinking theory has also been accused of reflecting patriarchal assumptions about knowledge and ways of knowing that are inherently biased against women.

Dewey, who also used the term reflective thinking , connected critical thinking to a tradition of rational inquiry associated with modern science. From the turn of the 20th century, he and others working in the overlapping fields of psychology , philosophy , and educational theory sought to rigorously apply the scientific method to understand and define the process of thinking. They conceived critical thinking to be related to the scientific method but more open, flexible, and self-correcting; instead of a recipe or a series of steps, critical thinking would be a wider set of skills, patterns, and strategies that allow someone to reason through an intellectual topic, constantly reassessing assumptions and potential explanations in order to arrive at a sound judgment and understanding.

In the progressive education movement in the United States , critical thinking was seen as a crucial component of raising citizens in a democratic society. Instead of imparting a particular series of lessons or teaching only canonical subject matter, theorists thought that teachers should train students in how to think. As critical thinkers, such students would be equipped to be productive and engaged citizens who could cooperate and rationally overcome differences inherent in a pluralistic society.

Beginning in the 1970s and ’80s, critical thinking as a key outcome of school and university curriculum leapt to the forefront of U.S. education policy. In an atmosphere of renewed Cold War competition and amid reports of declining U.S. test scores, there were growing fears that the quality of education in the United States was falling and that students were unprepared. In response, a concerted effort was made to systematically define curriculum goals and implement standardized testing regimens , and critical-thinking skills were frequently included as a crucially important outcome of a successful education. A notable event in this movement was the release of the 1980 report of the Rockefeller Commission on the Humanities that called for the U.S. Department of Education to include critical thinking on its list of “basic skills.” Three years later the California State University system implemented a policy that required every undergraduate student to complete a course in critical thinking.

Critical thinking continued to be put forward as a central goal of education in the early 21st century. Its ubiquity in the language of education policy and in such guidelines as the Common Core State Standards in the United States generated some criticism that the concept itself was both overused and ill-defined. In addition, an argument was made by teachers, theorists, and others that educators were not being adequately trained to teach critical thinking.

• Forgot your Password?

First, please create an account

Thinking scientifically.

© 2024 SOPHIA Learning, LLC. SOPHIA is a registered trademark of SOPHIA Learning, LLC.

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

How could so many people support Hitler?

Lesson duration 05:10

655,299 Views

Can you solve the magical maze riddle?

Lesson duration 04:51

459,768 Views

How to make smart decisions more easily

Lesson duration 05:16

1,316,763 Views

Can you solve a mystery before Sherlock Holmes?

Lesson duration 05:17

521,383 Views

Can you solve the secret assassin society riddle?

Lesson duration 05:01

878,834 Views

How to overcome your mistakes

Lesson duration 04:52

1,002,143 Views

Can you solve the cursed dice riddle?

Lesson duration 04:31

788,515 Views

Why some people don't have an inner monologue

Lesson duration 12:03

2,889,606 Views

Science vs. Pseudoscience

Lesson duration 05:48

362,283 Views

Can you solve the time traveling car riddle?

Lesson duration 05:18

689,727 Views

This one weird trick will get you infinite gold

Lesson duration 05:08

1,147,377 Views

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

Lesson duration 06:13

114,594 Views

What if you experienced every human life in history?

Lesson duration 05:21

2,993,726 Views

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

Lesson duration 14:12

46,096 Views

The case for free, universal basic services - Aaron Bastani

Lesson duration 19:09

81,743 Views

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

Lesson duration 05:20

821,093 Views

History vs. Thomas Jefferson

489,258 Views

The best way to apologize (according to science)

Lesson duration 05:06

1,547,318 Views

How do we determine the value of a life?

Lesson duration 06:06

790,209 Views

What’s the smartest age?

Lesson duration 04:53

1,682,202 Views

The Boltzmann brain paradox

Lesson duration 05:40

1,213,481 Views

The 4 greatest threats to the survival of humanity

Lesson duration 05:24

494,894 Views

Can you outsmart the college admissions fallacy?

Lesson duration 06:17

835,434 Views

Can you solve the fortress riddle?

Lesson duration 05:23

1,295,502 Views

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Microb Biotechnol
• v.16(10); 2023 Oct
• PMC10527184

Science, method and critical thinking

Antoine danchin.

1 School of Biomedical Sciences, Li KaShing Faculty of Medicine, Hong Kong University, Pokfulam Hong Kong, China

Science is founded on a method based on critical thinking. A prerequisite for this is not only a sufficient command of language but also the comprehension of the basic concepts underlying our understanding of reality. This constraint implies an awareness of the fact that the truth of the World is not directly accessible to us, but can only be glimpsed through the construction of models designed to anticipate its behaviour. Because the relationship between models and reality rests on the interpretation of founding postulates and instantiations of their predictions (and is therefore deeply rooted in language and culture), there can be no demarcation between science and non‐science. However, critical thinking is essential to ensure that the link between models and reality is gradually made more adequate to reality, based on what has already been established, thus guaranteeing that science progresses on this basis and excluding any form of relativism.

Science understands that we only can reach the truth of the World via creation of models. The method, based on critical thinking, is embedded in the scientific method, named here the Critical Generative Method.

Before illustrating the key requirements for critical thinking, one point must be made clear from the outset: thinking involves using language, and the depth of thought is directly related to the ‘active’ vocabulary (Magyar,  1942 ) used by the thinker. A recent study of young students in France showed that a significant percentage of the population had a very limited vocabulary. This unfortunate situation is shared by many countries (Fournier & Rakocevic,  2023 ). This omnipresent fact, which precludes any attempt to improve critical thinking in the general population, is very visible in a great many texts published on social networks. This is the more concerning because science uses a vocabulary that lies well beyond that available to most people. For example, a word such as ‘metabolism’ is generally not understood. As a consequence, it is essential to agree on a minimal vocabulary before teaching paths to critical thinking. This may look trivial, but this is an essential prerequisite. Typically, words such as analysis and synthesis must be understood (and the idea of what a ‘concept’ is not widely shared). It must also be remembered that the way the scientific vocabulary kept creating neologisms in the most creative times of science was based on using the Ancient Greek language, and for a good reason: a considerable advantage of that unsaid rule is that this makes scientific objects and concepts prominent for scientists from all over the world, while precluding implicit domination by any country over the others when science is at stake (Iliopoulos et al.,  2019 ). Unfortunately, and this demonstrates how the domination of an ignorant subset of the research community gains ground, this rule is now seldom followed. This also highlights the lack of extensive scientific background of the majority of researchers: the creation of new words now follows the rule of the self‐assertive. Interestingly, the very observation that a neologism in a scientific paper does not follow the traditional rule provides us with a critical way to identify either ignorance of the scientific background of the work or the presence in the text of hidden agendas that have nothing to do with science.

In practice, the initiation of the process of critical thinking ought to begin with a step similar to the ‘due diligence’ required by investors when they study whether they will invest, or not, in a start‐up company. The first expected action should be ‘verify’, ‘verify’, ‘verify’… any statement which is used as a basis for the reasoning that follows. This asks not only for understanding what is said or written (hence the importance of language), but also for checking the origins of the statement, not only by investigating who is involved but also by checking that the historical context is well known.

Of course, nobody has complete knowledge of everything, not even anything in fact, which means that at some point people have to accept that they will base their reasoning on some kind of ‘belief’. This inevitable imperative forces future scientists asking a question about reality to resort to a set of assertions called ‘postulates’ in conventional science, that is, beliefs temporarily accepted without further discussion but understood as such. The way in which postulates are formulated is therefore key to their subsequent role in science. Similarly, the fact that they are temporary is essential to understanding their role. A fundamental feature of critical thinking is to be able to identify these postulates and then remember that they are provisional in nature. When needed this enables anyone to return to the origins of reasoning and then decide whether it is reasonable to retain the postulates or modify or even abandon them.

Here is an example illustrated with the famous greenhouse effect that allows our planet not to be a snowball (Arrhenius,  1896 ). Note that understanding this phenomenon requires a fair amount of basic physics, as well as a trait that is often forgotten: common sense. There is no doubt that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas (this is based on well‐established physics, which, nevertheless must be accepted as a postulate by the majority, as they would not be able to demonstrate that). However, a straightforward question arises, which is almost never asked in its proper details. There are many gases in the atmosphere, and the obvious preliminary question should be to ask what they all are, and each of their relative contribution to greenhouse effect. This is partially understood by a fraction of the general public as asking for the contribution of methane, and sometimes N 2 O and ozone. However, this is far from enough, because the gas which contributes the most to the greenhouse effect on our planet is … water vapour (about 60% of the total effect: https://www.acs.org/climatescience/climatesciencenarratives/its‐water‐vapor‐not‐the‐co2.html )! This fact is seldom highlighted. Yet it is extremely important because water is such a strange molecule. Around 300 K water can evolve rapidly to form a liquid, a gas, or a solid (ice). The transitions between these different states (with only the gas having a greenhouse effect, while water droplets in clouds have generally a cooling effect) make that water is unable to directly control the Earth's temperature. Worse, in fact, these phase transitions will amplify the fluctuations around a given temperature, generally in a feedforward way. We know very well the situation in deserts, where the night temperature is very low, with a very high temperature during the day. In fact, this explains why ‘global warming’ (i.e. shifting upwards the average temperature of the planet) is also parallel with an amplification of weather extremes. It is quite remarkable that the role of water, which is well established, does not belong to popular knowledge. Standard ‘due diligence’ would have made this knowledge widely shared.

Another straightforward example of the need to have a clear knowledge of the thought of our predecessors is illustrated in the following. When we see expressions such as ‘paradigm change’, ‘change of paradigm’, ‘paradigm shift’ or ‘shift of paradigm’ (12,424 articles listed in PubMed as of June 26, 2023), we should be aware that the subject of interest of these articles has nothing to do with a paradigm shift, simply because such a change in paradigm is extremely rare, being distributed over centuries, at best (Kuhn,  1962 ). Worse, the use of the word implies that the authors of the works have most probably never read Thomas Kuhn's work, and are merely using a fashionable hearsay. As a consequence, critical thinking should lead authentic scientists to put aside all these works before further developing their investigation (Figure  1 ).

Number of articles identified in the PubMed database with the keywords ‘paradigm change’ or ‘change of paradigm’ or ‘paradigm shift’ or ‘shift of paradigm’. A very low number of articles, generally reporting information consistent with the Kuhnian view of scientific revolutions is published before 1993. Between 1993 and 2000 a looser view of the term paradigm begins to be used in a metaphoric way. Since then the word has become fashionable while losing entirely its original meaning, while carrying over lack of epistemological knowledge. This example of common behaviour illustrates the decadence of contemporary science.

This being understood, we can now explore the general way science proceeds. This has been previously discussed at a conference meant to explain the scientific method to an audience of Chinese philosophers, anthropologists and scientists and held at Sun Yat Sen (Zhong Shan) University in Canton (Guangzhou) in 1991. This discussion is expanded in The Delphic Boat (Danchin,  2002 ). For a variety of reasons, it would be useful to anticipate the future of our world. This raises an unlimited number of questions and the aim of the scientific method is to try and answer those. The way in which questions emerge is a subject in itself. This is not addressed here, but this should also be the subject of critical thinking (Yanai & Lercher,  2019 ).

The basis for scientific investigation accepts that, while the truth of the world exists in itself (‘relativism’ is foreign to scientific knowledge, as science keeps building up its progresses on previous knowledge, even when changing its paradigms), we can only access it through the mediation of a representation. This has been extensively debated at the time, 2500 years ago, when science and philosophy designed the common endeavour meant to generate knowledge (Frank,  1952 ). It was then apparent that we cannot escape this omnipresent limitation of human rationality, as Xenophanes of Colophon explicitly stated at the time [discussed in Popper,  1968 ]. This limitation comes from an inevitable constraint: contrary to what many keep saying, data do not speak . Reality must be interpreted within the frame of a particular representation that critical thinking aims at making visible. A sentence that we all forget to reject, such as ‘results show…’ is meaningless: results are interpreted as meaning this or that.

Accepting this limitation is a difficult attribute of scientific judgement. Yet the quality of thought progresses as the understanding of this constraint becomes more effective: to answer our questions we have to build models of the world, and be satisfied with this perspective. It is through our knowledge of the world's models that we are able to explore and act upon it. We can even become the creators of new behaviours of reality, including new artefacts such as a laser beam, a physics‐based device that is unlikely to exist in the universe except in places where agents with an ability similar to ours would exist. Indeed, to create models is to introduce a distance, a mediation through some kind of symbolic coding (via the construction of a model), between ourselves and the world. It is worth pointing out that this feature highlights how science builds its strength from its very radical weakness, which is to know that it is incapable, in principle, of attaining truth. Furthermore and fortunately, we do not have to begin with a tabula rasa . Science keeps progressing. The ideas and the models we have received from our fathers form the basis of our first representation of the world. The critical question we all face, then, is: how well these models match up with reality? how do they fare in answering our questions?

Many, over time, think they achieve ultimate understanding of reality (or force others to think so) and abide by the knowledge reached at the time, precluding any progress. A few persist in asking questions about what remains enigmatic in the way things behave. Until fairly recently (and this can still be seen in the fashion for ‘organic’ things, or the idea, similar to that of the animating ‘phlogiston’ of the Middle Ages, that things spontaneously organize themselves in certain elusive circumstances usually represented by fancy mathematical models), things were thought to combine four elements: fire, air, water, and earth, in a variety of proportions and combinations. In China, wood, a fifth element that had some link to life was added to the list. Later on, the world was assumed to result from the combination of 10 categories (Danchin,  2009 ). It took time to develop a physic of reality involving space, time, mass, and energy. What this means is still far from fully understood. How, in our times when the successes of the applications of science are so prominent, is it still possible to question the generally accepted knowledge, to progress in the construction of a new representation of reality?

This is where critical thinking comes in. The first step must be to try and simplify the problem, to abstract from the blurred set of inherited ideas a few foundational concepts that will not immediately be called into question, at least as a preliminary stage of investigation. We begin by isolating a phenomenon whose apparent clarity contrasts with its environment. A key point in the process is to be aware of the fact that the links between correlation and causation are not trivial (Altman & Krzywinski,  2015 ). The confusion between both properties results probably in the major anti‐science behaviour that prevents the development of knowledge. In our time, a better understanding of what causality is is essential to understand the present development of Artificial Intelligence (Schölkopf et al.,  2021 ) as this is directly linked to the process of rational decision (Simon,  1996 ).

Subsequently, a set of undisputed rules, phenomenological criteria and postulates is associated with the phenomenon. It constitutes temporarily the founding dogma of the theory, made up of the phenomenon of interest, the postulates, the model and the conditions and results of its application to reality. This epistemological attitude can legitimately be described as ‘dogmatic’ and it remains unchanged for a long time in the progression of scientific knowledge. This is well illustrated by the fact that the word ‘dogma’, a religious word par excellence, is often misused when referring to a scientific theory. Many still refer, for example, to the expression ‘the central dogma of molecular biology’ to describe the rules for rewriting the genetic program from DNA to RNA and then proteins (Crick,  1970 ). Of course, critical thinking understands that this is no dogma, and variations on the theme are omnipresent, as seen for instance in the role of the enzyme reverse transcriptase which allows RNA to be rewritten into a DNA sequence.

Yet, whereas isolating postulates is an important step, it does not permit one to give explanations or predictions. To go further, one must therefore initiate a constructive process. The essential step there will be the constitution of a model (or in weaker instances, a simulation) of the phenomenon (Figure  2 ).

The Critical Generative Method. Science is based on the premises that while we can look for the truth of reality, this is in principle impossible. The only way out is to build up models of reality (‘realistic models’) and find ways to compare their outcome to the behaviour of reality [see an explicit example for genome sequences in Hénaut et al.,  1996 ]. The ultimate model is mathematical model, but this is rarely possible to achieve. Other models are based on simulations, that is, models that mimic the behaviour of reality without trying to propose an explanation of that behaviour. A primitive attempt of this endeavour is illustrated when people use figurines that they manipulate hoping that this will anticipate the behaviour of their environment (e.g. ‘voodoo’). This is also frequent in borderline science (Friedman & Brown,  2018 ).

To this aim, the postulates will be interpreted in the form of entities (concrete or abstract) or of relationships between entities, which will be further manipulated by an independent set of processes. The perfect stage, generally considered as the ultimate one, associates the manipulation of abstract entities, interpreting postulates into axioms and definitions, manipulable according to the rules of logic. In the construction of a model, one assists therefore first to a process of abstraction , which allows one to go from the postulates to the axioms. Quite often, however, one will not be able to axiomatize the postulates. It will only be possible to represent them using analogies involving the founding elements of another phenomenon, better known and considered as analogous. One could also change the scales of a phenomenon (this is the case when one uses mock‐ups as models). In these families of approaches, the model is considered as a simulation. For example, it will be possible to simulate an electromagnetic phenomenon using a hydrodynamic phenomenon [for a general example in physics (Vives & Ricou,  1985 )]. In recent times the simulation is generally performed numerically, using (super)computers [e.g. the mesoscopic scale typical for cells (Huber & McCammon,  2019 )]. While all these approaches have important implications in terms of diagnostic, for example, they are generally purely phenomenological and descriptive. This is understood by critical thinking, despite the general tendency to mistake the mimic for what it represents. Recent artificial intelligence approaches that use ‘neuronal networks’ are not, at least for the time being, models of the brain.

However useful and effective, the simulation of a phenomenon is clearly an admission of failure. A simulation represents behaviour that conforms to reality, but does not explain it. Yet science aims to do more than simply represent a phenomenon; it aims to anticipate what will happen in the near and distant future. To get closer to the truth, we need to understand and explain, that is, reduce the representation to simpler elementary principles (and as few as possible) in order to escape the omnipresent anecdotes that parasitize our vision of the future. In the case of the study of genomes, for example, this will lead us to question their origin and evolution. It will also require us to understand the formal nature of the control processes (of which feedback, e.g. is one) that they encode. As soon as possible, therefore, we would like to translate the postulates that enabled the model's construction into well‐formed statements that will constitute the axioms and definitions of an explanatory model. At a later stage, the axioms and definitions will be linked together to create a demonstration leading to a theorem or, more often than not, a simple conjecture.

When based on mathematics, the model is made up of its axioms and definitions, and the demonstrations and theorems it conveys. It is an entirely autonomous entity, which can only be justified by its own rules. To be valid, it must necessarily be true according to the rules of mathematical logic. So here we have an essential truth criterion, but one that can say nothing about the truth of the phenomenon. A key feature of critical thinking is the understanding that the truth of the model is not the truth of the phenomenon. The amalgam of these two truths, common in magical thinking, often results in the model (identified as a portion of the world) being given a sacred value, and changes the role of the scientist to that of a priest.

Having started from the phenomenon of interest to build the model, we now need to return from the model to the real world. A process symmetrical to that which provided the basis for the model, an instantiation of the conclusions summarized in the theorem, is now required. This can take the form of predictions, observations or experiments, for which at least two types can be broadly identified. These predictions are either existential (the object, process, or relations predicted by the instantiation of the theorem must be discovered), or phenomenological, and therefore subject to verification and deniability. An experimental set‐up will have to be constructed to explore what has been predicted by the instantiations of the model theorems and to support or falsify the predictions. In the case of hypotheses based on genes, for example, this will lead to synthetic biology constructs experiments (Danchin & Huang,  2023 ), where genes are replaced by counterparts, even made of atoms that differ from the canonical ones.

The reaction of reality, either to simple (passive) observation or to the observation of phenomena triggered by the experiments, will validate the model and measure the degree of adequacy between the model and the reality. This follows a constructive path when the model's shortcomings are identified, and when are discovered the predicted new objects that must now be included in further models of reality. This process imposes the falsification of certain instantiated conclusions that have been falsified as a major driving force for the progression of the model in line with reality. This part of the thought process is essential to escape infinite regression in a series of confirmation experiments, one after the other, ad infinitum. Identifying this type of situation, based on the understanding that the behaviour of the model is not reality but an interpretation of reality, is essential to promote critical thinking.

It must also be stressed that, of course, the weight of the proof of the model's adequacy to reality belongs to the authors of the model. It would be both contrary to the simplest rules of logic (the proof of non‐existence is only possible for finite sets), and also totally inefficient, as well as sterile, to produce an unfalsifiable model. This is indeed a critical way to identify the many pretenders who plague science. They are easy to recognize since they identify themselves precisely by the fact that they ask the others: ‘repeat my experiments again and show me that they are wrong!’. Unfortunately, this old conjuring trick is still well spread, especially in a world dominated by mass media looking for scoops, not for truth.

When certain predictions of the model are not verified, critical thinking forces us to study its relationship with reality, and we must proceed in reverse, following the path that led to these inadequate predictions (Figure  2 ). In this reverse process, we go backwards until we reach the postulates on which the model was built, at which point we modify, refine and, if necessary, change them. The explanatory power of the model will increase each time we can reduce the number of postulates on which it is built. This is another way of developing critical thinking skills: the more factors there are underlying an explanation, the less reliable the model. As an example in molecular biology, the selective model used by Monod and coworkers to account for allostery (Monod et al.,  1965 ) used far fewer adjustable parameters than Koshland's induced‐fit model (Koshland,  1959 ).

In real‐life situations, this reverse path is long and difficult to build. The model's resistance to change is quickly organized, if only because, lacking critical thinking, its creators cannot help thinking that, in fact, the model manifests, rather than represents, the truth of the world. It is only natural, then, to think that the lack of predictive power is primarily due not to the model's inadequacy, but to the inappropriate way in which its broad conclusions have been instantiated. This corresponds, in effect, to a stage where formal terms have been interpreted in terms of real behaviour, which involves a great deal of fine‐tuning. Because it is inherently difficult to identify the inadequacy of the model or its links with the phenomenon of interest, it is often the case that a model persists, sometimes for a very long time, despite numerous signs of imperfection.

During this critical process, the very nature of the model is questioned, and its construction, the meaning it represents, is clarified and refined under the constraint of contradictions. The very terms of the instantiations of predictions, or of the abstraction of founding postulates, are made finer and finer. This is why this dogmatic stage plays such an essential role: a model that was too inadequate would have been quickly discarded, and would not have been able to generate and advance knowledge, whereas a succession of improvements leads to an ever finer understanding, and hence better representation of the phenomenon of interest. Then comes a time when the very axioms on which the model is based are called into question, and when the most recent abstractions made from the initial postulates lead to them being called into question. This is of course very rare and difficult, and is the source of those genuine scientific revolutions, those paradigm shifts (to use Thomas Kuhn's word), from which new models are born, develop and die, based on assumptions that differ profoundly from those of their predecessors. This manifests an ultimate, but extremely rare, success of critical thinking.

A final comment. Karl Popper in his Logik der Forschung ( The Logic of Scientific Discovery ) tried to show that there was a demarcation separating science from non‐science (Keuth and Popper,  1934 ). This resulted from the implementation of a refutation process that he named falsification that was sufficient to tell the observer that a model was failing. However, as displayed in Figure  2 , refutation does not work directly on the model of interest, but on the interpretation of its predictions . This means that while science is associated with a method, its implementation in practice is variable, and its borders fuzzy. In fact, trying to match models with reality allows us to progress by producing better adequacy with reality (Putnam,  1991 ). Nevertheless, because the separation between models and reality rests on interpretations (processes rooted in culture and language), establishing an explicit demarcation is impossible. This intrinsic difficulty, which is associated with a property that we could name ‘context associated with a research programme’ (Lakatos,  1976 , 1978 ), shows that the demarcation between science and non‐science is dominated by a particular currency of reality, which we have to consider under the name information , using the word with all its common (and accordingly fuzzy) connotations, and which operates in addition to the standard categories, mass, energy, space and time.

The first attempts to solve contradictions between model predictions and observed phenomena do not immediately discard the model, as Popper would have it. The common practice is for the authors of a model to re‐interpret the instantiation process that has coupled the theorem to reality. Typically: ‘exceptions make the rule’, or ‘this is not exactly what we meant, we need to focus more on this or that feature’, etc. This polishing step is essential, it allows the frontiers of the model and its associated phenomena to be defined as accurately as possible. It marks the moment when technically arid efforts such as defining a proper nomenclature, a database data schema, etc., have a central role. In contrast to the hopes of Popper, who sought for a principle telling us whether a particular creation of knowledge can be named Science, using refutation as principle, there is no ultimate demarcation between science and non‐science. Then comes a time when, despite all efforts to reconcile predictions and phenomena, the inadequacy between the model and reality becomes insoluble. Assuming no mistake in the demonstration (within the model), this contradiction implies that we need to reconsider the axioms and definitions upon which the model has been constructed. This is the time when critical thinking becomes imperative.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

Antoine Danchin: Conceptualization (lead); writing – original draft (lead); writing – review and editing (lead).

CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT

This work belongs to efforts pertaining to epistemological thinking and does not imply any conflict of interest.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The general outline of the Critical Generative Method presented at Zhong Shan University in Guangzhou, China in 1991, and discussed over the years in the Stanislas Noria seminar ( https://www.normalesup.org/~adanchin/causeries/causeries‐en.html ) has previously been published in Danchin ( 2009 ) and in a variety of texts. Because scientific knowledge results from accumulation of knowledge painstakingly created by the generations that preceded us, the present text purposely makes reference to work which is seldom cited at a moment when scientists become amnesiac and tend to reinvent the wheel.

Danchin, A. (2023) Science, method and critical thinking . Microbial Biotechnology , 16 , 1888–1894. Available from: 10.1111/1751-7915.14315 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

• Altman, N. & Krzywinski, M. (2015) Association, correlation and causation . Nature Methods , 12 , 899–900. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Arrhenius, S. (1896) XXXI. On the influence of carbonic acid in the air upon the temperature of the ground . The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science , 41 , 237–276. [ Google Scholar ]
• Crick, F. (1970) Central dogma of molecular biology . Nature , 227 , 561–563. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Danchin, A. (2002) The Delphic boat: what genomes tell us . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Danchin, A. (2009) Information of the chassis and information of the program in synthetic cells . Systems and Synthetic Biology , 3 , 125–134. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Danchin, A. & Huang, J.D. (2023) synbio 2.0, a new era for synthetic life: neglected essential functions for resilience . Environmental Microbiology , 25 , 64–78. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fournier, Y. & Rakocevic, R. (2023) Objectifs éducation et formation 2030 de l'UE: où en est la France en 2023? Note d'Information , 23 , 20. [ Google Scholar ]
• Frank, P. (1952) The origin of the separation between science and philosophy . Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences , 80 , 115–139. [ Google Scholar ]
• Friedman, H.L. & Brown, N.J.L. (2018) Implications of debunking the “critical positivity ratio” for humanistic psychology: introduction to special issue . Journal of Humanistic Psychology , 58 , 239–261. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hénaut, A. , Rouxel, T. , Gleizes, A. , Moszer, I. & Danchin, A. (1996) Uneven distribution of GATC motifs in the Escherichia coli chromosome, its plasmids and its phages . Journal of Molecular Biology , 257 , 574–585. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Huber, G.A. & McCammon, J.A. (2019) Brownian dynamics simulations of biological molecules . Trends in Chemistry , 1 , 727–738. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Iliopoulos, I. , Ananiadou, S. , Danchin, A. , Ioannidis, J.P. , Katsikis, P.D. , Ouzounis, C.A. et al. (2019) Hypothesis, analysis and synthesis, it's all Greek to me . eLife , 8 , e43514. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Koshland, D.E. (1959) Enzyme flexibility and enzyme action . Journal of Cellular and Comparative Physiology , 54 , 245–258. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kuhn, T.S. (1962) The structure of scientific revolutions , 3rd edition. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lakatos, I. (1976) Proofs and refutations: the logic of mathematical discovery . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lakatos, I. (1978) The methodology of scientific research programmes . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Magyar, F. (1942) The compilation of an active vocabulary . The German Quarterly , 15 , 214–217. [ Google Scholar ]
• Monod, J. , Wyman, J. & Changeux, J.P. (1965) On the nature of allosteric transitions: a plausible model . Journal of Molecular Biology , 12 , 88–118. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Popper, K.R. (1934) Logik der Forschung, 4., bearbeitete Auflage . Berlin: Akademie Verlag. Translation prepared by the author (1959): The logic of scientific discovery . London: Hutchinson & Co. [ Google Scholar ]
• Popper, K.R. (1968) Conjectures and refutations: the growth of scientific knowledge . London; New York, NY: Routledge. [ Google Scholar ]
• Putnam, H. (1991) Representation and reality . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Schölkopf, B. , Locatello, F. , Bauer, S. , Ke, N.R. , Kalchbrenner, N. , Goyal, A. et al. (2021) Towards causal representation learning . arXiv , 2021 , 11107. [ Google Scholar ]
• Simon, H.A. (1996) The sciences of the artificial , 3rd edition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Vives, C. & Ricou, R. (1985) Experimental study of continuous electromagnetic casting of aluminum alloys . Metallurgical Transactions B , 16 , 377–384. [ Google Scholar ]
• Yanai, I. & Lercher, M. (2019) What is the question? Genome Biology , 20 , 1314–1315. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Educationise

11 Activities That Promote Critical Thinking In The Class

Ignite your child’s curiosity with our exclusive “Learning Adventures Activity Workbook for Kids” a perfect blend of education and adventure!

Critical thinking activities encourage individuals to analyze, evaluate, and synthesize information to develop informed opinions and make reasoned decisions. Engaging in such exercises cultivates intellectual agility, fostering a deeper understanding of complex issues and honing problem-solving skills for navigating an increasingly intricate world. Through critical thinking, individuals empower themselves to challenge assumptions, uncover biases, and constructively contribute to discourse, thereby enriching both personal growth and societal progress.

Critical thinking serves as the cornerstone of effective problem-solving, enabling individuals to dissect challenges, explore diverse perspectives, and devise innovative solutions grounded in logic and evidence. For engaging problem solving activities, read our article problem solving activities that enhance student’s interest.

52 Critical Thinking Flashcards for Problem Solving

What is Critical Thinking?

Critical thinking is a 21st-century skill that enables a person to think rationally and logically in order to reach a plausible conclusion. A critical thinker assesses facts and figures and data objectively and determines what to believe and what not to believe. Critical thinking skills empower a person to decipher complex problems and make impartial and better decisions based on effective information.

More Articles from Educationise

• 10 Innovative Strategies for Promoting Critical Thinking in the Classroom
• How to Foster Critical Thinking Skills in Students? Creative Strategies and Real-World Examples
• 9 Must-Have AI Tools for Teachers to Create Interactive Learning Materials
• The Future of Education: 8 Predictions for the Next Decade
• The Latest in EdTech: 5 Innovative Tools and Technologies for the Classroom
• 8 Free Math Problem Solving Websites and Applications

Importance of Acquiring Critical Thinking Skills

Critical thinking skills cultivate habits of mind such as strategic thinking, skepticism, discerning fallacy from the facts, asking good questions and probing deep into the issues to find the truth. Acquiring critical thinking skills was never as valuable as it is today because of the prevalence of the modern knowledge economy. Today, information and technology are the driving forces behind the global economy. To keep pace with ever-changing technology and new inventions, one has to be flexible enough to embrace changes swiftly.

Today critical thinking skills are one of the most sought-after skills by the companies. In fact, critical thinking skills are paramount not only for active learning and academic achievement but also for the professional career of the students. The lack of critical thinking skills catalyzes memorization of the topics without a deeper insight, egocentrism, closed-mindedness, reduced student interest in the classroom and not being able to make timely and better decisions.

Benefits of Critical Thinking Skills in Education

Certain strategies are more eloquent than others in teaching students how to think critically. Encouraging critical thinking in the class is indispensable for the learning and growth of the students. In this way, we can raise a generation of innovators and thinkers rather than followers. Some of the benefits offered by thinking critically in the classroom are given below:

• It allows a student to decipher problems and think through the situations in a disciplined and systematic manner
• Through a critical thinking ability, a student can comprehend the logical correlation between distinct ideas
• The student is able to rethink and re-justify his beliefs and ideas based on facts and figures
• Critical thinking skills make the students curious about things around them
• A student who is a critical thinker is creative and always strives to come up with out of the box solutions to intricate problems

Read our article: How to Foster Critical Thinking Skills in Students? Creative Strategies and Real-World Examples

• Critical thinking skills assist in the enhanced student learning experience in the classroom and prepares the students for lifelong learning and success
• The critical thinking process is the foundation of new discoveries and inventions in the world of science and technology
• The ability to think critically allows the students to think intellectually and enhances their presentation skills, hence they can convey their ideas and thoughts in a logical and convincing manner
• Critical thinking skills make students a terrific communicator because they have logical reasons behind their ideas

Critical Thinking Lessons and Activities

11 Activities that Promote Critical Thinking in the Class

We have compiled a list of 11 activities that will facilitate you to promote critical thinking abilities in the students. We have also covered problem solving activities that enhance student’s interest in our another article. Click here to read it.

1. Worst Case Scenario

Divide students into teams and introduce each team with a hypothetical challenging scenario. Allocate minimum resources and time to each team and ask them to reach a viable conclusion using those resources. The scenarios can include situations like stranded on an island or stuck in a forest. Students will come up with creative solutions to come out from the imaginary problematic situation they are encountering. Besides encouraging students to think critically, this activity will enhance teamwork, communication and problem-solving skills of the students.

Read our article: 10 Innovative Strategies for Promoting Critical Thinking in the Classroom

2. If You Build It

It is a very flexible game that allows students to think creatively. To start this activity, divide students into groups. Give each group a limited amount of resources such as pipe cleaners, blocks, and marshmallows etc. Every group is supposed to use these resources and construct a certain item such as building, tower or a bridge in a limited time. You can use a variety of materials in the classroom to challenge the students. This activity is helpful in promoting teamwork and creative skills among the students.

It is also one of the classics which can be used in the classroom to encourage critical thinking. Print pictures of objects, animals or concepts and start by telling a unique story about the printed picture. The next student is supposed to continue the story and pass the picture to the other student and so on.

4. Keeping it Real

In this activity, you can ask students to identify a real-world problem in their schools, community or city. After the problem is recognized, students should work in teams to come up with the best possible outcome of that problem.

5. Save the Egg

Make groups of three or four in the class. Ask them to drop an egg from a certain height and think of creative ideas to save the egg from breaking. Students can come up with diverse ideas to conserve the egg like a soft-landing material or any other device. Remember that this activity can get chaotic, so select the area in the school that can be cleaned easily afterward and where there are no chances of damaging the school property.

6. Start a Debate

In this activity, the teacher can act as a facilitator and spark an interesting conversation in the class on any given topic. Give a small introductory speech on an open-ended topic. The topic can be related to current affairs, technological development or a new discovery in the field of science. Encourage students to participate in the debate by expressing their views and ideas on the topic. Conclude the debate with a viable solution or fresh ideas generated during the activity through brainstorming.

7. Create and Invent

This project-based learning activity is best for teaching in the engineering class. Divide students into groups. Present a problem to the students and ask them to build a model or simulate a product using computer animations or graphics that will solve the problem. After students are done with building models, each group is supposed to explain their proposed product to the rest of the class. The primary objective of this activity is to promote creative thinking and problem-solving skills among the students.

8. Select from Alternatives

This activity can be used in computer science, engineering or any of the STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics) classes. Introduce a variety of alternatives such as different formulas for solving the same problem, different computer codes, product designs or distinct explanations of the same topic.

Form groups in the class and ask them to select the best alternative. Each group will then explain its chosen alternative to the rest of the class with reasonable justification of its preference. During the process, the rest of the class can participate by asking questions from the group. This activity is very helpful in nurturing logical thinking and analytical skills among the students.

9. Reading and Critiquing

Present an article from a journal related to any topic that you are teaching. Ask the students to read the article critically and evaluate strengths and weaknesses in the article. Students can write about what they think about the article, any misleading statement or biases of the author and critique it by using their own judgments.

In this way, students can challenge the fallacies and rationality of judgments in the article. Hence, they can use their own thinking to come up with novel ideas pertaining to the topic.

10. Think Pair Share

In this activity, students will come up with their own questions. Make pairs or groups in the class and ask the students to discuss the questions together. The activity will be useful if the teacher gives students a topic on which the question should be based.

For example, if the teacher is teaching biology, the questions of the students can be based on reverse osmosis, human heart, respiratory system and so on. This activity drives student engagement and supports higher-order thinking skills among students.

11. Big Paper – Silent Conversation

Silence is a great way to slow down thinking and promote deep reflection on any subject. Present a driving question to the students and divide them into groups. The students will discuss the question with their teammates and brainstorm their ideas on a big paper. After reflection and discussion, students can write their findings in silence. This is a great learning activity for students who are introverts and love to ruminate silently rather than thinking aloud.

Finally, for students with critical thinking, you can go to GS-JJ.co m to customize exclusive rewards, which not only enlivens the classroom, but also promotes the development and training of students for critical thinking.

Share this:

Discover more from educationise.

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Type your email…

4 thoughts on “ 11 Activities That Promote Critical Thinking In The Class ”

• Pingback: What is Growth Mindset? 50+ Motivational Quotes on Growth Mindset - Educationise
• Pingback: 6 Steps To Implement Project-Based Learning In The Classroom - Educationise
• Pingback: Engaging Problem-Solving Activities That Spark Student Interest - Educationise

Thanks for the great article! Especially with the post-pandemic learning gap, these critical thinking skills are essential! It’s also important to teach them a growth mindset. If you are interested in that, please check out The Teachers’ Blog!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading

Multiple goals, multiple solutions, plenty of second-guessing and revising − here’s how science really works

Professor of Philosophy, University of Montana

Disclosure statement

Soazig Le Bihan receives funding from the Maureen and Mike Mansfield Center at the University of Montana.

University of Montana provides funding as a member of The Conversation US.

View all partners

A man in a lab coat bends under a dim light, his strained eyes riveted onto a microscope. He’s powered only by caffeine and anticipation.

This solitary scientist will stay on task until he unveils the truth about the cause of the dangerous disease quickly spreading through his vulnerable city. Time is short, the stakes are high, and only he can save everyone. …

That kind of romanticized picture of science was standard for a long time. But it’s as far from actual scientific practice as a movie’s choreographed martial arts battle is from a real fistfight.

For most of the 20th century, philosophers of science like me maintained somewhat idealistic claims about what good science looks like. Over the past few decades, however, many of us have revised our views to better mirror actual scientific practice .

An update on what to expect from actual science is overdue. I often worry that when the public holds science to unrealistic standards, any scientific claim failing to live up to them arouses suspicion. While public trust is globally strong and has been for decades, it has been eroding. In November 2023, Americans’ trust in scientists was 14 points lower than it had been just prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, with its flurry of confusing and sometimes contradictory science-related messages.

When people’s expectations are not met about how science works, they may blame scientists. But modifying our expectations might be more useful. Here are three updates I think can help people better understand how science actually works. Hopefully, a better understanding of actual scientific practice will also shore up people’s trust in the process.

The many faces of scientific research

First, science is a complex endeavor involving multiple goals and associated activities.

Some scientists search for the causes underlying some observable effect, such as a decimated pine forest or the Earth’s global surface temperature increase .

Others may investigate the what rather than the why of things. For example, ecologists build models to estimate gray wolf abundance in Montana . Spotting predators is incredibly challenging. Counting all of them is impractical. Abundance models are neither complete nor 100% accurate – they offer estimates deemed good enough to set harvesting quotas. Perfect scientific models are just not in the cards .

Beyond the what and the why, scientists may focus on the how. For instance, the lives of people living with chronic illnesses can be improved by research on strategies for managing disease – to mitigate symptoms and improve function, even if the true causes of their disorders largely elude current medicine.

It’s understandable that some patients may grow frustrated or distrustful of medical providers unable to give clear answers about what causes their ailment. But it’s important to grasp that lots of scientific research focuses on how to effectively intervene in the world to reach some specific goals.

Simplistic views represent science as solely focused on providing causal explanations for the various phenomena we observe in this world. The truth is that scientists tackle all kinds of problems, which are best solved using different strategies and approaches and only sometimes involve full-fledged explanations.

Complex problems call for complex solutions

The second aspect of scientific practice worth underscoring is that, because scientists tackle complex problems, they don’t typically offer one unique, complete and perfect answer. Instead they consider multiple, partial and possibly conflicting solutions.

Scientific modeling strategies illustrate this point well. Scientific models typically are partial, simplified and sometimes deliberately unrealistic representations of a system of interest. Models can be physical, conceptual or mathematical. The critical point is that they represent target systems in ways that are useful in particular contexts of inquiry. Interestingly, considering multiple possible models is often the best strategy to tackle complex problems.

Scientists consider multiple models of biodiversity , atomic nuclei or climate change . Returning to wolf abundance estimates, multiple models can also fit the bill. Such models rely on various types of data, including acoustic surveys of wolf howls, genetic methods that use fecal samples from wolves, wolf sightings and photographic evidence, aerial surveys, snow track surveys and more.

Weighing the pros and cons of various possible solutions to the problem of interest is part and parcel of the scientific process. Interestingly, in some cases, using multiple conflicting models allows for better predictions than trying to unify all the models into one.

The public may be surprised and possibly suspicious when scientists push forward multiple models that rely on conflicting assumptions and make different predictions. People often think “real science” should provide definite, complete and foolproof answers to their questions. But given various limitations and the world’s complexity, keeping multiple perspectives in play is most often the best way for scientists to reach their goals and solve the problems at hand.

Science as a collective, contrarian endeavor

Finally, science is a collective endeavor, where healthy disagreement is a feature, not a bug.

The romanticized version of science pictures scientists working in isolation and establishing absolute truths. Instead, science is a social and contrarian process in which the community’s scrutiny ensures we have the best available knowledge. “Best available” does not mean “definitive,” but the best we have until we find out how to improve it. Science almost always allows for disagreements among experts.

Controversies are core to how science works at its best and are as old as Western science itself. In the 1600s, Descartes and Leibniz fought over how to best characterize the laws of dynamics and the nature of motion.

The long history of atomism provides a valuable perspective on how science is an intricate and winding process rather than a fast-delivery system of results set in stone. As Jean Baptiste Perrin conducted his 1908 experiments that seemingly settled all discussion regarding the existence of atoms and molecules, the questions of the atom’s properties were about to become the topic of decades of controversies with the birth of quantum physics.

The nature and structure of fundamental particles and associated fields have been the subject of scientific research for more than a century. Lively academic discussions abound concerning the difficult interpretation of quantum mechanics , the challenging unification of quantum physics and relativity , and the existence of the Higgs boson , among others.

Distrusting researchers for having healthy scientific disagreements is largely misguided.

A very human practice

To be clear, science is dysfunctional in some respects and contexts. Current institutions have incentives for counterproductive practices, including maximizing publication numbers . Like any human endeavor, science includes people with bad intent, including some trying to discredit legitimate scientific research . Finally, science is sometimes inappropriately influenced by various values in problematic ways.

These are all important considerations when evaluating the trustworthiness of particular scientific claims and recommendations. However, it is unfair, sometimes dangerous, to mistrust science for doing what it does at its best. Science is a multifaceted endeavor focused on solving complex problems that typically just don’t have simple solutions. Communities of experts scrutinize those solutions in hopes of providing the best available approach to tackling the problems of interest.

Science is also a fallible and collective process. Ignoring the realities of that process and holding science up to unrealistic standards may result in the public calling science out and losing trust in its reliability for the wrong reasons.

• Philosophy of science
• Scientific research
• Science myths
• Trust in science

Service Delivery Consultant

Newsletter and Deputy Social Media Producer

College Director and Principal | Curtin College

Head of School: Engineering, Computer and Mathematical Sciences

Educational Designer

Jump to main content

Explore the latest news from the university of Northern Colorado.

Student Researcher Examines Effectiveness of 'Systems Thinking' Teaching Approach in Chemical Education

New approach aims to amplify students' critical thinking powers and tie learning to real-world applications.

August 8, 2024 | By Brenda Gillen

In his second semester in the University of Northern Colorado's Chemical Education Ph.D. program , Navid Ahmed Sadman has already discovered his passion. He's researching the effectiveness of educating future chemists differently using a "systems thinking" approach. Systems thinking is both a philosophical and practical method that views problems holistically and considers the interconnectedness of a system's components.

It's far from the culture of rote memorization method Sadman experienced as a chemistry undergraduate in Bangladesh.

"...in systems thinking, instead of discrete components, it's looking at our whole world and how all its parts work together. The next generation of policymakers or scientists need that more complex picture." — Navid Ahmed Sadman

"The focus was on memorizing the answers to the questions that would repeat year after year in the examination. I think that despite being taught by well-trained faculty, only the top students in my country can get the mental scope of understanding the concepts after they have memorized them. For most others, perhaps cramming before an examination is only as far as they could or would go. Don't get me wrong, students emerging from this culture are still pursuing higher studies in droves, but still, our education policymakers should critically appraise and improve the country’s education system while being aware of the current culture, students' accessibility to resources, and their financial capabilities.

"This emphasis on memorization bothered me as a student; and now, as an instructor, I see that memorization makes students question chemistry's relevance. We need to train chemistry students better at the undergraduate level. That's why I am more and more invested in the chemistry education field," he said.

He believes a systems thinking approach to teaching chemistry will amplify students' critical thinking powers and tie learning to real-world applications.

"If students are learning about global warming, in general chemistry they are taught about carbon dioxide and its environmental implications. In industrial chemistry, carbon capture and human interventions are covered. In environmental chemistry, topics finally include climate change and its impacts. But in systems thinking, instead of discrete components, it's looking at our whole world and how all its parts work together. The next generation of policymakers or scientists need that more complex picture," Sadman said.

He offered the example of electric vehicles (EVs). While EVs are a promising solution to reducing carbon emissions, he noted that mining for metals like cobalt and rare earth elements, essential for EV batteries, can have significant social and environmental impacts if not properly monitored. A systems thinking approach will enable scientists to address these issues adequately, ensuring EVs' benefits are realized while mitigating negative consequences.

Such changes to chemical education would have a wide-ranging impact because different fields, e.g., pre-med, pre-nursing, health, biology and physics majors all take chemistry courses. As part of a graduate-level introduction to qualitative research course at UNC, he completed a mini-project to better understand student perceptions of systems thinking in chemistry education (STICE), which is an identified research gap. Next, he'll test the premises for incorporating STICE using a mixed-methods approach that includes quantitative and qualitative data.

"I'm also planning a systematic review of the literature on STICE. This will be a more comprehensive study, which would add depth to the growing body of literature," he said.

Sadman received feedback from his peers when he shared his early findings on this systematic review at the December 2023 Graduate Research Symposium. He believes the statistics, psychology and science education courses required for his Ph.D. will shape his understanding and development of his doctoral research project.

He's working as a research assistant this summer. For most of the year, he's a teaching assistant in the Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry for Assistant Professor Corina Brown .

"I'm learning a lot from working with Dr. Brown. She's kind and personable," he said.

Brown said Sadman's enthusiasm, motivation and sincere desire to learn have made mentoring enjoyable

"Even though Navid is in the beginning stages of his doctoral studies, he's working on a cutting-edge topic. The interdisciplinary nature of the systems thinking approach could allow students to comprehend and apply chemical concepts in novel ways. His research contributes to expanding the understanding, application and assessment of systems thinking in chemical education. I think he has a promising journey ahead with the potential to make significant contributions to research and education," Brown said.

After he graduates in 2027, Sadman hopes to pursue a post-doctoral degree. Eventually, he'd like to join academia as a chemistry education researcher or work at a research institute focused on chemistry education.

"I also feel I owe it to my country to return with the knowledge I have gathered here and contribute there. Ask me again in three years about my future plans," he said.

More Stories

Student Researcher Aims to Bring Joy Back to Classroom Teachers

Este artículo no está en español..

Teacher Burnout Addressed in Research Project Investigating Yoga as an Intervention Strategy

Research in Cognition and Metacognition Aims to Improve Mathematical Communication

Measuring School Performance: Looking Beyond Standardized Testing and Scores

Follow unc social.

Contact UNC

Social media.

• UNC Overview
• Awards & Accolades
• Organizational Chart
• Strategic Plan
• Accreditation
• Student Consumer Information
• Sustainability
• Accessibility Statement
• UNC Newsroom
• Events Calendar
• UNC Magazine
• Submit News
• Submit an Event
• Marketing and Communications
• University Advancement

Page Last Updated: Today | Contact for this Page: Deanna Herbert

Privacy Policy | Affirmative Action/Equal Employment Opportunity/Title IX Policy & Coordinator

• News & Events
• Quick Links
• Majors & Programs
• People Finder
• home   site index   contact us

ScholarWorks@GVSU

• < Previous

Home > Graduate Research and Creative Practice > Culminating Experience Projects > 456

Culminating Experience Projects

The importance of critical thinking skills in secondary classrooms.

Clinton T. Sterkenburg , Grand Valley State University Follow

Date Approved

Graduate degree type, degree name.

Education-Instruction and Curriculum: Secondary Education (M.Ed.)

Degree Program

College of Education

First Advisor

Sherie Klee

Academic Year

According to research, many students lack effective critical thinking skills. The ability to think critically is crucial for individuals to be successful and responsible. Many students have difficulties understanding this important skill and especially lack the ability to initiate and apply the process. Although a difficult task, educators have the responsibility to teach critical skills to students and to discern when certain instructional methods or activities are not helping students. Each student is different, and their needs must be considered, this correlates with how they learn and process information. Research has shown that traditional teaching methods that require students to regurgitate information do not prove helpful in teaching students to apply and understand the critical thinking process. Therefore, effective teachers expand upon traditional teaching methods and differentiate instructional and activity design for imparting critical thinking skills to students. This project presents some of the possible reasons students have difficulties thinking critically and provides examples of instructional and lesson design methods that are proven to help students understand critical thinking. The goal of this project is to provide a guide for secondary teachers to address the lack of critical thinking skills in many students. The ability to think critically will greatly benefit students and help them become productive members of society.

ScholarWorks Citation

Sterkenburg, Clinton T., "The Importance of Critical Thinking Skills in Secondary Classrooms" (2024). Culminating Experience Projects . 456. https://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/gradprojects/456

Since August 05, 2024

Included in

Curriculum and Instruction Commons , Secondary Education Commons

Advanced Search

• Notify me via email or RSS
• Collections
• University Archives
• Open Textbooks
• Open Educational Resources
• Graduate Research and Creative Practice
• Selected Works Galleries

Author Information

• Submission Guidelines
• Submit Research
• Graduate Student Resources

Home | About | FAQ | Contact | My Account | Accessibility Statement

Privacy Copyright

Search & Additional Links

Additional links, meet bucknell.

• Plan a Visit
• Bucknell Stories
• Bucknell Magazine
• Bucknell Leadership
• Class Pages
• History & Traditions

Admissions & Aid

• Request Information
• Apply to Bucknell
• Tuition, Fees & Financial Aid
• Admissions Dates & Deadlines
• Virtual Welcome Center
• I've Been Admitted
• Find Your Counselor
• Office of Admissions
• Office of Financial Aid
• Admissions Blog & Podcast
• Majors & Minors
• College of Arts & Sciences
• College of Engineering
• Freeman College of Management
• Graduate Studies
• Undergraduate Research Opportunities
• Beyond the Classroom
• For Current Students

Life at Bucknell

• Housing & Dining
• First-year Experience
• Health, Wellness & Safety
• Diversity, Equity & Inclusion
• Free Expression
• Sustainability
• Arts & Performances
• Get Involved
• Commencement

Find Information For...

• Prospective Students
• Families of Prospective Students
• Current Students
• Current Parents & Families
• Prospective Employees
• Faculty & Staff

Find information for

@bucknellu social media accounts, meet our students social media accounts.

Asha Jordan '13, Environmental Science

August 8, 2024

As an expert in climate-related financial risk, Asha Jordan ’13 is guiding JP Morgan Chase into new territory. Photo by Saleh Satti

Asha Jordan '13 is both a climate and data scientist working at the forefront of an emergent field. As vice president of climate risk at JP Morgan Chase, Jordan studies and informs others about the financial risks associated with climate change.

One of her focal areas is understanding how the physical effects of extreme weather events and a transition to a low-carbon economy influence the stability of banks and the broader economy. Specifically, she studies how environmental shifts can impact consumer lending for things like homes and automobiles. For instance, rising sea levels or floods can pose risks to properties, impacting the terms and conditions of mortgages. And as the world transitions away from high-carbon industries, associated costs could influence credit losses.

"Climate-related financial risk is still really new," she says, noting that she often feels like she's guiding the ship as she's building it. "There just aren't a lot of people with my background who are applying climate change research to finance."

Jordan's background is indeed unique. After majoring in environmental science and minoring in economics at Bucknell, Jordan worked for the Clinton Foundation as an environmental stewardship intern. She then went on to earn master's and doctoral degrees in earth and planetary sciences from Johns Hopkins University.

Jordan credits her Bucknell education for encouraging her to chase her passions, even if they didn't fit neatly into one discipline.

"My liberal arts education meant I could go where I was drawn," she says. "It also helped me develop important critical-thinking skills." While she knows there's no simple fix to climate change, Jordan enjoys playing a part in solving the puzzle. "So much of climate-related risk is uncertain and unknown," she says. "I'm excited to get up every day and tackle this work."

Related Stories

Bonnie limmer '02, classics and english — literary studies.

Alumni Story

Anushka Mehrotra '16, English – Creative Writing

Want to learn more about Bucknell?

Main navigation

• Our Articles
• Dr. Joe's Books
• Media and Press
• Our History
• Public Lectures
• Past Newsletters
• Photo Gallery: The McGill OSS Separates 25 Years of Separating Sense from Nonsense

Subscribe to the OSS Weekly Newsletter!

Register for the trottier 2024 symposium, doc of detox tries to rewrite all of medicine.

• Add to calendar
• Tweet Widget

If you are desperate enough, there is someone out there willing to rewrite all of medicine and relieve you of your savings. A former nurse with multiple sclerosis lost over $10,000 in this way, according to a CBC Marketplace investigation. To whom did she give this money, you may wonder? To Darrell Wolfe, who calls himself Doc of Detox.

I read his 544-page  Ultimate Healing Guide , available as  a free PDF  on his website or as  a $95 printed book . Even if you’re neither a doctor nor a scientist, you’ll be able to see that things simply don’t add up. Scientific theories need to be coherent; his wild ideas, meanwhile, are bursting at the seams with contradictions.

Full of crap

Darrell Wolfe should not be confused with David “Avocado” Wolfe, although there are plenty of similarities. Both men feed mistrust in science and medicine to their large audiences and sell unproven and disproven “natural” remedies. David Wolfe is American, while Darrell Wolfe is Canadian.

In his book  Healthy to 100 , the Canadian Wolfe describes his origin story as being tied to his grandmother, who ran a nursing home in North Bay, Ontario. While living with her at the age of 16, he decided that every ailment afflicting her elderly residents was caused by a dysfunction of their bowels. Basically, teenage Wolfe became convinced these people were full of poop and they were rotting from the inside. Not bad for an adolescent with no medical degree! He drew a connection between these older adults and the piles of manure he had witnessed growing up on a farm. His grandma agreed but told him she was not able to use any herbal medicine or perform enemas. Medicine, it seemed to Wolfe, limited itself to the use of chemicals. He would aim to do better.

He fleshed out his worldview over the ensuing decades, and his healing guide reads like a rambling regurgitation of contrarian viewpoints. This is a 500-plus-page Galileo gambit: they laughed at Galileo when he said the Earth revolved around the Sun, goes the flawed argument, and they’re laughing at  me  now, therefore I too am a genius! You don’t usher in a scientific revolution simply because you want to, however, and you certainly can’t pull this off if your ideas are incoherent. The problem with Darrell Wolfe is that he can’t quite settle on what a disease actually is.

All you need to do is to read through his manual and ask yourself if what is claimed on one page is consistent with what is written on the next. On many pages, Wolfe claims that diseases are caused by negative emotions and traumatic events, like losing your job, which results in blockages. But on page 80, he states that “diseases are not errors of Nature, they are specialized programs of nature to support and protect an organism during unexpected trauma.” Diseases, he says, are “a natural process of healing” (page 92) but also “the root cause of almost all disease, on a physical level, is the root organ: the large intestine,” because it rots, leading to leaky gut (page 54). So which is it?

He writes that “excessive sugar in your system is called Cancer” (page 11) but that “cancer is a metaphysical imbalance” (page 75) or that “cancer is a meaningful, life saving, biological process” (page 76). Prostate cancer, according to his thinking, happens because the colon is rotting and the prostate sits in front of it, so now it’s “swimming in the middle of a cesspool of putrefaction” (page 86). Wolfe seems to have no good understanding of actual sepsis. If what he describes were true, we would all be dead by the end of the day.

Wolfe thinks that dairy is the major cause of multiple sclerosis (page 168) and that COVID-19 is actually graphene poisoning (page 210). He disavows Louis Pasteur and his germ theory of disease (page 78), but later writes that you should buy hemp oil and silver from him because they destroy harmful bacteria and viruses (pages 259 and 281). Healthcare will apparently never change and remain “toxic” and “contaminated” (page 27), and the medical system and governments are “systems built to break everything” (page 11), but we should still trust the WHO when they verify that processed meat causes cancer (page 168).

I was reminded of the Nigerian prince scam. An email lands in your inbox stating that a large sum of money will be transferred to you. All you need to do is pay a small fee up front. We may wonder who in this day and age would fall for this, but all the fraudster needs is a few victims to make a lot of money. Doc of Detox does not need to be coherent: enough people will fail to notice his lack of consistency and will give him a lot of money.

Because what he is selling indeed costs a lot of money.

Only I can save you

To get a phone consult with Wolfe, you will have to shell out  $350 . To get a “degree” or certification from his “university,” you will need to pay  between $1,197 and $8,000 . Then there’s the  slew of products , from cleansing teas to Black Diamond crystals, as well as the pieces of equipment he recommends like the “structured” water units for your shower or whole house and his CellSonic gadget, which can allegedly reverse erectile dysfunction. None of this, it bears mentioning, is free. Every product is a cure-all, which makes me wonder why you need to buy them all.

Heavy promotion of expensive products and workshops is something we often see with health-related pseudoscience. There is no clear line that separates real science from fake science, just red flags. Reading through Wolfe’s manual and website, I saw many of the hallmarks of pseudoscience.

Wolfe wants you to drink  hydrogen-rich water  (elsewhere, he prefers “structured” water) and he links to three studies showing its worth. The  first study  has nothing to do with hydrogen but rather with vitamin levels; the  second  was funded by a company which sells hydrogen water, was done in 26 people, and the error bars for the hydrogen-water group and the placebo group are so large, they almost completely overlap; and the  third study , also funded by corporate interest, reported ho-hum results of the sort we come to expect when scientists compare two groups using eight different blood markers and all of the messenger RNA contained in white blood cells. It’s easy to blind people with science by linking to studies no one will bother reading, much less appraising.

His healing manual is also littered with quotes from dead geniuses, which pseudodoctors love to do as it allows their readers to associate them with these brainy revolutionaries. He quotes Einstein’s E = mc 2  to claim that “where the mind goes the body must follow,” which definitely does not follow from that equation. Hippocrates is quoted as saying, “If you are not your own doctor, you are a fool,” but I’m pretty sure he didn’t mean you should operate on yourself in the middle of an appendicitis. And of course he cites Tesla’s disputed quote that “if you want to learn the secrets of the universe, look at Energy, Vibration and Frequency,” a staple of influencers who want to convince you that you’re simply not vibrating at a high enough frequency to be healthy.

All of this shaky pseudoscience needs a foundation of grand conspiracy theories, of course: how else to explain that the medical establishment does not regularly promote the products hawked by Doc of Detox? The opening pages of his healing manual are metaphorically ripped from the canon of Joe Mercola, who has built his own wellness empire south of the Canadian border. Doc of Detox decries the “Slave Masters” indoctrinating our children in school, and the taxes we have to pay, and the Deep State, and the “woke” world in which we live where “your children don’t know which bathroom to use anymore.” Once he has properly scared you into thinking that no one can be trusted, he can offer his hand in salvation. But be careful what that hand will do to your body.

Slaps and purges

He calls it “clapping” and it’s one of many dangerous practices Doc of Detox promotes. Clapping means slapping an area of your body for 15 to 60 minutes (“longer for serious conditions,” he writes on page 314). It is meant to bring existing diseased tissue to the surface, but that is simply not how biology works. If you don’t want to use your hand or that of one of his trained practitioners, you can buy  the DOCOFDETOX Clapper for $25 .

He also writes about the power of coffee enemas (which are part of Gerson therapy and are  absolutely not supported by scientific evidence ) and of something he terms Advanced Therapeutic Vomiting. Calling it “one of the most powerful tools for restoring your health,” he invites you to drink three glasses of warm water in which one of his supplements has been dissolved; to jiggle your stomach up and down; and to make yourself puke by placing your fingers at the back of your throat. Not once. Not twice. But three times. This is utter madness, but it is in keeping with his senseless idea that we need to detox from the modern world. It may just be one of the most powerful tools for developing an eating disorder.

You may be wondering what kind of doctor he is. He is the kind of “doc” who is not a doctor. His website’s About page credits him with two doctorates in natural medicine, one doctorate in Indigenous medicine, one doctorate of humanitarian services, and a certification with the Board of Integrative Medicine.

According to  the CBC , he is indeed not a licensed medical practitioner. His business is registered in British Columbia, yet at the time of the CBC’s reporting, he was not registered in B.C. as either a physician or a naturopath (not that the latter would give him actual legitimacy). I suspect that his doctorate in Indigenous medicine is along the lines of the doctorate of Indigenous Plant Medicine he promotes on page 110 of his healing manual. To receive the latter, it’s very simple: first call Darrell Wolfe at the listed phone number, then read the two books he will send you. You then have to answer questions about these two books and write a 2,000-word (or less!) thesis as to how you will incorporate this new knowledge into your practice. This essay is apparently reviewed by a Board of Elders, and once approved, you are adopted into the Taino Sovereign Indigenous Nation and given a doctorate and license to practice. All for the low, low price of $3,500.

Wolfe was exposed by the CBC for promoting a fake AIDS cure in the 1990s which involved pumping ozone up a person’s rectum. His business shut down, he filed for bankruptcy in 1997, and has simply rebranded himself. He now “treats” desperate customers in Mexico, where looser regulations allow him to provide unproven physical interventions that former customers have said were close to “torture.”

Distress in the face of terminal illness will obscure Wolfe’s many contradictions. Though he is deeply anti-surgery—claiming that surgical interventions cause more scar tissue than anything else and thus disease, which is either good or bad depending on the page in his book—the CBC attended one of his workshops in which Wolfe admitted to raising $20,000 to have one of his clients’ orange-sized facial tumour excised… via surgery.

When the CBC talked to him on the record at a later seminar in Ontario, he told them that “he never said he could cure cancer.” Brian Clement did the same. When he was  exposed  for saying behind closed doors that his Hippocrates Health Institute in Florida saw many customers cured of their multiple sclerosis, he denied having said so when confronted by a reporter and said the CBC had  fabricated the audio recording .

Among the desperate, these would-be Galileos promise to cure everything if you let go of conventional medicine. In the spotlight, they backtrack and remember that there are laws and regulations in place.

But there’s just too much money in it for them to stop.

Take-home message: - Darrell Wolfe, AKA Doc of Detox, is not a licensed medical practitioner - His inconsistent claims around health and disease are often not supported by evidence or medical consensus - Many of his interventions are actually harmful, such as slapping yourself for an hour to allegedly bring diseased tissue to the surface and making yourself vomit repeatedly to allegedly restore your health

@CrackedScience

What to read next

How a crazy claim about a 'bottle jumper' led to a riot 9 aug 2024.

Coffee for the Brain 7 Aug 2024

The Many Mistakes of Johnny Harris 2 Aug 2024

Are Your Refrigerator Habits Inviting Unwanted Bacteria 2 Aug 2024

Yes, Helen Keller Was Deafblind 26 Jul 2024

Sea Moss, Chili Peppers and Broccoli Soup 24 Jul 2024

Department and University Information

Office for science and society.