is a critical thinking class hard

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
• CBE Life Sci Educ
• v.17(4); Winter 2018

“Is This Class Hard?” Defining and Analyzing Academic Rigor from a Learner’s Perspective

Sara a. wyse.

a Department of Biological Sciences, Bethel University, St. Paul, MN 55112

Paula A. G. Soneral

Despite its value in higher education, academic rigor is a challenging construct to define for instructor and students alike. How do students perceive academic rigor in their biology course work? Using qualitative surveys, we asked students to identify “easy” or “hard” courses and define which aspects of these learning experiences contributed to their perceptions of academic rigor. The 100-level students defined hard courses primarily in affective terms, responding to stressors such as fast pacing, high workload, unclear relevance to their life or careers, and low faculty support. In contrast, 300-level students identified cognitive complexity as a contributor to course rigor, but course design elements—alignment between instruction and assessments, faculty support, active pedagogy—contributed to the ease of the learning process. Overwhelmingly, all students identified high faculty support, learner-centered course design, adequate prior knowledge, and active, well-scaffolded pedagogy as significant contributors to a course feeling easy. Active-learning courses in this study were identified as both easy and hard for the very reasons they are effective: they simultaneously challenge and support student learning. Implications for the design and instruction of rigorous active-learning college biology experiences are discussed.

INTRODUCTION

A hallmark of a high-quality undergraduate education is academic rigor ( Graham and Essex, 2001 ). Although accreditation standards provide a benchmark for academic rigor across institutions ( Wergin, 2005 ), few discipline-specific accreditation bodies exist for biology (e.g., Cheesman et al. , 2007 ; American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, 2013 ), compared with other disciplines like chemistry and engineering ( American Chemical Society, 2015 ; Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology, Inc. [ABET], 2017 ). Therefore, within and between institutions, departments have a high degree of intellectual freedom to design and assess their courses, which may result in varying degrees of academic rigor ( Dill et al. , 1996 ). Given the range of experiences students can have in different programs under these conditions, there is a growing need to define academic rigor in the discipline of biology, especially as academic programs are responding to calls for reform ( American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2011 ).

Defining Rigor

Academic rigor is a challenging concept to define, as there are varying perceptions of what rigor means, and correspondingly few papers to offer a clear definition of the term. For example, some define rigor as “academically demanding” ( Wyatt, 2005 ), “fast-paced” ( Winston et al. , 1994 ), and needing a high degree of “energy and time” on behalf of the student ( Winston et al. , 1994 ). Others define rigor based on attributes of the instructor, such as possessing a terminal degree in the discipline and full-time status ( Clinebell and Clinebell, 2008 ). Still others explicitly define rigor based on cognitive expectations—for example, the depth of questions asked of students in class and on assignments ( Braxton, 1993 ), the connection between concepts (Nicholson [1996] in Graham and Essex [2001 ]), or the amount of critical thinking ( Taylor and Rendon, 1991 ). The National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE), a widely used college assessment, includes a subscale relevant to the level of academic challenge. The NSSE subscale includes questions on both workload/difficulty of courses (e.g., amount of reading, writing, and work required) and questions on higher-order thinking skills of analyzing, synthesizing, and applying, suggesting that both hard work and a cognitive challenge are part of the definition of academic rigor.

Taken together, these definitions of academic rigor seem to suggest that students need to learn how to think critically ( Payne et al. , 2005 ), engage with concepts that require deep thought and effort ( Winston et al. , 1994 ), and make connections between concepts. It is important to note that, in certain contexts, academic rigor is argued to be disconnected from real-world relevance (e.g., Clinebell and Clinebell, 2008 ), focusing more on abstract or esoteric lines of thinking accessible only to select niche audiences. Alternatively, others argue that rigorous learning must be meaningful and relevant, focused on connections to practical problems ( Draeger et al. , 2013 ). Given the range of perspectives on academic rigor, a guiding definition for modern biology students and instructors is timely and appropriate.

For the purposes of our work, we adopt the following definition of academic rigor: “learning meaningful content, with higher-order thinking, at the appropriate level of expectation in a given context” ( Draeger et al. , 2013 , p. 268), leading to ownership of one’s learning ( Bain, 2004 ). This definition can be broken down into four components: 1) learners engage in higher-level cognitive processes ( Payne et al. , 2005 ); 2) learners transfer concepts and content from scale or subdiscipline or between problems ( Prosser and Trigwell, 1999 ); 3) learners engage in meaningful content ( Jensen, 2005 ; Draeger et al. , 2013 ); and 4) learners have appropriate levels of challenge and support (i.e., attainable expectations; Sanford, 1962 ; Graham and Essex, 2001 ). This study explores attributes that contribute to a rigorous course from the student’s perspective.

Student Perception of Academic Rigor

Draeger et al. (2015) found that students have a challenging time articulating definitions of academic rigor, and concluded that the term “rigor” itself may contribute to such confusion. These students tended to conceptualize academic rigor based on their perception of course difficulty, and whether a class seemed “hard.” In another study, students used words like “challenge,” “hard,” and “difficult” to explain their conceptions of academic rigor ( Gordon and Palmon, 2010 ). These descriptors and constructs of rigor from the lens of the student were used in the design of survey items for our study.

In addition, student perception of rigor appears to be unrelated to student learning gains or end-semester course evaluations ( Cohen, 1981 ; Uttl et al. , 2017 ). In certain contexts, a course viewed as difficult may receive lower course evaluations, because students put forth more effort and thus perceived the course to be “harder” ( Weinberg et al. , 2007 ). This suggests that end-semester evaluations do not adequately measure objective measures of academic rigor as defined earlier. For example, they do not directly address the number and types of higher-level thinking students engage in, nor do they reflect the transfer of concepts across scales or disciplines. Even within the context of a given course, prior research suggests that most biology courses use summative assessments that measure low-level thinking by Bloom’s taxonomy ( Momsen et al. , 2010 ). Even more objective measures of assessment difficulty—for example, the degree to which an assessment question differentiates students on the basis of performance score—poses challenges for defining rigor in biology. Such psychometrically defined difficulty is not always related to cognitive challenge as measured by Bloom’s taxonomy ( Lemons and Lemons, 2013 ; S. A. Wyse and A. E. Wyse, unpublished data). That is, it is possible to ask an easy analysis question and a challenging recall question. Therefore, based on existing assessments (course evaluation and summative assessment within a course), we know relatively little about student perceptions of academic rigor in biology and which attributes of a course influence the student viewpoint for why a course seemed “hard” or “easy.”

Interestingly, faculty notions of academic rigor guide the process of setting standards for student learning. Although it is widely accepted that higher-order cognitive skills are valuable standards that define true student achievement ( American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2011 ), elements faculty identified as important for achieving these higher-order cognitive tasks include: prior knowledge (schema), effort, perceived difficulty, and time required on task ( Lemons and Lemons, 2013 ). In this context, faculty perception of “rigor” is often experienced as the line between challenge and frustration, similar to the student view of easy versus hard. These factors do not, however, take into account instruction and its impact on the learner, that is, how elements such as scaffolding, alignment, learning context, and supportive environments can greatly modulate the learner frustration. Thus, rigor is an experientially defined construct, distinct from the psychometrically defined standard setting ( Cizek and Bunch, 2007 ) common in K–12. Because it is elusively defined for faculty and students alike, yet a strong influencer of instructional choices, we aim to make sense of the experience of rigor though the student point of view.

In this study, we explore academic rigor from the experiences and perspective of the biology learner. We use the terms “rigor,” “challenge,” “difficult,” and “hard” interchangeably to reflect the student use of these terms ( Draeger et al. , 2015 ). For both introductory and 300-level biology students, we uncover what the learner means when he or she says “this course is easy and/or hard.” We sampled students enrolled in a course being taught with a “scientific teaching” approach that embraces “the same rigor as science at its best” by teaching science the way it is practiced ( Handelsman et al. , 2004 ). Prior research has established the many benefits of using these active, learner-centered approaches across science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) disciplines ( Freeman et al. , 2014 ). Yet, these practices are sometimes perceived as having questionable academic rigor ( Parry, 2012 ), primarily because these courses allow for more processing time and constructivism reminiscent of early learning (e.g., lower elementary) compared with the traditional, lecture-based delivery style of higher education. Thus, by selecting courses taught under the umbrella of scientific teaching philosophy, we sought to gain a better understanding of academic rigor in a context in which it is not well understood relative to traditional STEM courses.

Specifically, we ask three research questions: 1) How do students define easy and hard courses? 2) How does active-learning influence what students perceive as academic rigor/challenge/difficulty? 3) How do students relate academic rigor/challenge/difficulty to learning?

Student Population

To assess biology students’ perception of course rigor, we began by administering an end-of-the-semester survey to students enrolled in introductory biology courses at a small liberal arts institution. The students enrolled in these introductory biology courses ( n = 155) represented students from biology and biology-related majors (73 and 63% for Intro Bio 1 and 2, respectively) and included mostly first- and second-year students ( Table 1 ).

Descriptive statistics for introductory biology students a

a Data include number of students at each class standing level (based on credit), incoming grade point average (GPA) and ACT scores, and the percent of the class identifying as male.

Upper-level students also completed the survey ( n = 39) during the Spring of 2013. These courses contained seniors ( Table 2 ).

Descriptive statistics for upper-level biology students a

a Data include number of students at each class standing level (based on credit), incoming GPA and ACT scores, and the percent of the class identifying as male.

This study was conducted under the guidelines and approval of Bethel University’s Institutional Review Board.

Course Design

All courses (both introductory and upper level) were taught using active-learning approaches under the scientific teaching paradigm ( Handelsman et al. , 2004 ). Typically class sessions were offered on a M-W-F schedule for a 70-minute duration. Lab sessions were offered on a T-Th schedule for ∼150 (introductory) or 180 (upper level) minutes. Class and laboratory used a flipped or upside-down pedagogical structure. Students completed preclass or lab reading and online activities targeting low-level Bloom’s ( Anderson and Krathwohl, 2001 ) in advance of each face-to-face session, receiving teaching assistant feedback. In session, class time was devoted to a variety of collaborative and cooperative learning activities, including low-stakes quizzes, minilectures, jigsaw activities, audience response (“clicker”) questions, case studies, simulations, student construction of scientific models, problem solving on whiteboards, concept mapping, short data investigations, and other activities. Instructors were available in session to provide real-time feedback on these higher-order cognitive activities (Bloom’s 4–6) and experimental work (Bloom’s 3–6; Figure 1 ). The same two instructors (S.A.W. and P.A.G.S.) taught the 100- and 300-level courses through the duration of the study, enabling comparison among sections.

Representative example of lesson design elements that promote academic rigor. (A) Scaffolding learning progression (criteria 4). Appropriate levels of challenge and support are achieved through a flipped-classroom structure, in which students engage in low-level Bloom’s pre-activities activities, then spend class time extending learning through higher-order group activities and models. TA, teaching assistant. (B) Representative example of summative assessment item meeting criteria 1–3. Learners engage in higher-order processing spanning biological scales using a cross-cutting concept of evolution through a meaningful case study.

Survey Development

The survey was designed to get students to articulate their definitions of academic rigor by triangulating data from several questions. Questions were developed based on the Michael (2007) survey asking students to identify what makes physiology easy/hard to learn. An additional open-ended question was derived from interview prompts asking students to describe a learning experience they had in college and what made that experience so rigorous ( Draeger et al. , 2015 ). The survey was peer reviewed by three colleagues, and then pilot tested with students ( n = 44). Following pilot testing, we made necessary wording changes to improve the quality of the data we obtained. The final open-ended survey included four questions:

• Please describe the hardest class you have ever taken (at college). What made it so rigorous?
• Please describe the easiest class you have ever taken (at college). What made it so easy?
• Please describe whether this class (course name) was easy or difficult for you. What made it that way?
• Please describe a course that you’ve taken where you felt you learned the most. Why did you learn so much?

These revised and field-tested surveys were then administered to 194 students enrolled in an active-learning biology course in the Fall of 2012, Spring of 2013, and Fall of 2013 at either the 100 level ( n = 155) or the 300 level ( n = 39).

Following administration, we used qualitative coding methods ( Bogdan and Biklen, 1998 ) to discern patterns in the data set. A coding rubric for each question was developed ( Tables 3 ​ 3 ​ ​ – 7 ). Three researchers worked together to develop the coding categories and determine decision rules for binning particular response comments into each category. We constructed a single coding rubric for questions 1 ( Table 3 ), 2 ( Table 4 ), and 4 ( Table 6 ). For question 3, we generated three rubrics to account for the variety of responses ( Table 5A , this course was easy; Table 5B , this course was hard; Table 5C , this course was a combination of easy and hard). Beginning with coding a small subset of the data, the three raters coded each transcription. Areas of disagreement were discussed until consensus was reached and decision rules were refined. This process continued by small-batch coding the entire data set and then revisiting the data set for consistency in coding.

Coding rubric for survey question 1: Please describe the hardest class you have ever taken (at college). What made it so rigorous?

a If students specifically mentioned a hard assignment and referenced cognitive demand (e.g., critical thinking), then we coded the response as “HCD” (high cognitive demand); if not, then we did not code that mentioning, as we could not tell what was “difficult” or “hard” about the assignment or what “hard” meant in this context.

Coding rubric for survey question 2: Please describe the easiest class you have ever taken at college. What made it so easy?

Coding rubric for survey question 3: Please describe whether this course (name) was easy or difficult for you. What made it that way?

Coding rubric for survey question: Describe a course that you’ve taken where you felt you learned the most. Why did you learn so much?

Forced-choice survey questions

Creation of the Forced-Choice Survey

Coding category patterns were then used to generate forced-choice responses for subsequent survey administrations. The question prompt read: “Think about the hardest (easiest) class you have ever taken in college. Which of the following contributed to making it so difficult (easy)? Select as many as apply.” The selection options were derived from coding categories (see preceding section; Tables 3 – 6 ). Students were also given an “other” option to include anything they did not find on the list ( Table 7 ).

We administered the forced-choice survey questions at the end of the semesters of Spring 2014 and Fall 2014 to increase the sample size ( n = 90 additional 100-level students, n = 20 additional 300-level students). Student demographics and course composition were similar in these 100-level courses to those listed in Table 1 . In total, 304 students ( n = 245 for 100-level students, 59 for 300-level students) contributed responses to the data set between Fall 2012 and Fall 2014.

To determine response pattern differences between 100- and 300-level students, we calculated frequencies for each response code and compared them. A chi-square test was used to differentiate the overall patterns in response distributions between these students. In addition, quantitative responses from forced choices were averaged with standard errors computed, and chi-square tests were also used to compare patterns in frequency distributions between 100- and 300-level students.

How Do Students Define Easy and Hard Courses?

At both the 100 and 300 levels, students universally characterized hard classes as having a high workload. In addition, poor background preparation and/or low interest in the subject matter caused both groups of students to perceive a course as harder:

“Professor expected a ridiculous amount of reading that nobody had time for and probably wouldn’t take much from it anyway. Then took random little facts from book that we never went over in class and put them on test. Also no review and did not put much stuff we learned in class on the tests.”

However, 100-level student perception of course difficulty was especially coupled to low faculty support, as well as a fast pace, and facts that have unclear relevance or importance:

“The hardest class I ever had taken in college focused a lot of learning on the go and by myself. The teacher was almost too smart for the class and he was not around much after class to help with questions. The assignments and projects were very difficult and a lot of the learning was expected to be done on your own.”

These factors contributed less to course difficulty in the view of their 300-level counterparts. Instead, 300-level students particularly noted that high cognitive demand contributes to course difficulty, as does high workload and time demands, poor alignment between instructional practices and assessment items:

“[Biology course] had lots and lots of information to take in, and the tests were fairly difficult—asking the students to apply what they learned to bigger models/life scale. The labs were also time-consuming.”

Overall, the factors identified by 100- and 300-level students about what constitutes a difficult course differed (χ 2 = 39.016, df = 6, p = 0.00000071; Figure 2 ).

Student perceptions of what makes a college biology course hard. The 100-level students (black, n = 155) defined hard courses as those that have a high workload and low faculty support and seem to focus on disparate facts the students struggle to see as important. The 300-level students (gray, n = 39) recognized workload and preparation as key factors that make courses hard, but also noted that higher cognitive levels make courses harder. Overall response patterns differ for 100- and 300-level students (χ 2 = 39.016, df = 6, p = 0.00000071).

Students defined courses as easy when they had the appropriate background to be successful in the course, a manageable workload, and high faculty support. Faculty supports include a teaching style that engages the learner, course design and setup, the use of collaborative learning, reoccurring review of concepts, visual and model-based learning, as well as affective characteristics such as being encouraging, believing in students as learners, and contributing to a nonstressful learning environment. Additionally, course content following logically from one key idea to another contributed to the perception that a course was easy. It also helped learners when instructional objectives aligned well with assessments. Students also identified low cognitive demand as a factor for making a course seem easy:

“The easiest class I have taken in college had a lot to do with the content that I already knew…. The information content was very common sense like and there wasn’t much at all. Class that require no critical thinking are easy.”

Students commented on their own role in learning by recognizing that being highly prepared for the course and interested in the material makes the course seems easier compared with one in which they were underprepared or lacked interest. The factors identified by 100- and 300-level students about what constitutes an easy course were similar (χ 2 = 2.46, df = 5, p = 0.7825; Figure 3 ).

Student perceptions of what makes a college biology course easy. The 100-level students (black, n = 155) defined easy courses as those that have a low or manageable workload, logical content, personal interest, and/or strong background preparation by the student, and high faculty support. The 300-level students (gray, n = 39) recognized easy courses as having logical content, a manageable workload, clear alignment, high faculty support, and, last, a low cognitive demand asked of them in the course.

When provided forced choices to choose from, 100-level students attributed a hard course to their lack of prior knowledge and the degree to which the course required them to apply material. The 300-level students identified a high workload as a main contributor to difficulty ( Figure 4 ). Both 100- and 300-level students identified cognitive demand (e.g., application and case study) as contributing to making a course rigorous. These data are consistent with the open responses in Figure 2 , but notably, faculty support was not identified in the forced-response survey as it was in the retrospective analysis ( Figure 2 ). With respect to factors that contribute to a course feeling easy, both 100- and 300-level students identified that the way the course was taught made the course seem easy (“I didn’t feel like I was learning”). This perception, coupled to other factors students identified as high “faculty support,” suggests that students recognize the importance of course delivery and design and teaching approaches as factors contributing to the seamlessness and ease of a course ( Figure 4 ). These factors provide appropriate challenge and support so that the students moved from their current knowledge to newly acquired knowledge in a manner that was not stressful (“I didn’t feel like I was learning”). Patterns for hard (χ 2 , df = 2, p = 0.036) and easy (χ 2 , df = 3, p = 0.025) attributes of courses differ between 100- and 300-level students ( Figure 4 ).

Student self-reports from selected “choose from” response items of what makes a course hard or easy. The left side of the graph corresponds to hard attributes, and the right side of the graph corresponds to easy attributes. 100-level students (black, n = 90) identify lack of preparation and workload as reasons courses were hard. Both 100- and 300-level students acknowledge the required application of course content contributed to its difficulty. 300-level students (gray, n = 40) attributed courses as easy due to their background and the “ease“ of learning (I didn’t feel like I was learning).

How Does Active Learning Influence What Students Perceive as Academic Rigor?

To unpack student perception of what makes an active-learning classroom seem hard or easy, we asked students enrolled in an active-learning classroom modeled after a scientific teaching philosophy ( Handelsman et al. , 2004 ) whether “this course” was easy or hard, and why. Just shy of half of the students (47%) recognized their active-learning course to be both easy and hard, while 29% found the course hard and 24% found the course easy. Students overwhelmingly identified that active-learning courses were easy because of the high level of faculty support provided to learners at both the 100 and 300 levels ( Figure 5 ). Similar to the definitions identified earlier ( Figure 3 ), students characterized that ease was based on having high faculty support, proper background preparation and high interest in the content, clear alignment between learning objectives and assessments (i.e., course content and exams), logical course content, and manageable workload.

“It was rigorous with the amount of information but easy with the way the class was set up. Groups were great, objectives helped and it was a lot of repetition.”

“Some of the material was hard but it was taught in a way to help us understand how it connected as a whole.”

Student perception of what makes “this” active-learning college biology course easy. The 100-level students (black bars, n = 41) defined the active-learning course as easy. The lowest contributor was the cognitive demand. The 300-level students (gray bars, n = 11) recognized the active-learning course as easy, indicating that it was easy because the content was logical, there was a high degree of learning support provided by faculty members, and it had a manageable workload and clear alignment.

Patterns did differ between 100- and 300-level students (χ 2 = 25.28, df = 5, p = 0.000127) due to a few more 300-level students identifying logical content and clear alignment as course attributes that contribute to a course being easy. Notably, a very small percentage of 100-level students and no 300-level students said these courses were easy because there was not enough cognitive challenge.

For the students who identified “this active-learning course” as hard ( n = 45 for 100-level students, n = 5 for 300-level students), reasons were largely focused on the level of cognitive challenge (i.e., cognitive demand, high Bloom’s) required of them in the course ( Figure 6 ).

“[This course] was a more rigorous class. It required a lot of work and a lot of thinking (rather than just memorization). Labs also made us think outside of the box. Our tests did this as well. It was much more beneficial to be able to apply the things we learned to actual life situations rather than multiple choice questions.”

Student perception of what makes “this” active-learning college biology course hard. The 100-level students (black bars, n = 45) defined the active-learning course as hard and subsequently characterized that difficulty as arising from the cognitive demand required of them in the course, the workload, and their lack of preparation for the course. The 300-level students (gray bars, n = 5) recognized the “active-learning course” as hard, with all students defining it as hard because of the high cognitive demand.

Secondarily, both groups identified a high workload and low preparation as factors contributing to a hard course experience.

“This class was fairly difficult in a very, very non-stressful manner. I was not familiar with nearly everything that we learned, so there was so much to learn. It was also decently time-consuming, especially with the data set analyses. The amount of work we did with the data sets was probably the most difficult part of the class, but I gained so much knowledge from them.”

Only 100-level students identified pace and unclear importance of content as factors making the active-learning course hard ( Figure 6 ). Low faculty support was not mentioned by either level of students, nor was lack of alignment. Patterns in responses for 100- and 300-level students differed, largely due to the absence of responses in the last four categories (χ 2 = 21.61, df = 6, p = 0.0014). Taken together, these data strongly suggest that the perceived ease in an active-learning course taught under the scientific teaching paradigm is due to learner-centered design and pedagogical choices consistent with the philosophy of “teaching science as science is practiced.”

This interpretation is corroborated by a subset of the data wherein students reported that the active-learning course was experienced as both easy and hard ( n = 72 for 100-level students and n = 8 for 300-level student). In these comments, students were able to differentiate which aspects of the course experience gave these impressions. Those who cited specific attributes of the course as hard deemed it so as a result of their own lack of preparation or due to the high cognitive load for the course. At the same time, these students identified attributes of the course as feeling easy due to the pedagogical approaches used in the course (e.g., scaffolding, cooperative learning).

“This course was easy, not because the material was easy, but because of the way it was taught. Learning in groups and through projects made the harder material easier to learn and having clear expectations and objectives really helped. I was also never overwhelmed by the amount of work in this class which was really great because it kept me motivated to keep working and to put in my best effort on all my assignments. I think the hardest parts of the course were making models. That process, though hard, was really beneficial because we had to find the answers for ourselves instead of just being given the answer. Thinking through the model was challenging but very beneficial in the end.”

How Do Students Define Academic Rigor in Relationship to Learning?

To understand how students relate their perception of academic rigor to their learning, we asked them to describe courses in which they learned the most. Students at both the 100 and 300 levels identified that they learn the most in courses in which faculty support of their learning is high, in which they have interest in or see the usefulness and applicability of the course content, and in which they were not previously well-educated in the course material (χ 2 = 11.229, df = 9, p = 0.26; Figure 7 ). Secondarily, students associated a relatively high level of learning to courses in which volume, workload, and faculty expectation were high. Interestingly, these were previously identified as factors making a course hard ( Figure 2 ). Application of content also influenced student perception of courses in which they learned the most ( Figure 7 ). Other factors, such as synthesis of other learning experiences, character building, and the opportunity for metacognition and reflection were also cited by students.

“I put a lot of work into the class. It was a very small group and a lot was expected from each student. The teacher was very passionate about the subject and showed a great desire for us to truly learn.”

“I feel as if I learned the most in [course]. I believe that I learned so much because we were expected to know and understand the material for tests, as well as create models to communicate concepts in class. The classes were also set up to facilitate learning, we had a overview of the learning objectives at the beginning of the class, and a review at the end of class. We were also asked to brainstorm our own ideas, and come up with applications of the material in our everyday lives.”

“I’ve never been good at connecting concepts to each other and to real life situations until [course]. I contribute [ sic ] my learning to the stress level of the course, the clicker questions, sitting in a group, four minute summaries and learning objectives. Not having to spend hours over a textbook trying to grasp what was taught in class helped me relax and stay happy. I was not overwhelmed with the workload of this class which allowed for me to take my time and have learning objectives sink in, instead of rushing to do homework every day while not having time to understand why I got the answer.”

Comparison of 100- and 300-level student responses to courses wherein they learned the most. Bars represent frequencies of response. Both 100- and 300-level students identified faculty support as being key in a course in which they learned the most. In addition, courses in which they did not have a lot of initial knowledge but had high interest and saw strong practical application resulted in their perception of learning the most.

Taken together, these data suggest that students learn the most under conditions wherein previously identified hard and easy factors are both at play.

Overwhelmingly, faculty support was the highest explanation for why students felt they learned the most. Students define faculty support as having a course design or setup that helps facilitate their learning (e.g., scaffolding, peer instruction, welcoming/supportive learning community), which includes reducing their stress levels and otherwise being an “excellent” teacher. Student interest and perception of the utility/applicability of the material in the course also strongly contributed to student learning in both 100- and 300-level courses. Students recognize that increased cognitive load coupled with high faculty support (scaffolding and course design) contributes to their ability to learn and master challenging material.

Introductory Students Define Rigor Based on Effort/Workload

While academic rigor is important and highly valued, little research exists to define and explore it. This research took a sampling of introductory and advanced biology students and asked them to define academic rigor through the lens of the learner. Their definitions provide insight about what attributes of a course make it rigorous. For example, students identified hard/challenging/rigorous courses primarily in response to their own feelings of “drinking from a firehose.” They described these courses as ones that went too fast for them to keep up, for which they were not interested in the content or its relevance to their lives, and for which the workload was exceptionally high ( Figure 2 ). This definition is consistent with what Draeger et al. (2015) found in their interview studies, specifically, that students emphasize workload elements (e.g., amount of work, number of assignments) over cognitive complexity. Interestingly, this definition appears to differ from faculty definitions of course rigor, which focus primarily on cognitive load ( Michael, 2007 ; Draeger et al. , 2015 ).

Upper-Level Students Define Rigor Based on Cognitive Demand

At the 300 level, students likewise identified cognitive demand as part of what makes a course intellectually rigorous. This was surprising, because other researchers who asked upper-level students to define rigor found no mention of “higher-order thinking” in their definitions ( Draeger et al. , 2015 ). Their upper-level students’ view of academic rigor, branching out from workload and effort, was more consistent with faculty definitions of academic rigor ( Michael, 2007 ; Draeger et al. , 2013 , 2015 ). These findings suggests a learning progression related to academic rigor ( Figure 8 ), whereby third- and fourth- year students are able to notice the cognitive challenge as distinct from the workload requirements.

Progression of student perception of academic rigor. Student definitions showed a trend toward emphasizing cognitive complexity as an attribute of course rigor by the end of their college careers. Notably, academic stressors still remained a contributor to difficult courses; however, these upper-level students were also able to articulate that poor alignment between what was taught and assessed contributed to why a course was challenging.

Upper-level students also identified some pedagogical choices by the instructor as having an influence on the difficulty of the course. For example, they found courses that had low alignment between what was taught and assessed to be more difficult than courses that were well aligned. While these additional definitions of rigor are important to note, 300-level students still placed a premium on non–content focused course attributes (e.g., pace, stress level, workload) to define rigor, suggesting that the affective experience of a course influences perceptions of rigor, as does the cognitive experience.

In summary, while student definitions of academic rigor change as they develop into mature learners ( Figure 8 ), they maintain perceptions of course rigor that are distinct from faculty definitions of academic rigor, which focus on engaging in higher-order thinking. While students identify and value high cognitive load, their perception of academic rigor is greatly colored by affective conditions—primarily stress—that accompany a learning experience. Academic stress and a coinciding perception of “difficulty” in our sample population are linked to unattainable pace, high workload and content volume, unfair assessment (due to lack of alignment; content appearing on exams that “was not covered” in class), disorganized course structure (lack of prioritizing or contextualizing content), lack of feedback, and feeling unsupported in the learning process (e.g., peer learning, relevant application of content, and instructor real-time feedback, active-learning strategies). Thus, the experienced “difficulty” or “rigor” for these students is more multidimensional—encompassing both affective and cognitive experiences of rigor—compared with faculty conceptualizations, focusing just on cognition.

Active-Learning Courses Are Perceived as Both Rigorous and Not Rigorous

While there is a wealth of research discussing the merits of active learning for student short- and long-term content retention ( Freeman et al. , 2014 ), to our knowledge, no studies looked at how students perceived the learning in these courses from the perspective of academic rigor.

Active learning interacts with a student’s definition of academic rigor. When asked about whether or not their active-learning course was easy or hard, nearly 50% of the students sampled identified their active-learning course as both easy and hard, and the remaining students were almost equally divided among the course being easy (24%) and hard (29%). These findings indicate that active-learning courses may be viewed as easy while simultaneously being rigorous (i.e., “learning meaningful content with higher-order thinking at the appropriate level of expectation in a given context” [ Draeger et al. , 2013 , p. 268], leading to ultimate ownership of one’s learning [ Bain, 2004 ]). Three of the four attributes of our definition of rigor aligned with the ways students defined “hard,” yet the fourth fell on the easy side.

Learners Engage in Higher-Level Cognitive Processes.

Interestingly, at both the 100 and 300 levels, students were able to parse out rigor when reflecting on their experiences in an active-learning classroom ( Figure 5 ). Overwhelmingly, students identified that their active-learning courses had high cognitive challenge/demand. That is, they saw the courses were asking them to do more than recall and understand content. They had to “solve problems,” “analyze data,” “think critically,” and “think about real-world challenges.” When students defined hard courses in general ( Figure 2 ), cognitive demand was frequently mentioned by 300-level students. At the introductory level, hard courses were more likely to be defined by academic stressors: high workload, quick pace, and unclear import. We maintain that an early (100-level) active-learning experience in biology could help students differentiate academic stress from cognitive complexity, especially if coupled with metacognitive reflection.

Learners Transfer Concepts and Content across Scales or between Problems.

Active learning, in this context, helped students transfer concepts, and students recognized this component of academic rigor in these courses. In their definitions, students identified that the case-based nature of these active-learning courses required them to transfer concepts between problems. For example, one student wrote,

“The concepts themselves were relatively easy to learn, but applying them to new situations added an aspect of challenge. This challenge was good, because it made me think in new ways, and helped the information ‘stick’ better.”

Learners Engage in Meaningful Content.

Students in these active-learning courses also elaborated on the real-life cases they studied as a part of the course design in their active-learning courses, identifying that they were engaging in the rigorous practice of practical application:

“It was much more beneficial to be able to apply the things we learned to actual life situations rather than multiple-­choice questions.”

Learners Have Appropriate Levels of Challenge and Support.

The fourth attribute of the definition of rigor is distinct from the other three in that students most often identified this attribute under the easy aspect of the active-learning courses. Many students were quick to articulate that their active-learning courses also felt easy/less rigorous to them because of the design of the courses. They state,

“I wouldn’t say that the content was easy—but the teaching style used to help me construct information was very useful, and as a result I retained information quite easily.”

“[Biology course] was an easy course for biology. It was easy because difficult concepts SEEMED easy.  The course was very structured so I knew what to expect—the learning objectives because this kept me on track (What do I need to know? What am I going to learn?). In addition, the modules make sense and are applicable to today’s societal ecological issues (e.g., learning microbiology in order to understand evolution and resistant bacteria, as well as other concepts). This makes it easier to learn because it makes sense and the puzzles come together at the end of each module.”

“It was an easy course for me because all the materials that I needed to learn were easily accessible to me. However, just because I consider the course to be easy, does not mean that I was able to slide through the class. It was important to me to utilize resources and make an effort to identify and master concepts. If no effort is made in the class, it would have been very difficult. However, all the materials are available for success.”

“What made the class easier was taking a hands-on approach and applying the concepts we learned.”

“The class was set up in a way that information built upon itself and was connected to things we had been learning throughout the entire semester. Making these connections made the information seem more simple.”

These courses appeared to have the necessary support—structures, class organization, faculty availability, active instruction—that contributed to decreased stress levels in the classroom, and thus the feeling of “ease.” This ease should be expected, based on their earlier definitions of academic rigor/challenge that overemphasized academic stressors as what makes a course difficult ( Figure 2 ). In alignment with their definitions of easy courses ( Figure 3 ), that such courses have a manageable workload and high support from faculty, students described their active-learning experiences as having high support. Therefore, it is not entirely surprising that they defined these courses as easy. Active-learning courses often draw students into content they might not otherwise have inherent interest in through problem-based learning or case studies. In addition, active-learning classrooms employ pedagogies that support student development in the learning process. These often include student-centered learning that puts the students in an active role for their learning—summarizing, investigating, modeling, revising, solving, and collaborating to achieve learning outcomes. Courses designed in this way by backward design are often well aligned with learning outcomes, assessments, and pedagogical choices. Thus, students are engaged in a supportive learning environment with low academic stressors (as they define it) dedicated to their success as learners. Through intentional “faculty support,” students transcend learning levels through the joy of discovery and problem solving as they make stepwise progressions through the content to gain new knowledge and use science process skills.

It is important to note that these same students identified the active-learning courses as hard/rigorous/challenging based on the other three attributes of the definition, yet seemed to give more weight to the fourth dimension of rigor, classifying their course experiences as both easy and hard more often than hard. Often, students commented that they did not “feel like they were learning” because of the way the material was presented or the way they engaged with the ideas. This made a course feel easy to the learner. Yet they also identified the courses as simultaneously being cognitively rigorous. This is an interesting dichotomy, one worth further investigation, especially as it departs from faculty definitions of academic rigor.

Implications of Rigor in Active Learning in Biology

Academically, we define rigor as “learning meaningful content with higher-order thinking at the appropriate level of expectation in a given context” ( Draeger et al. , 2013 , p. 268), leading to ultimate ownership of one’s learning ( Bain, 2004 ). Students desire such learning and are interested in courses that push and challenge them, with outcomes that are attainable through appropriate support ( Martin et al. , 2008 ). This desire for an appropriate balance of challenge and support ( Sanford, 1962 ) indicates that students are not opposing a high workload or looking for an easy way out ( Martin et al. , 2008 ). Rather, they are looking for higher-order thinking on content that matters and a low-stress environment that enables all students to engage in learning, a “just-right” or “Goldilocks” level of challenge and support ( Gordon and Palmon, 2010 ).

Students in this study were more likely to define a difficult or rigorous course in terms of both intellectual challenge and in terms of attainability, a finding that diverges from earlier work ( Draeger et al. , 2015 ). Conversely, when students discover the pace of a course to be too fast, or the workload to be too high with little support for the learner, they label the course as hard/rigorous/difficult. This finding is consistent with Nelson (2000) , who said that academic rigor divided by faculty support provided equals course difficulty (rigor/support = difficulty). That is, when students are provided with a high degree of support in their learning, perceived course difficulty decreases, likely because the academic stressors decrease. We saw this come into play when students discussed how active learning influenced their perceptions of rigor, and how academically rigorous tasks felt easy to them (e.g., “I felt like I wasn’t learning”) because of this support.

Faculty surveyed in physiology did not identify the critical role that faculty have in contributing to the ease with which a student learns disciplinary content ( Michael, 2007 ). In fact, faculty articulated it was solely the nature of the discipline and what students bring to the course that made physiology hard to learn ( Michael, 2007 ). Students, however, were quick to acknowledge that not only their role in the learning process but that of the faculty member could contribute to the challenge/difficulty of learning a discipline ( Michael, 2007 ). This research indicates the important role of a faculty member in the learning process of our biology students. Through active instruction, faculty can not only engage students in rigorous course work, but they can provide the support students need, which ultimately makes biology and STEM more accessible and inclusive for a greater diversity of learners.

Limitations

We recognize that the definition of rigor and its association with the terms “easy” and “hard” poses an interesting challenge for our measurements in this study. We identify that this is partly due to the fact that rigor is challenging to define. Because there are no validated instruments that measure the construct of rigor, we used terminology from prior studies that explored rigor—studies in which students described rigor as “hard,” “challenging,” “difficult”—and then we asked, “ Why do students perceive their learning experience in this way?”  These studies found that the very use of the word “rigor” was challenging for students to understand in its own right ( Draeger et al. , 2015 ). Therefore, we decided to use the words “easy” and “hard” (based on how Michael [2007 ] posed the question to faculty) to elucidate student thinking about this aspect of rigor.  We designed our survey using language and terminology most relatable to students, so as to better understand their experiences in the classroom. However, we recognize that these findings isolate a subset of the construct of academic rigor.

Pedagogical Considerations

There are some important pedagogical and course design implications from this work. First, students want intellectual challenge ( Gordon and Palmon, 2010 ). As instructors design learning outcomes for a course, they should plan to challenge student thinking and abilities, to push students to achieve beyond what they think is possible. Courses should have learning outcomes that span the cognitive domains ( Bloom and Krathwohl, 1956 ; Lemons and Lemons, 2013 ), with an appropriate percentage of a course focusing on higher-order cognitive processes. Some professional societies for subdisciplines of biology, for example, have recommendations for learning outcomes across these scales that could serve as a starting place to help identify outcomes relevant to courses ( American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2011 ). The Blooming Biology Tool ( Crowe et al. , 2008 ) can provide instructors with a concrete way to evaluate the level of intellectual processing their learning goals ask students to work toward. This tool can be used to explore one’s course work and exams as well as course objectives.

Second, students want intellectual challenge to be attainable. They do not want standards lowered, but they need the standard to be reachable through appropriate scaffolding. Identifying what is realistic for each class of students is challenging, as it likely is always changing based on the needs and preparation of changing learners. However, knowing one’s student population and their incoming knowledge and skill level will help instructors set the appropriate level of academic challenge. Conversations with faculty members who teach the preceding course(s) and pretests or concept inventories for each unit of instruction can help inform instructors of incoming students’ prior knowledge. In addition, once the course is in process, continual monitoring of student progress through frequent formative assessments, shared student reflection, and direct feedback from students can provide insight into the appropriateness of the level of challenge. We recognize that intellectual challenge will be experienced differently by each learner in the classroom. However, researchers in K–12 classrooms have a wealth of literature focused on differentiation that could be gleaned and applied to the college classroom. Martin et al. (2008) suggest something as simple as giving hints to students feeling overwhelmed or extension tasks/problems can foster an appropriate level of challenge for students on both ends of the spectrum.

Finally, students may need support in their learning. Active-learning pedagogies are designed, by their very nature, to provide support, including progressive steps to help students learn and master the content and skills needed to achieve course learning outcomes. These strategies include frequent formative assessments and cooperative learning approaches, which allow faculty members and peers to support the progress of learning through feedback and direction. In addition, active learning encourages active reflection; metacognition that helps students discover what it means to learn, how they learn, and how they are doing making progress toward learning outcomes. Peer and instructor support is often very high in active-learning environments, leading to safe learning spaces for students, which together lower stress and might incline students to say a course is easy. This study helps us to understand that easy reflects a more affective construct, such as low stress and ease. When students were challenged to learn at an attainable level, they felt the learning along the way was “intuitive”—they did not “feel like they were learning.” Upon reflection, students identified that these courses were some of the very ones in which they learned the most and that they recall more from these courses than others ( Freeman et al. , 2014 ).

These conclusions are in line with those of other researchers who identified the need to have appropriate challenge and support ( Sanford, 1962 ) so that our courses are hard, but not too hard ( Martin et al. , 2008 ; Gordon and Palmon, 2010 ). Designing a course with challenge and support in mind requires intentional instructional decisions throughout the backward design process ( Wiggins and McTighe, 1998 ), frequent reflective practice on the behalf of the instructor, and a willingness to try new pedagogies that can provide needed support without compromising academic challenge. In conclusion, when instructors preserve scientific rigor in their classrooms through high cognitive load (challenge), while delivering these courses in a learner-oriented manner (support), students experience intellectually rich learning without unnecessary stress or barriers to attainment.

Acknowledgments

We gratefully acknowledge undergraduate students Amanda Kliora and Karli Zinnecker for their help with data coding. We also thank members of the SABER community for rich discussions that contributed to the advancement of this work. No external funding sources were used for this study.

• Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology, Inc. (ABET). (2017). Accreditation . Retrieved December 14, 2017, from www.abet.org/accreditation/
• American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2011). Vision and Change in Undergraduate Biology Education: A Call to Action . Washington, DC. [ Google Scholar ]
• American Chemical Society. (2015). Undergraduate professional education in chemistry: ACS guidelines and evaluation procedures for bachelor’s degree programs . Washington, DC. [ Google Scholar ]
• American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. (2013). Accreditation Program in Biochemistry and Molecular Biology . Retrieved November 30, 2017, from www.asbmb.org/Accreditation/ViewContent.aspx?id=48467
• Anderson L. W., Krathwohl D. R.(2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives (complete edition) . New York: Longman [ Google Scholar ]
• Bain K. (2004). What the best college teachers do . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bloom ., Krathwohl D. R.(1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives; Handbook I: Cognitive Domain . New York: Longmans, Green [ Google Scholar ]
• Bogdan R. C., Biklen S. K. (1998). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods . Boston: Allyn and Bacon. [ Google Scholar ]
• Braxton J. M. (1993). Selectivity and rigor in research universities . Journal of Higher Education , ( 6 ), 657–675. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cheesman K., French D., Cheesman I., Swails N., Thomas J. (2007). Is there any common curriculum for undergraduate biology majors in the 21st century ? BioScience , ( 6 ), 516–522. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cizek G. J., Bunch M. B. (2007). Standard setting: A guide to establishing and evaluating performance standards on tests . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Clinebell S. K., Clinebell J. M. (2008). The tension in business education between academic rigor and real-world relevance: The role of executive professors . Academy of Management Learning and Education , ( 1 ), 99–107. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cohen P. A. (1981). Student ratings of instruction and student achievement: A meta-analysis of multi-section validity studies . Review of Educational Research , , 281–309. [ Google Scholar ]
• Crowe A., Dirks C., Wenderoth M. P. (2008). Biology in Bloom: Implementing Bloom’s taxonomy to enhance student learning in biology . CBE—Life Sciences Education , , 368–381. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dill D. D., Massy W. F., Williams P. R., Cook C. M. (1996). Accreditation and academic quality assurance: Can we get there from here ? Change , ( 5 ), 16–24. [ Google Scholar ]
• Draeger J., del Prado Hill P., Hunter L. R., Mahler R. (2013). The anatomy of academic rigor: The story of one institutional journey . Innovations in Higher Education , ( 4 ), 267–279. [ Google Scholar ]
• Draeger J., del Prado Hill P., Mahler R. (2015). Developing a student conception of academic rigor . Innovations in Higher Education , ( 4 ), 215–228. [ Google Scholar ]
• Freeman S., Eddy S. L., McDonough M., Smith M. K., Okoroafor N., Jordt H., Wenderoth M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics . Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA , ( 23 ), 8410–8415. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gordon M. E., Palmon O. (2010). Spare the rigor, spoil the learning . Academe , ( 4 ), 25–27. [ Google Scholar ]
• Graham C., Essex C. (2001). Defining and ensuring academic rigor in online and on-campus courses: Instructor perspectives . Annual Proceedings of Selected Research and Development and Practice Papers Presented at the National Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (24th, Atlanta, GA, November 8–12, 2001)
• Handelsman J., Ebert-May D., Beichner R., Bruns P., Chang A., DeHaan R., Wood W. B. (2004). Scientific teaching . Science , ( 5670 ), 521–522. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jensen E. (2005). Teaching with the brain in mind (2nd Ed.) . Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lemons P. P., Lemons J. D. (2013). Questions for assessing higher-order cognitive skills: It’s not just Bloom’s . CBE—Life Science Education , , 47–58. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Martin J. H., Hands K. B., Lancaster S. M., Trytten D. A., Murphy T. J. (2008). Hard but not too hard: Challenging courses and engineering students . College Teaching , ( 2 ), 107–113. [ Google Scholar ]
• Michael J. (2007). What makes physiology hard for students to learn? Results of a faculty survey . Advances in Physiology Education , , 34–40. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Momsen J. L., Long T. M., Wyse S. A., Ebert-May D. (2010). Just the facts? Introductory undergraduate courses focus on low-level cognitive skills . CBE—Life Sciences Education , , 435–440. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nelson C. E. (2000). How we defeat ourselves: Dysfunctional illustrations of rigor . Paper presented at: 18th Annual Spring Symposium of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning Program at Indiana University (Bloomington, IN) .
• Parry M. (2012, January 5). Debating the flipped classroom at Stanford . Chronicle of Higher Education . Retrieved June 10, 2017, from www.chronicle.com/blogs/wiredcampus/debating-the-flipped-classroom-at-stanford/34811 [ Google Scholar ]
• Parry M. (2015, January 5). Debating the “flipped classroom” at Stanford . Chronicle of Higher Education . [ Google Scholar ]
• Payne S., Kleine K., Purcell J., Carter G. (2005). Evaluating academic challenge beyond the NSSE . Innovative Higher Education , , 129–146. [ Google Scholar ]
• Prosser M., Trigwell K. (1999). Understanding learning and teaching . Buckingham, UK: Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sanford N. (1962). The American college . New York: Wiley. [ Google Scholar ]
• Taylor M. T., Rendon L. I. (1991). The American history curriculum in North Carolina’s public community colleges and universities: A comparative study . Community College Review , ( 1 ), 36–41. [ Google Scholar ]
• Uttl B., White C. A., Gonzalez D. W. (2017). Meta-analysis of faculty’s teaching effectiveness: Student evaluation of teaching ratings and student learning are not related . Studies in Educational Evaluation , ( 54 ), 22–42. [ Google Scholar ]
• Weinberg B. A., Fleisher B. M., Hashimoto M. (2007). Evaluating methods for evaluating instruction: The case of higher education (NBER Working Paper No. 12844) . Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research [ Google Scholar ]
• Wergin J. F. (2005). Resource review: Higher education: Waking up to the importance of accreditation . Change , ( 3 ), 35–41. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wiggins G., McTighe J. (1998). Understanding by design . Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. [ Google Scholar ]
• Winston R. B., Vahala M. E., Nichols E. C., Gillis M. E., Wintrow M., Rome K. D. (1994). A measure of college classroom climate: The college classroom environment scales . Journal of College Student Development , ( 1 ), 11–18 [ Google Scholar ]
• Wyatt G. (2005). Satisfaction, academic rigor and interaction: Perceptions of online instruction . Education , ( 3 ), 460–468. [ Google Scholar ]

What is critical thinking? And do universities really teach it?

Principal Fellow/Associate Professor in Higher Education, The University of Melbourne

Disclosure statement

Martin Davies does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

University of Melbourne provides funding as a founding partner of The Conversation AU.

View all partners

There has been a spate of articles and reports recently about the increasing importance of critical thinking skills for future employment.

A 2015 report by the Foundation for Young Australians claims demand for critical thinking skills in new graduates has risen 158% in three years. This data was drawn from an analysis of 4.2 million online job postings from 6,000 different sources in the period 2012-2015.

The report found employers can pay a premium for many enterprise skills. For example, evidence of problem solving and critical thinking skills resulted in a higher mean salary of A$7,745. This was a little more than for those with skills in financial literacy ($5,224) and creativity ($3,129). However, presentation ($8,853) and digital literacy ($8,648) skills appeared to be the most desired – or rewarded.

Being a good critical thinker is a desirable trait for getting a job in today’s economy. Why wouldn’t it be? What business or enterprise does not want a good critical thinker?

An old refrain

Actually, none of this is really new – although the pace might have quickened of late. Employers have long been insisting on the importance of critical thinking skills.

In 2006, a major report by a consortium of more than 400 US employers ranked “critical thinking” as the most desirable skill in new employees.

It was ranked higher than skills in “innovation” and “application of information technology”. Surprisingly, 92.1% regarded critical thinking as important, but 69.6% of employers regarded higher school entrants to university “deficient” in this essential skill.

Employers increasingly recognise what is needed in graduates is not so much technical knowledge, but applied skills, especially skills in critical thinking .

These skills are also said to be important within companies themselves as drivers of employee comprehension and decision making.

What is critical thinking, anyway?

But what is critical thinking? If we do not have a clear idea of what it is, we can’t teach it.

It is hard to define things like critical thinking: the concept is far too abstract.

Some have claimed that critical thinking is not a skill as much as an attitude, a “critical spirit” — whatever that might mean (of course it could be both).

Others have suggested that it comprises skills in argumentation, logic, and an awareness of psychology (cognitive biases).

But this does not help get a crisp and clear understanding.

Over the years theorists have tried to nail down a definition of critical thinking. These include:

“… reflective and reasonable thinking that is focused on deciding what to believe or do.” “…the ability to analyse facts , generate and organise ideas, defend opinions, make comparisons, draw inferences, evaluate arguments and solve problems.” “…an awareness of a set of interrelated critical questions , plus the ability and willingness to ask and answer them at appropriate times.” “… thinking about your thinking while you’re thinking to make your thinking better.”

Whatever definition one plumps for, the next question that arises is what are universities doing about teaching it?

A ‘graduate attribute’

Universities claim that they impart critical thinking to students as a “graduate attribute”.

Look at any carefully-prepared institutional list of hoped-for graduate attributes. “Critical thinking” — or its synonyms “analytical thinking”, “critical inquiry” etc — will be there. (Some examples: here , here and here .)

Universities like to think that students exit their institutions thinking much more critically compared to when they went in.

However, what is the evidence for this assumption? Has any university pre-tested for critical thinking skills at admission, and post-tested upon completion of degree to assess gains? Not that I know of.

There are well-validated tests of critical thinking that could be used for such a purpose, the California Critical Thinking Assessment Test being the most used. Others include the Watson Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal and the Cornell Critical Thinking Tests .

Why hasn’t this been done? I suspect because universities would be justifiably worried about what the results might indicate.

In the margin — and tangentially — some (pessimistic) academics have countered that universities promote precisely the opposite of critical thinking; a culture of uncritical left-wing orthodoxy, an orthodoxy that takes the form of cultural attitude or milieu within the sector and which largely goes unchallenged .

To counter these trends, a group of politically diverse scholars have set up a Heterodox Academy . They agitate for the importance of teaching students how – not what – to think.

How do you teach it?

There is some justification in the claim that universities do not teach critical thinking, despite their oft-cited claims that they do.

In the US media recently, there was a heightened concern about the teaching of critical thinking in universities.

This was sparked by a recent large-scale study – and later a book – using Collegiate Learning Assessment data in the US.

The book provoked widespread interest and media attention in the US, especially on the topic of universities’ failure to teach critical thinking .

It placed serious doubt on the assumption that critical thinking was being adequately taught on American college campuses. It created a storm of discussion in the popular media .

And there is no shortage of studies demonstrating that “very few college courses actually improve these skills”.

Definition unimportant?

How, then, to define critical thinking? It is certainly not an easy question to answer. But perhaps a definition of it is, in the end, unimportant. The important thing is that it does need to be taught, and we need to ensure graduates emerge from university being good at it.

One thing is certain: beyond vague pronouncements and including “critical thinking” among nebulous lists of unmet or hoped-for graduate attributes, universities should be paying more attention to critical thinking and doing a lot more to cultivate it.

• Universities
• Critical thinking

Case Management Specialist

Lecturer / Senior Lecturer - Marketing

Assistant Editor - 1 year cadetship

Executive Dean, Faculty of Health

Lecturer/Senior Lecturer, Earth System Science (School of Science)

Translate this page from English...

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

Defining Critical Thinking

Already have an account?

Why is critical thinking difficult?

05 nov why is critical thinking difficult, students struggle to think critically.

85% of teachers thought critical thinking skills were inadequate when students reached post-16 education (TES). Our own qualitative research in schools revealed typical worries that students have such as: losing track of the argument; not planning before starting an essay; including irrelevant information. Examiners’ reports consistently point out the lack of a good argument in exam entries. Moreover, teachers express concern with regards to teaching of critical thinking skills. Students are often much better at learning facts than making a good argument, but there is no time to teach this properly in a content-heavy curriculum. The requirements to think critically have increased, but the textbooks and training have not always kept up.

Arguments are hidden in textbook prose

In school, students are introduced to critical thinking by reading and writing arguments in prose. The textbooks, articles and original sources they read are usually in prose, as are the essays they write. Prose is a very flexible medium, but it is not the optimal way to represent an argument.

Firstly, students cannot look at argumentative prose and immediately find the argument. Prose makes no distinction between the sentences which are part of the argument and those that do other things, such as supporting facts and context. So the argument is hidden amongst other information, much of which is distracting.

Prose is linear, but arguments are branched

Prose is written in a way that makes it hard to understand the structure of the argument. This is a problem, because the whole structure has to be kept in mind when evaluating the argument. For example, if they find a counter-example to one step of an argument, they need to know the structure to realise whether this defeats the whole argument or just a part of it.

Poor critical thinking leads to poor arguments

For these reasons, argumentative prose imposes a heavy cognitive load on the reader. Students are obliged to work hard to discover how an argument works before they can even begin to critique it. This is especially difficult for those who have reading difficulties such as dyslexia.

School students normally create their own arguments by writing essays. Even if they are well-informed they often write a lot of facts without pulling them together into an argument. The very flexibility of prose allows essays to be unrigorous, ambiguous, and irrelevant. Moreover, essays are slow for students to write and slow for teachers to check and mark, limiting the amount of arguments that can be studied in detail. For these reasons, learning critical thinking through school work is difficult and its results are patchy.

At Endoxa Learning, we design resources that make it easier for students to read, understand and create arguments.

What is critical thinking?

Privacy Overview

PHIL102: Introduction to Critical Thinking and Logic

Course introduction.

• Time: 40 hours
• College Credit Recommended ($25 Proctor Fee) -->
• Free Certificate

The course touches upon a wide range of reasoning skills, from verbal argument analysis to formal logic, visual and statistical reasoning, scientific methodology, and creative thinking. Mastering these skills will help you become a more perceptive reader and listener, a more persuasive writer and presenter, and a more effective researcher and scientist.

The first unit introduces the terrain of critical thinking and covers the basics of meaning analysis, while the second unit provides a primer for analyzing arguments. All of the material in these first units will be built upon in subsequent units, which cover informal and formal logic, Venn diagrams, scientific reasoning, and strategic and creative thinking.

Course Syllabus

First, read the course syllabus. Then, enroll in the course by clicking "Enroll me". Click Unit 1 to read its introduction and learning outcomes. You will then see the learning materials and instructions on how to use them.

Unit 1: Introduction and Meaning Analysis

Critical thinking is a broad classification for a diverse array of reasoning techniques. In general, critical thinking works by breaking arguments and claims down to their basic underlying structure so we can see them clearly and determine whether they are rational. The idea is to help us do a better job of understanding and evaluating what we read, what we hear, and what we write and say.

In this unit, we will define the broad contours of critical thinking and learn why it is a valuable and useful object of study. We will also introduce the fundamentals of meaning analysis: the difference between literal meaning and implication, the principles of definition, how to identify when a disagreement is merely verbal, the distinction between necessary and sufficient conditions, and problems with the imprecision of ordinary language.

Completing this unit should take you approximately 5 hours.

Unit 2: Argument Analysis

Arguments are the fundamental components of all rational discourse: nearly everything we read and write, like scientific reports, newspaper columns, and personal letters, as well as most of our verbal conversations, contain arguments. Picking the arguments out from the rest of our often convoluted discourse can be difficult. Once we have identified an argument, we still need to determine whether or not it is sound. Luckily, arguments obey a set of formal rules that we can use to determine whether they are good or bad.

In this unit, you will learn how to identify arguments, what makes an argument sound as opposed to unsound or merely valid, the difference between deductive and inductive reasoning, and how to map arguments to reveal their structure.

Completing this unit should take you approximately 7 hours.

Unit 3: Basic Sentential Logic

This unit introduces a topic that many students find intimidating: formal logic. Although it sounds difficult and complicated, formal (or symbolic) logic is actually a fairly straightforward way of revealing the structure of reasoning. By translating arguments into symbols, you can more readily see what is right and wrong with them and learn how to formulate better arguments. Advanced courses in formal logic focus on using rules of inference to construct elaborate proofs. Using these techniques, you can solve many complicated problems simply by manipulating symbols on the page. In this course, however, you will only be looking at the most basic properties of a system of logic. In this unit, you will learn how to turn phrases in ordinary language into well-formed formulas, draw truth tables for formulas, and evaluate arguments using those truth tables.

Completing this unit should take you approximately 13 hours.

Unit 4: Venn Diagrams

In addition to using predicate logic, the limitations of sentential logic can also be overcome by using Venn diagrams to illustrate statements and arguments. Statements that include general words like "some" or "few" as well as absolute words like "every" and "all" – so-called categorical statements – lend themselves to being represented on paper as circles that may or may not overlap.

Venn diagrams are especially helpful when dealing with logical arguments called syllogisms. Syllogisms are a special type of three-step argument with two premises and a conclusion, which involve quantifying terms. In this unit, you will learn the basic principles of Venn diagrams, how to use them to represent statements, and how to use them to evaluate arguments.

Completing this unit should take you approximately 6 hours.

Unit 5: Fallacies

Now that you have studied the necessary structure of a good argument and can represent its structure visually, you might think it would be simple to pick out bad arguments. However, identifying bad arguments can be very tricky in practice. Very often, what at first appears to be ironclad reasoning turns out to contain one or more subtle errors.

Fortunately, there are many easily identifiable fallacies (mistakes of reasoning) that you can learn to recognize by their structure or content. In this unit, you will learn about the nature of fallacies, look at a couple of different ways of classifying them, and spend some time dealing with the most common fallacies in detail.

Completing this unit should take you approximately 3 hours.

Unit 6: Scientific Reasoning

Unlike the syllogistic arguments you explored in the last unit, which are a form of deductive argument, scientific reasoning is empirical. This means that it depends on observation and evidence, not logical principles. Although some principles of deductive reasoning do apply in science, such as the principle of contradiction, scientific arguments are often inductive. For this reason, science often deals with confirmation and disconfirmation.

Nonetheless, there are general guidelines about what constitutes good scientific reasoning, and scientists are trained to be critical of their inferences and those of others in the scientific community. In this unit, you will investigate some standard methods of scientific reasoning, some principles of confirmation and disconfirmation, and some techniques for identifying and reasoning about causation.

Completing this unit should take you approximately 4 hours.

Unit 7: Strategic Reasoning and Creativity

While most of this course has focused on the types of reasoning necessary to critique and evaluate existing knowledge or to extend our knowledge following correct procedures and rules, an enormous branch of our reasoning practice runs in the opposite direction. Strategic reasoning, problem-solving, and creative thinking all rely on an ineffable component of novelty supplied by the thinker.

Despite their seemingly mystical nature, problem-solving and creative thinking are best approached by following tried and tested procedures that prompt our cognitive faculties to produce new ideas and solutions by extending our existing knowledge. In this unit, you will investigate problem-solving techniques, representing complex problems visually, making decisions in risky and uncertain scenarios, and creative thinking in general.

Completing this unit should take you approximately 2 hours.

Study Guide

This study guide will help you get ready for the final exam. It discusses the key topics in each unit, walks through the learning outcomes, and lists important vocabulary terms. It is not meant to replace the course materials!

Course Feedback Survey

Please take a few minutes to give us feedback about this course. We appreciate your feedback, whether you completed the whole course or even just a few resources. Your feedback will help us make our courses better, and we use your feedback each time we make updates to our courses.

If you come across any urgent problems, email [email protected].

Certificate Final Exam

Take this exam if you want to earn a free Course Completion Certificate.

To receive a free Course Completion Certificate, you will need to earn a grade of 70% or higher on this final exam. Your grade for the exam will be calculated as soon as you complete it. If you do not pass the exam on your first try, you can take it again as many times as you want, with a 7-day waiting period between each attempt.

Once you pass this final exam, you will be awarded a free Course Completion Certificate .

Saylor Direct Credit

Take this exam if you want to earn college credit for this course . This course is eligible for college credit through Saylor Academy's Saylor Direct Credit Program .

The Saylor Direct Credit Final Exam requires a proctoring fee of $5 . To pass this course and earn a Credly Badge and official transcript , you will need to earn a grade of 70% or higher on the Saylor Direct Credit Final Exam. Your grade for this exam will be calculated as soon as you complete it. If you do not pass the exam on your first try, you can take it again a maximum of 3 times , with a 14-day waiting period between each attempt.

We are partnering with SmarterProctoring to help make the proctoring fee more affordable. We will be recording you, your screen, and the audio in your room during the exam. This is an automated proctoring service, but no decisions are automated; recordings are only viewed by our staff with the purpose of making sure it is you taking the exam and verifying any questions about exam integrity. We understand that there are challenges with learning at home - we won't invalidate your exam just because your child ran into the room!

Requirements:

• Desktop Computer
• Chrome (v74+)
• Webcam + Microphone
• 1mbps+ Internet Connection

Once you pass this final exam, you will be awarded a Credly Badge  and can request an official transcript .

Saylor Direct Credit Exam

This exam is part of the Saylor Direct College Credit program. Before attempting this exam, review the Saylor Direct Credit page for complete requirements.

Essential exam information:

• You must take this exam with our automated proctor. If you cannot, please contact us to request an override.
• The automated proctoring session will cost $5 .
• This is a closed-book, closed-notes exam (see allowed resources below).
• You will have two (2) hours to complete this exam.
• You have up to 3 attempts, but you must wait 14 days between consecutive attempts of this exam.
• The passing grade is 70% or higher.
• This exam consists of 50 multiple-choice questions.

Some details about taking your exam:

• Exam questions are distributed across multiple pages.
• Exam questions will have several plausible options; be sure to pick the answer that best satisfies each part of the question.
• Your answers are saved each time you move to another page within the exam.
• You can answer the questions in any order.
• You can go directly to any question by clicking its number in the navigation panel.
• You can flag a question to remind yourself to return to it later.
• You will receive your grade as soon as you submit your answers.

Allowed resources:

Gather these resources before you start your exam.

• Blank paper

What should I do before my exam?

• Gather these before you start your exam:
•   A photo I.D. to show before your exam.
•   A credit card to pay the automated proctoring fee.
•   (optional) Blank paper and pencil.
•   (optional) A glass of water.
• Make sure your work area is well-lit and your face is visible.
• We will be recording your screen, so close any extra tabs!
• Disconnect any extra monitors attached to your computer.
• You will have up to two (2) hours to complete your exam. Try to make sure you won't be interrupted during that time!
• You will require at least 1mbps of internet bandwidth. Ask others sharing your connection not to stream during your exam.
• Take a deep breath; you got this!

Chapter 8: Thinking, Communicating & Problem-Solving

Critical thinking & problem-solving, assess your critical thinking strategies.

• Visit the Quia Critical Thinking Quiz page and click on Start Now (you don’t need to enter your name).
• Select the best answer for each question, and then click on Submit Answers. A score of 70 percent or better on this quiz is considered passing.
• Based on the content of the questions, do you feel you use good critical thinking strategies in college? In what ways could you improve as a critical thinker?

The essence of the independent mind lies not in what it thinks, but in how it thinks. —Christopher Hitchens, author and journalist

Critical Thinking

As a college student, you are tasked with engaging and expanding your thinking skills. One of the most important of these skills is critical thinking. Critical thinking is important because it relates to nearly all tasks, situations, topics, careers, environments, challenges, and opportunities. It’s a discipline-general thinking skill, not a thinking skill that’s reserved for a one subject alone or restricted to a particular content area. Of all your thinking skills, critical thinking may have the greatest value.

What Is Critical Thinking?

Critical thinking is clear, reasonable, reflective thinking focused on deciding what to believe or do. It means asking probing questions like, “How do we know?” or “Is this true in every case or just in this instance?” It involves being skeptical and challenging assumptions, rather than simply memorizing facts or blindly accepting what you hear or read. Critical thinking skills will help you in any profession or any circumstance of life, from science to art to business to teaching.

Critical thinkers are curious and reflective people. They explore and probe new areas and seek knowledge, clarification, and solutions. They ask pertinent questions, evaluate statements and arguments, and distinguish between facts and opinion. They are also willing to examine their own beliefs, possessing a manner of humility that allows them to admit lack of knowledge or understanding when needed. Critical thinkers are open to changing their mind. Perhaps most of all, they actively enjoy learning and view seeking new knowledge as a lifelong pursuit.

Thinking critically will help you develop more balanced arguments, express yourself clearly, read more critically, and glean important information efficiently. With critical thinking, you become a clearer thinker and problem solver.

The following video, from Lawrence Bland, presents the major concepts and benefits of critical thinking.

The Role of Logic in Critical Thinking

Critical thinking is fundamentally a process of questioning information and data. You may question the information you read in a textbook, or you may question what a politician or a professor or a classmate says. You can also question a commonly-held belief or a new idea. With critical thinking, anything and everything is subject to question and examination for the purpose of logically constructing reasoned perspectives.

The word logic comes from the Ancient Greek logike , referring to the science or art of reasoning. Using logic, a person evaluates arguments and reasoning and strives to distinguish between good and bad reasoning or between truth and falsehood. Using logic, you can evaluate ideas or claims people make, make good decisions, and form sound beliefs about the world. [1] . Logical thinkers provide reasonable and appropriate evidence to support their claims, acknowledge the strengths of the opposing side’s position, actively investigate a variety of possible outcomes or new solutions, and use measured and objective language to present their positions.

Clarify Thinking

When you use critical thinking to evaluate information, you need to clarify your thinking to yourself and likely to others. Doing this well is mainly a process of asking and answering logical, probing questions. Design your questions to fit your needs, but be sure to cover adequate ground.

• What is the purpose?
• What question are we trying to answer?
• What point of view is being expressed?
• What assumptions are we or others making?
• What are the facts and data we know, and how do we know them?
• What are the concepts we’re working with?
• What are the conclusions, and do they make sense?
• What are the implications?

Avoid Fallacies

You’ll also want to make sure you can avoid and spot logical fallacies. Fallacies are faults in thinking or illogical approaches used to persuade the other side. Statements such as, everyone else is doing it ca n be very persuasive even though they demonstrate faulty logic, in this case, the bandwagon appeal. These fallacies can undermine your authority and weaken your position. Students shouldn’t park in the faculty lot because that lot is for faculty is another example of a logical fallacy, this time circular reasoning.

Consult the two websites below to identify and avoid some of the many kinds of logical fallacies:

• Fallacies Files—Home
• Logical Fallacies Jeopardy

Applying critical thinking

The following questions may apply to formulating a logical, reasoned perspective in the scenario below or any other situation:

• What is happening? Gather the basic information and begin to think of questions.
• Why is it important? Ask yourself why it’s significant and whether or not you agree.
• What don’t I see? Is there anything important missing?
• How do I know? Ask yourself where the information came from and how it was constructed.
• Who is saying it? What’s the position of the speaker and what is influencing them?
• What else? What if? What other ideas exist and are there other possibilities?

A man has a Ph.D. in political science, and he works as a professor at a local college. His wife works at the college, too. They have three young children in the local school system, and their family is well known in the community. The man is now running for political office.

Are his credentials and experience sufficient for entering public office? Will he be effective in political office? Some voters might believe that his personal life and current job, on the surface, suggest he will do well in the position, and they will vote for him. In truth, the characteristics described don’t guarantee that the man will do a good job. The information is somewhat irrelevant.

What else might you want to know? How about whether the man had already held a political office and done a good job? In this case, we want to ask, How much information is adequate in order to make a decision based on logic instead of assumptions?

Problem-Solving with Critical Thinking

For most people, a typical day is filled with critical thinking and problem-solving challenges. In fact, critical thinking and problem-solving go hand-in-hand. They both refer to using knowledge, facts, and data to solve problems effectively, but with problem-solving, you are specifically identifying, selecting, and defending your solution.

Applying the strategies described in the action checklist below can help you utilize critical thinking skills to solve problems.

Problem-solving can be an efficient and rewarding process, especially if you are organized and mindful of critical steps and strategies. Remember, too, to assume the attributes of a good critical thinker. If you are curious, reflective, knowledge-seeking, open to change, probing, organized, and ethical, your challenge or problem will be less of a hurdle, and you’ll be in a good position to find intelligent solutions.

 Developing Yourself As a Critical Thinker and Problem-Solver

Critical thinking is a fundamental skill for college students, but it should also be a lifelong pursuit that we continually refine. Below are additional strategies to develop yourself as a critical thinker in college and in everyday life:

• Reflect and practice : Always reflect on what you’ve learned. Is it true all the time? How did you arrive at your conclusions?
• Use wasted time : It’s certainly important to make time for relaxing, but if you find you are indulging in too much of a good thing, think about using your time more constructively. Determine when you do your best thinking and try to learn something new during that part of the day.
• Redefine the way you see things : It can be very uninteresting to always think the same way. Challenge yourself to see familiar things in new ways. Put yourself in someone else’s shoes and consider a certain situation from a different angle or perspective. If you’re trying to solve a problem, list all your concerns, such as what you need in order to solve it, who can help, and what some possible barriers might be. It’s often possible to reframe a problem as an opportunity. Try to find a solution where there seems to be none.
• Analyze the influences on your thinking and in your life : Why do you think or feel the way you do? Analyze your influences. Think about who in your life influences you. Do you feel or react a certain way because of social convention or because you believe it is what is expected of you? Try to break out of any molds that may be constricting you.
• Express yourself : Critical thinking also involves being able to express yourself clearly. Most important in expressing yourself clearly is stating one point at a time. You might be inclined to argue every thought, but you might have greater impact if you focus only on your main arguments. This will help others to follow your thinking clearly. For more abstract ideas, assume that your audience may not understand. Provide examples, analogies, or metaphors where you can.
• Enhance your wellness : It’s easier to think critically when you take care of your mental and physical health. Try taking 10-minute activity breaks to reach 30 to 60 minutes of physical activity each day . Try taking a break between classes and walk to the coffee shop that’s farthest away. Scheduling physical activity into your day can help lower stress and increase mental alertness.
• Do your most difficult work when you have the most energy: Think about the time of day you are most effective and have the most energy. Plan to do your most difficult thinking during these times.

Reflect on Critical Thinking

• Think about someone whom you consider to be a critical thinker (friend, professor, historical figure, etc). What qualities does he/she have?
• Review some of the critical thinking strategies discussed on this page. Choose one strategy that makes sense to you. How can you apply this critical thinking technique to your academic work?
• Habits of mind are attitudes and beliefs that influence how you approach the world (inquiring attitude, open mind, respect for truth, etc.). What is one habit of mind you would like to actively develop over the next year? How will you develop a daily practice to cultivate this habit?

Cultivate Critical Habits of Mind

Earlier in this text we discussed, “habits of mind,” the personal commitments, values, and standards people have about the principle of good thinking. Consider your intellectual commitments, values, and standards. Do you approach problems with an open mind, a respect for truth, and an inquiring attitude? Some good habits to have when thinking critically are being receptive to having your opinions changed, having respect for others, being independent and not accepting something is true until you’ve had the time to examine the available evidence. Other important habits of mind include being fair-minded, having respect for a reason, having an inquiring mind, not making assumptions, and always, especially, questioning your own conclusions. In their quest towards developing an intellectual work ethic, critical thinkers constantly try to work these qualities into their daily lives.

 problem-solving with critical thinking

Below are some examples of using critical thinking to problem-solve. Can you think of additional action steps to apply to the following situations? You may want to look back to Chapter 2 “Defining Goals” to utilize the five step problem solving strategy described there.

• Your roommate was upset and said some unkind words to you, which has put a crimp in the relationship. You try to see through the angry behaviors to determine how you might best support your roommate and help bring the relationship back to a comfortable spot.
• Your campus club has been languishing on account of lack of participation and funds. The new club president, though, is a marketing major and has identified some strategies to interest students in joining and supporting the club. Implementation is forthcoming.
• Your final art class project challenges you to conceptualize form in new ways. On the last day of class when students present their projects, you describe the techniques you used to fulfill the assignment. You explain why and how you selected that approach.
• Your math teacher sees that the class is not quite grasping a concept. She uses clever questioning to dispel anxiety and guide you to new understanding of the concept.
• You have a job interview for a position that you feel you are only partially qualified for, although you really want the job and you are excited about the prospects. You analyze how you will explain your skills and experiences in a way to show that you are a good match for the prospective employer.
• You are doing well in college, and most of your college and living expenses are covered. But there are some gaps between what you want and what you feel you can afford. You analyze your income, savings, and budget to better calculate what you will need to stay in college and maintain your desired level of spending.
• "logike." Wordnik. n.d. Web. 16 Feb 2016. ↵
• "Student Success-Thinking Critically In Class and Online."  Critical Thinking Gateway . St Petersburg College, n.d. Web. 16 Feb 2016. ↵
• Critical Thinking Skills. Authored by : Linda Bruce. Provided by : Lumen Learning. License : CC BY: Attribution
• Critical Thinking. Provided by : Critical and Creative Thinking Program. Located at : http://cct.wikispaces.umb.edu/Critical+Thinking . License : CC BY: Attribution
• Thinking Critically. Authored by : UBC Learning Commons. Provided by : The University of British Columbia, Vancouver Campus. Located at : http://www.oercommons.org/courses/learning-toolkit-critical-thinking/view . License : CC BY: Attribution
• Critical Thinking 101: Spectrum of Authority. Authored by : UBC Leap. Located at : https://youtu.be/9G5xooMN2_c . License : CC BY: Attribution
• Image of students putting post-its on wall. Authored by : Hector Alejandro. Located at : https://flic.kr/p/7b2Ax2 . License : CC BY: Attribution
• Foundations of Academic Success. Authored by : Thomas C. Priester, editor. Provided by : Open SUNY Textbooks. Located at : http://textbooks.opensuny.org/foundations-of-academic-success/ . License : CC BY-NC-SA: Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike
• Image of three students. Authored by : PopTech. Located at : https://flic.kr/p/8tXtQp . License : CC BY-SA: Attribution-ShareAlike
• Critical Thinking.wmv. Authored by : Lawrence Bland. Located at : https://youtu.be/WiSklIGUblo . License : All Rights Reserved . License Terms : Standard YouTube License

Privacy Policy

• Apr 1, 2022

Why is critical thinking so hard?

…and how we can teach it.

Hello! Welcome to the 8th edition of Things in Education, the fortnightly newsletter through which we hope to share the latest in education research and developments in the form of accessible summaries and stories to help you in the classroom and at home.

Let’s be frank. Thinking critically is hard. It’s so hard that most adults struggle to think critically. Take the example of the millions who are convinced that world leaders and award-winning actors are actually power-hungry aliens, or that the COVID-19 vaccines contain microchips so that the government can track every second of our every day…

And so, education boards all over the world have made the teaching of critical thinking skills compulsory in school. But if learning how to think critically is hard, teaching it is a hundred times harder. After all, there is no set definition of critical thinking. And unlike the steps of long division, there is no set process to teach critical thinking either.

Though all is not lost. With some understanding of how the mind likes to think and what thinking critically really requires, we can begin to build these skills in ourselves and in our students. What better day to begin than today?

Surface Structure and Deep Structure

So let’s begin by exercising our own critical thinking skills.

In 1980, researchers Mary Gick and Keith Holyoke conducted an experiment. In this experiment, they gave some college students a story to read:

The students were asked to memorise this story. Then, they were asked to solve a problem:

Here’s the solution: Just like the army general broke up his soldiers into small groups to converge on the fortress at the same time, the doctor can send several low-intensity rays towards the tumour. These rays won’t destroy healthy tissue, but when they all converge on the tumour, their intensity will be high enough to destroy it.

In the experiment, only 20% of the students were able to solve the problem, in spite of memorising the first story. Why do you think most of them were not able to see the similarities in the structures of the two problems?

Here’s why: Our mind tends to prefer the surface structure of new information – the specific, concrete details and particulars. In this case, these concrete details were the fortress and the general and the roads in the first problem, and the tumour and the tissue and the rays in the second problem.

In order to think critically, we must also understand the deep structure of new information – the general underlying principle. In this case, the underlying principle was “the dispersal and regathering of strength” – of the soldiers and of the rays!

So what does this look like in the classroom? Let’s take an example from English. Ask your middle- or high-school students the following question: Why will Grade 7 students not enjoy the story of the lion and the mouse as much as a mystery set on Mars?

Students will most likely begin by thinking about the surface structures of the stories: Mars is more exciting; lions and mice cannot talk; and so on. However, students have not thought critically in giving these responses – they have not gone down to the deep structure.

Thinking about the deep structure in this case begins with thinking about the genres of the two stories – one is a fable, and the other is science fiction. Fables are written keeping the developmental stage of young children in mind; science fiction is for teenagers and young adults. Fables have simple storylines; the plotline of science fiction is much more complicated. Fables present everything as black and white, good and bad; while science fiction usually poses moral dilemmas that teenagers are beginning to grapple with… The deep structures of stories give us a much more critical understanding of the question posed!

Background Knowledge

Here’s another task for you: Do you agree with the following tweet by Web3 Coin? Support your opinion with 2 pieces of evidence.

Here were my thoughts when I first read this: 543 retweets? And 525 people liked this tweet? I don’t even know what it means… What is web3 in the first place? Is web3 something we can “have”? Huh? What does it have to do with crypto? I’m not intelligent enough for this…

Does this mean that I have no critical thinking skills? Absolutely not. What it does mean is that background knowledge is the first and most important requirement for critical thinking. I can’t think critically about something I don’t know enough about. A doctor can think critically about the oxygen requirements of her patients, but that does not mean that she can think critically about the construction of an oxygen cylinder. A lawyer can think critically about the legal nuances of a mental harassment lawsuit, but that does not mean that she can think critically about the medical requirements of mental health. Background knowledge is the foundation of critical thinking.

So what does this mean for the classroom? One of the best ways to build students’ background knowledge is to adopt a multi-disciplinary approach. A multi-disciplinary approach analyses a concept or a topic through the lens of various disciplines. For example:

Such an approach would require teachers of different subjects to plan well in advance and collaborate on the progress of the curriculum. At the same time, individual subject teachers can also implement the multi-disciplinary approach in simpler ways by incorporating one other subject into their curriculum, like asking students to use their knowledge of language to break down and understand new scientific terms, or having students research the history of the place in which a famous author lived. Slowly but surely, teachers will see students begin to think critically in these subjects.

There is no set definition of critical thinking because different areas of life and different problems require different types of thinking skills. “Critical thinking skills” is an umbrella term for many different skills. What we do know, however, is that going beyond the surface structure of information and to the deep structure as well as building background knowledge are important steps towards developing critical thinking skills. Let’s start there!

Useful Links:

Multi-disciplinary learning : In this blog, we explain how multi-disciplinary learning leads to deep understanding by increasing and strengthening connections in the brain.

Critical thinking : In this periodical, cognitive psychologist Daniel Willingham explains why critical thinking is so hard to teach.

If you found this newsletter useful, please share it.

If you received this newsletter from someone and you would like to subscribe to us, please click here .

Edition: 1.8

Recent Posts

The best TPD programmes…

Direct Instruction is not…

Combining pedagogical approaches…

Thinking Hard Strategies

May 26, 2023

What exactly are 'Thinking Hard' strategies and how can we use them to promote deeper learning outcomes?

Main, P (2023, May 26). Thinking Hard Strategies. Retrieved from https://www.structural-learning.com/post/thinking-hard-strategies

What are Thinking Hard Strategies?

In the realm of education, the concept of 'thinking hard' strategies is gaining traction as a means to foster deeper cognitive engagement among students. These strategies are essentially classroom techniques designed to challenge students to engage in more complex tasks, thereby enhancing their critical thinking skills .

One of the key elements of these strategies is the use of difficult questions. Rather than simply asking students to recall information, these questions require them to apply, analyze, and synthesize the knowledge they've acquired. This approach aligns with the assertion of an educational expert who once said, "The quality of student thinking is directly proportional to the quality of the questions they are asked."

Another critical aspect of 'thinking hard' strategies is the emphasis on creating a classroom environment that encourages intellectual risk-taking. This involves cultivating a culture where students feel safe to tackle challenging problems, make mistakes, and learn from them. According to a recent study, classrooms that foster such an environment see a 20% increase in student engagement.

Incorporating these strategies into everyday teaching practice can be transformative. For instance, a teacher might present a complex task related to a topic being studied and then facilitate a class discussion where students are encouraged to ask key questions, propose solutions, and critique each other's ideas. This not only promotes critical thinking but also fosters a sense of intellectual curiosity and a love for learning.

'Thinking hard' strategies represent a powerful tool for educators seeking to enhance student engagement and learning outcomes. By challenging students with difficult questions and complex tasks, we can help them develop the critical thinking skills they need to thrive in an increasingly complex world .

Unlocking the Potential of Thinking Hard Strategies

As we delve deeper into the realm of 'thinking hard' strategies, we begin to see their potential as a key to unlocking a treasure chest of cognitive abilities. These strategies, when effectively implemented, can transform the classroom into a bustling marketplace of ideas, where students are the active traders of knowledge and critical thought.

A cornerstone of these teaching strategies is metacognition, or the ability to think about one's own thinking. This self-reflective process allows students to monitor their understanding, identify areas of confusion, and adjust their learning strategies accordingly. A study by the Education Endowment Foundation found that metacognitive strategies can lead to an average gain of seven months' additional progress.

The Universal Thinking Framework is a powerful tool that can be used to foster metacognition. This framework provides a structured approach to thinking, helping students navigate complex tasks and reflective questions. It's like a roadmap for the mind, guiding students through the twists and turns of critical thought.

Graphic organisers are another effective learning strategy that can be used to support 'thinking hard' strategies. These visual tools help students organise their thoughts, making abstract ideas more concrete and manageable. According to Evidence-Based Education, the use of graphic organisers can increase student achievement by 29 percentile points.

Ultimately, the power of 'thinking hard' strategies lies in their ability to make the most of lesson time. By challenging students to engage deeply with the material, these strategies not only enhance learning outcomes but also foster a lifelong love for learning.

• Metacognition and self-regulated learning
• Graphic Organisers: A Review of Scientifically Based Research

Strategies for Enhancing Cognitive Effort

Building on the foundation of 'thinking hard' strategies, we can further enhance cognitive effort by incorporating a variety of techniques into the learning process. These strategies act as a toolbox, each tool designed to stimulate different aspects of cognitive effort and promote deep thinking.

• Structural Learning's Block Building Strategy : This innovative approach uses physical blocks to represent abstract ideas, making complex concepts tangible and easier to understand. It's like constructing a 3D model of your thoughts, providing a visual and tactile way to explore ideas.
• Alternative Methods : Encouraging students to explore different ways of solving a problem can stimulate higher-order thinking. This could involve brainstorming, mind mapping, or using graphic organizers to visually structure information.
• Graphic Organizers : As mentioned earlier, these visual tools can be incredibly effective in helping students organise their thoughts and understand complex ideas. They provide a visual roadmap , guiding students through the landscape of their own thinking.
• Problem-Based Learning : This approach presents students with real-world problems to solve, promoting active thinking and engagement with the material. It's like being a detective, using critical thinking strategies to piece together clues and solve the mystery.
• Active and Deep Thinking : Encouraging students to actively engage with the material, rather than passively receiving information, can enhance cognitive effort. This could involve discussions, debates, or reflective writing tasks.

By incorporating these strategies into the classroom, we can create an environment that not only promotes 'thinking hard', but also fosters a culture of curiosity and lifelong learning .

The Art of Critical Thinking: Techniques and Approaches

In the realm of 'thinking hard' strategies, critical thinking holds a special place. It's the art of analysing, evaluating, and creating, going beyond mere recall of facts to a deeper understanding of concepts. As we've seen with the Structural Learning's Block Building Strategy and the use of graphic organizers, visual thinking strategies can play a significant role in promoting critical thinking.

One such strategy is Dual Coding . This approach combines verbal and visual information to enhance understanding and recall. It's like having a conversation with a picture, where the image and words work together to tell a more complete story.

Thinking Maps , another visual tool, can also be used to promote critical thinking. These diagrams represent different cognitive processes and can be used to visually organise and connect ideas. They're like the blueprints of thought, providing a clear structure for complex thinking processes.

Oracy , the ability to express oneself fluently and grammatically in speech, is another critical aspect of critical thinking. It's about more than just speaking; it's about communicating effectively, presenting arguments, and engaging in meaningful discussions. Techniques such as talk partners and structured dialogues can be used to promote oracy in the classroom.

Finally, promoting independent learning  is a key aspect of effective teaching. By encouraging students to take ownership of their learning, we can foster a sense of curiosity and a desire to engage in higher-order thinking. This could involve setting challenging tasks, providing opportunities for self-reflection, or using alternative thinking strategies to explore different perspectives.

By integrating these techniques and approaches into our teaching strategies, we can help students not only think hard, but also think critically, creatively, and independently.

Boosting Problem-Solving Skills: The Role of Rigorous Thought

In the journey of fostering critical thinking, we must not overlook the importance of problem-solving skills. As we've seen with independent learning, students who are equipped with the ability to tackle problems head-on are more likely to succeed acadically and beyond.

One of the key classroom strategies to boost problem-solving skills is the use of rigorous thought, a concept championed by educators like Ron Berger and Doug Lemov. This involves pushing students to think deeply and critically about a topic, rather than simply accepting information at face value.

A unit of study, for example, might involve a series of factual questions that require students to apply their knowledge in new and challenging ways. This active strategy encourages students to engage with the material, rather than passively absorbing it.

Structural Learning's Block Building Strategy is a prime example of this approach. By physically manipulating blocks to represent different aspects of a problem, students are encouraged to think critically and creatively about the task at hand.

Moreover, alternate thinking strategies can also be employed to boost problem-solving skills. For instance, students might be encouraged to approach a problem from a different perspective or to use a different method to find a solution.

By integrating these strategies into our teaching, we can help students not only to think hard, but also to solve problems effectively and creatively.

The Science Behind Effective Thinking Strategies

Building on the power of rigorous thought and problem-solving skills , it's important to delve into the cognitive science that underpins these effective thinking strategies. The human brain is a complex organ, and understanding how it processes and retains information can greatly enhance our teaching methods.

One of the key concepts in cognitive science is the idea of a schema , a mental framework that helps us organize and interpret information. When we learn something new, we either assimilate it into an existing schema or accommodate it by adjusting our schema or creating a new one. This process of assimilation and accommodation is at the heart of deeper thinking and learning.

Metacognitive strategies, which involve thinking about one's own thinking, can also play a crucial role in effective learning. By reflecting on how they are learning, students can identify the optimal strategy for a given task and adjust their approach as needed.

Interleaved strategy, for example, involves switching between different types of tasks or topics in a single study session. This approach has been shown to improve long-term retention and transfer of skills. In fact, a study found that students who used interleaved practice performed 43% better on a post-test than those who used blocked practice.

Alternative strategies, such as using visual aids or real-world examples, can also be effective in helping students understand complex concepts. These strategies can be particularly useful in subjects like science and math, where abstract concepts can be difficult to grasp.

In conclusion, understanding the science behind effective thinking strategies can help us design more effective teaching methods and promote deeper, more lasting learning.

Cultivating a Mindset for Intensive Thinking: Practical Tips

Building on the science behind effective thinking strategies, let's explore some practical tips for cultivating a mindset for intensive thinking in the classroom. These strategies can be adapted for both primary and secondary school classrooms:

• Promote a Growth Mindset : Encourage students to view challenges as opportunities for growth rather than obstacles. This mindset can help students persevere when faced with difficult tasks.
• Use Visual Thinking Strategies : Visual aids can help students understand complex concepts. For example, thinking maps or graphic organizers can help students visualize relationships between ideas.
• Encourage Questioning : Foster a classroom environment where students feel comfortable asking questions. This can stimulate critical thinking and promote deeper understanding.
• Integrate Real-World Examples : Connect classroom learning to real-world scenarios. This can make learning more relevant and engaging for students.
• Teach Metacognitive Strategies : Help students develop an awareness of their own thinking processes. This can enable them to monitor and adjust their learning strategies as needed.
• Provide Opportunities for Collaborative Learning : Group work can promote critical thinking as students are required to negotiate meaning, explain their thinking , and listen to others.
• Model Intensive Thinking : Demonstrate your own thinking processes to students. This can provide a practical example of how to approach complex tasks.
• Provide Constructive Feedback : Regular, specific feedback can help students understand their strengths and areas for improvement. This can guide their approach to strategy formation and promote a growth mindset.

By implementing these strategies, teachers can foster a classroom environment that encourages intensive thinking and promotes deeper learning. For more insights, this article provides a comprehensive review of critical thinking strategies in the classroom.

Enhance Learner Outcomes Across Your School

Download an Overview of our Support and Resources

We'll send it over now.

Please fill in the details so we can send over the resources.

What type of school are you?

We'll get you the right resource

Is your school involved in any staff development projects?

Are your colleagues running any research projects or courses?

Do you have any immediate school priorities?

Please check the ones that apply.

Download your resource

Thanks for taking the time to complete this form, submit the form to get the tool.

Classroom Practice

Why the Clock Counts with Critical Thinking

Timing matters when it comes to accepting extraordinary claims..

Posted September 24, 2023 | Reviewed by Devon Frye

• Embracing a strong belief in the right thing at the wrong time is a deceptive victory.
• Strange possibilities should not be ruled out.
• The core power and most exciting aspect of science is not what we know now, but what we might learn next.
• The best we can do is strive to be correct according to the best evidence available now.

It may seem counterintuitive, but being correct in the long run is not the only consideration when it comes to extraordinary claims. It’s a detail often missed, but when one decides to accept or believe something matters—even if it eventually proves true.

This is important to recognize because embracing a strong belief in the right thing at the wrong time is a deceptive victory. It can encourage overconfidence in unreliable hunches and obscure flawed and dangerous thinking processes, all of which are likely to create problems throughout life.

Consider the factor of timing regarding UFOs. Anyone who “knows” today that some of them are extraterrestrial visitors has had their mind probed and abducted by an irrational belief because there is nothing close to credible confirmation for it. But what if aliens were to land on the rooftop of the United Nations building tomorrow and confess that they have been buzzing us for decades?

UFO believers would say, “told you so,” and deservedly so. But their prior position still would have been the result of extraordinarily poor thinking skills. And those skills won’t improve without a personal reckoning that includes acknowledging the significance of timing and a new commitment to thinking before believing.

It would be no different if Bigfoot were captured or a quirk of quantum physics proved the claims of homeopathy. Feelings of vindication aside, the unjustified embrace of an extremely dubious position that later turns out to be correct is not much more impressive than that of a broken clock being precisely accurate twice per day. A supervolcano might choke out civilization next year, but it wouldn’t mean the guy on a street corner yelling, “The end is near,” knew what he was talking about.

Some will argue that being proven right over time is enough, regardless of how unjustified the conclusion or belief once was. But this ignores the dangers of habitual sloppy thinking. If skepticism and quality of evidence are unimportant for one claim, then what is the standard for others? If one believes the Apollo Moon landings were faked, why not trust a chiropractor to treat a serious health issue? If reflexology is valid, why not Assyrian haruspicy, too? Where does it end? Sadly, of course, there is no end for some who seem to live almost entirely in a state of cognitive chaos.

To help premature believers, advocates of critical thinking might add the role of timing to their list of essential talking points. I consistently emphasize to others that the safer and more efficient way to mentally navigate the world is to consistently side with the best knowledge currently available—and be prepared to change course the moment new evidence demands it. I also make a point to concede that a given extraordinary and unlikely claim could be true, but quickly add that it doesn’t matter if currently there are no good reasons to believe it.

I understand that this burden of waiting for sufficient evidence can be inconvenient or uncomfortable, but it is crucial when it comes to important and unusual claims. There are exceptions, of course. Sometimes the stakes are high, there is legitimate urgency, and a hunch is all you have. For example, if I’m walking in a dark alley and someone in the shadows appears to be waving a knife and seems to be whispering something about my wallet, I’m running and not hanging around for scientific confirmation. In most cases, however, we have the luxury of waiting to see if good evidence ever arrives.

Drawing attention to this timing component of critical thinking is not a blanket rejection of fringe ideas. It is important to consider unlikely things and maintain appropriate humility before strange possibilities. The core power and most exciting aspect of science is not what we know now, but what we might learn next. A nagging intuition , compelling flash of insight, or gut feeling can be a fruitful starting point toward spectacular discovery.

But the hunch itself is not enough, and certainly should not be the endpoint. For example, my love of science fiction and the compressed version of the Drake Equation that lives in my head biases me with a strong inclination to think that we are not alone in a universe with this much time, space, matter, and energy. But until SETI holds the greatest press conference in history, it would be an appalling breach of reason if I were to take any stance other than “I don’t know.” The critical-thinking clock is clear on this. It’s too early to be sure.

An important technical point is that waiting for sufficient evidence is not an absolute denial of the claim. Neither is it a sign of being closed-minded, the standard cheap shot lobbed at critical thinkers. I suppose it can feel like a contradiction, but good thinking demands that we c onsider anything and doubt everything .

The late astronomer Carl Sagan mentioned this in his book The Demon Haunted World : “As I’ve tried to stress , at the heart of science is an essential balance between two seemingly contradictory attitudes—an openness to new ideas, no matter how bizarre or counterintuitive, and the most ruthlessly skeptical scrutiny of all ideas, old and new. This is how deep truths are winnowed from deep nonsense.”

I have learned from experience that openly noting the possibility of improbable things can aid communication between believer and skeptic. I readily admit that giant primates and interstellar visitors are not impossible, only that declaring them to be real phenomena right now is a problem. It demonstrates the same kind of muddled judgment that leads people into dangerous medical quackery, financial scams, predatory organizations, and destructive political loyalties.

The best we can do is strive to be correct according to the best evidence available now . Mind the clock and keep steering toward the best current version of reality. Take positions that are most reasonable today . We can always change our minds tomorrow if the aliens land and say hello.

Guy P. Harrison is the author of Think: Why You Should Question Everything.

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Psychiatrist
• Find a Support Group
• Find Online Therapy
• United States
• Brooklyn, NY
• Chicago, IL
• Houston, TX
• Los Angeles, CA
• New York, NY
• Portland, OR
• San Diego, CA
• San Francisco, CA
• Seattle, WA
• Washington, DC
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Relationships
• Child Development
• Self Tests NEW
• Therapy Center
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

At any moment, someone’s aggravating behavior or our own bad luck can set us off on an emotional spiral that threatens to derail our entire day. Here’s how we can face our triggers with less reactivity so that we can get on with our lives.

• Emotional Intelligence
• Gaslighting
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

Critical thinking definition

Critical thinking, as described by Oxford Languages, is the objective analysis and evaluation of an issue in order to form a judgement.

Active and skillful approach, evaluation, assessment, synthesis, and/or evaluation of information obtained from, or made by, observation, knowledge, reflection, acumen or conversation, as a guide to belief and action, requires the critical thinking process, which is why it's often used in education and academics.

Some even may view it as a backbone of modern thought.

However, it's a skill, and skills must be trained and encouraged to be used at its full potential.

People turn up to various approaches in improving their critical thinking, like:

• Developing technical and problem-solving skills
• Engaging in more active listening
• Actively questioning their assumptions and beliefs
• Seeking out more diversity of thought
• Opening up their curiosity in an intellectual way etc.

Is critical thinking useful in writing?

Critical thinking can help in planning your paper and making it more concise, but it's not obvious at first. We carefully pinpointed some the questions you should ask yourself when boosting critical thinking in writing:

• What information should be included?
• Which information resources should the author look to?
• What degree of technical knowledge should the report assume its audience has?
• What is the most effective way to show information?
• How should the report be organized?
• How should it be designed?
• What tone and level of language difficulty should the document have?

Usage of critical thinking comes down not only to the outline of your paper, it also begs the question: How can we use critical thinking solving problems in our writing's topic?

Let's say, you have a Powerpoint on how critical thinking can reduce poverty in the United States. You'll primarily have to define critical thinking for the viewers, as well as use a lot of critical thinking questions and synonyms to get them to be familiar with your methods and start the thinking process behind it.

Are there any services that can help me use more critical thinking?

We understand that it's difficult to learn how to use critical thinking more effectively in just one article, but our service is here to help.

We are a team specializing in writing essays and other assignments for college students and all other types of customers who need a helping hand in its making. We cover a great range of topics, offer perfect quality work, always deliver on time and aim to leave our customers completely satisfied with what they ordered.

The ordering process is fully online, and it goes as follows:

• Select the topic and the deadline of your essay.
• Provide us with any details, requirements, statements that should be emphasized or particular parts of the essay writing process you struggle with.
• Leave the email address, where your completed order will be sent to.
• Select your prefered payment type, sit back and relax!

With lots of experience on the market, professionally degreed essay writers , online 24/7 customer support and incredibly low prices, you won't find a service offering a better deal than ours.

Topeka High students' critical thinking draws visit from Stanford University professor

S tanford University professor Greg Watkins visited Topeka High School to meet students from his online course on philosophy and morality.

Watkins has taught moral philosophy for more than 20 years, said Stanford communications director Jonathan Rabinovitz. This is the second year the course has been provided to Topeka High students.

For the course, Topeka High gifted facilitator Sara Schafer hosts the current 17 students taking the course in her classroom. She assists with providing the readings and helping facilitate the discussions while Topeka High students talk over Zoom with Stanford graduate students selected by Watkins.

Stanford professor commends his students at Topeka High

Watkins said he chose to visit Topeka High this year because of how impressed he was with them the past two years.

"It's just their ability to take the material seriously, to share their own views about it, rather than guess at what I might want to hear or what the undergrads might want to hear," Watkins said during his Thursday visit. "They pay attention in a way that it becomes like a 10-week conversation because that's another goal of this class."

Throughout the course, students read and discussed works from such philosophers as Karl Marx, Friedrich Nietzsche and W.E.B Du Bois.

"So one thing I think has been really powerful about this course is that once students figure out that there aren't really wrong answers, they're able to express themselves in ways that they might not feel comfortable expressing themselves in other courses," Schafer said. "Where it's very evident a sort of correct answer, a correct interpretation ... and think about how the course material applies to their own lives.

"So we've just had some really wonderful discussions from kids who maybe are not the strongest writers."

Never too old or young to learn

While discussing a piece of writing about how humans are good in nature, a student surprised Watkins by suggesting an interpretation he had not heard or thought of in the 20 years of teaching the course.

"It's rare that there's something new, but we had a lunchtime discussion and it's that sentence on the board (a gentleman is not a pot), which is from Confucius," Watkins said. "I just never tire of doing something like that with some students because the conversation that happens, even though you cover some of the same territory, is distinctive."

Schafer said she enjoys being the in-person teacher for this and other similar courses because she learns with the class.

"Students always observe things that I don't observe, notice pieces of text that are unnoticed by me and have perspectives that I hadn't considered," Schafer said. "And so one of the pieces that I really enjoy about this course in particular, is there's a chance for me to be a lifelong learner."

Topeka High class gives a chance to think critically

Multiple students said they enjoy the course because the knowledge given is meant to be used mindfully instead of repeating facts.

"I like this course because it challenged me and also allowed me to you know, share my thoughts on stuff like this and just get to think more instead of just regurgitating facts," sophomore Atchison Henderson said.

Other students said the class was a chance to expand their minds in new ways.

"I really enjoyed it, because it's not a very difficult class," sophomore David Erwin said, "but you have to look into yourself and think about answers to very thought-provoking questions that usually you don't get to do in any other class."

Topeka High students learn a new way of thinking

While the students said they took away different things from the course, they all agreed their mindset would be forever changed.

"The class gave me the confidence to look inside of myself for questions and ask other people about their own thoughts about philosophy or deeper questions about life," sophomore Abigail Nichols said.

Another student said she plans to continue her exploration of knowledge.

"Yeah, I think it'll just like make me look more into like the people around me and see just how they are, how they act and continue to ask these kinds of questions and just kind of further my own wisdom or knowledge and be able to share that with other people," junior Keelie Colstrom said.

Students say they enjoy challenging their own beliefs

This year's class size nearly doubled from last year's nine participants. As this year's course is coming to a close, Schafer said she already plans to host the course again next year and hopes other schools follow suit.

Students were asked if they would recommend the class to future students and each asked said yes. Some students said the course is mentally challenging because you'll have to challenge and face your own beliefs and views. They also said not to be afraid.

"I'd say you're not alone," sophomore Ruby Lindsay-Ybarra said. "You have a whole class of people that can help you. You have shapers who can help you. Even if you think you're scared because of the course load, don't be, because you have people who can help."

This article originally appeared on Topeka Capital-Journal: Topeka High students' critical thinking draws visit from Stanford University professor

• Augsburg.edu
• Inside Augsburg

Search Strommen Center for Meaningful Work

• Faculty & Staff
• Graduate Students
• First Generation
• International
• Students With Disabilities
• Undocumented
• Business & Finance
• Culture and Language
• Environmental Sustainability
• Government, Law & Policy
• Health Professions
• Human & Social Services
• Information Technology & Data
• Marketing, Media & Communications
• Resumes and Cover Letters
• Expand Your Network / Mentor
• Explore Your Interests / Self Assessment
• Negotiate an Offer
• Prepare for an Interview
• Prepare for Graduate School
• Search for a Job / Internship
• Job Fair Preparation
• Start Your Internship
• Choosing a Major
• Career Collaborative
• Travelers EDGE
• Meet the Team

Critical Thinking: A Simple Guide and Why It’s Important

• Share This: Share Critical Thinking: A Simple Guide and Why It’s Important on Facebook Share Critical Thinking: A Simple Guide and Why It’s Important on LinkedIn Share Critical Thinking: A Simple Guide and Why It’s Important on X

Critical Thinking: A Simple Guide and Why It’s Important was originally published on Ivy Exec .

Strong critical thinking skills are crucial for career success, regardless of educational background. It embodies the ability to engage in astute and effective decision-making, lending invaluable dimensions to professional growth.

At its essence, critical thinking is the ability to analyze, evaluate, and synthesize information in a logical and reasoned manner. It’s not merely about accumulating knowledge but harnessing it effectively to make informed decisions and solve complex problems. In the dynamic landscape of modern careers, honing this skill is paramount.

The Impact of Critical Thinking on Your Career

☑ problem-solving mastery.

Visualize critical thinking as the Sherlock Holmes of your career journey. It facilitates swift problem resolution akin to a detective unraveling a mystery. By methodically analyzing situations and deconstructing complexities, critical thinkers emerge as adept problem solvers, rendering them invaluable assets in the workplace.

☑ Refined Decision-Making

Navigating dilemmas in your career path resembles traversing uncertain terrain. Critical thinking acts as a dependable GPS, steering you toward informed decisions. It involves weighing options, evaluating potential outcomes, and confidently choosing the most favorable path forward.

☑ Enhanced Teamwork Dynamics

Within collaborative settings, critical thinkers stand out as proactive contributors. They engage in scrutinizing ideas, proposing enhancements, and fostering meaningful contributions. Consequently, the team evolves into a dynamic hub of ideas, with the critical thinker recognized as the architect behind its success.

☑ Communication Prowess

Effective communication is the cornerstone of professional interactions. Critical thinking enriches communication skills, enabling the clear and logical articulation of ideas. Whether in emails, presentations, or casual conversations, individuals adept in critical thinking exude clarity, earning appreciation for their ability to convey thoughts seamlessly.

☑ Adaptability and Resilience

Perceptive individuals adept in critical thinking display resilience in the face of unforeseen challenges. Instead of succumbing to panic, they assess situations, recalibrate their approaches, and persist in moving forward despite adversity.

☑ Fostering Innovation

Innovation is the lifeblood of progressive organizations, and critical thinking serves as its catalyst. Proficient critical thinkers possess the ability to identify overlooked opportunities, propose inventive solutions, and streamline processes, thereby positioning their organizations at the forefront of innovation.

☑ Confidence Amplification

Critical thinkers exude confidence derived from honing their analytical skills. This self-assurance radiates during job interviews, presentations, and daily interactions, catching the attention of superiors and propelling career advancement.

So, how can one cultivate and harness this invaluable skill?

✅ developing curiosity and inquisitiveness:.

Embrace a curious mindset by questioning the status quo and exploring topics beyond your immediate scope. Cultivate an inquisitive approach to everyday situations. Encourage a habit of asking “why” and “how” to deepen understanding. Curiosity fuels the desire to seek information and alternative perspectives.

✅ Practice Reflection and Self-Awareness:

Engage in reflective thinking by assessing your thoughts, actions, and decisions. Regularly introspect to understand your biases, assumptions, and cognitive processes. Cultivate self-awareness to recognize personal prejudices or cognitive biases that might influence your thinking. This allows for a more objective analysis of situations.

✅ Strengthening Analytical Skills:

Practice breaking down complex problems into manageable components. Analyze each part systematically to understand the whole picture. Develop skills in data analysis, statistics, and logical reasoning. This includes understanding correlation versus causation, interpreting graphs, and evaluating statistical significance.

✅ Engaging in Active Listening and Observation:

Actively listen to diverse viewpoints without immediately forming judgments. Allow others to express their ideas fully before responding. Observe situations attentively, noticing details that others might overlook. This habit enhances your ability to analyze problems more comprehensively.

✅ Encouraging Intellectual Humility and Open-Mindedness:

Foster intellectual humility by acknowledging that you don’t know everything. Be open to learning from others, regardless of their position or expertise. Cultivate open-mindedness by actively seeking out perspectives different from your own. Engage in discussions with people holding diverse opinions to broaden your understanding.

✅ Practicing Problem-Solving and Decision-Making:

Engage in regular problem-solving exercises that challenge you to think creatively and analytically. This can include puzzles, riddles, or real-world scenarios. When making decisions, consciously evaluate available information, consider various alternatives, and anticipate potential outcomes before reaching a conclusion.

✅ Continuous Learning and Exposure to Varied Content:

Read extensively across diverse subjects and formats, exposing yourself to different viewpoints, cultures, and ways of thinking. Engage in courses, workshops, or seminars that stimulate critical thinking skills. Seek out opportunities for learning that challenge your existing beliefs.

✅ Engage in Constructive Disagreement and Debate:

Encourage healthy debates and discussions where differing opinions are respectfully debated.

This practice fosters the ability to defend your viewpoints logically while also being open to changing your perspective based on valid arguments. Embrace disagreement as an opportunity to learn rather than a conflict to win. Engaging in constructive debate sharpens your ability to evaluate and counter-arguments effectively.

✅ Utilize Problem-Based Learning and Real-World Applications:

Engage in problem-based learning activities that simulate real-world challenges. Work on projects or scenarios that require critical thinking skills to develop practical problem-solving approaches. Apply critical thinking in real-life situations whenever possible.

This could involve analyzing news articles, evaluating product reviews, or dissecting marketing strategies to understand their underlying rationale.

In conclusion, critical thinking is the linchpin of a successful career journey. It empowers individuals to navigate complexities, make informed decisions, and innovate in their respective domains. Embracing and honing this skill isn’t just an advantage; it’s a necessity in a world where adaptability and sound judgment reign supreme.

So, as you traverse your career path, remember that the ability to think critically is not just an asset but the differentiator that propels you toward excellence.

College Composition As Critical Thinking

Contributor

When college costs as much as it does, one of the questions we hear -- and not just from students with papers due the next morning -- is, "Do we still need Freshman English"?

Everyone agrees you need to learn how to write well, but there is a movement to get rid of composition, to fold it into "content courses" in students' majors or their other core requirements. That's a bad idea.

The universal first-year writing course matters because college composition is ultimately a critical thinking class. Almost everyone dreads it -- trust me, I've seen enough faces on the first day of the semester -- but most walk away from it pleasantly surprised. When it goes well, it leaves students with new strategies to work through tricky questions. It leaves them better thinkers, and it's a central part of what makes a college education valuable.

I'm a little sly about the goal of developing critical thinking, though. It's in my syllabus, but it comes out in class when I talk about how to organize writing. Organizing ideas is a form of thinking, of course, but I don't say that out loud until later when, I hope, my students have figured it out for themselves.

College writing -- at least as I teach it -- shifts from a focus on sentences to a focus on paragraphs. I ask students to move from clarifying thoughts to clarifying ideas. There's an art to writing good sentences, an art we teach more directly in other writing classes, and that we expect our students to have studied in high school. But good writing turns more on an ability to connect those sentences than on writing them in the first place.

I tell students that if they learned in elementary school that a sentence is a complete thought, then they should learn in college that a paragraph is a complete idea. The difference is that a sentence captures what you're already thinking; it's a breath-sized articulation. A paragraph says what you're trying to think; it's about what you're reaching for rather than what you already know. It takes a handful of sentences -- five to eight in typical college writing -- and some steady breathing to get across an idea.

Simply put, college composition teaches students to use writing to clarify their thinking. The best papers I get -- and I do get a lot of good ones -- grow from a vague first response into a clear and thoughtful reaction. They're a pleasure to read not just because they say worthwhile things but because they reveal the process behind composition: you can see the mind of the writer move from suspecting something new to naming it.

We call such writing "essays," and the word comes from the French for "attempts" or "experiments." The great French writer Michel de Montaigne coined the term for his own 16th century efforts at answering the same question over and over again: "What do I already know?"

I have heard educators describe third grade as the point when students move from "learning to read" to "reading to learn." That is, they can read well enough to begin teaching themselves, to explore things their parents and teachers haven't told them. In the same way, good college writers move from reporting what they already know to thinking through words. They learn to explore the insights they get when their experience collides with what their new research shows them.

I like to think of such writing as the equivalent of upgrading the microprocessor of your mind. Good writers use words not to tell us what they've already figured out but to explore their suspicions. As a result, they enlarge their capacity for original thinking.

Good writers expand the canvas of their imaginations, and that makes them more capable in whatever careers they eventually pursue.

College composition may not turn every student into a polished wordsmith, but we have to try. We have to take a semester -- and ideally two -- to help young people discover not just what they can do as writers but what their writing can do for them. That's a key part of the bargain we make when we invite students into our classrooms, and it's central in students discovering themselves. It's an expensive process, in money and in time, but it's one that can pay huge dividends in life.

Our 2024 Coverage Needs You

It's another trump-biden showdown — and we need your help, the future of democracy is at stake, your loyalty means the world to us.

As Americans head to the polls in 2024, the very future of our country is at stake. At HuffPost, we believe that a free press is critical to creating well-informed voters. That's why our journalism is free for everyone, even though other newsrooms retreat behind expensive paywalls.

Our journalists will continue to cover the twists and turns during this historic presidential election. With your help, we'll bring you hard-hitting investigations, well-researched analysis and timely takes you can't find elsewhere. Reporting in this current political climate is a responsibility we do not take lightly, and we thank you for your support.

Contribute as little as $2 to keep our news free for all.

Can't afford to donate? Support HuffPost by creating a free account and log in while you read.

The 2024 election is heating up, and women's rights, health care, voting rights, and the very future of democracy are all at stake. Donald Trump will face Joe Biden in the most consequential vote of our time. And HuffPost will be there, covering every twist and turn. America's future hangs in the balance. Would you consider contributing to support our journalism and keep it free for all during this critical season?

HuffPost believes news should be accessible to everyone, regardless of their ability to pay for it. We rely on readers like you to help fund our work. Any contribution you can make — even as little as $2 — goes directly toward supporting the impactful journalism that we will continue to produce this year. Thank you for being part of our story.

It's official: Donald Trump will face Joe Biden this fall in the presidential election. As we face the most consequential presidential election of our time, HuffPost is committed to bringing you up-to-date, accurate news about the 2024 race. While other outlets have retreated behind paywalls, you can trust our news will stay free.

But we can't do it without your help. Reader funding is one of the key ways we support our newsroom. Would you consider making a donation to help fund our news during this critical time? Your contributions are vital to supporting a free press.

Contribute as little as $2 to keep our journalism free and accessible to all.

Dear HuffPost Reader

Thank you for your past contribution to HuffPost. We are sincerely grateful for readers like you who help us ensure that we can keep our journalism free for everyone.

The stakes are high this year, and our 2024 coverage could use continued support. Would you consider becoming a regular HuffPost contributor?

The stakes are high this year, and our 2024 coverage could use continued support. If circumstances have changed since you last contributed, we hope you'll consider contributing to HuffPost once more.

Already contributed? Log in to hide these messages.

Popular in the Community

From our partner, more in college.

Enhancing students’ critical thinking and creative thinking: An integrated mind mapping and robot-based learning approach

• Published: 16 May 2024

Cite this article

• Min-Chi Chiu 1 , 2 &
• Gwo-Jen Hwang   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5155-276X 3 , 4  

Fostering students’ critical thinking and creative thinking is an important aim in education. For example, art courses not only focus on artwork creation, but also on theoretical knowledge for identifying artworks. In the conventional lecture-based instruction mode for theoretical knowledge delivery, students’ learning outcomes could be affected owing to the lack of student-teacher interactions, and hence researchers have started to employ interactive learning technologies, such as robots, to cope with this problem. However, without proper guidance and support, students’ learning outcomes in such an interactive learning mode could be limited. To improve students’ learning effectiveness, this study proposed a mind mapping-assisted robot (MM-R) approach for an art course. A quasi-experimental design was adopted to explore the effects of the proposed learning approach on students’ performance in art appreciation, digital painting creation, creative thinking tendency, and critical thinking awareness. A total of 48 students from two classes in a university in central Taiwan were recruited to participate in this study. One class was the experimental group ( n  = 25) adopting the MM-R approach, while the other class was the control group ( n  = 23) adopting the conventional robot (C-R) approach. The results indicated that the integration of the MM-R approach improved students’ learning achievement, performance in digital painting creation, creative thinking tendency, and critical thinking awareness.

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

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Arts and crafts robots or LEGO® MINDSTORMS robots? A comparative study in educational robotics

A Learning Environment for Geography and History Using Mixed Reality, Tangible Interfaces and Educational Robotics

Learning Robotics in a Science Museum Theatre Play: Investigation of Learning Outcomes, Contexts and Experiences

Data availability.

The data and materials are available upon request to the corresponding author.

Code availability

Not applicable.

Abd Karim, R., & Abu, A. G. (2018). Using mobile-assisted mind mapping technique (mammat) to improve writing skills of esl students. Journal of Social Science and Humanities, 1 (2), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.26666/rmp.jssh.2018.2.1

Article   Google Scholar  

Abd Karim, R., & Mustapha, R. (2022). TVET student’s perception on digital mind map to stimulate learning of technical skills in Malaysia. Journal of Technical Education and Training, 14 (1), 1–13.

Afari, E., & Khine, M. S. (2017). Robotics as an educational tool: Impact of Lego mindstorms. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 7 (6), 437–442. https://doi.org/10.18178/ijiet.2017.7.6.908

Alam, A. (2022). Employing adaptive learning and intelligent tutoring robots for virtual classrooms and smart campuses: Reforming education in the age of artificial intelligence. In Advanced Computing and Intelligent Technologies , 395–406. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-2980-9_32

Alkhatib, O. J. (2019, March 1–8). A framework for implementing higher-order thinking skills (problem-solving, critical thinking, creative thinking, and decision-making) in engineering & humanities . In 2019 Advances in Science and Engineering Technology International Conferences (ASET), IEEE.

An, J. S., & Huh, Y. J. (2019). Effect of creative thinking through art collaboration class. Journal of the Korea Convergence Society, 10 (7), 121–131. https://doi.org/10.15207/JKCS.2019.10.7.121

Andrews, R. (2015). Critical thinking and/or argumentation in higher education. The Palgrave handbook of critical thinking in higher education (pp. 49–62). Palgrave Macmillan US.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Astrodjojo, D. R. (2018). The development of teaching materials using learning cycle 5E to increase critical thinking skills and students learning outcome of high school students on the subject of reaction rate. JPPS (Jurnal Penelitian Pendidikan Sains), 8 (1). https://doi.org/10.26740/jpps.v8n1.p%25p

Aykac, V. (2015). An application regarding the availability of mind maps in visual art education based on active learning method. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 174 , 1859–1866. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.848

Bezanilla, M. J., Domínguez, H. G., & Ruiz, M. P. (2021). Importance and possibilities of development of critical thinking in the university: The teacher’s perspective. REMIE: Multidisciplinary Journal of Educational Research, 11 (1), 20–48.

Bhuvaneswari, T., & Beh, S. L. (2013). Changes in teaching and learning through digital media for higher education institutions. International Journal of Mobile Learning and Organisation, 2 (3), 201–215. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJMLO.2008.020315

Bonk, C. J., & Cunningham, D. J. (2012). Searching for learner-centered, constructivist, and sociocultural components of collaborative educational learning tools. Electronic collaborators (pp. 25–50). Routledge.

Bravo, F. A., Hurtado, J. A., & González, E. (2021). Using robots with storytelling and drama activities in science education. Education Sciences, 11 (7), 329.

Bravo Sánchez, F. Á, González Correal, A. M., & Guerrero, E. G. (2017). Interactive drama with robots for teaching non-technical subjects. Journal of Human-Robot Interaction, 6 (2), 48–69.

Brown, G. T., & Wang, Z. (2013). Illustrating assessment: How Hong Kong university students conceive of the purposes of assessment. Studies in Higher Education, 38 (7), 1037–1057. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2011.616955

Buzan, T., & Buzan, B. (2002). How to mind map . Thorsons.

Google Scholar  

Buzan, T., & Buzan, B. (2006). The mind map book . Pearson Education.

Bybee, R. W., & Trowbridge, J. H. (1990). Applying standards-based constructivism: A two-step guide for motivating students . Cambridge University Press.

Carless, D., & Lam, R. (2014). The examined life: Perspectives of lower primary school students in Hong Kong. Education 3–13, 42 (3), 313–329. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004279.2012.689988

Chai, C. S., Deng, F., Tsai, P. S., Koh, J. H. L., & Tsai, C. C. (2015). Assessing multidimensional students’ perceptions of twenty-first-century learning practices. Asia Pacific Education Review, 16 (3), 389–398. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-015-9379-4

Chang, C. W., Lee, J. H., Wang, C. Y., & Chen, G. D. (2010). Improving the authentic learning experience by integrating robots into the mixed-reality environment. Computers & Education, 55 (4), 1572–1578. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.06.023

Chang, C. Y., Panjaburee, P., Lin, H. C., Lai, C. L., & Hwang, G. H. (2022). Effects of online strategies on students’ learning performance, self-efficacy, self-regulation and critical thinking in university online courses. Educational Technology Research and Development, 70 (1), 185–204. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-021-10071-y

Chao, J. Y., Liu, C. H., & Kao, H. C. (2023). Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Curriculum Design for Teaching Mathematical Concept of Perspective at Indigenous Elementary School using Robots. Sensors and Materials, 35 (5), 1547–1556.

Chassignol, M., Khoroshavin, A., Klimova, A., & Bilyatdinova, A. (2018). Artificial Intelligence trends in education: A narrative overview. Procedia Computer Science, 136 , 16–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2018.08.233

Chen, C. H., & Chung, H. Y. (2023). Fostering computational thinking and problem-solving in programming: Integrating Concept maps into Robot Block-based programming. Journal of Educational Computing Research . https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331231205052

Chen, X., Cheng, G., Zou, D., Zhong, B., & Xie, H. (2023). Artificial Robots for Precision Education. Educational Technology & Society, 26 (1), 171–186.

Chen Hsieh, J. (2022). Multimodal Digital Storytelling Presentations among Middle-School learners of English as a Foreign Language: Emotions, grit and perceptions. RELC Journal . https://doi.org/10.1177/00336882221102233

Chin, K. Y., Hong, Z. W., & Chen, Y. L. (2014). Impact of using an educational robot-based learning system on students’ motivation in elementary education. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 7 (4), 333–345.

Chiu, M. C., Hwang, G. J., & Tu, Y. F. (2022). Roles, applications, and research designs of robots in science education: a systematic review and bibliometric analysis of journal publications from 1996 to 2020. Interactive Learning Environments, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2022.2129392

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.

Cristea, A. D., Berdie, A. D., Osaci, M., & Chirtoc, D. (2011). The advantages of using mind map for learning web dynpro. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 19 (1), 201–207.

Cruickshank, D. (1996). The ‘art’of reflection: Using drawing to uncover knowledge development in student nurses. Nurse Education Today, 16 (2), 127–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0260-6917(96)80069-4

Davies, M. (2011). Concept mapping, mind mapping and argument mapping: What are the differences and do they matter? Higher Education, 62 (3), 279–301. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-010-9387-6

Deaver, S. P. (2012). Art-based learning strategies in art therapy graduate education. Art Therapy, 29 (4), 158–165. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421656.2012.730029

Debbag, M., Cukurbasi, B., & Fidan, M. (2021). Use of digital mind maps in technology education: A pilot study with pre-service science teachers. Informatics in Education, 20 (1), 47–68.

Dewey, J. (1934). In J. Boydston (Ed.), Art as experience, reprinted in 1989, John dewey: The later works, 1925–1953. (Vol. 10). Southern Illinois University.

Dong, Y., Zhu, S., & Li, W. (2021). Promoting sustainable creativity: An empirical study on the application of mind mapping tools in graphic design education. Sustainability, 13 (10), 5373. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13105373

Dorouka, P., Papadakis, S., & Kalogiannakis, M. (2020). Tablets and apps for promoting robotics, mathematics, STEM education and literacy in early childhood education. International Journal of Mobile Learning and Organisation, 14 (2), 255–274.

Dumitru, D. (2019). Creating meaning. The importance of arts, humanities and Culture for critical thinking development. Studies in Higher Education, 44 (5), 870–879. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2019.1586345

Edwards, S., & Cooper, N. (2010). Mind mapping as a teaching resource. The Clinical Teacher, 7 (4), 236–239. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-498X.2010.00395.x

Edwards, C., Edwards, A., Spence, P. R., & Lin, X. (2018). I, teacher: Using artificial intelligence (AI) and social robots in communication and instruction. Communication Education, 67 (4), 473–480. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2018.1502459

Eppler, M. J. (2006). A comparison between concept maps, mind maps, conceptual diagrams, and visual metaphors as complementary tools for knowledge construction and sharing. Information Visualization, 5 (3), 202–210.

Evripidou, S., Amanatiadis, A., Christodoulou, K., & Chatzichristofis, S. A. (2021). Introducing algorithmic thinking and sequencing using tangible robots. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 14 (1), 93–105. https://doi.org/10.1109/TLT.2021.3058060

Fadillah, R. (2019). STUDENTS’perception on the use of mind mapping application software in learning writing. Celtic: A Journal of Culture English Language Teaching Literature and Linguistics, 6 (1), 58–64.

Fan, X., & Zhong, X. (2022). Artificial intelligence-based creative thinking skill analysis model using human–computer interaction in art design teaching. Computers and Electrical Engineering, 100 , 107957. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compeleceng.2022.107957

Fish, B. J. (2019). Response art in art therapy: Historical and contemporary overview. Art Therapy, 36 (3), 122–132. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421656.2019.1648915

Freire, P. (1973). Education for critical consciousness (Vol. 1). Bloomsbury Publishing.

Fridin, M. (2014). Storytelling by a kindergarten social assistive robot: A tool for constructive learning in preschool education. Computers & Education, 70 , 53–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.07.043

Fu, Q. K., Lin, C. J., Hwang, G. J., & Zhang, L. (2019). Impacts of a mind mapping-based contextual gaming approach on EFL students’ writing performance, learning perceptions and generative uses in an English course. Computers & Education, 137 , 59–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.04.005

Gerecke, U., & Wagner, B. (2007). The challenges and benefits of using robots in higher education. Intelligent Automation & Soft Computing, 13 (1), 29–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/10798587.2007.10642948

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research . Routledge.

Goldstain, O. H., Ben-Gal, I., & Bukchin, Y. (2011). Evaluation of telerobotic interface components for teaching robot operation. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 4 (4), 365–376. https://doi.org/10.1109/TLT.2011.19

Goldston, M. J., Day, J. B., Sundberg, C., & Dantzler, J. (2010). Psychometric analysis of a 5E learning cycle lesson plan assessment instrument. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8 (4), 633–648. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-009-9178-7

Hardiman, M. M., JohnBull, R. M., Carran, D. T., & Shelton, A. (2019). The effects of arts-integrated instruction on memory for science content. Trends in Neuroscience and Education, 14 , 25–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tine.2019.02.002

Hayadi, B. H., Bastian, A., Rukun, K., Jalius, N., Lizar, Y., & Guci, A. (2018). Expert system in the application of learning models with forward chaining method. International Journal of Engineering Technology, 7 (2.29), 845–848.

Heyvaert, M., Maes, B., & Onghena, P. (2013). Mixed methods research synthesis: Definition, framework, and potential. Quality & Quantity, 47 , 659–676.

Hidayati, N., Zubaidah, S., Suarsini, E., & Praherdhiono, H. (2019). Examining the relationship between creativity and critical thinking through integrated problem-based learning and digital mind maps. Universal Journal of Education Research , 7 (9A), 171–179. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2019.071620

Ho, T. K. L., & Lin, H. S. (2015). A web-based painting tool for enhancing student attitudes toward learning art creation. Computers & Education, 89 , 32–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.08.015

Howitt, C. (2009). 3-D mind maps: Placing young children in the centre of their own learning. Teaching Science: The Journal of the Australian Science Teachers Association , 55 (2).

Hölling, H. (2016). The aesthetics of change: on the relative durations of the impermanent and critical thinking in conservation. Authenticity in Transition: Changing Practices in Art Making and Conservation, 13–24.

Hsu, T. C., & Chen, M. S. (2022). The engagement of students when learning to use a personal audio classifier to control robot cars in a computational thinking board game. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 17 (1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41039-022-00202-1

Article   MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

Huang, Z. M. (2021). Exploring imagination as a methodological source of knowledge: Painting students’ intercultural experience at a UK university. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 44 (4), 366–378. https://doi.org/10.1080/1743727X.2020.1796958

Hutson, J., & Olsen, T. (2022). Virtual reality and art history: A case study of digital humanities and immersive learning environments. Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice, 22 (2).

Hwang, G. J., Yang, T. C., Tsai, C. C., & Yang, S. J. H. (2009). A context-aware ubiquitous learning environment for conducting complex science experiments. Computers & Education, 53 (2), 402–413. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.02.016

Hwang, G. J., Lee, H. Y., & Chen, C. H. (2019). Lessons learned from integrating concept mapping and gaming approaches into learning scenarios using mobile devices: Analysis of an activity for a geology course. International Journal of Mobile Learning and Organisation, 13 (3), 286–308.

Ishiguro, C., & Okada, T. (2022). How can inspiration be encouraged in art learning? Arts-based methods in education around the world (pp. 205–230). River.

Jung, S. E., & Won, E. S. (2018). Systematic review of research trends in robotics education for young children. Sustainability, 10 (4), 905. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10040905

Kalaitzidou, M., & Pachidis, T. P. (2023). Recent robots in STEAM Education. Education Sciences, 13 (3), 272. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13030272

Kokotovich, V. (2008). Problem analysis and thinking tools: an empirical study of non-hierarchical mind mapping. Design studies, 29 (1), 49–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2007.09.001

Kanda, T., Hirano, T., Eaton, D., & Ishiguro, H. (2004). Interactive robots as social partners and peer tutors for children: A field trial. Human–Computer Interaction, 19 (1–2), 61–84.

Köhler, C., Hartig, J., & Naumann, A. (2021). Detecting instruction effects-deciding between covariance analytical and change-score approach. Educational Psychology Review, 33 , 1191–1211. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-020-09590-6

Kotcherlakota, S., Zimmerman, L., & Berger, A. M. (2013). Developing scholarly thinking using mind maps in graduate nursing education. Nurse educator , 27 (6), 252–255. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.NNE.0000435264.15495.51

Konijn , E. A., & Hoorn, J. F. (2020). Robot tutor and pupils’ educational ability: Teaching the times tables. Computers & Education , 157 , 103970. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103970

Kuo, Y. T., Garcia Bravo, E., Whittinghill, D. M., & Kuo, Y. C. (2023). Walking into a modern painting: The impacts of using virtual reality on student learning performance and experiences in art appreciation. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2023.2278929

Lai, C. L., & Hwang, G. J. (2014). Effects of mobile learning time on students’ conception of collaboration, communication, complex problem-solving, meta-cognitive awareness and creativity. International Journal of Mobile Learning and Organisation, 8 (3), 276–291. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJMLO.2014.067029

Lai, C. L., & Hwang, G. J. (2015). An interactive peer-assessment criteria development approach to improving students’ art design performance using handheld devices. Computers & Education, 85 , 149–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.02.011

Lee, C. S., Wang, M. H., Kuan, W. K., Huang, S. H., Tsai, Y. L., Ciou, Z. H., Yang, C. K., & Kubota, N. (2021). BCI-based hit-loop agent for human and AI robot co-learning with AIoT application. Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Humanized Computing, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12652-021-03487-0

Liang, J. C., & Hwang, G. J. (2023). A robot-based digital storytelling approach to enhancing EFL learners’ multimodal storytelling ability and narrative engagement. Computers & Education, 201 , 104827. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2023.104827

Lin, C. J., Hwang, G. J., Fu, Q. K., & Chen, J. F. (2018). A flipped contextual game-based learning approach to enhancing EFL students’ English business writing performance and reflective behaviors. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 21 (3), 117–131.

Lin, H. C., Hwang, G. J., & Hsu, Y. D. (2019). Effects of ASQ-based flipped learning on nurse practitioner learners’ nursing skills, learning achievement and learning perceptions. Computers & Education, 139 , 207–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.05.014

Liu, H., Sheng, J., & Zhao, L. (2022). Innovation of teaching tools during robot programming learning to promote middle school students’ critical thinking. Sustainability, 14 (11), 6625. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14116625

Malycha, C. P., & Maier, G. W. (2017). Enhancing creativity on different complexity levels by eliciting mental models. Psychology of Aesthetics Creativity and the Arts, 11 (2), 187. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000080

Mernick, A. (2021). Critical arts pedagogy: Nurturing critical consciousness and self-actualization through art education. Art Education, 74 (5), 19–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/00043125.2021.1928468

Meyer, T. (2017). Next art education: Eight theses future art educators should think about. International Journal of Education through Art, 13 (3), 369–384. https://doi.org/10.1386/eta.13.3.369_1

Mijwil, M. M., Aggarwal, K., Mutar, D. S., Mansour, N., & Singh, R. (2022). The position of artificial intelligence in the future of education: an overview. Journal of Applied Sciences, 10 (2).

Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2013). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications, Inc.

Moraiti, I., Fotoglou, A., & Drigas, A. (2022). Coding with block programming languages in educational robotics and mobiles, improve problem solving, creativity & critical thinking skills. International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies , 16 (20). https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v16i20.34247

 Mubin, O., Stevens, C. J., Shahid, S., Al Mahmud, A., & Dong, J. J. (2013). A review of the applicability of robots in education. Journal of Technology in Education and Learning , 1 (209 – 0015), 13. https://doi.org/10.2316/Journal.209.2013.1.209-0015

Nurkhin, A., & Pramusinto, H. (2020). Problem-based learning strategy: Its impact on students’ critical and creative thinking skills. European Journal of Educational Research, 9 (3), 1141–1150.

O’Connell, R. M. (2014). Mind mapping for critical thinking. In Cases on teaching critical thinking through visual representation strategies , 354–386. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-5816-5.ch014

Oreck, B. (2004). The artistic and professional development of teachers: A study of teachers’ attitudes toward and use of the arts in teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 55 (1), 55–69. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487103260072

Otukile-Mongwaketse, M. (2018). Teacher centered approaches: Their implications for today’s inclusive classrooms. International Journal of Psychoogy and Counseling, 10 (2), 11–21. https://doi.org/10.5897/IJPC2016.0393

Park, Y. S. (2023). Creative and critical entanglements with AI in Art Education. Studies in Art Education, 64 (4), 406–425. https://doi.org/10.1080/00393541.2023.2255084

Patton, R. M., & Buffington, M. L. (2016). Keeping up with our students: The evolution of technology and standards in art education. Arts Education Policy Review, 117 (3), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/10632913.2014.944961

Ramdani, A., Jufri, A. W., Gunawan, G., Fahrurrozi, M., & Yustiqvar, M. (2021). Analysis of students’ critical thinking skills in terms of gender using Science Teaching materials based on the 5E learning cycle Integrated with local Wisdom. Jurnal Pendidikan IPA Indonesia, 10 (2), 187–199. https://doi.org/10.15294/jpii.v10i2.29956

Rim, H., Choi, I., & Noh, S. (2014). A study on the application of robotic programming to promote logical and critical thinking in mathematics education. The Mathematical Education, 53 (3), 413–434. https://doi.org/10.7468/mathedu.2014.53.3.413

Ryu, H. J., Kwak, S. S., & KIM, M. S. (2008). Design factors for external form of robots as elementary school teaching assistants. Bulletin of Japanese Society for the Science of Design, 54 (6), 39–48. https://doi.org/10.11247/jssdj.54.39_3

Sajnani, N., Mayor, C., & Tillberg-Webb, H. (2020). Aesthetic presence: The role of the arts in the education of creative arts therapists in the classroom and online. The Arts in Psychotherapy, 69 , 101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aip.2020.101668

Sari, R., Sumarmi, S., Astina, I., Utomo, D., & Ridhwan, R. (2021). Increasing students critical thinking skills and learning motivation using inquiry mind map. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 16 (3), 4–19. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v16i03.16515

Saunders, G., & Klemming, F. (2003). Integrating technology into a traditional learning environment: Reasons for and risks of success. Active Learning in Higher Education, 4 (1), 74–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787403004001006

Setiawan, I. W. P., Suartama, I. K., & Putri, D. A. W. M. (2017). Pengaruh Model Pembelajaran Learning Cycle 5e Berbantuan Mind Mapping Terhadap Hasil Belajar Matematika. Mimbar PGSD Undiksha, 5 (2). https://doi.org/10.23887/jjpgsd.v5i2.10841

Štuikys, V., & Burbaitė, R. (2018). Smart devices and educational robotics as technology for STEM knowledge. Springer , 57–67. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78485-4_3

Sun, M., Wang, M., & Wegerif, R. (2019). Using computer-based cognitive mapping to improve students’ divergent thinking for creativity development. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50 (5), 2217–2233. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12825

Sun, Q., Lu, Z., & Ren, X. (2023). The influence of humanities on art and design learning performance: An empirical study. International Journal of Art & Design Education . https://doi.org/10.1111/jade.12474

Ulger, K. (2018). The effect of problem-based learning on the creative thinking and critical thinking disposition of students in visual arts education. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 12 (1).

Usengül, L., & Bahçeci, F. (2020). The Effect of LEGO WeDo 2.0 education on academic achievement and attitudes and computational thinking skills of Learners toward Science. World Journal of Education, 10 (4), 83–93. https://doi.org/10.5430/wje.v10n4p83

Utami, D., & Subali, B. (2019, October). The effectiveness of 5E learning cycle accompanied by mind mapping on creative thinking. In Proceeding of the 2nd International Conference Education Culture and Technology, ICONECT 2019, 20–21 August 2019, Kudus, Indonesia .

Van den Berghe, R., Verhagen, J., Oudgenoeg-Paz, O., Van der Ven, S., & Leseman, P. (2019). Social robots for language learning: A review. Review of Educational Research, 89 (2), 259–295. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654318821286

Ververi, C., Koufou, T., Moutzouris, A., & Andreou, L. V. (2020, April 20–21). Introducing robotics to an English for academic purposes curriculum in higher education: The student experience . In 2020 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON), Porto, Portugal.

Walia, D. N. (2012). Traditional teaching methods vs. CLT: A study. Frontiers of Language and Teaching, 3 (1), 125–131.

Westlund, J. K., & Breazeal, C. (2015, March 65–66). The interplay of robot language level with children’s language learning during storytelling. In Proceedings of the tenth annual ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction extended abstracts, New York, United States.

Woolf, B., Burleson, W., Arroyo, I., Dragon, T., Cooper, D., & Picard, R. (2009). Affect-aware tutors: Recognising and responding to student affect. International Journal of Learning Technology, 4 (3–4), 129–164. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJLT.2009.028804

Wu, H. Z., & Wu, Q. T. (2020). Impact of mind mapping on the critical thinking ability of clinical nursing students and teaching application. Journal of International Medical Research, 48 (3). https://doi.org/10.1177/0300060519893225

Wu, W. L., Hsu, Y., Yang, Q. F., Chen, J. J., & Jong, M. S. Y. (2021). Effects of the self-regulated strategy within the context of spherical video-based virtual reality on students’ learning performances in an art history class. Interactive Learning Environments, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2021.1878231

Yang, J., & Zhang, B. (2019). Artificial intelligence in intelligent tutoring robots: A systematic review and design guidelines. Applied Sciences , 9 (10), 2078. https://doi.org/10.3390/app9102078

Yang, Q. F., Lian, L. W., & Zhao, J. H. (2023). Developing a gamified artificial intelligence educational robot to promote learning effectiveness and behavior in laboratory safety courses for undergraduate students. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20 (1), 18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00391-9

Yu, F. Y., & Liu, Y. H. (2005). Potential values of incorporating a multiple-choice question construction in physics experimentation instruction. International Journal of Science Education, 27 (11), 1319–1335. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690500102854

Yuliyanto, A., Basit, R. A., Muqodas, I., Wulandari, H., & Mifta, D. (2020). Alternative learning of the future based on Verbal-Linguistic, and visual-spatial intelligence through Youtube-based mind map when Pandemic Covid-19. Jurnal JPSD (Jurnal Pendidikan Sekolah Dasar), 7 (2), 132–141. https://doi.org/10.12928/jpsd.v7i2.16925

Zampetakis, L. A., Tsironis, L., & Moustakis, V. (2007). Creativity development in engineering education: The case of mind mapping. Journal of Management Development, 26 (4), 370–380. https://doi.org/10.1108/02621710710740110

Zhang, X., Chen, Y., Li, D., Hu, L., Hwang, G. J., & Tu, Y. F. (2023). Engaging young students in effective robotics education: an embodied learning-based computer programming approach. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 62 (2), 532–558. https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331231213548

Download references

This study is supported in part by the National Science and Technology Council of Taiwan under contract numbers NSTC 112-2410-H-011-012-MY3 and MOST 111-2410-H-011 -007 -MY3. The study is also supported by the “Empower Vocational Education Research Center” of National Taiwan University of Science and Technology (NTUST) from the Featured Areas Research Center Program within the framework of the Higher Education Sprout Project by the Ministry of Education (MOE) in Taiwan.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Information Management, Ling Tung University, Taichung, Taiwan

Min-Chi Chiu

Department of Multimedia Design, National Taichung University of Science and Technology, Taichung, Taiwan

Graduate Institute of Educational Information and Measurement, National Taichung University of Education, Taichung, Taiwan

Gwo-Jen Hwang

Graduate Institute of Digital Learning and Education, National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, Taipei, Taiwan

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by Min-Chi Chiu. Project administration were performed by Gwo-Jen Hwang and Min-Chi Chiu. Methodology and supervision were performed Gwo-Jen Hwang and Min-Chi Chiu. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Min-Chi Chiu. All authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gwo-Jen Hwang .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval.

The ethical requirements for research in this selected university were followed.

Consent to participate

The participants all agreed to take part in this study.

Consent for publication

The publication of this study has been approved by all authors.

Conflicts of interest/Competing interests

There is no potential conflict of interest in this study.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Chiu, MC., Hwang, GJ. Enhancing students’ critical thinking and creative thinking: An integrated mind mapping and robot-based learning approach. Educ Inf Technol (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12752-6

Download citation

Received : 14 August 2023

Accepted : 29 April 2024

Published : 16 May 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12752-6

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Mind mapping
• Intelligent robot
• 5E instructional model
• Artwork appreciation
• Creative thinking tendency
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Critical Thinking: Why Is It So Hard to Teach?

Learning critical thinking skills can only take a student so far. Critical thinking depends on knowing relevant content very well and thinking about it, repeatedly. Here are five strategies, consistent with the research, to help bring critical thinking into the everyday classroom.

On this page:

Why is thinking critically so hard, thinking tends to focus on a problem's "surface structure", with deep knowledge, thinking can penetrate beyond surface structure, looking for a deep structure helps, but it only takes you so far, is thinking like a scientist easier, why scientific thinking depends on scientific knowledge.

Virtually everyone would agree that a primary, yet insufficiently met, goal of schooling is to enable students to think critically. In layperson’s terms, critical thinking consists of seeing both sides of an issue, being open to new evidence that disconfirms your ideas, reasoning dispassionately, demanding that claims be backed by evidence, deducing and inferring conclusions from available facts, solving problems, and so forth. Then too, there are specific types of critical thinking that are characteristic of different subject matter: That’s what we mean when we refer to “thinking like a scientist” or “thinking like a historian.”

This proper and commonsensical goal has very often been translated into calls to teach “critical thinking skills” and “higher-order thinking skills” and into generic calls for teaching students to make better judgments, reason more logically, and so forth. In a recent survey of human resource officials 1 and in testimony delivered just a few months ago before the Senate Finance Committee, 2 business leaders have repeatedly exhorted schools to do a better job of teaching students to think critically. And they are not alone. Organizations and initiatives involved in education reform, such as the National Center on Education and the Economy, the American Diploma Project, and the Aspen Institute, have pointed out the need for students to think and/or reason critically. The College Board recently revamped the SAT to better assess students’ critical thinking and ACT, Inc. offers a test of critical thinking for college students.

These calls are not new. In 1983, A Nation At Risk , a report by the National Commission on Excellence in Education, found that many 17-year-olds did not possess the “ ‘higher-order’ intellectual skills” this country needed. It claimed that nearly 40 percent could not draw inferences from written material and only onefifth could write a persuasive essay.

Following the release of A Nation At Risk , programs designed to teach students to think critically across the curriculum became extremely popular. By 1990, most states had initiatives designed to encourage educators to teach critical thinking, and one of the most widely used programs, Tactics for Thinking, sold 70,000 teacher guides. 3 But, for reasons I’ll explain, the programs were not very effective — and today we still lament students’ lack of critical thinking.

After more than 20 years of lamentation, exhortation, and little improvement, maybe it’s time to ask a fundamental question: Can critical thinking actually be taught? Decades of cognitive research point to a disappointing answer: not really. People who have sought to teach critical thinking have assumed that it is a skill, like riding a bicycle, and that, like other skills, once you learn it, you can apply it in any situation. Research from cognitive science shows that thinking is not that sort of skill. The processes of thinking are intertwined with the content of thought (that is, domain knowledge). Thus, if you remind a student to “look at an issue from multiple perspectives” often enough, he will learn that he ought to do so, but if he doesn’t know much about an issue, he can’t think about it from multiple perspectives. You can teach students maxims about how they ought to think, but without background knowledge and practice, they probably will not be able to implement the advice they memorize. Just as it makes no sense to try to teach factual content without giving students opportunities to practice using it, it also makes no sense to try to teach critical thinking devoid of factual content.

In this article, I will describe the nature of critical thinking, explain why it is so hard to do and to teach, and explore how students acquire a specific type of critical thinking: thinking scientifically. Along the way, we’ll see that critical thinking is not a set of skills that can be deployed at any time, in any context. It is a type of thought that even 3-year-olds can engage in — and even trained scientists can fail in. And it is very much dependent on domain knowledge and practice.

Educators have long noted that school attendance and even academic success are no guarantee that a student will graduate an effective thinker in all situations. There is an odd tendency for rigorous thinking to cling to particular examples or types of problems. Thus, a student may have learned to estimate the answer to a math problem before beginning calculations as a way of checking the accuracy of his answer, but in the chemistry lab, the same student calculates the components of a compound without noticing that his estimates sum to more than 100%. And a student who has learned to thoughtfully discuss the causes of the American Revolution from both the British and American perspectives doesn’t even think to question how the Germans viewed World War II. Why are students able to think critically in one situation, but not in another? The brief answer is: Thought processes are intertwined with what is being thought about. Let’s explore this in depth by looking at a particular kind of critical thinking that has been studied extensively: problem solving.

Imagine a seventh-grade math class immersed in word problems. How is it that students will be able to answer one problem, but not the next, even though mathematically both word problems are the same, that is, they rely on the same mathematical knowledge? Typically, the students are focusing on the scenario that the word problem describes (its surface structure) instead of on the mathematics required to solve it (its deep structure). So even though students have been taught how to solve a particular type of word problem, when the teacher or textbook changes the scenario, students still struggle to apply the solution because they don’t recognize that the problems are mathematically the same.

To understand why the surface structure of a problem is so distracting and, as a result, why it’s so hard to apply familiar solutions to problems that appear new, let’s first consider how you understand what’s being asked when you are given a problem. Anything you hear or read is automatically interpreted in light of what you already know about similar subjects. For example, suppose you read these two sentences: “After years of pressure from the film and television industry, the President has filed a formal complaint with China over what U.S. firms say is copyright infringement. These firms assert that the Chinese government sets stringent trade restrictions for U.S. entertainment products, even as it turns a blind eye to Chinese companies that copy American movies and television shows and sell them on the black market.” Background knowledge not only allows you to comprehend the sentences, it also has a powerful effect as you continue to read because it narrows the interpretations of new text that you will entertain. For example, if you later read the word “Bush,” it would not make you think of a small shrub, nor would you wonder whether it referred to the former President Bush, the rock band, or a term for rural hinterlands. If you read “piracy,” you would not think of eye-patched swabbies shouting “shiver me timbers!” The cognitive system gambles that incoming information will be related to what you’ve just been thinking about. Thus, it significantly narrows the scope of possible interpretations of words, sentences, and ideas. The benefit is that comprehension proceeds faster and more smoothly; the cost is that the deep structure of a problem is harder to recognize.

The narrowing of ideas that occurs while you read (or listen) means that you tend to focus on the surface structure, rather than on the underlying structure of the problem. For example, in one experiment, 4 subjects saw a problem like this one:

Members of the West High School Band were hard at work practicing for the annual Homecoming Parade. First they tried marching in rows of 12, but Andrew was left by himself to bring up the rear. Then the director told the band members to march in columns of eight, but Andrew was still left to march alone. Even when the band marched in rows of three, Andrew was left out. Finally, in exasperation, Andrew told the band director that they should march in rows of five in order to have all the rows filled. He was right. Given that there were at least 45 musicians on the field but fewer than 200 musicians, how many students were there in the West High School Band?

Earlier in the experiment, subjects had read four problems along with detailed explanations of how to solve each one, ostensibly to rate them for the clarity of the writing. One of the four problems concerned the number of vegetables to buy for a garden, and it relied on the same type of solution necessary for the band problem-calculation of the least common multiple. Yet, few subjects — just 19 percent — saw that the band problem was similar and that they could use the garden problem solution. Why?

When a student reads a word problem, her mind interprets the problem in light of her prior knowledge, as happened when you read the two sentences about copyrights and China. The difficulty is that the knowledge that seems relevant relates to the surface structure — in this problem, the reader dredges up knowledge about bands, high school, musicians, and so forth. The student is unlikely to read the problem and think of it in terms of its deep structure — using the least common multiple. The surface structure of the problem is overt, but the deep structure of the problem is not. Thus, people fail to use the first problem to help them solve the second: In their minds, the first was about vegetables in a garden and the second was about rows of band marchers.

If knowledge of how to solve a problem never transferred to problems with new surface structures, schooling would be inefficient or even futile — but of course, such transfer does occur. When and why is complex, 5 but two factors are especially relevant for educators: familiarity with a problem’s deep structure and the knowledge that one should look for a deep structure. I’ll address each in turn. When one is very familiar with a problem’s deep structure, knowledge about how to solve it transfers well. That familiarity can come from long-term, repeated experience with one problem, or with various manifestations of one type of problem (i.e., many problems that have different surface structures, but the same deep structure). After repeated exposure to either or both, the subject simply perceives the deep structure as part of the problem description. Here’s an example:

A treasure hunter is going to explore a cave up on a hill near a beach. He suspected there might be many paths inside the cave so he was afraid he might get lost. Obviously, he did not have a map of the cave; all he had with him were some common items such as a flashlight and a bag. What could he do to make sure he did not get lost trying to get back out of the cave later?

The solution is to carry some sand with you in the bag, and leave a trail as you go, so you can trace your path back when you’re ready to leave the cave. About 75% of American college students thought of this solution — but only 25% of Chinese students solved it. 6 The experimenters suggested that Americans solved it because most grew up hearing the story of Hansel and Gretel which includes the idea of leaving a trail as you travel to an unknown place in order to find your way back. The experimenters also gave subjects another puzzle based on a common Chinese folk tale, and the percentage of solvers from each culture reversed. www.aft.org/pubs-reports/american_educator/index.htm”>Read the puzzle based on the Chinese folk tale, and the tale itself.

It takes a good deal of practice with a problem type before students know it well enough to immediately recognize its deep structure, irrespective of the surface structure, as Americans did for the Hansel and Gretel problem. American subjects didn’t think of the problem in terms of sand, caves, and treasure; they thought of it in terms of finding something with which to leave a trail. The deep structure of the problem is so well represented in their memory, that they immediately saw that structure when they read the problem.

Now let’s turn to the second factor that aids in transfer despite distracting differences in surface structure — knowing to look for a deep structure. Consider what would happen if I said to a student working on the band problem, “this one is similar to the garden problem.” The student would understand that the problems must share a deep structure and would try to figure out what it is. Students can do something similar without the hint. A student might think “I’m seeing this problem in a math class, so there must be a math formula that will solve this problem.” Then he could scan his memory (or textbook) for candidates, and see if one of them helps. This is an example of what psychologists call metacognition, or regulating one’s thoughts. In the introduction, I mentioned that you can teach students maxims about how they ought to think. Cognitive scientists refer to these maxims as metacognitive strategies. They are little chunks of knowledge — like “look for a problem’s deep structure” or “consider both sides of an issue” — that students can learn and then use to steer their thoughts in more productive directions.

Helping students become better at regulating their thoughts was one of the goals of the critical thinking programs that were popular 20 years ago. These programs are not very effective. Their modest benefit is likely due to teaching students to effectively use metacognitive strategies. Students learn to avoid biases that most of us are prey to when we think, such as settling on the first conclusion that seems reasonable, only seeking evidence that confirms one’s beliefs, ignoring countervailing evidence, overconfidence, and others. 7 Thus, a student who has been encouraged many times to see both sides of an issue, for example, is probably more likely to spontaneously think “I should look at both sides of this issue” when working on a problem.

Unfortunately, metacognitive strategies can only take you so far. Although they suggest what you ought to do, they don’t provide the knowledge necessary to implement the strategy. For example, when experimenters told subjects working on the band problem that it was similar to the garden problem, more subjects solved the problem (35% compared to 19% without the hint), but most subjects, even when told what to do, weren’t able to do it. Likewise, you may know that you ought not accept the first reasonable-sounding solution to a problem, but that doesn’t mean you know how to come up with alterative solutions or weigh how reasonable each one is. That requires domain knowledge and practice in putting that knowledge to work.

Since critical thinking relies so heavily on domain knowledge, educators may wonder if thinking critically in a particular domain is easier to learn. The quick answer is yes, it’s a little easier. To understand why, let’s focus on one domain, science, and examine the development of scientific thinking.

Teaching science has been the focus of intensive study for decades, and the research can be usefully categorized into two strands. The first examines how children acquire scientific concepts; for example, how they come to forgo naive conceptions of motion and replace them with an understanding of physics. The second strand is what we would call thinking scientifically, that is, the mental procedures by which science is conducted: developing a model, deriving a hypothesis from the model, designing an experiment to test the hypothesis, gathering data from the experiment, interpreting the data in light of the model, and so forth.† Most researchers believe that scientific thinking is really a subset of reasoning that is not different in kind from other types of reasoning that children and adults do. 8 What makes it scientific thinking is knowing when to engage in such reasoning, and having accumulated enough relevant knowledge and spent enough time practicing to do so.

Recognizing when to engage in scientific reasoning is so important because the evidence shows that being able to reason is not enough; children and adults use and fail to use the proper reasoning processes on problems that seem similar. For example, consider a type of reasoning about cause and effect that is very important in science: conditional probabilities. If two things go together, it’s possible that one causes the other. Suppose you start a new medicine and notice that you seem to be getting headaches more often than usual. You would infer that the medication influenced your chances of getting a headache. But it could also be that the medication increases your chances of getting a headache only in certain circumstances or conditions. In conditional probability, the relationship between two things (e.g., medication and headaches) is dependent on a third factor. For example, the medication might increase the probability of a headache only when you’ve had a cup of coffee. The relationship of the medication and headaches is conditional on the presence of coffee.

Understanding and using conditional probabilities is essential to scientific thinking because it is so important in reasoning about what causes what. But people’s success in thinking this way depends on the particulars of how the question is presented. Studies show that adults sometimes use conditional probabilities successfully, 9 but fail to do so with many problems that call for it. 10 Even trained scientists are open to pitfalls in reasoning about conditional probabilities (as well as other types of reasoning). Physicians are known to discount or misinterpret new patient data that conflict with a diagnosis they have in mind, 11 and Ph.D.- level scientists are prey to faulty reasoning when faced with a problem embedded in an unfamiliar context. 12

And yet, young children are sometimes able to reason about conditional probabilities. In one experiment, 13 the researchers showed 3-year-olds a box and told them it was a “blicket detector” that would play music if a blicket were placed on top. The child then saw one of the two sequences shown below in which blocks are placed on the blicket detector. At the end of the sequence, the child was asked whether each block was a blicket. In other words, the child was to use conditional reasoning to infer which block caused the music to play.

Note that the relationship between each individual block (yellow cube and blue cylinder) and the music is the same in sequences 1 and 2. In either sequence, the child sees the yellow cube associated with music three times, and the blue cylinder associated with the absence of music once and the presence of music twice. What differs between the first and second sequence is the relationship between the blue and yellow blocks, and therefore, the conditional probability of each block being a blicket. Three-year-olds understood the importance of conditional probabilities.For sequence 1, they said the yellow cube was a blicket, but the blue cylinder was not; for sequence 2, they chose equally between the two blocks.

This body of studies has been summarized simply: Children are not as dumb as you might think, and adults (even trained scientists) are not as smart as you might think.What’s going on? One issue is that the common conception of critical thinking or scientific thinking (or historical thinking) as a set of skills is not accurate. Critical thinking does not have certain characteristics normally associated with skills — in particular, being able to use that skill at any time. If I told you that I learned to read music, for example, you would expect, correctly, that I could use my new skill (i.e., read music) whenever I wanted. But critical thinking is very different. As we saw in the discussion of conditional probabilities, people can engage in some types of critical thinking without training, but even with extensive training, they will sometimes fail to think critically. This understanding that critical thinking is not a skill is vital.‡ It tells us that teaching students to think critically probably lies in small part in showing them new ways of thinking, and in large part in enabling them to deploy the right type of thinking at the right time.

Returning to our focus on science, we’re ready to address a key question: Can students be taught when to engage in scientific thinking? Sort of. It is easier than trying to teach general critical thinking, but not as easy as we would like. Recall that when we were discussing problem solving, we found that students can learn metacognitive strategies that help them look past the surface structure of a problem and identify its deep structure, thereby getting them a step closer to figuring out a solution. Essentially the same thing can happen with scientific thinking. Students can learn certain metacognitive strategies that will cue them to think scientifically. But, as with problem solving, the metacognitive strategies only tell the students what they should do — they do not provide the knowledge that students need to actually do it. The good news is that within a content area like science, students have more context cues to help them figure out which metacognitive strategy to use, and teachers have a clearer idea of what domain knowledge they must teach to enable students to do what the strategy calls for.

For example, two researchers 14 taught second-, third-, and fourth-graders the scientific concept behind controlling variables; that is, of keeping everything in two comparison conditions the same, except for the one variable that is the focus of investigation. The experimenters gave explicit instruction about this strategy for conducting experiments and then had students practice with a set of materials (e.g., springs) to answer a specific question (e.g., which of these factors determine how far a spring will stretch: length, coil diameter, wire diameter, or weight?). The experimenters found that students not only understood the concept of controlling variables, they were able to apply it seven months later with different materials and a different experimenter, although the older children showed more robust transfer than the younger children. In this case, the students recognized that they were designing an experiment and that cued them to recall the metacognitive strategy, “When I design experiments, I should try to control variables.” Of course, succeeding in controlling all of the relevant variables is another matter-that depends on knowing which variables may matter and how they could vary.

Experts in teaching science recommend that scientific reasoning be taught in the context of rich subject matter knowledge. A committee of prominent science educators brought together by the National Research Council put it plainly: “Teaching content alone is not likely to lead to proficiency in science, nor is engaging in inquiry experiences devoid of meaningful science content.”

The committee drew this conclusion based on evidence that background knowledge is necessary to engage in scientific thinking. For example, knowing that one needs a control group in an experiment is important. Like having two comparison conditions, having a control group in addition to an experimental group helps you focus on the variable you want to study. But knowing that you need a control group is not the same as being able to create one. Since it’s not always possible to have two groups that are exactly alike, knowing which factors can vary between groups and which must not vary is one example of necessary background knowledge. In experiments measuring how quickly subjects can respond, for example, control groups must be matched for age, because age affects response speed, but they need not be perfectly matched for gender.

More formal experimental work verifies that background knowledge is necessary to reason scientifically. For example, consider devising a research hypothesis. One could generate multiple hypotheses for any given situation. Suppose you know that car A gets better gas mileage than car B and you’d like to know why. There are many differences between the cars, so which will you investigate first? Engine size? Tire pressure? A key determinant of the hypothesis you select is plausibility. You won’t choose to investigate a difference between cars A and B that you think is unlikely to contribute to gas mileage (e.g., paint color), but if someone provides a reason to make this factor more plausible (e.g., the way your teenage son’s driving habits changed after he painted his car red), you are more likely to say that this now-plausible factor should be investigated. 16 One’s judgment about the plausibility of a factor being important is based on one’s knowledge of the domain.

Other data indicate that familiarity with the domain makes it easier to juggle different factors simultaneously, which in turn allows you to construct experiments that simultaneously control for more factors. For example, in one experiment, 17 eighth-graders completed two tasks. In one, they were to manipulate conditions in a computer simulation to keep imaginary creatures alive. In the other, they were told that they had been hired by a swimming pool company to evaluate how the surface area of swimming pools was related to the cooling rate of its water. Students were more adept at designing experiments for the first task than the second, which the researchers interpreted as being due to students’ familiarity with the relevant variables. Students are used to thinking about factors that might influence creatures’ health (e.g., food, predators), but have less experience working with factors that might influence water temperature (e.g., volume, surface area). Hence, it is not the case that “controlling variables in an experiment” is a pure process that is not affected by subjects’ knowledge of those variables.

Prior knowledge and beliefs not only influence which hypotheses one chooses to test, they influence how one interprets data from an experiment. In one experiment, 18 undergraduates were evaluated for their knowledge of electrical circuits. Then they participated in three weekly, 1.5-hour sessions during which they designed and conducted experiments using a computer simulation of circuitry, with the goal of learning how circuitry works. The results showed a strong relationship between subjects’ initial knowledge and how much subjects learned in future sessions, in part due to how the subjects interpreted the data from the experiments they had conducted. Subjects who started with more and better integrated knowledge planned more informative experiments and made better use of experimental outcomes.

Other studies have found similar results, and have found that anomalous, or unexpected, outcomes may be particularly important in creating new knowledge-and particularly dependent upon prior knowledge. 19 Data that seem odd because they don’t fit one’s mental model of the phenomenon under investigation are highly informative. They tell you that your understanding is incomplete, and they guide the development of new hypotheses. But you could only recognize the outcome of an experiment as anomalous if you had some expectation of how it would turn out. And that expectation would be based on domain knowledge, as would your ability to create a new hypothesis that takes the anomalous outcome into account.

The idea that scientific thinking must be taught hand in hand with scientific content is further supported by research on scientific problem solving; that is, when students calculate an answer to a textbook-like problem, rather than design their own experiment. A meta-analysis 20 of 40 experiments investigating methods for teaching scientific problem solving showed that effective approaches were those that focused on building complex, integrated knowledge bases as part of problem solving, for example by including exercises like concept mapping. Ineffective approaches focused exclusively on the strategies to be used in problem solving while ignoring the knowledge necessary for the solution.

What do all these studies boil down to? First, critical thinking (as well as scientific thinking and other domain-based thinking) is not a skill. There is not a set of critical thinking skills that can be acquired and deployed regardless of context. Second, there are metacognitive strategies that, once learned, make critical thinking more likely. Third, the ability to think critically (to actually do what the metacognitive strategies call for) depends on domain knowledge and practice. For teachers, the situation is not hopeless, but no one should underestimate the difficulty of teaching students to think critically.

Liked it? Share it!

Visit our sister websites:, reading rockets launching young readers (opens in a new window), start with a book read. explore. learn (opens in a new window), colorín colorado helping ells succeed (opens in a new window), ld online all about learning disabilities (opens in a new window), reading universe all about teaching reading and writing (opens in a new window).

The Naked Emperor’s Newsletter

Teacher Who Went Viral For Teaching Critical Thinking Gets Fired

Warren smith used socratic method to break down jk rowling debate.

Warren Smith went viral (after a retweet from Elon Musk) at the beginning of the year when he posted a discussion with a pupil about the Harry Potter author, JK Rowling.

The pupil asked Mr. Smith whether he still liked Rowling’s work despite her “bigoted opinions”.

For those who have not been following the JK Rowling saga, the author is very vocal about sex and gender issues. Rowling believes that trans activism is having a significant impact on feminism and is worried about the number of young women wishing to transition. As a result she has been abused online, cancelled and turned on by former friends and colleagues (including actors she made famous, such as Daniel Radcliffe and Emma Watson).

I admire Rowling for standing up for what she believes in and for championing free speech. She is fortunate to be rich enough to be able to do so but, even so, most people in her position would not and do not raise their heads above the parapet.

Mr. Smith’s viral video used the Socratic Method to guide his pupil to think critically about the author. It was a masterclass in asking and answering questions to try to establish the truth.

“We’re going to treat this as a thought experiment. I’m not going to say what is right or wrong or which way to think. The whole point is to learn how to think not what to think.”

A week ago, Mr. Smith was fired from the same school in which the viral video took place. He had been teaching there for four yours. Whilst we don’t know the exact reason he lost his job, in a recent update, he suggests it was because of the backlash to his videos.

He is clearly shaken up in his video describing what happened to him. The school seems to have given him little warning and confiscated his laptop containing books he is writing and cryptocurrency codes - a painful lesson showing the importance of data backups.

If Warren was fired purely based on his opinions and way of teaching, this is a disgrace. So long as he didn’t violate any terms of his contract or bring the school into disrepute, then going against the herd and thinking critically should be encouraged. In fact, it should be the norm.

From everything we know, it seems that this is another cancellation due to different opinions causing some hurty feelings. Critical thinking has lost to critical theory, where groupthink is unfortunately prospering.

Good luck to Mr. Smith but as he seems like an intelligent and eloquent man, I’m sure he’ll find another job relatively soon.

The Naked Emperor’s Newsletter is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Ready for more?

AI is leading to the 'revenge of the liberal arts,' says a Goldman tech exec with a history degree

• Goldman's George Lee said AI will empower non-technical workers, including those in risk management.
• The history major turned tech banker said AI enhances skills like critical thinking, creativity, and logic.
• Banks are increasingly using AI for fraud and credit risk amid rising regulatory demands.

A longtime tech banker with a history degree says AI could be a boon for non-technical workers.

George Lee, the co-head of applied innovation at Goldman Sachs, told Bloomberg Television on Tuesday that he thinks AI will lead to the "revenge of the liberal arts" in the workforce.

"Some of the skills that are really salient to cooperate with this new of intelligence in the world are critical thinking, understanding logic and rhetoric, the ability to be creative," Lee said. "AI will allow non-technical people to accomplish a lot more — and, by the way, begin to perform what were formerly believed to be technical tasks."

Related stories

Lee, who studied history at Middlebury College and got an MBA from the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, sits on liberal arts-focused Middlebury's board of trustees. He joined Goldman in 1994 after his MBA and was previously the firm's co-chief information officer.

Lee told Bloomberg that AI could help people who are focused on operations and risk management.

As regulatory requirements have intensified globally and threats like cybersecurity take center stage, banks' risk management teams have swelled. In an annual bank risk management survey by EY and the International Institute of Finance released in February, a majority of banks said they're already using AI to monitor fraud and credit risk.

AI is increasingly seen as a threat to knowledge workers, including investment bankers. Junior investment-banking analyst classes — a highly-paid, high-stress job — could be cut by as much as two-thirds , while those who make it into the banks could be paid less for jobs assisted with AI.

As Business Insider has previously reported, banks from  Goldman Sachs  to  Deutsche Bank  have been exploring ways to streamline tedious tasks often   assigned to junior investment bankers, like updating charts for pitch books or company valuation comparison tables.

A Goldman spokesperson previously told BI the bank has no plans to scale back its incoming class.

Watch: How Twitter panic took down Silicon Valley Bank

• Main content

'The academic freedom fueled my own critical thinking and curiosities'

5/17/2024 A&S Communications

Ianna Ramdhany Correa

Government and China & Asia-Pacific Studies New York, N.Y.

What was your favorite class and why?  

My favorite class has been Experiencing Global China, which I took as a Cornell class offered at Peking University through the Cornell China & Asia-Pacific Studies (CAPS) program. Every week, experts from different disciplines would come and give a lecture on a topic related to China and foreign affairs. This structure allowed me to experience perspectives in areas such as economics, sociology and sustainability that I had not previously taken courses in. I took this course alongside graduate students from across the world who pushed me to think critically about international politics.

What are the most valuable skills you gained from your Arts & Sciences education?        

My Arts & Sciences education has challenged me to constantly dig deeper and ask questions. The structure of many of my government and CAPS courses allowed me to conduct research on topics that I had a personal interest in. This academic freedom in my classes fueled my own critical thinking and curiosities across new subjects. Through these classes, I was able to take my interests including race, gender, education, criminal justice, international relations and law and apply these lenses to political institutions and historical events. These opportunities to explore my interests in the classroom helped me discover my future career aspirations from early on in my college experience. 

What have you accomplished as a Cornell student that you are most proud of?

In the fall semester of my senior year, I studied abroad in Beijing, China, which was absolutely life-changing. The program pushed me to be completely immersed in a culture and language that is so different than what I had previously been exposed to. I had incredibly fulfilling experiences such as teaching English at a school for the children of migrant workers, learning Chinese Sign Language while volunteering at a cafe that employed deaf workers and speaking to professionals at the Alibaba headquarters. One of my most memorable experiences in China was traveling to Guangzhou to attend the Cornell-China forum. I met alumni from all walks of life who gave me invaluable advice about my remaining time at Cornell and my next steps upon graduation. This conference, in particular, made me realize how connected we are as Cornell students, even when on the other side of the world. I was even able to do a research project in Beijing, where I looked at disadvantaged populations and spoke to changemakers spearheading activist work across China.

Who or what influenced your Cornell education the most?     

My family has been the biggest influence on my Cornell education. My parents and older sister have made tremendous sacrifices to allow me to chase my dreams, and I am endlessly grateful to them. My parents are immigrants from Cuba and Guyana, and I owe them the world for leaving their lives behind to give me the opportunity to explore my passions. They have always supported my goals and been my biggest fans, even traveling to China to visit me while abroad. My biggest dream is to be able to repay them for their sacrifices and support them how however I can. I am incredibly fortunate to have such an incredible support system of people cheering me on through everything.

Where do you dream to be in 10 years?

In 10 years, I hope to be a practicing lawyer in New York City. It would be my dream to provide pro bono services where I can directly give back to the communities I have always advocated for. I also hope to live in close proximity to my family. In 10 years, I also hope to continue exploring new cultures and languages in different parts of the world.

Reynolds Foundation commits $1.25M to fund Brooks School initiatives

BTPI will research relationship between Bitcoin and financial freedom

New research initiative tackles pressing global development issues

Ghosh to lead Cornell’s Society for the Humanities