when teaching critical thinking backfires

Classroom Q&A

With larry ferlazzo.

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

Eight Instructional Strategies for Promoting Critical Thinking

• Share article

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

The new question-of-the-week is:

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

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

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

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

Current Events

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

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

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

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

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

Here are the two photos and a student response:

F - Focus on both photos and respond for three minutes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘Before-Explore-Explain’

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

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

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

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

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

An Issue of Equity

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

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

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

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

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

So, what does that really look like?

Unpack and define critical thinking

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

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

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

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

Designing experiences for critical thinking

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

1.Choose Compelling Topics: Keep it relevant

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

2. Make Local Connections: Keep it real

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

3. Create Authentic Projects: Keep it rigorous

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

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

Critical Thinking & Student Engagement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

QUESTIONING

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

TALK TIME / CONTROL

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

Thanks to Dara, Patrick, Meg, and PJ for their contributions!

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

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

You can also contact me on Twitter at @Larryferlazzo .

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

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

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

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

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

Sign Up for EdWeek Update

Edweek top school jobs.

Sign Up & Sign In

Oxford Education Blog

The latest news and views on education from oxford university press., facts matter after all: rejecting the “backfire effect”.

Good news: counter-argument with factual support may not be doomed after all. The “ backfire effect ”, as widely discussed in the past few years, was a truly disheartening phenomenon for anyone who cares about critical thinking or reliable knowledge. However, recent studies illustrate how the human sciences work as they offer revised conclusions – and at the same time give us back some reasons for optimism.

Backfire effect

It seemed, according to earlier studies, that presenting people with factual information that contradicted their beliefs created a “backfire” response. That is, they recoiled from the facts and became more entrenched than before in their original positions, especially when the issues were emotional or ideological.

“Results indicate that corrections frequently fail to reduce misperceptions among the targeted ideological group,” reported Brendan Nyhan and Jason Reifler in 2010 .

They had studied, for example, the responses of American conservatives when their belief that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction was given factual correction. The startling part of their findings was the frequent deleterious impact of facts: “We also document several instances of a ‘backfire effect’ in which corrections actually  increase misperceptions among the group in question.”

Pushback effect  

However, new studies within the past year have not been able to replicate these results. As we teach in TOK, this is how the sciences progress (at least in the ideal version) replicating studies to test further the original hypothesis. As researchers Thomas Wood and Ethan Porter summarize :

“Across all experiments, we found no corrections capable of triggering backfire, despite testing precisely the kinds of polarized issues where backfire should be expected. Evidence of factual backfire is far more tenuous than prior research suggests. By and large, citizens heed factual information, even when such information challenges their ideological commitments.”

Before we get too happy about this study’s implications for good argument, however, it’s worth noting what it does not say. It doesn’t suggest that people have open minds, or that we don’t confirm our own biases as we read and observe.  We still demonstrate “pushback”. It just refutes the extreme version – that evidence has a contrary effect on belief. Neurologist and science communicator Steven Novella makes that distinction effectively:

“To be clear, people generally still engage in motivated reasoning when emotions are at stake. There is clear evidence that people filter the information they seek, notice, accept, and remember. Ideology also predicts how much people will respond to factual correction.

“The backfire effect, however, is very specific. This occurs when people not only reject factual correction, but create counterarguments against the correction that move them further in the direction of the incorrect belief. It’s probably time for us to drop this from our narrative, or at least deemphasize it and put a huge asterisk next to any mention of it.”

I’m going to follow Dr. Novella’s advice in the future, asterisk at the ready, about what I’ll now call the “so-called backfire effect”.

Implications for correcting misinformation

These revised findings have implications for any discussions where good decisions require good information. They restore confidence that people can actually change their minds if presented with factual correction.

In public debates, the importance is clear, as Alexios Mantzarlis, Director of the International Fact-Checking Network of the Poynter Institute, emphasizes.

“The existence of the ‘backfire effect isn’t just a research opportunity for political scientists,” he declares. “It is a question that goes to the very heart of how public debate is conducted.”

Certainly, we see frequent declarations in the media that we are in a “post-truth” world – with “post-truth” being Oxford Dictionary’s 2016 word of the year.   And yes, certainly, the charge of “fake news” resounds to the point of meaninglessness (as treated in my recent “ Fake News: Updating TOK Critique “). But Mantzarlis insists that “we do want to find the truth.” Interviewed in the BBC podcast Trending , he observes (starting minute 9:10):

“What we’ve seen over the past two years has been consistently that across the board regardless of partisanship when people get told a falsehood and then get told that that is a falsehood and get presented with a correction, their belief in the falsehood goes down, regardless of whether they have supported it or are against it. … Partisans … stick to beliefs more but we’ve found that we are fact-resistant but not fact-immune. If I can do just one thing I want to dispel this vision that all is lost and that facts are for nothing. We do want to find the truth. “

Implications for TOK

“We are fact-resistant,” says Mantarlis, “but not fact immune.” OK.  In TOK we can live with that. We’ll continue to hammer away at good arguments and good factual support for them. Back to work, then, with lighter hearts.

Daniel Funke and Alexios Mantzarlis, “What does research say about fact-checking? Find out in our new database.” International Fact-checking Network, Poynter Institute. January 25, 2018  https://www.poynter.org/news/what-does-research-say-about-fact-checking-find-out-our-new-database

“History of ‘Fake News’, Part 2”, BBC Trending. January 21, 2018. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3csvtp9

Alexios Mantzarlis, “Fact-checking doesn’t ‘backfire,’ new study suggests”, Poynter Institute. November 2, 2016. https://www.poynter.org/news/fact-checking-doesnt-backfire-new-study-suggests

Steven Novella, “Backfire Effect Not Significant”. Neurologica blog. January 4, 2018. https://theness.com/neurologicablog/?s=backfire+effect

Steven Novella, “More on the Backfire Effect”, Neurologica blog. August 15, 2017. https://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/more-on-the-backfire-effect/#more-10167

Brendan Nyhan and Jason Reifler,“When Corrections Fail: The Persistence of Political Misperceptions”, Po litical Behavior . June 2010, Volume 32, Issue 2, pp 303–330. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11109-010-9112-2

Wood, Thomas and Porter, Ethan, The Elusive Backfire Effect: Mass Attitudes’ Steadfast Factual Adherence (December 31, 2017). Forthcoming, Political Behavior. Available at SSRN:   https://ssrn.com/abstract=2819073  or  http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2819073

Cartoons copyright Theo Dombrowski. Used here with permission, and permission granted to teachers wanting to use them in their own classrooms.

Share this:

September 4, 2024

The independent student newspaper of Stevens Institute of Technology

When critical thinking backfires

Don’t always believe what scientists and other authorities tell you! Be skeptical! Think critically! That’s what I tell students, and some learn the lesson all too well.

I want to give students the benefit of my hard-won knowledge of science’s fallibility. Early in my career, like most science writers, I celebrated scientists’ achievements, from theories of cosmic creation, and the origin of life to the latest treatments for depression and cancer.

Eventually I realized that journalists like me were presenting the public with an overly optimistic picture of science. By relentlessly touting alleged advances and by overlooking all the areas in which scientists were spinning their wheels, we made science seem more potent than it really is.

Now, I urge students to doubt the claims of physicists that they are on the verge of explaining the origin and structure of the cosmos. String and multiverse theories, I point out, cannot be confirmed by any conceivable experiment. This isn’t physics, it’s science fiction with equations!

I give the same treatment to theories of consciousness, which attempt to explain how a three-pound lump of tissue — the brain — generates perceptions, thoughts, memories, emotions, and self-awareness. Some enthusiasts assert that scientists will soon reverse-engineer the brain so thoroughly that they will be able to build artificial brains much more powerful than our own

Balderdash!, I tell my classes (or words to that effect). Scientists have proposed countless theories about how the brain absorbs, stores, and processes information, but researchers really have no idea how the brain works. And artificial-intelligence advocates have been promising for decades that robots will soon be as smart as HAL or R2-D2. Why should we believe them now?

Maybe, just maybe, I suggest, fields such as particle physics, cosmology, and neuroscience are bumping up against insurmountable limits. The big discoveries that can be made have been made. Who says science has to solve every problem?

So how do my students respond? Some react with healthy push back, especially to my suggestion that the era of really big scientific discoveries might be over. “On a scale from toddler knowledge to ultimate enlightenment, man’s understanding of the universe could be anywhere,” wrote a student named Matt. “How can a person say with certainty that everything is known or close to being known if it is incomparable to anything?”

Other students embrace skepticism to a degree that dismays me. Cecelia, a biomedical-engineering major, wrote: “I am skeptical of the methods used to collect data on climate change, the analysis of this data, and the predictions made based on this data.” Pondering the lesson that correlation does not equal causation, Steve questioned the foundations of scientific reasoning. “How do we know there is a cause for anything,” he asked.

In a similar vein, some students echoed the claim of radical postmodernists that we can never really know anything for certain, and hence that almost all our current theories will probably be overturned. Just as Aristotle’s physics gave way to Newton’s, which in turn yielded to Einstein’s, so our current theories of physics will surely be replaced by radically different ones.

After one especially doubt-riddled crop of papers, I responded, “Whoa!” (or words to that effect). Science, I lectured sternly, has established many facts about reality beyond a reasonable doubt, embodied by quantum mechanics, general relativity, the theory of evolution, and genetic code. This knowledge has yielded applications — from vaccines to computer chips — that have transformed our world in countless ways.

It is precisely because science is such a powerful mode of knowledge, I said that you must treat new pronouncements skeptically, carefully distinguishing the genuine from the spurious. But you shouldn’t be so skeptical that you deny the possibility of achieving any knowledge at all.

My students listened politely, but I could see the doubt in their eyes. We professors have a duty to teach our students to be skeptical. But we also have to accept that, if we do our jobs well, their skepticism may turn on us.

John Horgan directs the Center for Science Writings, which belongs to the College of Arts & Letters. This essay is adapted from one originally published in The Chronicle of Higher Education .

Published in Opinion and Scientific Curmudgeon

More posts from John Horgan

The Will to Teach

Critical Thinking in the Classroom: A Guide for Teachers

In the ever-evolving landscape of education, teaching students the skill of critical thinking has become a priority. This powerful tool empowers students to evaluate information, make reasoned judgments, and approach problems from a fresh perspective. In this article, we’ll explore the significance of critical thinking and provide effective strategies to nurture this skill in your students.

Why is Fostering Critical Thinking Important?

Strategies to cultivate critical thinking, real-world example, concluding thoughts.

Critical thinking is a key skill that goes far beyond the four walls of a classroom. It equips students to better understand and interact with the world around them. Here are some reasons why fostering critical thinking is important:

• Making Informed Decisions:  Critical thinking enables students to evaluate the pros and cons of a situation, helping them make informed and rational decisions.
• Developing Analytical Skills:  Critical thinking involves analyzing information from different angles, which enhances analytical skills.
• Promoting Independence:  Critical thinking fosters independence by encouraging students to form their own opinions based on their analysis, rather than relying on others.

Creating an environment that encourages critical thinking can be accomplished in various ways. Here are some effective strategies:

• Socratic Questioning:  This method involves asking thought-provoking questions that encourage students to think deeply about a topic. For example, instead of asking, “What is the capital of France?” you might ask, “Why do you think Paris became the capital of France?”
• Debates and Discussions:  Debates and open-ended discussions allow students to explore different viewpoints and challenge their own beliefs. For example, a debate on a current event can engage students in critical analysis of the situation.
• Teaching Metacognition:  Teaching students to think about their own thinking can enhance their critical thinking skills. This can be achieved through activities such as reflective writing or journaling.
• Problem-Solving Activities:  As with developing problem-solving skills , activities that require students to find solutions to complex problems can also foster critical thinking.

As a school leader, I’ve seen the transformative power of critical thinking. During a school competition, I observed a team of students tasked with proposing a solution to reduce our school’s environmental impact. Instead of jumping to obvious solutions, they critically evaluated multiple options, considering the feasibility, cost, and potential impact of each. They ultimately proposed a comprehensive plan that involved water conservation, waste reduction, and energy efficiency measures. This demonstrated their ability to critically analyze a problem and develop an effective solution.

Critical thinking is an essential skill for students in the 21st century. It equips them to understand and navigate the world in a thoughtful and informed manner. As a teacher, incorporating strategies to foster critical thinking in your classroom can make a lasting impact on your students’ educational journey and life beyond school.

1. What is critical thinking? Critical thinking is the ability to analyze information objectively and make a reasoned judgment.

2. Why is critical thinking important for students? Critical thinking helps students make informed decisions, develop analytical skills, and promotes independence.

3. What are some strategies to cultivate critical thinking in students? Strategies can include Socratic questioning, debates and discussions, teaching metacognition, and problem-solving activities.

4. How can I assess my students’ critical thinking skills? You can assess critical thinking skills through essays, presentations, discussions, and problem-solving tasks that require thoughtful analysis.

5. Can critical thinking be taught? Yes, critical thinking can be taught and nurtured through specific teaching strategies and a supportive learning environment.

Related Posts

7 simple strategies for strong student-teacher relationships.

Getting to know your students on a personal level is the first step towards building strong relationships. Show genuine interest in their lives outside the classroom.

Connecting Learning to Real-World Contexts: Strategies for Teachers

When students see the relevance of their classroom lessons to their everyday lives, they are more likely to be motivated, engaged, and retain information.

Encouraging Active Involvement in Learning: Strategies for Teachers

Active learning benefits students by improving retention of information, enhancing critical thinking skills, and encouraging a deeper understanding of the subject matter.

Collaborative and Cooperative Learning: A Guide for Teachers

These methods encourage students to work together, share ideas, and actively participate in their education.

Experiential Teaching: Role-Play and Simulations in Teaching

These interactive techniques allow students to immerse themselves in practical, real-world scenarios, thereby deepening their understanding and retention of key concepts.

Project-Based Learning Activities: A Guide for Teachers

Project-Based Learning is a student-centered pedagogy that involves a dynamic approach to teaching, where students explore real-world problems or challenges.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

December 14, 2015

When Teaching Critical Thinking Backfires

Students taught to doubt scientists and other authorities may end up doubting their teachers.

By John Horgan

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American

As the fall semester ends, I’m brooding once again over the contradictions of teaching “critical thinking,” especially as applied to science. Below is an edited version of an essay I wrote for The Chronicle of Higher Education when I was in a similar mood. –John Horgan

Don't always believe what scientists and other authorities tell you! Be skeptical! Think critically! That's what I tell my students, ad nauseam . And some learn the lesson too well.

I want to give my students the benefit of my hard-won knowledge of science's fallibility. Early in my career, I was a conventional science writer, easily impressed by scientists' claims. Fields such as physics, neuroscience, genetics and artificial intelligence seemed to be bearing us toward a future in which bionic superhumans would zoom around the cosmos in warp-drive spaceships. Science was an "endless frontier," as physicist Vannevar Bush, a founder of the National Science Foundation, put it in 1945.

On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing . By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.

Doubt gradually undermined my faith. Scientists and journalists, I realized, often presented the public with an overly optimistic picture of science. By relentlessly touting scientific "advances"—from theories of cosmic creation and the origin of life to the latest treatments for depression and cancer—and by overlooking all the areas in which scientists were spinning their wheels, we made science seem more potent and fast-moving than it really is.

Now, I urge my students to doubt the claims of physicists that they are on the verge of explaining the origin and structure of the cosmos. Some of these optimists favor string and multiverse theories, which cannot be confirmed by any conceivable experiment. This isn't physics any more, I declare in class, it's science fiction with equations!

I give the same treatment to theories of consciousness, which attempt to explain how a three-pound lump of tissue—the brain—generates perceptions, thoughts, memories, emotions and self-awareness. Some enthusiasts assert that scientists will soon reverse-engineer the brain so thoroughly that they will be able to build artificial brains much more powerful than our own.

Balderdash! I tell my classes (or words to that effect). Scientists have proposed countless theories about how the brain absorbs, stores and processes information, but researchers really have no idea how the brain works. And artificial-intelligence advocates have been promising for decades that robots will soon be as smart as HAL or R2-D2. Why should we believe them now?

Maybe, just maybe, I suggest, fields such as particle physics, cosmology and neuroscience are bumping up against insurmountable limits. The big discoveries that can be made have been made. Who says science has to solve every problem?

Lest my students conclude that I'm some solitary crank, I assign them articles by other skeptics, including a dissection of epidemiology and clinical trials by journalist Gary Taubes in The New York Times . He advises readers to doubt dramatic claims about the benefits of some new drug or diet, especially if the claim is new. "Assume that the first report of an association is incorrect or meaningless," Taubes writes, because it probably is. "So be skeptical."

To drive this point home, I assign articles by John Ioannidis, an epidemiologist who has exposed the flimsiness of most peer-reviewed research. In a 2005 study , he concluded that "most published research findings are false." He and his colleagues contend that "the more extreme, spectacular results (the largest treatment effects, the strongest associations, or the most unusually novel and exciting biological stories) may be preferentially published." These sorts of dramatic claims are also more likely to be wrong.

The cherry on this ice-cream sundae of doubt is a critique by psychologist Philip Tetlock of expertise in soft sciences, such as politics, history, and economics. In his 2005 book Expert Political Judgment , Tetlock presents the results of his 20-year study of the ability of 284 "experts" in politics and economics to make predictions about current affairs. The experts did worse than random guessing, or "dart-throwing monkeys," as Tetlock puts it.

Like Ioannidis, Tetlock found a correlation between the prominence of experts and their fallibility. The more wrong the experts were, the more visible they were in the media. The reason, he conjectures, is that experts who make dramatic claims are more likely to get air time on CNN or column inches in The Washington Post , even though they are likelier to be wrong.

For comic relief, I tell my students about a maze study, cited by Tetlock, that pitted rats against Yale undergraduates. Sixty percent of the time, researchers placed food on the left side of a fork in the maze; otherwise the food was placed randomly. After figuring out that the food was more often on the left side of the fork, the rats turned left every time and so were right 60 percent of the time. Yale students, discerning illusory patterns of left-right placement, guessed right only 52 percent of the time. Yes, the rats beat the Yalies! The smarter you are, the more likely you may be to "discover" patterns in the world that aren't actually there.

So how do my students respond to my skeptical teaching? Some react with healthy pushback, especially to my suggestion that the era of really big scientific discoveries might be over. "On a scale from toddler knowledge to ultimate enlightenment, man's understanding of the universe could be anywhere," wrote a student named Matt. "How can a person say with certainty that everything is known or close to being known if it is incomparable to anything?"

Other students embrace skepticism to a degree that dismays me. Cecelia, a biomedical-engineering major, wrote: "I am skeptical of the methods used to collect data on climate change, the analysis of this data, and the predictions made based on this data." Pondering the lesson that correlation does not equal causation, Steve questioned the foundations of scientific reasoning. "How do we know there is a cause for anything?" he asked.

In a similar vein, some students echoed the claim of radical postmodernists that we can never really know anything for certain, and hence that almost all our current theories will probably be overturned. Just as Aristotle's physics gave way to Newton's, which in turn yielded to Einstein's, so our current theories of physics will surely be replaced by radically different ones.

After one especially doubt-riddled crop of papers, I responded, "Whoa!" (or words to that effect). Science, I lectured sternly, has established many facts about reality beyond a reasonable doubt, embodied by quantum mechanics, general relativity, the theory of evolution, the genetic code. This knowledge has yielded applications—from vaccines to computer chips—that have transformed our world in countless ways. It is precisely because science is such a powerful mode of knowledge, I said, that you must treat new pronouncements skeptically, carefully distinguishing the genuine from the spurious. But you shouldn't be so skeptical that you deny the possibility of achieving any knowledge at all.

My students listened politely, but I could see the doubt in their eyes. We professors have a duty to teach our students to be skeptical. But we also have to accept that, if we do our jobs well, their skepticism may turn on us.

Further Reading :

Why Study Humanities? What I Tell Engineering Freshmen .

Everyone, Even Jenny McCarthy, Has the Right to Challenge “Scientific Experts .”

A Dig Through Old Files Reminds Me Why I’m So Critical of Science .

Advice to Young Science Writers: Ask “What Would Chomsky Think ?”

Was I Wrong about “The End of Science” ?

Can We Improve Predictions? Q&A with Philip "Superforecasting" Tetlock .

Is speculation in multiverses as immoral as speculation in subprime mortgages ?

Do Big New Brain Projects Make Sense When We Don't Even Know the "Neural Code" ?

• Most Popular
• Discussion & Debate
• Saved Stories

Our kids are missing out on critical thinking

If we are to navigate the complex challenges of the 21st century, our understanding of and ability to teach critical thinking demands urgent attention

By Associate Professor Martin Davies , University of Melbourne

Published 28 August 2024

Critical thinking is more essential today than ever. The world faces numerous challenges that warrant urgent critical reflection – from climate change and wealth inequality to ongoing conflicts and resource shortages.

These crises are compounded by a growing crisis of confidence, marked by the spread of 'fake news ' and the erosion of trust in traditional institutions. The  January 6 US Capitol attack , exemplifies this breakdown, as does the deepening political polarisation in its aftermath.

There has been a hardening of views on both sides of the political spectrum since then.

The recent attempted assassination of former President Trump by a lone-wolf activist is not unusual in U.S. history.

However, the extent of political polarisation now seems to be framed by hostility and partisanship, the likes of which have not been seen since the civil rights era – or perhaps even earlier, the civil war of the mid-19th century.

People are increasingly unwilling to accept the status quo or the platitudes that politicians regularly serve up . Along with this, the rise of AI and technologies like ChatGPT has intensified scepticism about what we read, hear or see.

A recent Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education (ASCILITE) presentation highlighted that, in this tech-dominated world, critical thinking is crucial for academic integrity.

They noted a troubling trend: learners are focusing more on 'How can I get this done?' rather than asking, 'Is this ethical?'.

• Politics & Society

How disinformation is undermining our cities

Social media platforms like Facebook, X, and TikTok allow anyone to share information without filters for accuracy, leading to the widespread issue of “ truth decay ” – the idea that facts and critical analysis now play an ever-diminishing role in public life.

The media, too, has become susceptible to misinformation, often prioritising sensationalism over facts. Rather than serving as guardians of truth, they sometimes propagate falsehoods , making the need for critical thinking all the more urgent.

Paradoxically, while critical thinking is in decline, it is in high demand among an odd assortment of stakeholders – businesses, universities, governments, and venture capitalists.

According to the World Economic Forum's Future of Jobs report (2023-2027), "analytical thinking" – a synonym for ‘critical thinking’ – is the most sought-after skill across various industries worldwide.

In a survey of 803 companies employing 11.3 million workers across 27 industry clusters, critical thinking was considered more crucial than technological literacy, AI, talent management, leadership, multilingualism and even cybersecurity.

A 2017 report by the Australian government highlighted that the importance of critical thinking in job ads rose by 158 per cent, surpassing problem-solving, teamwork, communication skills and financial literacy.

It will apparently consume 3.8 billion more work hours by 2030.

Critical thinking certainly appears to be a skill ‘on the rise’ and central to employment in the new economy.

However, despite its importance, we don’t really know what critical thinking is . It is not even clear that critical thinking is principally, and just a “skill .”

Reports, institutions, and funding bodies might well be dedicated to a 'skill on the rise,'  but they might also be quite misinformed about the very thing they purport to foster in the population.

Tech savvy teaching of critical thinking

In the US, critical thinking has become an industry, with papers written on its application in fields as diverse as engineering and the military . Disturbingly however, many students show no significant improvement in critical thinking abilities after completing a college degree.

A recent OECD study involving 120,000 students from six countries found that one-fifth of students performed at the lowest level in critical thinking, with half performing at the two lowest levels.

A US study noted that 45 per cent of college students showed no significant gains in critical thinking, complex reasoning, or writing skills over their four-year degree.

Since the inception of the modern university in Bologna in 1088, critical thinking has been a desirable – arguably the most desirable– 'graduate attribute'.

But universities' claims that they teach critical thinking have been  under scrutiny for decades . Some employers argue that graduates no longer demonstrate the critical thinking skills they expect .

Some employers want to move away from a reliance on academic qualifications, preferring instead to 'train on the job'. Is declining critical thinking in the academy to blame?

Moreover, faculty members often demonstrate ignorance about the intellectual traits – known as ' dispositions ' – that are essential to critical thinking.

They are also unable to outline the differences between critical thinking and creative thinking, problem-solving or decision-making.

This raises doubts about their ability to teach it effectively .

Blind faith in Australia’s education ‘system’ is failing our kids

Socrates, through Plato’s dialogues, can perhaps lay claim to being one of the earliest exponents of what we now call 'critical thinking'.

By maintaining his ignorance, Socrates asked probing questions that undermined staunchly held views on subjects like 'truth', 'beauty' or 'justice'.

By questioning and dismantling the assumptions of others, Socrates exemplified critical thinking in its purest form: the re-evaluation of certainties and the testing of claims against stronger arguments.

Today, modern universities continue to emphasise the importance of critical thinking in promotional materials and course descriptions. However, as we have seen, the reality often falls short of the rhetoric.

Critical thinking is not well understood by those who are supposed to be teaching it  and the broader context in which it is situated is not fully grasped by its advocates.

This situation is unlikely to be resolved soon, but it highlights the need for further research into critical thinking, not only in students but in the wider public.

           A promising – albeit woefully underused – technique is computer-aided argument mapping.  This is a way to explicitly and concisely represent reasoning by building diagrams that map out the logical structure of an argument.

Evidence suggests that it leads to significant gains  on independent critical thinking assessment tests.

The importance of critical thinking has never been greater, yet our understanding of it has never been so limited. This creates a perfect storm – a situation where the need for critical thinking is rising, but our capacity to foster it is in serious question.

It’s a scandalous situation, demanding urgent attention if we are to navigate the complex challenges of the 21st century. 

Associate Professor Martin Davies was co-editor, with Professor Ronald Barnett, of the Palgrave Handbook of Critical Thinking in Higher Education (Palgrave, 2015).

Featured individual

Associate Professor Martin Davies

Principal Fellow in Higher Education, Melbourne Graduate School of Education, University of Melbourne

Find out more about research in this faculty

Content Card Slider

Subscribe for your weekly email digest.

By subscribing, you agree to our privacy policy.

News, analysis, research and insights from world-leading minds

• Arts & Culture
• Business & Economics
• Environment
• Health & Medicine
• Sciences & Technology
• Architecture, Building and Planning
• Engineering & Technology
• Fine Arts & Music
• Medicine, Dentistry and Health
• Book extract
• Under the Microscope

How to teach critical thinking, a vital 21st-century skill

A well-rounded education doesn’t just impart academic knowledge to students — it gives them transferable skills they can apply throughout their lives. Critical thinking is widely hailed as one such essential “ 21st-century skill ,” helping people critically assess information, make informed decisions, and come up with creative approaches to solving problems.

This means that individuals with developed critical thinking skills benefit both themselves and the wider society. Despite the widespread recognition of critical thinking’s importance for future success, there can be some ambiguity about both what it is and how to teach it . 1 Let’s take a look at each of those questions in turn.

What is critical thinking?

Throughout history, humanity has attempted to use reason to understand and interpret the world. From the philosophers of Ancient Greece to the key thinkers of the Enlightenment, people have sought to challenge their preconceived notions and draw logical conclusions from the available evidence — key elements that gave rise to today’s definition of “critical thinking.”

At its core, critical thinking is the use of reason to analyze the available evidence and reach logical conclusions. Educational scholars have defined critical thinking as “reasonable reflective thinking focused on deciding what to believe or do,” 2 and “interpretation or analysis, followed by evaluation or judgment.” 3 Some have pared their definition down to simply “good” or “skillful thinking.”

At the same time, being a good critical thinker relies on certain values like open-mindedness, persistence, and intellectual humility. 4 The ideal critical thinker isn’t just skilled in analysis — they are also curious, open to other points of view, and creative in the path they take towards tackling a given problem.

Alongside teaching students how to analyze information, build arguments, and draw conclusions, educators play a key role in fostering the values conducive to critical thinking and intellectual inquiry. Students who develop both skills and values are well-placed to handle challenges both academically and in their personal lives.

Let’s examine some strategies to develop critical thinking skills and values in the classroom.

How to teach students to think critically — strategies

1. build a classroom climate that encourages open-mindedness.

Fostering a classroom culture that allows students the time and space to think independently, experiment with new ideas, and have their views challenged lays a strong foundation for developing skills and values central to critical thinking.

Whatever your subject area, encourage students to contribute their own ideas and theories when addressing common curricular questions. Promote open-mindedness by underscoring the importance of the initial “brainstorming” phase in problem-solving — this is the necessary first step towards understanding! Strive to create a classroom climate where students are comfortable thinking out loud.

Emphasize to students the importance of understanding different perspectives on issues, and that it’s okay for people to disagree. Establish guidelines for class discussions — especially when covering controversial issues — and stress that changing your mind on an issue is a sign of intellectual strength, not weakness. Model positive behaviors by being flexible in your own opinions when engaging with ideas from students.

2. Teach students to make clear and effective arguments

Training students’ argumentation skills is central to turning them into adept critical thinkers. Expose students to a wide range of arguments, guiding them to distinguish between examples of good and bad reasoning.

When guiding students to form their own arguments, emphasize the value of clarity and precision in language. In oral discussions, encourage students to order their thoughts on paper before contributing.

In the case of argumentative essays , give students plenty of opportunities to revise their work, implementing feedback from you or peers. Assist students in refining their arguments by encouraging them to challenge their own positions. 

They can do so by creating robust “steel man” counterarguments to identify potential flaws in their own reasoning. For example, if a student is passionate about animal rights and wants to argue for a ban on animal testing , encourage them to also come up with points in favor of animal testing. If they can rebut those counterarguments, their own position will be much stronger!

Additionally, knowing how to evaluate and provide evidence is essential for developing argumentation skills. Teach students how to properly cite sources , and encourage them to investigate the veracity of claims made by others — particularly when dealing with online media .

3. Encourage metacognition — guide students to think about their own and others’ thinking

Critical thinkers are self-reflective. Guide students time to think about their own learning process by utilizing metacognitive strategies, like learning journals or having reflective periods at the end of activities. Reflecting on how they came to understand a topic can help students cultivate a growth mindset and an openness to explore alternative problem-solving approaches during challenging moments.

You can also create an awareness of common errors in human thinking by teaching about them explicitly. Identify arguments based on logical fallacies and have students come up with examples from their own experience. Help students recognize the role of cognitive bias in our thinking, and design activities to help counter it.

Students who develop self-awareness regarding their own thinking are not just better at problem-solving, but also managing their emotions .

4. Assign open-ended and varied activities to practice different kinds of thinking

Critical thinkers are capable of approaching problems from a variety of angles. Train this vital habit by switching up the kinds of activities you assign to students, and try prioritizing open-ended assignments that allow for varied approaches.

A project-based learning approach can reap huge rewards. Have students identify real-world problems, conduct research, and investigate potential solutions. Following that process will give them varied intellectual challenges, while the real-world applicability of their work can motivate students to consider the potential impact their thinking can have on the world around them.

Classroom discussions and debates are fantastic activities for building critical thinking skills. As open-ended activities, they encourage student autonomy by requiring them to think for themselves.

They also expose students to a diversity of perspectives , inviting them to critically appraise these different positions in a respectful context. Class discussions are applicable across disciplines and come in many flavors — experiment with different forms like fishbowl discussions or online, asynchronous discussions to keep students engaged.

5. Use argument-mapping tools such as Kialo Edu to train students in the use of reasoning

One of the most effective methods of improving students’ critical thinking skills is to train them in argument mapping .

Argument mapping involves breaking an argument down into its constituent parts, and displaying them visually so that students can see how different points are connected. Research has shown that university students who were trained in argument mapping significantly out-performed their peers on critical thinking assessments. 5

While it’s possible — and useful — to map out arguments by hand, there are clear benefits to using digital argument maps like Kialo Edu. Students can contribute simultaneously to a Kialo discussion to collaboratively build out complex discussions as an argument map. 

Individual students can plan essays as argument maps before writing. This helps them to stay focused on the line of argument and encourages them to preempt counterarguments. Kialo discussions can even be assigned as an essay alternative when teachers want to focus on argumentation as the key learning goal. Unlike traditional essays, they defy the use of AI chatbots like ChatGPT!

Kialo discussions prompt students to use their reasoning skills to create clear, structured arguments. Moreover, students have a visual, engaging way to respond to the content of the arguments being made, promoting interpretive charity towards differing opinions. 

Best of all, Kialo Edu offers a way to track and assess your students’ progress on their critical thinking journey. Educators can assign specific tasks — like citing sources or responding to others’ claims — to evaluate specific skills. Students can also receive grades and feedback on their contributions without leaving the platform, making it easy to deliver constructive, ongoing guidance to help students develop their reasoning skills.

Improving students’ critical thinking abilities is something that motivates our work here at Kialo Edu. If you’ve used our platform and have feedback, thoughts, or suggestions, we’d love to hear from you. Reach out to us on social media or contact us directly at [email protected] .

•  Lloyd, M., & Bahr, N. (2010). Thinking Critically about Critical Thinking in Higher Education. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 4 (2), Article 9. https://doi.org/10.20429/ijsotl.2010.040209
•  Ennis, R. H. (2015). Critical Thinking: A Streamlined Conception. In: Davies, M., Barnett, R. (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Critical Thinking in Higher Education. Palgrave Macmillan, New York.
• Lang-Raad, N. D. (2023). Never Stop Asking: Teaching Students to be Better Critical Thinkers . Jossey-Bass.
•  Ellerton, Peter (2019). Teaching for thinking: Explaining pedagogical expertise in the development of the skills, values and virtues of inquiry . Dissertation, The University of Queensland. Available here .
• van Gelder, T. (2015). Using argument mapping to improve critical thinking skills. In The Palgrave Handbook of Critical Thinking in Higher Education (pp. 183–192). doi:10.1057/9781137378057_12.

Want to try Kialo Edu with your class?

Sign up for free and use Kialo Edu to have thoughtful classroom discussions and train students’ argumentation and critical thinking skills.

Home » Academics and Research » Critical Thinking for Future Helping Professionals: Why, What, and How

Critical Thinking for Future Helping Professionals: Why, What, and How

• Patrick Finn
• February 2018

Critical thinking is recognized as an essential knowledge and skill for the preparation of our future professionals (see, e.g., ASHA, 2015). Instructors can help students develop these skills by explaining why critical thinking is important, providing opportunities to learn and practice the components of critical thinking, and implementing instructional strategies that can help students become better thinkers.

Why Is Critical Thinking Important?

We often ask our students to think critically, but we rarely tell them why it is an important part of their academic and clinical knowledge and skills. Reasons that might help them appreciate its importance include the following (Finn, Brundage, & DiLollo, 2016):

• All of us, including helping professionals, are prone to cognitive biases that result in erroneous beliefs and making poor decision making, and critical thinking helps to minimize those biases.
• Future practitioners will face an ever-evolving and expanding clinical knowledge base, and critical thinking will help them evaluate the quality of that knowledge.
• The caliber of clinical decisions is at the core of evidence-based practice, and critical thinking is a foundational skill for ensuring the quality of those decisions.
• Interprofessional education practice and collaboration practice will be an important part of students’ clinical practice, and critical thinking is recognized as a core competency for engaging in that practice (Interprofessional Education Collaborative Expert Panel, 2011)

What Is Critical Thinking?

Instructors should not assume that students understand critical thinking in the same way that their instructors do. Finn et al. (2016) suggested that the following definition of critical thinking —originally proposed by Wade, Tavris, and Garry (2014)—serve as an instructional definition for students: “Critical thinking is the ability and willingness to assess claims and make objective judgments on the basis of well-supported reasons and evidence rather than emotion and anecdote” (Wade et al., 2014, p. 6). This definition, with some instructor elaboration, can help students understand that (a) critical thinking is practiced intentionally and requires evaluating claims of others; and (b) some reasons are better than others for supporting their clinical knowledge and decisions, especially when engaging in evidence-based practice. Dwyer (2017) further specifies three main components of critical thinking that students need to learn and practice: (a) argument analysis, (b) thinking dispositions, and (c) knowledge of cognitive biases.

Critical Thinking Components

Argument analysis skills.  Argument analysis is the most fundamental component and typically consist of three interactive stages: interpretation, evaluation, and metacognition (Finn et al., 2016).

Stage 1: Interpretation.  Students need to appreciate that critical thinking skills are particularly   beneficial when there is uncertainty in a clinical situation. For example, a student practitioner experiences a challenging issue during a team meeting, such as facing strong differences of opinion from other team members on how to manage a client’s problem. The first step for the student is to determine how much she truly understands about the issue at hand. As a critical thinker, she may ask questions to determine the reasons that the other team members offer for the different claims they are making.

Stage 2: Evaluation.  This step involves judging the acceptability of the claims based on the reasons provided. Following the above scenario, the student practitioner might ask questions to determine the quality of the reasons that team members are offering in support of their claims. For example, are their reasons based on scientific evidence that the student practitioner might be willing to trust? Or are the reasons based on past experience or anecdotal evidence that is less likely to be reliable?

Stage 3: Metacognition.  The final step, metacognition, is ongoing and involves monitoring and evaluating the quality of one’s own thinking during the preceding two steps. For example, the student practitioner might ask herself, “How well do I understand the issue at hand? Do I need to ask questions to get a better idea of why the other team members believe what they believe?” or “What is the quality of the reasons in support of my own position on this matter?”

Thinking dispositions.  Thinking dispositions  consist of various epistemic attitudes toward forming and modifying beliefs and making decisions, and are often considered essential complements to critical thinking. Open-mindedness is an example of a complementary disposition. In the above scenario, if the student practitioner has an open mind, then she may recognize that it would be premature to reject out of hand other team members’ claims without first evaluating the reasons for their positions.

Knowledge of cognitive biases.  This component is a relatively recent addition to critical thinking. Research shows that the way we ought to think when developing beliefs and making decisions is not the way that we  usually  think (see, e.g., Kahneman, 2011). These biases are so natural and easy to make that we are often unaware of their influence. A well-known example is  confirmation bias , which occurs when we demonstrate a natural preference for evidence that supports our beliefs but tend to ignore, downplay, or distort evidence that questions our beliefs (Nickerson, 1998). For example, the student practitioner in the team-meeting scenario might be aware of evidence that introduces doubts about another team member’s claims. In that case, she would want to frame her counterevidence in a way that is respectful and less threatening to the team member’s views. This approach is less likely to introduce a backfire effect—one that could potentially result in the team member reacting defensively, sticking to her original view, and ignoring or downplaying the student practitioner’s genuine concerns (Cook & Lewandowsky, 2011).

Strategies for Teaching Critical Thinking

Instructors can use various approaches to teach these three components of critical thinking in undergraduate- and graduate-level courses, including how critical thinking could be infused across a graduate curriculum (Finn et al., 2016):

• Adopting a textbook that is easily understood by students, and adaptable to the instructor’s needs.
• Providing numerous opportunities for students to understand and apply critical thinking skills to both their everyday lives and clinical situations.
• Making metacognitive processes explicit and overt.
• Teaching students the value and application of thinking dispositions.
• Using reflective journals and engaging in small-group discussions.
• Creating experiential opportunities to understand cognitive biases.
• Providing students with feedback via self- and formative assessments.

Teaching students to become critical thinkers takes time and practice. But, in the end, the benefits for the communication sciences and disorders (CSD) professions are worth it. Why? Because a critical thinking approach allows students to understand that, as a helping professional, what matters is not just what  you think—but  how  you think.

American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2015).  The role of undergraduate education in communication sciences and disorders.  Rockville, MD: Author. Retrieved from  http://www.asha.org/uploadedFiles/ASHA/About/governance/Resolutions_and_Motions/2015/BOD-21-2015-AAB-Report-on-the-Role-of-Undergraduate-Education.pdf  [PDF].

Cook, J., & Lewandowsky, S. (2011).  The debunking handbook.  St. Lucia, Australia: University of Queensland. 

Dwyer, C. P. (2017).  Critical thinking: Conceptual perspectives and guidelines.  New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Finn, P., Brundage, S. B., & DiLollo, A. (2016). Preparing our future helping professionals to become critical thinkers: A tutorial.  Perspectives of the ASHA Special Interest Groups, 1 (10), 43–68. doi:10.1044/persp1.SIG10.43

Interprofessional Education Collaborative Expert Panel. (2011).  Core competencies for interprofessional collaborative practice: Report of an expert panel.  Washington, D.C.: Interprofessional Education Collaborative. Retrieved from  https://www.aamc.org/download/186750/data/core_competencies.pdf  [PDF].

Kahneman, D. (2011).  Thinking, fast and slow.  New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. 

Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises.  Review of General Psychology,  2, 175–220.  

Wade, C., Tavris, C., & Garry, M. (2014).  Psychology  (11th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

This article originally appeared in the Access Academics and Research Newsletter

Share this post

• clinical-education , critical-thinking

Related Posts

Supporting Competency-Based IPE: Integration of the 2023 IPEC Core Interprofessional Competencies Into IPE Curricula

Implementation Science: Bridging the Gap Between SoTL Research and CSD Education

Culturally Responsive Teaching and Learning (CRTL) Special Collection: Resources for All

Most recent posts from context.

Emerging Evidence-Based Practices in Schools

2024 ASHA Journals Awards

Resources for Improving Literacy in Children With Speech Sound Disorders

See all posts >>, follow asha journals on twitter.

About the ASHA Journals

ASHA publishes four peer-reviewed scholarly journals and one peer-reviewed scholarly review journal pertaining to the general field of communication sciences and disorders (CSD) and to the professions of audiology and speech-language pathology. These journals are the  American Journal of Audiology ;  American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology ;  Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research ;  Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools ; and Perspectives of the ASHA Special Interest Groups . These journals have the collective mission of disseminating research findings, theoretical advances, and clinical knowledge in CSD.

Connect with the ASHA Journals

Subscribe to the asha journals.

General Questions: [email protected]

For Perspectives : [email protected]

Additional Author Services

ASHA Author Services Portal  

© 1997-2024 American Speech-Language-Hearing Association Privacy Notice Terms of Use

1. Teaching Critical Thinking: How to Inspire Better Reasoning

Teaching critical thinking, as most teachers know, is a challenge. Classroom time is always at a premium and teaching thinking and reasoning can fall by the wayside, especially when testing goals and state requirements take precedence. But for a growing number of educators, critical thinking has become a priority. 

This is because, for many reasons, young people simply need critical thinking instruction: 

• They are faced with myriad crises — many real and some imagined or exaggerated by unreliable news sources and overstimulated social media users. 
• They spend more and more of their time in internet-connected environments where advertisers and interest groups hold previously unimaginable powers of manipulation over them. 
• Technology, politics, and society in general all seem to be changing faster than ever before, and the future seems more uncertain than ever.

These changes don’t only complicate the world itself; they affect our powers of understanding at the same time. There’s evidence suggesting social media use can damage attention spans , have an outsized impact on emotions and mental health, and even affect memory . Psychologically addictive reward systems are built into many of these platforms. 

Even generally reliable news sources, which increasingly orient themselves to their own fragmented segment of the journalism market, can overwhelm our powers of judgment with sensationalistic headlines, misleading framing, and the sheer volume of information at our fingertips.

The kind of thinking and attention required to engage with complicated issues becomes harder to foster and harder to maintain than it might be in a less saturated information ecosystem. Under these conditions, critical thinking, which has long been a buzzword in education, takes on a new and more urgent significance. New opportunities and methods for teaching critical thinking are needed.

Critical thinking, which has long been a buzzword in education, takes on a new and more urgent significance.

Being able to think critically — with rigor, depth, patience, emotional intelligence, and humility — can have wide-ranging impacts on every aspect of students’ lives: their contributions to civic life, their professional success, their ability to build and maintain healthy relationships, their mental health, and even their physical well-being. 

What are the key strategies for teaching critical thinking skills? In many ways, we are still at square one when it comes to teaching our students how to think critically. There are a number of obstacles here:

• Teachers are not given the time, freedom, materials, or professional development tools to teach their students how to think critically.
• Mainstream education priorities — too focused on test results and narrowly defined skills — don’t leave room for critical thinking.
• The best education research, which strongly suggests that critical thinking instruction must be embedded in specific domain instruction, is not well-known or widely put into practice.
• Traditional curricula have not evolved quickly enough to adapt to the new challenges students face in analyzing information and media. 

What Is Critical Thinking?

For all the talk about critical thinking, there remains a lot of confusion about what exactly it is. So what does critical thinking mean? This is key to teaching critical thinking, of course. 

The Reboot Foundation defines critical thinking quite simply as high-level skills in reasoning, coming to judgments, and making decisions. Even more simply: critical thinking is thinking well. 

To get a little more specific, critical thinkers are regularly reflective, objective, and analytical in their thinking:

• They step back to reflect on their own thinking, taking time to plan, strategize, and reform their thinking when necessary. 
• They do their best to overcome subjective biases. While they know that pure objectivity is an ideal we can never reach, they draw on the perspectives of others, especially those with opposing views, in order to expand their own horizons.
• They use the analytical tools of logic and effective argumentation to evaluate evidence, make judgments, and discuss issues with others. 

For more about Reboot’s definition of critical thinking please see this post: “What Is Critical Thinking?”

How to Teach Critical Thinking

As part of the Reboot Foundation’s efforts to create this guide on how to teach critical thinking we consulted with a group of leading teachers from around the country, teaching in different types of schools, at different grade levels, and in different geographic areas.

When it came to teaching critical thinking skills the same kinds of obstacles cropped up over and over again such as a focus on testing and teacher accountability, which has put pressure on administrators and teachers to deliver testing results through more uniform and rigid curriculums. 

Given this and numerous other challenges, this guide provides teachers subject-oriented advice for integrating critical thinking into their curricula. Different teachers, of course, face very different challenges and circumstances to teaching critical thinking. For this reason, instead of setting out rigid lesson plans, we have offered short research synopses and ideas for critical thinking lessons and activities. We expect teachers will modify these to their needs, or that these will spark new ideas and experiments in their classrooms.

The Importance of Domain Knowledge in Teaching Critical Thinking

Despite a great deal of rhetoric about critical thinking, not enough time is actually spent teaching critical thinking. One major reason is a misconception about its nature. Critical thinking is not a single skill that can be taught, like playing the cello, or content that can be memorized, like the history of the French Revolution.  What critical thinking entails often depends on the content and discipline. 

What critical thinking entails often depends on the content and discipline.

Although there is overlap, good thinking habits and strategies in physics don’t look the same as those in literary interpretation. We must keep this in mind when we seek to teach thinking. As cognitive scientist Daniel Willingham  puts it , “Thought processes are intertwined with what is being thought about.”

What does that mean for teaching critical thinking? There is good and bad news. The bad news is that critical thinking, as a generic skill, is challenging to teach. Critical thinking skills learned in one area aren’t guaranteed to transfer to other areas.  The good news is that specific critical thinking instruction can, in many cases, be integrated into existing classroom practices. The key is to understand what constitutes deeper thinking in particular domains and implement classroom practices that leads students toward that kind of thinking. That’s what we’ve set out to do in this guide.

How to teach Critical Thinking Habits

That said, there are some habits and virtues that cut across domains when it comes to how to teach critical thinking. Teachers can make an impact by modeling these intellectual virtues, when possible, for their students.

How to Teach Critical Thinking: Sparking Curiosity. 

Young students are eager to know about the world and ask questions tirelessly. Why is the grass green? Why do zebras have stripes? Even adolescents are prone to constant questioning — though their questions sometimes have a more cynical slant. 

In the classroom, it’s not always possible to indulge every last question, and some of these questions can be disruptive. But it is still absolutely vital that educators make time to indulge and encourage the curiosity of students. Curiosity, if it’s developed and refined, is crucial to being an informed and engaged citizen of the world. 

Open-ended discussions are an excellent way to spark curiosity. We model this kind of discussion in our article on critical thinking and reading .  There you’ll find tips on how to prompt students to ask deeper moral and philosophical texts about literary texts. With practice in refining their curiosity, students will begin to develop what’s called “metacognition,” or thinking about thinking. This is a foundational part of critical thinking, in which students turn their curiosity on themselves, and begin to ask why they think and believe what they do. 

How to Teach Critical Thinking: Managing Emotions. 

Emotions may seem far afield from the ability to reason but critical thinking is emotionally difficult. Critical thinkers have to exhibit the humility to admit that they don’t know everything and they may be wrong. At the same time, they have to be confident enough to ask tough questions and challenge authority when appropriate. And, perhaps most crucially, they have to be able to consider and analyze arguments on their merits, instead of judging the person making them.

When emotions run high in the classroom, for example in a discussion of a controversial topic, it’s a great time for teachers to model these virtues. We offer tips on how to do so in our article on civics education . The goal is to give students civic competence and confidence, ultimately, contribute positively to their communities and society as a whole. 

How to Teach Critical Thinking: Checking for Bias. 

Emotional arguments can make it especially difficult to recognize and overcome biases. When we’re emotional, we usually fail to step back and look for misinterpretations, hasty conclusions, and assumptions we may have made about the people we’re arguing against.

Instruction in logic and philosophy can help students recognize biased thinking in themselves and, especially, in some of the weak reasoning they all inevitably come across online. Too often, especially in the United States, we’ve considered these topics too advanced for K-12 learners.

Check out our articles on media literacy and philosophy for more on how to help students navigate emotional appeals and understand biases, and for more tips on how to teach critical thinking. 

Download the Teachers’ Guide

(please click here)

Privacy Overview

• Skip to Nav
• Skip to Main
• Skip to Footer

• Saved Articles
• Newsletters

Why Even Great Teaching Strategies Can Backfire And What To Do About It

Please try again

Educators often look for classroom inspiration from instructional strategies that “work,” focusing on how many students improved based on a given strategy. While that’s important and helpful, focusing only on how a strategy works, without examining why it didn’t work for some learners, is a missed opportunity. Examining the conditions when a strategy is ineffective or unintentionally misleads students doesn’t necessarily mean teachers should abandon that strategy altogether, but it does help them plan ahead for how it might backfire.

“What seems to be a great way to learn for the teachers, the students, the instructional designers is often a great way to learn,” said Daniel Schwartz , dean of Stanford’s Graduate School of Education, at the Learning and the Brain conference in San Francisco. “But sometimes it’s a horrible way to learn.”

There are many examples in education of ideas implemented as though they were gospel backfiring because educators lost sight of the nuances. Rewards are a commonly misapplied tool in education, for example. Simple behavior theory predicts that rewards produce more of a desired behavior, while punishments yield less undesirable behavior. But a famous study by Mark Lepper, David Greene and Richard Nisbett found that misapplied rewards can have disastrous consequences for intrinsic motivation.

For their study, Lepper, Greene and Nisbett first observed a preschool classroom for baseline observations and found that drawing was one of the most popular activities. They wanted to test intrinsic versus extrinsic rewards, so they put out felt-tipped markers (a big treat) at the art table and told one group of students that if they chose drawing during free play time they would get a certificate with a gold seal on it. A second group was not told about the reward, but after making art they received one. The third group was neither told about the rewards nor received one. After a week or two, the researchers again put out the felt-tipped markers and observed from behind a one-way mirror what activities the children chose to play with on their own.

Children in the reward condition chose to draw much less during a three-hour play period than either of the other two conditions. What happened? “The [certificate] replaced the satisfaction of drawing,” Schwartz said. “When there was no more reward, the kids didn’t want to draw.” And, interestingly, when kids were being rewarded for their drawings, they produced less creative work.

Another example is the commonly believed notion that treating each case as unique is a good problem-solving strategy. But this, too, can be misapplied. “Sometimes you design instruction that leads students to inadvertently do the wrong thing,” Schwartz said.

In one study done with college undergraduates, physics students were learning about how magnets affect electric current. They were given three cases of how a magnet interacted with a lightbulb attached to a wire loop. In Case A, the magnet moved right and the lightbulb lit up. In Case B, the magnet moved up and the lightbulb did not light up. In Case C, the magnet was flipped and the light went on.

Students were asked to come up with one account that could explain all three cases. They were placed in two groups, one of which was asked to use the “Predict-Observe-Explain” (POE) strategy, common in science education. This is a difficult problem and only about 30 percent of the control group got the correct answer: the lightbulb lights up with a change to the x-vector of the magnetic field. However, only one student was able to get the right answer in the POE group.

The researchers found that when students used POE, they treated each case as separate and weren’t looking for patterns across the cases. Schwartz said another way the each-case-is-unique idea can go wrong is when students are doing problem sets. They often treat each problem separately, instead of thinking about how they relate.

This is an example of what Schwartz calls a “learning frailty,” or things students are likely to do and that teachers can predict and plan to circumvent. To do this, teachers often have to explicitly tell students what the frailty is and advise them not to give into it. “You have to address what you want them to do, but also what you don’t want them to do,” Schwartz said.

INVESTIGATING LEARNING FRAILTIES

Schwartz wanted to know whether he could teach students to seek constructive feedback and to explore a space before prematurely settling on an idea, both strategies found to improve learning. He inserted an intervention into the setup of design thinking activities that 200 sixth-graders were doing in math, social studies and science. Students went through a design cycle where they were told to explore materials and ideas, generate solutions, create prototypes and reflect on the process.

One group was told that at each stage of the design process, they should seek constructive criticism on their idea. They were also told to avoid the learning frailty, “we like to hear what we have done well,” in favor of criticism that would help them improve. The other half were told that at each stage of the design process they should resist the temptation to settle on the first idea (the learning frailty), and instead to try multiple ideas before picking one.

Measuring whether these interventions taught the students to use the strategy on their own was tricky because Schwartz and his team were interested in whether students would recognize the value in the strategy and choose to use it on their own when they weren’t explicitly told to do so. They needed a way to measure choice, not knowledge, so they chose a game format.

The seeking-criticism group played a game in which they are hired to make posters for booths at a school fair. The game offers various tools kids can use to create the posters, and then students present their first draft to a focus group of animals that provide feedback that includes praise as well as constructive criticism. Students read the feedback, make changes to the poster, and then see how many tickets they sold. Researchers were looking for how often students chose to hear more feedback from the focus group and made changes to their posters as part of their process.

“The more feedback you choose in this game, the more likely you do well on the California standardized tests,” Schwartz said. He also found that lower-achieving kids weren’t using this strategy before the intervention, but after the design thinking project they recognized its power and did use the strategy more. Kids who were already high achievers were already using this strategy, so it didn’t make much difference.

Similarly, Schwartz designed a game for the group that was asked to design in parallel instead of choosing the first idea they had. In the game, students are photographers with a variety of settings on their cameras. The game measured how many different camera settings students tried before settling on their final version. And, once again, kids who had not previously used the “exploring the space” strategy did improve.

“You want to teach students what to do and what to avoid. And acknowledge why you’d want to avoid it,” Schwartz said. Another common learning frailty is to do the thing that takes the least time. Teachers can try to circumvent the frailty by explaining why a better strategy, while more time-consuming, will pay off in the end.

Schwartz is wary of anyone who says teachers should never lecture, or never give rewards because it is “bad pedagogy.” “The key here is understanding that these instructional moves are good. You just have to figure out when,” Schwartz said. Rewards work well to incentivize something students don’t like to do, but educators have to be careful about unintentionally reinforcing the idea that whatever is being rewarded is work and therefore not fun.

Similarly, some educators argue that telling students information is wrong or anti-constructivist, but there is a time and a place for telling students information, a relatively efficient way to transfer knowledge. Schwartz and Bransford completed a study in 1998 showing that when college students analyzed contrasting data sets from classic psychology experiments and then read a text or listened to a lecture about why those experiments were important to the development of psychology, they were more prepared to understand and contextualize the new information. The students were then better able to grasp the outcomes of a similar set of data a week later, as compared to students who had summarized the information before the lecture. The analyze-and-lecture condition also predicted more accurately than students in a condition who analyzed the data twice.

WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR TEACHERS?

Ultimately, Schwartz’s warning about unintended consequences of instruction is a rallying cry for teacher professionalism. “The science points out what’s necessary; the trick is making instruction where that component sits in an environment that’s sufficient for learning,” Schwartz said. For example, scientists can prove that overwhelming students’ cognitive load is bad. But reduce cognitive load too much and students are bored. That’s why teachers are so important; they are the investigators carefully taking note of how different students respond to strategies in the classroom, and are constantly tweaking ideas to improve them.

“The scientists can give you certain laws about learning, but they can’t put it together into instruction,” Schwartz said. They understand the neuroscience, not how to translate it into a classroom environment. That’s why Schwartz believes the most important thing for good instruction is for the teacher to be an “adaptive expert,” someone who is constantly reflecting, and learning from what he or she has tried in the past. Adaptive experts have growth mindsets about their teaching, whereas “routine experts” get good at one way and repeat it over and over.

“You develop a great deal of expertise by designing instruction and looking at the outcomes of the instruction,” Schwartz said. “You as the teacher need to think about this as a creative endeavor.” Observing how students interpret a lesson and thinking through what learning frailties may have led them in the wrong direction is one way to try to avoid unintended consequences of instruction.

This discussion of instruction misfiring may feel frustrating for educators looking for tried-and-true research-based strategies, but it also reaffirms the importance of educators’ expertise in the classroom. The one guideline Schwartz offers is that often when the rationale for an instructional strategy is to save time or be more efficient, the likelihood of an instructional backfire is high. Resorting to only telling students things, rewarding them for doing what you want them to do and oversimplifying are all ways this can happen.

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
• Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection

When Science Denial Meets Epistemic Understanding

Ayça fackler.

Department of Mathematics and Science Education, The University of Georgia, Athens, GA USA

Science denial has a long history of causing harm in contemporary society when ignored. Recent discussions of science denial suggest that correcting people’s false beliefs rarely has an impact on eliminating the adherence to false beliefs and assumptions, which is called the backfire effect. This paper brings the backfire effect within the context of science denial to the attention of science education researchers and practitioners and discusses the potential role(s) of epistemic understanding of knowledge production in science in dealing with the rejection of scientific evidence and claims in science classrooms. The use of epistemic understanding of knowledge production in science with a focus on avoiding the backfire effect may increase the potential for science education research to produce fruitful strategies which advance students’ attitudes toward science and deepen students’ understanding of how science works through divergent perspectives. There are some areas that need to be focused on and investigated for their potential to combat science denial and the backfire effect while foregrounding the role(s) epistemic understanding of knowledge production for science instruction. These areas include expanding ways of knowing and marking the boundary between the scientific way of knowing and other ways of knowing at the same time, comparing claims and arguments that derive from different frameworks, teaching about the power and limitations of science, and bringing different and similar ways science is done to students’ attention.

Introduction

There has been increased attention paid to science denial in both educational and social context (Hansson 2017b ; Liu 2012 ; Rosenau 2012 ). Science denial is defined as “the systematic rejection of empirical evidence to avoid [personally and subjectively] undesirable facts or conclusions” (Liu 2012 , p. 129). Some typical examples of science denial are denial of climate change, relativity theory, evolution, the origin of life, AIDS, vaccination, and tobacco disease. Science denial is a social phenomenon, and it is one form of pseudo-science (Bardon 2020 ). Another form is called pseudo-theory promotion. While science denial is coloured by a growing antipathy towards particular scientific theories and the refusal of some parts of science (e.g., climate change denial, evolution denial, continental drift denial, the origin of life, or relativity theory denial), pseudo-theory promotion is based on the attempts to construct personal theories or claims (e.g., transcendental meditation, astrology, herbal medicine, or iridology) (Hansson 2017b ). Hansson ( 2017b , pp. 43–44) outlined ten sociological characteristics shared by science denialists and pseudo-theory promoters as listed in Table ​ Table1 1 .

Ten sociological characteristics of science denialists and pseudo-theory promoters (adapted from Hansson 2017b )

Science denial is slightly different than pseudo-theory promotion (Hansson 2017b ). The most important difference between science denial and pseudo-theory promotion is that while the fabrication of false controversies is a standard practice in science denial, most cases of pseudo-theory promotion do not engage in producing fake controversies (Hansson 2017a ). In contrast, pseudo-theory promotion tends to avoid controversies with science and describes its claims as compatible with and conformable to science (Hansson 2017a , b ). In this paper, distinguishing and comparing science denial and pseudo-theory promotion is key for two main reasons. First, this paper focuses only on science denial due to the ongoing discussions around bringing science denial to classrooms (e.g., Boyle 2017 ) and the massive spread and acceptance of conspiracy theories about scientific phenomena (e.g., climate change, the origin of life, COVID-19) in both the public and schools. Second, the discussion in this paper takes the characteristics of science denial into account to determine some areas for both educators and researchers to focus on as to how to respond to science denial in educational settings.

The purpose of this paper is to bring the backfire effect within the context of science denial to the attention of science education researchers and practitioners and discuss the potential role(s) of epistemic understanding of knowledge production in science in dealing with the rejection of scientific evidence and claims in science classrooms. I wish to take the reader beyond what I present and discuss here and to detect some areas open for further exploration rather than providing a road map or a list of tips and strategies to combat science denial and the backfire effect.

Correcting Misbeliefs?

Many people resist evaluating and accepting reliable scientific evidence. One of the reasons for denying scientific evidence is that scientific ideas may threaten people’s beliefs, ideologies, and background assumptions which are often wrong and misleading . For instance, “what predicts the denial of human-made climate change is not scientific illiteracy but political ideology” (Pinker 2018 , p. 357). Adherence to personal beliefs and background assumptions, what Sandoval ( 2005 ) called personal epistemology , interferes with the acceptance of scientific facts and conclusions (Sinatra et al. 2014 ). One may ask the question of whether we can change or correct people’s false beliefs. In general, people are supposed to adjust their assumptions when they evaluate scientific evidence that challenges their beliefs. So, is this always the case? The answer is no. In their review of the literature on correcting misinformation, Lewandowsky et al. ( 2012 ) showed that correcting people’s false beliefs rarely has an impact on eliminating the adherence to false beliefs and assumptions. They also argued that even though people understand the retraction, correcting false beliefs is still ineffective (Lewandowsky et al. 2012 ).

One of the reasons why people fail to refute personal beliefs and assumptions is explained by the backfire effect (Ecker et al. 2017 ; Swire et al. 2017 ). The backfire effect is a cognitive bias that causes people’s background assumptions to get stronger when they encounter contradictory evidence (Nyhan and Reifler 2010 , 2015 ). In other words, the backfire effect means that showing people scientific claims and evidence which prove that they are wrong is often ineffective because it causes them to support their original assumptions more strongly than they previously did (Nyhan and Reifler 2010 ; Trevors et al. 2016 ). It is an important phenomenon because it derails critical thinking skills. The backfire effect is the very heart of how people negotiate between scientific ideas and their background assumptions (Sinatra et al. 2014 ).

In 2010, Nyhan and Reifler designed a study to test the backfire effect. The researchers created an article that included a very common misconception about certain issues in politics. Participants were first asked to read a fake article and then another article that corrected the fake article. Participants with a certain ideological belief strongly disagreed with the correct article while they articulated stronger beliefs about the fake article. In that study, corrections failed to reduce misconceptions among the targeted ideological group. The same researchers designed the same experiment about other controversial topics such as tax cuts and stem cell research. They concluded that corrections that contradicted participants’ beliefs caused background assumptions to get stronger (Nyhan and Reifler 2010 ).

The same researchers also conducted a study that examined people’s beliefs about vaccination against the flu. They showed that when people who believe that vaccine is unsafe are provided with correct information challenging their beliefs, misconceptions about vaccination among the group increased (Nyhan and Reifler 2015 ). Another study examined parents’ intent to vaccinate their children (Nyhan et al. 2014 ). The researchers found that corrective information (pro-vaccination messages) decreased intent to vaccinate among parents who had the most negative attitudes toward vaccines. Nyhan et al. ( 2014 ) concluded that “respondents brought to mind other concerns about vaccines to defend their anti-vaccine attitudes, a response that is broadly consistent with the literature on motivated reasoning about politics and vaccines” (p. 840).

Supporting the findings of Nyhan and Reifler ( 2010 , 2015 ) and Nyhan and colleagues ( 2014 ), other researchers have concluded that even though people understand the rationale for retraction, corrections are still ineffective (Lewandowsky et al. 2012 ). Correcting widespread misinformation has little effect on the ways people act and think (Sides and Citrin 2007 ), and the arguments that reinforce people’s background beliefs are favoured while the ones that contradict their views are disparaged (Taber and Lodge 2006 ). Additionally, a review of research by Tippett ( 2010 ) on refutation texts in science education showed that reading a refutation text that explicitly challenges and refutes students’ naïve conceptions seemed to be useful for improving students’ conceptual understanding but the review also pointed out that a refutation text alone is not enough to change or improve students’ misconceptions (Tippett 2010 ).

On the other hand, some researchers (e.g., Crozier and Strange 2019 ; Haglin 2017 ; Wood and Porter 2017 ) have argued that the backfire effect is not as strong as had been claimed in the literature (e.g., Lewandowsky et al. 2012 ; Nyhan and Reifler 2015 ). Crozier and Strange ( 2019 ) found no evidence for a backfire effect in their study in which they evaluated the effects of corrections on reliance on misinformation. They found that corrections can decrease individuals’ reliance on misinformation (Crozier and Strange 2019 ). The researchers also argued that the format of corrections (the frequency of exposures to the corrections, the activation of the misinformation and its correction simultaneously, etc.) has a key role in its effectiveness (Crozier and Strange 2019 ). Replicating the Nyhan and Reifler ( 2015 ) corrective information experiment with a different population, Haglin ( 2017 ) also found no support for a backfire effect from corrections of misinformation and highlighted the importance of investigating the specific conditions and individuals affected when a suspected backfire effect occurs. According to the literature discussed, we still need more evidence to figure out whether corrections are a successful strategy for combatting misinformation or misbeliefs. It is important to make it clear that whether the backfire effect exists or not is not the focus of this paper. With the actual purpose of this piece in mind, I now turn to different forms of the backfire effect.

The Backfire Effect and Reasoning:

Two forms of the backfire effect cause the denial of scientific knowledge: the familiarity backfire effect (Swire et al. 2017 ) and the overkill backfire effect (Ecker et al. 2019 ). The familiarity backfire effect occurs when people remember misinformation rather than its inaccuracy as a result of getting exposed to misinformation frequently (Swire et al. 2017 ). This effect can influence the way people respond to pseudo-scientific arguments (Hansson 2017b ). The overkill backfire effect occurs when people reject multiple complex scientific explanations for certain phenomena that are difficult to understand and process (Ecker et al. 2019 ). This shows that people tend to engage in simple and easy explanations. When people are presented with a complicated scientific explanation, the overkill backfire effect may cause them to reject that explanation and to stick to their simple misconceptions (Chater 1999 ; Lombrozo 2007 ).

The backfire effect explains why people confirm their own biases even though they have heard about scientific facts and observed scientific phenomena and why they reject scientific information and create counterarguments against empirical evidence. Additionally, the backfire effect can help us understand and explain why the way science is traditionally taught is not successful at eliminating science denial. In a traditional classroom setting, students who deny scientific facts and conclusions are usually provided with complex explanations that aim to convince students and correct their false beliefs and assumptions. Science instruction should encourage students, citizens of the future, to differentiate selective use of evidence, what Hansson ( 2017b ) called “cherry-picking” or what Sinatra et al. ( 2014 ) called “motivated reasoning”, from accuracy-oriented scientific reasoning. It does not mean that there is no motivated reasoning in science. For instance, Mizrahi ( 2015 ) discussed some examples of confirmation bias from the history of science. Rather, it means that science instruction should emphasize the differences between deliberate thoughts and intuitive thoughts as students learn about methods of reasoning (Short et al. 2019 ).

The understanding of scientific reasoning is one of the three dimensions of scientific literacy (Fasce and Picó 2019 ). The understanding of scientific reasoning means a public understanding of the way(s) scientific knowledge is developed in terms of sociological, philosophical, and historical aspects of science (Fasce and Picó 2019 ). Students should understand scientific reasoning and separate scientific reasoning from motivated reasoning. Scientific reasoning has a logical nature based on some principles. There are some ways to decide how much confidence we should place in scientific explanations: deduction, induction, and abduction (inferences to the best) (Okasha 2002 ). These three forms of logical inference are important for understanding how we, human beings, think and how we make meaning out of the world around us. While reasoning, we look at the premises and draw conclusions based on the premises through deduction, induction, and abduction.

The first form of logical inference is deductive reasoning. With deduction, our conclusions must be true as long as the premises are true (Okasha 2002 ). Deductive inferences move from the general to the specific (Jaipal 2009 ). An example of deductive reasoning, or inference, in Okasha ( 2002 , p. 18) is the following:

All Frenchmen like red wine. Pierre is a Frenchman. Therefore, Pierre likes red wine.

If the premises are true in the first two statements, then the conclusion must be true. The most important feature of deductive inferences is that their premises are general and their conclusions are more specific.

The second form of inference is inductive reasoning. In induction, the premises do not entail the conclusion (Okasha 2002 ). Here is an example of inductive reasoning from Okasha ( 2002 , p. 19):

The first five eggs in the box were rotten. All the eggs have the same best-before date stamped on them. Therefore, the sixth egg will be rotten too.

It is possible that even if the premises of this inference are true, the conclusion can be false. The reason is that we move from specific observations about objects or events we have examined (i.e., the first five eggs) to generalizations about objects or events that we have not examined (i.e., the rest of the eggs in the box).

With deduction, we can be certain if we begin with true premises, we will come to a true conclusion. With induction, we cannot be so confident because inductive inferences can possibly take us from true premises to a false conclusion (Okasha 2002 ). Even though inductive reasoning is weaker than deductive reasoning, much scientific research and reasoning in everyday life is carried out inductively. Consider the following examples in Okasha ( 2002 ). An example of inductive reasoning in everyday life is as follows.

… when you turn on your computer on the morning, you are confident it will not explode in your face. Why? Because you turn on your computer every morning, and it has never exploded in your face up to now. The premises of this inference do not entail the conclusion. (Okasha 2002 , p. 20)

So how do scientists use inductive reasoning? Consider this example.

… geneticists tell us that Down’s syndrome (DS) sufferers have an additional chromosome. How do they know this? The answer, of course, is that they examined a large number of DS sufferers and found that each had an additional chromosome. They then reasoned inductively to the conclusion that all DS sufferers, including ones they had not examined, have an additional chromosome. (Okasha 2002 , pp. 20–22)

Some philosophers such as David Hume and Karl Popper denied the existence and importance of inductive reasoning in science by arguing that inductive inferences are not justifiable because we cannot make sure that phenomena that we have not experienced will resemble those that we have experienced in the past (Okasha 2002 ). However, we know that inductive reasoning is a perfectly sensible way of forming beliefs about the world around us by making our inferences quite probable.

The third form of logical inference is called abduction (inference to the best explanation). Abductive inference makes a similar jump to the logic of the inductive syllogism but the abductive inference is fallible. Consider the following example that Okasha ( 2002 , p. 29) offers:

The cheese in the larder has disappeared, apart from a few crumbs . Scratching noises were heard coming from the larder last night . Therefore, the cheese was eaten by a mouse .

In this case, the premises do not entail the conclusion. However, with the available data, the inference is reasonable. If we obtain more data, we can make the reasoning stronger. Scientists (doctors and detectives as well) use abduction—drawing a conclusion that best explains a state of events from a set of possible scenarios, rather than solely based on evidence provided in the premises. Within this context, scientists’ theories provide strong evidence for their claims. In addition to inferences, many scientific laws and theories are expressed in terms of probability (probabilistic reasoning) such as Mendelian genetics arguing that there is a 50% chance that any gene in your mother (and father) will be in you. “Probability provides a continuous scale from poor theories with low probability to good theories with high probability” (Lakatos 1998 , p. 22). The importance of probabilistic reasoning in understanding and accepting polarizing scientific ideas (e.g., evolution) is also highlighted in the literature (e.g., Fiedler et al. 2019 ; Lenormand et al. 2009 ).

Learning about the three forms of logical inferences discussed above is important to distinguish between motivated reasoning and scientific reasoning and to address science denial. As Hand et al. ( 1999 ) suggested, logical reasoning is important because “science distinguishes itself from other ways of knowing and from other bodies of knowledge through the use of empirical standards, logical arguments, and scepticism to generate the best temporal explanations possible about the natural world” (p. 1023). The way we make inferences through deduction, induction, and abduction shows that even though scientific knowledge is temporary and uncertain, it is highly probable and it is subject to change as we collect more evidence (Hand et al., 1999 ; Okasha 2002 ). In contrast, motivated reasoning relies on selectively interpreting evidence and leads to preferred inferences.

Making logical inferences while evaluating claims and evidence is one of the critical thinking abilities (Paul 1995 ). As one might infer from the nature of science literature, students have limited ability to evaluate scientific claims and evidence. One reason is that science instruction in K-12 does not facilitate engaging in aspects of scientific inquiry and practices about evaluating the strengths and limitations of the evidence and developing scientific arguments (Banilower 2019 ). Banilower ( 2019 ) provides an interesting finding from the study as follows:

Fewer than a quarter of secondary science classes have students, at least once a week, pose questions about scientific arguments, evaluate the credibility of scientific information, identify strengths and limitations of a scientific model, evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of competing scientific explanations, determine what details about an investigation might persuade a targeted audience about a scientific claim, or construct a persuasive case. (Banilower 2019 , p. 204)

The absence of logical inferences may add strength to the backfire effect by leading to the retrieval of thoughts that support one’s background beliefs and assumptions. It means that “when we think we are reasoning, we may instead be rationalizing” (Mooney 2011 , para. 11). Rationalization involves deciding what evidence to accept based on the preferred conclusion—motivated reasoning (Bardon 2020 ). In contrast, scientific reasoning requires using critical thinking skills to determine which explanation(s) represents the best answer to our question based on evidence (Lawson 1999 ).

As discussed earlier, when we encourage students to engage in evaluating evidence that has the potential to threaten their background assumptions and beliefs, science denial might become more entrenched. One reason is that people tend to look for evidence which confirms their beliefs and background assumptions (Druckman and McGrath 2019 ). Referring to this point, one may ask whether we should avoid discussing scientific evidence that may conflict with students’ worldviews while teaching controversial topics in science in order to not enable science denial. How can science educators address science denial in the classroom? How can science educators make scientific claims and evidence sticky so that students remember what they read or observe and try to evaluate their background assumptions? The answers to these questions are complicated. Regarding these questions, the following paragraphs discuss the intersections between the ways science should be taught and the suggestions for addressing science denial and the backfire effect.

Science Denial, the Backfire Effect and Science Teaching

It seems that pedagogical suggestions for avoiding the backfire effect and dealing with science denial are inconclusive and contradictory. Regarding the fact that there is a strong relationship between background assumptions and science denial or acceptance (Mazur 2004 ), Nyhan and Reifler ( 2010 ) and Cook and Lewandowsky ( 2011 ) suggested that when educators present counter-evidence, they should acknowledge students’ background assumptions (e.g., political ideologies, religious beliefs). On the other hand, there are some suggestions on how to discuss controversial issues by avoiding considering students’ background assumptions. Consider the following excerpt showing how we should be careful while teaching about climate change:

… in a polarized political landscape, talking about politicians and the decisions they make is counterproductive. Students may put their guard up, thinking that I’m partisan, and tune me out when I’m lecturing about other things, such as climate modeling. So, I made a conscious decision to change my approach to teaching the subject. As part of my modified strategy, I joined a local bipartisan group that aims to bring people together by emphasizing the potential consequences, rather than causes, of climate change. (Kannan 2019 , p. 1042)

This example suggests that leaving politics out of the classroom while discussing polarizing issues in science is considered as an important attempt to prevent science denial and to avoid threatening students’ worldviews. So, should we acknowledge students’ background assumptions? It is not clear how educators should go about reconciling the advice in their classroom.

Another example of contradictory advice to educators can be seen in Cook and Lewandowsky ( 2011 ). The authors suggested that if teachers aim to debunk misbeliefs about scientific phenomena, they should begin by emphasizing the scientific facts, not the misbeliefs. The goal should be to increase students’ familiarity with scientific facts (Cook and Lewandowsky 2011 ). Even though this bit of advice seems to work for specifically combating the familiarity backfire effect discussed earlier, it still invites the backfire effect, in general, described by Nyhan and Reifler ( 2010 , 2015 ) and Nyhan and colleagues ( 2014 ).

Moreover, when we compare what the literature on how to teach science and what to teach about science says with the suggested ways of avoiding the backfire effect and science denial, we see conflicting ideas on these issues. Duschl and Osborne ( 2002 ), for instance, argued that science instruction should focus on “how we know what we know and why we believe the beliefs of science to be superior or more fruitful than competing viewpoints” (Duschl and Osborne 2002 , p. 43). Even though this statement refers to the importance of the epistemic aspect of understanding scientific practices, it seems to neglect what might happen when students are provided with the idea that the scientific way of knowing is superior to other ways of knowing, and triggering a possible backfire effect.

Emphasizing the role(s) of an epistemic understanding of knowledge production in science might be a fruitful way to avoid the backfire effect while learning and teaching polarizing scientific issues. Using Duschl ( 2008 )’s framing of epistemic and conceptual aspects of science learning, I define the epistemic understanding of knowledge production in science as the consideration of multiple perspectives and contexts (social, cultural, historical, linguistic, etc.) while evaluating or challenging evidence and claims. The integration of the epistemic understanding of how to develop and evaluate scientific knowledge into scientific practices is one of the more important goals for science learning defined by Duschl ( 2008 ). This goal can be accomplished by facilitating a dialogical discourse through which learners have a chance to evaluate claims and evidence to make inferences about the natural world (Duschl 2020 ). Even though the literature on the importance of the epistemic understanding in science classrooms is well-established, its potential role in preventing or fostering science denial and the backfire effect is not adequately discussed in the field of science education. There are some areas that need to be focused on and investigated for their potential to combat science denial and the backfire effect while foregrounding the role(s) of the epistemic understanding of knowledge production for science instruction. These areas include expanding ways of knowing and marking the boundary between the scientific way of knowing and other ways of knowing at the same time, comparing claims and arguments that derive from different frameworks, teaching about the power and limitations of science, and bringing different and similar ways science is done to students’ attention .

First, educators can encourage expanding ways of knowing and marking the boundary between the scientific way of knowing and other ways of knowing at the same time. Expanding ways of knowing involves acknowledging knowledge that is value-based and cultural not only empirical. The scientific way of knowing produces knowledge (I will call this type of knowledge scientific knowledge ) through specific practices (observation, experimentation, logical inference, etc.). Scientific knowledge tries to explain the natural world by focusing on individual parts. On the other hand, traditional knowledge, indigenous knowledge, or local knowledge (I use these terms interchangeably here) refers to other ways of knowing embedded in the cultural traditions, beliefs, and attitudes of specific communities. The production of this type of knowledge also includes observations, predictions, and problem-solving (Snively and Corsiglia 2001 ). However, the way of producing traditional knowledge is not always systematic. Additionally, the traditional ways of knowing try to understand the natural world more holistically by observing the interactions between all of the parts of a phenomenon. Consider this example. Cobern and Loving ( 2001 ) shared the following conversation between a researcher working at a scientific station on a South Pacific Island and an indigenous islander:

The islander commented that Westerners only think they know why the ocean rises and falls on a regular basis. They think it has to do with the moon. They are wrong. The ocean rises and falls as the great sea turtles leave and return to their homes in the sand. The ocean falls as the water rushes into the empty nest. The ocean rises as the water is forced out by the returning turtles. (Cobern and Loving 2001 , p. 51)

As another example of other ways of knowing, Foucault ( 1970 ) mentioned a Chinese encyclopaedia in which animals are divided into groups: “(a) belonging to the Emperor, (b) embalmed, (c) tame, (d) sucking pigs, (e) sirens, (f) fabulous, (g) stray dogs, (h) included in the present classification, (i) frenzied, (j) innumerable, (k) drawn with a very fine camelhair brush, (l) etcetera, (m) having just broken the water pitcher, and (n) that from a long way off look like flies” (p. 16). For another example, an indigenous group, called Tao (or Yami) people, living on Orchid Island (Lanyu) located near South-East Taiwan, has a different taxonomy where fish are grouped into two main classes: edible and inedible fish (Wang 2012 ). The inedible fish are like fish without scales such as eels. The edible fish are further divided into different groups: old people fish (only to be consumed by elders), men fish (prohibited to women), and women fish (for all to consume). This kind of classification is based on the different purposes fish are used for in the community. The indigenous classification method is motivated by the protection of natural diversity and ecosystem while scientific classification aims to inform the user as to what the relatives of the taxon are hypothesized to be (M.-Y. Lin, personal communication, September 14, 2020). For instance, the reason Tao people do not eat eels (and classify it as inedible fish) is that the eels dredge the headwater of the taro fields and hunt pests (Wang 2012 ). These three examples of other ways of knowing show that knowledge is produced within specific contexts, with specific purposes, and with specific methods.

The literature in the sciences and science education has emphasized and valued expanding ways of knowing and marking the boundary between the scientific way of knowing and other ways of knowing without focusing on science denial and the backfire effect. As an example of acknowledging other ways of knowing, Behrens ( 1989 ) examined the correspondence between Shipibo, an indigenous group in the Peruvian Amazon, soil categories, and Western pedology (a branch of soil science) to understand soil-plant associations and agricultural productivity. There are also many studies about how educators can acknowledge different ways of knowing in their science teaching practices (see Barba 1995 ; Loving 1991 ; Ogawa 1995 ). Ogawa ( 1995 ), for instance, argued that bringing a multiscience perspective in science classrooms helps students understand more than one view simultaneously and discuss how and why some natural phenomena can be interpreted similarly or differently in different contexts. For another example, Loving ( 1991 ) proposed a model called the Scientific Theory Profile to help science teachers develop an understanding of the nature of science and evaluate scientific explanations and theories within cultural contexts. Even though these studies provide insights into what expanding ways of knowing might look like in practice and how it might be useful to facilitate the epistemic understanding of knowledge production in science, they do not discuss the potential of fostering science denial and the backfire effect instead of avoiding it.

The proponents of diverse perspectives in explaining natural phenomena argue that scientific way of knowing and other ways of knowing should be viewed as co-existing or parallel (e.g., Cobern and Loving 2001 ; Snively and Corsiglia 2001 ) rather than competing viewpoints. This is true. One reason is that different ways of knowing might be useful in different social or cultural contexts and lead to different consequences and decision-making processes (Feinstein and Waddington 2020 ). It is also important to note that these different ways of knowing are not equal. It means that knowledge-building encompasses multiple ways of origins, practices, logical conclusions, rationales, and methods. Here, the intent of this paper is not to discuss whether or not other ways of knowing are classified as scientific knowledge or science. The answers to this question in the science education literature are not in agreement with one another (for detailed discussions see Cobern and Loving 2001 ; Snively and Corsiglia 2001 ; Southerland 2000 ; Stanley and Brickhouse 1994 ).

Potential Impact on Students’ Learning

What we educators can do by expanding ways of knowing is to consider the epistemological pluralism and the ability to wisely differentiate scientific knowledge from other ways of knowing in light of logical inferences, use of evidence, systematic observation, etc. (Cobern and Loving 2001 ). By doing so, educators provide a way of distinguishing reliable knowledge claims from unreliable ones (Laudan 1996 ). Different ways of knowing can contribute to our explanations about the world (Snively and Corsiglia 2001 ) and work in consort because different ways of knowing may be important in different situations. Expanding ways of knowing provides students with a chance to see how the practice of science may utilize the insights of another domain of knowledge (Cobern and Loving 2001 ). Science instruction should “value knowledge on its many forms and from its many sources” (Cobern and Loving 2001 , p. 63) so that students feel free to bring different perspectives and ways of knowing to their classroom and discuss them.

Second, students should be able to compare claims and arguments that derive from different frameworks or domains of knowledge. To do so, it is important to know how to engage in scientific practices such as making inferences, generating and evaluating explanations, and making observations. Teaching students about “methods for posing questions about science, scientific models for serious thinking about science, understandings about aspects of scientific inquiry, and a sceptical orientation regarding ways that science is characterized in curriculum materials and instruction” might be a good way to guide them to develop and evaluate arguments and counterarguments (Kelly 2014 , p. 1368).

Constructing a counterargument that successfully weakens the force of others’ arguments is a challenging task for students (Kuhn 2010 ). In her study, Kuhn highlighted two important implications for learning and teaching about scientific argumentation: (a) students should be encouraged to develop alternative arguments based on evidence against the opponents’ argument rather than critiquing the opponents’ arguments and threatening their beliefs and assumptions. (b) There are two main ways of making use of evidence in argumentation: the support strategy—using the evidence to support one’s claim, and the challenge strategy—using the evidence to challenge the other’s claim. Educators tend to avoid using the term argument in the classroom because of fear that argument may be associated with negative concepts and senses in students’ minds. However, developing arguments and counterarguments are key components of critical thinking and it creates an opportunity for students to make use of their skills of analysis, synthesis, and evaluation (Osborne and Patterson 2011 ). An example that fits this argument would be the curriculum introduced in 2016 in Finland that requires students to think critically, interpret, and evaluate all the information they encounter across all subjects. Henley ( 2020 ) reports on how the national curriculum aims to accomplish this goal in Finland as follow:

In maths lessons, … pupils learn how easy it is to lie with statistics. In art, they see how an image’s meaning can be manipulated. In history, they analyse notable propaganda campaigns, while Finnish language teachers work with them on the many ways in which words can be used to confuse, mislead, and deceive. (Henley 2020 , para. 4)

This is one way of providing students with the necessary skills and methods to evaluate claims and evidence without leading to any conflicts and threats. As reported by Henley from his personal communication with Mikko Salo, a member of the European Union’s independent high-level expert group on fake news, “It’s about trying to vaccinate against problems, rather than telling people what’s right and wrong. That can easily lead to polarisation” (Henley 2020 , para. 23).

Third, students should learn about both the power and limitations of science to engage with the epistemic aspect of knowledge production in science. Even though the programme of study for 14–16-year-old students in England contains an acknowledgement that students are taught about the “power and limitations” of science (Department of Education 2014 , p. 5), it is argued in the literature that school science does not explicitly and efficiently teach that argumentation is associated with uncertainty—being unsure and lacking knowledge or evidence (Chen et al. 2019 ). Researchers showed that an individual’s political attitudes, beliefs, and worldviews are strongly related to the level of tolerance of uncertainty (Jost et al. 2003 ; Pennycook et al. 2012 ). For instance, conservatives are less likely to tolerate uncertainty (Deppe et al. 2015 ). (A caveat should be noted: Denial is not a problem for only conservatives. Kahan et al. ( 2011 ) have found that liberals are less likely to accept a hypothetical expert consensus on nuclear waste disposal and handgun regulations). Uncertainty is one of the factors that trigger science denial that educators encounter while teaching and learning about hot button issues. Chen et al. ( 2019 ) proposed a way of productively managing uncertainty in the classroom: raising uncertainty —expressing confusion and seeing other ideas to problematize a phenomenon, maintaining uncertainty —facilitating a discussion by which students can deepen their scientific reasoning with evidence, and reducing uncertainty —synthesizing alternative ideas, looking for inconsistencies among them, and connecting them to each other. This way helps teachers facilitate students’ epistemic understanding of knowledge production to manage uncertainty and prevents students from constructing motivated reasoning.

Lastly, science educators can bring different and similar ways science is done to their students’ attention to emphasize epistemic understanding. For instance, historical (e.g., palaeontology, historical geology, archaeology) and experimental sciences (e.g., physics, chemistry, astronomy) use distinct ways of producing scientific knowledge and reasoning. Historical sciences focus on explaining observable phenomena in terms of unobservable causes by using retrodiction, abduction, reasoning from analogy, and multiple working hypotheses (Gray 2014 ). In contrast, experimental sciences engage in making predictions and testing these predictions in controlled laboratory settings by focusing on hypotheses, experiments, controls, and variables. In addition to the differences between historical and experimental sciences, it is also important to highlight that even though historical science hypotheses and methods are usually associated with fields such as palaeontology and archaeology, we can see historical hypotheses and methods in geology, planetary science, astronomy, and astrophysics—such as continental drift, the meteorite impact extinction of the dinosaurs, and the big bang origin of the universe hypotheses (Cleland 2001 ). The epistemological and methodological differences and similarities between historical and experimental sciences are important since background assumptions and beliefs about historical science claims can have important consequences (e.g., creationist critiques of evolution) (Gray 2014 ). Just because historical sciences cannot replicate unobservable causes in laboratory settings, it is not true to assume that the way historical scientists do science is inferior to the way experimental sciences produce knowledge and make inferences (Cleland 2001 ), and that historical sciences are more subject to denial.

For another example of different ways of doing science, scientists working on the same problem and with the same data can arrive at different conclusions. In a recent study (Silberzahn et al. 2018 ), 29 research teams (a total of 61 researchers) from 13 countries with a variety of research backgrounds including Psychology, Statistics, Research Methods, Economics, Sociology, Linguistics, and Management were provided with the same set of data and asked to answer the same question: whether soccer referees are more likely to give red cards to dark skin toned players than light skin toned players. Twenty of the teams found a statistically significant relationship between a player’s skin color and the likelihood of receiving a red card. Nine teams found no significant relationship at all. The researchers came to different conclusions because they used different statistical models and took different variables from the data set into account. It is clear that their analyses led to somewhat subjective decisions about the best statistical model to use and which variables should be included in the analyses. Silberzahn et al. ( 2018 ) concluded that “many subjective decisions are part of the research process and can affect the outcomes” (p. 354). As an important consequence, this variability in analytic approaches and conclusions is likely to affect decision-making processes. With this illustrative example in mind, it is important for teachers to consider different analytical tools and methodologies used in science and how these differences lead to diverse viewpoints while they engage students with using and interpreting scientific evidence and making inferences in classrooms.

These four areas discussed above are promising and are open to further investigations to evaluate their potential to combat science denial and the backfire effect while facilitating the epistemic understanding of how we know and what know about the natural world around us. The reason these areas are important to focus on is that they can address the sociological characteristics of science denial(ists), such as considering scientific theories as threats, finding scientific ideas difficult to understand, and disseminating false beliefs, assumptions, and ideologies in the public (see Table ​ Table1), 1 ), and provide some insights into how to deal with science denial and the backfire effect. For instance, expanding ways of knowing can take the familiarity backfire effect into account while providing students with diverse perspectives on the same phenomenon. Encountering different ways of knowing, students can have a chance to access to and discuss a vast array of ideas instead of getting exposed to the same (mis)beliefs frequently. Moreover, if students would like to challenge some ideas, they need to learn how to develop counterarguments based on evidence rather than solely targeting other ideas just because these ideas contradict with their background assumptions. Additionally, teaching students about how knowledge is produced (different ways of logical reasoning, different methodologies, etc.) before teaching them scientific ideas themselves may prevent the overkill backfire effect. To do so, educators can explain why there are multiple explanations on the same phenomenon and why the ways science is done seem to be complicated processes that may lead to uncertainty or inconclusive evidence. The most important point of zooming in on these four areas can potentially provide learners, scientifically literate citizens, with opportunities to reflect on their background assumptions, beliefs, ideologies, and cultural resources while negotiating and distinguishing between different ways of knowing and evaluating the credibility of claims and evidence.

Conclusions and Discussion

With a focus on science denial, this paper brings the backfire effect to the attention of science educators and science education researchers and discusses the potential role(s) of epistemic understanding of knowledge production in science in dealing with the rejection of scientific evidence and claims in science classrooms. In order to investigate the potential role(s) of epistemic understanding of knowledge production in confronting the denial of scientific ideas and mitigating the influence of the backfire effect, the current paper suggest taking a close look at expanding ways of knowing and marking the boundary between the scientific way of knowing and other ways of knowing at the same time, comparing claims and arguments that derive from different domains of knowledge, recognizing the power and limitations of science, and learning about different ways science is done .

Given these four areas to seek effective ways of dealing with science denial in science classrooms, it may seem that the suggested areas for further explorations are based on the nature of science rather than the specific ways of combating the backfire effect. There are two main reasons for that. First, the literature on debunking misinformation and avoiding the backfire effect has offered contradictory advice (e.g., emphasizing scientific facts not (mis)beliefs vs. acknowledging students’ beliefs). This literature also falls short in providing educators with practical ways of implementing these strategies. For example, how can educators acknowledge students’ beliefs and values while presenting a counterargument or scientific fact? How can educators balance a discussion of different ways of knowing without opening the door to science denial? What forms of knowing or knowledge production should be admitted to science classrooms? Should educators care about the correctness of different ways of knowing at all? Or should they focus on how different ways of knowing are useful in different contexts?

Second, even though cognition-oriented research findings in the field of science education (e.g., conceptual change pedagogies such as cognitive conflict pedagogies) have provided insights on the processes of how students reconstruct their knowledge and understanding (Chinn and Malhotra 2002 ; diSessa 1993 ; Vosniadou 2002 ), we still do not know what steps students follow to achieve a meaningful conflict while they reconstruct their prior knowledge, beliefs, and values (Limón 2001 ). As an example, despite the fact that cognitive conflict—confronting learners with contradictory information—has a long history as a suggested strategy for supporting learning and teaching in science education, it has had less success in classroom implementations than expected and has led to conflicting results as well (e.g., Limón and Carretero 1997 ). One reason is that many educators do not know how to facilitate a meaningful cognitive conflict in classrooms (Limón 2001 ). Several models and theories on conceptual change focus only on the cognitive processes of individuals and underestimate the importance of epistemological beliefs, values, attitudes, and reasoning strategies (Limón 2001 ). Moreover, it seems that these models and theories neglect the consequences of inducing conflict by providing anomalous and contradictory information, situations which ignite the backfire effect. The given perspectives from these two areas, the literature on debunking misinformation and how students reconstruct their knowledge through a meaningful conflict, might be complementary but neither is sufficient alone to provide fruitful strategies to avoid the backfire effect and science denial and promote meaningful conflict while learning and teaching about controversial issues in science.

With regard to the potentially fruitful areas discussed earlier, the epistemic understanding of knowledge production in science is not a panacea, or a one-size-fits-all solution. However, the epistemic understanding of knowledge production in science seems to be relevant to lead students to consider different perspectives and sources of knowledge and knowing on polarizing scientific issues rather than dismissing ideas that contradict their knowledge, beliefs, and values. Limitations exist in terms of the role of researchers and educators in addressing science denial and the backfire effect while facilitating epistemic understanding of knowledge production. There are some important questions that we need to ask and to seek answers for. Do educators consider the importance of presenting relevant information to explain scientific phenomena in classrooms? Teachers, for instance, who heavily depend on textbooks to teach science might encounter issues related to the epistemic aspect of knowledge production in science. As Kuhn ( 1970 ) pointed out, textbooks are “persuasive” (p. 1) and what is described as science in the textbooks does not fit the way science is done. One may also ask whether we teach students about both the scientific knowledge and the way knowledge is produced. Teaching scientific knowledge before explaining how it is produced can be exemplified by a cart before the horse approach. There is a need, then, for educators and researchers to be conscious of the backfire effect and the nature of scientific knowledge and formulate a comprehensive approach to science denial. Moreover, educators and researchers should pay attention to students’ background assumptions according to their specific contexts. It means that the strategies in dealing with students’ assumptions and beliefs about electrons should be different than their beliefs about hot button issues such as vaccination and global warming (Hodgin and Kahne 2018 ). It is important to consider different pedagogical approaches based on whether students’ misbeliefs are caused by the absence of knowledge, pseudo-theory promotion, or antipathy towards scientific facts. Regarding the challenges of post-truth and science denial, it would be wise to develop well-focused and empirically grounded strategies to combat with different types of unwarranted beliefs to produce satisfactory instructional outcomes (Fasce and Picó 2019 ).

Only a handful of studies in political science have analysed the effects of attempts to correct misbeliefs and background assumptions, leading to contradictory research findings. The studies also lack evidence on effective strategies for pedagogical implementations. Little is known about how science educators and researchers approach the backfire effect with polarising issues and science denial within the field of science education. Use of epistemic understanding of knowledge production in science with a focus on avoiding the backfire effect may increase the potential for science education research to produce fruitful strategies and democratic environments which promote divergent perspectives to deepen students’ understanding of how science works. There is a need for science education research to consider the consequences of the backfire effect and develop a program of research or supplemental curriculum to help students use critical and reflective thinking skills within a multidisciplinary context (e.g., natural sciences, political sciences, media and communication studies).

Declarations

The author declares no conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note

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

• Banilower, E. R. (2019). Understanding the big picture for science teacher education: The 2018 NSSME+. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 30(3), 201–208
• Barba, R. H. (1995). Science in the multicultural classroom: A guide to teaching and learning . Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon
• Bardon, A. (2020). The truth about denial: Bias and self-deception in science, politics, and religion . New York, NY: Oxford University Press
• Behrens, C. A. (1989). The scientific basis for Shipibo soil classification and land use: Changes in soil-plant associations with cash cropping. American Anthropologist, 91, 83–100
• Boyle R. States are trying to bring science denial to the classroom. 2017. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chater, N. (1999). The search for simplicity: A fundamental cognitive principle? The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 52(2), 273–302
• Chen YC, Benus MJ, Hernandez J. Managing uncertainty in scientific argumentation. Science Education. 2019; 103 :1235–1276. doi: 10.1002/sce.21527. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chinn CA, Malhotra BA. Children’s responses to anomalous scientific data: how is conceptual change impeded? Journal of Educational Psychology. 2002; 94 (2):327–343. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.94.2.327. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cleland CE. Historical science, experimental science, and the scientific method. Geology. 2001; 29 (11):987–990. doi: 10.1130/0091-7613(2001)029<0987:HSESAT>2.0.CO;2. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cobern WW, Loving CC. Defining “science” in a multicultural world: implications for science education. Science Education. 2001; 85 (1):50–67. doi: 10.1002/1098-237X(200101)85:1<50::AID-SCE5>3.0.CO;2-G. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cook J, Lewandowsky S. The debunking handbook . St. Lucia, Australia: University of Queensland; 2011. [ Google Scholar ]
• Crozier WE, Strange D. Correcting the misinformation effect. Applied Cognitive Psychology. 2019; 33 (4):585–595. [ Google Scholar ]
• Department of Education. (2014). Science programmes of study: key stage 4 . National Curriculum in England. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/381380/Science_KS4_PoS_7_November_2014.pdf
• Deppe, K. D., Gonzalez, F. J., Neiman, J. L., Jacobs, C., Pahlke, J., Smith, K. B., & Hibbing, J. R. (2015). Reflective liberals and intuitive conservatives: a look at the cognitive reflection test and ideology. Judgment & Decision Making, 10(4), 314–331
• diSessa AA. Toward an epistemology of physics. Cognition and Instruction. 1993; 10 (2-3):105–225. doi: 10.1080/07370008.1985.9649008. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Druckman JN, McGrath MC. The evidence for motivated reasoning in climate change preference formation. Nature Climate Change. 2019; 9 (2):111–119. doi: 10.1038/s41558-018-0360-1. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Duschl R. Science education in three-part harmony: Balancing conceptual, epistemic, and social learning goals. Review of Research in Education. 2008; 32 :268–291. doi: 10.3102/0091732X07309371. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Duschl, R. A. (2020). Practical reasoning and decision making in science: Struggles for truth. Educational Psychologist, 55(3), 187–192
• Duschl RA, Osborne J. Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education. 2002; 38 (1):39–72. doi: 10.1080/03057260208560187. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ecker UK, Hogan JL, Lewandowsky S. Reminders and repetition of misinformation: helping or hindering its retraction? Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition. 2017; 6 (2):185–192. doi: 10.1037/h0101809. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ecker, U. K., Lewandowsky, S., Jayawardana, K., & Mladenovic, A. (2019). Refutations of equivocal claims: No evidence for an ironic effect of counterargument number. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 8(1), 98–107
• Fasce A, Picó A. Science as a vaccine. Science & Education. 2019; 28 (1-2):109–125. doi: 10.1007/s11191-018-00022-0. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Feinstein NW, Waddington DI. Individual truth judgments or purposeful, collective sensemaking? Rethinking science education’s response to the post-truth era. Educational Psychologist. 2020; 55 (3):155–166. doi: 10.1080/00461520.2020.1780130. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fiedler D, Sbeglia GC, Nehm RH, Harms U. How strongly does statistical reasoning influence knowledge and acceptance of evolution? Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 2019; 56 (9):1183–1206. doi: 10.1002/tea.21547. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Foucault, M. (1970). The order of things: An archaeology of the human sciences . (A. M. Sheridan Smith, Trans.). New York, NY: Vintage Books
• Gray RON. The distinction between experimental and historical sciences as a framework for improving classroom inquiry. Science Education. 2014; 98 (2):327–341. doi: 10.1002/sce.21098. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hand, B., Lawrence, C., & Yore, L. D. (1999). A writing in science framework designed to enhance science literacy. International Journal of Science Education, 21(10), 1021–1035
• Haglin K. The limitations of the backfire effect. Research & Politics. 2017; 4 (3):1–5. doi: 10.1177/2053168017716547. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hansson, S. O. (2017a). Science and pseudo-science. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.). The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Summer 2017 ed.). Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pseudo-science/#ScD
• Hansson SO. Science denial as a form of pseudoscience. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science. 2017; 63 :39–47. doi: 10.1016/j.shpsa.2017.05.002. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Henley J. How Finland starts its fight against fake news in primary schools. 2020. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hodgin, E., & Kahne, J. (2018). Misinformation in the information age: what teachers can do to support students. Social Education, 82(4), 208–212
• Jaipal, K. (2009). Meaning making through multiple modalities in a biology classroom: A multimodal semiotics discourse analysis. Science Education, 94(1), 48–72
• Jost JT, Glaser J, Kruglanski AW, Sulloway FJ. Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin. 2003; 129 (3):339–375. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.129.3.339. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kahan DM, Jenkins-Smith H, Braman D. Cultural cognition of scientific consensus. Journal of Risk Research. 2011; 14 (2):147–174. doi: 10.1080/13669877.2010.511246. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kannan R. Sidestepping politics to teach climate. Science. 2019; 366 (6468):1042. doi: 10.1126/science.366.6468.1042. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kelly, G. J. (2014). Inquiry teaching and learning: Philosophical considerations. International handbook of research in history, philosophy and science teaching (pp. 1363–1380). The Netherlands: Springer
• Kuhn TS. The structure of scientific revolutions . Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1970. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kuhn D. Teaching and learning science as argument. Science Education. 2010; 94 (5):810–824. doi: 10.1002/sce.20395. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lakatos I. Science and pseudoscience. In: Curd M, Cover JA, editors. Philosophy of science: The central issues . New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company; 1998. pp. 20–26. [ Google Scholar ]
• Laudan L. Beyond positivism and relativism . Boulder, CO: Westview Press; 1996. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lawson AE. A scientific approach to teaching about evolution and special creation. American Biology Teacher. 1999; 61 (4):266–274. doi: 10.2307/4450669. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lenormand T, Roze D, Rousset F. Stochasticity in evolution. Trends in Ecology & Evolution. 2009; 24 :157–165. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2008.09.014. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lewandowsky S, Ecker UKH, Seifert C, Schwarz N, Cook J. Misinformation and its correction: continued influence and successful debiasing. Psychological Science in the Public Interest. 2012; 13 :106–131. doi: 10.1177/1529100612451018. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Limón, M. (2001). On the cognitive conflict as an instructional strategy for conceptual change: A critical appraisal. Learning and Instruction, 11 (4), 357–380
• Limón, M., & Carretero, M. (1997). Conceptual change and anomalous data: A case study in the domain of natural sciences. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 12 (2), 213–230
• Liu DWC. Science denial and the science classroom. CBE-Life Sciences Education. 2012; 11 :129–134. doi: 10.1187/cbe.12-03-0029. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lombrozo T. Simplicity and probability in causal explanation. Cognitive Psychology. 2007; 55 (3):232–257. doi: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2006.09.006. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Loving, C. C. (1991). The scientific theory profile: A philosophy of science models for science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28 , 823–838.
• Mazur A. Believers and disbelievers in evolution. Politics and the Life Sciences. 2004; 23 (2):55–61. doi: 10.2990/1471-5457(2004)23[55:BADIE]2.0.CO;2. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mizrahi, M. (2015). Historical inductions: New cherries, same old cherry-picking. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 29 (2), 129–148.
• Mooney, C. (2011). The science of why we don’t believe science. Mother Jones. https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/04/denial-science-chris-mooney/
• Nyhan, B., & Reifler, J. (2010). When corrections fail: The persistence of political misperceptions. Political Behavior, 32 (2), 303–330
• Nyhan B, Reifler J. Does correcting myths about the flu vaccine work? An experimental evaluation of the effects of corrective information. Vaccine. 2015; 33 (3):459–464. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2014.11.017. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nyhan, B., Reifler, J., Richey, S., & Freed, G. L. (2014). Effective messages in vaccine promotion: A randomized trial. Pediatrics, 133 (4), 835–842 [ PubMed ]
• Ogawa M. Science education in a multiscience perspective. Science Education. 1995; 79 :583–593. doi: 10.1002/sce.3730790507. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Okasha, S. (2002). Philosophy of science: A very short introduction . New York, NY: Oxford University Press
• Osborne, J. F., & Patterson, A. (2011). Scientific argument and explanation: A necessary distinction? Science Education, 95 (4), 627–638
• Paul, R. W. (1995). Critical thinking: How to prepare students for a rapidly changing world . Santa Rosa, CA: Foundation for Critical Thinking
• Pennycook G, Cheyne JA, Seli P, Koehler DJ, Fugelsang JA. Analytic cognitive style predicts religious and paranormal belief. Cognition. 2012; 123 (3):335–346. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2012.03.003. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pinker, S. (2018). Enlightenment now: The case for reason, science, humanism, and progress . Viking
• Rosenau, J. (2012). Science denial: A guide for scientists. Trends in Microbiology, 20 (12), 567–569 [ PubMed ]
• Sandoval WA. Understanding students’ practical epistemologies and their influence on learning through inquiry. Science Education. 2005; 89 (4):634–656. doi: 10.1002/sce.20065. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Short SD, Lastrapes KA, Natale NE, McBrady EE. Rational engagement buffers the effect of conservatism on one’s reported relevance of the theory of evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 2019; 56 :1384–1405. doi: 10.1002/tea.21559. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sides J, Citrin J. Paper presented at the 2007 annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL. 2007. How large the huddled masses? The causes and consequences of public misperceptions about immigrant populations. [ Google Scholar ]
• Silberzahn, R., Uhlmann, E. L., Martin, D. P., Anselmi, P., Aust, F., Awtrey, E. C., et al. (2018). Many analysts, one dataset: Making transparent how variations in analytical choices affect results. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 1 (3), 337–356
• Sinatra, G. M., Kienhues, D., & Hofer, B. K. (2014). Addressing challenges to public understanding of science: Epistemic cognition, motivated reasoning, and conceptual change. Educational Psychologist, 49 (2), 123–138
• Snively, G., & Corsiglia, J. (2001). Discovering indigenous science: Implications for science education. Science Education, 85 (1), 6–34
• Southerland SA. Epistemic universalism and the shortcomings of curricular multicultural science education. Science & Education. 2000; 9 (3):289–307. doi: 10.1023/A:1008676109903. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stanley WB, Brickhouse NW. Multiculturalism, universalism, and science education. Science Education. 1994; 78 (4):387–398. doi: 10.1002/sce.3730780405. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Swire B, Ecker UK, Lewandowsky S. The role of familiarity in correcting inaccurate information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. 2017; 43 :1948–1961. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Taber CS, Lodge M. Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science. 2006; 50 :755–769. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00214.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tippett, C. D. (2010). Refutation text in science education: A review of two decades of research. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8 , 951–970
• Trevors, G. J., Muis, K. R., Pekrun, R., Sinatra, G. M., & Winne, P. H. (2016). Identity and epistemic emotions during knowledge revision: A potential account for the backfire effect. Discourse Processes, 53 (5-6), 339–370
• Vosniadou S. On the nature of naïve physics. In: Limón M, Mason L, editors. Reconsidering the processes of conceptual change . Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 2002. pp. 61–76. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wang KC. Animals in Tao’s eco-cultural meanings (蘭嶼動物生態文化) Taiwan: National Chiao Tung University Press; 2012. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wood, T., & Porter, E. (2017). The elusive backfire effect: Mass attitudes’ steadfast factual adherence . Political Behavior: Forthcoming. 10.2139/ssrn.2819073.

Science Education

Every Rock Tells a Story. This Is the Tale of a Meteor-wrong

We discovered a strange rock in the Sahara we thought was a meterorite. Figuring out what it was grounded me back to Earth

Bethany Brookshire

We Should Engineer Better Learning in Our Schools

Students should learn about both the natural world and human-made—or engineered—one we live in

Christine M. Cunningham

$1 for Digital Access

Read all the stories you want.

Can Scientific Thinking Save the World?

A physicist, a philosopher and a psychologist are working together to bring better, smarter decision-making to the masses

Lee Billings

AI Can Transform the Classroom Just Like the Calculator

AI can better education, not threaten it, if we learn some lessons from the adoption of the calculator into the classroom

Michael M. Crow, Nicole K. Mayberry, Ted Mitchell, Derrick Anderson

Black Scientists Are Building Their Own Vital Communities

A person-centric scientific conference demonstrates that gathering can counter the isolation of underrepresentation

Malique Bowen, Molly Herring

New Law Allowing Religion into Science Classrooms Is Dangerous for Everyone

It is imperative that we protect science education from “intelligent design” and other alternative “theories”

Amanda L. Townley

Capable Carbon Filters

An adsorbing science project by Science Buddies

Science Buddies

Astronomers Rename Famous Exoplanets

More than 30 worlds have new names drawn from world mythology, literature and history

When Teaching Critical Thinking Backfires

Students taught to doubt scientists and other authorities may end up doubting their teachers.

John Horgan

Thoughts from a #BLACKandSTEM Academic Regarding Scalia's and Roberts's Remarks on December 9, 2015

Reflecting on the remarks made by SCOTUS's Scalia and Roberts about the value of Black students in college science classes

Folded or Flat Paper Towel: Which One Absorbs More Water?

A soggy project from Science Buddies

Supreme Court Casts Doubt on Scope of Vermont Health Care Data Law

Expected ruling could prevent 18 states from collecting health care information from certain employee health plan administrators

Why Critical Thinking Should Be a Core Component of Education

Critical thinking is a fundamental skill that enables individuals to navigate the complexities of the modern world effectively. It is a disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and evaluating information gathered from various sources. As such, critical thinking should be a core component of education at all levels, as it equips students with the necessary tools to succeed academically, professionally, and personally.

Enhancing Academic Performance

Critical thinking is essential for academic success. It allows students to break down complex problems, evaluate evidence, and draw well-reasoned conclusions. A study conducted by the University of Louisville found that students who received explicit instruction in critical thinking skills demonstrated significant improvements in their overall academic performance.

Fostering Innovation and Problem-Solving

In today’s rapidly changing world, the ability to think critically is crucial for generating innovative solutions to complex problems. Critical thinking enables individuals to question assumptions, consider alternative perspectives, and think outside the box. A survey by the American Management Association revealed that 77% of employers consider critical thinking a crucial skill for their employees.

Promoting Lifelong Learning

Critical thinking is not just a skill but a mindset that can be applied throughout one’s life. By cultivating critical thinking abilities, students develop a love for learning and the confidence to tackle new challenges. A longitudinal study by the University of Michigan found that students who engaged in critical thinking activities in college were more likely to continue learning and adapting to new situations in their careers.

Developing Ethical Decision-Making

Critical thinking is essential for making ethical decisions in complex situations. It allows individuals to consider multiple perspectives, weigh the consequences of their actions, and make informed choices. A study by the Josephson Institute of Ethics revealed that 59% of high school students admitted to cheating on an exam in the past year, highlighting the need for stronger ethical reasoning skills.

Enhancing Civic Engagement

Critical thinking is crucial for active and informed citizenship. It enables individuals to critically evaluate information, identify biases, and make well-reasoned decisions on important issues. A survey by the Pew Research Center found that only 26% of Americans could correctly answer a set of questions testing their civic knowledge.

In conclusion, critical thinking should be a core component of education because it enhances academic performance, fosters innovation and problem-solving, promotes lifelong learning, develops ethical decision-making, and enhances civic engagement. By prioritizing critical thinking in the classroom, educators can empower students to become independent, adaptable, and responsible citizens who are equipped to navigate the challenges of the 21st century.

Insights Success is an archway that caters to Entrepreneurs’ quench of technology and business updates which are currently ruling the business world.

We are ceaselessly proving the best platform for leading companies, which aids indefinite progress while creating meaningful learning experiences for the visitors and invaluable brand awareness for the clients.

Quick Links

• Advertise With Us
• Privacy Policy
• Terms & Conditions

What Riots and Transphobia Teach Us About Critical Thinking

A reflective summary of global issues in the headlines and the need for critical thinking..

Posted August 29, 2024 | Reviewed by Michelle Quirk

• Misinformation is fueling societal issues including civil unrest and riots.
• Expecting governments and social media platforms to contain it is unrealistic.
• Critical thinking can be the solution.

At the beginning of August, the United Kingdom was swept up by news of the fatal stabbing of three young girls at a dance class, ultimately culminating in race riots. Meanwhile, globally, Olympics mania was overshadowed by a wave of transphobia. Both were triggered by targeted disinformation campaigns, leading to widespread civil unrest and waves of hate. If nothing else, they highlight the urgent need to bring critical thinking education to the forefront of curricula, with a tangible focus on media literacy skills to dampen the wildfire spread of fake news sweeping social media platforms.

So, what happened?

Olympic boxer: Imane Khelif

A single punch that saw her opponent surrender after just 42 seconds, catapulted Algerian female boxer, Imane Khelif, into the second round of the preliminary welterweight. Commenting that she had “never been hit so hard in my life,” competitor Carini attracted the global spotlight onto the women’s boxing event, sparking a wave of transphobic attention to sweep social media, fuelled in large part by misinformation and targeted disinformation.

At the World Championships in March 2023, Khelif was disqualified from participating due to “medical reasons,” which were later published as a failed drug test for high levels of testosterone . The problem was, the test was conducted by the now-defunct IBA, and what’s more, the IBA drew the conclusion that elevated testosterone was a symptom of male chromosomes, despite no other evidence to support this conclusion. In short, the IBA declared Khelif a man, despite plenty of evidence to the contrary. Interestingly, the IBA, which had strong Russian links and some strange timings for several of their decisions, has since been stripped of its governing body status, in light of a lack of transparency and suspicion of corruption around several of its major dealings.

What followed was a flurry of misinformation and disinformation posts taking the IBA’s decision at face value, despite Khelif passing subsequent testing. The posts claimed Khelif was a man, transgender , with no right to compete. Calls to boycott the Olympics only fuelled the fire, and celebrities and influencers weighed in to offer "fair fights," condemn the Olympics, and ignite transphobic hatred, too. All against a woman, who has trained as a woman, fought (and lost) as a woman, and has a birth certificate registering her as a woman. It highlights the emotive danger of fake news.

Southport stabbings to race riots

Meanwhile, in the United Kingdom, the fatal stabbing of three young girls and the injuries of numerous adults hit the headlines, as a ferocious knife attack took place at a Taylor Swift–themed dance class. Initial motives for the attack were unclear, but the perpetrator—who we now know to be British-born 17-year-old Axel Rudakubana—has been charged with three counts of murder and 10 counts of attempted murder, in addition to possession of a bladed article.

A tragic event, and one that should have simply seen a community mourn, became even more heartrending, when far-right protestors clashed with police in Southport, after attacking a mosque. Perpetrator Rudakubana was not Muslim or a foreign national, nor did he have any connections to the mosque. Yet, a misinformation thread, originating in Pakistan and quickly spreading across far-right accounts and Channel3Now, misclaimed that the attacker was Muslim, an asylum seeker, a foreign national, and/or a refugee. It triggered far-right and national race riots, a tidal wave of racism , and an epidemic of civil unrest that was quickly condemned, but hard to contain. This, despite media coverage and the naming of Rudakubana as the attacker.

More than 1,000 arrests have now been made, including children as young as 11, and 100 people have been imprisoned. A journalist in Pakistan has also been charged with misinformation under misinformation laws in Pakistan, as a direct contributor to the unrest. While many argue that the attack merely created an excuse for far-right rioting, it nonetheless highlights the terrifying reality of misinformation spreading unchecked.

What can be done about it? The need for critical thinking

The fastest and most effective method of inoculating the population against misinformation and disinformation in all its forms is to teach and then practise critical thinking.

Critical thinking is a deliberate thought process used to evaluate information. It means specifically and intentionally examining information to determine its validity and relevance. It is an essential skill in improving your cognitive processes but, importantly, is your first line of defence for preventing coercion and coercive control, including identifying misinformation and fake news, as well as gang membership, religious extremism, and cults.

Our brains encounter thousands of pieces of information a day, requiring quick indexing of information to support decision-making . If we didn’t aggressively filter information and take it at face value, we would quickly become paralysed by the size, scale, and scope of our day, and find ourselves paralysed by indecision. While these processes deliver significant benefit in helping us function, it makes us susceptible to accepting information at face value, regardless of its origin. This makes us extremely vulnerable to misinformation and disinformation campaigns, many of which seek to destabilise social function.

Critical thinking is the antithesis, offering tangible, effective strategies to combat our natural shortcomings. It is a learned skill that teaches us to think better, as well as teaching us when we need to think more slowly, allowing time for fact-checking, reflection, and a rational, rather than emotional reaction. At its core, critical thinking is a commitment to remaining open-minded and accepting of other viewpoints; being curious and actively seeking out information; testing your own assumptions by looking for contrary opinions; and pausing to allow emotional reactions to pass and logical reasoning to reassert. The key stages are these:

• Pause and observe: Take time to notice the critically important details and the context of the information.
• Ask questions: Seek to clarify the information and, if necessary, seek alternative sources.
• Determine bias: Every source has a bias—some innocuous, some malicious. Consider the context of the information and the angle they may want to take.
• Infer the implications: What are the implications of the information in that context? What purpose are they hoping to achieve?
• Remain open-minded: Accept that there are other viewpoints; try to understand these respectfully and see how they overlay your own.
• Reason and logic: Apply reason and logic to the information to determine what it tells you. Check facts again at this stage if you need to.
• Re-evaluate and conclude: Sticking doggedly to your beliefs, even in light of new evidence, is a common but difficult trait, and critical thinkers will actively challenge their own ideas.

Critical thinkers are typically not afraid to admit they were wrong or to change their stance in light of new information. In addition, applied critical thinking skills, such as improving your media literacy, can help reduce your susceptibility to misinformation.

Critical thinking in education

At the Open Minds Foundation, we have been tenaciously working to get critical thinking embedded in Western education frameworks, as a method for improving societal thinking and combatting common issues. While misinformation and disinformation are obvious examples, manipulation and coercive control are rife in everything from gang behaviours and cults to religious and political extremism. We have a partnership with teaching resource provider Jigsaw to bring our primary-school resources into schools and are delighted to see the recent statements from Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson vowing an end to “putrid conspiracy theories” with changes to the National Curriculum to help pupils spot fake news.

Traditionally, Western education systems are geared toward knowledge acquisition and spend the majority of time conveying what we know rather than how we know it. Importantly, introducing critical thinking skills to children as young as 5 years helps form the basis of intelligent enquiry and helps determine future capability in critical thinking. When we shift away from pure knowledge acquisition and into a process of learning to learn, we sow the seed for the future skills that young people need to protect their own autonomy.

The Open Minds Foundation is dedicated to undermining the effects of coercive control, through critical thinking education and training.

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Psychiatrist
• Find a Support Group
• Find Online Therapy
• International
• New Zealand
• South Africa
• Switzerland
• 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

It’s increasingly common for someone to be diagnosed with a condition such as ADHD or autism as an adult. A diagnosis often brings relief, but it can also come with as many questions as answers.

• Emotional Intelligence
• Gaslighting
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

Teach Critical Thinking

• First Online: 04 September 2024

Cite this chapter

• K. Venkat Reddy 3 &
• G. Suvarna Lakshmi 4  

This chapter presents machine-generated summaries of research conducted on teaching critical thinking skills in various educational contexts. The first article in this chapter deals with teaching critical thinking to engineering students with the following objectives: improving vocabulary, fluency in speech, and presenting arguments and opinions. The Gen-Z learners who are known to be digital natives and their other defining features are taken into account while undertaking the research. The results have shown that the cognitive tools used as input for teaching-learning vocabulary and thinking critically have positively influenced their learning of vocabulary, reading and writing skills. The second article summary in this chapter presents the results of teaching critical thinking to high school students using three different approaches viz. a viz., general, immersion, and mixed where the effects were large, moderate, and small respectively on the groups. The third auto-summary is about a study conducted on teaching critical thinking skills to high school learners. This study states that it is the lack of competence of the teachers in teaching the required skill set to the students is the reason for students lacking that skill paradigm. The students were then exposed to and trained in communication, critical thinking, and problem-solving. The study proposes that all students be given explicit instruction in these skills prior to graduation which should also be the goal of education. The next summary is of the article that is based on a study on the constructs of CT disposition: ability, sensitivity, and inclination to engage in critical and mindful thought. The details on teaching CT techniques form a major part of the study on Undergraduate (UG) students of contemporary arts. The teaching of CT strategies and classroom content were integrated. The students were encouraged to use CT beyond the classroom.

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

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Savannah State University: The Write Attitude. https://www.savannahstate.edu/qep/ (2018). Accessed 24 Oct 2018.

AAC&U: VALUE Rubrics. https://www.aacu.org/value-rubrics . Accessed 16 Oct 2018.

Arısoy, B., & Aybek, B. (2021). The effects of subject-based critical thinking education in mathematics on students’ critical thinking skills and virtues. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 92 , 99–120.

Google Scholar  

Marin, L. M., & Halpern, D. F. (2011). Pedagogy for developing critical thinking in adolescents: Explicit instruction produces greatest gains. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 6 , 1–13.

Article   Google Scholar  

Lee, Y. L. (2018). Nurturing critical thinking for implementation beyond the classroom: Implications from social psychological theories of behaviour change. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 27 , 139–146.

Lombardi, L., Thomas, V., Rodeyns, J., Mednick, F. J., Backer, F. D., & Lombaerts, K. (2021). Primary school teachers’ experiences of teaching strategies that promote pupils’ critical thinking. Educational Studies, 1–19 , 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2021.1990017

Aybek, B. (2006). The effect of content and skill based critical thinking teaching on prospective teachers’ disposition and level in critical thinking . Unpublished doctoral thesis,. Çukurova University.

Bayrak, Ç. (2014). The effects of using the expanding (CoRT 1) thinking program in the unit ‘electricity in our lives’ in primary education 7th -grade lesson, science and technology, to students’ academic achievement, scientific creativity and tendency of critical thinking . Unpublished Master’s thesis. Adnan Menderes University.

Eldeleklioğlu, J., & Özkılıç, R. (2008). The effect of critical thinking education on critical thinking skills of psychological guidance and counseling students. Turkish Psychological Counseling and Guidance Journal, 3 (29), 25–36.

Lou, J. (2018). Improvement in university students’ critical thinking following a strategic thinking training program. Neuro Quantology, 16 (5), 91–96.

Yıldırım, H., & Şensoy, Ö. (2011). The effect of science instruction based on critical thinking skills on critical thinking disposition of the 7th -grade primary school students. Kastamonu Education Journal, 19 (2), 523–540.

Alliance for Excellent Education. (2011). A time for deeper learning: Preparing students for a changing world. Education Digest, 77 (4), 43–49. Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.lib.ucalgary.ca/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=5&hid=12&sid=9695cbbb-ab96-496a-941e-35fa2bee2852%40sessionmgr4

Kassim, H., & Fatimah, A. (2010). English communicative events and skills needed at the workplace: Feedback from the industry. English for Specific Purposes, 29 (3), 168–182. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.lib.ucalgary.ca/science/article/pii/S0889490609000635

Halpern, D. (1998). Teaching CT for transfer across domains: Dispositions, skills, structure training, and metacognitive monitoring. American Psychologist, 53 , 449–455.

Langer, E. J. (1993). A mindful education. Educational Psychologist, 28 , 43–50.

Langer, E. J., & Moldoveanu, M. (2000). The construct of mindfulness. Journal of Social Issues, 56 , 1–9.

Perkins, D., Jay, E., & Tishman, S. (1993). Beyond abilities: A dispositional theory of thinking. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 39 , 1–21.

Perkins, D., Tishman, S., Ritchhart, R., Donis, K., & Andrade, A. (2000). Intelligence in the wild: A dispositional view of intellectual traits. Educational Psychology Review, 12 , 269–293.

Buck, G. A. (2002). Teaching discourses: Science teachers’ responses to the voices of adolescent girls. Learning Environments Research, 5 , 29–50.

Anderson, T., Howe, C., Soden, R., Halliday, J., & Low, J. (2001). Peer interaction and the learning of CT skills in further education students. Instructional Science, 29 , 1–32.

Halpern, D. (2001). Why wisdom? Educational Psychologist, 34 , 253–256.

Herrenkohl, L. R., & Guerra, M. R. (1998). Participant structures, scientific discourse, and student engagement in fourth grade. Cognition and Instruction, 16 , 431–473.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control . W. H. Freeman and Company.

Ironside, P. M. (2006). Using narrative pedagogy: Learning and practicing interpretive thinking. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 55 , 478–486.

Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (2008). On the failure of cognitive ability to predict myside and one-sided thinking biases. Thinking and Reasoning, 14 , 129–167.

West, R. F., Toplak, M. E., & Stanovich, K. E. (2008). Heuristics and biases as measures of critical thinking: Associations with cognitive ability and thinking dispositions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100 , 930–941.

Tanner, C. A. (2009). The case for cases: A pedagogy for developing habits of thought. Journal of Nursing Education, 48 , 299–300.

Dougherty, M. J. (2004). Educating believers: Research demonstrates that courses in skepticism can effectively decrease belief in the paranormal. Skeptic, 10 (4), 31–35.

Franz, T. M., & Green, K. H. (2013). The impact of an interdisciplinary learning community course on pseudoscientific reasoning in first-year science students. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 13 (5), 90–105.

Gray, T. (1985). Changing unsubstantiated belief: Testing the ignorance hypothesis. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 17 , 263–270.

Kane, M. J., Core, T. J., & Hunt, R. R. (2010). Bias versus bias: Harnessing hindsight to reveal paranormal belief change beyond demand characteristics. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 17 (2), 206–212. https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.17.2.206

Wesp, R., & Montgomery, K. (1998). Developing critical thinking through the study of paranormal phenomena. Teaching of Psychology, 25 , 275–278.

Feder, K. (1984). Irrationality and archaeology. American Antiquity, 49 (3), 525–541.

Feder, K. (2010). Frauds, myths, and mysteries: Science and pseudoscience in archaeology (7th ed.). McGraw-Hill.

Aarnio, K., & Lindeman, M. (2005). Paranormal beliefs, education, and thinking styles. Personality and Individual Differences, 39 , 1227–1236.

Bridgstock, M. (2003). Paranormal beliefs among science students. Australasian Science, 24 (4), 33–35.

DeRobertis, M. M., & Delaney, P. A. (1993). A survey of the attitudes of university students to astrology and astronomy. Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada, 87 (1), 34–50.

Goode, E. (2002). Education, scientific knowledge, and belief in the paranormal. Skeptical Inquirer, 26 (1), 24–27.

Johnson, M., & Pigliucci, M. (2004). Is knowledge of science associated with higher skepticism of pseudoscientific claims? The American Biology Teacher, 66 (8), 536–548.

Ryan, T. J., Brown, J., Johnson, A., Sanburg, C., & Schildmeier, M. (2004). Science literacy and belief in the paranormal—An empirical test. Skeptic, 10 (4), 12–13.

Swing, S. R. (2007). The ACGME outcome project: Retrospective and prospective. Medical Teacher, 29 , 648–654.

Greiner, A. C., & Knebel, E. (2003). Health professions education: A bridge to quality . National Academies Press.

O’Sullivan, P. S., Blevins-Stephens, W. L., Smith, F. M., & Vaughan-Wrobel, B. (1997). Addressing the National League for Nursing critical-thinking outcome. Nurse Educator, 22 , 23–29.

Ritchie, J., Spencer, E., & O’Connor, W. (1985). Carrying out qualitative analysis. In Y. S. G. E. Lincoln (Ed.), Establishing trustworthiness in naturalistic inquiry . Beverly Hills, CA.

Moutier, C., Wingard, D., Gudea, M., Jeste, D., Goodman, S., & Reznik, V. (2016). The culture of academic medicine: Faculty behaviors impacting the learning environment. Academic Psychiatry, 40 , 912–918.

Friese, C. R., et al. (2014). Pod nursing on a medical/surgical unit: Implementation and outcomes evaluation. The Journal of Nursing Administration, 44 (4), 207–211.

Kozlowski, D., et al. (2017). The role of emotion in clinical decision making: An integrative literature review. BMC Medical Education, 17 (1), 255.

Kuiper, R. A., & Pesut, D. J. (2004). Promoting cognitive and metacognitive reflective reasoning skills in nursing practice: Self-regulated learning theory. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 45 (4), 381–391.

D'Zurilla, T. J., & Maydeu-Olivares, A. (1995). Conceptual and methodological issues in social problem-solving assessment. Behavior Therapy, 26 (3), 409–432.

Facione, P. A. (1990). The California critical thinking skills test—College level . Technical Report# 1. Experimental Validation and Content Validity.

Khalili, H., & Zadeh, M. H. (2003). Investigation of reliability, validity and normality Persian version of the California critical thinking skills test; form B (CCTST). Journal of Medical Education, 3 (1).

Cinar, N. (2010). Problem solving skills of the nursing and midwifery students and influential factors. Revista Eletrônica de Enfermagem., 12 (4), 601–606.

Ancel, G. (2016). Problem-solving training: Effects on the problem-solving skills and self-efficacy of nursing students. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 64 , 231–246.

Zohar, A., & Agmon, V. A. (2018). Raising test scores vs. teaching higher order thinking HOT senior science teachers’ views on how several concurrent policies affect classroom practices. Research in Science & Technological Education, 36 (2), 243–260.

Dahlin, B., & Watkins, D. (2000). The role of repetition in the processes of memorising and understanding: A comparison of the views of German and Chinese secondary school students in Hong Kong. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 70 (1), 65–84.

Sasson, I. (2019). Pedagogical characteristics of classroom learning tasks: A three-dimensional methodological framework. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 27 (2), 163–182.

Bloom, B. (Ed.). (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals handbook 1. Cognitive domain . Longman.

Hargreaves, A. (2016). Autonomy and transparency: Two good ideas gone bad. In J. Evers & R. Kneyber (Eds.), Flip the system: Changing education from the ground up (pp. 120–133). Routledge.

Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (4th ed.). The Free Press.

Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9 (1), 60–70.

Ertmer, P. A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., Sadik, O., Sendurur, E., & Sendurur, P. (2012). Teacher beliefs and technology integration practices: A critical relationship. Computers & Education, 59 (2), 423–435.

Ertmer, P. A., Paul, A., Molly, L., Eva, R., & Denise, W. (1999). Examining teachers’ beliefs about the role of technology in the elementary classroom. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 32 (1), 54–72.

Mouza, C., Karchmer-Klein, R., Nandakumar, R., Ozden, S. Y., & Hu, L. (2014). Investigating the impact of an integrated approach to the development of preservice teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK). Computers & Education, 71 , 206–221.

Cosmah, M., & Saine, P. (2013). Targeting digital technologies in common core standards: A framework for professional development. New England Reading Association Journal, 48 (2), 81–86.

Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., Kereluik, K., Shin, T. S., & Graham, C. R. (2014). The technological pedagogical content knowledge framework. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Elen, & M. J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 101–111). Springer.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2010). Teacher technology change: How knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42 (3), 255–284.

Goodson, I. F., & Mangan, J. M. (1995). Subject cultures and the introduction of classroom computers. British Educational Research Journal, 21 (5), 613–628.

Howard, S. K., Chan, A., Mozejko, A., & Caputi, P. (2015). Technology practices: Confirmatory factor analysis and exploration of teachers’ technology integration in subject areas. Computers & Education, 90 , 24–35.

John, P. D., & La Velle, L. B. (2004). Devices and desires: Subject subcultures, pedagogical identity and the challenge of information and communications technology. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 13 (3), 307–326.

Watson, D. M. (2001). Pedagogy before technology: Re-thinking the relationship between ICT and teaching. Education and Information Technologies, 6 (4), 251–266.

Nunan, D., & Bailey, K. M. (2009). Exploring second language classroom research . Heinle, Cengage Learning.

Ministry of Education. (2018a). English curriculum standards for senior high schools . People’s Education Press.

Ministry of Education. (2018b). China national teaching quality standards for foreign language majors .

Elder, L. (2005). Critical thinking as the key to the learning college: A professional development model. New Directions for Community Colleges, 130 , 39–48.

Ghonsooly, B., & Showqi, S. (2012). The effects of foreign language learning on creativity. English Language Teaching, 5 (4), 161–167.

Choy, S. C., & Cheah, P. K. (2009). Teacher perceptions of critical thinking among students and its influence on higher education. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 20 (2), 198–206.

Creswell, J. W. (2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research . Pearson Education.

Stapleton, P. (2011). A survey of attitudes towards critical thinking among Hong Kong secondary school teachers: Implications for policy change. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 6 , 14–23.

Caratozzolo, P., Alvarez-Delgado, A., & Hosseini, S. (2019). Strengthening critical thinking in engineering students. International Journal on Interactive Design and Manufacturing, IJIDeM , 995–1012. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12008-019-00559-6

Orhan, A., & Çeviker Ay, Ş. (2022). How to teach critical thinking: An experimental study with three different approaches. Learning Environments Research, 26 , 199–217. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-022-09413-1

Carlgren, T. (2013). Communication, Critical thinking, problem solving: A suggested course for all high school students in the 21st century. Interchange, 44 , 63–81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10780-013-9197-8

Mathews, S. R., & Lowe, K. (2011). Classroom environments that foster a disposition for critical thinking. Learning Environments Research, 14 , 59–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-011-9082-2

Che, F. S. (2002). Teaching critical thinking skills in a Hong Kong secondary school. Asia Pacific Education Review, 3 , 83–91. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf03024923

McLaughlin, A. C., & McGill, A. E. (2017). Explicitly teaching critical thinking skills in a history course. Science & Education, 26 , 93–105. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-017-9878-2

Jaffe, L. E., Lindell, D., Sullivan, A. M., & Huang, G. C. (2019). Clear skies ahead: Optimizing the learning environment for critical thinking from a qualitative analysis of interviews with expert teachers. Perspectives on Medical Education, 8 , 289–297. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40037-019-00536-5

Ahmady, S., & Shahbazi, S. (2020). Impact of social problem-solving training on critical thinking and decision making of nursing students. BMC Nursing, 19 , 94. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-020-00487-x

Miedijensky, S., Sasson, I., & Yehuda, I. (2021). Teachers’ learning communities for developing high order thinking skills—A case study of a school pedagogical change. Interchange, 52 , 577–598. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10780-021-09423-7

Xie, K., Kim, M. K., Cheng, S.-L., & Luthy, N. C. (2017). Teacher professional development through digital content evaluation. Educational Technology Research and Development, 65 , 1067–1103. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-017-9519-0

Zhang, H., Yuan, R., & He, X. (2020). Investigating university EFL teachers’ perceptions of critical thinking and its teaching: Voices from China. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 29 , 483–493. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-020-00500-6

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Training and Development, The English and Foreign Languages University, Hyderabad, Telangana, India

K. Venkat Reddy

Department of English Language Teaching, The English and Foreign Languages University, Hyderabad, Telangana, India

G. Suvarna Lakshmi

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Department of English Language Teaching, English and Foreign Languages University, Hyderabad, Telangana, India

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2024 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Reddy, K.V., Lakshmi, G.S. (2024). Teach Critical Thinking. In: Reddy, K.V., Lakshmi, G.S. (eds) Critical Thinking for Professional and Language Education. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-37951-2_2

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-37951-2_2

Published : 04 September 2024

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-031-37950-5

Online ISBN : 978-3-031-37951-2

eBook Packages : Education Education (R0)

Share this chapter

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

• The Star ePaper
• Subscriptions
• Manage Profile
• Change Password
• Manage Logins
• Manage Subscription
• Transaction History
• Manage Billing Info
• Manage For You
• Manage Bookmarks
• Package & Pricing

Innovative teaching, critical thinking

Tuesday, 03 Sep 2024

Related News

UTM professor receives prestigious Japanese award

Tsukuba comes to malaysia, malaysia, japan agree to upgrade relations to comprehensive strategic partnership, says saifuddin.

Empowering through education: (From left) UM vice-chancellor Prof Datuk Seri Dr Noor Azuan Abu Osman, Kazuhiko, Zambry and Kyosuke posing for a photo during the ceremony at the Universiti of Malaya research and development (R&D) Complex. — Photo courtesy of Higher Education Ministry

KUALA LUMPUR: The University of Tsukuba Malaysia’s (UTMy) branch campus here comes with innovative teaching methodologies and a practical approach, says the Higher Education Ministry.

The Japanese university, set up in partnership with Universiti Malaya (UM), will expose students to the best of both Japanese and Malaysian educational practices, ministry secretary-general Datuk Seri Dr Zaini Ujang said in his speech during the entrance ceremony of the University of Tsukuba yesterday.

“The courses offered at this campus are designed to address our community and global issues that emphasise innovative teaching methodologies and a practical approach,” he said in his speech read by deputy secretary-general (policy) Datuk Dr Megat Sany Megat Ahmad Supian.

“Students will have the opportunity to engage in programmes that emphasise innovation, critical thinking and cross-cultural communications,” he said, adding that they will not only gain academic knowledge but also skills and global perspectives that are essential for today’s interconnected world.

Earlier, Higher Education Minister Datuk Seri Dr Zambry Kadir said the establishment of UTMy will further strengthen bilateral ties between the two countries and integrate the innovative teaching methodologies and pedagogical approaches that have long been practised at the University of Tsukuba in Japan.

UTMy established the School of Transdisciplinary Science and Design, which offers Bachelor’s degrees in Arts and Sciences – the first Japanese university to establish an overseas branch granting degrees.

Speaking to reporters, University of Tsukuba president Prof Nagata Kyosuke said UTMy is unique due to its distinctive tutoring system.

He said this system is characterised by a comprehensive tutoring approach, which is also a special feature of the Japanese education system.

“For instance, if a student is interested in human care, they might choose to focus on helping people with disabilities.

“Alternatively, they could opt to develop new types of robotics to assist those with disabilities or work on improving government policies related to human care.

“The university first asks students about their interests and then offers guidance to help them pursue and address these topics,” he said.

Also present during the ceremony was Senior Deputy Minister of the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology of Japan, Yano Kazuhiko, who said students will now be able to engage in problem-solving-based learning, which is a distinctive feature of the School of Transdisciplinary Science and Design.

The first batch of 13 students – seven Malaysians and six Japanese – will start their academic journey this year at the School of Transdisciplinary Science and Design.

Tags / Keywords: University of Tsukuba Malaysia , UTMy , Japan , higher education

Found a mistake in this article?

Report it to us.

Thank you for your report!

A NEW ERA OF SWISS CRAFTSMANSHIP

Next in nation.

Trending in News

Air pollutant index, highest api readings, select state and location to view the latest api reading.

• Select Location

Source: Department of Environment, Malaysia

Others Also Read

Best viewed on Chrome browsers.

We would love to keep you posted on the latest promotion. Kindly fill the form below

Thank you for downloading.

We hope you enjoy this feature!