Abstract
Students hold foundational assumptions that interact with information they are introduced to in college. By learning to identify, assess, and restructure these foundational ideas, students’ ability to acquire topical knowledge improves. This article presents a format for teaching students how to evaluate their beliefs through four levels of critical thinking: (1) identifying assumptions, (2) assessing the origin and quality of assumptions, (3) seeking out alternative perspectives, and (4) weighing evidence and incorporating new information into thinking. A variety of skills are needed to accomplish each of these levels, such as identifying biases and developing intellectual humility. Self-assessments, assignments, and responses to early and late semester questionnaires suggest students see the value in learning about critical thinking and develop their ability to think critically over the course of the semester. Students become more open-minded, intellectually humble, and self-reflective, priming them to be more receptive to foundational learning.
The ability to systematically examine and challenge foundational assumptions can have profound effects on learning. Students have schemas, or mental models, that structure the way they interpret information and how they live their lives and conduct themselves in society (Bain 2004). These schemas are a product of experiences, socialization, and years of exposure to media and other social mediums (e.g., Eisen 2020; Sola et al. 2022). Students can be taught to identify, assess, and restructure foundational ideas through lessons on critical thinking.
The formation of mental models is neither neutral nor arbitrary in many cultural contexts. For instance, the politicization of social issues in the United States affects how topics are framed and understood by the public, often leading to greater polarization, less nuance, and a heightened sense of self-identification with views (Chinn, Hart, and Soroka 2020). Professors who teach about politicized topics, such as immigration, police use of force, racial bias in policing, and abortion, must contend with these concerns (Merrill 2022). When a student’s sense of self is intertwined with their worldview, emotional and psychological reactions hinder learning (Davis 1992; Merrill 2022). Public misinformation is also systemic. Sources of information may be deliberately misleading and manipulative (Brookfield 2011), and information quality is a concern as social media and digital environments proliferate (Musgrove et al. 2018). Students come to college with beliefs about learning, college as an institution, information/data, professorial ideology, and their abilities. These beliefs inform the quality of their learning (Merrill 2022).
I define critical thinking as the systematic identification, analysis, and restructuring of assumptions and mental models based on practices of humility, open-mindedness, and information assessment in consideration of cognitive barriers and limitations. I call this process “critical thinking,” although this concept can be understood many ways (Bean and Melzer 2011; see Brookfield 2011). Still, there is utility in using language students are familiar with so they can name what they learn, and components of this framework are drawn from literature on critical thinking, especially Brookfield’s (2011) book Teaching for Critical Thinking. As a trained sociologist, I incorporate sociological principles into my work, which also builds on research from other disciplines—including psychology and educational philosophy—and has been distilled into a framework of four critical thinking levels with sublevels. Students learn skills relating to (1) hunting assumptions, (2) assessing the origins and quality of assumptions, (3) seeking out alternative perspectives, and (4) weighing evidence and incorporating new information into thinking. I evaluate growth through students’ self-assessments, assignments, and responses to early and late semester questionnaires. These materials suggest this framework has important benefits for foundational learning.
Classroom Context and Introducing Critical Thinking
I am a trained sociologist and teach cross-listed sociology/criminology courses at a midsize public university in the Northeast United States. This approach was assessed in white-collar crime and global criminology classes, which have around 25 and 35 students, respectively. Students come from rural and urban backgrounds and have a variety of political views. The student body (according to the school website) is 75 percent White, 13 percent Hispanic, 5 percent Black/African American, 3 percent unknown, 2 percent two or more races, 1 percent Asian, and less than 1 percent American Indian/Alaskan Native and Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander.
I spend 2 weeks at the start of a semester teaching students what critical thinking is, why it is important, and how to think critically. The latter occurs through teaching the four levels of critical thinking and their sublevels. See Table 1 for a visual overview of the four critical thinking levels and their sublevels. Research highlights the effectiveness of explicit strategy instruction, in contrast to implicit instruction, as being more positively related to student improvements in learning metacognitive skills (Ellis, Denton, and Bond 2014). Explicit strategies include teaching topics directly (rather than indirectly through modeling without an explanation), describing the importance of learning strategies, and assigning activities where students can practice in a structured but independent format. Metacognition, or “thinking about thinking,” entails being cognizant of one’s thinking during the process of learning (Pelton 2019). Metacognition is a valuable but underused skill for learning (Davis 1992; Merrill 2022; Messineo 2018; Perry, Lundie, and Golder 2019). Students are motivated to learn when they recognize the value and relevance of content (Harackiewicz and Priniski 2018), so lessons begin with an explanation of why critical thinking is important, focusing on applications in academic and nonacademic areas, including in employment, health, and happiness. We discuss how critical thinking protects people from harmful choices and ideological manipulation (see Brookfield 2011).
The Four Levels of Critical Thinking with Sublevels.
The Four Levels of Critical Thinking
Level 1: Hunting Assumptions
The first level of critical thinking builds on Brookfield’s (2011) approach and involves teaching students to identify their own assumptions and beliefs, referred to as “hunting assumptions.” We begin with identifying paradigmatic assumptions. Paradigmatic assumptions reflect dominant ideologies of society and are not typically recognized as assumptions but, rather, taken as objectively true. Their entrenchment in our thinking makes them difficult to identify and change, and they often function at the subconscious level (Brookfield 2011; Paul and Elder 2007). For example, many students’ paradigmatic assumptions are built around individualism. Students may hold that decisions to commit crime are a consequence of individual choice rather than social structure/conditions.
Paradigmatic assumptions lay the foundation for three other types of assumptions: prescriptive, causal, and factual. Prescriptive assumptions are what we think should happen with respect to behavior, policies, and practices (Brookfield 2011). For instance, an individualistic paradigm emphasizes reactive (rather than proactive) approaches to crime control. A prescriptive assumption would be that punitive strategies should be implemented to reduce violence, such as relying on lengthy prison sentences or the death penalty. Causal assumptions are about cause and effect, focusing on how different parts of society work and conditions under which these relationships change (Brookfield 2011). One may causally assume if states use the death penalty, fewer people will commit homicide. Factual assumptions are about “facts” based on what seems logical, and this type of assumption I added to complement Brookfield’s (2011) prior three. Factual assumptions are easier to recognize as false when presented with data. An example would be the assumption that it is more costly to incarcerate people than execute them. At this stage, we are not putting value on assumptions; we are simply systematically identifying them and acknowledging them for what they are, a point I make clear to students.
Assumptions are difficult to identify if they are believed by most of society, built into the fabric of social institutions, espoused by agents of socialization, and/or built into language/culture. They are difficult to change if they meet the aforementioned criteria, are built into one’s personal narrative (religiosity, political affiliation), are politicized (vaccines, crime control), and/or affect one directly (Brookfield 2011). Disciplines focusing on assumptions difficult to identify/change will face greater challenges in restructuring mental models. For instance, racialized paradigms about ahistoricism, meritocracy, individualism, and color blindness make it difficult for students to understand structural causes of racial inequality (Eisen 2020). Sexuality and gender viewed through a biological essentialist lens (Izienicki 2022) makes it difficult to recognize gender as socially constructed and malleable. Many of these views are deeply held “truths” never questioned. College is often when students encounter information challenging these views; yet students also have paradigms around education. Research may be viewed as propaganda and colleges/professors as tools of indoctrination (Merrill 2022). These are assumptions worth identifying and exploring.
Level 2: Reflexively Assessing the Origins and Quality of Our Assumptions
The second level of critical thinking is to ask ourselves why we think the way we do. First, I instruct students that one must reflect on sources of information, including media, politicians, education, parents, and peers. We also gain information from observations, which are filtered through preconceived notions but feel accurate (Bain 2004). If students hold individualistic views, we ask: Where did these beliefs come from? There are opportunities to talk about sociologically related issues, such as media literacy, agents of socialization, and political social messaging and social misconceptions tied to news. Learning about research allows students to be active in assessing information, and we discuss whether sources of information are accurate and reputable. We examine patterned inaccuracies in knowledge production—for example, in white-collar crime, we look at research on how the news underrepresents white-collar offending in crime coverage (Friedrichs 2010). This level relies on the concept of critical sociological thinking, defined as “critical thinking with a sensitivity to and awareness of social and cultural contexts” (Grauerholz and Bouma-Holtrop 2003:485).
For Level 2, I also ask students to reflect on how their social positions, including their age, race, gender, and nationality, influence their views within different cultural contexts. This question builds on Mills’s (1959) concept of the sociological imagination, which is the ability to connect personal thoughts, feelings, and behaviors with the larger world and historical forces. The sociological imagination requires applying analytical tools to areas of life we take for granted and asking ourselves how we are a product of our culture and socialization.
I task students with reflecting on biases/misconceptions they hold, focusing on those pertinent to course material. For example, I teach about ethnocentrism in global criminology. In white-collar crime, we talk about how we are influenced by ideological manipulation because the class underscores power and its role in shaping public perceptions. To start unveiling misconceptions, we discuss intellectual humility and how humble people recognize they have cognitive limitations, take them seriously, and seek accurate knowledge about topics even when information conflicts with their beliefs and worldview (Whitcomb et al. 2015). Intellectually humble people are receptive to new facts and reconsidering beliefs (Hoyle et al. 2016). Building on intellectual humility, we discuss the Dunning-Kruger effect, which is a cognitive bias where people who lack knowledge on a topic are unable to recognize their ignorance (Dunning 2011). Students are primed to acknowledge limitations in all areas of their intellectual inquiry. We begin learning from the perspective that assumptions may be wrong and that acknowledging when one is wrong is an intellectual strength and not a weakness. Acknowledging new ways of thinking is a sign of cognitive growth.
Level 3: Seeking out Alternative Perspectives
The third level of critical thinking is seeking out multiple sides of an issue, finding positions that differ from our own, and getting as much information as possible (Brookfield 2011). During this stage, I tell students to consider the reputability and accuracy of sources, like in the second stage. Information literacy is key (Paul and Elder 2007). Students learn to ask: How are data gathered? What are limitations to these approaches? Who benefits from the adoption of views? In this section, I also describe how cross-national perspectives can help move us away from the black-and-white thinking emphasized in a politically polarized society. The belief that there are only “two sides to the debate” detracts from the multitude of other perspectives.
Level 4: Changing One’s Mind
The fourth level of critical thinking is weighing evidence and deciding what information is accepted and rejected. I teach students to maintain two mindsets: connected, where one looks at merits of an idea and biases oneself in favor of it, and separate, where one remains objective and skeptical of information (Clinchy 1996). The first lends itself to open-mindedness and a flexibility of ideas, and the second safeguards against manipulation by compelling but flawed positions. It is useful to alternate between mindsets when assessing information.
New paradigms are constructed at this stage; to do this, one must have the capacity to change their mind. Learning content requires thinking well, thus students learn how to assess “the quality of internalization,” or how existing paradigms and other inhibitions such as cognitive biases hamper one’s ability to internalize new information (Paul and Elder 2007). I remind students to be open to ideas that feel threatening to identity and sense of self. We discuss obstacles inhibiting the process of changing one’s mind, including political affiliation, ego, stubbornness, and privilege. Much like scientific research, assumptions should be open to change when better data are available.
Critical Thinking in the Curriculum
Time constraints in topical courses limit exploring topics that beg for more depth. Fortunately, social science curriculums address components of critical thinking as part of disciplinary knowledge. For example, methods courses focus on data quality (Levels 2 and 3) and causality (Level 1). Students learn about concepts such as “social position,” “agents of socialization,” and “the sociological imagination” in Introduction to Sociology and upper-level sociology courses (Level 2). Media literacy can be built into social science courses (Level 2).
Pedagogical literature also provides examples of how skills are taught in sociology classrooms. Pence (2009) has students identify paradigmatic assumptions about U.S. education through the show Jeopardy. Students use the sociological imagination to recognize sociological concepts in popular cultural representations. Taken-for-granted assumptions are brought to light through this process (Level 1). Sola et al. (2022) have students identify misperceptions about individualism, meritocracy, and structural inequality by gathering data on students’ socioeconomic characteristics and comparing it to national averages. They are not simply instilling “particular facts and sociological concepts” but also developing students’ sociological imagination by having them see how their personal situations fit into the broader social structure. Students learn to recognize the sociological nature of misperceptions themselves, their causal roots, and the consequences of these inaccurate beliefs in society; this develops intellectual humility and recognition of biases such as the Dunning-Kruger effect (Level 2). In a metacognitive approach, Merrill’s (2022) students read Davis’s (1992) article “Teaching about Inequality: Resistance, Paralysis, and Rage.” Students note if they experience resistance, paralysis, or rage when learning about social problems; reflect on reasons these reactions occur; and consider how their reactions pose problems in their lives (Level 4). Reflecting on cognitive barriers mitigates their impact (Merrill 2022). Providing students with a model of critical thinking allows them to situate knowledge in a framework aiding in recall and application.
Assignment Context
Learning to think critically is like learning anything—repetition and room for practice are key. Opportunities to practice are built into course material. In structuring assignments, I use the transformative learning approach, which focuses on critical self-reflection, epistemological inquiries, assessing hegemonic frames of reference, and reflecting on entrenched assumptions (Formenti and Hoggan-Kloubert 2023; Freire 1970; Kitchenham 2008). Dialogue-based education engages students with knowledge as a social creation and foundation for thought (Freire 1970). Pairing transformative approaches with critical thinking has shifted classes away from “transmitting knowledge” to the restructuring of thought.
One assignment where students get repeated practice is their reading sheets. In the first part of this weekly assignment, students use critical thinking skills to reflect on the reading, applying concepts from the critical thinking lecture. In-class discussions, where students sit in a circle and call on each other after speaking, then center on reading sheets—students read interesting quotes, ask questions, and discuss major themes from the reading while maintaining a focus on critical thinking (Applin 2023).
Assessment
The effectiveness of this approach was assessed in six classes over two nonconsecutive semesters (three courses per semester). I obtained Institutional Review Board approval, and students received information about the article and were given the option to sign permission forms to have excerpts from their work included. First-semester classes had 89 students, and 69 signed permission forms; the second had 77 students, and 68 signed forms. Intellectual growth was assessed multiple ways, including through self-assessments, assignments, and responses to early and late semester questionnaires. Each approach is described in the following. Student responses are quoted directly (errors included), and underlining and other formatting is directly transcribed from student work unless indicated, although some responses were condensed for the sake of space. I also occasionally inserted a word, in brackets, for clarity.
Student Self-Assessment
In an assignment during the last week of class in the first semester, students reflected on what they learned with open-ended questions. Although self-assessment is an incomplete measure, one cannot identify with transformative pedagogy without putting credence in students’ claims about their intellectual journey. Students’ self-reporting is also a common strategy in pedagogical literature (e.g., Bostean and Leitz 2022; Eisen 2020). There were 53 student responses based on permission and class attendance. See Table 2 for the questions students were asked and a percentage breakdown of responses.
Students’ End-of-the-Semester Self-Assessment Assignment Questions and Responses with Percentage Breakdowns.
Note: Percentages may add up to more than 100% if students put multiple answers.
In responding to open-ended questions about how their perspectives changed and key ideas they took from the course, most students explicitly identified critical thinking. Students wrote that once they learned critical thinking, they applied it to other classes and areas of life. They talked about how it helped them analyze information better, identify their own assumptions/biases, acknowledge when they are wrong, and be open to new ideas. A student wrote, “I will never take information given to me at face value again and I will continue to question information and its sources.” Another wrote, “I learned that it is important to recognize your social position and biases. Don’t make assumptions without critically understanding the topic you’re thinking of. Seek out the data. Not everything you read is true.” An additional 15 percent of students alluded to elements of critical thinking but did not explicitly state it by name. One wrote, “I believe that I am more open and willing to remove mental blocks that would impede my learning. Also I am now more aware of how Ethnocentrically I view the world.” Another wrote, “It’s important to look at an idea/issue from all perspectives in order to come to an educated conclusion.”
When asked, all students said critical thinking is important, with several noting they believed it is the most important skill they learned in college. Students said critical thinking was important for improving the functioning of society; addressing social/political issues; problem solving; decision-making; to have a happy, safe life; to be less biased; to understand the perspectives and choices of others; to understand one’s own perspective; to seek out multiple perspectives; to change their mind; for better dialogue; for cognitive development; and for success in career goals. Over 70 percent of students noted their ability to think critically improved since the beginning of the semester. Students noted they use critical thinking skills both in my classes and in other classes, when doing research, making important life decisions, scrolling through social media, watching the news, deciding on a career, and having conversations with others. Almost 10 percent of students said critical thinking skills had not improved, primarily writing this was because they already knew how to think critically before taking the class. Table 2 also shows which assignments and activities students found most useful, with reading sheets being cited the most frequently, followed by in-class discussions, in-class participation assignments, readings/documentaries, and lectures.
Critical Thinking in Practice: Assignments
Intellectual growth was also assessed through assignments where students were asked to use the language of critical thinking and apply the concepts/levels to their thinking. Using student work to evaluate teaching techniques is another common strategy in Teaching Sociology (e.g., Kaufman 2013; Whitaker 2017). In an assignment at the beginning of the second semester, students were asked to explain what critical thinking is and how to think critically. They were asked to do the same at the end of the semester. In their initial responses students tended to use nonspecific language such as “thinking outside the box” or “thinking below the surface level.” A number stated they did not know what critical thinking is or how to describe it. End-of-the-semester responses were generally longer and more concrete and used language from the lessons. Here is an example of a student’s response from the beginning of the semester (first response) to the end (second response): I believe that critical thinking is when you are required to dig deeper into any prior knowledge or current knowledge to answer the question you are presented with. You must go further than just answering the question by providing supporting details and including your thoughts. I would think critically by adding in facts and building upon that information with my own knowledge, going deeper than what I just see. Critical thinking comes in many forms. It is the ability of one to reflect upon information that they are presented with and think about one’s own biases, misconceptions, and or/the reasoning behind that thinking. Critical thinking prompts an individual to explore possible societal factors that may influence how they think, and why. During critical thinking, questions may arise that ultimately lead individuals to rethinking their own views after carefully examining other informative sources, along with possible limitations.
In terms of applying critical thinking skills, students identified the reading sheet assignments as the most useful. Here is an example of a student applying critical thinking to a chapter from the book Predator Nation (Ferguson 2012): It challenged the
Another student reflects on changing his paradigmatic assumptions about those who contributed to the 2008 financial crisis discussed in the same book: Our idea of a criminal is a murderer or a robber, not a stock market manipulator or money launderer. These thoughts and preconceived notions about who a criminal is, what they look like, and how they behave come from things like your upbringing, your peers, social media, the news, etc. Our
Reflecting on their social position and acknowledging being wrong as an intellectual strength led to surprisingly honest accounts by students. White students, for example, provided raw descriptions of their previous lack of awareness around racial issues. These passages have been excluded to protect student confidentiality, but they speak to how fostering an intellectual environment centered on humility leads to honest reflection and growth.
Survey Assessment
The last way I assessed student growth was through questionnaires. Students in the second semester were given a questionnaire at the beginning and end of the semester with close-ended questions (using the same measures) asking about their perceptions of and ability to engage in critical thinking. This approach is like that used by Izienicki (2022) and Medley-Rath and Morgan (2022). I wrote prompts based on the four levels described previously. In constructing the measures, I tried to capture students’ perceptions of skills and whether they could demonstrate skills. For example, prompts such as “I believe it is important to admit there are topics I am ignorant about” attempted to measure whether students demonstrate intellectual humility. A colleague gave feedback, and I adjusted the measures accordingly.
Questionnaires were treated as participation assignments, and students received credit for completing them during class. After students completed the late semester questionnaire, they were given their early semester questionnaire and were asked to describe if any responses changed and to explain why or why not. This recursive approach was modeled on the work of Whitaker (2017). Of the 61 students who completed both questionnaires, 23 (38 percent) were former students, most of whom had taken one prior class with me. Because I teach critical thinking in all my courses, these students had already been exposed to such lessons.
I used a two-sample t test assuming unequal variances to assess the statistical significance of differences in averages across new and former students in both the early and late semester questionnaires. I used a paired-sample t test to assess the statistical significance of changes in averages for all students across the semester. Responses of strongly disagree to strongly agree were recoded as continuous measures, with higher values representing greater agreement (1 = strongly disagree, 4 = strongly agree). It is expected at the beginning of the semester former students would indicate greater knowledge of critical thinking than new students, and it is also expected differences wane over time as all students are exposed to lessons and assignments. It is additionally expected that students gain knowledge of critical thinking when comparing averages across the early and late semester questionnaires. To ensure students thoughtfully completed the survey, some prompts indicated skills if students put “disagree.” For instance, one prompt read, “I do not believe it is important to admit when I am wrong.” In Tables 3 and 4, I indicate the expected direction of change for having learned skills. With the example just provided, I would expect scores would be lower (indicated by a negative sign) after students learned about critical thinking. I would also expect former students to have lower scores on this measure.
Two-Sample t Test Assuming Unequal Variances Results Comparing Means for New (N = 38) and Former Students (N = 23) at the Start of the Semester.
Note: ∆ indicates difference. 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = somewhat disagree, 3 = somewhat agree, 4 = strongly agree. N = 61.
p < .05. ***p < .001 (two-tailed test)
Results
As can be seen in Table 3, when comparing differences in averages of early course questionnaires of former students with new students, 17 of 26 (65 percent) of responses were in the direction anticipated. Of those, four were statistically significant: “I can explain in detail what critical thinking is and how to think critically,” “I am confident in my ability to think critically,” “When I engage with academic material I intentionally use critical thinking skills,” and “I have been taught to think critically in college.” By the end of the semester, these differences diminished, with none maintaining significance. Second-semester differences are not included in the table for the sake of space but are available on request.
When differences in early semester questionnaires for new and former students did not go in the expected direction, averages were often close. There were exceptions, however. New students scored higher on “I think carefully about why I hold the beliefs that I hold” (p < .05). Interestingly, the new student average for this prompt went down in the late semester survey, from 3.61 to 3.55, indicating less agreement. Former students’ average went up, from 3.17 to 3.48, indicating more agreement. A similar thing occurred for “My goal when I discuss a topic with someone is to prove to them that my belief is correct, regardless of what they have to say.” New students scored lower than former students, at 1.63 compared to 2.04 (p < .05). New students’ scores increased to 1.75 in the late semester survey, and former students’ scores decreased to 1.82. A possible explanation emerged from the recursive assignments where some new students reflected that their initial responses overstated certain abilities. For example, one student wrote, “After comparing, I noticed that in the beginning of the semester I gave myself too much credit in my abilities to critically think. At the end of the semester, I have much better of an understanding of critical thinking and was more aware about how I actually use it in my life.” They added, “I find it interesting how I said I thought critically less in my life after the semester. I’ve become more aware about what I need to change and how I’ll be able to expand my understandings.”
As can be seen in Table 4, the difference in average scores across the semester went in the expected direction for 24 of 26 prompts, with 15 achieving statistical significance. These findings suggest students experienced changes in thinking and perception because of the critical thinking lessons and assignments. The largest changes occurred for the same four statements former students showed the greatest difference in at the beginning of the semester. There were also significant changes concerning the influence of society and one’s social position on one’s beliefs, recognizing biased thinking, recognizing one’s ignorance and the importance of skepticism in receiving new information, and the importance of changing one’s mind. On the other hand, students were more likely to agree with the statement “I do not believe it is important to admit when I am wrong” by the end of the semester, and there was no change in how students responded to the statement, “When I am presented with new information, I try to consider the merits of the idea even if the idea is in strong opposition to something I already believe.”
Paired-Sample t-Test Results Comparing Mean Student Scores at Start of the Semester and End of Semester (N = 61).
Note: ∆ indicates difference.1 = strongly disagree, 2 = somewhat disagree, 3 = somewhat agree, 4 = strongly agree.
p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001 (two-tailed test).
The recursive assignments underscore difficulties in interpreting changes in averages. For the prompt “I have biases that limit my thinking,” one student wrote, “One response that changed is I realized as the semester went on that I had biases in my thinking when before I thought I didn’t. This changed because as I kept doing assignments I would notice these biases which was good because it allowed me to realize what biases I had.” Some students, however, reflected on how learning about different biases allowed them to identify and minimize them, so they became less likely to agree with this statement by the end of the semester.
Discussion and Conclusion
Unveiling paradigmatic assumptions, minimizing cognitive biases, intellectual humility—these skills take time and practice. It is common to see students engage in biased thinking or state assumptions as facts during the semester. It helps to be preemptive and to prepare students for feedback from the start (intellectual humility is a powerful tool here). I talk about how we develop these skills throughout our life, and I describe times I have been biased, misconceptions I have held, moments I have been wrong, or ways my thinking has been limited. I tell students I am still working on identifying and minimizing biases and recognizing misconceptions. I praise students for what they are doing well and ask questions to highlight areas they could improve. I also tell them it is necessary to make mistakes and get things wrong and that we do not always succeed at new skills right away.
For professors who want to adopt this framework, research suggests explicit strategies, described previously, are more effective than implicit strategies (Ellis et al. 2014). Beyond this basic structure, the framework is tailorable to the focus of a class, and professors can emphasize components that are relevant to the courses/disciplines they teach and build practice into their existing assignments. For example, a class on political sociology might analyze politicians as a source of public knowledge, the politicization of social issues and how that affects how the public sees issues, or paradigmatic assumptions about the United States as a democracy. A gender studies course may focus on critiques of the “objectivity” of social research that has systematic biases due to who produces scientific knowledge, or it may emphasize ingrained beliefs about men’s superiority as an example of an internalized bias.
Resistance to sociological ideas is a common response to discomforting information (Davis 1992; Merrill 2022). When students learn critical thinking, it primes them to approach information actively and openly but also carefully and skeptically. Students learn to assess sources so they are not easily influenced by convincing but misleading information. Students also learn to start from a place of recognizing there are many things they do not know or are misinformed about, of being open to new information, and of being open to changing their minds.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Kenji Doering and reviewers for thorough and thoughtful feedback. Thank you to my students for their curiosity and willingness to consider new ideas.
Editor’s Note
Reviewers for this manuscript were, in alphabetical order, Daniel Bartholomay, Danielle Kane, Colby King, and Betty McCall.
