One of the claims we make about our new curriculum line, The Learner’s Toolkit, is that each course is developmentally appropriate and aligned with what research identifies as best practices for how people learn.

That sounds good. But considering the first course released in this line is a middle school level critical thinking curriculum, I felt the need to provide evidence, define terms, and describe the process that goes into developing courses that are “aligned with current research” and “developmentally appropriate.” That process begins with finding good studies from peer-reviewed sources.

I will admit, even before I read the research, I was wondering if an approach like that recommended for writing in The Writing Revolution would be effective for critical thinking. Writing and critical thinking share important characteristics. Both are cognitively demanding. Both require learners to monitor, evaluate, and revise their own thinking. It seemed reasonable that what works for one might work for the other. The research confirmed that hypothesis. So, let me lay out what I found and why The Critical Thinkers Toolkit is structured the way it is.

Many curricula continue to assume that learners will develop critical thinking simply by engaging with challenging texts, open-ended projects, rich discussions, or logic puzzles. These experiences have value, but as any parent who has used them will tell you, exposure alone does not reliably produce transferable critical thinking skills. In a large meta-analysis of 341 effect sizes, Abrami and colleagues found that programs with explicit instruction in critical thinking strategies produced significantly larger gains than those relying on immersion or generic discussion.[1] In other words, when skills are unpacked, defined, and taught explicitly, learning outcomes improve.

When critical thinking is not taught explicitly and systematically, gains tend to be modest, inconsistent, or absent altogether. Learners may complete sophisticated tasks without gaining conscious control over the reasoning those tasks require. They get better at performing the task, but the underlying skill does not transfer. Change the context, and the performance disappears. This is the transfer problem, and acknowledgement of this issue appears repeatedly in the research literature.[2][1]

The Critical Thinkers Toolkit takes the opposite position. It is a sequential, skills-based approach that treats critical thinking as content. Specific skills are named, explained, modeled, practiced under guidance, and revisited across contexts. Learners are not asked to think harder or more deeply in the abstract. They are taught how to monitor their thinking, distinguish what they know from what they believe, identify assumptions, evaluate evidence, test causal claims, and revise conclusions when warranted.[3]

The Abrami meta-analysis and systematic reviews by El Soufi and See identify explicit instruction in general critical thinking strategies as one of the strongest predictors of positive outcomes. Programs relying on immersion alone underperform those that teach strategies directly and require learners to apply them deliberately with structured prompts and feedback. Treating critical thinking as a teachable skill set is not a philosophical preference. It is where the evidence points.[2][1]

The Critical Thinkers Toolkit is a skills-based curriculum, similar in structure to approaches recommended by the Hochman Method. But what exactly does skills-based mean? It means that instruction is organized around discrete, named skills that are explicitly taught. You identify the skill, name it, teach it directly, model it, and give learners structured practice until they can use it independently. The skill itself is the point of the lesson. You are not hoping someone picks up “how to evaluate evidence” while reading a hard text. You are teaching “how to evaluate evidence” as its own thing, with its own language, its own practice.

Done this way, when learners are asked to evaluate evidence in a challenging text, they are not simultaneously trying to acquire the skill and apply it. They can focus directly on application. Cognitive load theory indicates that separating skill acquisition from complex application leads to much stronger outcomes.[4] As a result, learners are not left guessing which skill to use. It is as if they have a toolkit of critical thinking skills and they know which ones to unpack and use with precision in a given situation. This benefits the learning of content, strengthens critical thinking skills, and reduces frustration around learning challenging material.

What goes in that toolkit? The curriculum organizes critical thinking as a set of named cognitive strategies that learners can recognize and deliberately use. The sequence moves from foundational awareness skills to testing, evaluation, and communication. Early lessons focus on metacognition, knowing versus believing, assumptions, and the distinction between facts and interpretations. Later lessons address systematic testing, causal reasoning, media literacy, evidence evaluation, reasoning chains, and perspective-taking. Each lesson assumes mastery of earlier skills and extends them into more complex applications.[3]

Metacognitive instruction plays a central role in this framework. When learners are asked to explain how they reached conclusions and under what conditions they might revise them, both their critical thinking and their ability to regulate their own reasoning improve. The curriculum foregrounds metacognition in the opening lesson and revisits it continuously through structured reflection, transfer tasks, and guided discussion. Learners are repeatedly asked not only what they think, but how they arrived at that conclusion and what would change their minds. This explicit metacognitive framing produces lasting gains rather than short-lived performance improvements.[5][1][3]

The Critical Thinkers Toolkit is intentionally sequenced. This is frontloading in practice, teaching prerequisite skills before they are needed in complex tasks, meaning the architecture is engineered so that Skill A is prerequisite to Skill B, and Skill B is prerequisite to Skill C. Later lessons assume and depend on earlier ones. Learners are not asked to synthesize multiple reasoning strategies until those strategies have been taught explicitly and practiced independently.

This progression does three things. First, it supports mastery. Learners have time to solidify foundational skills before being asked to use them in more demanding contexts. Second, it makes synthesis possible. When earlier skills are well established, learners can combine them without cognitive overload. Third, it supports schema development, that is, coherent mental models. Learners begin to see how skills relate to each other because the curriculum makes those relationships visible through the order in which they are taught. Research on curriculum design and cognitive science indicates that intentional sequencing supports the gradual construction of coherent mental models for a concept or discipline.[6][7][8] In other words, when skills are taught in a deliberate order, learners build a clearer picture of how those skills fit together and when to use them. When new ideas connect to prior skills without overwhelming working memory, these mental models become more organized and flexible over time, supporting both problem solving and transfer to new contexts. You are building understanding and foundational knowledge, not assembling a collection of facts.

The lessons in The Critical Thinkers Toolkit are designed to be completed in order because later lessons explicitly depend on earlier ones. Causal reasoning assumes familiarity with systematic testing. Perspective-taking assumes prior work with evidence evaluation and reasoning chains. These dependencies are made visible to learners, reinforcing the cumulative nature of the skill set.[3]

This design is consistent with curriculum research. Complex competencies develop most reliably when they are decomposed into component skills and taught in a deliberate sequence, with later instruction explicitly reusing and extending earlier material. Scope and sequence guidance from organizations such as OpenSciEd emphasizes building later units on earlier ones, particularly for inquiry, reasoning, and argumentation skills.[9][10] Programs that rely on isolated lessons or occasional critical thinking activities show weaker and less generalizable outcomes than those that revisit and integrate skills over time.[11][9]

Programs like ARDESOS-DIAPROVE use a similar structure, beginning with foundational critical thinking concepts and gradually moving toward more complex problem solving and decision making. Students in these sequential programs demonstrate stronger and more transferable gains than those in shorter or fragmented interventions.[5]

Sequencing alone is not enough. Even a well-designed progression requires guided practice, feedback, and opportunities for learners to articulate and revise their reasoning. How skills are taught matters as much as how they are ordered.

The curriculum explicitly rejects the idea that learners will develop critical thinking skills simply by working through worksheets or self-paced materials on their own. Becoming skilled at thinking critically requires an active facilitator who guides discussion, poses carefully sequenced questions, provides real-time feedback, and helps learners articulate and revise their reasoning.

This is developmentally appropriate. Research on critical thinking instruction and active learning is consistent on this point. Dialogue, mentoring, and opportunities for learners to justify their thinking enhance the impact of critical thinking instruction. Abrami and colleagues found that interventions are more effective when instructors model thinking processes, engage students in discussion, and provide feedback on reasoning rather than simply assigning critical thinking tasks. In an action research project, Nold reported that courses redesigned to emphasize instructor questioning, detailed feedback on student work, and structured discussion showed significant gains in students’ self-reported critical thinking compared with more traditional formats. Across multiple studies, students benefit when they must explain their reasoning to others, receive targeted feedback, and revise their thinking accordingly.[12][1][5]

The Critical Thinkers Toolkit puts this into practice through structured I Do, We Do, and You Do sequences, scripted prompts, anticipated responses, and troubleshooting guidance. The requirement that an educator be “present but not lecturing” reflects the finding that structured facilitation, not unstructured conversation or independent work, is what enables learners to internalize critical thinking strategies.[1][3][13]

A distinctive design feature of the curriculum is the intentional separation of instruction and practice. Learners engage in discussion-based instruction first, then complete workbook activities hours or days later without access to instructional materials. This structure reflects well-established findings from cognitive science about how concepts are mastered. Spaced practice improves long-term retention more effectively than massed practice, and retrieval practice strengthens both memory and transfer to new contexts through the strengthening of schema.[14][6][13][3]

When learners must retrieve concepts such as “knowing versus believing,” “testing cycle,” or “evidence quality” without immediate prompts, they strengthen both their memory and their ability to use those tools independently. Experimental work in cognitive psychology has shown repeatedly that delayed retrieval leads to more durable and flexible outcomes than restudying or immediate practice. Delayed practice also reveals whether skills have actually been internalized rather than simply recognized during instruction.[14]

The curriculum embeds transfer tasks that require learners to apply critical thinking skills in everyday situations. It culminates in capstone analyses of complex narratives and films. These capstones require coordination of multiple skills: media literacy, evidence evaluation, causal reasoning, and perspective-taking. Authentic, situated problems like these are a critical component of effective critical thinking instruction.[15][1][3]

These design features are not abstract optimizations. They prepare learners to use critical thinking in the environments where it is most needed: information-rich, persuasion-heavy, and often misleading contexts outside of structured learning environments.

When developing skills-based curriculum, one of the first tasks is determining what skills make up the body of content. The component skills taught in The Critical Thinkers Toolkit reflect current research in critical thinking and media literacy.  For example, instruction in lateral reading and media analysis mirrors recommendations for evaluating digital information: checking sources across tabs, investigating authors, and tracing claims back to their origin.[16][14] Evidence evaluation activities align with research on argument analysis and conflicting testimony, which emphasizes assessing source reliability, corroboration, and completeness when weighing claims.[17][18][3]

Causal reasoning instruction addresses common errors related to correlation and causation. Science education studies document that middle school students frequently infer causation from co-occurrence unless they are explicitly taught to consider mechanisms, alternative explanations, and experimental tests. The Critical Thinkers Toolkit addresses this through its lessons on testing and causal chains.[19][11]

Perspective-taking lessons address documented challenges in social reasoning and false equivalence. These themes also appear in contemporary social and emotional learning curricula for middle school, which report gains in students’ ability to understand and navigate differing viewpoints.[19][3]

By making these skills explicit and requiring learners to integrate them in complex analyses, the curriculum treats critical thinking as both a structured toolkit and an integrated habit of mind. This approach addresses the demands learners face in information environments saturated with persuasive, conflicting, and sometimes misleading content.[16][1][3]

“Developmentally appropriate” and “aligned with how people learn” get thrown around a lot in education. In practice, they should mean something concrete: the skills are clear, the load is manageable, the sequence makes sense, and learners get enough supported practice and retrieval that what they learn actually lasts.

The reason the first course out in the Learners Toolkit is critical thinking is because of how essential this skill set is. In an information environment where belief is routinely dressed up as fact, middle schoolers need more than vague calls to “think critically.” They need skills that have been named, taught, practiced, and connected, so they can navigate the information coming at them from all directions and tell facts from fiction. The Critical Thinkers Toolkit is built on that assumption. If we want students to think well online, with peers, in messy real-life situations, we have to teach critical thinking as a set of skills they can name, use, and come back to, not as a magic outcome we hope will appear on its own.

[1] Abrami, P. C., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Waddington, D. I., Wade, C. A., & Persson, T. (2015). Strategies for teaching students to think critically: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 85(2), 275-314.
[2] El Soufi, N., & See, B. H. (2019). Does explicit teaching of critical thinking improve critical thinking skills? A review of causal evidence. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 60, 140-162
[3] SEA Publishing. (2025). The Critical Thinkers Toolkit Level 2: Teaching Guide.
[4] Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. (2019). Cognitive architecture and instructional design: 20 years later. Educational Psychology Review, 31, 261-292.
[5] Saiz, C., & Rivas, S. F. (2011). Evaluation of the ARDESOS program: An initiative to improve critical thinking skills. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 11(2), 34-51.
[6] Reynolds, A., Heron, H., Mulholland, K., Jackson, L., & Cherry, N. (2023). Lightening the load: Integrating cognitive load, schema theory and progression mapping in the primary classroom. Impact, 19.
[7] Wilkie, C. (2025). Schema theory. In T. Huff (Ed.), Design in Progress: A Collaborative Text on Learning Theories. Idaho State University Pressbooks.
[8] Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Finelli, R., Courey, S. J., & Hamlett, C. L. (2004). Expanding schema-based transfer instruction to help third graders solve real-life mathematical problems. American Educational Research Journal, 41(2), 419-445.
[9] OpenSciEd. (2024). Middle School Scope and Sequence.
[10] Iowa Reading Research Center. (2023). Scope and sequence: What it is and how do educators use it to guide instruction.
[11] Palmer, D. et al. (2022). Growth of critical thinking skills in middle school immersive science learning environments. Journal of Research in Science Teaching.
[12] Halpern, D. F. (2014). Thought and knowledge: An introduction to critical thinking (5th ed.). Psychology Press.
[13] Nold, H. (2017). Using critical thinking teaching methods to increase student success: An action research project. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 13(2), 17–25.
[14] NSW Department of Education. (2017). How to teach critical thinking.
[15] Hamline University Digital Commons. Problem-based learning and critical thinking instruction.
[16] Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. (2024). Media literacy in Massachusetts: A landscape scan and policy recommendations.
[17] Sanchez, C., Wiley, J., & Goldman, S. R. (2006). Teaching students to evaluate source reliability during internet research. In S. A. Barab, K. E. Hay, & D. T. Hickey (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Learning Sciences (pp. 662–668).​
[18] Britt, M. A., & Aglinskas, C. (2002). Improving students’ ability to identify and use source information. Cognition and Instruction, 20(4), 485–522. (summarized in later historical inquiry work that defines corroboration as comparing differing accounts and weighing conflicting sources).
[19] Second Step. (2024). Human Skills Curriculum for Middle School Students.

Did you know that SEA Homeschoolers host 4 online conferences each year with presentations for secular homeschooling parents and educators? These conferences are designed to support and inspire homeschoolers around the world as they journey through learning that meets their unique needs. Don’t miss out! Sign up for our next conference today!

In an era where the sheer volume of information available to students is overwhelming, educators face the daunting task of helping learners make sense of the world around them. Unlike the pre-Internet age, when access to credible information was more limited and manageable, today’s students are bombarded by vast, often conflicting data from a variety of sources. This shift has created an environment where students struggle not only with information overload but with how to evaluate, question, and engage with what they encounter. In this context, the importance of revisiting and reinforcing the concept of critical thinking has never been more urgent. Critical thinking, when properly cultivated, provides a framework for students to navigate complex information, evaluate sources, and engage in thoughtful, reflective inquiry—skills essential for both academic and personal growth.

For those of us who remember the time before the Internet (and who don’t automatically think of it as “the Dark Ages”), it is apparent that today’s learners face challenges that never even occurred to us.  Our biggest concerns were about obtaining access to enough static resources like books, magazines, and microfilm to write our research papers.  The evening news that aired on network television was generally accepted as reasonably credible and authoritative.  And experts were generally seen as experts – physicians, scientists, engineers, agency workers.  Today, though, nothing is as it seems.  While some choose to blame postmodernism (and other post-y thought revolutions) for the upheaval of epistemological authority, what matters is not how this happened, but “where do we go from here?”  

I have seen myself and am confident that you have also seen students struggling to reconcile the nearly infinite deluge of information and data that surround them today.  Many of my students engaged in behaviors that I felt were troubling, or antithetical to learning – most notably attempting to discredit or dismiss material we discussed in class as “biased.” 

Indeed, “bias” has become a type of four-letter word that, like other expletives, my students have taken to flinging around in an apparent power play.  But this is not defiance; it’s coping.  Our students are trying to COPE with the massive amount of information around them paired with few effective ways to not just filter, but to create useful filters for themselves while also staying open to learning new things that may be troubling or uncomfortable for them. 

I am not talking about the “safe space” issue – at least not here and now (I am happy to explore this topic further at another time).  I am talking about utilizing a way of evaluating, sorting, and engaging with information that on face is not as it may appear through the cognitive and psychological lenses of students – both tempting but poorly formed ideas and upsetting but valid ideas.  In this, I believe that revisiting the concept and practice of “critical thinking” holds value. 

Often credited with an early discussion of critical thinking (also described as “reflective thinking”), John Dewey, American philosopher of pragmatism and educational reformer, defined it as:

“Active, persistent and careful consideration of any belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the grounds that support it, and the further conclusions to which it tends” (1910).

In philosophical fashion, John Dewey also describes what is NOT critical thinking: immediate acceptance of an explanation without reflection or judgement, nor is criticism driven by dogged political beliefs. This is not to say that political concerns cannot drive critical inquiry; Paolo Friere, who wrote Pedagogy of the Oppressed (1968), described “critical pedagogy” as a way to give students tools to help them “recognize connections between their individual problems and experiences and the social contexts in which they are embedded.”

By connecting ideas about society, science, history, and other subjects to issues that matter and are real to learners, we help them understand WHY they are important, and likely engage them through ethos and pathos instead of just logos. 

“Critical thinking” has been and continues to be a popular buzzword in educational institutions. I recall attending a meeting of faculty where a presenter espoused the great benefits of “critical thinking” to student professional success.  But he struggled to provide realistic and practical ways for professors to help students attain this skill only showing correlation with more reading and writing in courses.  I left dissatisfied; any buzzword could have been substituted in and had a similar impact. 

But I like to ponder this often, as an ethicist, as an interdisciplinary scholar, and as someone whose passion involves provoking students into thinking way too much, just as I do.  

While I do not seek to establish some novel or universal definition of “critical thinking” beyond the foundations laid by Dewey, Freire, and others, I do believe that it is important to identify some specific characteristics or goals that can be achieved through reasonable pedagogical actions.  Therefore, I propose the following metric for “critical thinking” that serves as a guidepost for evaluating skills:

Critical thinking is demonstrated by:

1) asking effective questions in pursuit of better understanding a situation, issue, or topic

2) seeking contextual understanding of external (e.g. historical, social) factors and internal (e.g. personal bias, individual subjectivity, epistemic limitations). 

I do not believe that it is necessary to disagree with ideas (criticizing) in order for there to be critical thinking and effective engagement, yet I believe that without providing more options for engaging constructively, learners may feel trapped in disagreement as the only way to provoke discussion.  I offer two examples of ways that I invite critical thinking through my teaching that don’t rely on a binary “agree/disagree” format and that instead enriches participation and learning. 

Example 1: In my courses where I teach about Social Contract Philosophies, I emphasize that my goal in teaching these is not to indoctrinate learners into simply accepting these ideas as part of the Western Canon (though they are often considered such).  Instead, I show how these ideas influenced the people who created institutions of government and communities of practice, like the medical profession, and thus are part of the foundation for values and practical assumptions of those in power (2).  To understand these power structures, we do need to have some understanding of the ideas behind them. 

Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean Jacques Rousseau certainly wrote influential works about what they thought society was and why we have laws, governance, and other rules in place.  But those ideas often don’t reflect our reality today; the drive to think about the questions they thought about, however, is valuable to instill in our learners. 

The questions they asked, like “why do we have government?” or even “do we need government?” are highly effective questions (1) that lead us to question our assumptions and spark a chain of dialogue and investigation. 

Example 2: I believe that nearly any activity or source can be used for learning when critical thinking, inquiry, and pedagogies are brought to the discussion. 

Minecraft, the popular creative building game, is an excellent platform that can not only give students a practical application for algebra, geometry, and physics, but also can support ecology, geology, and economics if used cleverly (1).  Any activity in Minecraft can be framed as a project, from which we can promote skills related to project development and implementation – design, planning, proposal, iteration, review, presentation.

The Minecraft community, a multi-generational, international creative community, is an excellent opportunity to explore the social and technological context of the game and its players/creators (2). And, of special focus for me, as a lifetime perfectionist, Minecraft is also an excellent vehicle for metacognitive skills like recognizing one’s own frustrations or fears, setting and meeting goals, and failing forward. 

In this, the digital format is perfect for allowing learners to attempt radical, risky things they might not feel comfortable trying in the material world, for fear of wasting materials or making a mess.  Even dying from zombies and skeletons can be turned into an opportunity for learning – especially learning socially – when we feel safe to vent our frustrations and find that everyone around us has empathy for that experience.

It is a great day in one of my Minecraft classes when a learner finds comfort with their peers through shared difficulty and collaborative creativity. 

These are just two examples to give an idea of the great potential that we can tap for promoting critical thinking through learning experiences – whether in approaching core theories in engaging ways or in creatively presenting technologies as active learning opportunities. 

We must be careful not to fall into the trap of equating “critical thinking” with good thinking (or even “GoodThink”), despite the temptation to simplify our task of selling the idea to our learners.  Should we be surprised that to effectively advocate for and encourage critical thinking, we must constantly exercise it ourselves? 

Traits that I see as important to cultivate for an effective critical thinker include: epistemic humility, ethical sincerity, cognitive generosity, and intellectual rigor.   By these, I mean that we all should be open to realizing that we do not know everything and can learn more; when faced with a situation, we approach it with a sincere desire to engage without cynicism (especially for others); we make a good faith effort to understand the ideas and people; and we seek good evidence and analyze well without taking shortcuts through assumptions. 

I say “we” because these apply to everyone – learners and instructors – because instructors must model these traits in our teaching if we want learners to practice them.  It can be difficult to see a learner take a position that is in opposition to what we think is “correct,” and some subjects have more leeway than others.  But regardless of subject, asking, “why do you think that?” with sincerity and generosity can lead to better understanding for everyone involved, even if this snapshot of thought is not what we expect. 

It has been a pleasure to share some of my thoughts on critical thinking and ways that we can seek to promote it with our learners and for ourselves.  I look forward to further dialogues about pedagogical approaches and opportunities to excite our learners. 

Dewey, John. “How we think. 1910.” Buffalo: Prometheus (1991).

Freire, Paulo. Pedagogy of the oppressed. Bloomsbury publishing USA, 2018.

Did you know that SEA Homeschoolers host 4 online conferences each year with presentations for secular homeschooling parents and educators? These conferences are designed to support and inspire homeschoolers around the world as they journey through learning that meets their unique needs. Don’t miss out! Sign up for our next conference today!