Popular in Professional

Business

The Allegory of the Favela: The Multifaceted Effects of Socioeconomic Mobility

University of Pennsylvania Leandro S. Pongeluppe

Architecture

Connecting Cities and Nature

University of Virginia Timothy Beatley

Human Rights Law

Human Rights and Corruption: Problems and Potential of Individualising a Systemic Problem

Max Planck Institute Anne Peters

Finance

Chinese Exchange Rate Policy: Lessons for Global Investors

University of California San Diego Michael Melvin

Law

A statistical approach to law school citation rankings

University of Virginia Joshua Fischman

Education

Firm Performance Pay as Insurance against Promotion Risk

Stockholm School of Economics Alvin Chen

On critical thinking and content knowledge

View more insights in Professional - Education - Pedagogy

View more figures from University of Queensland

View the page of Peter Ellerton

Read the Study

Next in Education

Posthumanist new materialist pathways for reimagining music education research

Pamela Burnard | University of Cambridge

The Future of Great Universities

Jonathan R. Cole | Columbia University

How critical thinking is understood has a logical impact on pedagogy and curriculum design in a critical thinking education. Peter Ellerton discusses some of the assumptions of CLT

Image courtesy of interviewee. May 23, 2024

Log-in or Sign-up to Faculti
Currently viewing this subject insight as a guest. You have insight(s) remaining for this month. Login to view 8000+ figures on the platform.

Generating Workspace...

Export as PDF

This video video is a lengthy exploration of critical thinking, its definitions, and the arguments surrounding its teachability in the context of cognitive load theory. The speaker clarifies that critical thinking is not synonymous with intelligence, expertise, or education level, and argues it should be defined by the quality of thought and thinking processes. They challenge the view from cognitive load theory, which asserts that critical thinking is biologically primary and cannot be taught, emphasizing evidence that shows critical thinking skills can indeed be developed through explicit teaching.

The speaker critiques cognitive load theory for its narrow focus primarily on working memory and instructional design, arguing this approach overlooks the necessity of inquiry, character development, and the agency of students in their learning processes. They argue that cognitive load theory's claims regarding the inability to teach critical thinking are problematic due to the lack of a clear definition of what critical thinking entails. Moreover, they emphasize that students must engage actively in learning, developing resilience, tolerance for ambiguity, and effective inquiry skills to succeed in a complex, uncertain world.

The speaker cites examples like the Philosophy for Children movement, which shows significant cognitive gains through explicit instruction in critical thinking. They call for a broader consideration of critical thinking that incorporates the complexities of human cognition and the importance of fostering an environment where students can develop their thinking skills and agency, distancing from the limitations of cognitive load theory's assumptions. The speaker concludes that while the theory provides some useful insights, its strong claims regarding critical thinking could ultimately do more harm than good in education.

Language:

Export as PDF

X-TIMESTAMP-MAP:LOCAL=00:00:00.000,MPEGTS=900000

00:00.000 --> 00:03.205
Lemme say, begin by by maybe saying what it's not,

00:03.275 --> 00:05.805
it's not synonymous with, intelligence.

00:05.875 --> 00:07.565
It's not synonymous with expertise.

00:08.555 --> 00:11.005
It's not even necessarily synonymous

00:11.035 --> 00:12.165
with level of education.

00:12.665 --> 00:15.845
Um, so let's just, let's sort of move those out

00:15.845 --> 00:17.005
of the picture for a bit and

00:17.005 --> 00:18.165
just talk about what it might be.

00:18.225 --> 00:21.925
Now, some people like to imagine it's some kind

00:21.925 --> 00:22.925
of innate ability.

00:23.945 --> 00:26.685
Um, but I do take issue with that,

00:26.685 --> 00:28.605
and I think the evidence is on my side here.

00:29.345 --> 00:33.765
Um, because I think when you talk about critical thinking,

00:34.505 --> 00:37.005
it's, it's important

00:37.005 --> 00:38.965
to talk also about the critical thinker.

00:39.745 --> 00:44.365
Um, so if I might use, an athletics metaphor, you know,

00:44.365 --> 00:49.075
you might, for example, teach the javelin,

00:49.615 --> 00:53.795
but if you do so, your attention is given as much

00:53.795 --> 00:56.235
to the athlete as it is to the, to the,

00:56.695 --> 00:59.075
the sport itself, in the abstract.

00:59.775 --> 01:02.955
Um, so when we're talking about critical thinking, we have

01:02.955 --> 01:04.315
to pay attention to the critical thinker,

01:04.315 --> 01:06.955
which means our definition of critical thinking must expand

01:06.955 --> 01:08.595
to include certain characteristics

01:08.595 --> 01:09.635
of good critical thinkers.

01:10.855 --> 01:13.435
Now, the thing that critical thinkers are most critical

01:13.435 --> 01:16.755
of is the quality of their own thinking,

01:16.815 --> 01:18.355
before they get to other people's.

01:18.815 --> 01:22.915
Um, and so if I, if I were to give you what I think is

01:23.435 --> 01:24.795
possibly a, a very succinct

01:24.795 --> 01:28.995
and effective definition of critical thinking, I'd say,

01:29.695 --> 01:31.035
and this is a bit shot from the hip,

01:31.575 --> 01:35.835
but it's, it's, it's that area of, of study, if you like,

01:36.335 --> 01:38.115
in which we are concerned with the quality

01:38.215 --> 01:40.155
of thinking and the quality of thought.

01:41.055 --> 01:42.715
Um, now that's quite a fraught area

01:42.715 --> 01:43.955
because, you know, what makes

01:43.955 --> 01:47.995
for good quality thinking is very contextual, changes

01:47.995 --> 01:50.955
with circumstances and situations, with goals.

01:52.135 --> 01:56.715
Um, and so it's, it's not as straightforward

01:56.715 --> 01:58.595
and sort of clinical as you might imagine,

01:58.815 --> 02:01.035
but we certainly are concerned with the quality of thinking

02:01.735 --> 02:03.755
and how that might be

02:04.675 --> 02:07.155
relevant conti considering the context in which we are

02:07.155 --> 02:08.395
thinking and who we're thinking with.

02:08.895 --> 02:11.515
So that's, that's, that's the very broad, and,

02:11.515 --> 02:12.955
and I'm trying to cover all bases

02:12.955 --> 02:14.035
here and make everybody happy.

02:14.535 --> 02:17.755
Um, but it's certainly, it's certainly not easy to sort of,

02:17.815 --> 02:21.035
give you the cool clinical definition so quickly.

02:21.415 --> 02:25.935
The answer to that, if you accept what I've just said,

02:25.935 --> 02:30.215
is yes, because the factors that affect the quality

02:30.315 --> 02:31.815
of the inferences we make

02:31.835 --> 02:35.495
and the thinking that we do, can be articulated,

02:36.035 --> 02:39.695
can be learned, and the processes that we go

02:39.695 --> 02:40.695
through can be improved.

02:41.775 --> 02:44.675
Um, and therefore the quality of thinking

02:44.785 --> 02:46.915
that we engage in can be improved.

02:46.935 --> 02:50.635
And to say it can't be, I think, stands in opposition

02:50.635 --> 02:52.395
to an awful lot of experimental evidence

02:52.415 --> 02:55.035
and an awful lot of the ways in which we understand

02:55.035 --> 02:57.515
how we communicate and develop with each other, not just

02:57.515 --> 02:59.645
through educational institutions, but through our lives.

02:59.905 --> 03:01.765
We, not always,

03:01.985 --> 03:03.005
but, you know, the quality

03:03.105 --> 03:05.085
of our thinking generally improves.

03:05.225 --> 03:09.445
Um, and to say that it, it, it, it does so accidentally,

03:10.225 --> 03:13.125
I think is, is a bit too much of a call.

03:13.225 --> 03:15.525
So we can make it the object of our study,

03:16.225 --> 03:21.155
and we can, you know, make very deliberate, moves

03:21.575 --> 03:23.475
to improve the quality of thinking,

03:23.475 --> 03:25.275
through a whole range of factors and,

03:25.295 --> 03:29.155
and drawing on a whole range of areas from, psychology,

03:29.305 --> 03:31.915
cognitive science and philosophy and other areas as well.

03:31.915 --> 03:35.355
Well, cognitive load theory is,

03:35.775 --> 03:37.635
an admirable attempt to

03:38.805 --> 03:43.095
align our educational instruction, processes

03:43.095 --> 03:46.375
and procedures with what we know

03:46.435 --> 03:48.855
or think we know about the architecture of the mind.

03:49.715 --> 03:51.735
Um, and that would seem to me like a very simple

03:51.915 --> 03:53.575
and obvious thing that we'd want to do.

03:54.355 --> 03:56.215
So it makes a lot of sense to do that.

03:57.235 --> 04:01.515
Um, and cognitive load theory is concerned very much

04:02.065 --> 04:06.785
with, a, a model of how we learn, which

04:07.385 --> 04:09.585
revolves around most fundamentally the concept

04:09.645 --> 04:11.745
of working memory and long-term memory.

04:12.565 --> 04:15.945
And the idea is that our working memory is very limited in,

04:16.125 --> 04:17.945
in, in both space and time.

04:18.045 --> 04:20.985
So if I were to rattle off a string of digits

04:20.985 --> 04:25.855
to you say 7, 2, 3, 6, 5, 9, 8, 2, 7, your memory

04:25.855 --> 04:27.495
of those things is fading as we speak.

04:27.955 --> 04:30.495
Um, and it's, it's very hard to capture those things.

04:30.495 --> 04:32.175
They haven't gone into long-term memory.

04:32.275 --> 04:33.895
You haven't learned them if you like.

04:34.835 --> 04:38.215
Um, and so cognitive low theory is concerned with

04:38.235 --> 04:42.305
how we manage that, that issue of short-term memory

04:42.605 --> 04:44.385
and moving things to long-term memory.

04:45.125 --> 04:47.625
Um, and it's also concerned with how not only

04:47.625 --> 04:49.145
that we move it to long-term memory, that,

04:49.145 --> 04:50.705
that we structure it in such a way

04:51.615 --> 04:55.385
that the way the knowledge sort of hangs together,

04:55.445 --> 04:58.225
in our long-term memory is, is operationally useful

04:58.605 --> 05:01.105
and can be drawn upon very quickly and effectively.

05:01.125 --> 05:03.665
And all of that I think makes a lot of sense.

05:04.445 --> 05:07.345
Um, so that, that's kind of where it sits,

05:07.485 --> 05:10.385
but it also makes a couple of,

05:11.005 --> 05:13.545
to my mind startling assumptions that,

05:13.735 --> 05:15.425
knowledge is of at least two types.

05:15.725 --> 05:17.985
One is that it's biologic,

05:18.215 --> 05:19.985
some knowledge is biologically primary.

05:20.685 --> 05:23.785
And an example of that might be,

05:25.105 --> 05:26.565
the way in which we learn a language

05:26.595 --> 05:28.245
that we don't need working memory

05:28.245 --> 05:29.685
to help us learn a language.

05:29.825 --> 05:33.085
It kind of just comes of itself with experience and,

05:33.185 --> 05:35.405
and with exposure, and we don't have

05:35.405 --> 05:39.205
to pay conscious attention to it to develop language skills.

05:40.145 --> 05:42.525
Um, this is a bit different if you learn a second language

05:42.525 --> 05:46.765
later in life, of course, but, but certainly initially,

05:46.905 --> 05:49.165
and there's the lang, there's the knowledge

05:49.165 --> 05:50.645
that is biologically secondary,

05:50.785 --> 05:54.365
and that includes most of what we learn at school, geography

05:54.425 --> 05:56.885
and mathematics and, and science and

05:56.925 --> 05:58.605
History and so on.

05:58.865 --> 06:02.005
And it is a contention of, of cognitive load theory.

06:02.065 --> 06:04.645
And I'm, it remains unclear to me why

06:05.155 --> 06:08.525
that critical thinking is biologically primary and

06:08.525 --> 06:09.765
therefore can't be taught.

06:10.345 --> 06:13.645
So that's where I, as, as, as where someone

06:13.645 --> 06:17.045
who focuses on critical thinking, that's where I take issue

06:17.045 --> 06:18.965
with the assumptions of cognitive load theory.

06:19.185 --> 06:22.485
Um, well, critical thinking is a very, very broad church.

06:23.385 --> 06:27.745
And you, you range from the, those

06:27.745 --> 06:29.065
who focus on the very analytical

06:29.065 --> 06:30.425
aspects of critical thinking.

06:30.805 --> 06:35.585
Um, you know, originally people such as Ennis

06:35.885 --> 06:39.195
and, and others who, who concept,

06:39.215 --> 06:40.995
who conceptualize critical thinking is a very

06:40.995 --> 06:42.115
analytical process.

06:43.095 --> 06:47.315
Um, you have educational theorists like,

06:47.315 --> 06:50.595
Matthew Lipman and Anne Sharpe, who, who tried

06:50.595 --> 06:53.355
to move critical thinking into an educational context,

06:53.355 --> 06:55.995
particularly in the area of philosophy, which sort

06:55.995 --> 06:58.035
of traditionally has been the home of,

06:58.175 --> 07:00.315
of critical thinking, thought.

07:01.015 --> 07:02.995
Uh, it is an old project,

07:03.045 --> 07:05.155
after all, quite an ancient one.

07:06.375 --> 07:11.115
You also have those who, move towards the kind of,

07:12.015 --> 07:16.935
social cognitive aspects that come out of things like,

07:16.995 --> 07:18.615
formal structures of arguments.

07:19.315 --> 07:22.055
Um, Deanna Kuhn is an example of that.

07:22.115 --> 07:25.895
And there are many who, who work in, argumentation,

07:25.955 --> 07:29.455
Sharon Balen, for example, mark Battersby.

07:30.475 --> 07:34.175
Um, and you have others who focus more on the character

07:34.175 --> 07:36.615
of the critical thinker and the kind of dispositions

07:36.615 --> 07:39.455
and perhaps virtues that those people might have, like,

07:40.525 --> 07:43.095
like, Jason Ba or

07:44.115 --> 07:45.695
or Harvey Siegel.

07:46.475 --> 07:50.775
And so we, we range across a, a quite a, a broad,

07:51.415 --> 07:53.135
a broad conceptualization when we

07:53.135 --> 07:54.215
talk about critical thinking.

07:54.915 --> 07:58.175
And my interest is in how you teach critical thinking.

07:58.195 --> 08:01.055
So I think we have to pay attention to all of those things.

08:02.015 --> 08:03.855
I think there's technical knowledge about critical

08:03.855 --> 08:04.895
thinking that we can teach.

08:06.065 --> 08:09.165
Um, I think there are some very important educational

08:09.165 --> 08:12.005
imperatives in teaching critical thinking,

08:12.585 --> 08:15.485
and I think we have to pay attention to the kind

08:15.485 --> 08:17.845
of characters, characteristics

08:17.945 --> 08:19.645
or if you like, trays that we develop,

08:19.945 --> 08:23.965
you might call them virtues, in critical thinkers.

08:24.585 --> 08:27.965
Um, those virtues of, of open-mindedness

08:28.225 --> 08:30.645
and curiosity,

08:30.785 --> 08:34.565
and so on, that we, we think about when we,

08:34.635 --> 08:38.165
when we imagine the paradigmatic critical thinker and,

08:38.185 --> 08:42.355
and all of those things count towards developing,

08:42.355 --> 08:43.435
good critical thinkers

08:43.615 --> 08:46.675
and also developing programs that will create them.

08:46.985 --> 08:50.595
Anybody who wants to, to speak about critical thinking

08:50.595 --> 08:51.795
and whether or not it can be taught.

08:52.695 --> 08:54.635
And bear in mind that my, my concern

08:54.825 --> 08:57.205
With cognitive load theory is its assertion

08:57.205 --> 08:58.645
that critical thinking can't be taught.

08:59.075 --> 09:00.765
Yeah. Uh, if you're going to make that comment,

09:01.075 --> 09:03.085
then you need to have a very clear definition

09:03.085 --> 09:05.845
of critical thinking to show that that can't be achieved.

09:06.665 --> 09:10.685
Um, but cognitive load theory is, is suspiciously silent on

09:10.835 --> 09:14.765
what critical thinking is apart from its proclamation

09:14.765 --> 09:16.765
that it's so-called biologically primary,

09:17.505 --> 09:18.725
and can't be taught.

09:19.705 --> 09:24.365
Now, there are a number of, of psychologists,

09:24.705 --> 09:28.835
and particularly educational psychologists who,

09:30.235 --> 09:34.015
well, perhaps not being, cognitive load theorists,

09:34.715 --> 09:38.655
in full bloom themselves, share some of those ideas.

09:38.715 --> 09:41.175
And these people buttress the claims

09:41.175 --> 09:44.655
of cognitive load theory with the assertion

09:44.655 --> 09:45.855
that it can't be taught.

09:46.155 --> 09:48.975
And these include people like the,

09:49.455 --> 09:51.255
psychologist Daniel Willingham,

09:51.915 --> 09:53.095
and of course, John Sweller,

09:53.095 --> 09:55.855
who developed the cognitive load theory is, is himself,

09:55.875 --> 09:57.215
an educational psychologist.

09:57.995 --> 10:02.335
And they, they, they have very, also very broad definitions,

10:02.335 --> 10:04.255
or very vague, I would say, definitions of

10:04.255 --> 10:05.735
what critical thinking is.

10:05.735 --> 10:08.455
It's a, it's a type of thinking or a kind of thinking,

10:08.515 --> 10:11.775
but without any specificity about what that is.

10:11.795 --> 10:14.135
It might be the kind of thinking that you employ in,

10:14.515 --> 10:17.015
in chess, but what kind of thinking is that?

10:17.015 --> 10:21.215
It's not very well articulated, developing strategies,

10:21.275 --> 10:22.535
but what kind of thinking is that?

10:22.535 --> 10:24.575
What kind of cognitive activities involved in doing of that?

10:24.575 --> 10:25.895
It's not well articulated.

10:26.995 --> 10:30.615
Um, and so the simple fact that it is not,

10:30.855 --> 10:34.135
well-defined means that assertions that it can't be taught

10:34.675 --> 10:35.735
are quite problematic.

10:36.315 --> 10:38.495
And certainly with Daniel Willingham, you'll get,

10:38.495 --> 10:41.615
you'll get claims like, or teaching students chess

10:41.635 --> 10:43.975
or music doesn't seem to translate into other areas.

10:44.045 --> 10:46.675
Well, fine, but why would it,

10:46.825 --> 10:48.755
because if you haven't defined what aspect

10:48.755 --> 10:52.195
of those skills you think are, are relevant, then how is it

10:52.195 --> 10:56.195
that they can be, emblematic

10:56.495 --> 10:57.715
of critical thinking?

10:57.895 --> 11:02.435
Um, so it really doesn't follow at all, that, that it,

11:02.655 --> 11:03.715
it can't be taught

11:03.715 --> 11:06.235
because it definitionally we haven't got anywhere near

11:06.915 --> 11:09.915
a good working understanding of what critical thinking is,

11:09.935 --> 11:14.555
or a way in which, we can give it sort of pedagogically

11:14.615 --> 11:15.795
or educational traction.

11:16.055 --> 11:18.755
The experimental problem in this context is linked to that,

11:18.825 --> 11:21.195
that if you, if you can't define it, then experiments

11:21.195 --> 11:23.595
that you have, which show that it,

11:23.675 --> 11:25.515
that you can't either can't teach it well,

11:25.535 --> 11:28.435
or you can't transfer it to other contexts,

11:28.695 --> 11:30.635
suffer from the same problems.

11:30.815 --> 11:34.955
Now, again, with Daniel Willingham, he,

11:34.975 --> 11:38.035
he makes a few assertions about, the transferability

11:38.035 --> 11:40.675
of teaching particular skills,

11:41.805 --> 11:44.225
and saying to students, look, this is a kind

11:44.225 --> 11:45.545
of formal argument structure

11:45.725 --> 11:48.825
or a formal logical structure,

11:49.385 --> 11:51.345
demonstrating in one context and seeing if students can

11:51.585 --> 11:53.760
recognize it another, and, and quite often they don't.

11:53.760 --> 11:55.420
They don't. And that's quite understandable.

11:55.725 --> 11:58.085
'cause we have lots of under, we have lots of, research

11:58.085 --> 12:00.965
that shows people without explicit attention

12:00.985 --> 12:04.185
to the logical structure don't translate them.

12:04.525 --> 12:05.825
Um, and,

12:06.085 --> 12:07.425
but if you do give explicit attention

12:07.425 --> 12:10.065
to the logical structure, then they do recognize it.

12:10.065 --> 12:13.955
So, you know, it's simply, accepting that or,

12:13.975 --> 12:17.395
or expecting that somebody, who's exposed to one kind

12:17.395 --> 12:18.915
of logical thinking would re would

12:18.915 --> 12:20.035
automatically recognize it.

12:20.035 --> 12:21.995
Another is problematic in two ways.

12:22.135 --> 12:25.315
One, that you have to practice this to get good at it.

12:25.315 --> 12:27.475
It's not something that just happens straight away.

12:28.135 --> 12:31.195
And two, if you don't articulate the life structure,

12:31.785 --> 12:34.315
then you have some significant issues with how it is

12:34.315 --> 12:37.195
that you want that to be the object of study

12:37.215 --> 12:38.755
and the object that you're trying to teach.

12:39.335 --> 12:41.635
Um, so there's a whole range

12:41.655 --> 12:43.835
of experimental problems that we, we have with it.

12:43.835 --> 12:45.595
And, and I think when it comes

12:45.595 --> 12:48.715
to cognitive load theory in particular, one of the, I think,

12:48.715 --> 12:51.515
problematic ideas is that a lot

12:51.515 --> 12:55.235
of the work done in cognitive load theory focuses on,

12:55.245 --> 12:58.795
areas like, geometry and mathematics,

12:58.815 --> 12:59.915
and very technical areas

13:00.695 --> 13:03.155
and the inferences that you make from that,

13:03.615 --> 13:05.475
and that people do indeed make, and,

13:05.535 --> 13:07.635
and you see that writ large in the policy

13:07.735 --> 13:09.275
of educational jurisdictions.

13:10.205 --> 13:11.355
Those implications

13:11.415 --> 13:14.995
and those inferences, ought not to be generalized across

13:15.535 --> 13:18.035
the more kinds of learning that come from

13:18.345 --> 13:19.635
that experimental data.

13:20.095 --> 13:22.075
So there's a number of ways in which this is

13:22.075 --> 13:23.275
particularly difficult.

13:23.935 --> 13:26.515
It also ignores a lot of evidence that shows

13:26.515 --> 13:28.435
that critical thinking can be taught,

13:29.225 --> 13:30.275
cognitive load theory.

13:30.495 --> 13:31.875
You know, and to be fair, like a lot

13:31.875 --> 13:33.915
of academic disciplines is a bit of a bubble.

13:34.955 --> 13:37.455
Um, and, you know, they've listened

13:37.455 --> 13:38.855
to each other, they, they cite each other.

13:39.475 --> 13:40.895
Um, but there's a lot of evidence

13:40.895 --> 13:43.015
that critical thinking at the way, at least,

13:43.015 --> 13:45.375
that most people are happy with it being defined,

13:46.195 --> 13:47.255
can indeed be taught.

13:48.105 --> 13:51.685
Um, and you know, an exemplar of that is, is,

13:52.265 --> 13:55.605
is would be the philosophy for children movement, which,

13:55.735 --> 13:58.205
shows significant cognitive gains in students who,

13:58.385 --> 14:02.565
who undergo, the kind of explicit instruction in,

14:03.145 --> 14:06.245
in thinking skills, that I'm talking about.

14:07.065 --> 14:09.605
And, topping and, topping

14:09.605 --> 14:13.285
and tricking, so I should say sorry, tricky

14:13.285 --> 14:17.565
and topping, have, have demonstrated that,

14:18.175 --> 14:21.305
that, cognitive gain over indeed years

14:21.305 --> 14:22.985
after the, interventions have stopped.

14:23.125 --> 14:25.345
So that's, it is pretty significant that we should do that.

14:25.935 --> 14:28.945
It's also a bit of a concern experimentally in there are,

14:28.945 --> 14:33.625
there are three types of, working memory that,

14:33.805 --> 14:37.225
cognitive load theorists speak of, that is

14:37.965 --> 14:42.585
the working memory that is, intrinsic to engaging

14:43.095 --> 14:46.225
with learning a particular idea or concept.

14:47.285 --> 14:49.865
Um, and that's, you know, inescapable, it's, you know,

14:50.435 --> 14:51.565
ideas can be difficult

14:51.565 --> 14:53.685
and we have to put some mental effort into that.

14:55.235 --> 14:58.845
There's, there's the extrinsic load,

14:59.185 --> 15:02.805
as they phrase it, the extraneous load, which

15:03.545 --> 15:06.725
can be a lot of unnecessary faff that comes with the problem

15:06.725 --> 15:09.205
that you could get rid of to make it simpler so

15:09.205 --> 15:12.085
that people can reserve their working memory

15:12.185 --> 15:13.605
for just engaging with the problem.

15:13.745 --> 15:16.405
But if you present things in a way that confuses people,

15:16.405 --> 15:18.005
they have to use a lot of their working memory

15:18.025 --> 15:19.885
to actually understand what's being asked of them

15:19.885 --> 15:21.125
before they actually get to the problem.

15:21.265 --> 15:24.125
So that's, that's quite, quite,

15:24.785 --> 15:26.285
quite an impediment.

15:27.065 --> 15:29.725
Um, and then there's what they call the germane load,

15:29.775 --> 15:33.725
which is the load that's necessary to engage with, to move

15:33.725 --> 15:34.885
that learning into,

15:35.025 --> 15:38.445
or that, that understanding into long-term memory to

15:39.005 --> 15:42.525
construct a kind of schematic representation of a sort

15:42.525 --> 15:44.725
of complex learning idea in which you understand

15:44.725 --> 15:45.805
how things hang together.

15:45.905 --> 15:47.325
And that involves some load.

15:47.425 --> 15:51.405
Now, the, the, the ontology of those three areas,

15:51.905 --> 15:53.005
you know, is in question.

15:53.505 --> 15:58.365
Um, and the ways in which we can experiment with them,

15:58.725 --> 16:00.485
I think, can be questioned.

16:00.545 --> 16:05.285
In fact, I'd go so far as to say that as,

16:05.465 --> 16:10.165
as DeJong does that, it's almost unfalsifiable,

16:10.875 --> 16:12.085
because, you know,

16:12.085 --> 16:14.725
you can definitionally shift what's going on experimentally

16:14.725 --> 16:17.885
to show your point ad hoc to any, any event.

16:18.185 --> 16:21.045
And that's a problem. And I think also, perhaps lastly,

16:21.045 --> 16:23.325
the notion of measuring cognitive loads itself

16:24.085 --> 16:25.085
a difficult idea.

16:25.495 --> 16:27.085
There are some ways to think about it,

16:27.085 --> 16:28.485
but I still think there's a lot of work

16:28.485 --> 16:29.645
to be done in those areas.

16:29.945 --> 16:33.005
So inferences from data conceptualization,

16:33.125 --> 16:34.645
I think there's a significant amount of problem.

16:34.945 --> 16:37.325
That's before we even get to the, to the assertion

16:37.325 --> 16:38.325
that is unsupported,

16:38.635 --> 16:41.485
that critical thinking is so-called biologically primary.

16:41.755 --> 16:45.565
Well, John swallow himself, the, the originator of, of,

16:45.675 --> 16:49.565
cognitive load theory has, has said that inquiry ought

16:49.565 --> 16:51.285
to be used only when information is not

16:51.285 --> 16:52.485
available to students.

16:53.505 --> 16:56.085
Um, so therefore the, the, the instructor doesn't know it.

16:56.985 --> 17:00.325
And I think that's very difficult to, to,

17:00.665 --> 17:02.085
justify.

17:02.665 --> 17:04.205
And the reason I think that is

17:04.205 --> 17:08.685
because one of our key goals in developing critical thinkers

17:09.465 --> 17:12.965
has to be to teach students about the means of production,

17:12.965 --> 17:15.325
of knowledge, and the means of production

17:15.325 --> 17:16.485
of knowledge is inquiry.

17:17.505 --> 17:20.285
And that means certain kinds of thinking that have to go on.

17:20.985 --> 17:22.725
Um, and so they have to practice that.

17:22.835 --> 17:24.005
They have to get good at it.

17:24.345 --> 17:28.205
And if we simply don't give them opportunities to practice

17:28.205 --> 17:30.885
that, then we're, we're cutting them off from

17:30.885 --> 17:32.765
that valuable learning experience, which is

17:32.765 --> 17:33.965
how you develop new knowledge.

17:35.145 --> 17:39.645
Um, and so inquiry has a very,

17:40.185 --> 17:43.715
it's very low down on the order

17:43.715 --> 17:45.395
of priorities in cognitive low theory.

17:46.335 --> 17:47.695
'cause the assumption is if we just know

17:47.695 --> 17:48.855
and tell students or tell

17:48.855 --> 17:51.565
Them in a way that optimizes their use

17:51.565 --> 17:53.045
of working memory, then we've done the job.

17:53.145 --> 17:56.805
But we, we, we, in doing so, ignore all those other

17:57.315 --> 18:00.325
significant skills, such as critical and creative thinking

18:00.945 --> 18:04.605
and the skills of collaboration, of problematizing,

18:04.605 --> 18:07.605
something, understanding the nature of a problem.

18:07.605 --> 18:10.565
That's an enormously important and useful skill,

18:10.625 --> 18:13.325
and one that we need to get, get better at,

18:13.325 --> 18:14.685
across all our discipline areas,

18:14.785 --> 18:16.645
and particularly considering some

18:16.645 --> 18:18.085
of the problems that we face today.

18:18.705 --> 18:22.975
Um, and so, so just not giving students opportunities

18:23.075 --> 18:24.455
to understand inquiry

18:25.275 --> 18:27.535
and indeed to understand the schematic nature

18:27.535 --> 18:28.535
of inquiry itself.

18:28.535 --> 18:29.775
There's much to be learned

18:29.835 --> 18:32.655
and explicitly taught, I might add, about

18:32.675 --> 18:34.335
how inquiry can proceed.

18:34.905 --> 18:38.415
There are key critical questions that can be taught

18:38.435 --> 18:40.855
to students based on the kind of arguments that you are

18:41.575 --> 18:42.855
prosecuting these,

18:43.225 --> 18:45.015
based on the work of Alton and others.

18:45.795 --> 18:50.415
Um, and it's, it's, it's important that students develop

18:50.415 --> 18:52.255
that schematic understanding of inquiry so

18:52.255 --> 18:54.255
that they can move forward in uncertainty

18:54.675 --> 18:56.375
and have a tolerance for ambiguity.

18:56.375 --> 18:59.865
For this is how we measure,

18:59.865 --> 19:01.785
intelligence and, and success.

19:01.785 --> 19:03.985
It's, it's moving forward in an uncertain

19:03.985 --> 19:05.225
world, not a certain world.

19:05.685 --> 19:08.545
And so we need to develop these skills in students at every

19:08.545 --> 19:10.145
opportunity,

19:10.535 --> 19:13.665
because without them, we're gonna have, we're going

19:13.665 --> 19:15.665
to have students who simply are looking for people

19:16.045 --> 19:17.985
to give them the answers to the problems they have.

19:18.565 --> 19:23.265
Um, and there is rigor in inquiry, and in and in

19:23.265 --> 19:24.785
and in developing good thinking skills.

19:24.785 --> 19:28.305
And I would argue that there is rigor in content only in

19:28.325 --> 19:30.745
as much as it requires good

19:30.745 --> 19:32.105
thinking skills and good inquiry.

19:32.565 --> 19:36.265
So sidelining inquiry, I think is a, is a very,

19:36.815 --> 19:38.905
very big problem with cognitive load theory.

19:39.005 --> 19:40.265
In cognitive load theory.

19:40.685 --> 19:43.825
The, the focus is on

19:44.375 --> 19:46.665
understanding working memory requirements

19:46.665 --> 19:47.745
during the learning process.

19:48.365 --> 19:50.065
And that's not a trivial consideration.

19:50.085 --> 19:52.825
And I think it's a justified area of focus.

19:52.985 --> 19:54.705
I think it does matter that we do that.

19:55.525 --> 19:59.745
Um, but we can't see that, we can't see instructional design

20:00.685 --> 20:04.505
as the only pedagogical imperative of cognitive load theory.

20:05.255 --> 20:09.035
Um, and that means that we have to understand

20:09.035 --> 20:10.435
that students themselves have

20:10.435 --> 20:12.835
to have agency over their learning.

20:13.615 --> 20:16.555
And this is linked to some of the other ideas

20:16.555 --> 20:19.275
that I've been talking about, like inquiry, for example,

20:19.895 --> 20:23.275
and developing characteristics within students such

20:23.275 --> 20:26.435
as resilience and tolerance of ambiguity and,

20:26.535 --> 20:30.875
and, persistence, that come from moving

20:30.875 --> 20:34.035
through uncertainty, through inquiry.

20:35.265 --> 20:37.365
And if you ignore those things, you then,

20:37.365 --> 20:40.325
you don't develop the kind of agency you need in students

20:40.865 --> 20:43.555
to be in charge of their own learning,

20:43.695 --> 20:45.435
and to experience success in their own

20:45.635 --> 20:46.795
learning. If they see their

20:47.125 --> 20:50.245
Learning, if indeed their learning is simply a function

20:50.245 --> 20:54.125
of the quality of instructional design, then, you know,

20:54.755 --> 20:57.965
what role do they play in their role in learning what kind

20:57.965 --> 20:59.165
of self-regulation

20:59.745 --> 21:02.765
and metacognitive activity could they engage with,

21:02.985 --> 21:06.245
beyond simply understanding working memory,

21:06.435 --> 21:08.045
that could be important to their own

21:08.925 --> 21:10.485
learning and development.

21:11.505 --> 21:15.365
Um, and in that case, I think the problem here is that

21:16.615 --> 21:19.695
students almost seem irrelevant to the process of learning.

21:19.755 --> 21:22.495
As long as you get the instructional design right, then

21:23.555 --> 21:25.175
that's the only thing that matters.

21:25.235 --> 21:26.415
But every student is different.

21:26.435 --> 21:28.815
And you know, this is the problem with a lot of areas

21:28.925 --> 21:32.335
that focus on, on cognitive architecture and,

21:33.075 --> 21:34.855
and say the neuroscience of learning,

21:34.995 --> 21:36.815
and these are all important ideas.

21:37.055 --> 21:38.855
I, I must add, I don't, not dismissing them,

21:39.355 --> 21:43.055
but when we talk about brains, we're talking about

21:43.135 --> 21:44.615
that which all students have in

21:44.615 --> 21:46.095
common, and we should know that.

21:47.435 --> 21:51.015
But when we talk about minds, we're talking about

21:51.365 --> 21:53.015
that which is unique to all students.

21:53.675 --> 21:56.255
And engaging with a student's mind is a very different

21:56.255 --> 21:58.175
process from engaging with their brains in their

21:58.175 --> 21:59.255
cognitive requirements.

21:59.875 --> 22:02.895
So we need to work with them so they understand themselves

22:02.915 --> 22:04.215
as agents of their own learning,

22:04.235 --> 22:06.135
and we have to engage with their minds.

22:07.035 --> 22:08.855
And that's not really something

22:08.855 --> 22:11.495
that's wr large in cognitive load theory,

22:11.955 --> 22:14.335
or which is a clear pedagogical

22:14.335 --> 22:15.815
imperative from its assumptions.

22:15.995 --> 22:19.295
So in conclusion is not that I necessarily disagree

22:19.295 --> 22:21.775
with a lot of the assumptions of cognitive load theory,

22:22.055 --> 22:24.935
I do appreciate that schematic understanding has

22:24.935 --> 22:27.575
to be developed and that working memory is a

22:27.575 --> 22:29.055
significant issue to deal with.

22:29.395 --> 22:34.335
Um, what concerns me is the claims made within cognitive

22:34.335 --> 22:37.655
load theory and in similar educational psychology circles

22:38.125 --> 22:40.135
that critical thinking can't be taught.

22:41.095 --> 22:44.475
Um, and I don't think

22:44.475 --> 22:46.155
that's true if you accept

22:46.815 --> 22:49.835
how most people understand about critical thinking is,

22:50.205 --> 22:52.315
which is that we are concerned with the quality

22:52.615 --> 22:53.875
of the decisions that we make

22:53.875 --> 22:55.395
and the processes that we go through.

22:55.895 --> 22:57.835
And there is a very long literature

22:57.835 --> 23:01.235
and a very deep literature about that issue.

23:01.855 --> 23:05.355
Um, how do we understand good reasoning, what makes

23:05.455 --> 23:08.515
for a good argument and why do we think

23:08.515 --> 23:10.795
that some reasons should matter to some people and others?

23:11.535 --> 23:15.315
Um, how do we, how do we select from a variety of reasons,

23:16.455 --> 23:19.395
those that we think best prosecute our case?

23:19.395 --> 23:20.955
And why do we think that's important?

23:21.215 --> 23:24.635
All of these things go back, thousands

23:24.635 --> 23:26.795
of years in philosophy,

23:27.695 --> 23:30.435
and a very long time in psychology and,

23:30.435 --> 23:34.915
and you know, much less time in, in, cognitive science

23:35.015 --> 23:38.075
and neuroscience very briefly, if at all, in neuroscience.

23:38.735 --> 23:41.395
Um, but it also goes back a very long time in education

23:42.285 --> 23:46.285
and a lot of the things that we learn from neuroscience and,

23:46.505 --> 23:48.885
and, and from cognitive load theory, a lot

23:48.885 --> 23:50.925
of the claims about what makes for good teaching, like,

23:50.925 --> 23:55.295
don't overload students', brains or minds if you like.

23:55.345 --> 23:58.575
Don't overload them with information, step them through

23:58.715 --> 24:00.295
and be explicit where you can,

24:00.665 --> 24:02.055
we've known this for centuries.

24:02.955 --> 24:05.775
Uh, you know, so I don't think cognitive low theory at this

24:05.775 --> 24:08.695
point can offer a lot of work that's revolutionary.

24:08.695 --> 24:10.775
It can give us some ideas about why some things

24:10.775 --> 24:13.695
that we know work, work, in some ways.

24:14.395 --> 24:18.975
But we, it, its problem is that with that comes a couple

24:18.995 --> 24:21.055
of strong assertions about critical thinking,

24:21.055 --> 24:22.735
which I think are unjustified.

24:23.515 --> 24:25.655
And I actually think in the context

24:26.035 --> 24:28.335
of educational instruction, it runs the risk

24:28.335 --> 24:29.575
of doing more harm than good.

Understanding Critical Thinking: Beyond Basics

00:00:00 - Lemme say, begin by by maybe saying what it's not, it's not synonymous with, intelligence. It's not synonymous with expertise. It's not even necessarily synonymous with level of education. so let's just, let's sort of move those out of the picture for a bit and just talk about what it might be. Now, some people like to imagine it's some kind of innate ability. but I do take issue with that, and I think the evidence is on my side here. because I think when you talk about critical thinking,
00:00:37 - to talk also about the critical thinker. so if I might use, an athletics metaphor, you know, you might, for example, teach the javelin, but if you do so, your attention is given as much to the athlete as it is to the, to the, the sport itself, in the abstract. so when we're talking about critical thinking, we have to pay attention to the critical thinker, which means our definition of critical thinking must expand
00:01:08 - of good critical thinkers. Now, the thing that critical thinkers are most critical of is the quality of their own thinking, before they get to other people's. and so if I, if I were to give you what I think is possibly a, a very succinct and effective definition of critical thinking, I'd say, and this is a bit shot from the hip, but it's, it's, it's that area of, of study, if you like, in which we are concerned with the quality
00:01:41 - now that's quite a fraught area because, you know, what makes for good quality thinking is very contextual, changes with circumstances and situations, with goals. and so it's, it's not as straightforward and sort of clinical as you might imagine, but we certainly are concerned with the quality of thinking and how that might be relevant conti considering the context in which we are thinking and who we're thinking with.
00:02:11 - and I'm trying to cover all bases here and make everybody happy. but it's certainly, it's certainly not easy to sort of, give you the cool clinical definition so quickly. The answer to that, if you accept what I've just said, is yes, because the factors that affect the quality of the inferences we make and the thinking that we do, can be articulated, can be learned, and the processes that we go
00:02:41 - and therefore the quality of thinking that we engage in can be improved. And to say it can't be, I think, stands in opposition to an awful lot of experimental evidence and an awful lot of the ways in which we understand how we communicate and develop with each other, not just through educational institutions, but through our lives. We, not always, but, you know, the quality of our thinking generally improves. and to say that it, it, it, it does so accidentally,

Cognitive Load Theory and Critical Thinking

00:03:13 - So we can make it the object of our study, and we can, you know, make very deliberate, moves to improve the quality of thinking, through a whole range of factors and, and drawing on a whole range of areas from, psychology, cognitive science and philosophy and other areas as well. Well, cognitive load theory is, an admirable attempt to align our educational instruction, processes
00:03:46 - or think we know about the architecture of the mind. and that would seem to me like a very simple and obvious thing that we'd want to do. So it makes a lot of sense to do that. and cognitive load theory is concerned very much with, a, a model of how we learn, which revolves around most fundamentally the concept of working memory and long-term memory. And the idea is that our working memory is very limited in,
00:04:18 - So if I were to rattle off a string of digits to you say 7, 2, 3, 6, 5, 9, 8, 2, 7, your memory of those things is fading as we speak. and it's, it's very hard to capture those things. They haven't gone into long-term memory. You haven't learned them if you like. and so cognitive low theory is concerned with how we manage that, that issue of short-term memory and moving things to long-term memory. and it's also concerned with how not only
00:04:49 - that we structure it in such a way that the way the knowledge sort of hangs together, in our long-term memory is, is operationally useful and can be drawn upon very quickly and effectively. And all of that I think makes a lot of sense. so that, that's kind of where it sits, but it also makes a couple of, to my mind startling assumptions that, knowledge is of at least two types. One is that it's biologic,
00:05:20 - And an example of that might be, the way in which we learn a language that we don't need working memory to help us learn a language. It kind of just comes of itself with experience and, and with exposure, and we don't have to pay conscious attention to it to develop language skills. this is a bit different if you learn a second language later in life, of course, but, but certainly initially, and there's the lang, there's the knowledge
00:05:50 - and that includes most of what we learn at school, geography and mathematics and, and science and History and so on. And it is a contention of, of cognitive load theory. And I'm, it remains unclear to me why that critical thinking is biologically primary and therefore can't be taught. So that's where I, as, as, as where someone who focuses on critical thinking, that's where I take issue with the assumptions of cognitive load theory.

Exploring the Dimensions of Critical Thinking

00:06:23 - And you, you range from the, those who focus on the very analytical aspects of critical thinking. you know, originally people such as Ennis and, and others who, who concept, who conceptualize critical thinking is a very analytical process. you have educational theorists like, Matthew Lipman and Anne Sharpe, who, who tried
00:06:53 - particularly in the area of philosophy, which sort of traditionally has been the home of, of critical thinking, thought. it is an old project, after all, quite an ancient one. You also have those who, move towards the kind of, social cognitive aspects that come out of things like, formal structures of arguments. Deanna Kuhn is an example of that.
00:07:25 - Sharon Balen, for example, mark Battersby. and you have others who focus more on the character of the critical thinker and the kind of dispositions and perhaps virtues that those people might have, like, like, Jason Ba or or Harvey Siegel. And so we, we range across a, a quite a, a broad, a broad conceptualization when we
00:07:54 - And my interest is in how you teach critical thinking. So I think we have to pay attention to all of those things. I think there's technical knowledge about critical thinking that we can teach. I think there are some very important educational imperatives in teaching critical thinking, and I think we have to pay attention to the kind of characters, characteristics or if you like, trays that we develop, you might call them virtues, in critical thinkers.
00:08:28 - and curiosity, and so on, that we, we think about when we, when we imagine the paradigmatic critical thinker and, and all of those things count towards developing, good critical thinkers and also developing programs that will create them. Anybody who wants to, to speak about critical thinking and whether or not it can be taught. And bear in mind that my, my concern
00:08:57 - that critical thinking can't be taught. Yeah. if you're going to make that comment, then you need to have a very clear definition of critical thinking to show that that can't be achieved. but cognitive load theory is, is suspiciously silent on what critical thinking is apart from its proclamation that it's so-called biologically primary, and can't be taught. Now, there are a number of, of psychologists, and particularly educational psychologists who,

Critique of Cognitive Load Theory's Definitions

00:09:34 - in full bloom themselves, share some of those ideas. And these people buttress the claims of cognitive load theory with the assertion that it can't be taught. And these include people like the, psychologist Daniel Willingham, and of course, John Sweller, who developed the cognitive load theory is, is himself, an educational psychologist. And they, they, they have very, also very broad definitions,
00:10:04 - what critical thinking is. It's a, it's a type of thinking or a kind of thinking, but without any specificity about what that is. It might be the kind of thinking that you employ in, in chess, but what kind of thinking is that? It's not very well articulated, developing strategies, but what kind of thinking is that? What kind of cognitive activities involved in doing of that? It's not well articulated. and so the simple fact that it is not, well-defined means that assertions that it can't be taught
00:10:36 - And certainly with Daniel Willingham, you'll get, you'll get claims like, or teaching students chess or music doesn't seem to translate into other areas. Well, fine, but why would it, because if you haven't defined what aspect of those skills you think are, are relevant, then how is it that they can be, emblematic of critical thinking? so it really doesn't follow at all, that, that it, it can't be taught because it definitionally we haven't got anywhere near
00:11:09 - or a way in which, we can give it sort of pedagogically or educational traction. The experimental problem in this context is linked to that, that if you, if you can't define it, then experiments that you have, which show that it, that you can't either can't teach it well, or you can't transfer it to other contexts, suffer from the same problems. Now, again, with Daniel Willingham, he, he makes a few assertions about, the transferability
00:11:41 - and saying to students, look, this is a kind of formal argument structure or a formal logical structure, demonstrating in one context and seeing if students can recognize it another, and, and quite often they don't. They don't. And that's quite understandable. 'cause we have lots of under, we have lots of, research that shows people without explicit attention to the logical structure don't translate them. and, but if you do give explicit attention to the logical structure, then they do recognize it.
00:12:13 - or expecting that somebody, who's exposed to one kind of logical thinking would re would automatically recognize it. Another is problematic in two ways. One, that you have to practice this to get good at it. It's not something that just happens straight away. And two, if you don't articulate the life structure, then you have some significant issues with how it is that you want that to be the object of study and the object that you're trying to teach. so there's a whole range

Cognitive Load Theory and Critical Thinking Education

00:12:43 - And, and I think when it comes to cognitive load theory in particular, one of the, I think, problematic ideas is that a lot of the work done in cognitive load theory focuses on, areas like, geometry and mathematics, and very technical areas and the inferences that you make from that, and that people do indeed make, and, and you see that writ large in the policy of educational jurisdictions. Those implications and those inferences, ought not to be generalized across
00:13:18 - that experimental data. So there's a number of ways in which this is particularly difficult. It also ignores a lot of evidence that shows that critical thinking can be taught, cognitive load theory. You know, and to be fair, like a lot of academic disciplines is a bit of a bubble. and, you know, they've listened to each other, they, they cite each other. but there's a lot of evidence that critical thinking at the way, at least, that most people are happy with it being defined,
00:13:48 - and you know, an exemplar of that is, is, is would be the philosophy for children movement, which, shows significant cognitive gains in students who, who undergo, the kind of explicit instruction in, in thinking skills, that I'm talking about. And, topping and, topping and tricking, so I should say sorry, tricky and topping, have, have demonstrated that,
00:14:21 - after the, interventions have stopped. So that's, it is pretty significant that we should do that. It's also a bit of a concern experimentally in there are, there are three types of, working memory that, cognitive load theorists speak of, that is the working memory that is, intrinsic to engaging with learning a particular idea or concept. and that's, you know, inescapable, it's, you know,
00:14:51 - and we have to put some mental effort into that. There's, there's the extrinsic load, as they phrase it, the extraneous load, which can be a lot of unnecessary faff that comes with the problem that you could get rid of to make it simpler so that people can reserve their working memory for just engaging with the problem. But if you present things in a way that confuses people, they have to use a lot of their working memory to actually understand what's being asked of them before they actually get to the problem.
00:15:24 - quite an impediment. and then there's what they call the germane load, which is the load that's necessary to engage with, to move that learning into, or that, that understanding into long-term memory to construct a kind of schematic representation of a sort of complex learning idea in which you understand how things hang together. And that involves some load. Now, the, the, the ontology of those three areas,

Challenges in Measuring Cognitive Load and Inquiry

00:15:53 - and the ways in which we can experiment with them, I think, can be questioned. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that as, as DeJong does that, it's almost unfalsifiable, because, you know, you can definitionally shift what's going on experimentally to show your point ad hoc to any, any event. And that's a problem. And I think also, perhaps lastly, the notion of measuring cognitive loads itself
00:16:25 - There are some ways to think about it, but I still think there's a lot of work to be done in those areas. So inferences from data conceptualization, I think there's a significant amount of problem. That's before we even get to the, to the assertion that is unsupported, that critical thinking is so-called biologically primary. Well, John swallow himself, the, the originator of, of, cognitive load theory has, has said that inquiry ought to be used only when information is not available to students. so therefore the, the, the instructor doesn't know it.
00:17:00 - justify. And the reason I think that is because one of our key goals in developing critical thinkers has to be to teach students about the means of production, of knowledge, and the means of production of knowledge is inquiry. And that means certain kinds of thinking that have to go on. and so they have to practice that. They have to get good at it. And if we simply don't give them opportunities to practice
00:17:30 - that valuable learning experience, which is how you develop new knowledge. and so inquiry has a very, it's very low down on the order of priorities in cognitive low theory. 'cause the assumption is if we just know and tell students or tell Them in a way that optimizes their use of working memory, then we've done the job. But we, we, we, in doing so, ignore all those other significant skills, such as critical and creative thinking
00:18:04 - something, understanding the nature of a problem. That's an enormously important and useful skill, and one that we need to get, get better at, across all our discipline areas, and particularly considering some of the problems that we face today. and so, so just not giving students opportunities to understand inquiry and indeed to understand the schematic nature of inquiry itself. There's much to be learned and explicitly taught, I might add, about
00:18:34 - There are key critical questions that can be taught to students based on the kind of arguments that you are prosecuting these, based on the work of Alton and others. and it's, it's, it's important that students develop that schematic understanding of inquiry so that they can move forward in uncertainty and have a tolerance for ambiguity. For this is how we measure, intelligence and, and success. It's, it's moving forward in an uncertain

Empowering Students Through Inquiry and Agency

00:19:05 - And so we need to develop these skills in students at every opportunity, because without them, we're gonna have, we're going to have students who simply are looking for people to give them the answers to the problems they have. and there is rigor in inquiry, and in and in and in developing good thinking skills. And I would argue that there is rigor in content only in as much as it requires good thinking skills and good inquiry. So sidelining inquiry, I think is a, is a very,
00:19:39 - In cognitive load theory. The, the focus is on understanding working memory requirements during the learning process. And that's not a trivial consideration. And I think it's a justified area of focus. I think it does matter that we do that. but we can't see that, we can't see instructional design as the only pedagogical imperative of cognitive load theory. and that means that we have to understand
00:20:10 - to have agency over their learning. And this is linked to some of the other ideas that I've been talking about, like inquiry, for example, and developing characteristics within students such as resilience and tolerance of ambiguity and, and, persistence, that come from moving through uncertainty, through inquiry. And if you ignore those things, you then, you don't develop the kind of agency you need in students
00:20:43 - and to experience success in their own learning. If they see their Learning, if indeed their learning is simply a function of the quality of instructional design, then, you know, what role do they play in their role in learning what kind of self-regulation and metacognitive activity could they engage with, beyond simply understanding working memory, that could be important to their own learning and development.
00:21:16 - students almost seem irrelevant to the process of learning. As long as you get the instructional design right, then that's the only thing that matters. But every student is different. And you know, this is the problem with a lot of areas that focus on, on cognitive architecture and, and say the neuroscience of learning, and these are all important ideas. I, I must add, I don't, not dismissing them, but when we talk about brains, we're talking about
00:21:44 - common, and we should know that. But when we talk about minds, we're talking about that which is unique to all students. And engaging with a student's mind is a very different process from engaging with their brains in their cognitive requirements. So we need to work with them so they understand themselves as agents of their own learning, and we have to engage with their minds. And that's not really something that's wr large in cognitive load theory, or which is a clear pedagogical

Critical Thinking and Cognitive Load Theory

00:22:15 - So in conclusion is not that I necessarily disagree with a lot of the assumptions of cognitive load theory, I do appreciate that schematic understanding has to be developed and that working memory is a significant issue to deal with. what concerns me is the claims made within cognitive load theory and in similar educational psychology circles that critical thinking can't be taught. and I don't think
00:22:46 - how most people understand about critical thinking is, which is that we are concerned with the quality of the decisions that we make and the processes that we go through. And there is a very long literature and a very deep literature about that issue. how do we understand good reasoning, what makes for a good argument and why do we think that some reasons should matter to some people and others? how do we, how do we select from a variety of reasons,
00:23:19 - And why do we think that's important? All of these things go back, thousands of years in philosophy, and a very long time in psychology and, and you know, much less time in, in, cognitive science and neuroscience very briefly, if at all, in neuroscience. but it also goes back a very long time in education and a lot of the things that we learn from neuroscience and,
00:23:48 - of the claims about what makes for good teaching, like, don't overload students', brains or minds if you like. Don't overload them with information, step them through and be explicit where you can, we've known this for centuries. you know, so I don't think cognitive low theory at this point can offer a lot of work that's revolutionary. It can give us some ideas about why some things that we know work, work, in some ways. But we, it, its problem is that with that comes a couple
00:24:28 - which I think are unjustified. And I actually think in the context of educational instruction, it runs the risk of doing more harm than good.

Faculti AI can make mistakes

Research

Policy

Analysis