critical thinking and critical pedagogy

• Search Menu
• Advance Articles
• Special Issues
• Virtual Issues
• Trending Articles
• IMPACT Content
• Author Guidelines
• Submission Site
• Open Access Options
• Self-Archiving Policy
• Author Resources
• Read & Publish
• Why Publish with JOPE?
• About the Journal of Philosophy of Education
• About The Philosophy of Education Society of Great Britain
• Editorial Board
• Advertising & Corporate Services
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

Introduction, critical thinking and critical pedagogy, criticality as overcoming critical thinking and critical pedagogy, the dispute regarding primacy, indoctrination, conclusions, acknowledgments.

• < Previous

From critical thinking to criticality and back again

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

Henri Pettersson, From critical thinking to criticality and back again, Journal of Philosophy of Education , Volume 57, Issue 2, April 2023, Pages 478–494, https://doi.org/10.1093/jopedu/qhad021

• Permissions Icon Permissions

This paper assesses the prospects of combining the distinctive strengths of the two major educational research programs of critical thinking and critical pedagogy—or, described more accurately, overcoming their shared limitations—in a new and superior educational objective called criticality. Several recent proposals explore the possibilities of engaging in bridge-building between these camps. The plan is that the distinctive strengths of these paradigms—the logical and epistemological precision of critical thinking together with the socio-political consciousness of critical pedagogy—could complement each other, while the associated adjustments to the overall picture could also help us to address their shared shortcomings. This gives us a new and more grounded educational goal of criticality , as suggested and developed independently by a growing number of thinkers. This article joins the ongoing conversation but provides a more counterreactionary tone by striving to vindicate the traditional mainstream conception of critical thinking. I maintain that despite their admirable ambitions, the various expressions of criticality do not succeed in combining the best parts of critical thinking and critical pedagogy, since on a deep metatheoretical level these two paradigms have irreconcilable core principles. First, I argue that the depiction of the failures of critical thinking used to motivate criticality is to a large degree a straw man: in actuality, the existing conceptualization of critical thinking can already do the desired extra socio-political educational work, so there really is no pressing need for the suggested augmentations. Second, the traditional worries of indoctrination, which have followed critical pedagogy since the inception of this educational movement, still remain unresolved within criticality. The only way to address this concern successfully is to lean on critical thinking as the core of our educational theory, bringing us right back to where we started.

This paper assesses the prospects of combining the distinctive strengths of the two major educational research programs of critical thinking and critical pedagogy—or, described more accurately, overcoming their shared limitations—in a new and superior educational objective called criticality. In many respects critical thinking and critical pedagogy first appear as twins separated at birth ( Burbules and Berk 1999 ). Besides their deceivingly close names, these two paradigms also seem to share broadly parallel aims. Namely, both traditions seek to nurture individuals’ intellectual skills and tendencies in a way that would then enable the person to critically examine the accepted truisms of the surrounding world and the implicit assumptions underpinning them. These general comparisons continue further, as both parties also agree why such a cast of mind is valuable: the capacity for critical thought empowers individuals to autonomous will formation which on the societal scale also leads to better functioning democratic communities. Despite these promising beginnings of rapport, the two educational movements have remained largely estranged on the academic arenas during the past five decades, both in a philosophical and a sociological sense.

This predicament has recently prompted several proposals, which explore the possibilities of engaging in bridge-building between these camps. The plan is that the distinctive strengths of these paradigms—the logical and epistemological precision of critical thinking together with the socio-political consciousness of critical pedagogy—could complement each other, while the associated adjustments to the overall picture could also help us to address their shared shortcomings. This gives us a new and more grounded educational goal of criticality , as suggested and developed independently by a growing number of thinkers (e.g. Burbules and Berk 1999 ; Davies 2015 ; Davies and Barnett 2015 ; Sibbett 2016 ; Shpeizer 2018 ). Needless to say, the specifics vary in these proposals, but these iterations of criticality seem to share the same driving sentiment where the educational objective of critical thinking is diagnosed with problems of social apathy, which is then to be remedied with the influences brought in from the tradition of critical pedagogy.

This article joins the ongoing conversation but provides a more counterreactionary tone by striving to vindicate the traditional mainstream conception of critical thinking. I maintain that despite their admirable ambitions, the various expressions of criticality do not succeed in combining the best parts of critical thinking and critical pedagogy, since on a deep metatheoretical level these two paradigms have irreconcilable core principles. Besides this main argument, my criticism of the criticality project has additional supporting moves. First, I argue that the depiction of the failures of critical thinking used to motivate criticality is to a large degree a straw man: in actuality, the existing conceptualization of critical thinking can already do the desired extra socio-political educational work, so there really is no pressing need for the suggested new augmentations. Second, the traditional worries of indoctrination, which have followed critical pedagogy since the inception of this educational movement, still remain unresolved within criticality. The only way to successfully address this concern is to lean on critical thinking as the core of our educational theory, bringing us right back to where we started.

The paper is structured as follows. The first section sets the scene by introducing the distinctive theses of critical thinking and critical pedagogy, traditionally conceived. The second section presents the new viewpoint of criticality, first sketched by Nicholas Burbules and Rupert Berk and then taken further by two more recent formulations of this theme, first one by Lisa Sibbett and a second by Martin Davies and Ronald Barnett. In the third section I discuss why it is difficult to bring the traditions of critical thinking and critical pedagogy into a constructive dialogue and give my central argument why ultimately both critical pedagogy and criticality must submit to critical thinking. In the fourth section I discuss the problem of indoctrination, and how critical thinking has the better chance of answering this challenge.

The basic starting point for both critical thinking and critical pedagogy comes from the familiar modern educational ideal of linking autonomy, reason, and education together ( Biesta 2006 : 5–6). Our role as educators is to nurture the development of individuals’ independent self-determination and will formation by giving them the proper intellectual tools to do this themselves. In a broad sense, both critical thinking and critical pedagogy can agree that this is achieved through a frame of mind in which the individual learns to critically examine putative truths and their implicit assumptions. Although both parties can on the whole accept this rather general description of how a critical mind operates, they nevertheless on closer examination put emphasis on different things in this equation. I will start with the critical thinking version. 1

According to the mainstream view in scholarship, critical thinking consists of two mutually supportive and equally important components. 2 The first half is made up by all those intellectual skills and abilities that are needed to carry out evidence-based belief formation and decision-making. At the heart of this component are thus those standard rules of logic and argumentation theory that, when ignored, lead to formal and informal fallacies. However, critical thinking relies in equal measure on an epistemological eye to assess the credibility and weight of the putative reasons given to beliefs under consideration. Although the initial theorizing on critical thinking in the middle of the previous century focused heavily on mastering certain logical and epistemological skills (at the time the label ‘logical thinking’ could be used interchangeably with critical thinking), from the 1960s onwards philosophers began to emphasize that the full picture of critical thinking needs an additional second component, which is not focused as much on what a critical thinker can do , but on who she is as a person ( Holma 2015 ).

This latter part includes various motivational factors that animate and encourage a critical thinker to use her abilities actively in their intended purpose. These motivational factors are routinely conceptualized in the literature as mental dispositions, that is, as phenomena akin to personality traits, which form behavioral patterns for an individual to behave in a normatively proper way in the service of truth ( Siegel 1988 ). Thus, a critical thinker is not a sophist furthering her own agenda, or a defense attorney, who cherry-picks evidence to argue as convincingly as possible the case of her client. In addition to these dispositions, the other part of critical thinking is often described as containing moral and intellectual virtues: in Star Trek terms, an ideal critical thinker is not like the ice-cold logic machine embodied in the character of science officer Mr. Spock, but rather she should use her emotional intelligence in conversational settings and make charitable interpretations of the claims of her interlocutors. A critical thinker should be open-minded and capable of receiving criticism. Moreover, she should have the confidence to speak up when needed for the causes she believes in. In many ways, the function of these virtues of critical thinking blur the traditional distinctions between reason and emotion, which have been a part of the Western philosophical thinking ever since the writings of Plato and Aristotle. As Katariina Holma (2016) notes, critical thinking is not just an epistemological undertaking, but also unavoidably a moral activity.

Taken together, the two halves of this mainstream conceptualization of critical thinking correspond to the phenomenon that is known outside the educational contexts under the names of epistemic or evidential rationality ( Stanovich 2011 ). For some scholars in the field, such as Harvey Siegel (2017) , the phrase ‘critical thinking’ is simply the label we use to frame rationality in educational settings. The philosophical contents underpinning these labels are thus interchangeable.

Critical pedagogy, in turn, does not build upon a competing conceptual analysis of the constitutive elements of critical thinking (or rationality, for that matter). Instead, it adopts a wider perspective, where knowledge, facts, and norms—together with the means of making them meaningful in societies—are never understood as socially or politically neutral phenomena. Instead, they resonate with the interests of various societal interest groups. Aphoristically we can say that the familiar Baconian adage works also in reverse order: power is knowledge. Since power is not distributed evenly in society, this imbalance is reflected in the things that are valued as true and important. A particular statement may have been accepted as ‘true’ in our society, but this is not a guarantee that this judgment is impartial or that the public discussion on it should now end. 3

Education—and its institutionalized forms—play a key role in the process whereby society renews itself by preparing future generations to find their roles in the social order. In this way, education helps to maintain the biased status quo . The way that education is designed and executed can help to further the interests of the hegemonic social groups, and disenfranchise marginalized groups from their social, economic, and political opportunities. Things are made worse by the empty promises of meritocracy and equal opportunities for social mobility, which are never truly fulfilled in the uneven playfield. To break such structural glass ceilings, education should aim to empower and emancipate our students, so that they can through the use of their critical consciousness 4 seize their own destinies in a more open and equal society. Critique does not thus denote the capacity to assess individual arguments or statements through a logical or epistemological lens, but rather a wider awareness targeted at the social structures constituting society, power relations, and cultural role expectations. A critical education should aim to make these oppressive ideologies more transparent. Another characteristic part of the aims of critical pedagogy is the emphasis on action and activism as educational objectives: the ideal is that students contribute their own effort in turning the world into a better place—it is not simply important to recognize and understand unjust settings, but rather to have an internal fire to move from thoughts to transformative action ( Blake and Masschelein 2003 ; Apple 2019 ).

Although critical thinking and critical pedagogy understand the nature and aims of critique differently, there seems to be a shared understanding of why this educational objective is important. Namely, both factions regard their educational objective as liberating the individual by expanding her sphere of potential thought and action—in Geert Biesta’s terms we could speak of ‘rational autonomy’ ( Biesta 2006 : 4). On the side of critical thinking, the contemporaneous thinker who has probably written most extensively on this matter is Siegel ( 1988 , 1997 , 2017 ). In Siegel’s view, we have, as educators, a Kantian responsibility to always treat our students as unique persons—and not just instrumentally as a means to an end. The best way to take this responsibility seriously is to use education to promote critical thinking and act in our own teaching in a way that models evidence-based belief formation to our students. Besides empowering individuals, fostering the development of critical attitude through education can benefit the society at large by furthering the ideals of democracy. Using their capacities for independent reflection, the citizenry can participate more actively and thoughtfully in the public deliberations, where the decisions affecting themselves are being made ( Gutmann 1999 ).

There are also noticeable similarities on the level of pedagogy, as both critical thinking and critical pedagogy have campaigned in their own ways against teacher-centric and hierarchical pedagogical frameworks. Teaching should not be thought of as one-way transmission of ready-made bits of knowledge, which the students then memorize (as in the ‘banking model of education’, criticized by Paulo Freire; see Freire 1970 ). In its place we should adopt a more dialogical approach, such as the program of philosophy for children, developed within the critical thinking movement ( Lipman 2003 ).

Despite these parallels in their general aspirations, the intellectual movements of critical thinking and critical pedagogy have remained largely disconnected in the field of philosophy of education without cross-references in their particular literatures. As Blake and Masschelein (2003 : 43) note, there does not seem to have been genuine interest in trying to get to truly know the other party’s line of thinking, but simply the condescending attitude of: ‘We can make these same points better in our own way’.

Certain authors within each tradition have seriously tried to engage the concerns of the other—although, interestingly, the purpose of such investigations has usually been to demonstrate that all the truly beneficial qualities of the other tradition can be reconciled with the best of one’s own, without any of the purported drawbacks... ( Burbules and Berk 1999 : 54)

To repair these broken lines of communication certain writers have recently suggested various forms of philosophical bridge-building with the guiding idea that these paradigms could synergistically complement each other. The strong points of critical thinking are the logical rulebook overseeing consistent reasoning and the accompanying epistemological know-how regarding evidence-based belief formation. The side of critical pedagogy, in contrast, has adopted a wider approach than one centered on singular cases of reasoning or debates. Namely, their strength is in analyzing how social injustice restricts the freedom of individuals through structures of unequal power relations. When combined, these two traditions could have a lot to offer to each other, creating a comprehensive account of what it means to be critical. I now explore these suggestions in the next section.

The beginnings of the scholarly interest in comparative analyses of critical thinking and critical pedagogy lie in Nicholas Burbules and Rupert Berk’s article ‘Critical Thinking and Critical Pedagogy: Relations, Differences, and Limits’ ( 1999 ). In their much-cited text, Burbules and Berk did not want to place these paradigms in a head-to-head race nor to build a straightforward ‘Hegelian’ synthesis of their best parts. Instead of such predictable approaches, they wanted to identify the shared weaknesses and limitations underpinning both traditions, and then overcome these flaws in the form of a new and improved approach, which they gave the informal name of criticality (for later accounts of their motivations, see Burbules 2016: 1 ; 2020 : 372).

Contrasted with the familiar expressions of critical thinking and critical pedagogy, criticality maintains a more reserved and self-critical view at even its own most foundational core principles: Criticality does not claim to appraise things from the vantage point of an epistemological or political mountain, high above its surroundings, which would bestow it with some kind of authority over the objects of its glance. Instead, criticality as a quality means the ability to constantly reassess with an open mind the culturally and historically conditioned starting assumptions of our intellectual framework—criticality itself included. Besides this humble self-reflectivity, the criticality of Burbules and Berk as an educational phenomenon shifts its focus from the skills and mental traits of the individual to the broader social conditions and practices that make it possible for the critical attitude to emerge in the first place. What is central here is to understand how criticality flourishes in reciprocal conversations with our interlocutors, who can help us to detect our epistemic blind spots and self-serving biases. Generally, the will to engage in dialogue and the ability to listen to competing viewpoints without instinctive prejudices enrich our ‘doxastic diet’ by giving us a more diverse set of views for our appraisal, leading to more considered judgments. Criticality is not tantamount to endorsing radical epistemic relativism, but it nevertheless recognizes that our present understanding is not necessarily the universal truth—or the endpoint of philosophical theory-building on criticality. In sum Burbules and Berk (1999 : 62) state the general orientation of their view: ‘Criticality is a practice, a mark of what we do, of who we are, and not only how we think’.

After Burbules and Berk’s initial work on the topic, criticality has been gaining ‘its own scholarly industry’, to quote Davies’ assessment ( 2015 : 65). Numerous educational theorists have independently used this same label to describe their respective proposals, which are united by the will to transform the mainstream model of critical thinking with influences drawn from the world of critical pedagogy—thus creating an entirely new educational goal. While this growing trend in the usage of the name ‘criticality' does not indicate that these thinkers understand this phenomenon in the same way—or in any way share the same goals—it appears that there is now in the literature ‘a scholarly research program […] with diverse lines of influence and convergence’ ( Burbules 2016 : 2). Here I describe two such proposals—the first of which is by Lisa Sibbett and the second by Martin Davies and Ronald Barnett (which they have developed both jointly and separately).

Sibbett (2016) considers this topic primarily in the context of democratic citizenship education. In her estimate, the received pedagogical approach is reasoned deliberation in the form of classroom discussion, moderated by the teacher. The philosophical grounding of this pedagogy is provided by the framework of critical thinking, which, in Sibbett’s (2016 : 2) view, has a ‘social accountability problem’. The issue is that the critical thinking approach is blind to social imbalances between different people that affect their chances of getting their voices heard in these discussions. Additionally, critical thinking does not activate students to correct the societal wrongs they might notice. Under such preconditions no amount of rational deliberation can be reasonable or serve as a means to mitigate these injustices. A more direct problem is that critical thinking can through its clever tricks of rationalization in fact end up legitimizing the existing power imbalances, such as the certain privileges inherent in our traditional Western liberal and individualistic world view, as these dogmas are not truly challenged in debates (p. 3). As a remedy Sibbett calls for a more inclusive pedagogical approach, which is oriented around a stronger emphasis on social justice. As they are traditionally understood, neither critical pedagogy nor critical thinking is in a good position to seize the dormant possibilities within democratic citizenship education to actually transform the social order for the better. This inability is caused by the unwillingness of these two approaches to admit their own limitations, Sibbett notes, echoing the earlier thoughts of Burbules and Berk. Therefore, we need a new way of looking at these things to tap into what citizenship competence could be. This alternative Sibbett names transformative criticality . Anchored in feelings of solidarity, it recognizes that sometimes in unjust situations emotional reactions can be legitimate responses to felt wrongs, instead of cold rational arguments (p. 4).

Another proposal is due to Davies and Barnett, who have developed it both in their joint writing and also separately (see Barnett 1997 , 2015 ; Davies 2015 ; Davies and Barnett 2015 ). In their view, critical thinking and critical pedagogy can be stronger together than they are separately—especially in the arena of higher education, where the neoliberal policies are currently transforming traditional academic institutions into entrepreneur universities operating under the assumption that the main concern of education is to provide an adept workforce for labor markets and national economies. As a countermove, the students must be awakened to realize how they are being exploited as parts in this politicized educational system. In this purpose critical thinking could be of some help, but in its present form, it is much too narrow-mindedly centered on logic and is politically passivating. But if the two traditional halves of critical thinking—skills and dispositions—were to be supplemented with a third component, drawing influence from critical pedagogy, this resulting new criticality 7 could unlock new educational possibilities to widen our thinking. Above anything else, this new socio-cultural component could motivate critical thinkers to act in the name of good things and criticize ‘social norms’. This dimension is lacking entirely in the traditional conceptualization of critical thinking, which is also evident in the rather limited higher education pedagogy shown by the new entrepreneur universities. A foundational problem for these traditional accounts of critical thinking is that a critical thinker could end up with the right conclusions in her belief formation yet do nothing . Davies (2015 : 65) expresses this aphoristically: ‘While skills and dispositions are crucial for critical thinking, they are not sufficient unless action is added. To adapt a famous line from Kant: critical thinking without skills is empty; criticality without action is blind’. By understanding itself through criticality, higher education could commit to this action-oriented ‘higher form’ of critical thinking. 8

In the next section I identify a foundational obstacle curbing any attempt to bring critical thinking and critical pedagogy into a conversation. While this issue has been recognized in the previous literature ( Burbules and Berk 1999 ), I argue that this same unresolved trouble lies also in front of the newer variants of criticality, described above. Moreover, this analysis allows us to draw general wisdom for any future attempts at infusing critical thinking with specific socio-political stances.

Burbules and Berk’s original article already outlined the central talking points that largely set the agenda for any future exchanges between critical thinking and critical pedagogy. Namely, although these traditions have remained estranged in academic fora, partly due to the abovementioned sociological reasons, this condition can also be blamed on the deep (meta)theoretical differences that make conducting any constructive dialogue challenging from the start. The reason is that the core principles of critical thinking and critical pedagogy are in direct conflict with each other, creating a zero-sum game of sorts, where both players cannot win at the same time. This situation is thus not really a case of incommensurability, which would call for a mediating translator, but rather a direct case of word against word. This is caused by the fact that we are facing a kind of chicken or egg dilemma, where both viewpoints value their perspective as the first viewpoint on the theme of critique, to which the competing view should therefore submit. In Burbules and Berk’s words both parties regard their opponent as not, despite their name, sufficiently critical—especially when contrasted with the alternative offered by their competitor.

As mentioned earlier, Burbules and Berk themselves abandon the goal of resolving this debate one way or another through philosophical considerations or arguments, and rather suggest an out-of-the-box solution that attempts to overcome the whole predicament by criticality, which they position somewhere outside the whole argument. Such diplomacy of course shows admirable sportsmanship, but in my view, the original philosophical tensions here do not disappear so easily with this evasive maneuver—in fact, it only seems to reinforce the simplifying caricatures of these positions. Furthermore, I argue that the same problematic dynamic is carried over to the proposals of Sibbett, Davies, and Barnett, which aspire to follow in the footsteps of Burbules and Berk.

So, what is the chief point of contention in the metatheoretical disagreement between critical thinking and critical pedagogy? Let us listen to the side of critical thinking first. In this case all legitimate educational theory-building should proceed following the criterion for rational belief formation. No detailed societal conclusions that are to be included in our educational theories can be brought in from the outside of this belief formation, as that would be tantamount to indoctrination, an anathema of modern educational thinking. In contrast, critical pedagogues maintain that although critical thinking claims proudly to be the impartial ‘voice of reason’, it is nevertheless a product of its contingent time and environment. 9 Indeed, this problem is only made worse here by critical thinking’s atomizing and decontextualizing approach that specifically threatens to lose sight of the larger socio-political connections entirely. In this way, critical thinking can in fact turn into an instrument of educational policy used by the hegemonic societal groups to perpetuate the current social order—even if such sinister motives were not in the minds of the theorists of critical thinking, be that as it may, this is how their ideas are now being misused. As our conception of critical thinking—how this ideal is formulated theoretically and how it is implemented through educational policies—is not an isolated islet in society, we must adopt a broader viewpoint on this topic and ask ourselves self-critically: whose interests are ultimately being served by this account of critical thinking. How might it end up restricting the freedom of the students who are subjected to this teaching? Above we saw that a worry of this kind is present in the variant of criticality propagated by Davies and Barnett, when they state that critical thinking is marketed in technocratic spirit in entrepreneur universities based on the needs of labor markets.

In response I would say that it is doubtlessly true that policy questions regarding the role and usage of critical thinking as an educational objective are worthy of our attention. Yet it is hard to see what serious shortcoming inherent in the mainstream account of critical thinking would require us to update this model to address these matters. It is entirely possible to carry out such examinations within the framework of critical thinking itself regarding the question of what makes this educational objective worth pursuing—and indeed there have been many such discussions. For sure, it is good to be reminded by critical pedagogy of the importance of these issues, but nothing in these matters necessitates drastic alterations in the actual theoretical content of our conception of critical thinking.

Conversely, as for the previously described threat painted by Sibbett (and to some degree also by Burbules and Berk) that the account of critical thinking becomes a gavel used to silence marginalized groups by dividing views into right and wrong with absolute certainty and finality, it should be noted that fallibilism, reflectivity, and intellectual humility are all epistemic virtues and have long been held to belong in the critical thinking dispositions. Any activity that does not live up to these standards must therefore be regarded as a failure of critical thinking, and not as a representative case of what critical thinking is all about. Plus, on a metatheoretical level of discourse, self-critical examinations of the nature of critical thinking are always welcome (even if I have previously spoken of the mainstream account of critical thinking, this label does not signify any kind of closed and orthodox view; see also Burbules 2020 : 370). The literature on the nature of critical thinking is voluminous and continues to pile up. Burbules and Berk (1999) —and also following them, Sibbett—maintain that the advantage of criticality over traditional critical thinking and critical pedagogy is that it can pull up its own roots for examination. In reply, I would say that any claims of inherent biases within the model of critical thinking, which prevents it from doing the exact same thing, must be assessed case by case. If these discussions are to be fruitful, these accusations need more tangible backing beyond mere insinuations of how ‘critical thinking has problems with social accountability’.

As an interim conclusion we can thus state that the alterations to our account of critical thinking suggested by criticality seem unnecessary, as they appear to be motivated by a misguided caricature of critical thinking as a narrow-minded and dogmatic phenomenon, which is missing the side of critical thinking dispositions entirely. When we consider all the aspects that have been associated with critical thinking by influential educational thinkers such as Dewey and Scheffler, this provides a good starting point for the kind of pedagogy that the advocates of criticality also want to promote.

But the zero-sum game between critical thinking and critical pedagogy does not end here. The advocates of critical pedagogy (and by extension criticality too) must answer what their educational theory and its normative suggestions are ultimately based on. The alternatives here pose a dilemma (see Siegel 1988 : 72–3): either this pedagogical theory is based metatheoretically on objective and rational critical thinking, or it is based on some alternative kind of argumentation (which nevertheless makes it believable and somehow normatively compelling to us). If we grasp the first horn of the dilemma, it seems that the advocates of critical pedagogy will admit that their position is no better secured than critical thinking—the fate of both sides hangs on the question of are the procedures of critical thinking trustworthy for educational theory-building. If, conversely, we opt to take the latter horn, we can now pose a tu quoque argument of sorts to critical pedagogues and ask how they know that their own theory-building is objective and free of implicit political biases. Should we just trust their word on the matter? How will a critical pedagogue justify her emphases in a classroom of students if the issue is raised? If these conclusions are to be convincing and normatively binding, the questions of oppressive structures and societal forces must be evaluated in the light of the evidence supporting these claims, which seems to take us back to critical thinking. It would thus seem that the supporters of critical pedagogy do not have a more convincing answer than critical thinking theorists. Both parties are in the same boat.

In a wider view, any relativization or questioning of rationalism is tantamount to poisoning your own well, since it is then questionable how the person can, after such a move, convincingly argue in favor of her particular theses—such as views on social justice. Thus, the advocates of critical pedagogy and criticality should lean on critical thinking as the starting point for their theorizing. The best metatheory for critical pedagogy is the project of critical thinking. Here my line of argumentation resembles a dialectical move, which Burbules (1999 : 487) has playfully criticized under the description of ‘[y]ou must agree with me because although you do not know it you already agree with me’. However, even if this dialectical move has been given such a funny name, I would still disagree with Burbules: merely identifying and naming this gambit is not a real counterargument against it—sometimes it does happen that the truth of one philosophical position is implicitly assumed by another, as happens here with critical thinking and criticality.

I continue my argument in the next section with the theme of indoctrination, which has been present between the lines already in the above sections. This traditional objection to the forms of critical pedagogy seems to carry over also to the forms of criticality—even if the advocates of criticality do not appear to recognize this.

For all educational programs aiming to expand individuals’ spheres of freedom, the greatest cardinal sin is the phenomenon of indoctrination —that is, a mode of teaching that does not leave subjects enough room to freely form their own considered views on the subject matter. Of the modern pedagogical movements, this accusation has been associated especially with critical pedagogy, as its discontents have disparaged critical pedagogy as brainwashing ever since the 1970s ( Burbules and Berk 1999 ). However, indoctrination has also been attributed to critical thinking, when its detractors have questioned how we are supposed to initiate our children into rational practices without strong teacher-centered guidance as at the outset of their schooling, these young students cannot initially form or express their own will (and, conversely, if the students were already competent critical thinkers, no external educational intervention would be needed). It would seem that both critical pedagogy and critical thinking end up in this predicament because their narratives follow what Biesta (2013 : 83) has described as the logic of emancipation. It would seem that ‘liberation’ requires outside intervention, where a mentor, who has already travelled this road of liberation and is now free of the distorting illusions, can guide us on the same path. But this raises the question of whether this educational practice truly respects our students as autonomous persons.

I maintain that critical thinking is in a better position to answer this challenge. Although both traditions aim at emancipation, the conception of emancipation promoted by critical thinking aims to give our student the tools to actively practice her freedom as she best sees fit (in other words, this emancipation is freedom to do something, like giving keys to a car without a predetermined destination). On this basis, critical thinking can provide its own criteria for indoctrinating teaching, which is not defined by its content, intention, or method, but rather by what kind of an epistemic relationship the student has with the beliefs formed through education ( Siegel 1988 ).

In comparison, the narrative of emancipation painted by critical pedagogy is more loaded in the sense that it describes the conditions that an individual should free herself from—this is like a description of a prison cell from which we should free ourselves. The proponent of critical thinking would then say here that the more detail we write into our story of emancipation, the more we have to frame certain conclusions as right from our educational pursuit’s point of view, which consequently also turns them into educational learning objectives. How will a critical pedagogue respond in a situation where a student, despite all our educational interventions, decides to choose contrary to our expectations? Critical pedagogy is easy and fun as long as our students choose as expected. The limits of our humor are truly tested when they choose differently. Should we then simply judge that this person has not grown to be free in the full and authentic sense, but is still under the spell of a distorting ideology?

As Burbules (2016 : 4) diagnoses, this problem for the forms of critical pedagogy seems to derive from the teleological conception of emancipation inherent in Marxism, which defines a clear direction and telos for humankind’s liberation. The same challenge is now present in the forms of criticality that want to incorporate specific socio-political contents such as social justice and opposition to neo-liberal educational reforms within the theory of criticality (the criticism here does not extend to the earlier form of criticality suggested by Burbules and Berk, which does not have similar transformative aspirations).

The proponents of criticality do not seem to recognize the close kinship between the notions of epistemic rationality and critical thinking, or the fact that the more content we squeeze under the umbrella of rationality, the more we frame specific questions as settled—polemical questions that might still be open matters in current philosophy. If specific positions are incorporated into our account of critical thought, then deviating from these conclusions would be irrational. This problem also afflicts the proposed forms of criticality, which want to see specific social and political actions as tangible effects of this pedagogy. Socio-political activism is admirable, but it is problematic if a strong will for political ‘transformation’ is regarded as a predetermined trait of an ideal critical thinker. What if a critical thinker after acquainting herself with all the relevant socio-political facts on the matter decides that she is already living in the Leibnizian best possible world? That the actual world is her utopia? Of course, such a preference is perhaps far-fetched, but do we really want to decide this matter beforehand? The educational movements that state social transformation as their goal seem to assume that our actual world and its status quo is not the best possible. They include not only assumptions about the objective character of our social reality, but also normatively laden views on how we should react to these traits of the world. As Burbules (2016 : 2) notes, the sound of the label ‘social justice’ obviously has a positive ring to it, but it is not patently uncontroversial what philosophical allegiances it involves. 10

Referring to the arguments in the previous section, the proponents of critical pedagogy and criticality owe us some kind of explanation as to how exactly they have reached their conclusions. And if they do have such lines of reasoning to back their preferred conclusions, then why would we not teach these arguments in our classrooms in the spirit of critical thinking, so that our students have personally the chance to assess the strengths of these reasons. Burbules and Berk, as well as Sibbett (2016 : 2), recognize indoctrination as the most pressing problem for the traditional forms of critical pedagogy, but at the same time appear to think that this problem somehow disappears when we have transcended the confrontational situation between critical thinking and critical pedagogy. 11 Unfortunately, things are not this easy, as the same problems still linger in front of us—which becomes apparent when this situation is examined through the lens of critical thinking.

Moreover, we can mention here the consideration that, as Sibbett (2016) herself argues, educators have found it hard to understand how critical pedagogy can be implemented at the level of classroom pedagogy. I add that this problem does not become any easier through criticality, but Sibbett does not seem to recognize this difficulty.

At this point I have to take a dismissive stance on the suggestion made by advocates of criticality to broaden the model of critical thinking, as these broadenings threaten to take this educational objective one big step closer to indoctrination. When we are envisioning our model of critical thinking, we should adhere to a principle of theoretical economy (not unlike Occam’s razor), and keep our model as simple as possible. A similar idea seems to be present in Biesta’s (2013 : 18) thinking: he states that he does not want to sketch a detailed theory of subjectification. Referencing the title of Biesta’s book, there is always a ‘beautiful risk’ present in education that the student will find her own truths—and very well so, because this is how in the big picture the scientific culture of rational belief formation moves forward, while clinging conservatively to the old truths would keep us stationary. You can lead the horse to the water, but you cannot make it drink. On the societal level we can note that it is in the spirit of liberal democracy that a state can never truly ‘trust’ in its citizens—they form their own opinions. The best we can do is to equip our students with the intellectual tools of critical thinking so that their conclusions may not be based on faulty premises or irrational logic.

My article has taken a critical stance on both the classic forms of critical pedagogy and also the newer forms of criticality, which seem to share many of the same problems. For the record, I want to state that my thinking here has not been driven by a hidden agenda against any particular socio-political stance. The original critical pedagogy was characterized by strong leftist and anti-capitalist spirit, and since then it has inspired various forms of intersectional feminism, post-colonialism, and environmental education. As we have seen, similar themes of social justice appear within the context of criticality as well. Nothing I have said above is an argument against such positions—on the contrary, I would say that critical thinking can be the best ally of such pursuits (see Siegel 1997 ). It is desirable also within the framework of critical thinking that education presents the pluralistic spectrum of different opinions, and that we build more inclusive practices of discourse so that we can hear the voices of marginalized groups ( Fricker 2007 ). This is the beautiful message of critical pedagogy and criticality. Although these same moral virtues have been mentioned earlier within the theorizing of critical thinking, it is equally true that this side of our conceptualization of critical thinking has remained underdeveloped, especially on matters of pedagogy. On this point the advocates of criticality have acted as welcome reminders that there is still work to be done in the critical thinking scholarship.

My other closing remark relates to the nature of my argument above. I stated that many of the ‘novel’ attributes introduced under the banner of criticality are, in fact, already present in the model of critical thinking, so that in the big picture all parties agree on these issues. This is a common form of argument within philosophy, but it might raise some eyebrows among outsiders—and justifiably so—as it might now appear that these arguments are purely trivial. In the end it is largely beside the point what label we use to denote our views—whether it is ‘critical thinking', ‘criticality', or some other entirely new alternative. When I defended the mainstream conception of critical thinking, this should not be read as a specific defense of the honour of the critical thinking tradition per se. In the big picture it is valuable if we can demonstrate how different educational paradigms share common ground—no matter what the ultimate name for these views is.

I am grateful to Katariina Holma and Henrik Rydenfelt for their helpful comments. I thank the Eudaimonia Institute at the University of Oulu for funding.

Apple , M. ( 2019 ) Ideology and Curriculum , 4th edn. New York : Routledge .

Google Scholar

Google Preview

Bailin , S. , and Siegel , H. ( 2003 ) ‘Critical Thinking’, in N. Blake , P. Smeyers , R. Smith , and P. Standish (eds) The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Education , pp. 181 – 93 . Oxford : Blackwell .

Barnett , R. ( 1997 ) Higher Education: A Critical Business . Buckingham : Society for Research into Higher Education and the Open University Press .

Barnett , R. ( 2015 ) ‘A Curriculum for Critical Being’, in M. Davies and R. Barnett (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Critical Thinking , pp. 63 – 76 . New York : Palgrave .

Biesta , G. J. J. ( 2006 ) Beyond Learning: Democratic Education for a Human Future . London : Paradigm Publishers .

Biesta , G. J. J. ( 2013 ) The Beautiful Risk of Education . London : Paradigm Publishers .

Blake , N. , and Masschelein , J. ( 2003 ) ‘Critical Theory and Critical Pedagogy’, in N. Blake , P. Smeyers , R. Smith , and P. Standish (eds) The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Education , pp. 38 – 56 . Oxford : Blackwell .

Burbules , N. C. ( 1999 ) ‘Modes of Criticality as Modes of Teaching’, in S. Tozer (ed.) Philosophy of Education 1998 , pp. 485 – 9 . Urbana-Champaign, IL : Philosophy of Education Society .

Burbules , N. C. ( 2016 ) ‘ Being Critical about Being Critical ’, Democracy and Education , 24 : Article 7 .

Burbules , N. C. ( 2020 ) ‘ Living with Conflicting Ideals ’, Yearbook of Philosophy of Education , 2019 : 369 – 73 .

Burbules , N. C. , and Berk , R. ( 1999 ) ‘Critical Thinking and Critical Pedagogy: Relations, Differences, and Limits’, in T. S. Popkewitz and L. Fender (eds) Critical Theories in Education: Changing Terrains of Knowledge and Politics , pp. 45 – 65 . New York : Routledge .

Davies , M. ( 2015 ) ‘ A Model of Critical Thinking in Higher Education ’, Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research , 30 : 41 – 92 .

Davies , M. , and Barnett , R. ( 2015 ) ‘Introduction’, in M. Davies and R. Barnett (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Critical Thinking , pp. 1 – 23 . New York : Palgrave .

Dewey , J. ( 1910 ) How We Think . Boston : D. C. Heath .

Ennis , R. H. ( 1962 ) ‘ A Concept of Critical Thinking ’, Harvard Educational Review , 32 : 161 – 78 .

Ennis , R. H. ( 1980 ) ‘A Conception of Rational Thinking’, in J. R. Coombs (ed.) Philosophy of Education 1979 , pp. 3 – 30 . Bloomington : Philosophy of Education Society .

Facione , P. ( 1990 ) Critical Thinking: A Statement of Expert Consensus for Purposes of Educational Assessment and Instruction . Millbrae : California University Press .

Freire , P. ( 1970 ) Pedagogy of the Oppressed . New York : Continuum Publishing .

Fricker , M. ( 2007 ) Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing . Oxford : Oxford University Press .

Giroux , H. A. ( 1983a ) Theory and Resistance in Education . South Hadley, MA : Bergin and Garvey Press .

Giroux , H. ( 1983b ) Critical Theory and Educational Practice . Waurn Ponds, Victoria : Deakin University Press .

Glock , H.-J. ( 2008 ) What Is Analytic Philosophy? Oxford : Oxford University Press .

Gutmann , A. ( 1999 ) Democratic Education . Princeton : Princeton University Press .

Holma , K. ( 2015 ) ‘ The Critical Spirit: Emotional and Moral Dimensions of Critical Thinking ’, Studier i Pædagogisk Filosofi , 4 : 17 – 28 .

Klafki , W. ( 1976 ) Aspekte kritisch-konstruktiver Erziehungswissenschaft: Gesammelte Beiträge zur Theorie-Praxis-Diskussion . Weinheim : Beltz .

Lipman , M. ( 2003 ) Thinking in Education , 2nd edn. New York: Cambridge University Press .

McLaren , P. ( 1995 ) Critical Pedagogy and Predatory Culture. Oppositional Politics in a Postmodern Era . New York : Routledge .

Mollenhauer , K. ( 1976 ) Erziehung und Emanzipation . München : Juventa Verlag .

Paul , R. ( 1982 ) ‘ Teaching Critical Thinking in the Strong Sense: A Focus on Self-Deception, World Views and a Dialectical Mode of Analysis ’, Informal Logic Newsletter , 4 : 2 – 7 .

Ritola , J . ( 2021 ) ‘Philosophical Issues in Critical Thinking’, in Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education . Retrieved 12 Apr. 2023, from https://oxfordre.com/education/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.001.0001/acrefore-9780190264093-e-1480 .

Scheffler , I. ( 1973 ) Reason and Teaching . London : Routledge & Kegan Paul .

Shpeizer , R. ( 2018 ) ‘ Teaching Critical Thinking as a Vehicle for Personal and Social Transformation ’, Research in Education , 100 : 32 – 49 .

Sibbett , L. ( 2016 ) ‘ Toward a Transformative Criticality for Democratic Citizenship Education ’, Democracy and Education , 24 : Article 1 .

Siegel , H. ( 1988 ) Educating Reason: Rationality, Critical Thinking, and Education . New York : Routledge .

Siegel , H. ( 1997 ) Rationality Redeemed: Further Dialogues on an Educational Ideal . London : Routledge .

Siegel , H. ( 2017 ) Education’s Epistemology: Rationality, Diversity, and Critical Thinking . Oxford : Oxford University Press .

Stanovich , K. E. ( 2011 ) Rationality and the Reflective Mind . Oxford : Oxford University Press .

Vaidya , A. J. ( 2016 ) ‘ Does Critical Thinking and Logic Education Have a Western Bias? The Case of the Nyāya School of Indian Philosophy ’, Journal of Philosophy of Education , 50 : 132 – 60 .

Vaidya , A. J. ( 2018 ) ‘ Making the Case for Jaina Contributions to Critical Thinking Education ’, Journal of World Philosophy , 3 : 53 – 78 .

Vaidya , A. J. ( 2020 ) ‘ Is It Permissible to Teach Buddhist Mindfulness Meditation in a Critical Thinking Course? ’, Informal Logic , 40 : 545 – 86 .

It should be obvious that the following concise summaries of these paradigms are by necessity streamlined ‘standardizations’, and not detailed depictions of monolithic belief systems. In the literature it is possible to find creative iterations of the same basic ideas. Therefore, the labels of ‘critical thinking’ and ‘critical pedagogy’ really function as umbrellas that collect heterogeneous groups of views, both on the synchronic and diachronic dimensions of time. With this being said, it is also possible to find expressions of conscious group identity within the writings of both parties.

As general overviews on critical thinking, see Bailin and Siegel (2003) and Ritola (2021) . The document ‘Critical Thinking: A Statement of Expert Consensus for Purposes of Educational Assessment and Instruction’ ( Facione 1990 ), commissioned by the American Philosophical Association, is also notable here, as it sought to provide the consensus view of critical thinking to be used as a guide for critical thinking instruction and measurement in educational organizations.

Burbules and Berk (1999) give the illustrative example of psychometric intelligence tests, which might give us support for generalizations of the kind where certain ethnic minorities perform relatively poorly when compared to the test results of the Caucasian population. Burbules and Berk raise the question of whether these findings now truly track an objective feature in reality, or perhaps are just a symptom of the unconscious biases that the makers of the test have held—and which have now gotten their scientific validation when we notice that they function ‘properly’.

Sometimes critical consciousness is referred to by the Portuguese term conscientização in reverence to the pioneering work of Paulo Freire (1970) .

Herein lies one major cause of criticism for the mainstream theory of critical thinking, as it has been criticized as a Western-centric construct with problematic biases and limitations deriving from this background. To wit, the prevailing theorizing on the topic overlooks relevant contributions coming from African, Arabic, Native American, Buddhist, Chinese, Hindu, and Jain philosophy, which could, for example, help us to better understand the nature and pedagogy of critical thinking dispositions ( Vaidya 2016 ). In particular, it has been suggested that certain forms of Buddhist meditation could help us understand the emotional self-regulation needed in reflective thinking ( Vaidya 2020 ). Moreover, even the way that the historical origin story of critical thinking is standardly told, starting with Socratic questioning and Aristotelian syllogism, can convey the implicit message that this phenomenon is somehow essentially a Western invention, superior to the modes of reasoning and debate found in other cultures ( Vaidya 2018 ). These are important issues and, to some extent, even pertinent to my overall argument regarding the forms of criticality. However, I cannot discuss these matters here with the attention that they truly deserve. I only note that the account of critical thinking defended in the main text is fully compatible with respect for such cross-cultural influences when they make a positive impact on the theory and pedagogy of critical thinking.

The overarching narrative in the post-Kantian philosophical scene has been the deep divide between the subspecies of analytic philosophy and continental philosophy ( Glock 2008 ). It seems that against this backdrop the rift between the paradigms of critical thinking and critical pedagogy can be regarded as one theatre in the larger analytic–continental divide.

Davies (2015 : 62–3) justifies the use of this label as follows: ‘The term “criticality” is used here deliberately as a neutral word, unlike historical loaded uses of the phrase “critical thinking”. The latter has become accreted with various meanings over time, and has become hard to define as a result. “Criticality”, happily, implies no particular account of critical thinking or theoretical emphasis’. Compare this with Davies (2015 : 64–5): ‘“Criticality” is a term of fairly recent origin; a word deliberately distinct from the traditional expression “critical thinking”, which—after half a century of debate and discussion—is now a loaded and over-used.’ As a response to this assessment I would say that whatever alleged conceptual confusions ‘critical thinking’ might involve, it is hard to see how ‘criticality’ would in some way be an immediately clearer or more neutral option.

Davies (2015 : 66): ‘In embracing criticality, higher education attempts to embrace a higher-order sense of “critical thinking”’. The ideas of Davies and Barnett have been developed further by Shpeizer (2018) , who applies them to teacher education. Like Davies and Barnett, Shpeizer wants to connect the ‘expanded’ notion of critical thinking to furthering the cause of social justice, so that this criticality could function as a ‘transformative power’ for both the individual and society at large.

The objective conceptions of reason and the value-neutral methodology of social sciences building on such a conception were criticized as positivism already by the original representatives of the Frankfurt school.

If the reader is confused here because Burbules appears to speak simultaneously for and against criticality, this dissonance is explained by the fact that his text from 2016 is a critical commentary on Sibbett’s article.

It is somewhat ironic that in relation to the strained attempts at dialogue by critical thinking and critical pedagogy, Burbules and Berk criticize the kind of philosophical argumentation where one position criticizes the other by stating that it can make all the beneficiary aspects of that position without any of the drawbacks. At this point it seems that Burbules and Berk are themselves guilty of the same type of argumentation when they claim that their criticality is free of all the drawbacks associated with critical thinking, even if this is never truly argued for in the text. For example, when they state that while critical thinking has been criticized as Eurocentrism, their criticality can assume a more self-conscious and self-critical relationship with its own historical and cultural background. But why exactly cannot critical thinking do the same? And how does recognizing the historical and cultural context now erase the problems of Eurocentrism from criticality?

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

• Recommend to Your Librarian
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Journals Career Network

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 1467-9752
• Print ISSN 0309-8249
• Copyright © 2024 Philosophy of Education Society of Great Britain
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Critical Thinking and Critical Pedagogy: Relations, Differences, and Limits

1,800  citations

View 2 citation excerpts

Cites background from "Critical Thinking and Critical Peda..."

... Burbules and Berk (1999) write that critical pedagogy is an effort to work within educational institutions and other media to raise questions about inequalities of power, about the false myths of opportunity and merit for many students, and about the way belief systems become internalized to the… ...

... Unlike critical pedagogy, which evolves from the wellestablished discourse of critical theory (Aronowitz & Giroux, 1993; Burbules & Berk, 1999; Freire, 1970/1995; Giroux, 1988; McLaren, 2003), place-based education lacks a specific theoretical tradition, though this is partly a matter of naming. ...

990  citations

View 1 citation excerpt

... Most of the leading authors in the critical paradigm have been male, prompting feminists to criticize the critical paradigm as excluding the voices and concerns of marginalized groups (Burbules & Berk, 1999). ...

621  citations

533  citations

... Burbules and Burk (1999) note that in critical pedagogy everything is open to critical refl ection except the premises and categories of critical pedagogy itself and comment that ‘there is a givenness of what a “critical” understanding should look like that threatens to become its own kind of… ...

470  citations

View 3 citation excerpts

... (see Burbules & Berk, 1999, p. 57.) ...

... In their overview of the main differences between critical thinking and critical pedagogy, Burbules and Berk (1999) point out that the strict distinction between facts and values in the criticalthinking tradition makes the consequences of certain knowledge on institutional and societal levels… ...

... These favor a particular masculine and western mode of thinking (see Burbules & Berk, 1999). ...

5,428  citations

View 1 reference excerpt

"Critical Thinking and Critical Peda..." refers background in this paper

... …originally within the specific context of promoting adult literacy within Latin American peasant communities, but whose work has taken on an increasingly international interest and appeal in the past three decades (Freire 1970a, 1970b, 1973, 1985; McLaren & Lankshear 1993; McLaren & Leonard 1993). ...

5,045  citations

... Other arguments do not denigrate the concerns of Critical Thinking entirely, but simply want to relegate them to part of what we want to accomplish educationally (Arnstine 1991; Garrison & Phelan 1990; Noddings 1984; Warren 1994). ...

4,969  citations

2,825  citations

2,687  citations

... Claims that Critical Pedagogy is "rationalistic," that its purported reliance on "open dialogue" in fact masks a closed and paternal conversation, that it excludes issues and voices that other groups bring to educational encounters, have been asserted with some force (Ellsworth 1989; Gore 1993). ...

Related Papers (5)

Ask Copilot

Related papers

Related topics

Developing Critical Thinking

• Posted January 10, 2018
• By Iman Rastegari

In a time where deliberately false information is continually introduced into public discourse, and quickly spread through social media shares and likes, it is more important than ever for young people to develop their critical thinking. That skill, says Georgetown professor William T. Gormley, consists of three elements: a capacity to spot weakness in other arguments, a passion for good evidence, and a capacity to reflect on your own views and values with an eye to possibly change them. But are educators making the development of these skills a priority?

"Some teachers embrace critical thinking pedagogy with enthusiasm and they make it a high priority in their classrooms; other teachers do not," says Gormley, author of the recent Harvard Education Press release The Critical Advantage: Developing Critical Thinking Skills in School . "So if you are to assess the extent of critical-thinking instruction in U.S. classrooms, you’d find some very wide variations." Which is unfortunate, he says, since developing critical-thinking skills is vital not only to students' readiness for college and career, but to their civic readiness, as well.

"It's important to recognize that critical thinking is not just something that takes place in the classroom or in the workplace, it's something that takes place — and should take place — in our daily lives," says Gormley.

In this edition of the Harvard EdCast, Gormley looks at the value of teaching critical thinking, and explores how it can be an important solution to some of the problems that we face, including "fake news."

About the Harvard EdCast

The Harvard EdCast is a weekly series of podcasts, available on the Harvard University iT unes U page, that features a 15-20 minute conversation with thought leaders in the field of education from across the country and around the world. Hosted by Matt Weber and co-produced by Jill Anderson, the Harvard EdCast is a space for educational discourse and openness, focusing on the myriad issues and current events related to the field.

An education podcast that keeps the focus simple: what makes a difference for learners, educators, parents, and communities

Related Articles

Roots of the School Gardening Movement

Student-centered learning, reading and the common core.

Critical Theory Pedagogies Guide

• Welcome to the Guide

Critical Pedagogy

• Anti-Racist Pedagogy
• Feminist Pedagogy
• Inclusive Pedagogy

Critical Theory

Critical pedagogy is based in critical theory.  Critical pedagogy connects the concepts of critical theory with education.

“Many “critical theories”...have emerged in connection with the many social movements that identify varied dimensions of the domination of human beings in modern societies. In both the broad and the narrow senses, however, a critical theory provides the descriptive and normative bases for social inquiry aimed at decreasing domination and increasing freedom in all their forms" (Bohman, J., Flynn, J., & Celikates, R., 2019).

Critical Pedagogy Influences

Critical pedagogy originates especially from the work of Paulo Freire, an educator and philosopher whose work Pedagogy of the Oppressed formed the basis for critical pedagogy. Critical pedagogy overlaps with pedagogies such as feminist pedagogy, anti-racist pedagogy, and inclusive pedagogy. These three pedagogies strongly pull from key theories introduced by critical pedagogues. 

Education as Political

Critical pedagogy identifies education as being inherently political, and therefore, not neutral (Kincheloe, 2004, p.2). Critical pedagogy encourages students and instructors to challenge commonly accepted assumptions that reveal hidden power structures, inequities, and injustice in society. 

Critical pedagogy acknowledges education is political; education has a history of inequalities, oppression, and domination that need to be recognized (Kincheloe, 2004). Likewise, education can become a way in which students are equipped to engage against systems of oppression when existing structures in education are challenged.

"A central tenet of pedagogy maintains that the classroom, curricular, and school structures teachers enter are not neutral sites waiting to be shaped by educational professionals" (Kincheloe, 2004, p.2). 

Education and Social Justice

Critical pedagogy connects social justice and teaching/learning. Students are seen as active participants in the classroom, and students, alongside teachers, have power.  

Critical pedagogy at its core seeks to recognize systems and patterns of oppression within society and education itself, and in doing so, decrease oppression and increase freedom. As such, social justice is at the core of critical pedagogy. 

"Questions of democracy and justice cannot be separated from the most fundamental features of teaching and learning” (Kincheloe, 2004, p.6). 

Empowering Students

In order to decrease oppression and domination, critical pedagogy seeks to empower students through enabling them to recognize the ways in which "dominant power operates in numerous and often hidden ways" (Kincheloe). Students and instructors alike are empowered through their knowledge of the hidden influences and politics within education and throughout society that lead to oppression and domination.

In this system, teachers become students and students become teachers. Paulo Freire introduced the concept of the "banking model of education" as a criticism of passive learning (Freire, p.72). Critical pedagogy pushes against passive learning, which places the instructor in a position of much higher power than the student. Active learning is one method in which the instructor can become less powerful in the classroom by having students collaborate in creating the content of the course.  Dialogue is also used as a form of education. By allowing many perspectives, students' and instructors' perspectives can be changed and learning takes place. 

“We must expose the hidden politics of what is labeled neutral” (Kincheloe, 2004, p.10).

Putting it into Practice

Encouraging Dialogue

• Focus on providing activities that encourage dialogue among students and instructor.
• Dialogue is an area in which students can offer perspectives and contribute to the instruction as active participants. 
• Incorporate discussion-based activities into instruction. 

Active Learning

Active learning gives students an opportunity to engage in the course using their own knowledge and personal experiences, as well as to learn using multiple methods of engagement. Active learning strategies such as group activities need to have clear expectations and roles, and instructors can check in to make sure students understand the expectations and roles. Brown University provides several examples of active learning strategies outlined below:

Small Discussion

• Entry/Exit Tickets - short prompts that provide instructors with quick information. Entry tickets can help students focus on a particular topic. Exit tickets can help determine students' understanding of the material or allow students to think about what they've learned. 
• Minute Paper/Free Writing: Short, 1-2 minute writing exercises where students can share their thoughts or provide feedback. Can also focus on a particular topic and have students make predictions about a topic.
• A Gallery Walk: Prompts are placed around the room (or in a Google Doc if online) and students can go from station to station and answer the prompts.
• Think-Pair-Share: Students are given a question or problem to consider on their own. Then, students are grouped into pairs to discuss and share their responses before sharing with the group. 
• Jigsaw: Students are grouped into teams to solve a problem or analyze something. The teams can work on separate parts of an assignment before sharing to the whole class, or each student in the team can be assigned with a different part of the assignment. The puzzle pieces come together at the end to share a solution or conclusions. 

Large Groups

• Incorporate pauses: Incorporate pauses into lectures to give students time to take notes or compare notes with peers.
• Clicker Questions  / Polls: Can help increase participation in the class and facilitate active learning methods. Can be incorporated with other activities (e.g. clicker question, discussion with a peer, large discussion). 
• Carousel Brainstorm: Students are separated into small groups, and a piece of paper is passed along from group to group with responses being written down. Students vote on the "best" responses. 
• Role Playing: Role playing can be used to provide a new perspective. Students take on the perspective of historical figures/authors or other characters and interact from that figure's perspective. 
• Sequence of Events: Students can work together to put a process into the correct sequence of events. This can test their understanding of the process. 

Diverse Perspectives

• Activities which allow students to experience alternative perspectives can also help invite dialogue and critical thinking.

Key Figures & Theorists

• Paulo Freire  (1921-1997) - Paulo Freire was a philosopher of education whose work became the foundation of critical pedagogy. Read more about Paulo Freire at the Freire Institute .
• Henry Giroux (1943-Present) - A founding theorist in critical pedagogy, professor, and scholar. Read more about Giroux on Henry Giroux's website .
• bell hooks (1952-Present) - A scholar, feminist, and activist whose work focuses on intersectionality, feminism, and critical pedagogy.
• Peter McLaren  (1948-Present) - A leading scholar in critical pedagogy whose work relates to Marxist theory, critical literacy, and cultural studies. Read more about McLaren at his Chapman University faculty profile.
• Ira Shor  (1945-Present) - A scholar and professor whose research is based in Freire's critical pedagogy. Read more about Shor on his faculty page at City University of New York.  
• Antonia Darder  (1952-Present) - A scholar whose work covers issues of pedagogy, race, and culture. Darder's work is based in Freire's theories. Read more about Darder. 
• Joe Kincheloe   (1950 - 2008) - Joe Kincheloe was a scholar whose work focused on critical pedagogy, cultural studies, and urban studies. 
• Shirley Steinberg  - A scholar, activist, and author whose work focuses on critical pedagogy, cultural studies, and social justice. Read more about Steinberg at her faculty page at the University of Calgary. 

Key Readings

Paulo Freire Key Terms

Key Terms Introduced by Paulo Freire:

Banking Model of Education - On the banking model of education, students are empty receptacles and teachers hold the source of knowledge. Students are treated as passive and as lacking knowledge themselves. "Knowledge is a gift bestowed by those who consider themselves knowledgeable upon those whom they consider to know nothing" (Freire Institute).

Praxis (Action/Reflection) - "It is not enough for people to come together in dialogue in order to gain knowledge of their social reality.  They must act together upon their environment in order critically to reflect upon their reality and so transform it through further action and critical reflection" (Freire Institute).

Dialogue  - "To enter into dialogue presupposes equality amongst participants.  Each must trust the others; there must be mutual respect and love (care and commitment).  Each one must question what he or she knows and realize that through dialogue existing thoughts will change and new knowledge will be created" (Freire Institute).

Conscientization  - "The process of developing a critical awareness of one’s social reality through reflection and action.  Action is fundamental because it is the process of changing the reality.  Paulo Freire says that we all acquire social myths which have a dominant tendency, and so learning is a critical process which depends upon uncovering real problems and actual needs" (Freire Institute).

Additional Readings & Resources

• Foundations of Critical Pedagogy (Stony Brook University) A LibGuide with a collection of readings regarding critical pedagogy.
• Interrupting Bias - PALS Approach (University of Michigan) A PDF handout outlining the PALS method of interrupting bias in dialogue. The purpose of this method is to "introduce a new perspective in a way that others can hear."
• Four Levels of Oppression (University of Michigan) Including 1) individual oppression, 2) interpersonal oppression, 3) structural/institutional/systemic oppression, 4) cultural oppression.

Referenced Guides & Sources

• Bohman, J., Flynn, J., & Celikates, R. (2019). Critical Theory. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
• Concepts Used by Paulo Freire. (n.d.). Freire Institute.
• Kincheloe, J. L. (2004). Critical pedagogy primer. P. Lang.
• << Previous: Welcome to the Guide
• Next: Anti-Racist Pedagogy >>
• Last Updated: Sep 22, 2023 9:57 AM
• URL: https://guides.library.charlotte.edu/criticaltheory

• Skip to primary navigation
• Skip to main content
• [email protected]

Login to MyWabash

Critical Thinking and Critical Pedagogy: Relations, Differences, and Limits

Web Burbules, Nicholas C.; and Berk, Rupert Topics: Critical Pedagogies    |    Teaching Critical Thinking

What is Critical Pedagogy? Rethinking Teaching Methods

Critical Pedagogy is a way of thinking about and teaching education. It’s not just about learning facts and figures but about understanding the world around us and how we can change it for the better.  This approach encourages students to ask questions, think critically about their society, and recognize the influence of power and politics in their lives.

Today, we’ll explore what Critical Pedagogy is, how it differs from regular teaching methods, and why it’s important.

Key Principles

Critical Pedagogy revolves around the concept of “critical consciousness” – a term coined by Freire to describe the ability to perceive social, political, and economic contradictions and to take action against oppressive elements in society.

It encourages students to analyze their own experiences in relation to the broader social context and to understand the power dynamics at play.

This pedagogical approach challenges traditional teaching methods, which often ignore these larger societal issues. It emphasizes the role of education in shaping more just and equitable societies.

Furthermore, Critical Pedagogy is not just about understanding the world, but also about transforming it through informed action.

Focus on Social Justice

A significant aspect of Critical Pedagogy is its commitment to social justice. It aims to educate students not just academically but also as active, critical citizens who can challenge injustices and inequalities in society.

This approach fosters a sense of responsibility among students to work towards a more equitable world. It goes beyond the classroom, inspiring students to apply their learning in real-world contexts.

The focus on social justice equips students with the skills and knowledge to become agents of change in their communities. It also leads to the development of empathy and understanding of different perspectives and experiences.

Transformative Learning

Critical Pedagogy is transformative in nature. It seeks to transform the traditional teacher-student relationship, promoting a more participatory and collaborative learning environment. It also aims to transform students into critical thinkers and active participants in their communities, capable of challenging and changing oppressive structures.

This transformation extends to how knowledge is created and shared, making it a more democratic and inclusive process.  The learning experience under this model becomes more engaging and relevant to students’ lives.

Ultimately, Critical Pedagogy empowers students to not only question what they learn but also to shape the learning process itself.

Implementation of Critical Pedagogy

In the classroom.

Implementing Critical Pedagogy in the classroom involves creating a learning environment where dialogue, critical thinking, and reflection are encouraged. Teachers act as facilitators rather than authoritative figures, guiding students to question and challenge prevailing norms and ideas.

This includes using teaching methods that are interactive , such as group discussions, debates, and problem-solving activities that are relevant to students’ lives and societal issues. These activities are designed to foster a sense of community and collaboration among students.

The role of the teacher shifts from being a dispenser of knowledge to a co-learner and co-creator of knowledge with the students. This approach helps to break down the traditional power hierarchies in the classroom, promoting a more egalitarian learning experience.

Beyond Traditional Curriculum

Critical Pedagogy pushes for a curriculum that is not confined to traditional academic subjects. It incorporates themes around social justice, cultural diversity, and political awareness. The curriculum is often tailored to reflect the experiences and backgrounds of the students, making learning more relevant and engaging for them.

This approach ensures that education is not just about the acquisition of knowledge but also about understanding the context and application of that knowledge. It also allows for the inclusion of marginalized voices and perspectives, which are often overlooked in conventional curricula.

By doing so, Critical Pedagogy makes learning more inclusive and representative of the diverse world we live in.

Student Empowerment

A key aspect of implementing Critical Pedagogy is empowering students . This means giving them a voice in their education, encouraging them to express their views and opinions, and making them active participants in the learning process.

It also involves helping students develop the skills and confidence to effect change in their communities and society at large. Empowerment in this context is about more than just academic success; it’s about nurturing independent, critical thinkers who are socially and politically aware.

It’s about equipping students with the tools to critically analyze the world around them and to envision and work towards a better future. This empowerment can have a lasting impact, not only on the students themselves but also on the communities and societies they are part of.

Challenges and Criticisms

One of the main challenges in implementing this approach is the resistance it often meets from traditional educational systems. These systems are typically structured around standardized tests and a fixed curriculum, leaving little room for the flexible and dynamic approach that Critical Pedagogy requires.

This resistance can stem from a lack of understanding of the approach or from an adherence to more conservative educational philosophies. Additionally, the shift from traditional methods to a Critical Pedagogy approach requires significant changes in teaching practices, which can be a daunting task for educators.

Balancing Academic Goals

Another challenge is balancing the goals of Critical Pedagogy with academic standards and requirements. Teachers need to find ways to integrate critical and reflective thinking into the curriculum without compromising on academic rigor and excellence.

This balance is crucial to ensure that students are not only critically aware but also academically competent . Finding this balance often requires innovative teaching strategies and a willingness to experiment with new methods of instruction.

It also involves advocating for changes in educational policies and standards that recognize the value of critical thinking and social justice in the curriculum.

Criticism of Ideological Bias

This method has been criticized for being overly ideological and for promoting a particular political agenda. Critics argue that it might lead to indoctrination rather than education, as it emphasizes certain worldviews at the expense of others.

These criticisms highlight the need for Critical Pedagogy to remain open and inclusive, ensuring that diverse perspectives are acknowledged and discussed. It is important for educators to be aware of their own biases and to strive for a balanced approach to their teaching.

The goal of Critical Pedagogy should be to foster independent thinking and critical analysis, rather than to impart a specific ideological viewpoint.

Can Critical Pedagogy be applied to all age groups and educational levels?

Yes, this philosophy can be adapted to suit various age groups and educational levels. For younger students, it might involve more basic discussions about fairness and justice, while at higher education levels, it could include in-depth analyses of social, political, and economic systems.

The key is to tailor the approach to be age-appropriate and relevant to the students’ experiences and understanding.

How does Critical Pedagogy handle the diversity of student opinions, especially on controversial topics?

It encourages diverse opinions and open dialogue. It aims to create a safe space where all students feel comfortable sharing their views, even on controversial topics. Educators facilitate discussions in a way that respects different perspectives while guiding students to critically analyze and question underlying assumptions and biases.

This approach helps students develop empathy and a deeper understanding of complex social issues.

What role do parents and guardians play in Critical Pedagogy?

Parents and guardians play a supportive role. They can encourage their children to question, reflect, and engage with societal issues at home, reinforcing the principles learned in the classroom.

Open communication between educators and parents about the goals and methods of Critical Pedagogy can also help create a more cohesive and supportive learning environment .

Are there specific subjects where Critical Pedagogy is more effective?

This philosophy can be effective in any subject, as it is more about the approach to learning than the content itself. However, it is particularly impactful in social sciences, literature, and history, where there is ample scope to discuss social justice, power dynamics, and cultural contexts.

That said, it can also be integrated into STEM subjects by exploring the ethical and societal implications of scientific and technological advancements.

How do educators prepare to teach using Critical Pedagogy?

They often undergo specific training or professional development to understand its principles and methods. This can include workshops, courses, and collaborative learning with peers.

Educators also need to be committed to continuous self-reflection and learning, as this philosophy requires an awareness of one’s biases and an ability to facilitate open, respectful discussions on a wide range of topics.

While Critical Pedagogy presents its own set of challenges and requires a shift in traditional educational practices, its focus on social justice, student empowerment, and transformative learning makes it a valuable approach in today’s rapidly changing world.

Ultimately, this approach is about creating a more equitable and just society through education.

Related Posts:

• Pedagogy vs Andragogy - Different Teaching and…

• Harvard Library
• Research Guides
• Harvard Graduate School of Education - Gutman Library

Critical Pedagogy

• Getting Started with Critical Pedagogy
• Introduction to Critical Pedagogy
• Types of Critical Pedagogy

How to Get Started

Understanding key concepts, know the scholars, put it into practice.

• Publications in Critical Pedagogy

If you are wondering how to incorporate critical pedagogy into your own research, teaching, and practice, here are some suggestions to get you started!

These concepts are posited in Freire's Pedagogy of the Oppressed and are essential to understanding critical pedagogy.

• Banking Concept of Education - The idea that education is the "act of depositing" whereby "students are the depositories and the teacher is the depositor" representing an imbalance of power in which the teacher knows all and bestows knowledge onto the student who knows nothing.
• Conscientization - A term that "refers to learning to perceive social, political, and economic contradictions, and to take action against the oppressive elements of reality" by which a person develops a critical awareness of the social reality one lives in.
• Critical Consciousness - Taken together, conscientization and praxis (or the process by which one becomes critically conscious for the purpose of freedom and liberation) are what is widely referred to as Critical Consciousness, and is comprised of three iterative components: critical reflection, critical motivation, and critical action (Diemer et al., 2016).
• Praxis - A process of action and reflection in which ideas are put into practice in order to gain knowledge of one's social reality from a critical lens.

In addition to Paulo Freire, there are other leading scholars who have helped shape public discourse around critical pedagogy. Learn more about them at the sites listed below.

• Paulo Freire | Freire Institute
• bell hooks | Bell Hooks Center
• Henry Giroux | Personal Website
• Joe Kincheloe | Interview
• Peter McLaren | UCLA
• Shirley Steinberg | University of Calgary

Here are some actionable items one can implement in order to begin a critical practice

• Dialogue - Encourage dialogue with students, faculty, and colleagues towards amplifying marginalized voices and perspectives.
• Active learning - Adopt strategies that utilize multiple methods of engagement in teaching and learning.
• Diverse perspectives - Incorporate multiple and alternative perspectives that promote critical thinking and introspection.
• Critical consciousness - Practice reflection, motivation, and action as an approach to analyzing and redressing social inequities in education and society at-large.

Read these case studies for examples of how critical pedagogy is implemented in the classroom:

• Berube, J. (2022). Through students' eyes: Case study of a critical pedagogy initiative in accounting education. Accounting Education, 31 (4), 394-430. https://www-tandfonline-com.ezp-prod1.hul.harvard.edu/doi/full/10.1080/09639284.2021.1997768
• Gambino, A. (2021, July). Critical pedagogies in praxis: A multiple case study with graduate teaching assistants' co-constructing community and amplifying undergraduate student agency through dialogic discourse. InterActions: UCLA Journal of Education and Information Studies, 17 (1). https://hollis.harvard.edu/permalink/f/1mdq5o5/TN_cdi_unpaywall_primary_10_5070_d417154033
• Kareepadath, V. P. (2018, December). Critical pedagogy in practice: A case study from Kerala, India. Journal of Pedagogy, 9 (2), 33-54. https://sciendo.com/article/10.2478/jped-2018-0010
• de los Rios, C. V., Lopez, J., & Morrell, E. (2015, January 8). Toward a critical pedagogy of race: Ethnic studies and literacies of power in high school classrooms. Race and Social Problems, 7 (1), 84-96. https://hollis.harvard.edu/permalink/f/1mdq5o5/TN_cdi_webofscience_primary_000416723800008

Diemer, M. A., Rapa, L. J., Voight, A. M., & McWhirter, E. H. (2016). Critical consciousness: A developmental approach to addressing marginalization and oppression. Child Development Perspectives, 10 (4), 216-221.

Freire, P. (2018). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Bloomsbury Academic.

• << Previous: Types of Critical Pedagogy
• Next: Publications in Critical Pedagogy >>
• Last Updated: Mar 20, 2024 4:33 PM
• URL: https://guides.library.harvard.edu/criticalpedagogy

Harvard University Digital Accessibility Policy

Critical and Social Justice Pedagogies in Practice

• Reference work entry
• First Online: 01 January 2018
• Cite this reference work entry

• Mary C. Breunig 2  

2705 Accesses

1 Altmetric

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

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Durable hardcover edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Ayers, W., Quinn, T., & Stovall, D. (Eds.). (2009). Handbook of social justice education . New York: Routledge.

Google Scholar  

Breunig, M. (2011). Problematizing critical pedagogy. International Journal of Critical Pedagogy, 3 (3), 2–23.

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed . New York: Continuum.

Hooks, B. (1994). Teaching to transgress: Education as the practice of freedom . New York: Routledge.

Ladson-Billings, G. (2013). “Stakes is high”: Educating new century students. Journal of Negro Education, 82 (2), 105–110.

Article   Google Scholar  

Malott, C. S., & Porfilio, B. (Eds.). (2011). Critical pedagogy in the twenty-first century: A new generation of scholars . Charlotte: Information Age Publishing.

Payne, P., & Wattchow, B. (2009). Phenomenological deconstruction, slow pedagogy, and the corporeal turn in wild environmental outdoor education. Canadian Journal of Environmental Education, 14 , 15–32.

Rumi. (2004). The essential Rumi (trans: Barks, C.). San Francisco: Harper.

Zmuda, A., Curtis, G., & Ullman, D. (2015). Learning personalized: The evolution of the contemporary classroom . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Brock University, St. Catharines, ON, Canada

Mary C. Breunig

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mary C. Breunig .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand

Michael A. Peters

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer Science+Business Media Singapore

About this entry

Cite this entry.

Breunig, M.C. (2017). Critical and Social Justice Pedagogies in Practice. In: Peters, M.A. (eds) Encyclopedia of Educational Philosophy and Theory. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-588-4_234

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-588-4_234

Published : 08 March 2018

Publisher Name : Springer, Singapore

Print ISBN : 978-981-287-587-7

Online ISBN : 978-981-287-588-4

eBook Packages : Education Reference Module Humanities and Social Sciences Reference Module Education

Share this entry

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research