Can Thinking Be Taught Directly?

Introduction

Thinking can be taught directly, but not by asking learners to “be more critical” and hoping the skill appears. The strongest approach is to name the thinking move, model it, let learners practise it in real subject matter, and give feedback on the quality of their reasoning. This matters because analytical skill is often treated as a by-product of education, work experience or debate. The evidence points the other way: people improve most when reasoning is made visible and practised deliberately, especially through explicit critical-thinking goals, dialogue, authentic tasks, mentoring, metacognitive routines and feedback. A major meta-analysis of critical-thinking instruction found a positive average effect across experimental and quasi-experimental studies, while guidance on metacognition similarly stresses explicit teaching, modelling and scaffolding of planning, monitoring and evaluation.[Sage Journals]journals.sagepub.comSage JournalsStrategies for Teaching Students to Think CriticallyCT is an explicit objective in the infusion course but not in the immers…

Within the broader goal of improving thinking and analytical skills, explicit instruction is the policy intervention that turns a vague aspiration into teachable practice. It asks schools, universities, professional training programmes and workplace learning systems to decide which reasoning skills they expect people to use, where those skills will be practised, how performance will be judged, and how learners will be helped to transfer the skill beyond the first example.

What explicit thinking instruction changes

The central shift is from exposure to instruction. In an exposure model, learners read demanding texts, solve difficult problems, join discussions or complete projects, and the institution assumes that better thinking will emerge. Sometimes it does. Often, however, learners simply become more familiar with the content while keeping the same hidden reasoning habits: jumping from evidence to conclusion, overlooking alternatives, confusing confidence with accuracy, or failing to ask what would change their mind.

Explicit instruction makes the target skill public. Instead of saying “analyse this article”, a teacher might ask learners to identify the main claim, separate evidence from interpretation, list unstated assumptions, compare two explanations, judge source reliability and explain which piece of evidence carries the most weight. In science, the equivalent might be making a data-based decision under uncertainty; in history, weighing competing accounts; in law, distinguishing precedent from policy argument; in management, testing whether a diagnosis of a problem fits the available evidence.

This is not the same as reducing thinking to a rigid formula. The point is to give learners enough structure to see what good reasoning looks like before expecting independence. The Education Endowment Foundation’s guidance on metacognition describes this as helping pupils plan, monitor and evaluate their learning by explicitly teaching, modelling and scaffolding strategies, rather than assuming pupils will discover these routines on their own.[EEF]educationendowmentfoundation.org.ukEEFMetacognition and Self-Regulated Learning13 Nov 2025 — This guidance report reviews the… learning through explicitly teaching, mode…

A simple lesson sequence captures the governance logic:

The governance challenge is that each step has to be planned. If a curriculum says critical thinking matters but assessments reward only recall, teachers and learners receive a mixed signal. If professional training praises analytical judgement but never defines what counts as sound evidence, novices are left guessing.

Explicit instruction is not just “telling”

One common misunderstanding is that explicit instruction means lecturing about logic, bias or fallacies. Direct explanation can help, but it is not enough. Thinking improves when learners use the named skill repeatedly and receive information about how well they used it.

The critical-thinking meta-analysis by Abrami and colleagues is useful here because it distinguishes different course approaches. In an immersion approach, students engage deeply with subject matter but critical thinking is not made an explicit objective. In an infusion approach, critical thinking is taught within the subject and made explicit. In a mixed approach, learners receive explicit critical-thinking instruction as a separate strand while also applying it inside subject learning. The review found that instructional design matters: making critical thinking an explicit objective, combining it with dialogue, and anchoring it in authentic tasks were all part of the evidence base reviewed.[Sage Journals]journals.sagepub.comSage JournalsStrategies for Teaching Students to Think CriticallyCT is an explicit objective in the infusion course but not in the immers…

That distinction matters for policy. A school or university can add more projects, debates and inquiry tasks without improving reasoning if students are not taught how to reason within those tasks. Conversely, a standalone “thinking skills” course can become sterile if learners never use the skills on real content. The practical answer is not “skills instead of knowledge” or “knowledge instead of skills”. It is explicit thinking instruction inside knowledge-rich work.

Rosenshine’s principles of instruction help explain why. His evidence-informed account of effective teaching emphasises presenting new material in small steps, modelling, guided practice, checking understanding and obtaining a high success rate before moving to independence. Those routines are not limited to basic skills; they are especially relevant when the target is invisible cognitive work, because learners cannot copy what they cannot see.[American Federation of Teachers]aft.orgAmerican Federation of TeachersPrinciples of Instruction: Research-Based Strategies That…March 7, 2012 — by B Rosenshine · 2012 · Cite…Published: March 7, 2012

Practice has to happen in real subjects

Thinking skills are partly general, but they do not float free of content. A learner can understand the idea of “consider alternative explanations” in the abstract and still fail to use it well when interpreting a medical claim, a spreadsheet, a political speech or an experimental result. Transfer is hard because knowledge is often tied to the context in which it was learned. The National Academies’ work on learning and transfer notes that transfer is more likely when learners understand underlying principles and apply them across more than one context.[National Academies]nationalacademies.orgNational AcademiesChapter: 3 Learning and TransferOne frequently used teaching technique is to get learners to elaborate on the examples…

This is why explicit instruction should not be confined to generic study-skills lessons. It works best when thinking moves are attached to the intellectual demands of a real subject:

A concrete example comes from physics education research. Holmes, Wieman and Bonn redesigned introductory laboratory work so students repeatedly made quantitative comparisons between datasets and between data and models, with feedback and fading prompts. After the explicit prompts were removed, students in the experimental condition were far more likely than control students to improve their experimental methods and to identify limitations of a model using data; the gains also persisted into a later course.[arXiv]arxiv.orgarXiv Teaching Critical ThinkingarXiv Teaching Critical Thinking

The lesson is not that every subject should copy a physics lab. It is that explicit thinking instruction becomes powerful when it is attached to a recurring disciplinary decision: what to trust, what to compare, what counts as evidence, and what action follows.

Feedback turns thinking into a learnable performance

Feedback is the difference between doing a difficult task and learning from it. In thinking instruction, the most useful feedback is not simply “right” or “wrong”. It tells the learner something about the quality of the reasoning route: whether the claim was clear, whether the evidence matched the claim, whether an alternative explanation was considered, whether the conclusion was too strong, or whether uncertainty was handled honestly.

Argument mapping is a good example because it makes reasoning visible. In an argument map, claims, reasons, objections and rebuttals are displayed in a structured visual form, so the learner and teacher can inspect the shape of the argument rather than discussing impressions. Research and reviews on argument mapping have reported promising gains in critical thinking, especially where learners receive repeated practice and feedback rather than a one-off diagramming exercise.[Reasoninglab]reasoninglab.comUsing Argument Mapping to Improve Critical Thinking SkillsUsing Argument Mapping to Improve Critical Thinking Skills

The broader principle applies beyond argument maps. Learners need to see the gap between an acceptable answer and a well-reasoned answer. A student might correctly identify that a source is “biased” but receive feedback that the word is too vague: what is the source’s interest, how might it affect the claim, and does other evidence confirm or weaken it? A trainee manager might identify a plausible cause of falling performance but receive feedback that they have not ruled out a competing explanation. A medical student might reach the right diagnosis but be challenged to explain which finding would have made that diagnosis less likely.

Good feedback also protects against a common failure of explicit teaching: learners can perform the routine when prompted but fail to use it independently. To reduce that risk, prompts should be faded. Early tasks might ask, “List two alternative explanations.” Later tasks might simply ask, “What is your conclusion and how confident are you?” Eventually, the learner should supply the checking questions without being cued.

The transfer problem is the hardest part

The main objection to teaching thinking skills explicitly is not that it never works. It is that transfer is fragile. Learners may improve on the task they practised but fail to apply the same skill elsewhere. This is why explicit teaching must include transfer as a design goal, not as a hopeful afterthought.

Transfer improves when learners are helped to recognise the same reasoning structure across different surfaces. A history source evaluation, a product review, a scientific claim and a workplace proposal all differ in content, but each can involve asking: Who is making the claim? What evidence is offered? What alternative explanation exists? What would be costly if this judgement is wrong? The learner needs repeated chances to notice that family resemblance.

This is also where metacognition matters. A learner who has been taught only a procedure may wait for an external cue. A learner who has been taught to monitor their own thinking can ask, “What kind of problem is this? Which strategy fits? How will I know if my answer is good enough?” The EEF guidance frames metacognitive knowledge around understanding oneself as a learner, the task, and available strategies; that is exactly the bridge from taught routine to independent judgement.[EEF]educationendowmentfoundation.org.ukEEFMetacognition and Self-Regulated Learning13 Nov 2025 — This guidance report reviews the… learning through explicitly teaching, mode…

For policy and institutional design, the implication is clear: one-off critical-thinking weeks, posters of reasoning verbs, or generic “higher-order thinking” objectives are unlikely to be enough. Transfer requires a planned sequence across subjects and years, with common language but subject-specific application.

What a serious institution would build

An institution that wants to teach thinking explicitly needs more than enthusiastic teachers. It needs a coherent design that aligns curriculum, assessment, teacher development and feedback.

The first requirement is a shared vocabulary of thinking moves. Learners should repeatedly meet terms such as claim, evidence, assumption, inference, counterexample, uncertainty, comparison, causal explanation and source reliability. The vocabulary should be small enough to use often, not a decorative list of dozens of abstract skills.

The second requirement is subject ownership. Thinking should not be outsourced entirely to a generic skills course. Departments and training teams need to decide what good reasoning looks like in their domain. Evidence in a chemistry experiment is not the same as evidence in a literary interpretation or an HR investigation, even though all three require disciplined judgement.

The third requirement is assessment that rewards reasoning. If exams, coursework or workplace evaluations reward only final answers, learners will treat reasoning as optional. Rubrics should include features such as clarity of claim, relevance of evidence, treatment of alternatives and calibration of confidence. This does not mean every task becomes long or subjective; even short answers can require learners to explain why a conclusion follows.

The fourth requirement is teacher and trainer development. Explicit instruction is skilled work. Teachers need to model reasoning aloud, diagnose weak reasoning, choose examples that reveal the target skill, and decide when to remove scaffolds. Recent work on explicit instruction has also warned that implementation quality matters: simply labelling an approach “explicit” does not guarantee effective teaching.[arXiv]arxiv.orgarXiv Getting Explicit Instruction RightarXiv Getting Explicit Instruction Right

The fifth requirement is cumulative practice. Thinking skills should reappear in increasingly demanding settings. A learner may begin by distinguishing claim from evidence in a short paragraph, later evaluate competing explanations in a subject unit, and later still make an evidence-based decision in an open-ended project.

Where explicit teaching can go wrong

Explicit thinking instruction can fail in predictable ways. The most common failure is performative terminology: learners memorise words such as “bias”, “validity” or “assumption” without improving the quality of their judgement. Naming is necessary, but it must be tied to use.

A second failure is over-scaffolding. If every task comes with a checklist, learners may complete the checklist rather than think. Scaffolds should make the reasoning visible at first and then gradually disappear.

A third failure is content-light skills training. Generic puzzles and decontextualised exercises can be useful for introducing a move, but they do not substitute for reasoning with real knowledge. Critical thinking about vaccination evidence, climate data, historical testimony or financial risk requires enough content knowledge to know what matters.

A fourth failure is assessment mismatch. Institutions may publicly praise analytical thinking while privately rewarding speed, conformity or recall. Learners are quick to notice which behaviours actually count.

A fifth failure is treating explicit instruction as anti-inquiry. Explicit teaching does not mean learners never investigate, discuss or discover. It means they are equipped to do those things better. Inquiry without reasoning tools can become guessing; explicit instruction without inquiry can become inert routine. The strongest designs combine clear modelling with authentic problems.

The policy choice

Teaching thinking explicitly is ultimately a governance decision about what education and training are for. If analytical skill is left implicit, institutions tend to reproduce unequal advantages: learners who already know how to argue, question, interpret evidence or seek feedback gain more from open-ended tasks, while others are told to “think harder” without being shown how.

A serious policy approach treats thinking as teachable infrastructure. It defines the skills, embeds them in subjects, trains educators to model and assess them, gives learners repeated practice, and checks whether the skills transfer beyond the original lesson. The evidence does not support the fantasy that one course, one technique or one slogan will produce broadly better thinkers. It does support a more practical claim: thinking improves when the hidden moves of good judgement are made explicit, practised in meaningful contexts, corrected through feedback and revisited until learners can use them without being prompted.

Amazon book picks

Further Reading

Books and field guides related to Can Thinking Be Taught Directly?. Use these as the next step if you want deeper reading beyond the article.

Book

Making Thinking Visible

By Ron Ritchhart, Mark Church et al.

Directly addresses explicit routines for making reasoning visible and teachable.

See on Amazon

Book

Make It Stick

By Peter C. Brown, Henry L. Roediger III et al.

Provides evidence-based principles for practice, feedback, and transfer in learning.

See on Amazon

Book

Creating Cultures of Thinking

By Ron Ritchhart

Explains how teaching environments can deliberately cultivate thinking habits.

See on Amazon

Book

Visible Learning and the Science of How We Learn

By John Hattie, Gregory C. R. Yates

Supports explicit teaching, feedback, learning processes, and instructional design.

See on Amazon

Browse more on Amazon: Making Thinking Visible Make It Stick Creating Cultures of Thinking

As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

eBay marketplace picks

Marketplace Samples

Live-tested eBay searches with available results related to this page.

Shop location

UsingUSA USA USAUKCanadaAustraliaIreland

Top pick

critical thinking card game

Open a targeted eBay search for items related to this topic.

CriticalThinkingCard

Browse eBay

Related search

critical thinking game

Open a targeted eBay search for items related to this topic.

CriticalThinkingGame

Browse eBay

Related search

taught poster

Open a targeted eBay search for items related to this topic.

TaughtPoster

Browse eBay

Related search

taught memorabilia

Open a targeted eBay search for items related to this topic.

TaughtMemorabilia

Browse eBay

Browse more on eBay

Example items shown for inspiration; availability and pricing can change. Branchoria may earn a commission if you purchase through outbound eBay links.

Endnotes

1. Source: educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk
Link:https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/education-evidence/guidance-reports/metacognition

2. Source: arxiv.org
Title: arXiv Teaching Critical Thinking
Link:https://arxiv.org/abs/1508.04870

3. Source: reasoninglab.com
Title: Using Argument Mapping to Improve Critical Thinking Skills
Link:https://www.reasoninglab.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/TvG-Using-argument-mapping-to-improve-critical-thinking-skills-2015.pdf

4. Source: arxiv.org
Title: arXiv Getting Explicit Instruction Right
Link:https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.10480

5. Source: journals.sagepub.com
Link:https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.3102/0034654314551063

6. Source: aft.org
Link:https://www.aft.org/sites/default/files/Rosenshine.pdf

Published: March 7, 2012

7. Source: nationalacademies.org
Link:https://www.nationalacademies.org/read/9853/chapter/6

8. Source: nationalacademies.org
Link:https://www.nationalacademies.org/read/24783/chapter/14

9. Source: educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk
Title: updated eef guide to metacognition and [self regulation]({{ ‘self-regulation/’ | relative_url }})
Link:https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/news/updated-eef-guide-to-metacognition-and-self-regulation

10. Source: educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk
Link:https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/education-evidence/teaching-learning-toolkit/metacognition-and-self-regulation

11. Source: educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk
Title: how do we teach metacognition
Link:https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/news/how-do-we-teach-metacognition

12. Source: educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk
Title: metacognition and self regulation guidance report
Link:https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/education-evidence/evidence-reviews/metacognition-and-self-regulation-guidance-report

13. Source: educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk
Title: promoting metacognitive talk in the classroom
Link:https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/news/promoting-metacognitive-talk-in-the-classroom

14. Source: educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk
Link:https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/education-evidence/guidance-reports/supporting-high-quality-teaching-for-pupils-with-send

15. Source: nationalacademies.org
Link:https://www.nationalacademies.org/projects/DBASSE-BBCSS

16. Source: nationalacademies.org
Link:https://www.nationalacademies.org/read/24783/chapter/2

17. Source: nationalacademies.org
Link:https://www.nationalacademies.org/read/9853/chapter/15

18. Source: nationalacademies.org
Link:https://www.nationalacademies.org/projects/DBASSE-BBCSS-13-06/publication/24783

19. Source: nationalacademies.org
Link:https://www.nationalacademies.org/read/9853/chapter/3

20. Source: nationalacademies.org
Link:https://www.nationalacademies.org/read/24783

21. Source: nationalacademies.org
Link:https://www.nationalacademies.org/read/24783/chapter/6

22. Source: dictionary.cambridge.org
Link:https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/critical

23. Source: researchrepository.universityofgalway.ie
Link:https://researchrepository.universityofgalway.ie/server/api/core/bitstreams/4034a5fa-43a2-4fb3-b889-847ee48dbb60/content

24. Source: drcharlesmrusso.substack.com
Title: argument mapping
Link:https://drcharlesmrusso.substack.com/p/argument-mapping

25. Source: journals.sagepub.com
Link:https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.3102/0034654314551063

26. Source: newsletter.jamieleeclark.com
Title: small steps
Link:https://newsletter.jamieleeclark.com/p/small-steps

27. Source: Wikipedia
Link:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical

Additional References

28. Source: oecd.org
Link:https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2024/06/new-pisa-results-on-creative-thinking_7dccb55b/b3a46696-en.pdf

29. Source: youtube.com
Title: Making Thinking Visible: Transforming Classroom Engagement
Link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UORmF6TJ00A

30. Source: researchgate.net
Link:https://www.researchgate.net/publication/390649459_John_D_Bransford_Ann_L_Brown_Rodney_R_Cocking_How_People_Learn_Vol_11_Washington_DC_Publisher_National_Academy_Press_2000

31. Source: researchgate.net
Link:https://www.researchgate.net/publication/395537264_PISA_2022_Creative_Thinking_Assessment_A_Landmark_Opportunity_for_School_and_System_Leaders_to_Put_Creativity_at_the_Heart_of_Students%27_Learning

32. Source: innerdrive.co.uk
Link:https://www.innerdrive.co.uk/guides/a-complete-guide-to-rosenshines-principles-of-instruction/

33. Source: scirp.org
Link:https://www.scirp.org/reference/referencespapers?referenceid=2778998

34. Source: merriam-webster.com
Link:https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/critical

35. Source: academypublication.com
Link:https://www.academypublication.com/issues/past/tpls/vol04/01/12.pdf

36. Source: made-training.com
Link:https://www.made-training.com/developing-critical-thinking-in-the-curriculum/

37. Source: scribd.com
Link:https://www.scribd.com/document/389837267/EEF-Metacognition-and-Self-regulated-Learning