Contributed by Yang Wu, 2021 Contributing Editor

Critical Thinking (CT) is a major part of the western educational tradition, and has received increased attention in higher education in recent years. It involves improving an individual’s capacity for problem-solving, problem-posing, developing sound arguments, and making good decisions. Rooted in informal logic, Critical Thinking focuses on developing teaching strategies that deepen students’ capacities for sound reasoning in their learning and daily lives (Govier, 2018). It emphasizes encouraging students to critically evaluate the logic of their thinking and fostering in them a mindset that actively questions the basis of assumptions that underpin their everyday lives (Ennis, 1987, 11; Burbles & Berk, 1999). Instruction on CT has often been combined with an emphasis on transparency in teaching and learning, encouraging students to reflect critically about their learning strategies by making them more aware of the purpose and rationale of learning activities given by their instructors. 

Emphasized in American higher education for decades, Critical Thinking education is becoming more explicitly taught in recent years (Haber, 2020). Courses in many institutions now openly highlight CT as a component that students must learn. Institutions of higher education in the US are also offering Critical Thinking professional development programs for faculty members, giving them instruction on how to teach students critical reasoning (An example being Clemson University’s CT2 Faculty Institute), and CT is also acquiring growing attention among educators worldwide (Larsson, 2017, 32). 

Critical Thinking connects with Open Pedagogy in several ways. Both share a learner centered approach to education, engaging students in activities that would make them more active, self directed, and self reflective learners. Critical Thinking is heavily focused on fostering in students a disposition to actively and independently question their own assumptions, and views building this mindset as a step in developing their moral and ethical character (Shpeizer, 2018, 34-35). The mindset is fostered through experiential and activities based learning, which challenge students to question their own assumptions on specific subjects and their learning strategies. Activities can be individual or group based, and are often scaffolded, moving from simple to larger, more complex activities in order to build up a critical student mindset (Shpeizer, 40-41). 

While Open Pedagogy is an approach that is still being developed, studies have noted that it is based on several practices and goals. Influenced by the constructivist model of learning, it uses Web 2.0 technologies to increase student motivation for learning. Advocates of Open Pedagogy argue that students cannot fully engage with knowledge being taught unless they are given some choice in deciding what they learn, creativity in how they learn, and that learning must be connected to real life and produce outcomes that students feel has value beyond a simple grade (DeRosa & Jhagiani, 2017; Wiley & Hilton, 2018, 135-137). They also call for making education more experiential, activity based and creative, and emphasizes having students work together to stimulate their learning engagement (Hegarty, 2015, 10). Activities recommended by Open Pedagogy advocates to increase student engagement include giving students a role in deciding what is taught in specific courses, and using Web 2.0 technologies such as wikis, social media and online publishing software, along with open licensing to produce, modify and curate information online. Such activities are also scaffolded, and they are designed to stimulate students by allowing them to showcase the development of their knowledge or skills in different subjects, contribute to public knowledge and have lasting value to students (DeRosa & Jhagiani; Wiley & Hilton, 138-142). 

Despite their different emphases, CT and Open Pedagogy both share a larger perception that traditional teaching, centered around the instructor dictating knowledge to pupils and testing their retention of this knowledge through standardized exams, is inadequate in instilling the right mindset for learning among students. Objectives of Open Pedagogy, beyond increasing student motivation and creativity for learning, are less defined. However, major advocates of Open Pedagogy have argued that it has a critical reflective element. It uses constructivist teaching strategies and student creation, modification and sharing of information online to foster a deeper reflection on pedagogy by instructors, and to create an awareness of among students that  education and larger assumptions in society are often shaped by barriers imposed on accessing information by capitalist society (Hegarty, 10; DeRosa & Jhagiani). Some advocates have argued that Open Pedagogy is heavily influenced by Critical Pedagogy, an approach that emphasizes using learning activities to increase student awareness of unequal power relations in society and the impact of these relations on culture and education (Jhagiani & Green, 2018, 141).   

This emphasis on Critical Pedagogy further connects with CT. Advocates of CT and Critical Pedagogy have often tried to find common ground  in recent years, arguing that Critical Pedagogy is a component of CT.  They assert that Critical Pedagogy, with its emphasis on understanding unequal relationships in society, is essentially CT with a focus on ethical reflection and civic engagement (Rahimi & Sajed, 43-44; Shpeizer, 42-43). Furthermore, Open Pedagogy strategies, such as giving students the ability to decide what they learn in courses, also requires explanation by instructors on the purpose of these activities, making teaching transparent. 

Open Pedagogy activities can be easily adapted to have a stronger reflective component related to the subject being taught. For example, an Open Pedagogy approach for STEM courses, having students write multiple choice questions as a form of testing their knowledge of the relationships between different course concepts instead of traditional tests, could include more effort to encourage students to reflect on how they learn and prepare for exams in similar courses, and how their learning strategies can be improved. Connecting Open Pedagogy with Critical Thinking education helps to increase adoption of open pedagogy by linking it to a mainstream component of American and western higher education. Open Pedagogy teaching strategies, which give students choice in what they learn, unconventional approaches for learning and the ability to publish information online, could also make CT activities more engaging and better enhance student self reflection. 

During 2019-2020 I actively worked to integrate Open Pedagogy into the CT program at my institution, speaking at CT related professional development events and assisting faculty who teach CT with applying Open Pedagogy strategies into their courses. With the lifting of COVID restrictions in 2021 I have restarted this initiative, and will report more on my experiences in research over the next year.  

Works Cited

Burbules, N. C., & Berk, R. (1999). Critical thinking and critical pedagogy: Relations, differences, and limits. In T. S. Popkewitz & L. Fendler (Eds.), Critical theories in education: Changing terrains of knowledge and politics (pp. 45-65). Routledge.

DeRosa, R., & Jhagiani, R (2017). Open Pedagogy. In E. May., Rebus Community, BC Open Textbook Project & BCcampus (Eds.). (2017). A guide to making open textbooks with students.

Ennis, R. H. (1987). A taxonomy of critical thinking dispositions and abilities. In J. B. Baron & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Teaching thinking skills: Theory and practice (pp. 9-26). W H Freeman/Times Books/ Henry Holt & Co.

Govier, T. (2018). Problems in argument analysis and evaluation. Windsor Studies in Argumentation.

Haber, J. (2020). It’s Time to Get Serious About Teaching Critical Thinking. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved September 5, 2021 from: https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2020/03/02/teaching-students-think-critically-opinion

Hegarty, B. (2015). Attributes of open pedagogy: A model for using open educational resources. Educational technology, 3-13.

Jhangiani, R.S., & Green, A.G. (2018). An Open Athenaeum: Creating an Institutional Home for Open Pedagogy. In A. Wesolek, J. Lashey & A. Langley (Eds.) (2018). OER: A Field Guide for Academic Librarians.

Larsson, K. (2017). Understanding and teaching critical thinking—A new approach. International Journal of Educational Research, 84, 32-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2017.05.004

Rahimi, A., & Sajed, M. A. (2014). The interplay between critical pedagogy and critical thinking: Theoretical ties and practicalities. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 136, 41-45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.05.284

Shpeizer, R. (2018). Teaching critical thinking as a vehicle for personal and social transformation. Research in Education, 100(1), 32-49. https://doi.org/10.1177/0034523718762176
Wiley, D., & Hilton III, J. L. (2018). Defining OER-Enabled Pedagogy. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 19(4). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v19i4.3601

Dr. Yang Wu is the Contributing Blog Editor of OER & Beyond.

This post is by Yang Wu and is released under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license, except where otherwise indicated. Please reference OER and Beyond and use this URL when attributing this work; for more information on licensing, see our Open Access Policy.