Criticality in undergraduate education: Is a non-critical classroom experience a lesson in deceit?

Abstract

This article is an exploration of the potential of a more purposeful application of criticality in undergraduate classrooms. Conventional pedagogy, often lecture-based, does not prepare students well for life, a career, or service toward the common good. A more critical approach in the classroom stimulates critical thinking, critical consciousness, and critical being. Criticality in teaching and learning allows for an honest assessment of history, culture, and the reality of human interactions. It positions students well for career success and strong civic engagement. It also serves to refresh and enhance faculty understanding of established material. Criticality in the classroom redounds to the wellbeing of the institution, the community it serves, as well as advancing knowledge itself with the enrichment of new perspectives. Anything less is at best a repetitive exercise of fact regurgitation, or at worst, outright deception.

“I sit on a man’s back, choking him and making him carry me, and yet assure myself and others that I am very sorry for him and wish to ease his lot by all possible means‐‐except by getting off his back.”

Leo Tolstoy, novelist, and philosopher (1828–1910).

The Tolstoy quote above illustrates the mindset of too many graduating students today as they leave their undergraduate institutions unprepared to become good citizens. They are often not even ready to be competent and thoughtful professionals. As much research has revealed, higher education classroom activities across the globe focus much more on content than on thinking (Giroux, 2014; Halx and Reybold, 2005, 2019; Johnson and Morris, 2012; Le Ha, 2014; Motta, 2013; Noddings and Brooks, 2017; Porto and Byram, 2015; Rosling, 2018; Westheimer, 2015). Too many graduating students do not understand fully their place in the world or the place of others. While classes in the social foundations of education serve well in this regard for education students, what about the other disciplines? A more pervasive critical approach would ensure that students develop a strong sense of empathy and awareness of the importance of the common good, which in turn redounds to their own wellbeing. These powerful characteristics can and should be learned concurrently within any and every disciplinary focus.

In this soon-to-be post-COVID-19 era, and as we reflect on the mortal inequities of the pandemic period when so many marginalized groups were hit harder and died in greater numbers, issues of social justice are thrown into relief. Even in the more-developed countries, millions of people are just getting by. To support and advance community efforts in pursuit of fairness and equity, not just during or after a pandemic or crisis, but in all national and international endeavors, a more critically thinking public is imperative. To survive and thrive, societies need sensitive, thinking citizens (Dam and Volman, 2004; Giroux, 2014; Penkauskienė et al., 2019; Rosling, 2018; Westheimer, 2015).

Upon entering undergraduate classrooms, too many 1st-year students all over the world display a strikingly evident lack of ability to think critically (Halx and Reybold, 2005, 2019; Johnson and Morris, 2012; Le Ha, 2014; Motta, 2013; Noddings and Brooks, 2017). Even undergraduate degree attainment does not necessarily yield the ability to think critically, and often it does not engender the social awareness necessary for engaged citizenship (Giroux, 2014; Johnson and Morris, 2012; Noddings and Brooks, 2017; Westheimer, 2015). It is for this reason that I advocate for reciprocal and critically self-aware learning rather than the more traditional college and university teaching that often consists primarily of providing disciplinary “content” with the expectation that eager students will absorb it dutifully and without question. I argue for pervasive criticality in the classroom. I argue against the traditional “banking method” of education that considers students to be empty vessels in need of filling (Freire, 2000). Students are indeed to some extent “empty vessels,” but the filling would be better accomplished if it were at least partially self-directed rather than primarily externally imposed. While this concern has been a discussed and ongoing problem for well over 40 years (Paul and Elder, 2006), the time has come for professors, especially in particular disciplines that tend to lean on non-stop lecture, i.e., so often in history, religion, business, and some of the sciences, to cease insisting that students accept what they offer without any critique. Certainly, there are a good many professors, in these and other disciplines, who understand and employ a more open and critical approach in the classroom, but too many others do not. Granted, future graduate school and employment imperatives often drive these disciplinary lecture-heavy approaches as a means to include voluminous foundational content, but discussion and critique of delivered content must still be encouraged and perhaps demanded. The allowance of a bit of questioning and critique will yield richer understanding in future contexts. While there is clearly foundational content that must be delivered consistently in all disciplines, the notion that all conventionally accepted content is so thoroughly established that it should not be questioned is antithetical to the essence of knowledge creation itself. The perspective of the student enriches content; it does not diminish it. Just as learned cognitive skills and new understandings change and develop the individual student, established knowledge must be disrupted and reexamined regularly from different time-stamped vantage points to maintain its validity and relevance. What better place to do this than the undergraduate classroom? The process of constant critique strengthens previously established knowledge and advances it. Professors and students together can employ criticality in every aspect of the classroom experience. Conventional pedagogy, with its emphasis on established unchanging/uncritiqued content, is by its nature static, and it hinders vital knowledge growth of both the students and the knowledge itself. Content updates are not sufficient; the perspective/review/critique of the current student renews and refreshes valued and established knowledge. A more learner-centered pedagogy facilitates criticality (Le Ha, 2014). Conventional lecture-based pedagogy can border on propaganda and/or unintentional deceit if it is not continually fertilized with new perspectives from a new era. Knowledge that cannot be critiqued is dogma. Both knowledge and students are stunted without the utilization of criticality as an overarching pedagogical approach.

What is criticality?

While the founders and sustainers of criticality and critical theory must be acknowledged, this paper is not about the past paradigm-shifting contributions of these individuals. The originators of critical theory, Adorno, Marcuse, Horkheimer, Gramsci, Habermas, etc., and the sustainers, Freire, McLaren, Darder, Kincheloe, Brookfield, and Giroux, etc., all were of fundamental importance in establishing foundations of criticality, fighting the good fight, and continuing to advocate for a more critical world view and a more critical and honest approach to teaching and learning through critical pedagogy. However, my purpose here is to speak in current practical terms. I am interested in the macro daily application of the more elaborate theoretical foundation that these great scholars put forth. The simple application of criticality in more classrooms could start a new paradigmatic shift that could send students out into the world much better prepared to engage and make a difference in their communities.

As Barnett (1997) notes, the value of criticality comprises, “critical thinking, analytical reasoning, critical self-reflection, and critical action” (p. 6). Action is a necessary component. Freire (2000) called this theory to practice approach, “praxis.” As Barnett illustrated, the foundational step that is needed before action is thinking, reasoning, and reflection. Ensuring criticality in the classroom facilitates these vital steps toward becoming a critical thinker and an overall more openminded and thoughtful individual actor in society.

The advancement and persistence of non-conceptual learning (memorization) is a significant problem in secondary school, and it often continues in higher education classrooms. Of what use are facts if a student cannot connect, conceptualize, and apply them? Fact-memorizers cannot put facts to use because they do not understand how the facts were established, let alone how or why they are currently relevant. The students who make it into higher education are expert memorizers, but that is largely the extent of their cognitive ability. Upon arrival to college, they are not critical of their secondary school experience, and they are too often not critical of society, history, or their government (Giroux, 2014; Halx, 2014; Noddings and Brooks, 2017). Many have virtually no opinion about the world. How can this be? How can students who have been through 12 years of public education not have come to any thoughtful conclusion about the world around them during those years? It is the obligation of higher education instructors to permit, prompt, and even push students to begin to think critically about their secondary school education, the new content being provided in college or university, and their community (Halx and Reybold, 2019). Criticality is advanced, as a matter of course, through critical thinking and vice versa. If colleges and universities hope to graduate thoughtful and productive citizens, critical thinking should be taught literally and purposefully––most prudently in a 1st-year seminar––and a more critical mindset toward disciplinary content could be encouraged in subsequent undergraduate education.

What is critical thinking?

Among many definitions, critical thinking is “skillful, responsible thinking that facilitates good judgement because it relies on criteria, is self-correcting, and is sensitive to context” (Lipman, 1988: 2). It is started by taking on a heightened awareness of oneself, one’s emotions, one’s drives, and then leveraging these aspects of our humanness to enhance (not hinder) one’s thinking. It is mindfulness of other sentient beings, their individual positionality, and their reciprocal impact on us. It is having a sound knowledge of the processes of logic, the scientific method, and knowledge creation. It is taking on a visceral understanding of one’s immediate cultural context, as well as the larger human condition that impacts all our cognitive processes. And finally, it is the understanding that virtually every decision one makes occurs in a moral context and influences the lives of others (often more than it affects one’s own). To think effectively, as Brooks (2015) entreated, “we all need redemptive assistance from outside;” this applies to our best empathetic thinking as well.

Critical thinking, as Brookfield (2005) has made clear, “is an inherently political process” (vii). Mastering logic and analytical skills will take one far, but without acknowledging the contextual circumstances, one can be left with imperfect self-centric reasoning. While it is a vital aspect of critical thinking to be self-aware, one must be sure to avoid focusing too much on oneself, and hence sinking into egocentrism (Paul and Elder, 2006). Dunne (2015) suggested that we must encourage students to be outward-looking to help them avoid falling victim to self-absorption. It is the perfect balance of self-awareness and empathy for others that is the foundation of critical thinking and critical consciousness. If we do not control our minds, emotions, and drives, they will control us. Critical thinking must become intuitive; it must become a form of enhanced critical consciousness.

Toward the common good: The need to develop a critical consciousness

Understanding oneself critically is the beginning of the development of a critical consciousness. The notion of critical consciousness was identified by Gramsci (1971) and elaborated by Freire (2000). This deep understanding of the self and that self’s place in the world, is eye-opening. To become lifelong critical thinkers, students must strive to develop a critical consciousness, or what Freire called, “conscientization.” Neither Gramsci nor Freire believed that critical consciousness required advanced intellectualism. In fact, they believed that all people are capable of reasoning, and therefore all people are capable of conceptualizing and bringing about a new level of existential understanding. In other words, all people are poised to understand more fully their place in the world, and this understanding is especially imperative if that place is a venue of oppression. Freire suggests that we must be “of the world,” not just “in the world” (p. 71). This edict might be difficult to grasp, but a critical thinker ultimately takes on this world view as a matter of course. An outward-looking approach is the dominant characteristic of a critical thinker, and while it requires a determined effort, the result redounds to the benefit of both the individual and the greater good. Critical consciousness can in fact be developed during a student’s undergraduate education (Halx, 2010).

Progression to critical being

The goal in teaching critical thinking is to develop a sense of criticality and critical consciousness that progresses to critical being. Critical being can be seen as the full manifestation of critical consciousness. Critical being is taking on criticality and critical thinking viscerally (Barbules and Berk, 1999). As Broom (2011) suggested, with critical being, critical thinking becomes “a character trait, and not a skill” (p. 23). Living with a strong sense of critical being allows the intellect to overcome consistently our “two baser natures”––emotions and biological drives (p. 18). This process, Broom suggests, is a “continually evolving balance” (p. 20). It allows us to have the “courage to live consciously, to notice all that we don’t see, and to muster the imagination to integrate that vision into the greater human enterprise” (Birkenhead, 2015: 1). Criticality and critical thinking cannot be applied superficially; they must become second nature―a way of life.

Resisting the power of cultural hegemony and the promise of global citizenry

Young people are often susceptible to the influence of authority figures or “people in power.” Critical thinking rejects blind deference to authority and power. Students frequently fall victim to the same hegemonic forces (that often influence entire populations) unless they can maintain a conscious awareness of such forces. A critically thinking student becomes “a critical consumer of information” (Barbules and Berk, 1999: 5). Critically thinking students can resist even the subconscious demands of socio-economic systems and various other societally normative behaviors, etc. Students must become “more than a product of their influences” (Paul and Elder, 2006: 43). They must think, not only outside the box, but without a box at all. Awareness of the vast number of ways of knowing, or as Dunne (2015) terms it, “epistemic knowledge” is a crucial step in the process of becoming a strong critical thinker (p. 3). Acceptance of the prospective validity of other cultural ways of knowing avoids becoming mired in one’s own dominant culture. As Gramsci (1971) noted, hegemony often “produces a condition of moral and political passivity” (p. 333) that can pervade the personal and academic life of students and faculty. Both students and faculty are like fish in water; they are swimming in a hegemonic lake of which they are not aware. And, as Eisenstein (2013) noted, hegemony too often disempowers those it purports to help. While “keeping order,” hegemonic forces deny the vital agency required for students to develop into individual thinking adults. Hegemony also often stymies the fundamental purpose of academia––to understand truth. If the “truth” is not inclusive of all ways of knowing, it is not the full truth.

Informed critically thinking citizens will work for the common good because they know that their efforts will benefit all (including themselves). A pedagogy of empowered critical thinking sends students into the world well-equipped to leave a positive impact on it, not depart it as if they were never there (Freire, 2000; Motta, 2013).

Like critical theory in general, critical thinking “is the educational implementation of ideology critique, the deliberate attempt to penetrate the ideological obfuscation that ensures that massive social inequality is accepted by the majority as the natural state of affairs” (Freire, 2000: 350). Critical thinking is a student’s only defense against this hegemonic ideological manipulation. Majority population dominance is in fact an unnatural notion that is no longer viable, as in many countries college students who were once the minority will come to displace or rival the majority students (in population and accomplishments). All students must question the truth of what has been taken as the “natural state” and develop a fact-based state of being––critical being.

Conventional acceptance of a given condition––unthinking passivity––exemplifies systemic oppression of thought. This learned docility can only be countered with critical thinking. All information must be received critically, and while much of it will ultimately pass critical muster, some long-established facts must be open to new interpretation. Older established knowledge is frequently in need of an update, or at the very least, to be considered from a fresh perspective.

While uninformed, unthinking citizens populate every country, they are especially prevalent in several dictatorships around the world. Critically thinking fosters a globally-aware citizenry that leans toward advancing empathy rather than antipathy toward the citizens of other nations. Criticality also recognizes that being critical in an authoritarian nation is often severely punished, and hence the challenge of advocating a more critical pedagogical approach in such environments. Nonetheless, many brave educators persist. Those of us in freer nations can only be empathetic and take what action we can from abroad to help (Song, 2015).

Criticality and critical thinking in the modern undergraduate classroom: Making it happen

Since little to no critical thinking is developed in U.S. secondary schools (Giroux, 2014; Halx and Reybold, 2005, 2019; Noddings and Brooks, 2017), and because this is also the case in many other countries (Changwong et al., 2018; Johnson and Morris, 2012; Song, 2015; Zhao, 2020) it becomes a global imperative for institutions of higher learning step up to provide this necessary education. As Brookfield (2012) emphasizes, “teaching critically is not just a question of how we teach. It is also about what we teach” (p. 349). A critical education prepares students to be, as Freire (2000) noted, “conversant with other forms of knowledge that were seldom part of the [traditional] curriculum” (p. 58). This is essentially the point of critical race theory, and yet it is currently being disparaged as some sort of diabolical liberal means to indoctrinate students. In fact, it is the denying the historical facts that are emphasized in critical race theory that is the indoctrination… of falsehoods.

Beyond employing a critical approach to a given discipline, criticality and critical thinking can and should be taught directly and purposefully in undergraduate classrooms, especially those of 1st-year students. Myriad textbooks detail the means to do so using time-tested techniques. Engaged faculty and excited new college students create the perfect environment to open eyes, to think unconventionally, and begin to view the world through an independent lens rather than exclusively through established content delivery and its often-stagnant perspective.

The practical manifestation of a more critical classroom is facilitated by a constant focus on reciprocal engagement between teacher and student. This mutual exchange is stifled if lecture is the constant chosen mode of content delivery. While seemingly “easier” for the instructor, it truncates the opportunity for enriching discussion that enhances the knowledge base of both the teacher and the student. All class content must be open to critique or discussion. While many historical, scientific, or quantitative “facts” lean heavily toward the objective, why not test that objectivity with a counter position. Truth and the pursuit of objectivity should be able to withstand a momentary critique. Professors who display an openness to questioning established content model the way for students to do the same. Questioning and seeking additional evidence are both vital aspects of critical thinking development and knowledge creation.

While the professor decides on the pedagogical approach, academic administrators also can encourage criticality and set the pace for a more open and critical classroom. Establishing an institutional mindset or standard, providing workshops, guest speakers, and student survey testaments would likely inspire faculty to teach more critically.

The choice remains: students can be permitted, prompted, or pushed to think critically (Halx and Reybold, 2019). Permitting undergraduates to learn to think critically by osmosis––by only modeling the way––or with subtle prompts, leaves too much up to chance. Critical thinking must be tenaciously taught to assure that the students cannot “unlearn” this new thinking ability. Students respond to things new, and they rise to new expectations.

Closing thoughts

I hope that this brief review of the prospect of criticality and critical thinking in the undergraduate classroom has encouraged readers, especially those who work in undergraduate settings, to consider seriously the suggestions and possibilities conveyed. While not all lecture-heavy teaching is without value, and several disciplines necessitate more lecture than others, even in those classrooms, one can enhance, enrich, and provide a more honest educational experience with criticality. There are many ways to stimulate criticality and critical thinking; one need only make it a priority and the driving force behind class preparation and content delivery. Anything less, for both students and faculty, is an exercise in dishonesty because a one-way street of knowledge in a two-way (or multiple-way) world fails to position students to be inquisitive life-long critical thinkers, and instead leaves them prone to become passive, unquestioning, uninformed citizens. A non-critical classroom is at best incomplete, and at worst a deceptive because it facilitates the incarceration of active and dynamic knowledge in an “antiseptic refrigerator” until it is delivered to students who trust that the education that they are receiving is current and relevant to their lives (Dewey, 1910: 107). Too often, it is not.

Criticality is not a negative approach to the world and living life; it is the clear and honest manifestation of hope––a hope for a more equitable, balanced existence for all people. It is the pursuit of an evolutionarily sound notion of social homeostasis. Critical thinking is a resilient guard against radicalization and tribalism. It is intellectual honesty, and it brings us closer to knowing the “truth.” Criticality, by its nature, advances fairness, thoughtfulness, decency, and empathy. Who can argue against that?