Drew Perkins hosts a live panel at the Festival of Education with Elise Stephenson, Patrice Bain and Valentina Devid on the so-called pedagogy wars between explicit instruction and inquiry. Recorded in front of an audience, the conversation asks what role knowledge plays in critical thinking, where each panelist sits on the instructional continuum, and how formative assessment and making thinking visible help teachers meet students where they are. The panel's answer to "either-or?" is a firm "yes-and."
Links & Resources
If you enjoyed this episode, please share it and please leave a review on Apple Podcasts.
Have some feedback you'd like to share? You can email me at drew@thoughtstretchers.org.
Intro/outro voice credit: David O'Hara, Professor of Philosophy, Classics & Environmental Studies, Augustana University.
Key takeaways
- It's yes-and, not either-or: All three panelists place themselves on a continuum between direct instruction and inquiry. They move along it depending on what students already know and what the learning goal demands.
- Knowledge is a starting point, not the finish line: Knowledge makes critical thinking possible and better, but the aim is to "play the game," not just learn the vocabulary of it. Students also arrive with more knowledge and thinking than test scores suggest.
- Thinking can be grown: Research from Project Zero shows students in classrooms that name and value thinking moves get better at using thinking strategies at every age. Modeling, think-alouds and self-regulation are key.
- Formative action and visible thinking are two names for the same idea: Constantly and purposefully checking what students understand challenges teachers' assumptions. It replaces rigid "novice or expert" labels with a picture of each learner.
- Watch for lethal mutations on every side: Retrieval practice done as a box to tick, and thinking routines done as one-off activities, both miss the point. Teachers need tools, skills and mindsets, plus a healthy skepticism of anyone selling "the one right way."
Episode highlights and timecodes
- 00:00 – Welcome & Introductions: Drew introduces the panel and frames the pedagogy wars as a "yes-and" rather than an "either-or."
- 05:25 – Knowledge & Critical Thinking: Can students think critically with little domain knowledge? Valentina, Elise and Patrice push back on Drew's pushback.
- 10:08 – Can Thinking Be Trained?: Elise shares Ron Ritchhart's research on students' concept maps of thinking, and Patrice describes teaching students how to learn.
- 15:33 – The Pedagogy Spectrum: From drill-and-kill to free school, each panelist places their own practice on the continuum.
- 21:20 – Formative Action & Visible Thinking: The expertise reversal effect, checking for agreement vs. checking for understanding, and why teachers need tools, skills and mindsets.
- 28:54 – Lethal Mutations: How the science of learning, and inquiry approaches, can be reduced to box-ticking.
- 34:12 – Beyond the Tribalism: Curiosity, humility and healthy skepticism as the way forward.
Frequently asked questions What are the "pedagogy wars"?
The polarized debate between explicit or direct instruction and inquiry-based approaches. The panel rejects the either-or framing and argues that good teaching moves along a continuum between them.
Can students think critically without knowledge?
The panel agrees that knowledge strongly supports critical thinking. Valentina argues it's a prerequisite. Elise cautions that students always bring knowledge and ways of thinking, even when test scores don't show it. Drew argues some critical thinking is possible with little domain knowledge.
Can critical thinking be taught?
Project Zero research described by Elise suggests thinking strategies can be learned and improved. Students in classrooms that name and value thinking moves grow in their ability to name and apply them. Valentina adds that teaching self-regulation, through modeling and think-alouds, has a large impact.
Where do the panelists sit on the instruction-to-inquiry spectrum?
All three say they are "on the continuum." Patrice uses heavy direct instruction to build a foundation and scaffolds toward deep learning. Valentina adapts to where students are, aiming for independence. Elise braids required skills with students' own generative questions.
What is the expertise reversal effect?
A finding from cognitive load theory: techniques that help novices can hinder experts, and vice versa. The panel cautions against labeling whole students as novices or experts. Students can be ahead and behind at the same time, which is why ongoing formative assessment matters.
What's the difference between checking for agreement and checking for understanding?
Tools like cold calling and mini whiteboards can confirm a correct answer, which Drew calls agreement. Understanding requires seeing how students make sense of ideas. Valentina's formative action model adds dialogue and sense-making after the check.
What is a "lethal mutation"?
A practice that loses its purpose as it spreads. Examples include retrieval practice done just to tick a box, or a See-Think-Wonder routine used as a one-off activity. Teachers who understand the "why" behind a practice can adapt it well.
How do we move beyond the tribalism?
Ask "How do my students learn?" (Patrice). Model curiosity, open-mindedness and willingness to be wrong (Valentina). Bring healthy skepticism to anyone claiming one best way (Elise). Drew calls this an inquiry mindset.
