Critical Thinking – Jill Szoo Wilson

By Jill Szoo Wilson

At least once a semester in communication class, I bring up the name of a famous actor or actress from the 1990s, and the students have no idea who I’m talking about. I register my surprise, make a big deal about how they don’t know anything about the world, and then show them a clip from a movie featuring said actor or actress.

This is boots meeting the ground in education.

Last semester, the name that eluded them was Meg Ryan. Fortunately, when I showed them a scene from When Harry Met Sally, two of the students recognized her. It is also important to note that most of them had not seen the movie, and when one of them asked who the short guy in the scene was, I had a second reason to faint in despair.

Let us pause in remembrance of decades past.

Moments like this have become familiar. Each year introduces a slightly different horizon of reference, and a shifting boundary between what is assumed knowledge and what has already passed out of view.

Most of the time, these gaps remain at the level of shared culture. A film, a music reference, or a name that no longer carries immediate recognition. The loss is noticeable, though in all honesty, it rarely feels truly consequential.

This week, the gap carried a different kind of weight.

I mentioned the name Jordan Peterson, and again, the room was silent. No recognition. No point of entry.

To close the gap, I had to do more than show a clip.

Peterson’s work engages questions about the conditions of thought itself, particularly the role of language in shaping what can be known, examined, and understood. Across lectures, interviews, and public debates, he has returned repeatedly to a claim that carries significant implications for how human beings think and speak. People do not first arrive at a fully formed thought and then express it. Instead, we speak in order to find out what we think, and in doing so, begin to understand what we are actually trying to say.

Using this framework, speech is not only a means of delivering a finished idea. It becomes the place where the idea is formed. Most people are not walking around with fully developed positions waiting to be expressed, although social media can create that impression. Most honest people are working their ideas out as they go. They try something in language, hear it, adjust it, run into a contradiction they did not expect, and sometimes arrive somewhere they did not plan to go at all. Peterson himself often spoke this way in lectures, beginning with a premise and working through it in real time. That is a brave act to perform in front of a thousand people on some random Tuesday.

Peterson’s claim situates speech within a longer intellectual tradition. Lev Vygotsky described thought as developing through social interaction, with language serving as the primary tool through which internal reasoning takes shape. Ludwig Wittgenstein located meaning within use, suggesting that the limits of language and the limits of thought remain closely intertwined. Within this framework, speech operates as one of the conditions through which thinking becomes possible.

When considered in this light, the question of free speech acquires a different kind of weight. The issue extends beyond the circulation of opinions or the management of public discourse. It reaches into the conditions that allow thought itself to emerge.

In the classroom, this becomes visible in small, subtle ways. A student hesitates before raising her hand because she’s not sure how something will land. A comment is softened, or abandoned altogether, because it might be taken the wrong way. A question goes unasked because it feels easier to stay quiet than to risk being misunderstood. None of these moments appear particularly dramatic, though each one narrows the space in which thought can be worked out in real time. It removes the moment where a person hears themselves clearly enough to recognize that something does not hold… or that it does.

Whatever thoughts are constrained in the room do not disappear. The student conceals them and at times carries them elsewhere to test in a more sympathetic environment, where agreement is more likely.

When speech does not disappear but simply moves out of view, it changes shape. Without response or resistance from the real-life community, ideas tend to harden. What might have been clarified in the open becomes more certain in private. For example, a student writes something in a discussion board they know will not be challenged, and it stays exactly as it is. The same idea, spoken out loud in a room, would have met a question, a pause, a raised eyebrow, something to press against. Without that, it holds.

Some amount of friction is part of how thinking happens. It gives ideas something to meet, something that reveals both their limits and their strength.

To think with any depth means holding two competing ideas at once without reducing either one into something easier to dismiss. Something that can stand on its own. It means articulating a position you do not agree with well enough that someone who does would recognize it. It means resisting the urge to resolve the tension too early. That kind of thinking is slower. It asks for precision. It asks for attention. And it asks for restraint, the willingness to let both ideas remain intact long enough to actually see them.

That work depends on language. It depends on the ability to say something before it is complete, to hear it, and to revise it.

What takes place in a classroom extends into the wider structure of public life. The same dynamics appear at a larger scale, where the pressures shaping speech influence the development of thought across entire communities. When speech narrows, whether through formal restriction or informal pressure, the range of what can be articulated begins to contract. Thought continues, though along more limited paths. Some ideas remain unspoken. Others circulate without meaningful challenge. Over time, this reshaping of discourse influences what can be examined, questioned, and understood.

Peterson’s insistence on the role of speech in thought formation places him within this broader conversation. His position has generated controversy in part because it resists attempts to separate language from its cognitive and social functions. To speak carries risk. It opens a person to misunderstanding, critique, and revision, and places a developing thought into contact with other minds. That contact is where refinement becomes possible.

The stakes of this position become clearer when viewed through the environments in which thinking occurs. A classroom, a conversation, or a public forum. Each serves as a site in which language mediates the development of ideas. The freedom to speak within these spaces does not guarantee clarity or truth. It establishes the conditions under which both can be pursued.

What began as a question about who students recognize in a classroom unfolded into a larger inquiry about how knowledge is formed. Cultural memory shifts. Names recede. New figures emerge. Beneath these changes, the underlying process remains consistent. Thought develops through articulation, through response, and through the sustained interaction between language and understanding.

Within that process, speech holds a central place. It allows a person to hear what they are saying closely enough to recognize where it holds and where it begins to shift.

In the end, the question of free speech returns to something simple. It has to do with whether there is still room to say something before it is finished, and to let it change in the presence of other people.

By Jill Szoo Wilson

In contemporary higher education, a surprising harmony emerges between two pedagogical lineages often perceived as distinct: constructivist teaching philosophy and the Socratic Method. One grounds itself in cognitive development and social learning theory; the other traces its heritage to ancient Greece. Yet together, they form one of the most intellectually generative combinations available to the modern classroom. Both treat learning not as passive absorption but as active inquiry. Both assume that students arrive with prior knowledge, internal frameworks, and tacit assumptions that shape how they understand new information. Most importantly, both contend that education is not simply the transfer of content, but the transformation of the learner.

Constructivist thinkers argue that students build knowledge rather than receive it. Jean Piaget, the Swiss developmental psychologist, described this process as a dynamic interplay between assimilation and accommodation, a continual restructuring of cognitive architecture as learners encounter new experiences (The Origins of Intelligence in Children). Lev Vygotsky, the Russian social psychologist, extended this idea by emphasizing the social dimensions of learning. His concept of the Zone of Proximal Development proposed that understanding flourishes when learners engage in dialogue with a more capable peer or mentor. John Dewey, the American philosopher of education, echoed this view, asserting that “knowledge is not something which exists apart from experience” (Democracy and Education). Their scholarship provides the intellectual foundation for constructivist pedagogy: students learn by doing, by reflecting, and by negotiating meaning in community.

The Socratic Method shares this commitment to meaning-making through dialogue. Though separated by millennia from contemporary cognitive theory, Socrates, the Athenian philosopher, had already intuited that learning requires active mental engagement. His method—probing questions, conceptual clarification, and disciplined reasoning—invites students to articulate, examine, and ultimately revise their assumptions. Mortimer Adler, the American educational philosopher, writes in The Paideia Proposal that the Socratic classroom is defined by its refusal to reduce ideas to mere facts. Instead, it seeks to refine the mind through inquiry. Similarly, Nel Noddings, the influential scholar of ethics and education, observed that Socratic questioning “challenges students to consider why they believe what they believe” and requires an educator to listen closely, ask precisely, and build questions that reveal the architecture of a student’s thinking (Educating Moral People).

Although constructivism and the Socratic Method arise from different intellectual traditions, their meeting point is the conviction that learning is constructed, not delivered. When paired, they generate a classroom that is both rigorous and learner-centered.

Constructivism in Practice: Learning as a Process of Meaning-Making

Constructivist pedagogy begins with a simple premise: students bring a world with them. Prior experiences, cultural narratives, internalized scripts, emotional histories, and unspoken values become part of the classroom’s cognitive landscape. Jerome Bruner, a central figure in cognitive constructivism, argued that learning occurs when students “go beyond the information given” (The Process of Education). He believed that education should not simply prepare students for future life; it should cultivate their ability to interpret and re-interpret their world.

This orientation toward interpretation requires instructors to move from transmission to facilitation. In a transmission model, the teacher is positioned as the primary source of knowledge who delivers information for students to receive, record, and reproduce. In a facilitative model, the teacher instead designs learning experiences, poses questions, and structures interactions through which students actively construct understanding for themselves. Jerome Bruner, the American cognitive psychologist, argued that learning occurs most powerfully when students are guided to “go beyond the information given,” a process that requires thoughtful scaffolding and inquiry-based engagement (The Process of Education). Stephen Brookfield, a leading scholar in adult learning, similarly contends that facilitation encourages learners to examine their assumptions, engage in reflection, and build insight through structured dialogue (Teaching for Critical Thinking).

These theorists converge on one central claim: meaning is co-constructed. Students learn not only from lectures and readings, but from the interplay of questions, reflections, and interpretive tensions that arise during discussion.

In the college classroom, this creates a pedagogical environment that values nuance over finality. Students learn to test ideas, articulate interpretations, and reconsider or solidify earlier conclusions. The instructor becomes an architect of inquiry, designing learning experiences to provoke reflection rather than prescribing answers. Constructivism thus offers the philosophical soil in which Socratic teaching can take root.

Socratic Questioning: Inquiry as Intellectual Discipline

If constructivism provides the philosophical ground, the Socratic Method supplies the structure. Socratic pedagogy is not spontaneous conversation; it is purposeful inquiry. Christopher Phillips, founder of the modern Socrates Café movement, describes Socratic questioning as “a shared search for understanding” where each question functions as both challenge and invitation (Socrates Café). Allan Bloom characterizes this process as the cultivation of the “examined life,” where intellectual discomfort is not an obstacle but an essential component of learning (The Closing of the American Mind).

At its core, the Socratic Method rests on three types of inquiry:

Clarification questions, which refine imprecise statements.
Assumption questions, which uncover the beliefs beneath a claim.
Implication questions, which reveal the consequences of those beliefs.

Together, they encourage students to build a more precise conceptual vocabulary. This practice strengthens not only critical thinking but also metacognition, the process by which learners examine their own thinking and monitor how understanding develops. By articulating how they know what they know, students begin to understand the architecture of their own reasoning.

Stephen Brookfield notes that Socratic inquiry helps students identify “assumptions that are taken for granted and rarely examined” (Teaching for Critical Thinking). These moments of self-interrogation are often destabilizing, yet profoundly generative. The student shifts from absorbing knowledge to inhabiting it.

Within the college classroom, the Socratic Method functions as both compass and catalyst. It directs students toward deeper understanding and accelerates the cognitive processes described by constructivist theorists. It requires students to participate actively in their own intellectual development.

Where the Traditions Converge: Dialogue as Pedagogical Architecture

Constructivism and the Socratic Method converge in their shared conviction that learning emerges through intentional interaction. Both approaches resist the notion that knowledge is acquired through answers alone; instead, they emphasize the intellectual labor of forming, testing, and refining those answers. Dialogue becomes the medium through which understanding is shaped, not merely communicated.

In a constructivist–Socratic classroom, dialogue serves as an architectural framework that supports and directs cognitive growth. Questions are not interruptions to learning but the mechanisms that move it forward. They guide students from initial uncertainty toward increasingly complex interpretations, prompting them to articulate assumptions, revisit earlier conclusions, and trace the logic of their own thinking. It is in this movement that Vygotsky’s insight becomes visible: learning accelerates in the space between what a student can already do and what becomes possible through carefully guided interaction. The Zone of Proximal Development is not a chart or a formula in this setting. It is the lived moment when a question arrives at just the right level of difficulty, when a peer’s interpretation stretches a student’s own, when the instructor’s prompt nudges thought into a new configuration. As students respond to questions situated just beyond their current mastery, they test hypotheses, negotiate meaning with peers, and begin to inhabit the intellectual habits of inquiry.

Such a classroom is relational, reflective, and rigorously engaged. It honors the individuality of student experience while drawing learners into a shared pursuit of understanding. Within this environment, the instructor becomes a designer of intellectual movement and a structurer of dialogue so that students can recognize themselves as co-authors of their learning. The result is not merely the acquisition of knowledge but the cultivation of an interpretive stance that endures far beyond the course’s boundaries.

Conclusion

As these traditions come together in practice, the college classroom becomes a setting where inquiry deepens and understanding gains structure. Their shared commitment to reflection and the active construction of meaning encourages students to interpret ideas with increasing precision and to recognize the habits of thought that guide interpretation itself. Through this integrated approach, dialogue emerges as a sustained intellectual practice, inviting students into the slow, disciplined work of questioning, analyzing, and revising their thinking.

This work reaches far beyond the mastery of course content. The interpretive habits cultivated in a constructivist and Socratic classroom form the foundation for adult intellectual life. They strengthen the ability to discern patterns, evaluate competing claims, and approach complexity with patience rather than haste. In a culture shaped by constant information and rapid exchange, these habits create a practice of attentiveness. They help students recognize nuance, situate themselves within ongoing conversations, and contribute thoughtfully to the civic, professional, and relational worlds they will inhabit.

Viewed in this light, the purpose of higher education expands beyond the acquisition of knowledge. It becomes an invitation to develop a way of thinking characterized by curiosity, rigor, and a readiness to dwell in questions. When instructors adopt a pedagogy that affirms the social construction of understanding and the disciplined inquiry associated with the Socratic tradition, they help students cultivate a lifelong interpretive stance. This stance, more than any discrete skill or body of information, equips learners to encounter a complex world with insight, discernment, and intellectual courage

Tag: Critical Thinking

Free Speech and the Right to Think

Thinking in Community

Further Reading