Author: Elizabeth

This article first appeared in the Teaching Professor on December 17, 2018. © Magna Publications. All rights reserved.

First snowflakes of the season today. Winter is settling in out here in the Pennsylvania countryside. It’s quiet, no birdsongs in the morning, few leaves left on the trees to rustle, and frost muting the crunch of those on the ground. In the woods where I walk, the silence brings everything else into sharper focus.

We don’t always think about silence positively. Visitors sometimes tell us it’s too quiet out here. They feel anxious. Silence can be awkward—we’ve all had those moments of not knowing what to say. It can also feel like an affront. Ask a question in class, hear the silence, and feel a small surge of anger. It’s a confrontation. It’s students’ way of saying that they don’t want to sit at this learning table we’ve so carefully set.

Here, a relatively simple approach to teaching and checking for student criticality is explained, where conceptual, alongside applied learning, is pervasive. It revolves around a two-directional spotlight approach of scrutinizing practice in the light of theory and scrutinizing theory in the light of experience.

The ability to critically analyze and evaluate is essential for student progression through degree courses. It is a key element in the higher levels of cognitive taxonomy and is reflected as such for sector quality (e,g. in the UK’s Framework for Higher Education Qualifications, QAA, 2014) and for specific course design (e.g. in the language of learning outcomes for the later stage modules of programs). It is also depicted as a crucial graduate attribute both in terms of being effective citizens in democracy and being effective employees and leaders in modern organizations (Garcia, 2009), especially in the context of corporate social responsibility. Having said this, there