Critical Exploration

Critical exploration explained

In critical explorations, students undertake focused inquiries collaboratively: generally, some form of material proving ground against which students can formulate and evaluate their own ideas is provided. The teacher’s role primarily involves querying students’ perceptions, assumptions, and lines of reasoning to uncover their internal coherence and to place them into an ever more sensitive relationship with the thoughts of other students and with the realities provided by the proving ground.

This triangular relation between proving ground, teacher, and students creates a generative intellectual dynamic that offers the teacher a window into what students are finding of interest and the ways in which different students may be making sense of a particular object or challenge.

In addition to providing teachers with a means of attending to their students’ thinking, critical explorations provide students with reliable grounds on the basis of which they can initiate collaborative investigations and evaluate each other’s ideas and claims. In effect, the concretized challenge establishes an experiential context within which shared, evidence-based understandings can be co-constructed by all members of the classroom.

Rather than evaluating students’ ideas, a teacher fosters students’ intellectual engagement with the challenge in accordance with the terms of a specific academic discourse, such as literary analysis or scientific investigation (or some mix of such discourses). Students consider each other’s thinking in relation to their own thoughts and to their ongoing observations and explorations of the proving ground.

The complex negotiations and ongoing return to a shared proving ground reveal both the interpretive diversity represented within any classroom and the need for shared standards and methods if collaborative understandings are to emerge.

The implications of learning research

As many educators now realize, contemporary learning research has demonstrated that people learn by building webs of associations that lead to the construction of organizing conceptual frames. Not only developmental, but also individual and cultural forces all help to shape each person’s existing conceptual frames. These various interwoven influences can distance any child’s thinking from a teacher’s understandings in many ways.

These established understandings about learning have yet to be translated for the purposes of  widespread school reform. Critical exploration offers one valuable tool in this regard. As a teaching approach, critical exploration supports a move toward students’ greater intellectual involvement by nurturing a less teacher-centric discourse dynamic. Although the teacher retains a focal role–tracking students’ ideas and providing additional challenges and materials–students are asked to formulate, investigate, and evaluate their different ideas and theories themselves.

It is in balancing an attention to people’s diverse ways of seeing the world with an insistence on shared means and purposes that critical exploration distinguishes itself as a curricular form particularly suited to the purposes of a pluralistic democracy. For if diverse peoples are to establish common ground between them, they must learn to reference human experience in ways that can be broadly appreciated and to articulate the assumptions and reasoning upon which their claims and commitments rest.

Critical Explorers

A non-profit, Critical Explorers, works with school teachers and students, primarily in the greater Boston area to develop academic investigations and offers teacher workshops. Those interested in further information can contact Alythea McKinney at

Read more:

Duckworth, E. (2005).  Critical Exploration in the Classroom.  The New Educator, 1(4), 257-272

Duckworth, E., (2006). “The Having of Wonderful Ideas” and Other Essays on Teaching and Learning. New York: Teachers College Press (third edition).

Mayer, S.J.,(2005). The Early Evolution of Jean Piaget’s Clinical Method. History of Psychology, 8(4), 362-382.