Critical thinking is taught as a skill for identifying bias, verifying claims and evaluating evidence. But students do not just evaluate information; they experience it through systems that decide what information appears and, as such, whose voices are amplified. Failing to take this into account risks producing graduates who can critique sources but cannot recognise when systems themselves are shaping what counts as credible.
Imagine that, 15 minutes before class, a law student suddenly remembers she has forgotten to prepare for an activity and quickly searches for a case update on her phone. Within seconds, the search engine provides three answers: two explainer videos and one “hot take”. In the process, she does not acknowledge that what she sees is based on a prediction of what will keep her engaged.
She isn’t necessarily thinking that on platforms such as TikTok, Instagram, YouTube, Google or ChatGPT, the information a user encounters first is not always the most accurate or trustworthy; it is often what the platform has chosen to make most visible to the user. In such contexts, critical thinking means moving beyond fact-checking. It requires asking why certain information appears first, who or what determined its visibility and which perspectives might have been excluded from view.
The Critical Thinking Studio (CTS) reframes critical thinking as a simple, three-stage daily habit that interrogates both sources and the systems that surface them.
It is designed for any instructor or academic librarian, and can be embedded into existing modules or delivered as a stand-alone workshop series in partnership with academic librarians. It runs for two to three weeks and provides students with routines they can use every time they search, scroll or cite.
During the studio, librarians can introduce reading techniques, demonstrate how to compare search results across databases and help students identify trustworthy sources.
- Spotlight guide: Critical thinking in teaching and research
- Teaching students to think for themselves is not enough
- How to embed critical thinking from course design to assessment
How to turn critical thinking into a daily habit
Start by asking students to keep a five-day algorithm diary. Each day, they should record one search or scrolling experience, noting what appeared first and what content the platform encouraged them to view next. This activity takes approximately five minutes per day. Use simple prompts to help students identify patterns in what is prioritised, recommended or hidden during a 30-minute classroom debrief.
A common pitfall is that students assume the first search result is the most reliable, so encourage them to compare at least two alternative sources before drawing conclusions.
A follow-up session with library staff can introduce lateral reading – a fact-checking technique in which readers leave a webpage to verify information across multiple independent sources – and quick cross-checking techniques that help students move beyond the first page of results. This practice encourages students to notice the system before accepting the content.
Next, ask students to select a current claim or assertion and track how it appears across different platforms. Organise students into groups of three to five so that each member can investigate a different platform or source. Ask them to identify who produced the claim, how platform features influenced its visibility and whose perspectives are present or absent.
To facilitate discussion, encourage groups to compare their findings and consider why the claim appeared differently across platforms. A brief role play comparing editorial decisions with algorithmic recommendations can help make these differences more tangible.
Finally, invite students to create a practical routine that another learner could use the next day. This might include opening a second tab to compare sources, creating a simple one-page guide showing which sources can be trusted for different types of information or using a short checklist to identify signals such as sponsored results, recommendation labels or content ranked because it is popular rather than reliable. The most effective routines can be shared across courses as reusable study resources.
Why this method works
The CTS reinforces quick source-checking, strong reading habits, and practical ways of identifying how digital platforms shape visibility. A gender‑inclusive approach encourages students to examine whose perspectives are most visible when they search for information. For example, students might compare whether female experts, Global South scholars or marginalised communities appear as prominently in search results, AI-generated responses or news recommendations as established institutional voices.
It helps students recognise how platform design can reproduce existing inequalities while encouraging them to seek out perspectives that might otherwise be overlooked.
Assessment that rewards thinking
At the end of the studio, students complete a short, written brief that explains how a chosen platform influenced what counted as credible and what their gender‑inclusive analysis revealed. This can help students develop useful meta skills and habits that transfer beyond the classroom and into professional life. The assessment values clarity, sound reasoning and repeatability over polished performance.
Practical Footprint and Scalability
The CTS is not discipline-specific. It can be adapted across law, social sciences and professional programmes where students must evaluate complex, fast-moving information environments.
This matters beyond assessment or classroom performance. Graduates increasingly encounter algorithmically curated information in professional, civic and legal contexts where decisions rely on rapidly assembled knowledge. Without system-aware habits, even highly trained students risk reproducing the biases and omissions embedded within digital platforms. Embedding this awareness early helps prepare students to consume knowledge critically and participate more responsibly in its production and circulation.
Temi Odusanya is lecturer in law and LLM programme lead at Robert Gordon University.
If you would like advice and insight from academics and university staff delivered direct to your inbox each week, sign up for the Campus newsletter.
comment