Teresa Connolly argues that a profound understanding of key chemistry concepts and processes is as fundamental to scientific literacy as mastering complex procedures and skills, such as performing experiments, interpreting data or communicating one’s findings using specific text types. However, she points out that such an understanding of chemical concepts is inhibited not only by learners’ poor command of academic language but also by the fact that chemical processes can be observed at different levels of abstraction. This poses a specific challenge in chemistry because learners often report having difficulties distinguishing clearly between processes at the sub-microscopic, the microscopic and the macroscopic level, which will lead to misconceptions and prevent deeper understanding. To address that issue, Connolly’s deeper learning episode on redox reactions offers engaging ways of promoting scientific reasoning through a series of student-led experiments and inquiry. Systematic guidance in academic language use will enable learners to express their findings and observations precisely and adequately and thus help them distinguish the processes occurring at various levels of abstraction with increasing ease and confidence.

This chapter looks beyond basic conceptions and practical implementations of undergraduate research by clarifying its nexus with psychological approaches, research-related dispositions playing a role in inquiry-based learning, as well as theoretical frameworks of competence and professional development. Further, the chapter systematically reflects contemporary studies on undergraduate research with a focus on psychological constructs. Methods for accessing and measuring features of undergraduate research and various effects attributed to doing undergraduate research are discussed. On this basis, a theoretical framework of undergraduate research is introduced. The chapter concludes with open questions concerning the theoretical foundation of undergraduate research from the psychological viewpoint, and with proposals for future research.

Hypothetical thinking involves imagining possibilities and mentally exploring their consequences. This chapter overviews a contemporary, integrative account of such thinking in the form of Jonathan Evans’s hypothetical thinking theory. This default-interventionist, dual–process theory operates according to three principles: relevance, singularity, and satisficing. To illustrate the explanatory strength of the theory a range of empirical evidence is considered that has arisen from extensive research on hypothesis testing, which involves individuals generating and evaluating hypotheses as they attempt to derive a more general understanding of information. The chapter shows how key findings from hypothesis-testing research undertaken in both laboratory and real-world studies (e.g. in domains such as scientific reasoning) are readily explained by the principles embedded in hypothetical thinking theory. The chapter additionally points to important new directions for future research on hypothetical thinking, including the need for: (1) further studies of real-world hypothesis testing in collaborative contexts, including ones outside of the domain of scientific reasoning; (2) increased neuroscientific analysis of the brain systems underpinning hypothetical thinking so as to inform theoretical developments; and (3) systematic individual-differences investigations to explore the likely association between people’s capacity to think creatively and their ability to engage in effective hypothetical thinking.

This chapter describes a growing body of work that demonstrates the efficacy of specific questions (“why” “why else?” and “what if?”) in supporting children’s ability to access their intuitive reasoning skills and apply them to tasks involving sophisticated causal and scientific thinking. We describe distinct mechanisms by which each of these questions results in unique types of inferences, and argue that each one has selective effects on a learner’s inferences, depending upon the evidence available, the state of their prior knowledge, and the relation of that prior knowledge to the true state of the world. We begin with a brief review of the well-established research on the efficacy of prompts for explanation, focusing on the developmental literature. We then offer a novel proposal, drawing on the adult research, that engaging children in the evaluation of alternative outcomes via prompting for multiple explanations or engagement with counterfactuals may provide a different avenue for fostering distinct sets of causal reasoning skills. Finally, we turn to a discussion of the relation between the content and process of children’s reasoning in response to these questions, and end with some suggestions for future research.

We define critical thinking in several different ways that converge on the same basic idea. It is a combination of skills, attitude, and knowledge. To think critically about any topic, one needs a deep knowledge of the topic and the propensity to apply the appropriate thinking skills. These skills can be taught (and learned) in ways that transfer to different topics, but it is not easy or automatic. Instructors need to teach for transfer deliberately. Personality traits such as a concern for truth, being analytic, and being open to new ideas are some of the traits of critical thinkers. Creativity has been defined as creating something that is unusual and useful. It is a special case of critical thinking. The rules for scientific reasoning, avoiding bias, resisting persuasion, and so on are universal, thus we conclude that although culture is always important, the skills for critical thinking are the same everywhere.