Education · School students · Confidence
Critical thinking and problem solving for school students, practised on problems with no answer key.
A group workshop on the steps between noticing something and concluding something: what was observed against what was assumed, what the claim rests on, what else could explain it, and which options survive comparison. Groups work on real problems and then explain their reasoning to a room that questions it.
In short
Critical thinking and problem solving is a supervised group workshop GullyFuture runs in schools for Classes 5 to 12. Students practise separating observation from assumption, checking claims and sources, identifying causes, generating several options, comparing consequences and explaining their reasoning. The institution provides the student group, venue and supervision; we design the session and facilitate it.
Why this matters
Students are asked to think, and rarely shown the steps
Reasoning appears in every subject as an expectation and in no subject as a method. A session makes the steps visible enough that a student can notice which one they skipped.
What we saw and what we added arrive together
A student sees a classmate leave school early and by lunch has a reason for it. Pulling the observation apart from the addition is the first move, and it is a habit rather than a talent.
An answer is now easier to get than a question is to finish
Search results, forwarded messages and AI-generated summaries all arrive sounding certain. The skill that matters is asking who is saying this, how they would know it, and when it was true.
The nearest cause gets treated as the only cause
Marks drop, and the explanation becomes I am weak in this subject. Mapping three or four candidate causes usually produces at least one a student can actually act on.
The first idea is usually the only idea
Groups stop generating the moment something workable appears, then defend it. Requiring three options before any judgement is a small rule that changes what a group produces.
Being right counts for less than being able to show why
In vivas, projects, interviews and ordinary disagreements, the reasoning is what is examined. Students who can say because this, which means that, unless this are easier to teach and harder to mislead.
Reasoning and deciding are two different jobs
This programme works on examining a problem. Making a choice under pressure, checking who is influencing it and living with the result belong to the decision making programme, which several schools run afterwards.
What we cover
The method, one step at a time
Each step is introduced briefly and then practised on a problem. No step requires prior knowledge of a subject, and none of it is mathematics.
What critical thinking is, and what it is not
Not cleverness, not an aptitude a student either has or lacks, and not disagreeing with everything. It is a sequence of checks that a slow thinker can run as well as a quick one.
What you saw against what you concluded
Splitting a statement into the observable part and the inferred part, using short scenarios where both sound equally like fact. Students find their own inferences the harder ones to spot.
The four questions that open a problem
What do we actually know, what are we assuming, what is missing, and what would change our answer. Written up and kept visible for the rest of the session.
Checking a claim before repeating it
Who is making it, how would they know, is there a date on it, does an independent source say the same. Practised on messages and posts written for the session rather than live material.
Looking past the first cause
A simple cause map on a school-life problem, pushing past the first explanation to the ones underneath, and marking which of them anybody in the room could influence.
Producing options rather than an answer
A timed round where each group must put up three distinct options before evaluating any of them, including one deliberately unlikely option.
Comparing consequences
Who is affected, what it costs, how long it takes, and what can be undone if it goes wrong. Reversibility usually reorders a group's preferences on its own.
Explaining reasoning so somebody else can check it
Each group states its answer with the reasoning attached, and takes one checking question from another group. The question is the point of the exercise, not the verdict.
In the session
What the room looks like
Groups of four or five, a problem that has no correct answer at the back of the book, and a short explanation round where every group is questioned by another.
- A card sort separating observations from assumptions in statements that all sound factual.
- A short problem with information deliberately missing; groups list what they would need to know before answering.
- A claim-checking round on messages and posts written for the session, examined against four questions.
- A cause map on a school-life problem, drawn on chart paper by the group.
- A timed problem challenge with a constraint — a budget, a deadline, or a rule that cannot be broken.
- An explanation round where each group presents its reasoning and answers one checking question.
- A reflection sheet applying one step of the method to something from the student's own week.
- Where the school wants it, the challenge is replaced by a real project the class is already working on.
By age
Same steps, different problems
The sequence does not change by age. What changes is how concrete the problem is and how much of the reasoning is spoken rather than written.
Classes 5 to 7
Puzzle-shaped problems with visible parts: a missing item, a plan for a class event, a rule that produces an unfair result. Observation against assumption is taught through a picture and the stories the class invents about it.
Classes 8 to 10
Claim-checking takes centre stage, using forwarded messages, viral posts and confident-sounding summaries composed for the session. Cause mapping is applied to an academic or group-work problem the class recognises.
Classes 11 to 12
Problems with competing priorities and incomplete data, closer to project work and entrance-level reasoning. More weight on written reasoning, on the difference between correlation and cause, and on defending a conclusion under questioning.
What students leave with
Modest, and all of it observable
The session produces work in the room. It does not produce a measured improvement in reasoning, and we make no such claim.
- Students separate observation from assumption in at least one worked example and one of their own statements.
- Students produce three distinct options for a problem before evaluating any of them.
- Students name two questions they can put to a claim before forwarding or acting on it.
- Students explain a group's reasoning aloud and answer one checking question from another group.
- Students apply one step of the method to a situation from their own week on the reflection sheet.
- The school receives attendance, the topics covered, and the problem sets used, which teachers can reuse.
Formats
Ways this can run at your institution
Pick what fits the group, the hall and the time you can give it. Most schools start with one session and decide afterwards.
Interactive workshop
Classroom-sized. Scenarios, discussion, reflection, and an action worksheet the student keeps.
Short programme series
Two or more connected sessions, with something to practise in between and a closing reflection.
Teacher orientation
For staff: facilitation, what to watch for, how to follow up, and where the referral boundary sits.
What the school provides
This session needs group tables and something to write on more than it needs technology.
Start a conversation- A class-sized group that can be divided into fours or fives, ideally mixed rather than streamed by marks.
- A room where groups can sit facing each other and talk without carrying across the whole class.
- Chart paper and markers, or a board each group can use for the cause map.
- A designated staff coordinator, and teacher supervision throughout.
- Ninety minutes where possible; the explanation round is the first casualty of a shorter slot.
- Optionally, a real problem or class project the school is happy for groups to work on.
- The school's own escalation route for anything a discussion brings to the surface.
Safeguarding
How sessions with students are kept safe
Analysing a problem in a classroom means choosing whose problem it is. That choice carries the risk here.
- Programmes are arranged through the institution and run in approved group settings, supervised throughout by a school-designated adult.
- No unsupervised one-to-one mentoring of a student, and no private messaging or personal contact between a contributor and a student.
- Contributors are screened and briefed for the role they are given, and may not use a session to sell or promote anything.
- We collect only the information a programme needs, and seek institutional and parent or guardian consent where it is required.
- A student's photograph, quote or story is used only with specific permission obtained beforehand.
- Anything touching safety, abuse, severe distress or self-harm follows the institution's own escalation and professional-referral process.
- Problems are supplied by us or agreed with the school beforehand. A real dispute, a named student's situation or a named member of staff is never used as the problem to be analysed.
- Claim-checking uses material written for the session. We do not ask students to bring in messages from their own phones or family groups.
- Reasoning is attributed to the group rather than the individual, so that being wrong in the explanation round does not attach to one student.
- Nothing in the session is scored. Students are not ranked by reasoning ability, and we report no individual performance to the school.
- Contested political, religious and community matters are kept out of the examples. The method is practised on neutral, school-relevant problems.
- If a discussion approaches a student's own online experience or a safety concern, the facilitator keeps the conversation general and passes the concern to your designated staff member.
Privacy, consent and child-data wording on this site is being reviewed against current Indian law before any student information is collected. See our privacy notice for what we hold and why.
Questions
Questions schools ask us
Is this an aptitude or reasoning test class?
No. Nothing in the session is scored or timed against a standard, and we do not rank students. It is a practice workshop: students run the same sequence of checks on a series of problems and explain their reasoning to each other. Schools preparing students for a specific aptitude examination need subject coaching, which GullyFuture does not provide.
Does it require strong mathematics?
No. The problems are verbal and situational — a plan with missing information, a claim of uncertain origin, a school-life situation with several possible causes. Students who find mathematics difficult often do well here, and that is worth saying to a class before starting, because many assume reasoning means numbers.
How are the activities adapted for younger classes?
The sequence of steps stays the same at every stage. For Classes 5 to 7 the problems are concrete and puzzle-shaped, with more drawing and talking than writing. For Classes 8 to 10 claim-checking becomes the centre. For Classes 11 and 12 problems carry competing priorities and reasoning is defended under questioning.
Can it support project-based learning the school already runs?
Yes. Tell the coordinator beforehand and the group challenge is replaced by a project the class is actually working on, so the method is applied to their own material. Teachers often find the cause map and the option-generation rule the easiest parts to carry into later project sessions themselves.
How is participation assessed?
It is not. We do not assess, grade or report on individual students, and there is no test at either end of the session. The school receives attendance, the topics covered and the problem sets used. Where feedback is collected from students, it is anonymous or consented, and reported in aggregate.
How does this differ from the decision making programme?
This one works on examining a problem: evidence, assumptions, causes and options. The decision making programme starts where a choice has to be made — weighing consequences, noticing who is influencing you, and knowing which decisions are hard to reverse. Schools often run critical thinking first, but either works on its own.
Related programmes
What schools usually look at next
About GullyFuture
GullyFuture is an initiative of Gully Future Foundation, Bengaluru. We design practical, age-appropriate group programmes and bring suitable educators, professionals and mentors to institutions that invite us. The institution provides the student group, the venue, supervision and the local context; we shape the programme and find the right people to run it.
We are not a tuition centre, a counselling or therapy service, a diagnostic service, a course marketplace, or a motivational-speaking business. We provide educational guidance and programme facilitation — not tuition, therapy, diagnosis, crisis care or guaranteed career counselling.
More about Gully Future FoundationPage review
Last reviewed . Guidance pages are re-read as programmes run and as rules change.
Bring this initiative to your institution
Tell us the class group, whether you would like us to use a project the class is already working on, and how long a slot you can give. We will come back with a format, a problem set and a suggested facilitator.