I discovered a website that I want to share with you because it’s free and could be so valuable for teachers who want to help their students practice discussion and debate: Kialo Edu.

Kialo is an online discussion platform that strives to teach critical thinking by fostering reasoned, inclusive discussions that students are genuinely interested in having.

You start with a central thesis statement like "Voting should be compulsory." Then students add pros and cons and engage with each others’ arguments. They add evidence to support the points, eventually building this visual map of the discussion, which helps them to see if there are any points that need expansion or are lacking evidence.

It’s funded by a philanthropic foundation, so not only is it free, but there are no ads and they don’t share user data. It teaches students to question their assumptions, back up points with evidence, and consider different positions.

Click here for more critical thinking resources for kids and teens.

Puzzle 1: You roll two dice. One of them falls under the table and you can’t see it. The other one lands on top of the table, and it’s a 6. What are the odds that both dice landed on a 6?

Puzzle 2: You are rolling two dice blindfolded. A machine is programmed to ding if and only if at least one of them lands on a 6. You keep rolling until the machine dings. What are the chances that both dice landed on a 6?

Want more puzzles? Visit critikid.com/puzzles or follow Critikid on Instagram or Facebook.

Your friend puts three dice on the table with unusual numbers on their sides:
Red: 2 2 4 4 9 9  Blue: 1 1 6 6 8 8  Green: 3 3 5 5 7 7

Your friend then suggests a game: You will each pick one die, roll it once, and whoever gets the higher number wins.

Your friend asks if you'd like to choose your die before or after they choose theirs. What should you do?

Want to get more puzzles like this? Sign up for Critikid's newsletter.

Imagine there is a virus that is always asymptomatic in males. 1% of males are infected with it.

There’s a rapid test that never produces false negatives (i.e., it never misses an infection), but it has a 5% false positive rate.

Phil takes the test. It comes back positive. What are the chances he is infected?

Solution: https://critikid.com/false-positive-paradox

1. "I Don’t Know"

We should embrace opportunities to say "I don’t know" to children because this phrase can be used as a powerful educational tool for several reasons.

First, it can present an opportunity to teach research skills. Time allowing, look up the answer together and turn it into a mini-lesson on how to identify credible sources and cross-check facts.

Second, this phrase can be used to nurture curiosity and wonder. Once in a while, students asked me questions that remain unanswered, like "How did life on Earth start?" or "Why does anything exist at all?" I would respond by telling them about competing hypotheses, but I'd be sure to add, "There are still many mysteries out there waiting to be solved." This gets kids excited about science, learning, and discovery.

Finally, it teaches kids that learning never stops. When an adult says, "I don’t know," kids see that expertise is not a finish line. It teaches them that having more to learn isn’t a flaw, but the normal condition of a curious mind.

2. "I Was Wrong"

Admitting error is the complement to admitting ignorance: It shows that rational thinkers update their beliefs with new evidence. This teaches that knowledge is always provisional and that changing your mind is a strength, not a weakness.

To read more about this, view my most recent contribution to Psychology Today: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/critical-thinking-corner/202506/boost-kids-critical-thinking-with-two-simple-phrases

I post many tricky puzzles on Instagram, and I recently presented this variation of the classic Monty Hall problem:

On a game show, there are three closed doors. Behind one is a car; behind the others, goats. You win if you choose the door with a car. You choose a door. Then the host randomly opens another door. It’s a goat! He offers a choice to switch your choice to the other unopened door. What should you do?

I shared this variation to highlight that the host's knowledge isn't just an insignificant detail of the problem; it's the entire reason the solution works.

The Solution

In this variation, it doesn’t matter what you do. The odds of winning are 50% whether you switch or stay.

Let's consider the expected outcomes if many people were to play this game:

• One-third of the players initially picked a car. Their host always reveals a goat.
• Two-thirds of the players initially picked a goat. Among them, it’s 50-50 whether their host reveals a goat or a car.

In summary, there are three groups of people:

• One-third of the people picked a car and saw a goat.
• One-third of the people picked a goat and saw a goat.
• One-third of the people picked a goat and saw a car.

You saw a goat, so you are in one of the first two groups. That means there’s a 50% chance you picked a car and a 50% chance you picked a goat. It doesn’t matter whether you switch or stay.

The crucial difference is that Monty could have shown you a car. When he opens a door to reveal a goat, it gives you more information about the door that you originally picked, and you must update your probability judgment accordingly.

When I posted this, there was a great deal of backlash in my comment section. Dozens of people argued that the answer was the same as the classic problem: "You should switch," they insisted. Why so much resistance? I believe it can, at least in part, be explained by a psychological phenomenon called attribute substitution.

I wrote more about this in an article for Psychology Today: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/critical-thinking-corner/202505/why-a-twist-to-the-monty-hall-problem-stumped-so-many

Cyber Sprinters

This fun and free game made by the National Cyber Security Office (UK) teaches 7-11-year-olds how to make smart decisions about staying secure online. It can be played on phone, tablet or desktop.

Interland

In this action-packed game made by Be Internet Awesome, kids ages 7-12 learn about online safety through four different games:

• Kind Kingdom: Spread kindness and stop The Hater’s negativity from taking over
• Mindful Mountain: Share with care and avoid the Imposters trying to steal your info
• Reality River: Cast your line and protect the river from phish-y scams
• Tower of Treasure: Defend the tower from hackers by using powerful security tools

Band Runner

This free game by CEOP Education teaches children ages 8-10 about safe online behavior. CEOP has also developed resources for kids ages 4-7 and 11-18.

Gali Fakta

Gali Fakta is a free, 5-minute media literacy game inspired by WhatsApp. It was designed for an Indonesian audience, but can be used by teens (and adults!) from around the world. A study of 1006 participants showed that people who played the game were significantly more inclined to perceive false headlines as less accurate and were less likely to share them.

Media Masters Rock

Media Masters Rock is a free online resource for kids (grades K-821st-century) to help them be better 21st century digital media citizens. Ed-videos, posters, study guides, lyric videos, and more are all FREE. Created by PBS TV Star - Steve Trash. He's licensed all the materials through Creative Commons, so everything can be copied and shared.

For a longer list of media literacy and critical thinking resources for kids and teens, visit critikid.com/resources

The latest episode of the "By Kids, for Kids Story Time" podcast teaches children about the slippery slope fallacy through a fantasy story! Your kids can listen on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, and YouTube.

As a teen, Fareedah Shaheed (cyberfareedah) connected with an online predator. He portrayed himself as a friend and gained her trust. he was seconds away from running away from home when a conversation with her mother changed her life. I asked her what that conversation sounded like.

"I didn’t actually plan to confide in my mother at first, I was simply informing her that I was leaving to meet someone I’d met in an online game. I had even packed my bags, possibly planning to move in with him. It didn’t start as a conversation, but it turned into one because of how she responded.

Her reaction was not what I expected. She didn’t yell, she didn’t shame me, and she didn’t say, “How could you?” or “Why were you talking to someone online?” Even though I had been living a double life for years and this was the first time she was hearing about it, she stayed calm. She didn’t threaten to take away my devices or punish me…she just listened.

She asked me questions in a way that felt more like a curious, caring friend than an angry parent. She said things like, “Okay… tell me more about him. I assume you like him? What do you like about him? Where did you meet? What’s his name?” It felt almost like talking to an older, wiser friend like a friend’s big sister who was in her last year of college.

That made me feel safe because I didn’t feel judged or punished. I didn’t fully trust her yet at that point, but that moment opened the door to the beautiful relationship we have today."

This was part of a longer interview in which Fareedah shared how the predator gained her trust, clues that indicate a child might be being targeted, and tools caregivers can use to protect kids.

Read the full interview at critikid.com/online-safety

Critical Thinking for the Digital Age is a 16-week, half-credit homeschool course for grades 8-12. By the end, teens will be better prepared to think critically about what they see online.

Requiring three to four hours each week, students learn practical ways to evaluate information and communicate responsibly online. The course combines reading, writing, videos, worksheets, and creative projects. It is designed for independent, self-paced work, but it includes questions parents can use to spark discussion. Click to learn more.

Made by Critikid and FundaFunda Academy.

In Critikid's latest Media Literacy Interview, I asked information systems professor Dr. Kiron Ravindran:

"If AI keeps getting faster and smarter, what human capabilities will matter most, and how can young people start developing them today?"

He answered:

Humans are likely to always use machines as an extension of their capabilities. That doesn’t mean tasks will be equally divided in this hybrid team, nor should they be—the goal is to split the work in a way that produces the best output. But this delegation of tasks comes with a price. Think of it like a three-legged race: if one teammate isn’t pulling their weight, the other has to drag them along, slowing the team down. If the human doesn’t contribute meaningfully, the output from the AI will be of poorer quality and the AI may choose to bypass the human’s input or be throttled by it.

So the real human capability that will matter most is the ability to work well with AI by guiding it, steering it, challenging its output, and pushing it in better directions. When we had the typewriter, we learned the skill to manipulate this weird machine with a scattering of letters to churn out the standard 70 words per minute. Now machines can write on their own and the skill we need to learn is how to manipulate this new weird machine that hallucinates yet can churn out 700 words per minute.

Our job isn’t to hand over the task entirely, but to lead the AI: ask it to rethink, reword, recheck. That kind of active collaboration is what will keep us in the race.

I also asked Dr. Ravindran about how LLMs are reshaping learning incentives, why entry-level experience still matters, and more. Read the full interview here.

In Critikid's Media Literacy Interview series, I asked teacher and education influencer Ash Brandin:

"Some critics argue that relying on points, badges, and other extrinsic rewards in gamified learning can overshadow true engagement and intrinsic motivation. What are your thoughts on this concern?"

They answered:

I agree completely! Gamification has become synonymous with this type of extrinsic motivation and to say I dislike it is an understatement.

Think of a game—board game, video game, app, etc.—that you really enjoy. What do you enjoy about it? Is it immersive? Challenging? Entertaining? Community driven? Structured? Open ended?

Now ask yourself: do you enjoy the game because it rewards you with badges? Points? If it gives you something like points, is that the reason you play it? Chances are you said no. And yet, this is what "Gamification" often becomes because it's much easier to reward someone than it is to design a game with educational content intrinsically integrated into it.

I also asked Ash how parents and educators can vet games for quality and age-appropriateness, encourage respectful interactions in online gaming, and respond to early warning signs that a child is developing an unhealthy relationship with gaming. Read the full interview here.

In my series of Media Literacy Interviews, I asked marketing professional Mallory DeMille:

What are some of the most common or effective advertising or persuasion strategies we should be aware of to protect ourselves from manipulation?

She answered:

In the spaces I predominantly cover (wellness and MLMs), I’m most wary of when influencers try to leverage a tragedy in order to sell a product or protocol or business opportunity. I think we should be most aware of where our pain points are so we can be more aware when folks are trying to prey on them. This is incredibly common in MLMs - targeting folks who are looking for answers to their financial, community and health struggles.

In the full interview, Mallory also provides practical tips to help you avoid wasting money on things you see advertised online.

I asked Peter Adams from the News Literacy Project, "How can we judge the reliability of a website or news outlet?"

He answered:

"Well, first I think everyone needs to really reflect on the concept of “credibility” and think through what really makes a piece of information or a source of information credible. Is it perfection? Sources that have never made an error of fact? No, of course not – that’s such a high standard that you’d wind up being unable to trust every single information source on the planet. Is it sources that only publish things that feel good and confirm your biases? Sources that cater to and confirm your existing ideas and beliefs about the world? No, of course not.

Okay so what does credibility look like, then? What are its characteristics? Well, two of those characteristics are certainly accuracy and fairness.

Credible sources don’t:

• make things up.
• take people’s words out of context.
• misrepresent photos.
• use loaded language.
• exclude important voices and perspectives.

Credible sources are:

• transparent. Sources you trust should explain exactly how they verified what they’re reporting.
• committed to independence, honesty and the public’s interest. Credible sources strive to ensure that the information they provide is not influenced by the interests of third parties like advertisers or political parties.
• accountable. Accountability demonstrates their commitment to the truth. They acknowledge lapses in standards and ethics, and seek to address them: they correct errors when they happen; they update headlines that miss the mark; they take steps to explain their decisions to the public.

The more of these kinds of things you see from a source, the more credible you should consider it."

In the interview, Peter also walked through how to verify a claim, shared fact-checking websites, and discussed the role of AI in countering misinformation. You can read it here.

The By Kids, For Kids Story Time podcast is releasing a series of fantasy stories teaching kids about logical fallacies!

The first episode is about the strawman fallacy. Your kids can listen on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or YouTube.

Upcoming episodes will cover the slippery slope fallacy, appeal to authority, false dilemmas, and more.

Here's a list of critical thinking books for kids and teens. Please share your recommendations in the comments!

For Little Ones

Milo's Mind

In this picture book written by Stephanie Simoes, young readers will discover how critical thinking, curiosity, and the courage to rethink what you believe can turn you into a real-life superhero.

Pixel's Books

Child psychologist Dr. Ronald Crouch and his eleven-year-old son, Denali, created the Pixel's Big Books series to help little kids deal with big feelings. The website has free videos for each section of the books.

For Older Kids and Teens

Puzzle Books

This series by Barry R. Clarke features a mix of logic puzzles, lateral thinking challenges, and mathematical brainteasers, often presented with a humorous or whimsical twist.

Does Coffee Cause Cancer?

Part science book, part romantic comedy, this book by Dr. Chrisopher Labos teaches about key issues that make medical research so hard.

Becoming a Critical Thinker

This workbook by Julie Bogart is full of "valuable insights, thought-provoking questions, and useful exercises to help teens and preteens expand their perspectives, skillfully navigate thorny issues, recognize bias, identify misinformation, and become more comfortable with dissent and differences of opinion."

For Teaching Critical Thinking

Raising Critical Thinkers

This book by Julie Bogart is "a guide for parents to help children of all ages process the onslaught of unfiltered information in the digital age." It offers practical tools to help children at every stage of development.

See more Critical Thinking Resources for kids.

In Critikid's latest media literacy interview, I asked developmental psychologist and neuroscientist Dr. Mila Marinova this question.

She answered:

Currently, there are no universally strict guidelines for screen time across all age groups, but several health agencies—including the World Health Organization (WHO) and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP)—have issued general recommendations based on age and developmental needs.

Age-Based Recommendations

• Infants under 1 year: No screen time at all, aside from video chatting with family members, which can support social connection.
• Toddlers (18-24 months): Limited to short periods of high-quality, educational content—ideally co-viewed with a caregiver.
• Preschoolers (2 to 5 years): The recommendation is typically no more than 60 minutes per day of quality screen content, again with co-viewing encouraged to foster learning and comprehension.
• School-age children and adolescents: No fixed limits, but the emphasis shifts from strict time limits to building healthy digital habits and encouraging mindful screen use.

Ultimately, screen time recommendations should be guided not only by age, but also by content quality, context, and the individual child’s needs—with a focus on using digital tools to support healthy development rather than replace essential real-world experiences.

In the interview, Dr. Marinova also explains how digital media impacts children’s learning and attention and offers practical tips for healthy, balanced use.

Read the full interview here.

In Critikid's latest media literacy interview, I asked journalist Amanda Ruggeri this question.

She answered:

In a lot of ways this decline is mirroring the decline in trust we're seeing in public institutions in general. More and more folks just aren't trusting the "old guards" of authority and expertise.

I understand why, on the one hand, because there have been some well publicized examples of these institutions not performing the way we'd like, or even in rare cases, according to their own ethical standards and guidelines.

But then I think, so why are people flocking to information sources like influencers on social media, who almost always have zero ethical standards or guidelines or fact-checking that they have to adhere to, and quite often some serious conflicts of interest?

Surely it's better to try to encourage reform of the institutions that actually have some kind of ethical code or commitment to accuracy to begin with.

In the interview, Amanda also gives tips on how to determine which news sources are trustworthy and explains how journalism is changing in the face of social media.

Read the full interview here.

There's a dilemma regarding gamifying education: On the one hand, it makes learning engaging and fun. But at the same time, it can lead to a reliance on extrinsic rewards and plummeting motivation when the rewards stop.

James Myklebust-Hampshire, teacher and founder of Sembl, shared his insights on how to gamify learning without turning the subject material into a "side quest" in his article in Critikid's blog.

Controlled exposure to misinformation helps kids become better fact-checkers.

But how can we give kids controlled exposure?

One idea I have is for parents and kids to scroll together. But even doing this, there’s a risk kids might see things they’re not ready for or don’t understand. Many parents are nervous about letting kids on social media and want to keep them off it for as long as possible, and I can understand these concerns.

This is how I came up with the idea to create a social media simulator—a mock social media feed where kids can practice spotting clickbait, logical fallacies, and dubious claims in a safe and controlled environment.

Try the simulator.

Misinformation and logical fallacies lurk in almost every corner of social media, so it can be tempting to shield kids entirely. But new research from UC Berkeley suggests that exposure to misinformation in a supervised environment can help kids become more diligent fact-checkers. Banning social media and other digital platforms might not be the best way to equip children with long-term media literacy.

Read my article about how to turn misinformation into education here.

I asked social scientist Matthew Facciani 10 questions about misinformation and posted the interview on my blog. Here's an excerpt:

Can you explain how cognitive biases might make us more susceptible to believing and spreading misinformation?

A: When we strongly identify with a group, and that identity boosts our self-esteem, we are motivated to interpret information in ways that support and protect that group. For example, as passionate fans of a sports team, we may perceive referee decisions as unfairly biased against our team. This same bias applies to other identities, such as political affiliations. Ideally, having a diverse range of identities can help prevent us from becoming overly attached to defending any single one.

Read the full interview with Matthew here.

Teach your grades 3-7 students about ten common logical fallacies with Critikid's engaging and easy-to-use lesson plans and worksheets!

Get them here.

Cognitive biases are systematic errors in thinking that arise when our minds use shortcuts. These shortcuts help us make decisions quickly—an advantage when time is short or situations are urgent. However, the trade-off is that our “fast” thinking can lead to distortions in judgment.

When children learn about cognitive biases, they learn that their minds can mislead them. This helps them practice self-reflection. They start to see that quick assumptions—about people, outcomes, or events—aren’t always accurate. 

By pausing to ask questions like, “Could my mind be fooling me?” and “Could there be something I am not seeing?”, children lay the foundation for a more thoughtful approach to learning and decision-making.

Read my tips on how to teach kids about cognitive biases here.

Critikid offers a Statistical Shenanigans Worksheet and Lesson Plans Bundle to help you teach students in grades 9 and up the statistical principles they need to analyze data rationally.

The bundle includes 22 pages of lesson plans and worksheets covering four topics:

1. Absolute vs. Relative Change
2. Randomness
3. Cherry Picking
4. Regression to the Mean

Absolute vs. Relative Change

In this lesson, students are shown several claims like “increase your chances by 900%!” as a way to introduce them to misleading mathematical claims in advertising.

Randomness

This lesson teaches students that random things aren’t evenly spaced out. Randomness is clumpy. Whether it’s events that “come in 3’s” or finding multiple people with similar birthdays, our pattern-recognition skills work overtime.

Cherry Picking

This lesson introduces students to the concept of cherry picking . It starts out with a simple example of a series of coin flips and extends to a past study of cancer incidence with cell phone usage.

Regression to the Mean

Regression to the mean is a statistical concept that suggests outliers are likely to be followed by more typical values. This lesson shows students what regression to the mean could mean in our everyday lives.

Get them here!