6 tasks, each one witnessed by the sources that watched the job — and behind every one, a prompt you can use tonight.
You usually run 3–6 sessions a day, each 30–90 minutes. Sessions can be one-on-one coaching, small groups, or classroom workshops where you guide people through structured reasoning routines like claim-evidence-warrant or the six-step argument map.
Between sessions you review participant work, draft evidence-based test questions to check understanding, and prepare short exercises that surface biases. If you work with organizations, expect meetings to tailor routines to their decisions and a few hours weekly for reporting results.
You’ll use plain tools: Google Docs or Word for lesson plans and evidence-based test questions, slide tools for visual argument maps, and video call platforms (Zoom, Teams) for remote coaching. You can also use ChatGPT to draft routines, create multiple-choice items, or suggest counterarguments, but always verify outputs yourself.
For live training, simple whiteboards or Miro work well to list alternatives and map assumptions. No proprietary system is required; the job is about guiding reasoning, not running complex software.
Use AI as a drafting assistant, not an authority. Ask ChatGPT to generate sample arguments, alternative hypotheses, or test questions, then check facts and logic yourself. Mark AI-generated examples when you present them so learners know the source.
Avoid relying on AI for evidence verification. Always trace claims back to original sources (journal articles, datasets, official reports). Teach learners to spot AI mistakes by comparing AI outputs with primary sources and by running bias checks.
There’s no single official SOC number. Typical pay ranges from about $20–$60 per hour depending on setting. Schools or nonprofits often pay $20–$35/hr, private consultants or corporate trainers can charge $50–$150/hr or more for workshop rates.
Freelancers setting workshop or course fees should check local market rates and platform listings (e.g., Upwork, LinkedIn Learning). Pay depends on experience, client type, and whether you sell packaged curricula.
A debate coach focuses on winning contests and argument strategy; a critical thinking coach focuses on the quality of reasoning itself: spotting assumptions, testing evidence, and listing alternatives. Debate often trains rhetorical tactics; critical thinking trains neutral evaluation steps.
Compared with a subject tutor (e.g., math), a critical thinking coach teaches methods that apply across subjects: structured reasoning routines, bias checks, and drafting test questions that validate decisions. Tutors teach content; critical thinking coaches teach thinking-about-content.
The key skill is the ability to break complex reasoning into clear, repeatable steps—like a 4–6 step routine you can teach and apply immediately. That means you can guide someone through: state the claim, list evidence, identify assumptions, propose alternatives, test each alternative, and draw a reasoned conclusion.
If you can model that routine, write short evidence-based test questions for it, and help learners spot biases in each step, you’ll be far more effective than someone who only explains ideas at a high level.