the role of critical thinking in education essay

• Search Menu
• Sign in through your institution
• Advance Articles
• Special Issues
• Virtual Issues
• Trending Articles
• IMPACT Content
• Author Guidelines
• Submission Site
• Open Access Options
• Self-Archiving Policy
• Author Resources
• Read & Publish
• Why Publish with JOPE?
• About the Journal of Philosophy of Education
• About The Philosophy of Education Society of Great Britain
• Editorial Board
• Advertising & Corporate Services
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

Introduction, critical thinking and the role of knowledge—an empirically based discussion, conclusions and appeal.

• < Previous

On the role of knowledge in critical thinking—using student essay responses to bring empirical fuel to the debate between ‘generalists’ and ‘specifists’

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

Kristoffer Larsson, On the role of knowledge in critical thinking—using student essay responses to bring empirical fuel to the debate between ‘generalists’ and ‘specifists’, Journal of Philosophy of Education , Volume 55, Issue 2, April 2021, Pages 314–322, https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9752.12545

• Permissions Icon Permissions

To develop students’ critical thinking is one of the primary goals of a modern democratic school system. However, what is to be developed has been the matter of long-standing debate. One particular area of conflict has been what role is played by the knowledge concerning the object to be critically thought about. The ‘specifists’ have asserted that knowledge about the object is the core. The ‘generalists’ have claimed that there is no need for any actual profound knowledge. Typically, this debate has been held at a theoretical and philosophical level. In this paper, I will make an empirically based contribution to the debate. In a unique approach, I will use a number of student essay responses to argue in favour of a specifist view, and at the same time to question some of the generalists’ basic assumptions. The paper ends with an appeal to the generalists to provide us with proper clarification regarding the questions I raise. This is important as they hold the dominant position in the field. If they are to continue to do so, we need to be clear about the accuracy of their basic assumptions. This becomes even more essential as the generalist research has been severely criticised for producing inconclusive results, as well as the fact that the generalist view on critical thinking has been adopted by major policymakers both in Europe and the United States.

Developing students’ critical thinking is often agreed upon as one of the most important assignments of a modern democratic school system, promoting personal as well societal progress (Behar-Horenstein and Niu, 2011 ; Beyer, 1995; European Commission, 2016 ; Facione, 2006 ; Martin, 2005 ; NGA/CCSSO, 2010; Paul & Elder, 2009 ; Elder & Paul, 2010 ; Tsui, 1998 ). However, what is actually to be developed by the students has been a matter of debate over the decades, since there has been no agreement on the actual definition or construct of critical thinking (Brodin, 2007 ; Johnson and Hamby, 2015 ; Petress, 2004 ). At the heart of the matter is the ongoing battle fought between the so-called ‘specifists’ 1 and ‘generalists’ (Davies, 2006 , 2013 ; Moore, 2004 , 2011 , 2013 ). The specifists have talked about critical thinking as something specific, not generalisable outside certain realms (Gardner & Johnson, 1996 ; McPeck, 1985a , 1985b , 1990a , 1990b ; Moore, 2004 , 2011 , 2013 ). The most radical of these is McPeck, claiming that there are ‘almost as many different kinds of critical thinking as there are different kinds of things to think about’ (McPeck, 1990a , p. 10). The generalists, on the other hand, have talked about critical thinking as something generic, an ability that can be applied to more or less every object of thought belonging to any discipline, subject etc. (Davies, 2006 , 2013 ; Ennis, 1987 , 1989 , 1990 ; Higgins & Baumfield, 1998 ; Paul, 1985 ; Quinn, 1994 ).

One particular controversy in this debate has been the role of knowledge about the object to be critically thought about (Ennis, 1989 , 1990 ; McPeck, 1985a , 1985b , 1990a , 1990b , 1990c , 1990d ; Paul, 1985 ).

The specifists have claimed that this kind of knowledge is the actual key to good critical thinking. McPeck ( 1985a , 1985b , 1990a , 1990b ) argues that critical thinking amounts to a reflective approach towards the knowledge one has about the object of thought, proclaiming that ‘one's abilities here are a function of one's knowledge’ ( 1985b , p. 51), and over the years he has offered several examples of what he means. In one of these, he sets himself in a situation where he is to think about what to believe concerning different descriptions of the status of the US economy. He concludes that it is impossible for him to make use of some toolbox of generic critical thinking to evaluate the different descriptions. What he needs is more knowledge about Laffer curves, zero-sum systems, monetary versus fiscal policy and so on, since such an evaluation would require ‘being in possession of, and comprehending, large amounts of complex information’ ( 1990b , p. 11).

The generalists, in contrast, have claimed that knowledge about the object, though necessary to some degree, is neither a sufficient nor the most prominent criterion for critical thinking; more important is one's ability to apply generic critical thinking (Davies, 2013 ; Ennis, 1989 ; Scriven, 1990 ; Siegel, 1991 ; Bailin & Siegel, 2003 ). Scriven ( 1990 , pp. x–xi) perhaps explicates this view in the most straightforward way, stating that when it comes to critical thinking about an object, there is no ‘need for delving into vast subject matters’; it is about ‘using a finite box of [generic] tools’. What these tools actually are has been described in several different taxonomies. One of the most renowned taxonomies is the Ennis ( 1993 ) taxonomy, with tools such as to: ‘identify assumptions’, ‘judge the quality of an argument’, ‘be open-minded’ and ‘draw conclusions when warranted, but with caution’.

To sum it up somewhat bluntly, the specifists equate the ability to think critically to one's knowledge about the object to be thought about, adding merely the reflective eye. The generalists see knowledge about the object to be thought about as a subordinate part of one's ability to think critically, the application of generic critical thinking abilities being the superior and decisive part.

The discussion on the matter among scholars has typically been held at a philosophical level, with close to nothing more than general praise, supported by purely theoretically founded arguments, of either knowledge as the demarcation of one's critical thinking ability or knowledge as being neither sufficient for nor vital to one's critical thinking ability (Bailin & Siegel, 2003 ; Davies, 2006 , 2013 ; Ennis, 1989 , 1990 ; Gardner and Johnson, 1996 ; McPeck, 1985a , 1985b , 1990a , 1990b , 1990c , 1990d ; Moore, 2004 , 2011 ; Scriven, 1990 ; Siegel, 1991 ). ‘Indeed, one has to admit to a lack of empirical evidence …’, as Moore ( 2011 , p. 264) puts it. However, both sides have stressed the need for further use of empirical data when discussing the topic (Ennis, 1989 ; Moore, 2004 , 2011 ). The aim of this paper is to make such an empirically founded contribution. In a unique approach, I will use a number of essay responses by students trying to think critically, in order to argue for a specifist point of view concerning the role of knowledge. In doing so, I will dispute some of the generalists’ basic assumptions and I will conclude my line of reasoning with a direct appeal to the generalists to properly clarify the questions raised at their expense.

To sort out the questions raised is actually of vital importance for the future of critical thinking. The generalists have over the years held a predominant position in the field. For instance, important policy documents describe critical thinking in terms of a transversal phenomenon. Examples include A New Skills Agenda For Europe, declared by the European Commission (the EU's executive body) (European Commission, 2016 ), and the Common Core State Standards set by the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers (Lai, 2011 ; NGA/CCSSO, 2010 ) and so far adopted by 43 of the states in the United States. The empirical research on improving critical thinking among students has also for the most part approved of this generic perspective: as Tiruneh et al. ( 2014 , p. 3) put it in their review of the field, the studies mainly consider critical thinking to be ‘clearly identifiable and definable thinking skills which are domain-independent’. If the generalist is to continue to hold this dominant position, we need to be absolutely clear about the accuracy of the assumptions underpinning their view, not least as reviewers of the field have continually and severely criticised the research conducted within this generalist perspective for arriving at inconclusive results (Behar-Horenstein & Nui, 2011; McMillan, 1987 ; Tsui, 1998 ). Behar-Horenstein and Nui (2011, p. 38) go as far as asking readers ‘to consider the trustworthiness of the publications and to critically analyse the substance of empirical studies on teaching critical thinking’.

Before going further into the discussion, I would like to make some clarifications. In the literature, there are several terms, such as being ‘informed’ and having ‘knowledge’, that are used when discussing how knowledgeable one ought to be about the object to be thought about. I will use the term ‘knowledge’ throughout this paper, with the exception of direct quotations.

It is also important to recognise that, in this paper, knowledge (about the object of thought) is seen as some kind of a progressive continuum. It stretches from having no knowledge or very sparse knowledge about the object of thought to having deep and profound knowledge, including such things as knowing the structure and the rationale behind the knowledge, that is, questions concerning the epistemic status of the knowledge involved (McPeck, 1985a ). 2

Moreover, it is important to stress that the phrase ‘knowledge about the object to be thought about’ amounts to knowledge about that specific object of thought. It is not knowledge in a discipline, domain or subject in a general sense, it is knowledge directly required or called for by the specific object of thought. This kind of knowledge could, of course, most often be obtained from a certain discipline, but it could also be obtained from several different disciplines or other domains of knowledge. This particular distinction might be especially important to notice, as many times when the role of knowledge in critical thinking is discussed, it is done with regard to having knowledge in a certain discipline , domain or subject . However, these concepts have been found to be vague and often not to the point when discussing what actual knowledge might come into play when thinking critically about a certain thing (Ennis, 1989 , 1990 ; McPeck, 1990a ). Therefore, McPeck has focused the discussion on the actual knowledge required by the specific object to be thought about, whichever domains etc. that particular knowledge needs to be retrieved from (McPeck, 1985b , 1990a ). Thus, in this paper I use the phrase ‘knowledge about the object to be thought about’ to describe that specific knowledge required by the problem at hand. The empirical examples and the arguments I use to further the discussion are to be viewed accordingly.

As stated, I will use essay responses as empirical data to put forward my argument. These essay responses are taken from a classroom setting, primarily because it is in these kinds of pedagogical contexts that the educational goal of developing students’ critical thinking is to be fulfilled. More specifically I will use three essay responses written by three 15-year-old students who, with nothing more than pen and paper, were asked individually to develop their thoughts on how a deontological ethicist 3 would argue concerning the case of the death penalty. I will discuss each of these three responses in turn and elaborate my thoughts on them. I will look at how a specifist would be likely to view the response but also how a generalist might view it. In doing so, I will argue for the specifist standpoint on knowledge in critical thinking, putting the pressure on the generalists. It is worth noting here that my purpose is to make a well-reasoned and empirically well-grounded interpretation of the students’ responses on behalf of the specifists and the generalists. I do not claim that my interpretations are the only ones, or that all specifists or generalists would agree on these interpretations (as that would be futile) but I argue that these interpretations are reasonable and plausible. Let us now consider the first response:

A deontological ethicist would say that the death penalty is wrong because you can use a rule that ‘it is always wrong to kill’, which says that the act is wrong regardless of consequences or intention. A deontological ethicist could also say that the death penalty is right and lean on rules like ‘an eye for an eye’, when he says that if someone committed a murder he should also be killed as punishment. The principle, however, would only justify the death penalty if the perpetrator committed a murder. 4

Viewed from a specifist perspective, I would like to put forward this response as a manifestation of critical thinking. The response displays accurate and sufficiently extensive knowledge on deontological ethics and the death penalty, and indicates a reflective dimension. If we look deeper into what knowledge could be claimed to be present in this response, I argue that the response exhibits basic knowledge of what rules and the death penalty are. In relation to the specific rules presented, the response further demonstrates knowledge concerning the circumstances under which the rules are applicable in relation to the death penalty (most profoundly evident in the third sentence). The response also shows knowledge about the fact that deontological ethics revolve around rules, and furthermore, that rules are to determine one's standpoint or action concerning an issue or a situation (for example, the first sentence). Moreover, I argue that the response displays knowledge about the role of the chosen rule in deontological ethics and the possibility of coming up with a different conclusion on an issue based on what rules are used to guide the decision (the first and second sentences). In sum, this exhibition of knowledge about deontological ethics and the death penalty amounts to a dimension of reflection on deontological ethics and the death penalty, i.e. critical thinking. Using this line of argument, I would claim that the critical thinking manifested is best described as a function of the knowledge displayed, opening the way for the specifist standpoint on the role of knowledge in critical thinking.

However, a generalist could problematise my way of reasoning. 5 For example, they could use the earlier mentioned Ennis taxonomy of generic abilities (Ennis, 1993 ) and argue that the response shows patterns linked to at least three of those. They could start by claiming a pattern linked to the ability to ‘be open-minded’ when engaging with an object of thought, indicated by the first and second sentences, when the student shifts from one rule and one standpoint to another rule and another standpoint. Using the same pattern of shifting, they could also claim an indication of the ability to ‘identify assumptions’, as these sentences could be said to show an identification of the role of rules in deontological ethics, that is, varying standpoints could be taken on the same issue depending on the rule favoured. The generalist could further assert the presence of a third pattern that it is possible to link to yet another generic ability. Looking at sentences two and three, they could argue that this ought to be seen as a display of a pattern linked to the ability to ‘draw conclusions when warranted, but with caution’, as sentence three states under which circumstances the conclusion made in sentence two is relevant, and thereby shows caution in terms of the conclusion reached. The generalist could even claim that another pattern is linked to this ability, as the shift in perspective between sentences one and two could be viewed as indicating a certain caution regarding which conclusion a deontological ethicist would come to, opening the way for at least two different conclusions, depending on the preferred rule. Based on this counterargument, the generalist can claim that the major explanatory factor behind the critical thinking displayed in the response is the application of the above-mentioned abilities, not the knowledge about the object of thought, its subordinate.

Even if this is seen as a thoughtful objection to the specifist standpoint, I have two concerns that would call its validity into question. Firstly, if the response is primarily explained in terms of the generic abilities in question, it implies that the response is not achievable without applying these generic critical thinking abilities. Looking at the response, it seems impossible, with any certainty, to put forward such an argument. In fact, everything in the response is satisfactorily explained as merely a display of knowledge about deontological ethics and the death penalty, nothing more, and this display is thorough enough to demonstrate a reflective stance. On the other hand, the patterns that could possibly be linked to generic critical thinking can only be used ad hoc to prove their own plausible existence. Secondly, if the generic abilities offer the cardinal explanation, and are to be of some true use, it also implies that some of the knowledge being displayed in the response ought to be derived by applying generic critical thinking, and not by knowledge about the object. That is, it ought to be possible to arrive at this response without having all the knowledge about the object being displayed, instead generating this knowledge by applying generic critical thinking abilities to the case. By looking at the response as it is, this kind of knowledge-generating process is in no way obvious; in fact, it is impossible to infer something even close to this from the response. Even if such a process were in theory possible, it seems both extremely far-fetched in any practical sense and paved with pitfalls that may lead to incorrect ‘knowledge’ about the object of thought being generated.

To continue the discussion, let's look at another of the student responses:

A deontological ethicist would probably say that we shouldn't have it [the death penalty] as it becomes wrong in our laws, but he could also say that we should have it [the death penalty], as it could be needed in some brutal cases (the absolute worst) for certain criminals.

From a specifist point of view, I argue that this response lacks manifestations of critical thinking, as it is tainted by a knowledge deficit concerning the object of thought. The only relevant knowledge that the response seems to contain is some vague knowledge about what the death penalty is and under which circumstances this is often discussed (the most brutal cases). Otherwise, there appears to be no obvious knowledge displayed concerning what a rule actually is and certainly no knowledge shown concerning deontological ethics. In sum, the response can be confidently argued to manifest deficient knowledge in relation to the object to be thought about, thereby making any display of relevant reflection on the knowledge impossible, as such a reflection is a function of pertinent knowledge about the object of thought.

What, then, could generalists say about this response? I think they would indeed agree that the response lacks manifestations of critical thinking, as there is no accurate reasoning concerning deontological ethics and the death penalty displayed in the response. However, if I shine a torch on the generalist standpoint, and use the same tactic as in the previous response, something interesting occurs. To be specific, even in this response, it is possible to argue for the presence of patterns that can be linked to generic critical thinking abilities. The shift in perspective between the first part of the sentence, before the first comma, and the second part of the sentence could be seen as an indication of a pattern that can be linked to the ability to ‘be open-minded’, as the response here states that a deontological ethicist could be both for and against the death penalty and presents reasons for this. This shift in perspective can also be seen as a pattern that can be linked to the ability to ‘draw conclusions when warranted, but with caution’, as it opens the way for deontological ethicists to be able to take different standpoints regarding the issue of the death penalty.

I would argue that this kind of situation paves the way for further questioning the generalist idea of the superiority of generic abilities over knowledge. To start, the presence of patterns linked to generic critical thinking, even though no actual critical thinking is evident in the response, contradicts the core of this idea. If the main force behind critical thinking is generic abilities, how could there be a presence of these abilities without any critical thinking taking place? This presence also entails another deceitful risk which should not be underestimated, namely, to mislead the interpretation, making what is corrupt critical thinking appear as critical thinking. A generalist would perhaps counter such a claim by arguing that this risk can be avoided by applying generic critical thinking abilities to discover the corruption. However, I would claim that this line of reasoning is crooked. The only way to see through this illusion ought to be by knowing more about the object to be thought about, as the actual problem with the response is knowledge deficit, nothing more, nothing less. Add to this the fact that the knowledge deficit in the response contradicts even the generalist implication of generic critical thinking as a generator of knowledge about the object to be thought about. Though there are patterns linked to generic critical thinking abilities, there is no sign of applicable knowledge being generated by this presence. If any such process (in theory) is at work, it is generating flawed knowledge.

Before closing this argument, let us look at one last response:

A deontological ethicist would probably say that the death penalty is wrong because you are not allowed to kill someone. That is a rule and the action must follow that rule.

As with the previous response, I would argue that from a specifist perspective, this response is not a representation of critical thinking. Comparatively though, there is more pertinent knowledge present in this response, as it would be reasonable to say that it displays basic knowledge about what rules and the death penalty are. Further, it is also fair to say that it contains some knowledge about deontological ethics, such as that deontological ethics concerns rules, and that rules determine the standpoint to be taken on an issue. Even so, I would claim that this response is mostly characterised by its knowledge deficit. It is of the utmost importance to recognise that a specifist view does not claim that every display of knowledge is to be considered as critical thinking. In fact, the basic idea of this view is the opposite. Critical thinking is a function of knowledge about the object of thought. If a response lacks critical thinking but displays some knowledge about the object, this would be considered as a lack of knowledge that is deep enough to manifest a reflective approach towards the object of thought, i.e. critical thinking. There is no way, as McPeck ( 1990d , p. 117) puts it, that ‘a minimal amount of understanding of that which is to be thought about’ can generate critical thinking about that object. If compared with the first response discussed (claimed to be characterised by critical thinking), this response, for example, lacks any display of knowledge about the role of the rule in deontological ethics and the possibility of coming up with diverse standpoints on an issue based on what rule is followed.

The argument put forward above may well seem fine from a specifist standpoint, but there might be a way for a generalist to attack the specifist standpoint based on this response and my line of reasoning. This attack would involve commencing with a claim that they also see this response as lacking any manifestation of critical thinking according to the Ennis taxonomy (1993), continuing by admitting that they too see that there is relevant knowledge on the object of thought displayed, and then consolidating these two into an argument by asserting that the problem is not a knowledge deficit as in my specifist claim—there is knowledge enough in the response—but that the crux of the matter is that there is a lack of generic critical thinking.

Yet, I would say that this is a fraudulent way for the generalist to travel. I would grant them that there are no patterns of generic critical thinking evident in the response as it is. I would also, as already articulated, grant them that relevant knowledge about the object to be thought about is present. But there is also an obvious knowledge deficit in the response compared to a response that displays critical thinking, such as the first one. This deficit cannot be explained away. The generalist claim that what is missing in the response is any application of generic abilities and that such an application could turn this response into critical thinking, once again, has to explain how these generic abilities can generate knowledge, such as the kind displayed in the first response discussed.

To sum this discussion up, I would claim that the type of empirically based argument presented here makes a strong case for the specifist's standpoint on the role of knowledge in critical thinking and quite a weak case for the generalist standpoint.

As the specifist standpoint seems to be applicable to all the instances I have presented in this paper, I would maintain that the argumentation presented sharpens the McPeckian assertion that knowledge about the object to be thought about is the vehicle for, and the only real explanatory factor for, critical thinking (McPeck, 1985a , 1985b , 1990a , 1990b , 1990c , 1990d ).

The generalist view that knowledge about the object is a subordinate part of critical thinking, is, as I have shown, on the other hand, flawed in several ways. The possible presence of generic critical thinking in a response perceived as a displaying critical thinking by both generalists and specifists cannot preclude the possibility that the response displays nothing more than knowledge. Nor can this presence explain which knowledge it is necessary to have about the object and which knowledge ought to be generated by applying generic critical thinking abilities (i.e. by means of the assumed immanent knowledge-generating capacity of generic critical thinking). Further, the fact that generic critical thinking abilities can be present in a response that both sides view as lacking any actual critical thinking, seriously brings into question the generalist view on generic critical thinking as the main driving force behind critical thinking. This also relates to the risk of creating an illusion of critical thinking in a response where there is none—an illusion that logically can only be dispelled by knowing more about the object to be thought about.

Based on the argument I have made in this paper, I urge the generalist side to come up with a proper reply to the questions raised here. They need to clarify:

how generic critical thinking actually adds something to the critical thinking that knowledge about the object cannot explain;

how generic critical thinking abilities are the driving force behind critical thinking (and not knowledge about the object), especially when these abilities can be present without any critical thinking taking place;

how generic critical thinking can generate knowledge about the object not already obtained; and

how to come to terms with the chimera of generic critical thinking posing as genuine critical thinking, and to do so in terms of the use of generic critical thinking rather than knowing more about the object to be thought about.

As stated in the introduction, a clarification on the matters concerned is, in fact, of the utmost importance, and not only for the sake of the argument made. The generalist side has over the years held a dominant position in the field of critical thinking. Major policymakers in Europe and in the United States have adopted a generalist view (European Commission, 2016 ; Lai, 2011 ; NGA/CCSSO, 2010 ). The lion's share of research on improving students’ critical thinking has been conducted from a generalist perspective (Tiruneh et al ., 2014 ). To this we need to add the continual and severe criticism by reviewers that this research has arrived at surprisingly inconsistent results and suffers from an overall lack of trustworthiness (Behar-Horenstein & Nui, 2011; McMillan, 1987 ; Tsui, 1998 ). If the generalists are to hold their predominant position in the future, we need to be absolutely clear about the adequacy of their basic assumptions. Otherwise, the risk is that we will go even further down a path that is destined to end in a blind alley.

Sometimes called ‘specificists’.

Although they are not investigated in this paper, it is worth noting that the epistemological properties of critical thinking per se have been part of the wider debate between generalists and specifists (e.g. McPeck, 1985a ; Moore, 2004 ; Norris, 1985 ; Siegel, 1991 ).

The normative ethical position that judges the morality of an action based on rules.

This student response, and those presented below, have been translated from Swedish to English by the author. An effort has been made to stay as close to the original written response as possible.

In fact, the generalist Quinn identified patterns linked to generic critical thinking abilities in a student response of similar kind (Quinn, 1994 , p. 110).

Behar-Horenstein , L. & Niu , L. ( 2011 ) Teaching critical thinking skills in higher education: a review of the literature . Journal of College Teaching and Learning , 8 2 , 25 – 41 .

Google Scholar

Bailin , S. & Siegel , H. ( 2003 ) Critical thinking . In: Blake , N. , Smeyers , P. , Smith , R. & Standish , P. (Eds.) The Blackwell guide to the philosophy of education . Oxford : Blackwell .

Google Preview

Brodin , E. ( 2007 ) Critical thinking in scholarship. Meanings, conditions and development . Lund : Department of Education, Lund University .

Davies , M. ( 2006 ) An ‘infusion’ approach to critical thinking: Moore on the critical thinking debate . Higher Education Research and Development , 25 ( 2 ), 179 – 193 . https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360600610420 Crossref Search ADS

Davies , M. ( 2013 ) Critical thinking and the disciplines reconsidered . Higher Education Research & Development , 32 ( 4 ), 529 – 544 . https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2012.697878 Crossref Search ADS

Elder , L. & Paul , R. ( 2010 ) Critical thinking: ethical reasoning as essential to fairminded critical thinking, part IV . Journal of Developmental Education , 34 ( 1 ), 36 – 37 .

Ennis , R.H. ( 1987 ) A taxonomy of critical thinking dispositions and abilities . In: Baron , J. & Sternberg , R. , (Eds.) Teaching thinking skills: theory and Practice . New York : Freeman .

Ennis , R.H. ( 1989 ) Critical thinking and subject specificity: clarification and needed research . Educational Researcher , 18 ( 3 ), 4 – 10 . https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x018003004 Crossref Search ADS

Ennis , R.H. ( 1990 ) The extent to which critical thinking is subject-specific: further clarification . Educational Researcher , 19 ( 4 ), 13 – 16 . https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x019004013 Crossref Search ADS

Ennis , R.H. ( 1993 ) Critical thinking assessment . Theory into Practice , 32 ( 3 ), 179 – 186 . https://doi.org/10.1080/00405849309543594 Crossref Search ADS

European Commission . ( 2016 ) A new skills agenda for europe: working together to strengthen human capital, employability and competitiveness . Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52016DC0381

Facione , P.A. ( 2006 ) Critical thinking: what is it and why it counts . California Academic Press .

Gardner , P. & Johnson , S. ( 1996 ) Thinking critically about critical thinking: an unskilled inquiry into Quinn and McPeck . Journal of Philosophy of Education , 30 ( 3 ), 441 – 456 . https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9752.1996.tb00412.x Crossref Search ADS

Higgins , S. & Baumfield , V. ( 1998 ) A defence of teaching general thinking skills . Journal of Philosophy of Education , 32 ( 3 ), 391 – 398 . https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9752.00103 Crossref Search ADS

Johnson , R. & Hamby , H. ( 2015 ) A meta-level approach to the problem of defining ‘critical thinking’ . Argumentation , 29 ( 4 ), 417 – 430 . https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-015-9356-4 Crossref Search ADS

Lai , E.R. ( 2011 ) Critical thinking: a literature review . Pearson. Research Report . Available at: http://images.pearsonassessments.com/images/tmrs/CriticalThinkingReviewFINAL.pdf

Martin , D.S. ( 2005 ) Critical thinking for democracy and social justice . In: Michelli , N.M. & Keiser , D.L. (Eds.) Teacher education for democracy and social justice . New York : Routledge , pp. 209 – 228 .

McMillan , J. ( 1987 ) Enhancing college students’ critical thinking: a review of studies . Research in Higher Education , 26 ( 1 ), 3 – 29 . https://doi.org/10.1007/BF0099193 1 Crossref Search ADS

McPeck , J. ( 1985a ) Critical thinking and the ‘trivial pursuit’ theory of knowledge . Teaching Philosophy , 8 ( 4 ), 295 – 308 . https://doi.org/10.5840/teachphil19858499 Crossref Search ADS

McPeck , J. ( 1985b ) Paul's critique of critical thinking and education . Informal Logic , 7 ( 1 ), 45 – 54 . https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v7i1.2701 Crossref Search ADS

McPeck , J.E. ( 1990a ) Critical thinking and subject specificity: a reply to ennis . Educational Researcher , 19 ( 4 ), 10 – 12 . https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x019004010 Crossref Search ADS

McPeck , J.E. ( 1990b ) What kind of knowledge will transfer? In: McPeck , J.E. (Ed.) Teaching critical thinking. Dialogue and dialectic . New York : Routledge .

McPeck , J.E. ( 1990c ) Three competing conceptions of critical thinking . In: McPeck , J. E. (Ed.) Teaching critical thinking. Dialogue and dialectic . New York : Routledge .

McPeck , J.E. ( 1990d ) Richard Paul's critique . In: McPeck , J.E. (Ed.) Teaching critical thinking. Dialogue and dialectic . New York : Routledge .

Moore , T. ( 2004 ) The critical thinking debate: how general are general thinking skills? Higher Education Research & Development , 23 ( 1 ), 3 – 18 . https://doi.org/10.1080/0729436032000168469 Crossref Search ADS

Moore , T. ( 2011 ) Critical thinking and disciplinary thinking: a continuing debate . Higher Education Research & Development , 30 ( 3 ), 261 – 274 . https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2010.501328 Crossref Search ADS

Moore , T. ( 2013 ) Critical thinking: seven definitions in search of a concept . Studies in Higher Education , 38 ( 4 ), 506 – 522 . https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2011.586995 Crossref Search ADS

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers (NGA/CCSSO) . ( 2010 ) Common core state standards . Available at: http://www.corestandards.org

Norris , S. ( 1985 ) The choice of standard conditions in defining critical thinking competence , Educational Theory , 35 ( 1 ), 97 – 107 . Crossref Search ADS

Paul , R. ( 1985 ) McPeck's mistakes . Informal Logic , 7 ( 1 ), 35 – 43 . https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v7i1.2700

Paul , R. & Elder , L. ( 2009 ) Critical thinking: ethical reasoning and fairminded thinking, part I . Journal of Developmental Education , 33 ( 1 ), 36 – 37 .

Petress , K. ( 2004 ) Critical thinking: an extended definition , Education , 124 ( 3 ), 461 – 466 .

Quinn , V. ( 1994 ) In defence of critical thinking as a subject: if McPeck is wrong he is wrong . Journal of Philosophy of Education , 28 ( 1 ), 101 – 111 . Crossref Search ADS

Scriven , M. ( 1990 ) Foreword . In: McPeck , J.E. (Ed.) Teaching critical thinking. Dialogue and dialectic . New York , Routledge .

Siegel , H. ( 1991 ) The generalizability of critical thinking . Educational Philosophy and Theory , 23 ( 1 ), 18 – 30 . Crossref Search ADS

Tiruneh , D. , Verburgh , A. & Elen , J. ( 2014 ) Effectiveness of critical thinking instruction in higher education: a systematic review of intervention studies . Higher Education Studies , 4 ( 1 ), 1 – 17 . Crossref Search ADS

Tsui , L. ( 1998 ) A review of research on critical thinking . Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for Study of Higher Education, 5–8 November 1998.

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

• Recommend to Your Librarian
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Journals Career Network

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 1467-9752
• Print ISSN 0309-8249
• Copyright © 2024 Philosophy of Education Society of Great Britain
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

• Table of Contents
• Random Entry
• Chronological
• Editorial Information
• About the SEP
• Editorial Board
• How to Cite the SEP
• Special Characters
• Advanced Tools
• Support the SEP
• PDFs for SEP Friends
• Make a Donation
• SEPIA for Libraries
• Entry Contents

Bibliography

Academic tools.

• Friends PDF Preview
• Author and Citation Info
• Back to Top

Critical Thinking

Critical thinking is a widely accepted educational goal. Its definition is contested, but the competing definitions can be understood as differing conceptions of the same basic concept: careful thinking directed to a goal. Conceptions differ with respect to the scope of such thinking, the type of goal, the criteria and norms for thinking carefully, and the thinking components on which they focus. Its adoption as an educational goal has been recommended on the basis of respect for students’ autonomy and preparing students for success in life and for democratic citizenship. “Critical thinkers” have the dispositions and abilities that lead them to think critically when appropriate. The abilities can be identified directly; the dispositions indirectly, by considering what factors contribute to or impede exercise of the abilities. Standardized tests have been developed to assess the degree to which a person possesses such dispositions and abilities. Educational intervention has been shown experimentally to improve them, particularly when it includes dialogue, anchored instruction, and mentoring. Controversies have arisen over the generalizability of critical thinking across domains, over alleged bias in critical thinking theories and instruction, and over the relationship of critical thinking to other types of thinking.

2.1 Dewey’s Three Main Examples

2.2 dewey’s other examples, 2.3 further examples, 2.4 non-examples, 3. the definition of critical thinking, 4. its value, 5. the process of thinking critically, 6. components of the process, 7. contributory dispositions and abilities, 8.1 initiating dispositions, 8.2 internal dispositions, 9. critical thinking abilities, 10. required knowledge, 11. educational methods, 12.1 the generalizability of critical thinking, 12.2 bias in critical thinking theory and pedagogy, 12.3 relationship of critical thinking to other types of thinking, other internet resources, related entries.

Use of the term ‘critical thinking’ to describe an educational goal goes back to the American philosopher John Dewey (1910), who more commonly called it ‘reflective thinking’. He defined it as

active, persistent and careful consideration of any belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the grounds that support it, and the further conclusions to which it tends. (Dewey 1910: 6; 1933: 9)

and identified a habit of such consideration with a scientific attitude of mind. His lengthy quotations of Francis Bacon, John Locke, and John Stuart Mill indicate that he was not the first person to propose development of a scientific attitude of mind as an educational goal.

In the 1930s, many of the schools that participated in the Eight-Year Study of the Progressive Education Association (Aikin 1942) adopted critical thinking as an educational goal, for whose achievement the study’s Evaluation Staff developed tests (Smith, Tyler, & Evaluation Staff 1942). Glaser (1941) showed experimentally that it was possible to improve the critical thinking of high school students. Bloom’s influential taxonomy of cognitive educational objectives (Bloom et al. 1956) incorporated critical thinking abilities. Ennis (1962) proposed 12 aspects of critical thinking as a basis for research on the teaching and evaluation of critical thinking ability.

Since 1980, an annual international conference in California on critical thinking and educational reform has attracted tens of thousands of educators from all levels of education and from many parts of the world. Also since 1980, the state university system in California has required all undergraduate students to take a critical thinking course. Since 1983, the Association for Informal Logic and Critical Thinking has sponsored sessions in conjunction with the divisional meetings of the American Philosophical Association (APA). In 1987, the APA’s Committee on Pre-College Philosophy commissioned a consensus statement on critical thinking for purposes of educational assessment and instruction (Facione 1990a). Researchers have developed standardized tests of critical thinking abilities and dispositions; for details, see the Supplement on Assessment . Educational jurisdictions around the world now include critical thinking in guidelines for curriculum and assessment.

For details on this history, see the Supplement on History .

2. Examples and Non-Examples

Before considering the definition of critical thinking, it will be helpful to have in mind some examples of critical thinking, as well as some examples of kinds of thinking that would apparently not count as critical thinking.

Dewey (1910: 68–71; 1933: 91–94) takes as paradigms of reflective thinking three class papers of students in which they describe their thinking. The examples range from the everyday to the scientific.

Transit : “The other day, when I was down town on 16th Street, a clock caught my eye. I saw that the hands pointed to 12:20. This suggested that I had an engagement at 124th Street, at one o’clock. I reasoned that as it had taken me an hour to come down on a surface car, I should probably be twenty minutes late if I returned the same way. I might save twenty minutes by a subway express. But was there a station near? If not, I might lose more than twenty minutes in looking for one. Then I thought of the elevated, and I saw there was such a line within two blocks. But where was the station? If it were several blocks above or below the street I was on, I should lose time instead of gaining it. My mind went back to the subway express as quicker than the elevated; furthermore, I remembered that it went nearer than the elevated to the part of 124th Street I wished to reach, so that time would be saved at the end of the journey. I concluded in favor of the subway, and reached my destination by one o’clock.” (Dewey 1910: 68–69; 1933: 91–92)

Ferryboat : “Projecting nearly horizontally from the upper deck of the ferryboat on which I daily cross the river is a long white pole, having a gilded ball at its tip. It suggested a flagpole when I first saw it; its color, shape, and gilded ball agreed with this idea, and these reasons seemed to justify me in this belief. But soon difficulties presented themselves. The pole was nearly horizontal, an unusual position for a flagpole; in the next place, there was no pulley, ring, or cord by which to attach a flag; finally, there were elsewhere on the boat two vertical staffs from which flags were occasionally flown. It seemed probable that the pole was not there for flag-flying.

“I then tried to imagine all possible purposes of the pole, and to consider for which of these it was best suited: (a) Possibly it was an ornament. But as all the ferryboats and even the tugboats carried poles, this hypothesis was rejected. (b) Possibly it was the terminal of a wireless telegraph. But the same considerations made this improbable. Besides, the more natural place for such a terminal would be the highest part of the boat, on top of the pilot house. (c) Its purpose might be to point out the direction in which the boat is moving.

“In support of this conclusion, I discovered that the pole was lower than the pilot house, so that the steersman could easily see it. Moreover, the tip was enough higher than the base, so that, from the pilot’s position, it must appear to project far out in front of the boat. Moreover, the pilot being near the front of the boat, he would need some such guide as to its direction. Tugboats would also need poles for such a purpose. This hypothesis was so much more probable than the others that I accepted it. I formed the conclusion that the pole was set up for the purpose of showing the pilot the direction in which the boat pointed, to enable him to steer correctly.” (Dewey 1910: 69–70; 1933: 92–93)

Bubbles : “In washing tumblers in hot soapsuds and placing them mouth downward on a plate, bubbles appeared on the outside of the mouth of the tumblers and then went inside. Why? The presence of bubbles suggests air, which I note must come from inside the tumbler. I see that the soapy water on the plate prevents escape of the air save as it may be caught in bubbles. But why should air leave the tumbler? There was no substance entering to force it out. It must have expanded. It expands by increase of heat, or by decrease of pressure, or both. Could the air have become heated after the tumbler was taken from the hot suds? Clearly not the air that was already entangled in the water. If heated air was the cause, cold air must have entered in transferring the tumblers from the suds to the plate. I test to see if this supposition is true by taking several more tumblers out. Some I shake so as to make sure of entrapping cold air in them. Some I take out holding mouth downward in order to prevent cold air from entering. Bubbles appear on the outside of every one of the former and on none of the latter. I must be right in my inference. Air from the outside must have been expanded by the heat of the tumbler, which explains the appearance of the bubbles on the outside. But why do they then go inside? Cold contracts. The tumbler cooled and also the air inside it. Tension was removed, and hence bubbles appeared inside. To be sure of this, I test by placing a cup of ice on the tumbler while the bubbles are still forming outside. They soon reverse” (Dewey 1910: 70–71; 1933: 93–94).

Dewey (1910, 1933) sprinkles his book with other examples of critical thinking. We will refer to the following.

Weather : A man on a walk notices that it has suddenly become cool, thinks that it is probably going to rain, looks up and sees a dark cloud obscuring the sun, and quickens his steps (1910: 6–10; 1933: 9–13).

Disorder : A man finds his rooms on his return to them in disorder with his belongings thrown about, thinks at first of burglary as an explanation, then thinks of mischievous children as being an alternative explanation, then looks to see whether valuables are missing, and discovers that they are (1910: 82–83; 1933: 166–168).

Typhoid : A physician diagnosing a patient whose conspicuous symptoms suggest typhoid avoids drawing a conclusion until more data are gathered by questioning the patient and by making tests (1910: 85–86; 1933: 170).

Blur : A moving blur catches our eye in the distance, we ask ourselves whether it is a cloud of whirling dust or a tree moving its branches or a man signaling to us, we think of other traits that should be found on each of those possibilities, and we look and see if those traits are found (1910: 102, 108; 1933: 121, 133).

Suction pump : In thinking about the suction pump, the scientist first notes that it will draw water only to a maximum height of 33 feet at sea level and to a lesser maximum height at higher elevations, selects for attention the differing atmospheric pressure at these elevations, sets up experiments in which the air is removed from a vessel containing water (when suction no longer works) and in which the weight of air at various levels is calculated, compares the results of reasoning about the height to which a given weight of air will allow a suction pump to raise water with the observed maximum height at different elevations, and finally assimilates the suction pump to such apparently different phenomena as the siphon and the rising of a balloon (1910: 150–153; 1933: 195–198).

Diamond : A passenger in a car driving in a diamond lane reserved for vehicles with at least one passenger notices that the diamond marks on the pavement are far apart in some places and close together in others. Why? The driver suggests that the reason may be that the diamond marks are not needed where there is a solid double line separating the diamond lane from the adjoining lane, but are needed when there is a dotted single line permitting crossing into the diamond lane. Further observation confirms that the diamonds are close together when a dotted line separates the diamond lane from its neighbour, but otherwise far apart.

Rash : A woman suddenly develops a very itchy red rash on her throat and upper chest. She recently noticed a mark on the back of her right hand, but was not sure whether the mark was a rash or a scrape. She lies down in bed and thinks about what might be causing the rash and what to do about it. About two weeks before, she began taking blood pressure medication that contained a sulfa drug, and the pharmacist had warned her, in view of a previous allergic reaction to a medication containing a sulfa drug, to be on the alert for an allergic reaction; however, she had been taking the medication for two weeks with no such effect. The day before, she began using a new cream on her neck and upper chest; against the new cream as the cause was mark on the back of her hand, which had not been exposed to the cream. She began taking probiotics about a month before. She also recently started new eye drops, but she supposed that manufacturers of eye drops would be careful not to include allergy-causing components in the medication. The rash might be a heat rash, since she recently was sweating profusely from her upper body. Since she is about to go away on a short vacation, where she would not have access to her usual physician, she decides to keep taking the probiotics and using the new eye drops but to discontinue the blood pressure medication and to switch back to the old cream for her neck and upper chest. She forms a plan to consult her regular physician on her return about the blood pressure medication.

Candidate : Although Dewey included no examples of thinking directed at appraising the arguments of others, such thinking has come to be considered a kind of critical thinking. We find an example of such thinking in the performance task on the Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA+), which its sponsoring organization describes as

a performance-based assessment that provides a measure of an institution’s contribution to the development of critical-thinking and written communication skills of its students. (Council for Aid to Education 2017)

A sample task posted on its website requires the test-taker to write a report for public distribution evaluating a fictional candidate’s policy proposals and their supporting arguments, using supplied background documents, with a recommendation on whether to endorse the candidate.

Immediate acceptance of an idea that suggests itself as a solution to a problem (e.g., a possible explanation of an event or phenomenon, an action that seems likely to produce a desired result) is “uncritical thinking, the minimum of reflection” (Dewey 1910: 13). On-going suspension of judgment in the light of doubt about a possible solution is not critical thinking (Dewey 1910: 108). Critique driven by a dogmatically held political or religious ideology is not critical thinking; thus Paulo Freire (1968 [1970]) is using the term (e.g., at 1970: 71, 81, 100, 146) in a more politically freighted sense that includes not only reflection but also revolutionary action against oppression. Derivation of a conclusion from given data using an algorithm is not critical thinking.

What is critical thinking? There are many definitions. Ennis (2016) lists 14 philosophically oriented scholarly definitions and three dictionary definitions. Following Rawls (1971), who distinguished his conception of justice from a utilitarian conception but regarded them as rival conceptions of the same concept, Ennis maintains that the 17 definitions are different conceptions of the same concept. Rawls articulated the shared concept of justice as

a characteristic set of principles for assigning basic rights and duties and for determining… the proper distribution of the benefits and burdens of social cooperation. (Rawls 1971: 5)

Bailin et al. (1999b) claim that, if one considers what sorts of thinking an educator would take not to be critical thinking and what sorts to be critical thinking, one can conclude that educators typically understand critical thinking to have at least three features.

• It is done for the purpose of making up one’s mind about what to believe or do.
• The person engaging in the thinking is trying to fulfill standards of adequacy and accuracy appropriate to the thinking.
• The thinking fulfills the relevant standards to some threshold level.

One could sum up the core concept that involves these three features by saying that critical thinking is careful goal-directed thinking. This core concept seems to apply to all the examples of critical thinking described in the previous section. As for the non-examples, their exclusion depends on construing careful thinking as excluding jumping immediately to conclusions, suspending judgment no matter how strong the evidence, reasoning from an unquestioned ideological or religious perspective, and routinely using an algorithm to answer a question.

If the core of critical thinking is careful goal-directed thinking, conceptions of it can vary according to its presumed scope, its presumed goal, one’s criteria and threshold for being careful, and the thinking component on which one focuses. As to its scope, some conceptions (e.g., Dewey 1910, 1933) restrict it to constructive thinking on the basis of one’s own observations and experiments, others (e.g., Ennis 1962; Fisher & Scriven 1997; Johnson 1992) to appraisal of the products of such thinking. Ennis (1991) and Bailin et al. (1999b) take it to cover both construction and appraisal. As to its goal, some conceptions restrict it to forming a judgment (Dewey 1910, 1933; Lipman 1987; Facione 1990a). Others allow for actions as well as beliefs as the end point of a process of critical thinking (Ennis 1991; Bailin et al. 1999b). As to the criteria and threshold for being careful, definitions vary in the term used to indicate that critical thinking satisfies certain norms: “intellectually disciplined” (Scriven & Paul 1987), “reasonable” (Ennis 1991), “skillful” (Lipman 1987), “skilled” (Fisher & Scriven 1997), “careful” (Bailin & Battersby 2009). Some definitions specify these norms, referring variously to “consideration of any belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the grounds that support it and the further conclusions to which it tends” (Dewey 1910, 1933); “the methods of logical inquiry and reasoning” (Glaser 1941); “conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication” (Scriven & Paul 1987); the requirement that “it is sensitive to context, relies on criteria, and is self-correcting” (Lipman 1987); “evidential, conceptual, methodological, criteriological, or contextual considerations” (Facione 1990a); and “plus-minus considerations of the product in terms of appropriate standards (or criteria)” (Johnson 1992). Stanovich and Stanovich (2010) propose to ground the concept of critical thinking in the concept of rationality, which they understand as combining epistemic rationality (fitting one’s beliefs to the world) and instrumental rationality (optimizing goal fulfillment); a critical thinker, in their view, is someone with “a propensity to override suboptimal responses from the autonomous mind” (2010: 227). These variant specifications of norms for critical thinking are not necessarily incompatible with one another, and in any case presuppose the core notion of thinking carefully. As to the thinking component singled out, some definitions focus on suspension of judgment during the thinking (Dewey 1910; McPeck 1981), others on inquiry while judgment is suspended (Bailin & Battersby 2009, 2021), others on the resulting judgment (Facione 1990a), and still others on responsiveness to reasons (Siegel 1988). Kuhn (2019) takes critical thinking to be more a dialogic practice of advancing and responding to arguments than an individual ability.

In educational contexts, a definition of critical thinking is a “programmatic definition” (Scheffler 1960: 19). It expresses a practical program for achieving an educational goal. For this purpose, a one-sentence formulaic definition is much less useful than articulation of a critical thinking process, with criteria and standards for the kinds of thinking that the process may involve. The real educational goal is recognition, adoption and implementation by students of those criteria and standards. That adoption and implementation in turn consists in acquiring the knowledge, abilities and dispositions of a critical thinker.

Conceptions of critical thinking generally do not include moral integrity as part of the concept. Dewey, for example, took critical thinking to be the ultimate intellectual goal of education, but distinguished it from the development of social cooperation among school children, which he took to be the central moral goal. Ennis (1996, 2011) added to his previous list of critical thinking dispositions a group of dispositions to care about the dignity and worth of every person, which he described as a “correlative” (1996) disposition without which critical thinking would be less valuable and perhaps harmful. An educational program that aimed at developing critical thinking but not the correlative disposition to care about the dignity and worth of every person, he asserted, “would be deficient and perhaps dangerous” (Ennis 1996: 172).

Dewey thought that education for reflective thinking would be of value to both the individual and society; recognition in educational practice of the kinship to the scientific attitude of children’s native curiosity, fertile imagination and love of experimental inquiry “would make for individual happiness and the reduction of social waste” (Dewey 1910: iii). Schools participating in the Eight-Year Study took development of the habit of reflective thinking and skill in solving problems as a means to leading young people to understand, appreciate and live the democratic way of life characteristic of the United States (Aikin 1942: 17–18, 81). Harvey Siegel (1988: 55–61) has offered four considerations in support of adopting critical thinking as an educational ideal. (1) Respect for persons requires that schools and teachers honour students’ demands for reasons and explanations, deal with students honestly, and recognize the need to confront students’ independent judgment; these requirements concern the manner in which teachers treat students. (2) Education has the task of preparing children to be successful adults, a task that requires development of their self-sufficiency. (3) Education should initiate children into the rational traditions in such fields as history, science and mathematics. (4) Education should prepare children to become democratic citizens, which requires reasoned procedures and critical talents and attitudes. To supplement these considerations, Siegel (1988: 62–90) responds to two objections: the ideology objection that adoption of any educational ideal requires a prior ideological commitment and the indoctrination objection that cultivation of critical thinking cannot escape being a form of indoctrination.

Despite the diversity of our 11 examples, one can recognize a common pattern. Dewey analyzed it as consisting of five phases:

• suggestions , in which the mind leaps forward to a possible solution;
• an intellectualization of the difficulty or perplexity into a problem to be solved, a question for which the answer must be sought;
• the use of one suggestion after another as a leading idea, or hypothesis , to initiate and guide observation and other operations in collection of factual material;
• the mental elaboration of the idea or supposition as an idea or supposition ( reasoning , in the sense on which reasoning is a part, not the whole, of inference); and
• testing the hypothesis by overt or imaginative action. (Dewey 1933: 106–107; italics in original)

The process of reflective thinking consisting of these phases would be preceded by a perplexed, troubled or confused situation and followed by a cleared-up, unified, resolved situation (Dewey 1933: 106). The term ‘phases’ replaced the term ‘steps’ (Dewey 1910: 72), thus removing the earlier suggestion of an invariant sequence. Variants of the above analysis appeared in (Dewey 1916: 177) and (Dewey 1938: 101–119).

The variant formulations indicate the difficulty of giving a single logical analysis of such a varied process. The process of critical thinking may have a spiral pattern, with the problem being redefined in the light of obstacles to solving it as originally formulated. For example, the person in Transit might have concluded that getting to the appointment at the scheduled time was impossible and have reformulated the problem as that of rescheduling the appointment for a mutually convenient time. Further, defining a problem does not always follow after or lead immediately to an idea of a suggested solution. Nor should it do so, as Dewey himself recognized in describing the physician in Typhoid as avoiding any strong preference for this or that conclusion before getting further information (Dewey 1910: 85; 1933: 170). People with a hypothesis in mind, even one to which they have a very weak commitment, have a so-called “confirmation bias” (Nickerson 1998): they are likely to pay attention to evidence that confirms the hypothesis and to ignore evidence that counts against it or for some competing hypothesis. Detectives, intelligence agencies, and investigators of airplane accidents are well advised to gather relevant evidence systematically and to postpone even tentative adoption of an explanatory hypothesis until the collected evidence rules out with the appropriate degree of certainty all but one explanation. Dewey’s analysis of the critical thinking process can be faulted as well for requiring acceptance or rejection of a possible solution to a defined problem, with no allowance for deciding in the light of the available evidence to suspend judgment. Further, given the great variety of kinds of problems for which reflection is appropriate, there is likely to be variation in its component events. Perhaps the best way to conceptualize the critical thinking process is as a checklist whose component events can occur in a variety of orders, selectively, and more than once. These component events might include (1) noticing a difficulty, (2) defining the problem, (3) dividing the problem into manageable sub-problems, (4) formulating a variety of possible solutions to the problem or sub-problem, (5) determining what evidence is relevant to deciding among possible solutions to the problem or sub-problem, (6) devising a plan of systematic observation or experiment that will uncover the relevant evidence, (7) carrying out the plan of systematic observation or experimentation, (8) noting the results of the systematic observation or experiment, (9) gathering relevant testimony and information from others, (10) judging the credibility of testimony and information gathered from others, (11) drawing conclusions from gathered evidence and accepted testimony, and (12) accepting a solution that the evidence adequately supports (cf. Hitchcock 2017: 485).

Checklist conceptions of the process of critical thinking are open to the objection that they are too mechanical and procedural to fit the multi-dimensional and emotionally charged issues for which critical thinking is urgently needed (Paul 1984). For such issues, a more dialectical process is advocated, in which competing relevant world views are identified, their implications explored, and some sort of creative synthesis attempted.

If one considers the critical thinking process illustrated by the 11 examples, one can identify distinct kinds of mental acts and mental states that form part of it. To distinguish, label and briefly characterize these components is a useful preliminary to identifying abilities, skills, dispositions, attitudes, habits and the like that contribute causally to thinking critically. Identifying such abilities and habits is in turn a useful preliminary to setting educational goals. Setting the goals is in its turn a useful preliminary to designing strategies for helping learners to achieve the goals and to designing ways of measuring the extent to which learners have done so. Such measures provide both feedback to learners on their achievement and a basis for experimental research on the effectiveness of various strategies for educating people to think critically. Let us begin, then, by distinguishing the kinds of mental acts and mental events that can occur in a critical thinking process.

• Observing : One notices something in one’s immediate environment (sudden cooling of temperature in Weather , bubbles forming outside a glass and then going inside in Bubbles , a moving blur in the distance in Blur , a rash in Rash ). Or one notes the results of an experiment or systematic observation (valuables missing in Disorder , no suction without air pressure in Suction pump )
• Feeling : One feels puzzled or uncertain about something (how to get to an appointment on time in Transit , why the diamonds vary in spacing in Diamond ). One wants to resolve this perplexity. One feels satisfaction once one has worked out an answer (to take the subway express in Transit , diamonds closer when needed as a warning in Diamond ).
• Wondering : One formulates a question to be addressed (why bubbles form outside a tumbler taken from hot water in Bubbles , how suction pumps work in Suction pump , what caused the rash in Rash ).
• Imagining : One thinks of possible answers (bus or subway or elevated in Transit , flagpole or ornament or wireless communication aid or direction indicator in Ferryboat , allergic reaction or heat rash in Rash ).
• Inferring : One works out what would be the case if a possible answer were assumed (valuables missing if there has been a burglary in Disorder , earlier start to the rash if it is an allergic reaction to a sulfa drug in Rash ). Or one draws a conclusion once sufficient relevant evidence is gathered (take the subway in Transit , burglary in Disorder , discontinue blood pressure medication and new cream in Rash ).
• Knowledge : One uses stored knowledge of the subject-matter to generate possible answers or to infer what would be expected on the assumption of a particular answer (knowledge of a city’s public transit system in Transit , of the requirements for a flagpole in Ferryboat , of Boyle’s law in Bubbles , of allergic reactions in Rash ).
• Experimenting : One designs and carries out an experiment or a systematic observation to find out whether the results deduced from a possible answer will occur (looking at the location of the flagpole in relation to the pilot’s position in Ferryboat , putting an ice cube on top of a tumbler taken from hot water in Bubbles , measuring the height to which a suction pump will draw water at different elevations in Suction pump , noticing the spacing of diamonds when movement to or from a diamond lane is allowed in Diamond ).
• Consulting : One finds a source of information, gets the information from the source, and makes a judgment on whether to accept it. None of our 11 examples include searching for sources of information. In this respect they are unrepresentative, since most people nowadays have almost instant access to information relevant to answering any question, including many of those illustrated by the examples. However, Candidate includes the activities of extracting information from sources and evaluating its credibility.
• Identifying and analyzing arguments : One notices an argument and works out its structure and content as a preliminary to evaluating its strength. This activity is central to Candidate . It is an important part of a critical thinking process in which one surveys arguments for various positions on an issue.
• Judging : One makes a judgment on the basis of accumulated evidence and reasoning, such as the judgment in Ferryboat that the purpose of the pole is to provide direction to the pilot.
• Deciding : One makes a decision on what to do or on what policy to adopt, as in the decision in Transit to take the subway.

By definition, a person who does something voluntarily is both willing and able to do that thing at that time. Both the willingness and the ability contribute causally to the person’s action, in the sense that the voluntary action would not occur if either (or both) of these were lacking. For example, suppose that one is standing with one’s arms at one’s sides and one voluntarily lifts one’s right arm to an extended horizontal position. One would not do so if one were unable to lift one’s arm, if for example one’s right side was paralyzed as the result of a stroke. Nor would one do so if one were unwilling to lift one’s arm, if for example one were participating in a street demonstration at which a white supremacist was urging the crowd to lift their right arm in a Nazi salute and one were unwilling to express support in this way for the racist Nazi ideology. The same analysis applies to a voluntary mental process of thinking critically. It requires both willingness and ability to think critically, including willingness and ability to perform each of the mental acts that compose the process and to coordinate those acts in a sequence that is directed at resolving the initiating perplexity.

Consider willingness first. We can identify causal contributors to willingness to think critically by considering factors that would cause a person who was able to think critically about an issue nevertheless not to do so (Hamby 2014). For each factor, the opposite condition thus contributes causally to willingness to think critically on a particular occasion. For example, people who habitually jump to conclusions without considering alternatives will not think critically about issues that arise, even if they have the required abilities. The contrary condition of willingness to suspend judgment is thus a causal contributor to thinking critically.

Now consider ability. In contrast to the ability to move one’s arm, which can be completely absent because a stroke has left the arm paralyzed, the ability to think critically is a developed ability, whose absence is not a complete absence of ability to think but absence of ability to think well. We can identify the ability to think well directly, in terms of the norms and standards for good thinking. In general, to be able do well the thinking activities that can be components of a critical thinking process, one needs to know the concepts and principles that characterize their good performance, to recognize in particular cases that the concepts and principles apply, and to apply them. The knowledge, recognition and application may be procedural rather than declarative. It may be domain-specific rather than widely applicable, and in either case may need subject-matter knowledge, sometimes of a deep kind.

Reflections of the sort illustrated by the previous two paragraphs have led scholars to identify the knowledge, abilities and dispositions of a “critical thinker”, i.e., someone who thinks critically whenever it is appropriate to do so. We turn now to these three types of causal contributors to thinking critically. We start with dispositions, since arguably these are the most powerful contributors to being a critical thinker, can be fostered at an early stage of a child’s development, and are susceptible to general improvement (Glaser 1941: 175)

8. Critical Thinking Dispositions

Educational researchers use the term ‘dispositions’ broadly for the habits of mind and attitudes that contribute causally to being a critical thinker. Some writers (e.g., Paul & Elder 2006; Hamby 2014; Bailin & Battersby 2016a) propose to use the term ‘virtues’ for this dimension of a critical thinker. The virtues in question, although they are virtues of character, concern the person’s ways of thinking rather than the person’s ways of behaving towards others. They are not moral virtues but intellectual virtues, of the sort articulated by Zagzebski (1996) and discussed by Turri, Alfano, and Greco (2017).

On a realistic conception, thinking dispositions or intellectual virtues are real properties of thinkers. They are general tendencies, propensities, or inclinations to think in particular ways in particular circumstances, and can be genuinely explanatory (Siegel 1999). Sceptics argue that there is no evidence for a specific mental basis for the habits of mind that contribute to thinking critically, and that it is pedagogically misleading to posit such a basis (Bailin et al. 1999a). Whatever their status, critical thinking dispositions need motivation for their initial formation in a child—motivation that may be external or internal. As children develop, the force of habit will gradually become important in sustaining the disposition (Nieto & Valenzuela 2012). Mere force of habit, however, is unlikely to sustain critical thinking dispositions. Critical thinkers must value and enjoy using their knowledge and abilities to think things through for themselves. They must be committed to, and lovers of, inquiry.

A person may have a critical thinking disposition with respect to only some kinds of issues. For example, one could be open-minded about scientific issues but not about religious issues. Similarly, one could be confident in one’s ability to reason about the theological implications of the existence of evil in the world but not in one’s ability to reason about the best design for a guided ballistic missile.

Facione (1990a: 25) divides “affective dispositions” of critical thinking into approaches to life and living in general and approaches to specific issues, questions or problems. Adapting this distinction, one can usefully divide critical thinking dispositions into initiating dispositions (those that contribute causally to starting to think critically about an issue) and internal dispositions (those that contribute causally to doing a good job of thinking critically once one has started). The two categories are not mutually exclusive. For example, open-mindedness, in the sense of willingness to consider alternative points of view to one’s own, is both an initiating and an internal disposition.

Using the strategy of considering factors that would block people with the ability to think critically from doing so, we can identify as initiating dispositions for thinking critically attentiveness, a habit of inquiry, self-confidence, courage, open-mindedness, willingness to suspend judgment, trust in reason, wanting evidence for one’s beliefs, and seeking the truth. We consider briefly what each of these dispositions amounts to, in each case citing sources that acknowledge them.

• Attentiveness : One will not think critically if one fails to recognize an issue that needs to be thought through. For example, the pedestrian in Weather would not have looked up if he had not noticed that the air was suddenly cooler. To be a critical thinker, then, one needs to be habitually attentive to one’s surroundings, noticing not only what one senses but also sources of perplexity in messages received and in one’s own beliefs and attitudes (Facione 1990a: 25; Facione, Facione, & Giancarlo 2001).
• Habit of inquiry : Inquiry is effortful, and one needs an internal push to engage in it. For example, the student in Bubbles could easily have stopped at idle wondering about the cause of the bubbles rather than reasoning to a hypothesis, then designing and executing an experiment to test it. Thus willingness to think critically needs mental energy and initiative. What can supply that energy? Love of inquiry, or perhaps just a habit of inquiry. Hamby (2015) has argued that willingness to inquire is the central critical thinking virtue, one that encompasses all the others. It is recognized as a critical thinking disposition by Dewey (1910: 29; 1933: 35), Glaser (1941: 5), Ennis (1987: 12; 1991: 8), Facione (1990a: 25), Bailin et al. (1999b: 294), Halpern (1998: 452), and Facione, Facione, & Giancarlo (2001).
• Self-confidence : Lack of confidence in one’s abilities can block critical thinking. For example, if the woman in Rash lacked confidence in her ability to figure things out for herself, she might just have assumed that the rash on her chest was the allergic reaction to her medication against which the pharmacist had warned her. Thus willingness to think critically requires confidence in one’s ability to inquire (Facione 1990a: 25; Facione, Facione, & Giancarlo 2001).
• Courage : Fear of thinking for oneself can stop one from doing it. Thus willingness to think critically requires intellectual courage (Paul & Elder 2006: 16).
• Open-mindedness : A dogmatic attitude will impede thinking critically. For example, a person who adheres rigidly to a “pro-choice” position on the issue of the legal status of induced abortion is likely to be unwilling to consider seriously the issue of when in its development an unborn child acquires a moral right to life. Thus willingness to think critically requires open-mindedness, in the sense of a willingness to examine questions to which one already accepts an answer but which further evidence or reasoning might cause one to answer differently (Dewey 1933; Facione 1990a; Ennis 1991; Bailin et al. 1999b; Halpern 1998, Facione, Facione, & Giancarlo 2001). Paul (1981) emphasizes open-mindedness about alternative world-views, and recommends a dialectical approach to integrating such views as central to what he calls “strong sense” critical thinking. In three studies, Haran, Ritov, & Mellers (2013) found that actively open-minded thinking, including “the tendency to weigh new evidence against a favored belief, to spend sufficient time on a problem before giving up, and to consider carefully the opinions of others in forming one’s own”, led study participants to acquire information and thus to make accurate estimations.
• Willingness to suspend judgment : Premature closure on an initial solution will block critical thinking. Thus willingness to think critically requires a willingness to suspend judgment while alternatives are explored (Facione 1990a; Ennis 1991; Halpern 1998).
• Trust in reason : Since distrust in the processes of reasoned inquiry will dissuade one from engaging in it, trust in them is an initiating critical thinking disposition (Facione 1990a, 25; Bailin et al. 1999b: 294; Facione, Facione, & Giancarlo 2001; Paul & Elder 2006). In reaction to an allegedly exclusive emphasis on reason in critical thinking theory and pedagogy, Thayer-Bacon (2000) argues that intuition, imagination, and emotion have important roles to play in an adequate conception of critical thinking that she calls “constructive thinking”. From her point of view, critical thinking requires trust not only in reason but also in intuition, imagination, and emotion.
• Seeking the truth : If one does not care about the truth but is content to stick with one’s initial bias on an issue, then one will not think critically about it. Seeking the truth is thus an initiating critical thinking disposition (Bailin et al. 1999b: 294; Facione, Facione, & Giancarlo 2001). A disposition to seek the truth is implicit in more specific critical thinking dispositions, such as trying to be well-informed, considering seriously points of view other than one’s own, looking for alternatives, suspending judgment when the evidence is insufficient, and adopting a position when the evidence supporting it is sufficient.

Some of the initiating dispositions, such as open-mindedness and willingness to suspend judgment, are also internal critical thinking dispositions, in the sense of mental habits or attitudes that contribute causally to doing a good job of critical thinking once one starts the process. But there are many other internal critical thinking dispositions. Some of them are parasitic on one’s conception of good thinking. For example, it is constitutive of good thinking about an issue to formulate the issue clearly and to maintain focus on it. For this purpose, one needs not only the corresponding ability but also the corresponding disposition. Ennis (1991: 8) describes it as the disposition “to determine and maintain focus on the conclusion or question”, Facione (1990a: 25) as “clarity in stating the question or concern”. Other internal dispositions are motivators to continue or adjust the critical thinking process, such as willingness to persist in a complex task and willingness to abandon nonproductive strategies in an attempt to self-correct (Halpern 1998: 452). For a list of identified internal critical thinking dispositions, see the Supplement on Internal Critical Thinking Dispositions .

Some theorists postulate skills, i.e., acquired abilities, as operative in critical thinking. It is not obvious, however, that a good mental act is the exercise of a generic acquired skill. Inferring an expected time of arrival, as in Transit , has some generic components but also uses non-generic subject-matter knowledge. Bailin et al. (1999a) argue against viewing critical thinking skills as generic and discrete, on the ground that skilled performance at a critical thinking task cannot be separated from knowledge of concepts and from domain-specific principles of good thinking. Talk of skills, they concede, is unproblematic if it means merely that a person with critical thinking skills is capable of intelligent performance.

Despite such scepticism, theorists of critical thinking have listed as general contributors to critical thinking what they variously call abilities (Glaser 1941; Ennis 1962, 1991), skills (Facione 1990a; Halpern 1998) or competencies (Fisher & Scriven 1997). Amalgamating these lists would produce a confusing and chaotic cornucopia of more than 50 possible educational objectives, with only partial overlap among them. It makes sense instead to try to understand the reasons for the multiplicity and diversity, and to make a selection according to one’s own reasons for singling out abilities to be developed in a critical thinking curriculum. Two reasons for diversity among lists of critical thinking abilities are the underlying conception of critical thinking and the envisaged educational level. Appraisal-only conceptions, for example, involve a different suite of abilities than constructive-only conceptions. Some lists, such as those in (Glaser 1941), are put forward as educational objectives for secondary school students, whereas others are proposed as objectives for college students (e.g., Facione 1990a).

The abilities described in the remaining paragraphs of this section emerge from reflection on the general abilities needed to do well the thinking activities identified in section 6 as components of the critical thinking process described in section 5 . The derivation of each collection of abilities is accompanied by citation of sources that list such abilities and of standardized tests that claim to test them.

Observational abilities : Careful and accurate observation sometimes requires specialist expertise and practice, as in the case of observing birds and observing accident scenes. However, there are general abilities of noticing what one’s senses are picking up from one’s environment and of being able to articulate clearly and accurately to oneself and others what one has observed. It helps in exercising them to be able to recognize and take into account factors that make one’s observation less trustworthy, such as prior framing of the situation, inadequate time, deficient senses, poor observation conditions, and the like. It helps as well to be skilled at taking steps to make one’s observation more trustworthy, such as moving closer to get a better look, measuring something three times and taking the average, and checking what one thinks one is observing with someone else who is in a good position to observe it. It also helps to be skilled at recognizing respects in which one’s report of one’s observation involves inference rather than direct observation, so that one can then consider whether the inference is justified. These abilities come into play as well when one thinks about whether and with what degree of confidence to accept an observation report, for example in the study of history or in a criminal investigation or in assessing news reports. Observational abilities show up in some lists of critical thinking abilities (Ennis 1962: 90; Facione 1990a: 16; Ennis 1991: 9). There are items testing a person’s ability to judge the credibility of observation reports in the Cornell Critical Thinking Tests, Levels X and Z (Ennis & Millman 1971; Ennis, Millman, & Tomko 1985, 2005). Norris and King (1983, 1985, 1990a, 1990b) is a test of ability to appraise observation reports.

Emotional abilities : The emotions that drive a critical thinking process are perplexity or puzzlement, a wish to resolve it, and satisfaction at achieving the desired resolution. Children experience these emotions at an early age, without being trained to do so. Education that takes critical thinking as a goal needs only to channel these emotions and to make sure not to stifle them. Collaborative critical thinking benefits from ability to recognize one’s own and others’ emotional commitments and reactions.

Questioning abilities : A critical thinking process needs transformation of an inchoate sense of perplexity into a clear question. Formulating a question well requires not building in questionable assumptions, not prejudging the issue, and using language that in context is unambiguous and precise enough (Ennis 1962: 97; 1991: 9).

Imaginative abilities : Thinking directed at finding the correct causal explanation of a general phenomenon or particular event requires an ability to imagine possible explanations. Thinking about what policy or plan of action to adopt requires generation of options and consideration of possible consequences of each option. Domain knowledge is required for such creative activity, but a general ability to imagine alternatives is helpful and can be nurtured so as to become easier, quicker, more extensive, and deeper (Dewey 1910: 34–39; 1933: 40–47). Facione (1990a) and Halpern (1998) include the ability to imagine alternatives as a critical thinking ability.

Inferential abilities : The ability to draw conclusions from given information, and to recognize with what degree of certainty one’s own or others’ conclusions follow, is universally recognized as a general critical thinking ability. All 11 examples in section 2 of this article include inferences, some from hypotheses or options (as in Transit , Ferryboat and Disorder ), others from something observed (as in Weather and Rash ). None of these inferences is formally valid. Rather, they are licensed by general, sometimes qualified substantive rules of inference (Toulmin 1958) that rest on domain knowledge—that a bus trip takes about the same time in each direction, that the terminal of a wireless telegraph would be located on the highest possible place, that sudden cooling is often followed by rain, that an allergic reaction to a sulfa drug generally shows up soon after one starts taking it. It is a matter of controversy to what extent the specialized ability to deduce conclusions from premisses using formal rules of inference is needed for critical thinking. Dewey (1933) locates logical forms in setting out the products of reflection rather than in the process of reflection. Ennis (1981a), on the other hand, maintains that a liberally-educated person should have the following abilities: to translate natural-language statements into statements using the standard logical operators, to use appropriately the language of necessary and sufficient conditions, to deal with argument forms and arguments containing symbols, to determine whether in virtue of an argument’s form its conclusion follows necessarily from its premisses, to reason with logically complex propositions, and to apply the rules and procedures of deductive logic. Inferential abilities are recognized as critical thinking abilities by Glaser (1941: 6), Facione (1990a: 9), Ennis (1991: 9), Fisher & Scriven (1997: 99, 111), and Halpern (1998: 452). Items testing inferential abilities constitute two of the five subtests of the Watson Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal (Watson & Glaser 1980a, 1980b, 1994), two of the four sections in the Cornell Critical Thinking Test Level X (Ennis & Millman 1971; Ennis, Millman, & Tomko 1985, 2005), three of the seven sections in the Cornell Critical Thinking Test Level Z (Ennis & Millman 1971; Ennis, Millman, & Tomko 1985, 2005), 11 of the 34 items on Forms A and B of the California Critical Thinking Skills Test (Facione 1990b, 1992), and a high but variable proportion of the 25 selected-response questions in the Collegiate Learning Assessment (Council for Aid to Education 2017).

Experimenting abilities : Knowing how to design and execute an experiment is important not just in scientific research but also in everyday life, as in Rash . Dewey devoted a whole chapter of his How We Think (1910: 145–156; 1933: 190–202) to the superiority of experimentation over observation in advancing knowledge. Experimenting abilities come into play at one remove in appraising reports of scientific studies. Skill in designing and executing experiments includes the acknowledged abilities to appraise evidence (Glaser 1941: 6), to carry out experiments and to apply appropriate statistical inference techniques (Facione 1990a: 9), to judge inductions to an explanatory hypothesis (Ennis 1991: 9), and to recognize the need for an adequately large sample size (Halpern 1998). The Cornell Critical Thinking Test Level Z (Ennis & Millman 1971; Ennis, Millman, & Tomko 1985, 2005) includes four items (out of 52) on experimental design. The Collegiate Learning Assessment (Council for Aid to Education 2017) makes room for appraisal of study design in both its performance task and its selected-response questions.

Consulting abilities : Skill at consulting sources of information comes into play when one seeks information to help resolve a problem, as in Candidate . Ability to find and appraise information includes ability to gather and marshal pertinent information (Glaser 1941: 6), to judge whether a statement made by an alleged authority is acceptable (Ennis 1962: 84), to plan a search for desired information (Facione 1990a: 9), and to judge the credibility of a source (Ennis 1991: 9). Ability to judge the credibility of statements is tested by 24 items (out of 76) in the Cornell Critical Thinking Test Level X (Ennis & Millman 1971; Ennis, Millman, & Tomko 1985, 2005) and by four items (out of 52) in the Cornell Critical Thinking Test Level Z (Ennis & Millman 1971; Ennis, Millman, & Tomko 1985, 2005). The College Learning Assessment’s performance task requires evaluation of whether information in documents is credible or unreliable (Council for Aid to Education 2017).

Argument analysis abilities : The ability to identify and analyze arguments contributes to the process of surveying arguments on an issue in order to form one’s own reasoned judgment, as in Candidate . The ability to detect and analyze arguments is recognized as a critical thinking skill by Facione (1990a: 7–8), Ennis (1991: 9) and Halpern (1998). Five items (out of 34) on the California Critical Thinking Skills Test (Facione 1990b, 1992) test skill at argument analysis. The College Learning Assessment (Council for Aid to Education 2017) incorporates argument analysis in its selected-response tests of critical reading and evaluation and of critiquing an argument.

Judging skills and deciding skills : Skill at judging and deciding is skill at recognizing what judgment or decision the available evidence and argument supports, and with what degree of confidence. It is thus a component of the inferential skills already discussed.

Lists and tests of critical thinking abilities often include two more abilities: identifying assumptions and constructing and evaluating definitions.

In addition to dispositions and abilities, critical thinking needs knowledge: of critical thinking concepts, of critical thinking principles, and of the subject-matter of the thinking.

We can derive a short list of concepts whose understanding contributes to critical thinking from the critical thinking abilities described in the preceding section. Observational abilities require an understanding of the difference between observation and inference. Questioning abilities require an understanding of the concepts of ambiguity and vagueness. Inferential abilities require an understanding of the difference between conclusive and defeasible inference (traditionally, between deduction and induction), as well as of the difference between necessary and sufficient conditions. Experimenting abilities require an understanding of the concepts of hypothesis, null hypothesis, assumption and prediction, as well as of the concept of statistical significance and of its difference from importance. They also require an understanding of the difference between an experiment and an observational study, and in particular of the difference between a randomized controlled trial, a prospective correlational study and a retrospective (case-control) study. Argument analysis abilities require an understanding of the concepts of argument, premiss, assumption, conclusion and counter-consideration. Additional critical thinking concepts are proposed by Bailin et al. (1999b: 293), Fisher & Scriven (1997: 105–106), Black (2012), and Blair (2021).

According to Glaser (1941: 25), ability to think critically requires knowledge of the methods of logical inquiry and reasoning. If we review the list of abilities in the preceding section, however, we can see that some of them can be acquired and exercised merely through practice, possibly guided in an educational setting, followed by feedback. Searching intelligently for a causal explanation of some phenomenon or event requires that one consider a full range of possible causal contributors, but it seems more important that one implements this principle in one’s practice than that one is able to articulate it. What is important is “operational knowledge” of the standards and principles of good thinking (Bailin et al. 1999b: 291–293). But the development of such critical thinking abilities as designing an experiment or constructing an operational definition can benefit from learning their underlying theory. Further, explicit knowledge of quirks of human thinking seems useful as a cautionary guide. Human memory is not just fallible about details, as people learn from their own experiences of misremembering, but is so malleable that a detailed, clear and vivid recollection of an event can be a total fabrication (Loftus 2017). People seek or interpret evidence in ways that are partial to their existing beliefs and expectations, often unconscious of their “confirmation bias” (Nickerson 1998). Not only are people subject to this and other cognitive biases (Kahneman 2011), of which they are typically unaware, but it may be counter-productive for one to make oneself aware of them and try consciously to counteract them or to counteract social biases such as racial or sexual stereotypes (Kenyon & Beaulac 2014). It is helpful to be aware of these facts and of the superior effectiveness of blocking the operation of biases—for example, by making an immediate record of one’s observations, refraining from forming a preliminary explanatory hypothesis, blind refereeing, double-blind randomized trials, and blind grading of students’ work. It is also helpful to be aware of the prevalence of “noise” (unwanted unsystematic variability of judgments), of how to detect noise (through a noise audit), and of how to reduce noise: make accuracy the goal, think statistically, break a process of arriving at a judgment into independent tasks, resist premature intuitions, in a group get independent judgments first, favour comparative judgments and scales (Kahneman, Sibony, & Sunstein 2021). It is helpful as well to be aware of the concept of “bounded rationality” in decision-making and of the related distinction between “satisficing” and optimizing (Simon 1956; Gigerenzer 2001).

Critical thinking about an issue requires substantive knowledge of the domain to which the issue belongs. Critical thinking abilities are not a magic elixir that can be applied to any issue whatever by somebody who has no knowledge of the facts relevant to exploring that issue. For example, the student in Bubbles needed to know that gases do not penetrate solid objects like a glass, that air expands when heated, that the volume of an enclosed gas varies directly with its temperature and inversely with its pressure, and that hot objects will spontaneously cool down to the ambient temperature of their surroundings unless kept hot by insulation or a source of heat. Critical thinkers thus need a rich fund of subject-matter knowledge relevant to the variety of situations they encounter. This fact is recognized in the inclusion among critical thinking dispositions of a concern to become and remain generally well informed.

Experimental educational interventions, with control groups, have shown that education can improve critical thinking skills and dispositions, as measured by standardized tests. For information about these tests, see the Supplement on Assessment .

What educational methods are most effective at developing the dispositions, abilities and knowledge of a critical thinker? In a comprehensive meta-analysis of experimental and quasi-experimental studies of strategies for teaching students to think critically, Abrami et al. (2015) found that dialogue, anchored instruction, and mentoring each increased the effectiveness of the educational intervention, and that they were most effective when combined. They also found that in these studies a combination of separate instruction in critical thinking with subject-matter instruction in which students are encouraged to think critically was more effective than either by itself. However, the difference was not statistically significant; that is, it might have arisen by chance.

Most of these studies lack the longitudinal follow-up required to determine whether the observed differential improvements in critical thinking abilities or dispositions continue over time, for example until high school or college graduation. For details on studies of methods of developing critical thinking skills and dispositions, see the Supplement on Educational Methods .

12. Controversies

Scholars have denied the generalizability of critical thinking abilities across subject domains, have alleged bias in critical thinking theory and pedagogy, and have investigated the relationship of critical thinking to other kinds of thinking.

McPeck (1981) attacked the thinking skills movement of the 1970s, including the critical thinking movement. He argued that there are no general thinking skills, since thinking is always thinking about some subject-matter. It is futile, he claimed, for schools and colleges to teach thinking as if it were a separate subject. Rather, teachers should lead their pupils to become autonomous thinkers by teaching school subjects in a way that brings out their cognitive structure and that encourages and rewards discussion and argument. As some of his critics (e.g., Paul 1985; Siegel 1985) pointed out, McPeck’s central argument needs elaboration, since it has obvious counter-examples in writing and speaking, for which (up to a certain level of complexity) there are teachable general abilities even though they are always about some subject-matter. To make his argument convincing, McPeck needs to explain how thinking differs from writing and speaking in a way that does not permit useful abstraction of its components from the subject-matters with which it deals. He has not done so. Nevertheless, his position that the dispositions and abilities of a critical thinker are best developed in the context of subject-matter instruction is shared by many theorists of critical thinking, including Dewey (1910, 1933), Glaser (1941), Passmore (1980), Weinstein (1990), Bailin et al. (1999b), and Willingham (2019).

McPeck’s challenge prompted reflection on the extent to which critical thinking is subject-specific. McPeck argued for a strong subject-specificity thesis, according to which it is a conceptual truth that all critical thinking abilities are specific to a subject. (He did not however extend his subject-specificity thesis to critical thinking dispositions. In particular, he took the disposition to suspend judgment in situations of cognitive dissonance to be a general disposition.) Conceptual subject-specificity is subject to obvious counter-examples, such as the general ability to recognize confusion of necessary and sufficient conditions. A more modest thesis, also endorsed by McPeck, is epistemological subject-specificity, according to which the norms of good thinking vary from one field to another. Epistemological subject-specificity clearly holds to a certain extent; for example, the principles in accordance with which one solves a differential equation are quite different from the principles in accordance with which one determines whether a painting is a genuine Picasso. But the thesis suffers, as Ennis (1989) points out, from vagueness of the concept of a field or subject and from the obvious existence of inter-field principles, however broadly the concept of a field is construed. For example, the principles of hypothetico-deductive reasoning hold for all the varied fields in which such reasoning occurs. A third kind of subject-specificity is empirical subject-specificity, according to which as a matter of empirically observable fact a person with the abilities and dispositions of a critical thinker in one area of investigation will not necessarily have them in another area of investigation.

The thesis of empirical subject-specificity raises the general problem of transfer. If critical thinking abilities and dispositions have to be developed independently in each school subject, how are they of any use in dealing with the problems of everyday life and the political and social issues of contemporary society, most of which do not fit into the framework of a traditional school subject? Proponents of empirical subject-specificity tend to argue that transfer is more likely to occur if there is critical thinking instruction in a variety of domains, with explicit attention to dispositions and abilities that cut across domains. But evidence for this claim is scanty. There is a need for well-designed empirical studies that investigate the conditions that make transfer more likely.

It is common ground in debates about the generality or subject-specificity of critical thinking dispositions and abilities that critical thinking about any topic requires background knowledge about the topic. For example, the most sophisticated understanding of the principles of hypothetico-deductive reasoning is of no help unless accompanied by some knowledge of what might be plausible explanations of some phenomenon under investigation.

Critics have objected to bias in the theory, pedagogy and practice of critical thinking. Commentators (e.g., Alston 1995; Ennis 1998) have noted that anyone who takes a position has a bias in the neutral sense of being inclined in one direction rather than others. The critics, however, are objecting to bias in the pejorative sense of an unjustified favoring of certain ways of knowing over others, frequently alleging that the unjustly favoured ways are those of a dominant sex or culture (Bailin 1995). These ways favour:

• reinforcement of egocentric and sociocentric biases over dialectical engagement with opposing world-views (Paul 1981, 1984; Warren 1998)
• distancing from the object of inquiry over closeness to it (Martin 1992; Thayer-Bacon 1992)
• indifference to the situation of others over care for them (Martin 1992)
• orientation to thought over orientation to action (Martin 1992)
• being reasonable over caring to understand people’s ideas (Thayer-Bacon 1993)
• being neutral and objective over being embodied and situated (Thayer-Bacon 1995a)
• doubting over believing (Thayer-Bacon 1995b)
• reason over emotion, imagination and intuition (Thayer-Bacon 2000)
• solitary thinking over collaborative thinking (Thayer-Bacon 2000)
• written and spoken assignments over other forms of expression (Alston 2001)
• attention to written and spoken communications over attention to human problems (Alston 2001)
• winning debates in the public sphere over making and understanding meaning (Alston 2001)

A common thread in this smorgasbord of accusations is dissatisfaction with focusing on the logical analysis and evaluation of reasoning and arguments. While these authors acknowledge that such analysis and evaluation is part of critical thinking and should be part of its conceptualization and pedagogy, they insist that it is only a part. Paul (1981), for example, bemoans the tendency of atomistic teaching of methods of analyzing and evaluating arguments to turn students into more able sophists, adept at finding fault with positions and arguments with which they disagree but even more entrenched in the egocentric and sociocentric biases with which they began. Martin (1992) and Thayer-Bacon (1992) cite with approval the self-reported intimacy with their subject-matter of leading researchers in biology and medicine, an intimacy that conflicts with the distancing allegedly recommended in standard conceptions and pedagogy of critical thinking. Thayer-Bacon (2000) contrasts the embodied and socially embedded learning of her elementary school students in a Montessori school, who used their imagination, intuition and emotions as well as their reason, with conceptions of critical thinking as

thinking that is used to critique arguments, offer justifications, and make judgments about what are the good reasons, or the right answers. (Thayer-Bacon 2000: 127–128)

Alston (2001) reports that her students in a women’s studies class were able to see the flaws in the Cinderella myth that pervades much romantic fiction but in their own romantic relationships still acted as if all failures were the woman’s fault and still accepted the notions of love at first sight and living happily ever after. Students, she writes, should

be able to connect their intellectual critique to a more affective, somatic, and ethical account of making risky choices that have sexist, racist, classist, familial, sexual, or other consequences for themselves and those both near and far… critical thinking that reads arguments, texts, or practices merely on the surface without connections to feeling/desiring/doing or action lacks an ethical depth that should infuse the difference between mere cognitive activity and something we want to call critical thinking. (Alston 2001: 34)

Some critics portray such biases as unfair to women. Thayer-Bacon (1992), for example, has charged modern critical thinking theory with being sexist, on the ground that it separates the self from the object and causes one to lose touch with one’s inner voice, and thus stigmatizes women, who (she asserts) link self to object and listen to their inner voice. Her charge does not imply that women as a group are on average less able than men to analyze and evaluate arguments. Facione (1990c) found no difference by sex in performance on his California Critical Thinking Skills Test. Kuhn (1991: 280–281) found no difference by sex in either the disposition or the competence to engage in argumentative thinking.

The critics propose a variety of remedies for the biases that they allege. In general, they do not propose to eliminate or downplay critical thinking as an educational goal. Rather, they propose to conceptualize critical thinking differently and to change its pedagogy accordingly. Their pedagogical proposals arise logically from their objections. They can be summarized as follows:

• Focus on argument networks with dialectical exchanges reflecting contesting points of view rather than on atomic arguments, so as to develop “strong sense” critical thinking that transcends egocentric and sociocentric biases (Paul 1981, 1984).
• Foster closeness to the subject-matter and feeling connected to others in order to inform a humane democracy (Martin 1992).
• Develop “constructive thinking” as a social activity in a community of physically embodied and socially embedded inquirers with personal voices who value not only reason but also imagination, intuition and emotion (Thayer-Bacon 2000).
• In developing critical thinking in school subjects, treat as important neither skills nor dispositions but opening worlds of meaning (Alston 2001).
• Attend to the development of critical thinking dispositions as well as skills, and adopt the “critical pedagogy” practised and advocated by Freire (1968 [1970]) and hooks (1994) (Dalgleish, Girard, & Davies 2017).

A common thread in these proposals is treatment of critical thinking as a social, interactive, personally engaged activity like that of a quilting bee or a barn-raising (Thayer-Bacon 2000) rather than as an individual, solitary, distanced activity symbolized by Rodin’s The Thinker . One can get a vivid description of education with the former type of goal from the writings of bell hooks (1994, 2010). Critical thinking for her is open-minded dialectical exchange across opposing standpoints and from multiple perspectives, a conception similar to Paul’s “strong sense” critical thinking (Paul 1981). She abandons the structure of domination in the traditional classroom. In an introductory course on black women writers, for example, she assigns students to write an autobiographical paragraph about an early racial memory, then to read it aloud as the others listen, thus affirming the uniqueness and value of each voice and creating a communal awareness of the diversity of the group’s experiences (hooks 1994: 84). Her “engaged pedagogy” is thus similar to the “freedom under guidance” implemented in John Dewey’s Laboratory School of Chicago in the late 1890s and early 1900s. It incorporates the dialogue, anchored instruction, and mentoring that Abrami (2015) found to be most effective in improving critical thinking skills and dispositions.

What is the relationship of critical thinking to problem solving, decision-making, higher-order thinking, creative thinking, and other recognized types of thinking? One’s answer to this question obviously depends on how one defines the terms used in the question. If critical thinking is conceived broadly to cover any careful thinking about any topic for any purpose, then problem solving and decision making will be kinds of critical thinking, if they are done carefully. Historically, ‘critical thinking’ and ‘problem solving’ were two names for the same thing. If critical thinking is conceived more narrowly as consisting solely of appraisal of intellectual products, then it will be disjoint with problem solving and decision making, which are constructive.

Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives used the phrase “intellectual abilities and skills” for what had been labeled “critical thinking” by some, “reflective thinking” by Dewey and others, and “problem solving” by still others (Bloom et al. 1956: 38). Thus, the so-called “higher-order thinking skills” at the taxonomy’s top levels of analysis, synthesis and evaluation are just critical thinking skills, although they do not come with general criteria for their assessment (Ennis 1981b). The revised version of Bloom’s taxonomy (Anderson et al. 2001) likewise treats critical thinking as cutting across those types of cognitive process that involve more than remembering (Anderson et al. 2001: 269–270). For details, see the Supplement on History .

As to creative thinking, it overlaps with critical thinking (Bailin 1987, 1988). Thinking about the explanation of some phenomenon or event, as in Ferryboat , requires creative imagination in constructing plausible explanatory hypotheses. Likewise, thinking about a policy question, as in Candidate , requires creativity in coming up with options. Conversely, creativity in any field needs to be balanced by critical appraisal of the draft painting or novel or mathematical theory.

• Abrami, Philip C., Robert M. Bernard, Eugene Borokhovski, David I. Waddington, C. Anne Wade, and Tonje Person, 2015, “Strategies for Teaching Students to Think Critically: A Meta-analysis”, Review of Educational Research , 85(2): 275–314. doi:10.3102/0034654314551063
• Aikin, Wilford M., 1942, The Story of the Eight-year Study, with Conclusions and Recommendations , Volume I of Adventure in American Education , New York and London: Harper & Brothers. [ Aikin 1942 available online ]
• Alston, Kal, 1995, “Begging the Question: Is Critical Thinking Biased?”, Educational Theory , 45(2): 225–233. doi:10.1111/j.1741-5446.1995.00225.x
• –––, 2001, “Re/Thinking Critical Thinking: The Seductions of Everyday Life”, Studies in Philosophy and Education , 20(1): 27–40. doi:10.1023/A:1005247128053
• American Educational Research Association, 2014, Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing / American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, National Council on Measurement in Education , Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
• Anderson, Lorin W., David R. Krathwohl, Peter W. Airiasian, Kathleen A. Cruikshank, Richard E. Mayer, Paul R. Pintrich, James Raths, and Merlin C. Wittrock, 2001, A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives , New York: Longman, complete edition.
• Bailin, Sharon, 1987, “Critical and Creative Thinking”, Informal Logic , 9(1): 23–30. [ Bailin 1987 available online ]
• –––, 1988, Achieving Extraordinary Ends: An Essay on Creativity , Dordrecht: Kluwer. doi:10.1007/978-94-009-2780-3
• –––, 1995, “Is Critical Thinking Biased? Clarifications and Implications”, Educational Theory , 45(2): 191–197. doi:10.1111/j.1741-5446.1995.00191.x
• Bailin, Sharon and Mark Battersby, 2009, “Inquiry: A Dialectical Approach to Teaching Critical Thinking”, in Juho Ritola (ed.), Argument Cultures: Proceedings of OSSA 09 , CD-ROM (pp. 1–10), Windsor, ON: OSSA. [ Bailin & Battersby 2009 available online ]
• –––, 2016a, “Fostering the Virtues of Inquiry”, Topoi , 35(2): 367–374. doi:10.1007/s11245-015-9307-6
• –––, 2016b, Reason in the Balance: An Inquiry Approach to Critical Thinking , Indianapolis: Hackett, 2nd edition.
• –––, 2021, “Inquiry: Teaching for Reasoned Judgment”, in Daniel Fasko, Jr. and Frank Fair (eds.), Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Theory, Development, Instruction, and Assessment , Leiden: Brill, pp. 31–46. doi: 10.1163/9789004444591_003
• Bailin, Sharon, Roland Case, Jerrold R. Coombs, and Leroi B. Daniels, 1999a, “Common Misconceptions of Critical Thinking”, Journal of Curriculum Studies , 31(3): 269–283. doi:10.1080/002202799183124
• –––, 1999b, “Conceptualizing Critical Thinking”, Journal of Curriculum Studies , 31(3): 285–302. doi:10.1080/002202799183133
• Blair, J. Anthony, 2021, Studies in Critical Thinking , Windsor, ON: Windsor Studies in Argumentation, 2nd edition. [Available online at https://windsor.scholarsportal.info/omp/index.php/wsia/catalog/book/106]
• Berman, Alan M., Seth J. Schwartz, William M. Kurtines, and Steven L. Berman, 2001, “The Process of Exploration in Identity Formation: The Role of Style and Competence”, Journal of Adolescence , 24(4): 513–528. doi:10.1006/jado.2001.0386
• Black, Beth (ed.), 2012, An A to Z of Critical Thinking , London: Continuum International Publishing Group.
• Bloom, Benjamin Samuel, Max D. Engelhart, Edward J. Furst, Walter H. Hill, and David R. Krathwohl, 1956, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Handbook I: Cognitive Domain , New York: David McKay.
• Boardman, Frank, Nancy M. Cavender, and Howard Kahane, 2018, Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric: The Use of Reason in Everyday Life , Boston: Cengage, 13th edition.
• Browne, M. Neil and Stuart M. Keeley, 2018, Asking the Right Questions: A Guide to Critical Thinking , Hoboken, NJ: Pearson, 12th edition.
• Center for Assessment & Improvement of Learning, 2017, Critical Thinking Assessment Test , Cookeville, TN: Tennessee Technological University.
• Cleghorn, Paul. 2021. “Critical Thinking in the Elementary School: Practical Guidance for Building a Culture of Thinking”, in Daniel Fasko, Jr. and Frank Fair (eds.), Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Theory, Development, Instruction, and Assessmen t, Leiden: Brill, pp. 150–167. doi: 10.1163/9789004444591_010
• Cohen, Jacob, 1988, Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences , Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2nd edition.
• College Board, 1983, Academic Preparation for College. What Students Need to Know and Be Able to Do , New York: College Entrance Examination Board, ERIC document ED232517.
• Commission on the Relation of School and College of the Progressive Education Association, 1943, Thirty Schools Tell Their Story , Volume V of Adventure in American Education , New York and London: Harper & Brothers.
• Council for Aid to Education, 2017, CLA+ Student Guide . Available at http://cae.org/images/uploads/pdf/CLA_Student_Guide_Institution.pdf ; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• Dalgleish, Adam, Patrick Girard, and Maree Davies, 2017, “Critical Thinking, Bias and Feminist Philosophy: Building a Better Framework through Collaboration”, Informal Logic , 37(4): 351–369. [ Dalgleish et al. available online ]
• Dewey, John, 1910, How We Think , Boston: D.C. Heath. [ Dewey 1910 available online ]
• –––, 1916, Democracy and Education: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Education , New York: Macmillan.
• –––, 1933, How We Think: A Restatement of the Relation of Reflective Thinking to the Educative Process , Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath.
• –––, 1936, “The Theory of the Chicago Experiment”, Appendix II of Mayhew & Edwards 1936: 463–477.
• –––, 1938, Logic: The Theory of Inquiry , New York: Henry Holt and Company.
• Dominguez, Caroline (coord.), 2018a, A European Collection of the Critical Thinking Skills and Dispositions Needed in Different Professional Fields for the 21st Century , Vila Real, Portugal: UTAD. Available at http://bit.ly/CRITHINKEDUO1 ; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• ––– (coord.), 2018b, A European Review on Critical Thinking Educational Practices in Higher Education Institutions , Vila Real: UTAD. Available at http://bit.ly/CRITHINKEDUO2 ; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• ––– (coord.), 2018c, The CRITHINKEDU European Course on Critical Thinking Education for University Teachers: From Conception to Delivery , Vila Real: UTAD. Available at http:/bit.ly/CRITHINKEDU03; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• Dominguez Caroline and Rita Payan-Carreira (eds.), 2019, Promoting Critical Thinking in European Higher Education Institutions: Towards an Educational Protocol , Vila Real: UTAD. Available at http:/bit.ly/CRITHINKEDU04; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• Ennis, Robert H., 1958, “An Appraisal of the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal”, The Journal of Educational Research , 52(4): 155–158. doi:10.1080/00220671.1958.10882558
• –––, 1962, “A Concept of Critical Thinking: A Proposed Basis for Research on the Teaching and Evaluation of Critical Thinking Ability”, Harvard Educational Review , 32(1): 81–111.
• –––, 1981a, “A Conception of Deductive Logical Competence”, Teaching Philosophy , 4(3/4): 337–385. doi:10.5840/teachphil198143/429
• –––, 1981b, “Eight Fallacies in Bloom’s Taxonomy”, in C. J. B. Macmillan (ed.), Philosophy of Education 1980: Proceedings of the Thirty-seventh Annual Meeting of the Philosophy of Education Society , Bloomington, IL: Philosophy of Education Society, pp. 269–273.
• –––, 1984, “Problems in Testing Informal Logic, Critical Thinking, Reasoning Ability”, Informal Logic , 6(1): 3–9. [ Ennis 1984 available online ]
• –––, 1987, “A Taxonomy of Critical Thinking Dispositions and Abilities”, in Joan Boykoff Baron and Robert J. Sternberg (eds.), Teaching Thinking Skills: Theory and Practice , New York: W. H. Freeman, pp. 9–26.
• –––, 1989, “Critical Thinking and Subject Specificity: Clarification and Needed Research”, Educational Researcher , 18(3): 4–10. doi:10.3102/0013189X018003004
• –––, 1991, “Critical Thinking: A Streamlined Conception”, Teaching Philosophy , 14(1): 5–24. doi:10.5840/teachphil19911412
• –––, 1996, “Critical Thinking Dispositions: Their Nature and Assessability”, Informal Logic , 18(2–3): 165–182. [ Ennis 1996 available online ]
• –––, 1998, “Is Critical Thinking Culturally Biased?”, Teaching Philosophy , 21(1): 15–33. doi:10.5840/teachphil19982113
• –––, 2011, “Critical Thinking: Reflection and Perspective Part I”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking across the Disciplines , 26(1): 4–18. doi:10.5840/inquiryctnews20112613
• –––, 2013, “Critical Thinking across the Curriculum: The Wisdom CTAC Program”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking across the Disciplines , 28(2): 25–45. doi:10.5840/inquiryct20132828
• –––, 2016, “Definition: A Three-Dimensional Analysis with Bearing on Key Concepts”, in Patrick Bondy and Laura Benacquista (eds.), Argumentation, Objectivity, and Bias: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA), 18–21 May 2016 , Windsor, ON: OSSA, pp. 1–19. Available at http://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive/OSSA11/papersandcommentaries/105 ; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• –––, 2018, “Critical Thinking Across the Curriculum: A Vision”, Topoi , 37(1): 165–184. doi:10.1007/s11245-016-9401-4
• Ennis, Robert H., and Jason Millman, 1971, Manual for Cornell Critical Thinking Test, Level X, and Cornell Critical Thinking Test, Level Z , Urbana, IL: Critical Thinking Project, University of Illinois.
• Ennis, Robert H., Jason Millman, and Thomas Norbert Tomko, 1985, Cornell Critical Thinking Tests Level X & Level Z: Manual , Pacific Grove, CA: Midwest Publication, 3rd edition.
• –––, 2005, Cornell Critical Thinking Tests Level X & Level Z: Manual , Seaside, CA: Critical Thinking Company, 5th edition.
• Ennis, Robert H. and Eric Weir, 1985, The Ennis-Weir Critical Thinking Essay Test: Test, Manual, Criteria, Scoring Sheet: An Instrument for Teaching and Testing , Pacific Grove, CA: Midwest Publications.
• Facione, Peter A., 1990a, Critical Thinking: A Statement of Expert Consensus for Purposes of Educational Assessment and Instruction , Research Findings and Recommendations Prepared for the Committee on Pre-College Philosophy of the American Philosophical Association, ERIC Document ED315423.
• –––, 1990b, California Critical Thinking Skills Test, CCTST – Form A , Millbrae, CA: The California Academic Press.
• –––, 1990c, The California Critical Thinking Skills Test--College Level. Technical Report #3. Gender, Ethnicity, Major, CT Self-Esteem, and the CCTST , ERIC Document ED326584.
• –––, 1992, California Critical Thinking Skills Test: CCTST – Form B, Millbrae, CA: The California Academic Press.
• –––, 2000, “The Disposition Toward Critical Thinking: Its Character, Measurement, and Relationship to Critical Thinking Skill”, Informal Logic , 20(1): 61–84. [ Facione 2000 available online ]
• Facione, Peter A. and Noreen C. Facione, 1992, CCTDI: A Disposition Inventory , Millbrae, CA: The California Academic Press.
• Facione, Peter A., Noreen C. Facione, and Carol Ann F. Giancarlo, 2001, California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory: CCTDI: Inventory Manual , Millbrae, CA: The California Academic Press.
• Facione, Peter A., Carol A. Sánchez, and Noreen C. Facione, 1994, Are College Students Disposed to Think? , Millbrae, CA: The California Academic Press. ERIC Document ED368311.
• Fisher, Alec, and Michael Scriven, 1997, Critical Thinking: Its Definition and Assessment , Norwich: Centre for Research in Critical Thinking, University of East Anglia.
• Freire, Paulo, 1968 [1970], Pedagogia do Oprimido . Translated as Pedagogy of the Oppressed , Myra Bergman Ramos (trans.), New York: Continuum, 1970.
• Gigerenzer, Gerd, 2001, “The Adaptive Toolbox”, in Gerd Gigerenzer and Reinhard Selten (eds.), Bounded Rationality: The Adaptive Toolbox , Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 37–50.
• Glaser, Edward Maynard, 1941, An Experiment in the Development of Critical Thinking , New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University.
• Groarke, Leo A. and Christopher W. Tindale, 2012, Good Reasoning Matters! A Constructive Approach to Critical Thinking , Don Mills, ON: Oxford University Press, 5th edition.
• Halpern, Diane F., 1998, “Teaching Critical Thinking for Transfer Across Domains: Disposition, Skills, Structure Training, and Metacognitive Monitoring”, American Psychologist , 53(4): 449–455. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.53.4.449
• –––, 2016, Manual: Halpern Critical Thinking Assessment , Mödling, Austria: Schuhfried. Available at https://pdfcoffee.com/hcta-test-manual-pdf-free.html; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• Hamby, Benjamin, 2014, The Virtues of Critical Thinkers , Doctoral dissertation, Philosophy, McMaster University. [ Hamby 2014 available online ]
• –––, 2015, “Willingness to Inquire: The Cardinal Critical Thinking Virtue”, in Martin Davies and Ronald Barnett (eds.), The Palgrave Handbook of Critical Thinking in Higher Education , New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 77–87.
• Haran, Uriel, Ilana Ritov, and Barbara A. Mellers, 2013, “The Role of Actively Open-minded Thinking in Information Acquisition, Accuracy, and Calibration”, Judgment and Decision Making , 8(3): 188–201.
• Hatcher, Donald and Kevin Possin, 2021, “Commentary: Thinking Critically about Critical Thinking Assessment”, in Daniel Fasko, Jr. and Frank Fair (eds.), Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Theory, Development, Instruction, and Assessment , Leiden: Brill, pp. 298–322. doi: 10.1163/9789004444591_017
• Haynes, Ada, Elizabeth Lisic, Kevin Harris, Katie Leming, Kyle Shanks, and Barry Stein, 2015, “Using the Critical Thinking Assessment Test (CAT) as a Model for Designing Within-Course Assessments: Changing How Faculty Assess Student Learning”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines , 30(3): 38–48. doi:10.5840/inquiryct201530316
• Haynes, Ada and Barry Stein, 2021, “Observations from a Long-Term Effort to Assess and Improve Critical Thinking”, in Daniel Fasko, Jr. and Frank Fair (eds.), Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Theory, Development, Instruction, and Assessment , Leiden: Brill, pp. 231–254. doi: 10.1163/9789004444591_014
• Hiner, Amanda L. 2021. “Equipping Students for Success in College and Beyond: Placing Critical Thinking Instruction at the Heart of a General Education Program”, in Daniel Fasko, Jr. and Frank Fair (eds.), Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Theory, Development, Instruction, and Assessment , Leiden: Brill, pp. 188–208. doi: 10.1163/9789004444591_012
• Hitchcock, David, 2017, “Critical Thinking as an Educational Ideal”, in his On Reasoning and Argument: Essays in Informal Logic and on Critical Thinking , Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 477–497. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-53562-3_30
• –––, 2021, “Seven Philosophical Implications of Critical Thinking: Themes, Variations, Implications”, in Daniel Fasko, Jr. and Frank Fair (eds.), Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Theory, Development, Instruction, and Assessment , Leiden: Brill, pp. 9–30. doi: 10.1163/9789004444591_002
• hooks, bell, 1994, Teaching to Transgress: Education as the Practice of Freedom , New York and London: Routledge.
• –––, 2010, Teaching Critical Thinking: Practical Wisdom , New York and London: Routledge.
• Johnson, Ralph H., 1992, “The Problem of Defining Critical Thinking”, in Stephen P, Norris (ed.), The Generalizability of Critical Thinking , New York: Teachers College Press, pp. 38–53.
• Kahane, Howard, 1971, Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric: The Use of Reason in Everyday Life , Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
• Kahneman, Daniel, 2011, Thinking, Fast and Slow , New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
• Kahneman, Daniel, Olivier Sibony, & Cass R. Sunstein, 2021, Noise: A Flaw in Human Judgment , New York: Little, Brown Spark.
• Kenyon, Tim, and Guillaume Beaulac, 2014, “Critical Thinking Education and Debasing”, Informal Logic , 34(4): 341–363. [ Kenyon & Beaulac 2014 available online ]
• Krathwohl, David R., Benjamin S. Bloom, and Bertram B. Masia, 1964, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook II: Affective Domain , New York: David McKay.
• Kuhn, Deanna, 1991, The Skills of Argument , New York: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511571350
• –––, 2019, “Critical Thinking as Discourse”, Human Development, 62 (3): 146–164. doi:10.1159/000500171
• Lipman, Matthew, 1987, “Critical Thinking–What Can It Be?”, Analytic Teaching , 8(1): 5–12. [ Lipman 1987 available online ]
• –––, 2003, Thinking in Education , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2nd edition.
• Loftus, Elizabeth F., 2017, “Eavesdropping on Memory”, Annual Review of Psychology , 68: 1–18. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-010416-044138
• Makaiau, Amber Strong, 2021, “The Good Thinker’s Tool Kit: How to Engage Critical Thinking and Reasoning in Secondary Education”, in Daniel Fasko, Jr. and Frank Fair (eds.), Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Theory, Development, Instruction, and Assessment , Leiden: Brill, pp. 168–187. doi: 10.1163/9789004444591_011
• Martin, Jane Roland, 1992, “Critical Thinking for a Humane World”, in Stephen P. Norris (ed.), The Generalizability of Critical Thinking , New York: Teachers College Press, pp. 163–180.
• Mayhew, Katherine Camp, and Anna Camp Edwards, 1936, The Dewey School: The Laboratory School of the University of Chicago, 1896–1903 , New York: Appleton-Century. [ Mayhew & Edwards 1936 available online ]
• McPeck, John E., 1981, Critical Thinking and Education , New York: St. Martin’s Press.
• Moore, Brooke Noel and Richard Parker, 2020, Critical Thinking , New York: McGraw-Hill, 13th edition.
• Nickerson, Raymond S., 1998, “Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises”, Review of General Psychology , 2(2): 175–220. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175
• Nieto, Ana Maria, and Jorge Valenzuela, 2012, “A Study of the Internal Structure of Critical Thinking Dispositions”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking across the Disciplines , 27(1): 31–38. doi:10.5840/inquiryct20122713
• Norris, Stephen P., 1985, “Controlling for Background Beliefs When Developing Multiple-choice Critical Thinking Tests”, Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice , 7(3): 5–11. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3992.1988.tb00437.x
• Norris, Stephen P. and Robert H. Ennis, 1989, Evaluating Critical Thinking (The Practitioners’ Guide to Teaching Thinking Series), Pacific Grove, CA: Midwest Publications.
• Norris, Stephen P. and Ruth Elizabeth King, 1983, Test on Appraising Observations , St. John’s, NL: Institute for Educational Research and Development, Memorial University of Newfoundland.
• –––, 1984, The Design of a Critical Thinking Test on Appraising Observations , St. John’s, NL: Institute for Educational Research and Development, Memorial University of Newfoundland. ERIC Document ED260083.
• –––, 1985, Test on Appraising Observations: Manual , St. John’s, NL: Institute for Educational Research and Development, Memorial University of Newfoundland.
• –––, 1990a, Test on Appraising Observations , St. John’s, NL: Institute for Educational Research and Development, Memorial University of Newfoundland, 2nd edition.
• –––, 1990b, Test on Appraising Observations: Manual , St. John’s, NL: Institute for Educational Research and Development, Memorial University of Newfoundland, 2nd edition.
• OCR [Oxford, Cambridge and RSA Examinations], 2011, AS/A Level GCE: Critical Thinking – H052, H452 , Cambridge: OCR. Past papers available at https://pastpapers.co/ocr/?dir=A-Level/Critical-Thinking-H052-H452; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• Ontario Ministry of Education, 2013, The Ontario Curriculum Grades 9 to 12: Social Sciences and Humanities . Available at http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/curriculum/secondary/ssciences9to122013.pdf ; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• Passmore, John Arthur, 1980, The Philosophy of Teaching , London: Duckworth.
• Paul, Richard W., 1981, “Teaching Critical Thinking in the ‘Strong’ Sense: A Focus on Self-Deception, World Views, and a Dialectical Mode of Analysis”, Informal Logic , 4(2): 2–7. [ Paul 1981 available online ]
• –––, 1984, “Critical Thinking: Fundamental to Education for a Free Society”, Educational Leadership , 42(1): 4–14.
• –––, 1985, “McPeck’s Mistakes”, Informal Logic , 7(1): 35–43. [ Paul 1985 available online ]
• Paul, Richard W. and Linda Elder, 2006, The Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking: Concepts and Tools , Dillon Beach, CA: Foundation for Critical Thinking, 4th edition.
• Payette, Patricia, and Edna Ross, 2016, “Making a Campus-Wide Commitment to Critical Thinking: Insights and Promising Practices Utilizing the Paul-Elder Approach at the University of Louisville”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines , 31(1): 98–110. doi:10.5840/inquiryct20163118
• Possin, Kevin, 2008, “A Field Guide to Critical-Thinking Assessment”, Teaching Philosophy , 31(3): 201–228. doi:10.5840/teachphil200831324
• –––, 2013a, “Some Problems with the Halpern Critical Thinking Assessment (HCTA) Test”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking across the Disciplines , 28(3): 4–12. doi:10.5840/inquiryct201328313
• –––, 2013b, “A Serious Flaw in the Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA) Test”, Informal Logic , 33(3): 390–405. [ Possin 2013b available online ]
• –––, 2013c, “A Fatal Flaw in the Collegiate Learning Assessment Test”, Assessment Update , 25 (1): 8–12.
• –––, 2014, “Critique of the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal Test: The More You Know, the Lower Your Score”, Informal Logic , 34(4): 393–416. [ Possin 2014 available online ]
• –––, 2020, “CAT Scan: A Critical Review of the Critical-Thinking Assessment Test”, Informal Logic , 40 (3): 489–508. [Available online at https://informallogic.ca/index.php/informal_logic/article/view/6243]
• Rawls, John, 1971, A Theory of Justice , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Rear, David, 2019, “One Size Fits All? The Limitations of Standardised Assessment in Critical Thinking”, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education , 44(5): 664–675. doi: 10.1080/02602938.2018.1526255
• Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, 1762, Émile , Amsterdam: Jean Néaulme.
• Scheffler, Israel, 1960, The Language of Education , Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
• Scriven, Michael, and Richard W. Paul, 1987, Defining Critical Thinking , Draft statement written for the National Council for Excellence in Critical Thinking Instruction. Available at http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/defining-critical-thinking/766 ; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• Sheffield, Clarence Burton Jr., 2018, “Promoting Critical Thinking in Higher Education: My Experiences as the Inaugural Eugene H. Fram Chair in Applied Critical Thinking at Rochester Institute of Technology”, Topoi , 37(1): 155–163. doi:10.1007/s11245-016-9392-1
• Siegel, Harvey, 1985, “McPeck, Informal Logic and the Nature of Critical Thinking”, in David Nyberg (ed.), Philosophy of Education 1985: Proceedings of the Forty-First Annual Meeting of the Philosophy of Education Society , Normal, IL: Philosophy of Education Society, pp. 61–72.
• –––, 1988, Educating Reason: Rationality, Critical Thinking, and Education , New York: Routledge.
• –––, 1999, “What (Good) Are Thinking Dispositions?”, Educational Theory , 49(2): 207–221. doi:10.1111/j.1741-5446.1999.00207.x
• Simon, Herbert A., 1956, “Rational Choice and the Structure of the Environment”, Psychological Review , 63(2): 129–138. doi: 10.1037/h0042769
• Simpson, Elizabeth, 1966–67, “The Classification of Educational Objectives: Psychomotor Domain”, Illinois Teacher of Home Economics , 10(4): 110–144, ERIC document ED0103613. [ Simpson 1966–67 available online ]
• Skolverket, 2018, Curriculum for the Compulsory School, Preschool Class and School-age Educare , Stockholm: Skolverket, revised 2018. Available at https://www.skolverket.se/download/18.31c292d516e7445866a218f/1576654682907/pdf3984.pdf; last accessed 2022 07 15.
• Smith, B. Othanel, 1953, “The Improvement of Critical Thinking”, Progressive Education , 30(5): 129–134.
• Smith, Eugene Randolph, Ralph Winfred Tyler, and the Evaluation Staff, 1942, Appraising and Recording Student Progress , Volume III of Adventure in American Education , New York and London: Harper & Brothers.
• Splitter, Laurance J., 1987, “Educational Reform through Philosophy for Children”, Thinking: The Journal of Philosophy for Children , 7(2): 32–39. doi:10.5840/thinking1987729
• Stanovich Keith E., and Paula J. Stanovich, 2010, “A Framework for Critical Thinking, Rational Thinking, and Intelligence”, in David D. Preiss and Robert J. Sternberg (eds), Innovations in Educational Psychology: Perspectives on Learning, Teaching and Human Development , New York: Springer Publishing, pp 195–237.
• Stanovich Keith E., Richard F. West, and Maggie E. Toplak, 2011, “Intelligence and Rationality”, in Robert J. Sternberg and Scott Barry Kaufman (eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 3rd edition, pp. 784–826. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511977244.040
• Tankersley, Karen, 2005, Literacy Strategies for Grades 4–12: Reinforcing the Threads of Reading , Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
• Thayer-Bacon, Barbara J., 1992, “Is Modern Critical Thinking Theory Sexist?”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines , 10(1): 3–7. doi:10.5840/inquiryctnews199210123
• –––, 1993, “Caring and Its Relationship to Critical Thinking”, Educational Theory , 43(3): 323–340. doi:10.1111/j.1741-5446.1993.00323.x
• –––, 1995a, “Constructive Thinking: Personal Voice”, Journal of Thought , 30(1): 55–70.
• –––, 1995b, “Doubting and Believing: Both are Important for Critical Thinking”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking across the Disciplines , 15(2): 59–66. doi:10.5840/inquiryctnews199515226
• –––, 2000, Transforming Critical Thinking: Thinking Constructively , New York: Teachers College Press.
• Toulmin, Stephen Edelston, 1958, The Uses of Argument , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Turri, John, Mark Alfano, and John Greco, 2017, “Virtue Epistemology”, in Edward N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2017 Edition). URL = < https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2017/entries/epistemology-virtue/ >
• Vincent-Lancrin, Stéphan, Carlos González-Sancho, Mathias Bouckaert, Federico de Luca, Meritxell Fernández-Barrerra, Gwénaël Jacotin, Joaquin Urgel, and Quentin Vidal, 2019, Fostering Students’ Creativity and Critical Thinking: What It Means in School. Educational Research and Innovation , Paris: OECD Publishing.
• Warren, Karen J. 1988. “Critical Thinking and Feminism”, Informal Logic , 10(1): 31–44. [ Warren 1988 available online ]
• Watson, Goodwin, and Edward M. Glaser, 1980a, Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal, Form A , San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
• –––, 1980b, Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal: Forms A and B; Manual , San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation,
• –––, 1994, Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal, Form B , San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
• Weinstein, Mark, 1990, “Towards a Research Agenda for Informal Logic and Critical Thinking”, Informal Logic , 12(3): 121–143. [ Weinstein 1990 available online ]
• –––, 2013, Logic, Truth and Inquiry , London: College Publications.
• Willingham, Daniel T., 2019, “How to Teach Critical Thinking”, Education: Future Frontiers , 1: 1–17. [Available online at https://prod65.education.nsw.gov.au/content/dam/main-education/teaching-and-learning/education-for-a-changing-world/media/documents/How-to-teach-critical-thinking-Willingham.pdf.]
• Zagzebski, Linda Trinkaus, 1996, Virtues of the Mind: An Inquiry into the Nature of Virtue and the Ethical Foundations of Knowledge , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139174763

How to cite this entry . Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society . Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO). Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers , with links to its database.

• Association for Informal Logic and Critical Thinking (AILACT)
• Critical Thinking Across the European Higher Education Curricula (CRITHINKEDU)
• Critical Thinking Definition, Instruction, and Assessment: A Rigorous Approach
• Critical Thinking Research (RAIL)
• Foundation for Critical Thinking
• Insight Assessment
• Partnership for 21st Century Learning (P21)
• The Critical Thinking Consortium
• The Nature of Critical Thinking: An Outline of Critical Thinking Dispositions and Abilities , by Robert H. Ennis

abilities | bias, implicit | children, philosophy for | civic education | decision-making capacity | Dewey, John | dispositions | education, philosophy of | epistemology: virtue | logic: informal

Copyright © 2022 by David Hitchcock < hitchckd @ mcmaster . ca >

• Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

• Info about mirror sites

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is copyright © 2024 by The Metaphysics Research Lab , Department of Philosophy, Stanford University

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

The Will to Teach

Critical Thinking in the Classroom: A Guide for Teachers

In the ever-evolving landscape of education, teaching students the skill of critical thinking has become a priority. This powerful tool empowers students to evaluate information, make reasoned judgments, and approach problems from a fresh perspective. In this article, we’ll explore the significance of critical thinking and provide effective strategies to nurture this skill in your students.

Why is Fostering Critical Thinking Important?

Strategies to cultivate critical thinking, real-world example, concluding thoughts.

Critical thinking is a key skill that goes far beyond the four walls of a classroom. It equips students to better understand and interact with the world around them. Here are some reasons why fostering critical thinking is important:

• Making Informed Decisions:  Critical thinking enables students to evaluate the pros and cons of a situation, helping them make informed and rational decisions.
• Developing Analytical Skills:  Critical thinking involves analyzing information from different angles, which enhances analytical skills.
• Promoting Independence:  Critical thinking fosters independence by encouraging students to form their own opinions based on their analysis, rather than relying on others.

Creating an environment that encourages critical thinking can be accomplished in various ways. Here are some effective strategies:

• Socratic Questioning:  This method involves asking thought-provoking questions that encourage students to think deeply about a topic. For example, instead of asking, “What is the capital of France?” you might ask, “Why do you think Paris became the capital of France?”
• Debates and Discussions:  Debates and open-ended discussions allow students to explore different viewpoints and challenge their own beliefs. For example, a debate on a current event can engage students in critical analysis of the situation.
• Teaching Metacognition:  Teaching students to think about their own thinking can enhance their critical thinking skills. This can be achieved through activities such as reflective writing or journaling.
• Problem-Solving Activities:  As with developing problem-solving skills , activities that require students to find solutions to complex problems can also foster critical thinking.

As a school leader, I’ve seen the transformative power of critical thinking. During a school competition, I observed a team of students tasked with proposing a solution to reduce our school’s environmental impact. Instead of jumping to obvious solutions, they critically evaluated multiple options, considering the feasibility, cost, and potential impact of each. They ultimately proposed a comprehensive plan that involved water conservation, waste reduction, and energy efficiency measures. This demonstrated their ability to critically analyze a problem and develop an effective solution.

Critical thinking is an essential skill for students in the 21st century. It equips them to understand and navigate the world in a thoughtful and informed manner. As a teacher, incorporating strategies to foster critical thinking in your classroom can make a lasting impact on your students’ educational journey and life beyond school.

1. What is critical thinking? Critical thinking is the ability to analyze information objectively and make a reasoned judgment.

2. Why is critical thinking important for students? Critical thinking helps students make informed decisions, develop analytical skills, and promotes independence.

3. What are some strategies to cultivate critical thinking in students? Strategies can include Socratic questioning, debates and discussions, teaching metacognition, and problem-solving activities.

4. How can I assess my students’ critical thinking skills? You can assess critical thinking skills through essays, presentations, discussions, and problem-solving tasks that require thoughtful analysis.

5. Can critical thinking be taught? Yes, critical thinking can be taught and nurtured through specific teaching strategies and a supportive learning environment.

Related Posts

7 simple strategies for strong student-teacher relationships.

Getting to know your students on a personal level is the first step towards building strong relationships. Show genuine interest in their lives outside the classroom.

Connecting Learning to Real-World Contexts: Strategies for Teachers

When students see the relevance of their classroom lessons to their everyday lives, they are more likely to be motivated, engaged, and retain information.

Encouraging Active Involvement in Learning: Strategies for Teachers

Active learning benefits students by improving retention of information, enhancing critical thinking skills, and encouraging a deeper understanding of the subject matter.

Collaborative and Cooperative Learning: A Guide for Teachers

These methods encourage students to work together, share ideas, and actively participate in their education.

Experiential Teaching: Role-Play and Simulations in Teaching

These interactive techniques allow students to immerse themselves in practical, real-world scenarios, thereby deepening their understanding and retention of key concepts.

Project-Based Learning Activities: A Guide for Teachers

Project-Based Learning is a student-centered pedagogy that involves a dynamic approach to teaching, where students explore real-world problems or challenges.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• How it works

What is Critical Thinking in Academics – Guide With Examples

Published by Grace Graffin at October 17th, 2023 , Revised On October 17, 2023

In an era dominated by vast amounts of information, the ability to discern, evaluate, and form independent conclusions is more crucial than ever. Enter the realm of “critical thinking.” But what does this term truly mean? 

What is Critical Thinking?

Critical thinking is the disciplined art of analysing and evaluating information or situations by applying a range of intellectual skills. It goes beyond mere memorisation or blind acceptance of information, demanding a deeper understanding and assessment of evidence, context, and implications.

Moreover, paraphrasing in sources is an essential skill in critical thinking, as it allows for representing another’s ideas in one’s own words, ensuring comprehension.

Critical thinking is not just an academic buzzword but an essential tool. In academic settings, it serves as the backbone of genuine understanding and the springboard for innovation. When students embrace critical thinking, they move from being passive recipients of information to active participants in their own learning journey.

They question, evaluate, and synthesise information from various sources, fostering an intellectual curiosity that extends beyond the classroom. Part of this involves understanding how to integrate sources into their work, which means not only including information from various places, but also doing so in a cohesive and logical way.

The importance of critical thinking in academics cannot be overstated. It equips students with the skills to discern credible sources from unreliable ones, develop well-informed arguments, and approach problems with a solution-oriented mindset.

The Origins and Evolution of Critical Thinking

The idea of critical thinking isn’t a new-age concept. Its roots reach back into ancient civilisations, moulding the foundations of philosophy, science, and education. To appreciate its evolution, it’s vital to delve into its historical context and the influential thinkers who have championed it.

Historical Perspective on the Concept of Critical Thinking

The seeds of critical thinking can be traced back to Ancient Greece, particularly in the city-state of Athens. Here, the practice of debate, dialogue, and philosophical inquiry was valued and was seen as a route to knowledge and wisdom. This era prized the art of questioning, investigating, and exploring diverse viewpoints to reach enlightened conclusions.

In medieval Islamic civilisation, scholars in centres of learning, such as the House of Wisdom in Baghdad, played a pivotal role in advancing critical thought. Their works encompassed vast areas, including philosophy, mathematics, and medicine, often intertwining rigorous empirical observations with analytical reasoning.

The Renaissance period further nurtured critical thinking as it was a time of revival in art, culture, and intellect. This era championed humanistic values, focusing on human potential and achievements. It saw the rebirth of scientific inquiry, scepticism about religious dogma, and an emphasis on empirical evidence.

Philosophers and Educators Who Championed Critical Thinking

Several philosophers and educators stand out for their remarkable contributions to the sphere of critical thinking:

Known for the Socratic method, a form of cooperative argumentative dialogue, Socrates would ask probing questions, forcing his pupils to think deeply about their beliefs and assumptions. His methodology still influences modern education, emphasising the answer and the path of reasoning that leads to it.

A student of Socrates, Plato believed in the importance of reason and inquiry. His allegory of the cave highlights the difference between blindly accepting information and seeking true knowledge.

He placed great emphasis on empirical evidence and logic. His works on syllogism and deductive reasoning laid the foundation for systematic critical thought.

Al-Farabi And Ibn Rushd (Averroes)

Islamic philosophers, who harmonised Greek philosophy with Islamic thought, emphasised the importance of rationality and critical inquiry.

Sir Francis Bacon

An advocate for the scientific method, Bacon believed that knowledge should be based on empirical evidence, observation, and experimentation rather than mere reliance on accepted truths.

A modern proponent of critical thinking, Dewey viewed it as an active, persistent, and careful consideration of a belief or supposed form of knowledge. He emphasised that students should be taught to think for themselves rather than just memorise facts.

Paulo Freire

Recognised for his ideas on “problem-posing education,” Freire believed that students should be encouraged to question, reflect upon, and respond to societal issues, fostering critical consciousness.

Characteristics of Critical Thinkers

Critical thinkers are not defined merely by the knowledge they possess, but by the manner in which they process, analyse, and use that knowledge. While the profile of a critical thinker can be multifaceted, certain core traits distinguish them. Let’s delve into these characteristics:

1. Open-mindedness

Open-mindedness refers to the willingness to consider different ideas, opinions, and perspectives, even if they challenge one’s existing beliefs. It allows critical thinkers to avoid being trapped in their own biases or preconceived notions. By being open to diverse viewpoints, they can make more informed and holistic decisions.

• Listening to a debate without immediately taking sides.
• Reading literature from different cultures to understand various world views.

2. Analytical Nature

An analytical nature entails the ability to break down complex problems or information into smaller, manageable parts to understand the whole better. Being analytical enables individuals to see patterns, relationships, and inconsistencies, allowing for deeper comprehension and better problem-solving.

• Evaluating a research paper by examining its methodology, results, and conclusions separately.
• Breaking down the components of a business strategy to assess its viability.

3. Scepticism

Scepticism is the tendency to question and doubt claims or assertions until sufficient evidence is presented. Skepticism ensures that critical thinkers do not accept information at face value. They seek evidence and are cautious about jumping to conclusions without verification.

• Questioning the results of a study that lacks a control group.
• Doubting a sensational news headline and researching further before believing or sharing it.

4. Intellectual Humility

Intellectual humility involves recognising and accepting the limitations of one’s knowledge and understanding. It is about being aware that one does not have all the answers. This trait prevents arrogance and overconfidence. Critical thinkers with intellectual humility are open to learning and receptive to constructive criticism.

• Admitting when one is wrong in a discussion.
• Actively seeking feedback on a project or idea to enhance it.

5. Logical Reasoning

Logical reasoning is the ability to think sequentially and make connections between concepts in a coherent manner. It involves drawing conclusions that logically follow from the available information. Logical reasoning ensures that decisions and conclusions are sound and based on valid premises. It helps avoid fallacies and cognitive biases.

• Using deductive reasoning to derive a specific conclusion from a general statement.
• Evaluating an argument for potential logical fallacies like “slippery slope” or “ad hominem.”

The Difference Between Critical Thinking and Memorisation

In today’s rapidly changing educational landscape, there is an ongoing debate about the importance of rote memorisation versus the significance of cultivating critical thinking skills. Both have their place in learning, but they serve very different purposes.

Nature Of Learning

• Rote Learning: Involves memorising information exactly as it is, without necessarily understanding its context or underlying meaning. It’s akin to storing data as-is, without processing.
• Analytical Processing (Critical Thinking): Involves understanding, questioning, and connecting new information with existing knowledge. It’s less about storage and more about comprehension and application.

Depth of Engagement

• Rote Learning: Often remains at the surface level. Students might remember facts for a test, but might forget them shortly after.
• Analytical Processing: Engages deeper cognitive skills. When students think critically, they’re more likely to retain information because they’ve processed it deeper.

Application in New Situations

• Rote Learning: Information memorised through rote often does not easily apply to new or unfamiliar situations, since it is detached from understanding.
• Analytical Processing: Promotes adaptability. Critical thinkers can transfer knowledge and skills to different contexts because they understand underlying concepts and principles.

Why Critical Thinking Produces Long-Term Academic Benefits

Here are the benefits of critical thinking in academics. 

Enhanced Retention

Critical thinking often involves active learning—discussions, problem-solving, and debates—which promotes better retention than passive memorisation.

Skill Development

Beyond content knowledge, critical thinking develops skills like analysis, synthesis, source evaluation , and problem-solving. These are invaluable in higher education and professional settings.

Adaptability

In an ever-evolving world, the ability to adapt is crucial. Critical thinkers are better equipped to learn and adapt because they don’t just know facts; they understand concepts.

Lifelong Learning

Critical thinkers are naturally curious. They seek to understand, question, and explore, turning them into lifelong learners who continually seek knowledge and personal growth.

Improved Decision-Making

Analytical processing allows students to evaluate various perspectives, weigh evidence, and make well-informed decisions, a skill far beyond academics.

Preparation for Real-World Challenges

The real world does not come with a textbook. Critical thinkers can navigate unexpected challenges, connect disparate pieces of information, and innovate solutions.

Steps in the Critical Thinking Process

Critical thinking is more than just a skill—it is a structured process. By following a systematic approach, critical thinkers can navigate complex issues and ensure their conclusions are well-informed and reasoned. Here’s a breakdown of the steps involved:

Step 1. Identification and Clarification of the Problem or Question

Recognizing that a problem or question exists and understanding its nature. It’s about defining the issue clearly, without ambiguity. A well-defined problem serves as the foundation for the subsequent steps. The entire process may become misguided without a clear understanding of what’s being addressed.

Example: Instead of a vague problem like “improving the environment,” a more specific question could be “How can urban areas reduce air pollution?”

Step 2. Gathering Information and Evidence

Actively seeking relevant data, facts, and evidence. This might involve research, observations, experiments, or discussions. Reliable decisions are based on solid evidence. The quality and relevance of the information gathered can heavily influence the final conclusion.

Example: To address urban air pollution, one might gather data on current pollution levels, sources of pollutants, existing policies, and strategies employed by other cities.

Step 3. Analysing the Information

Breaking down the gathered information, scrutinising its validity, and identifying patterns, contradictions, and relationships. This step ensures that the information is not just accepted at face value. Critical thinkers can differentiate between relevant and irrelevant information and detect biases or inaccuracies by analysing data.

Example: When examining data on pollution, one might notice that certain industries are major contributors or that pollution levels rise significantly at specific times of the year.

Step 4. Drawing Conclusions and Making Decisions

After thorough analysis, formulating an informed perspective, solution, or decision-based on the evidence. This is the culmination of the previous steps. Here, the critical thinker synthesises the information and applies logic to arrive at a reasoned conclusion.

Example: Based on the analysis, one might conclude that regulating specific industries and promoting public transportation during peak pollution periods can help reduce urban air pollution.

Step 5. Reflecting on the Process And The Conclusions Reached

Take a step back to assess the entire process, considering any potential biases, errors, or alternative perspectives. It is also about evaluating the feasibility and implications of the conclusions. Reflection ensures continuous learning and improvement. Individuals can refine their approach to future problems by evaluating their thinking process.

Example: Reflecting on the proposed solution to reduce pollution, one might consider its economic implications, potential industry resistance, and the need for public awareness campaigns.

The research done by our experts have:

• Precision and Clarity
• Zero Plagiarism
• Authentic Sources

The Role of Critical Thinking in Different Academic Subjects

Critical thinking is a universal skill applicable across disciplines. Its methodologies might differ based on the subject, but its core principles remain consistent. Let us explore how critical thinking manifests in various academic domains:

1. Sciences

• Hypothesis Testing: Science often begins with a hypothesis—a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. Critical thinking is essential in formulating a testable hypothesis and determining its validity based on experimental results.
• Experimental Design: Designing experiments requires careful planning to ensure valid and reliable results. Critical thinking aids in identifying variables, ensuring controls, and determining the best methodologies to obtain accurate data.
• Example: In a biology experiment to test the effect of light on plant growth, critical thinking helps ensure variables like water and soil quality are consistent, allowing for a fair assessment of the light’s impact.

2. Humanities

• Analysing Texts: Humanities often involve studying texts—literature, historical documents, or philosophical treatises. Critical thinking lets students decode themes, discern authorial intent, and recognise underlying assumptions or biases.
• Understanding Contexts: Recognizing a text or artwork’s cultural, historical, or social contexts is pivotal. Critical thinking allows for a deeper appreciation of these contexts, providing a holistic understanding of the subject.
• Example: When studying Shakespeare’s “Othello,” critical thinking aids in understanding the play’s exploration of jealousy, race, and betrayal, while also appreciating its historical context in Elizabethan England.

3. Social Sciences

• Evaluating Arguments: Social sciences, such as sociology or political science, often present various theories or arguments about societal structures and behaviours. Critical thinking aids in assessing the merits of these arguments and recognising their implications.
• Understanding Biases: Since social sciences study human societies, they’re susceptible to biases. Critical thinking helps identify potential biases in research or theories, ensuring a more objective understanding.
• Example: In studying economic policies, critical thinking helps weigh the benefits and drawbacks of different economic models, considering both empirical data and theoretical arguments.

4. Mathematics

• Problem-Solving: Mathematics is more than just numbers; it is about solving problems. Critical thinking enables students to identify the best strategies to tackle problems, ensuring efficient and accurate solutions.
• Logical Deduction: Mathematical proofs and theorems rely on logical steps. Critical thinking ensures that each step is valid and the conclusions sound.
• Example: In geometry, when proving that two triangles are congruent, critical thinking helps ensure that each criterion (like side lengths or angles) is met and the logic of the proof is coherent.

Examples of Critical Thinking in Academics

Some of the critical thinking examples in academics are discussed below. 

Case Study 1: Evaluating A Scientific Research Paper

Scenario: A research paper claims that a new herbal supplement significantly improves memory in elderly individuals.

Critical Thinking Application:

Scrutinising Methodology:

• Was the study double-blind and placebo-controlled?
• How large was the sample size?
• Were the groups randomised?
• Were there any potential confounding variables?

Assessing Conclusions:

• Do the results conclusively support the claim, or are there other potential explanations?
• Are the statistical analyses robust, and do they show a significant difference?
• Is the effect size clinically relevant or just statistically significant?

Considering Broader Context:

• How does this study compare with existing literature on the subject?
• Were there any conflicts of interest, such as funding from the supplement company?

Critical analysis determined that while the study showed statistical significance, the effect size was minimal. Additionally, the sample size was small, and there was potential bias as the supplement manufacturer funded the study.

Case Study 2: Analysing a Literary Text

Scenario: A reading of F. Scott Fitzgerald’s “The Great Gatsby.”

Understanding Symbolism:

• What does the green light represent for Gatsby and in the broader context of the American Dream?
• How does the Valley of Ashes symbolise societal decay?

Recognising Authorial Intent:

• Why might Fitzgerald depict the characters’ lavish lifestyles amid underlying dissatisfaction?
• What critiques of American society is Fitzgerald potentially making?

Contextual Analysis:

• How does the era in which the novel was written (Roaring Twenties) influence its themes and characters?

Through critical analysis, the reader recognises that while “The Great Gatsby” is a tale of love and ambition, it’s also a poignant critique of the hollowness of the American Dream and the societal excesses of the 1920s.

Case Study 3: Decoding Historical Events

Scenario: The events leading up to the American Revolution.

Considering Multiple Perspectives:

• How did the British government view the colonies and their demands?
• What were the diverse perspectives within the American colonies, considering loyalists and patriots?

Assessing Validity of Sources:

• Which accounts are primary sources, and which are secondary?
• Are there potential biases in these accounts, based on their origins?

Analysing Causation and Correlation:

• Were taxes and representation the sole reasons for the revolution, or were there deeper economic and philosophical reasons?

Through critical analysis, the student understands that while taxation without representation was a significant catalyst, the American Revolution was also influenced by Enlightenment ideas, economic interests, and long-standing grievances against colonial policies.

Challenges to Developing Critical Thinking Skills

In our complex and rapidly changing world, the importance of critical thinking cannot be overstated. However, various challenges can impede the cultivation of these vital skills. 

1. Common Misconceptions and Cognitive Biases

Human brains often take shortcuts in processing information, leading to cognitive biases. Additionally, certain misconceptions about what constitutes critical thinking can hinder its development.

• Confirmation Bias: The tendency to search for, interpret, and recall information that confirms one’s pre-existing beliefs.
• Anchoring Bias: Relying too heavily on the first piece of information encountered when making decisions.
• Misconception: Believing that critical thinking merely means being critical or negative about ideas, rather than evaluating them objectively.

These biases can skew perception and decision-making, making it challenging to objectively approach issues.

2. The Influence of Technology and Social Media

While providing unprecedented access to information, the digital age also presents unique challenges. The barrage of information, the immediacy of social media reactions, and algorithms that cater to user preferences can hinder critical thought.

• Information Overload: The sheer volume of online data can make it difficult to discern credible sources from unreliable ones.
• Clickbait and Misinformation: Articles with sensational titles designed to generate clicks might lack depth or accuracy.
• Algorithmic Bias: Platforms showing users content based on past preferences can limit exposure to diverse viewpoints.

Relying too heavily on technology and social media can lead to superficial understanding, reduced attention spans, and a narrow worldview.

3. The Danger of Echo Chambers and Confirmation Bias

An echo chamber is a situation in which beliefs are amplified or reinforced by communication and repetition inside a closed system, cutting off differing viewpoints.

• Social Media Groups: Joining groups or following pages that only align with one’s beliefs can create a feedback loop, reinforcing existing opinions without challenge.
• Selective Media Consumption: Only watching news channels or reading websites that align with one’s political or social views.

Echo chambers reinforce confirmation bias, limit exposure to diverse perspectives, and can polarise opinions, making objective, critical evaluation of issues challenging.

Benefits of Promoting Critical Thinking in Education

When cultivated and promoted in educational settings, critical thinking can have transformative effects on students, equipping them with vital skills to navigate their academic journey and beyond. Here’s an exploration of the manifold benefits of emphasising critical thinking in education:

Improved Problem-Solving Skills

Critical thinking enables students to approach problems methodically, breaking them down into manageable parts, analysing each aspect, and synthesising solutions.

• Academic: Enhances students’ ability to tackle complex assignments, research projects, and unfamiliar topics.
• Beyond School: Prepares students for real-world challenges where they might encounter problems without predefined solutions.

Enhanced Creativity and Innovation

Critical thinking is not just analytical but also involves lateral thinking, helping students see connections between disparate ideas and encouraging imaginative solutions.

• Academic: Promotes richer discussions, more creative projects, and the ability to view topics from multiple angles.
• Beyond School: Equips students for careers and situations where innovative solutions can lead to advancements in fields like technology, arts, or social entrepreneurship.

Better Decision-Making Abilities

Critical thinkers evaluate information thoroughly, weigh potential outcomes, and make decisions based on evidence and reason rather than impulse or peer pressure.

• Academic: Helps students make informed choices about their studies, research directions, or group projects.
• Beyond School: Prepares students to make sound decisions in personal and professional spheres, from financial choices to ethical dilemmas.

Greater Resilience in the Face of Complex Challenges

Critical thinking nurtures a growth mindset. When students think critically, they are more likely to view challenges as opportunities for learning rather than insurmountable obstacles.

• Academic: Increases perseverance in difficult subjects, promoting a deeper understanding rather than superficial learning. Students become more resilient in handling academic pressures and setbacks.
• Beyond School: Cultivates individuals who can navigate the complexities of modern life, from career challenges to societal changes, with resilience and adaptability.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is critical thinking.

Critical thinking is the objective analysis and evaluation of an issue to form a judgment. It involves gathering relevant information, discerning potential biases, logically connecting ideas, and questioning assumptions. Essential for informed decision-making, it promotes scepticism and requires the ability to think independently and rationally.

What makes critical thinking?

Critical thinking arises from questioning assumptions, evaluating evidence, discerning fact from opinion, recognising biases, and logically connecting ideas. It demands curiosity, scepticism, and an open mind. By continuously challenging one’s beliefs and considering alternative viewpoints, one cultivates the ability to think clearly, rationally, and independently.

What is the purpose of critical thinking?

The purpose of critical thinking is to enable informed decisions by analysing and evaluating information objectively. It fosters understanding, problem-solving, and clarity, reducing the influence of biases and misconceptions. Through critical thinking, individuals discern truth, make reasoned judgments, and engage more effectively in discussions and debates.

How to improve critical thinking?

• Cultivate curiosity by asking questions.
• Practice active listening.
• Read widely and diversely.
• Engage in discussions and debates.
• Reflect on your thought processes.
• Identify biases and challenge assumptions.
• Solve problems systematically.

What are some critical thinking skills?

• Analysis: breaking concepts into parts.
• Evaluation: judging information’s validity.
• Inference: drawing logical conclusions.
• Explanation: articulating reasons.
• Interpretation: understanding meaning.
• Problem-solving: devising effective solutions.
• Decision-making: choosing the best options.

What is information literacy?

Information literacy is the ability to find, evaluate, and use information effectively. It encompasses understanding where to locate information, determining its credibility, distinguishing between facts and opinions, and using it responsibly. Essential in the digital age, it equips individuals to navigate the vast sea of data and make informed decisions.

What makes a credible source?

• Authorship by experts or professionals.
• Reliable publisher or institution backing.
• Transparent sourcing and references.
• Absence of bias or clear disclosure of it.
• Recent publications or timely updates.
• Peer review or editorial oversight.
• Clear, logical arguments.
• Reputability in its field or domain.

How do I analyse information critically?

• Determine the source’s credibility.
• Identify the main arguments or points.
• Examine the evidence provided.
• Spot inconsistencies or fallacies.
• Detect biases or unspoken assumptions.
• Cross-check facts with other sources.
• Evaluate the relevance to your context.
• Reflect on your own biases or beliefs.

You May Also Like

Scholarly sources, also known as academic sources, refer to materials created to meet the standards and expectations of the academic community.

In today’s information age, where vast amounts of knowledge are easily accessible, it is crucial to know how to use and represent that knowledge correctly and how to cite sources properly.

A credible source can be trusted to provide accurate, reliable, and unbiased information. Credible sources are essential for various purposes, including academic research, journalism, decision-making, and gaining knowledge on various topics.

USEFUL LINKS

LEARNING RESOURCES

COMPANY DETAILS

• How It Works

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Educating Reason: Critical Thinking, Informal logic, and the Philosophy of Education

Informal Logic

Related Papers

Mark Weinstein

Metaphilosophy

Harvey Siegel

International Political Anthropology

Contemporary anxieties around 'fake news', propaganda and echo chambers, often lead to a simplistic solution of the need to teach 'critical thinking' to students and to the public at large. Broadly this critical thinking means informal logic, drawn from Aristotle, but reduced to a sort of toolkit for detecting fallacies. While logic as mathematics is unproblematic, the uses of logic and reason within Critical Thinking are predominantly to scrutinise and doubt the beliefs of others, accusing them of being irrational, emotional or biased. This chapter conducts a Foucauldian 'archaeology' of Critical Thinking, focusing on how it produces knowledge by reducing language to premises and conclusions, and the vast array of logical errors it proposes. An analysis of the uses of reason and doubt in Descartes is offered, paralleled by Protestantism with Gnostic routes. Moving to the present, the chapter gives a detailed analysis of how contemporary Critical Thinking guides motivate ungenerous critique, heroises the critical thinker as exceptional and gives no knowledge beyond doubt. This interpretation is supported by Argyrou on thought as a gift relation and Horvath's notion of alchemy as deconstructive-atomising beliefs into a series of premises. Amid contemporary anxieties around fake-news, propaganda and ideological manipulation, many intellectuals, academics and politicians have called for better education in reasoning and critical thinking. Philosophers may propound complex ideas about knowledge, epistemology and discourse, but the trend towards a 'post-truth' world must be resisted, it seems. Of course, these trends are hardly new; the twentieth century is awash with critiques of political propaganda and debunking of commercial fantasies. What is perhaps noteworthy is that recent decades, Critical Thinking has become institutionalised within education, at university and beyond-even in the public sphere, where numerous websites offer free and for-profit courses in reasoning. A longer historical perspective reminds us that Socrates and Plato reacted against the rhetorical manipulation of truth by Sophists, again for political persuasion and simply to make money. Furthermore, Aristotle's formalisation of logic in the syllogism provided a definitive technique to test reason. So, in our present predicament, can we rely on reason to solve the present problems of the public sphere? While Aristotle's work has attracted legions of commentators over centuries, and philosophers of logic have amended his work, the principle of the syllogism is easily stated: Simple premises which share some of the same terms may build up into a conclusion: If A is B and all B's are C, then A = C. It has the simple elegance of mathematics, thoroughly

Rupkatha Journal on Interdisciplinary Studies in Humanities

Galina Jasečková

A characteristic feature of modern society is the ever-expanding information space. Hidden information attacks harm the lives of individuals and society in general. In this regard, studies of critical thinking seem particularly important to us. Therefore, critical thinking is interpreted in the academic discourse mainly in connection with the effort to cope with the growing amount of misinformation and hate speech. While teachers and policymakers consider critical thinking an important educational goal, many are unclear about developing this competency in a school setting. For many key competencies, the question is whether and how they can be acquired through planned educational courses/programs. Although there are specific training programs for critical thinking as a core competency, their design and effectiveness are scientifically controversial. Instruction in critical thinking becomes extremely important because it allows individuals to gain a more comprehensive understanding of...

bertram bandman

The Palgrave Handbook of Critical Thinking in Higher Education

Richard Andrews

Argumentation

Dr Jason J Braithwaite

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

RELATED PAPERS

Educational Theory

Donald Hatcher

The Nairobi Journal of Literature

susan wandera

Pedagogy, Culture & Society

Mary Koutselini

Theory and Research in Education

Henri Pettersson

Rebecca Tallent

Husniah Sahamid

Journal of the Learning Sciences

Michael Nussbaum

Frank Zenker

Juho Ritola

Luca Tuninetti

Anuario Filosófico

Joe Milburn

Rupert Wegerif

Sharon Bailin , Mark Battersby

Sheron A Fraser-Burgess, Ph.D.

Najia Abdallaoui- Maan

New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development

Gary Richmond

Andrés Mejía

Pedagogy: Critical Approaches To Teaching Literature, Language, Composition, and Culture

Miriam Clark

Hassan Belhiah

Sarah Redshaw

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

THE ROLE OF CRITICAL THINKING IN ACADEMIC WRITING: AN INVESTIGATION OF EFL STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS AND WRITING EXPERIENCES

• Muneeba Tahira Pir Mehr Ali Shah Arid Agriculture University Rawalpindi, Pakistan https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9935-499X
• Ghulam Haider Academy of Educational Planning&Management (AEPAM), Ministry of Federal Education&Professional Training, Islamabad, Pakistan https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5457-5286

It is generally considered that evidence of critical thinking, as expressed through argumentation, is central to successful academic writing at Western universities. However, the concept of critical thinking is complex: its nature is difficult to define and students, especially those coming from ‘non-Western’ backgrounds, are perceived to have difficulty in implementing a critical dimension in their writing. The present study, based on the use of in-depth interviews with three postgraduate students, presents findings on the students’ interpretations of critical thinking, the factors which they perceive to affect the implementation of critical thinking, and the perceptions of their development as critical thinkers. The findings show that the students, despite coming from different traditions of discourse, have a fairly comprehensive understanding of critical thinking and willingly engage with it. The findings also reveal that although cultural background plays a role in influencing their writing styles, the students have the capacity to learn and master a new discourse. The problems they encountered were due to uncertainty in demonstrating an argument, insufficient subject knowledge, and problematic issues surrounding the essay genre, such as authorial voice and assessment demands. Implications for university departments and tutors are that they should review their writing instruction and guidelines so as to make the requirements of argument more explicit and easily understandable, and in the long term, to reevaluate the norms of the traditional essay form to accommodate a wider spectrum of expression.

Keywords : Critical Thinking, Academic Writing, EFL Students

REFERENCES 

Andrews, R. (1995). Teaching and learning argument. London, NY: Cassell.

Andrews, R. (2000). ‘Introduction: learning to argue in higher education’ in Andrews, R and Mitchell, S (eds). Learning to Argue in Higher Education. Portsmouth: Boynton/Cook Publishers, pp. 1-14.

And rews, R. (2003). ‘The end of the essay?’ Teaching in Higher Education, 8/1: 117-128. Andrews, R. (2007). ‘Argumentation, critical thinking and the postgraduate dissertation’. Educational Review, 59/1: 1—18

Andrews, R and Mitchell, S. (2001). Essays in Argument. London: Midd!esex University Press.

Atkinson, D. (1997). ‘A critical approach to critical thinking in TESOL’. TESOL Quarterly, 31: 71-94.

Atkinson, D. (1998). ‘Comments on Dwight Atkinson’s “A Critical Approach to Critical Thinking in TESOL”: The author responds’. TESOL Quarterly, 32: 133- 137.

Atkinson, D. and Ramanathan, V. (1995). ‘Cultures of writing: An ethnographic comparison of Li and L2 university writing/language programs’. TESOL Quarterly, 29:539-568.

Ballard, B. and Clanchy, J. (1991). Teaching Students from Overseas: a brief guide for lecturers and supervisors. Melbourne: Longman Cheshire.

Benesch, S. (1999). ‘Thinking Critically, Thinking Dialogically’. TESOL Quarterly, 33/3: 573-580

Biggs, J. (1987). Student Approaches to Learning and Studying. Hawthorn:Australian Council for Educational Research.

Biggs, J. (1994). ‘What are effective schools? Lessons from East and West’. Australian Educational Researcher, 21/1: 19—39.

Bonnett, A. (2001). How to Argue: a student’s guide. Harlow: Pearson Education.

Branthwaite, A., Trueman, M. and Hartley, J. (1980). ‘Writing essays: the actions and strategies of students’, in Hartley, J. (Ed.) The Psychology of Written Communication. London: Nichols and Cogan Page.

Briggs, C. (1986). Learning How to Ask: a sociolinguistic appraisal of the role of the interview in social science research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cadman, K. (2000). ‘‘Voices in the Air’: evaluations of the learning experiences of international postgraduates and their supervisors’. Teaching in Higher Education, 5/4: 475-491.

Canagarajah, S. (2002a). ‘Multilingual writer and the academic community: towards a critical relationship’. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 1: 29-44.

Canaga raja h, S. (2002 b). Critical Academic Writing and Multilingual Students. Michigan: University of Michigan Press.

Casanave, C. (2004). Controversies in Second Language Writing: dilemmas and decisions in research and instruction. Michigan: University of Michigan Press.

Creme, P. (1999). ‘A reflection of the education of the ‘critical person’’. Teaching in Higher Education, 4/4: 461- 471.

Davidson, B.W. (1998). ‘Comments on Dwight Atkinson’s “A Critical Approach to Critical Thinking in TESOL”: A Case for Critical Thinking in the English Language Classroom’. TESOL Quarterly, 32/1: 119-123.

Davies, W. M. (2008). ‘Not quite right’: helping students to make better arguments. Teaching in Higher Education, 13(3), 327—340.

DiCicco-Bloom, B. and Crabtree, B.F. (2006). ‘The qualitative research interview’. Medical Education, 40: 314—321

Dornyei, Z. (2007). Research Methods in Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Egege, S. and Kutieleh, S. (2004). ‘Critical thinking: teaching foreign notions to foreign students’. International Education Journal, 4/4: 75-85.

Elander, J., Harrington, K., Norton, L., Robinson, H. and Reddy, p. (2006). ‘Complex skills and academic writing: a review of evidence about the types of learning required to meet core assessment criteria’. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. 31/1: 71-90

Forsey, M. (2012). ‘Interviewing individuals’, in Delamont, S. and Jones, A. (eds) Handbook of Qualitative Research in Education. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 364-376.

Fox, H. (1994). Listening to the World: cultural issues in academic writing. Illinois: National Council of the Teachers of English.

Garside, C. (1996). ‘Look who’s talking: a comparison of lecture and group discussion teaching strategies in developing critical thinking skills’. Communication Education 45: 2 12—227.

Gieve, S. (1998). ‘Comments on Dwight Atkinson’s “A Critical Approach to Critical Thinking in TESOL”: Another reader reacts’. TESOL Quarterly, 32: 123-129.

Goetz, J. and LeCompte, M. (1984). Ethnography and Qualitative Design in Educational Research. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Groom, N. (2000). ‘A workable balance: self and source in argumentative writing’ in Mitchell, S. and And rews, R. (Eds.), Learning to Argue in Higher Education. Portsmouth: Boynton/Cook Heinemann, pp. 65—145.

Hyland,K. (2002a). ‘Authority and invisibility: authorial identity in academic writing’. Journal of Pragmatics 34: 1091—1112

Hyland,K. (2002b). ‘Options of identity in academic writing’. ELT Journal 56/4: 351- 358.

Ivanic, R. (1998). Writing and Identity: the discoursal construction of identity in academic writing. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Ivanic, R. (2005). ‘The discoursal construction of writer identity’. In Beach, R., Green, J., Kamil, M. and Shanahan, T. (Eds.) Multidisciplinary perspectives on literacy research. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press, pp. 391-416.

Johnson, J. (2002). ‘In-depth interviewing’ in Gubrium J. and Holstein J. (eds). Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage, pp. 103—19.

Jones, A. (2005). ‘Culture and context: critical thinking and student learning in introductory macroeconomics’, Studies in Higher Education, 30/3: 339-354.

Kaplan, R.B. (1966). ‘Cultural thought patterns in intercultural education’. Language Learning, 16: 1-20.

King’s College London. (2011/2012). MA in English Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics Handbook. [Online] Available at htjj/kingscoege.backhoard,com [accessed 02/09/12]

Kirkpatrick, A. (1997). ‘Traditional Chinese text structures and their influence on the writing in Chinese and English of contemporary mainland Chinese students’. Journal of Second Language Writing, 6/3: 22 3-244.

Labov, W. (1972). Language in the Inner City. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Lea, M, and Street, B. (1998). ‘Student writing in higher education: an academic literacies approach’. Studies in Higher Education, 23/2: 157—172.

Leki, I. (1995).’Coping strategies of ESL students in writing tasks across the curriculum’. TESOL Quarterly: 29/2, 235-260.

Lillis, T.M. (2001). Student Writing: access, regulation, desire. Routledge: London.

Lillis, T.M. and Turner, J. (2001). ‘Student writing in higher education: contemporary confusion, traditional concerns’. Teaching in Higher Education, 6/1: 57-68.

McPeck (1981). Critical Thinking in Education. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

McPeck, J. (1990). Teaching Critical Thinking: dialogue and dialectic. New York: Routledge.

Mitchell, S and Andrews, R. (2000). Learning to Argue in Higher Education. Portsmouth: Boynton/Cook Publishers

Mitchell, S., Prior, P., BlIbro, R., Peake, K., See, B. H., & Andrews, R. (2008). ‘A reflexive approach to interview data in an investigation of argument’. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 31/3: 229—241.

Mishler, E.G. (1986). Research Interviewing: context and narrative. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Moore, 1. (2004). ‘The critical thinking debate: how general are general thinking skills?’ Higher Education Research and Development. 23/1: 3-18.

Raimes, A. and Zamel, V. (1997). ‘Response to Ramanathan and Kaplan’. Journal of Second Language Writing, 6: 79-81.

Ramanathan, V. and Atkinson, D. (1999). ‘Individualism, academic writing and ESL writers’. Journal of Second Language Writing. 8/1: 45-75.

Ramanathan, V. and Kaplan, R. (1996a). Audience and voice in current Li composition tests: Some implications for ESL student writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 5: 21-33.

Ramanathan, V. and Kaplan, R. (1996b). ‘Some problematic “channels” in the teaching of critical thinking in current LI composition textbooks: Implications for 12 student-writers’. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 7: 225-249.

Richard Andrews. (2007). ‘Argumentation, critical thinking and the postgraduate dissertation’. Educational Review, 59/1: 1—18.

Scott, M. (2000). Student, critic and literary text: a discussion of ‘critical thinking’ in a student essay. Teaching in Higher Education, 5/3:277-288.

Scriven, M and Paul, R. (2003). Defining critical thinking: a statement prepared for the National Council for Excellence in Critical Thinking Instruction. (accessed 22/08/2012) wwwc

Stapleton, P. (2002). ‘Critiquing voice as a viable pedagogical tool in L2 writing: Returning the spotlight to ideas’. Journal of second language writing ii: 177-190.

Street, B. (2009). Hidden features of academic paper writing. Working Papers in Educational Linguistics, 24:1: 1—17.

Tapper, J. (2004). ‘Student perceptions of how critical thinking is embedded in a degree program’. Higher Education Research and Development, 23/2: 199-222.

Tsui, L. (2002). ‘Fostering critical thinking through effective pedagogy’. The Journal of Higher Education, 73/6: 740-763.

Wingate, U. (2011). ‘Argument! Helping students understand what essay writing is about.’ Journal of English forAcademic Purposes 10/1016: 1-10.

Wrigley, 5. 2010. ‘A critical examination of ‘academic literacies’ in the context of the university writing of international students’. Dissertation submitted for MA ELT in Applied Linguistics, King’s College, London. [Online] Available at https://kngscoHege.bIackboard.corn [accessed 09/09/12]

Wu, S and Rubin D.L. (2000). ‘Evaluating the impact of collectivism and individualism on argumentative writing by Chinese and North American college students’. Research in the Teaching of English, 35/2: 148-178.

Zamel, V. (1993). ‘Questioning academic discourse’. College ESL, 3/1: 28-39.

Zamel, V. (1995). ‘Strangers in academia: the experiences of faculty and ESL students across the curriculum’. College Composition and Communication, 4/6: 506- 521.

Zamel, V. (1997). ‘Toward a model of transculturation’. The TESOL Quarterly, 31/2: 341-352.

• Full Text PDF

Copyright (c) 2021 International Online Journal of Primary Education (IOJPE) ISSN: 1300-915X

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License .

Copyright and permissions

The manuscripts submitted to International Online Journal of Primary Education (IOJPE) for publication should be original studies that were not published before or not submitted to anywhere else for publication.

Authors who submit their manuscript to International Online Journal of Primary Education (IOJPE) should acknowledge that they agree to transfer the copyright of their studies to IOJPE. All Open Access articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided that the original work is properly cited.

All articles published in International Online Journal of Primary Education (IOJPE) are licensed under a  Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).

Any further distribution or use of content published under CC BY 4.0 must contain the author(s) and the published article’s title, and journal citation. All articles published in IOJPE under a CC BY License may be used for Text and Data Mining purposes, subject to the conditions of the CC BY License terms. The license allows for commercial use. IOJPE allows reusers to distribute, remix, adapt, and build upon the material in any medium or format, so long as attribution is given to the creator.

The journal’s objective is to disseminate articles published are free. Under the Creative Commons license (CC BY 4.00), the journal allows the user to permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, and even use the publication for commercial activities, provided that the original work is properly cited.

Open access is an approach that eases the interdisciplinary communication and encourages cooperation among different disciplines. IOJPE, therefore, contributes to its own field by providing more access to its articles and a more transparent review process.

Most read articles by the same author(s)

• Ghulam HAIDER, Rabia SALEEM, CREATIVE WRITING IN CLASSROOM: A REAL STORY , International Online Journal of Primary Education (IOJPE) ISSN: 1300-915X: Vol. 8 No. 2 (2019): December 2019
• Ghulam HAIDER, Tariq Nadeem KHAN, SPECIAL EDUCATIONTEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS ABOUT PROJECT-BASED TEACHING: IMPLICATIONS FORTEACHING OF COMPUTER ASSISTED LANGUAGE LEARNING (CALL) FORHEARING IMPAIRED (HI) CHILDREN , International Online Journal of Primary Education (IOJPE) ISSN: 1300-915X: Vol. 5 No. 1 (2016): June 2016
• Ghulam HAIDER, AN INVESTIGATION OF THE WRITING PROCESSSES OF STUDENTS WITH HEARING LOSS: IMPLICATIONS FOR TEACHING OF WRITING , International Online Journal of Primary Education (IOJPE) ISSN: 1300-915X: Vol. 5 No. 1 (2016): June 2016

Make a Submission

Creative Commons Licenses

All articles published in International Online Journal of Primary Education's content is licensed under a  Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).

(Counter start: February 28, 2021 )

Critical Theories of Education: An Introduction

• First Online: 14 September 2022

Cite this chapter

• Greg William Misiaszek 4 ,
• Janna M. Popoff 5 &
• Ali A. Abdi 6  

1584 Accesses

3 Citations

This chapter gives an overall introduction to critical theories essential to education, as we lay out the histories, reasoning, needs, and overall structure of the Palgrave Handbook on Critical Theories of Education . We discuss the five groundings that are the conceptual and theoretical thematic constructions of the book as follows: praxis-oriented, fluidity, radical, utopic with countless possible future s , and using bottom-up approaches. We give our own brief summaries of the chapters within the following book’s parts: general critical theoretical perspectives and philosophies of education, critical race theories of education, critical international/global citizenship education, critical pedagogy/critical literacy studies in education, critical media/information studies and education, critical community-engaged learning/research, critical perspectives on science and mathematics education, critical gender/feminist studies in education, and critical Indigenous and Southern epistemologies of education.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Critical Theory and Its Aftermath

Critical Adult Education Theory: Traditions and Influence

Using Critical Theory in Educational Research

Abdi, A. A. (2008). Europe and African thought systems and philosophies of education: ‘Re-culturing’ the trans-temporal discourses. Cultural Studies, 22 (2), 309–327. https://doi.org/10.1080/09502380701789216

Article   Google Scholar  

Abdi, A. A. (2020). Decolonizing knowledge, education and social development: Africanist perspectives. Beijing International Review of Education, 2 (4), 503–518. https://doi.org/10.1163/25902539-02040006

Achebe, C. (2000). Home and exile . Oxford University Press.

Google Scholar  

Adorno, T. W. (1998). Education after Auschwitz. In T. W. Adorno (Ed.), Critical models: Interventions and catchwords (pp. 177–190). Columbia University Press.

Battiste, M. (1998). Enabling the autumn seed: Toward a decolonized approach to aboriginal knowledge, language, and education. Canadian Journal of Native Education, 22 (1), 16–27.

Dolby, N., Dimitriadis, G., & Willis, P. E. (2004). Learning to labor in new times . RoutledgeFalmer.

Freire, P. (1992). Pedagogy of hope . Continuum.

Freire, P. (1993). Pedagogy of the city . Continuum.

Freire, P. (1998). Pedagogy of freedom: Ethics, democracy, and civic courage . Rowman & Littlefield.

Freire, P. (2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed . Continuum.

Freire, P. (2004). Pedagogy of indignation . Paradigm Publishers.

Freire, P. (2005). Pedagogy of the oppressed . Continuum.

Gadotti, M. (1996). Pedagogy of praxis: A dialectical philosophy of education . SUNY Press.

Gadotti, M. (2008). Education for sustainable development: What we need to learn to save the planet . São Paulo: Instituto Paulo Freire.

Held, D., & McGrew, A. G. (2003). The global transformations reader: An introduction to the globalization debate (2nd ed.). Polity Press

Illich, I. (1983). Deschooling society (1st Harper Colophon ed.). New York: Harper Colophon.

Memmi, A. (1991). The colonizer and the colonized (Expanded ed.). Beacon Press.

Misiaszek, G. W. (2020). Ecopedagogy: Critical environmental teaching for planetary justice and global sustainable development . Bloomsbury.

Book   Google Scholar  

Morales-Doyle, D., & Gutstein, E. R. (2019). Racial capitalism and STEM education in Chicago Public Schools. Race Ethnicity and Education, 22 (4), 525–544. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2019.1592840

Morrow, R. A. (2019). Paulo Freire and the “logic of reinvention”: Power, the State, and education in the global age. In C. A. Torres (Ed.), Wiley handbook of Paulo Freire (pp. 445–462). Wiley-Blackwell.

Morrow, R. A., & Torres, C. A. (2019). Rereading Freire and Habermas: Philosophical anthropology and reframing critical pedagogy and educational research in the neoliberal anthropocene. In C. A. Torres (Ed.), Wiley handbook of Paulo Freire (pp. 241–274). Wiley-Blackwell.

Nyerere, J. K. (1968). Freedom and socialism. Uhuru na ujamaa; a selection from writings and speeches, 1965–1967 . Oxford University Press.

Peters, M. A., Rider, S., Hyvönen, M., & Besley, T. (2018). Post-truth, fake news: Viral modernity & higher education . Springer.

Pongratz, L. (2005). Critical theory and pedagogy: Theodor W. Adorno and Max Horkheimer’s contemporary significance for a critical pedagogy. In G. Fischman, P. McLaren, H. Sunker, & C. Lankshear (Eds.), Critical theories, radical pedagogies, and global conflicts (pp. 154–163). Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

Rodney, W. (1981). How Europe underdeveloped Africa (Rev). Howard University Press.

Said, E. W. (1979). Orientalism . Vintage Books.

Salamon, G. (2018). What’s critical about phenomenology? Pucta: Journal of Critical Phenomenology, 1 (1), 8–17. Retrieved from http://journals.oregondigital.org/index.php/pjcp/article/view/PJCP.v1i1.2

Santos, B. d. S. (2007). Beyond abyssal thinking: From global lines to ecologies of knowledges. Review (Fernand Braudel Center), 30 (1), 45–89. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/40241677

Santos, B. d. S. (2014). Epistemologies of the South: Justice against epistemicide . Paradigm Publishers

Santos, B. d. S. (2018). The end of the cognitive empire: The coming of age of epistemologies of the South . Duke University Press.

Sifuna, D. N., & Otiende, J. E. (2006). An introductory history of education . Nairobi University Press.

Sontag, S. (1977). On photography . Dell Publishing Co.

Stromquist, N. P., & Monkman, K. (2002). Globalization and education: Integration and contestation across cultures . Rowman & Littlefield.

Taylor, A. (2017). Beyond stewardship: Common world pedagogies for the Anthropocene. Environmental Education Research, 23 (10), 1448–1461. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2017.1325452

Torres, C. A. (2009). Globalizations and education: Collected essays on class, race, gender, and the state . Teachers College Press.

Willis, P. E. (1981). Learning to labor: How working class kids get working class jobs (Morningside). Columbia University Press.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Faculty of Education, Institute of Educational Theories, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China

Greg William Misiaszek

Thompson Rivers University (TRU), Kamloops, BC, Canada

Janna M. Popoff

University of British Columbia (UBC), Vancouver, BC, Canada

Ali A. Abdi

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Department of Educational Studies, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada

Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Misiaszek, G.W., Popoff, J.M., Abdi, A.A. (2022). Critical Theories of Education: An Introduction. In: Abdi, A.A., Misiaszek, G.W. (eds) The Palgrave Handbook on Critical Theories of Education. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-86343-2_1

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-86343-2_1

Published : 14 September 2022

Publisher Name : Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-86342-5

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-86343-2

eBook Packages : Education Education (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Home > Blog > Tips for Online Students > Why Is Critical Thinking Important and How to Improve It

Tips for Online Students , Tips for Students

Why Is Critical Thinking Important and How to Improve It

Updated: July 8, 2024

Published: April 2, 2020

Why is critical thinking important? The decisions that you make affect your quality of life. And if you want to ensure that you live your best, most successful and happy life, you’re going to want to make conscious choices. That can be done with a simple thing known as critical thinking. Here’s how to improve your critical thinking skills and make decisions that you won’t regret.

What Is Critical Thinking?

Critical thinking is the process of analyzing facts to form a judgment. Essentially, it involves thinking about thinking. Historically, it dates back to the teachings of Socrates , as documented by Plato.

Today, it is seen as a complex concept understood best by philosophers and psychologists. Modern definitions include “reasonable, reflective thinking focused on deciding what to believe or do” and “deciding what’s true and what you should do.”

The Importance Of Critical Thinking

Why is critical thinking important? Good question! Here are a few undeniable reasons why it’s crucial to have these skills.

1. Critical Thinking Is Universal

Critical thinking is a domain-general thinking skill. What does this mean? It means that no matter what path or profession you pursue, these skills will always be relevant and will always be beneficial to your success. They are not specific to any field.

2. Crucial For The Economy

Our future depends on technology, information, and innovation. Critical thinking is needed for our fast-growing economies, to solve problems as quickly and as effectively as possible.

3. Improves Language & Presentation Skills

In order to best express ourselves, we need to know how to think clearly and systematically — meaning practice critical thinking! Critical thinking also means knowing how to break down texts, and in turn, improve our ability to comprehend.

4. Promotes Creativity

By practicing critical thinking, we are allowing ourselves not only to solve problems but also to come up with new and creative ideas to do so. Critical thinking allows us to analyze these ideas and adjust them accordingly.

5. Important For Self-Reflection

Without critical thinking, how can we really live a meaningful life? We need this skill to self-reflect and justify our ways of life and opinions. Critical thinking provides us with the tools to evaluate ourselves in the way that we need to.

Photo by Marcelo Chagas from Pexels

6. the basis of science & democracy.

In order to have a democracy and to prove scientific facts, we need critical thinking in the world. Theories must be backed up with knowledge. In order for a society to effectively function, its citizens need to establish opinions about what’s right and wrong (by using critical thinking!).

Benefits Of Critical Thinking

We know that critical thinking is good for society as a whole, but what are some benefits of critical thinking on an individual level? Why is critical thinking important for us?

1. Key For Career Success

Critical thinking is crucial for many career paths. Not just for scientists, but lawyers , doctors, reporters, engineers , accountants, and analysts (among many others) all have to use critical thinking in their positions. In fact, according to the World Economic Forum, critical thinking is one of the most desirable skills to have in the workforce, as it helps analyze information, think outside the box, solve problems with innovative solutions, and plan systematically.

2. Better Decision Making

There’s no doubt about it — critical thinkers make the best choices. Critical thinking helps us deal with everyday problems as they come our way, and very often this thought process is even done subconsciously. It helps us think independently and trust our gut feeling.

3. Can Make You Happier!

While this often goes unnoticed, being in touch with yourself and having a deep understanding of why you think the way you think can really make you happier. Critical thinking can help you better understand yourself, and in turn, help you avoid any kind of negative or limiting beliefs, and focus more on your strengths. Being able to share your thoughts can increase your quality of life.

4. Form Well-Informed Opinions

There is no shortage of information coming at us from all angles. And that’s exactly why we need to use our critical thinking skills and decide for ourselves what to believe. Critical thinking allows us to ensure that our opinions are based on the facts, and help us sort through all that extra noise.

5. Better Citizens

One of the most inspiring critical thinking quotes is by former US president Thomas Jefferson: “An educated citizenry is a vital requisite for our survival as a free people.” What Jefferson is stressing to us here is that critical thinkers make better citizens, as they are able to see the entire picture without getting sucked into biases and propaganda.

6. Improves Relationships

While you may be convinced that being a critical thinker is bound to cause you problems in relationships, this really couldn’t be less true! Being a critical thinker can allow you to better understand the perspective of others, and can help you become more open-minded towards different views.

7. Promotes Curiosity

Critical thinkers are constantly curious about all kinds of things in life, and tend to have a wide range of interests. Critical thinking means constantly asking questions and wanting to know more, about why, what, who, where, when, and everything else that can help them make sense of a situation or concept, never taking anything at face value.

8. Allows For Creativity

Critical thinkers are also highly creative thinkers, and see themselves as limitless when it comes to possibilities. They are constantly looking to take things further, which is crucial in the workforce.

9. Enhances Problem Solving Skills

Those with critical thinking skills tend to solve problems as part of their natural instinct. Critical thinkers are patient and committed to solving the problem, similar to Albert Einstein, one of the best critical thinking examples, who said “It’s not that I’m so smart; it’s just that I stay with problems longer.” Critical thinkers’ enhanced problem-solving skills makes them better at their jobs and better at solving the world’s biggest problems. Like Einstein, they have the potential to literally change the world.

10. An Activity For The Mind

Just like our muscles, in order for them to be strong, our mind also needs to be exercised and challenged. It’s safe to say that critical thinking is almost like an activity for the mind — and it needs to be practiced. Critical thinking encourages the development of many crucial skills such as logical thinking, decision making, and open-mindness.

11. Creates Independence

When we think critically, we think on our own as we trust ourselves more. Critical thinking is key to creating independence, and encouraging students to make their own decisions and form their own opinions.

12. Crucial Life Skill

Critical thinking is crucial not just for learning, but for life overall! Education isn’t just a way to prepare ourselves for life, but it’s pretty much life itself. Learning is a lifelong process that we go through each and every day.

How To Improve Your Critical Thinking

Now that you know the benefits of thinking critically, how do you actually do it?

• Define Your Question: When it comes to critical thinking, it’s important to always keep your goal in mind. Know what you’re trying to achieve, and then figure out how to best get there.
• Gather Reliable Information: Make sure that you’re using sources you can trust — biases aside. That’s how a real critical thinker operates!
• Ask The Right Questions: We all know the importance of questions, but be sure that you’re asking the right questions that are going to get you to your answer.
• Look Short & Long Term: When coming up with solutions, think about both the short- and long-term consequences. Both of them are significant in the equation.
• Explore All Sides: There is never just one simple answer, and nothing is black or white. Explore all options and think outside of the box before you come to any conclusions.

How Is Critical Thinking Developed At School?

Critical thinking is developed in nearly everything we do, but much of this essential skill is encouraged and practiced in school. Fostering a culture of inquiry is crucial, encouraging students to ask questions, analyze information, and evaluate evidence.

Teaching strategies like Socratic questioning, problem-based learning, and collaborative discussions help students think for themselves. When teachers ask questions, students can respond critically and reflect on their learning. Group discussions also expand their thinking, making them independent thinkers and effective problem solvers.

How Does Critical Thinking Apply To Your Career?

Critical thinking is a valuable asset in any career. Employers value employees who can think critically, ask insightful questions, and offer creative solutions. Demonstrating critical thinking skills can set you apart in the workplace, showing your ability to tackle complex problems and make informed decisions.

In many careers, from law and medicine to business and engineering, critical thinking is essential. Lawyers analyze cases, doctors diagnose patients, business analysts evaluate market trends, and engineers solve technical issues—all requiring strong critical thinking skills.

Critical thinking also enhances your ability to communicate effectively, making you a better team member and leader. By analyzing and evaluating information, you can present clear, logical arguments and make persuasive presentations.

Incorporating critical thinking into your career helps you stay adaptable and innovative. It encourages continuous learning and improvement, which are crucial for professional growth and success in a rapidly changing job market.

Photo by Oladimeji Ajegbile from Pexels

Critical thinking is a vital skill with far-reaching benefits for personal and professional success. It involves systematic skills such as analysis, evaluation, inference, interpretation, and explanation to assess information and arguments.

By gathering relevant data, considering alternative perspectives, and using logical reasoning, critical thinking enables informed decision-making. Reflecting on and refining these processes further enhances their effectiveness.

The future of critical thinking holds significant importance as it remains essential for adapting to evolving challenges and making sound decisions in various aspects of life.

What are the benefits of developing critical thinking skills?

Critical thinking enhances decision-making, problem-solving, and the ability to evaluate information critically. It helps in making informed decisions, understanding others’ perspectives, and improving overall cognitive abilities.

How does critical thinking contribute to problem-solving abilities?

Critical thinking enables you to analyze problems thoroughly, consider multiple solutions, and choose the most effective approach. It fosters creativity and innovative thinking in finding solutions.

What role does critical thinking play in academic success?

Critical thinking is crucial in academics as it allows you to analyze texts, evaluate evidence, construct logical arguments, and understand complex concepts, leading to better academic performance.

How does critical thinking promote effective communication skills?

Critical thinking helps you articulate thoughts clearly, listen actively, and engage in meaningful discussions. It improves your ability to argue logically and understand different viewpoints.

How can critical thinking skills be applied in everyday situations?

You can use critical thinking to make better personal and professional decisions, solve everyday problems efficiently, and understand the world around you more deeply.

What role does skepticism play in critical thinking?

Skepticism encourages questioning assumptions, evaluating evidence, and distinguishing between facts and opinions. It helps in developing a more rigorous and open-minded approach to thinking.

What strategies can enhance critical thinking?

Strategies include asking probing questions, engaging in reflective thinking, practicing problem-solving, seeking diverse perspectives, and analyzing information critically and logically.

In this article

At UoPeople, our blog writers are thinkers, researchers, and experts dedicated to curating articles relevant to our mission: making higher education accessible to everyone. Read More

• Corpus ID: 198759258

THE ROLE OF CRITICAL THINKING IN ACADEMIC WRITING: AN INVESTIGATION OF EFL STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS AND WRITING EXPERIENCES

• Muneeba Tahira , G. Haider
• Published 30 June 2019
• Education, Linguistics

8 Citations

Investigating the extent of critical thinking in field- dependent and field-independent students’ blog posts, critical thinking ability of german literature departement’s students of universitas negeri malang in writing thesis, malaysian esl students’ perception of the importance learning argumentative writing and challenges faced, an inter-country critical analysis of online studies on the academic writing in english of university students using the toulmin model, needs analysis of scientific article writing training for english teachers: a mixed method, the implementation of mini-research project to train undergraduate students’ scientific writing and communication skills, digital resources for learning and teaching academic writing in english, keterampilan berpikir kritis mahasiswa dalam menulis esai, 67 references, student perceptions of how critical thinking is embedded in a degree program, culture and context: critical thinking and student learning in introductory macroeconomics.

• Highly Influential

A Critical Approach to Critical Thinking in TESOL

Critical thinking: teaching foreign notions to foreign students, student, critic and literary text: a discussion of ‘critical thinking' in a student essay, some problematic "channels" in the teaching of critical thinking in current li composition textbooks: implications for l2 student-writers, student writing in higher education: an academic literacies approach, argumentation, critical thinking and the postgraduate dissertation, the critical thinking debate: how general are general thinking skills, a reflection on the education of the ‘critical person’, related papers.

Showing 1 through 3 of 0 Related Papers

Why Critical Thinking Should Be a Core Component of Education

Critical thinking is a fundamental skill that enables individuals to navigate the complexities of the modern world effectively. It is a disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and evaluating information gathered from various sources. As such, critical thinking should be a core component of education at all levels, as it equips students with the necessary tools to succeed academically, professionally, and personally.

Enhancing Academic Performance

Critical thinking is essential for academic success. It allows students to break down complex problems, evaluate evidence, and draw well-reasoned conclusions. A study conducted by the University of Louisville found that students who received explicit instruction in critical thinking skills demonstrated significant improvements in their overall academic performance.

Fostering Innovation and Problem-Solving

In today’s rapidly changing world, the ability to think critically is crucial for generating innovative solutions to complex problems. Critical thinking enables individuals to question assumptions, consider alternative perspectives, and think outside the box. A survey by the American Management Association revealed that 77% of employers consider critical thinking a crucial skill for their employees.

Promoting Lifelong Learning

Critical thinking is not just a skill but a mindset that can be applied throughout one’s life. By cultivating critical thinking abilities, students develop a love for learning and the confidence to tackle new challenges. A longitudinal study by the University of Michigan found that students who engaged in critical thinking activities in college were more likely to continue learning and adapting to new situations in their careers.

Developing Ethical Decision-Making

Critical thinking is essential for making ethical decisions in complex situations. It allows individuals to consider multiple perspectives, weigh the consequences of their actions, and make informed choices. A study by the Josephson Institute of Ethics revealed that 59% of high school students admitted to cheating on an exam in the past year, highlighting the need for stronger ethical reasoning skills.

Enhancing Civic Engagement

Critical thinking is crucial for active and informed citizenship. It enables individuals to critically evaluate information, identify biases, and make well-reasoned decisions on important issues. A survey by the Pew Research Center found that only 26% of Americans could correctly answer a set of questions testing their civic knowledge.

In conclusion, critical thinking should be a core component of education because it enhances academic performance, fosters innovation and problem-solving, promotes lifelong learning, develops ethical decision-making, and enhances civic engagement. By prioritizing critical thinking in the classroom, educators can empower students to become independent, adaptable, and responsible citizens who are equipped to navigate the challenges of the 21st century.

Insights Success is an archway that caters to Entrepreneurs’ quench of technology and business updates which are currently ruling the business world.

We are ceaselessly proving the best platform for leading companies, which aids indefinite progress while creating meaningful learning experiences for the visitors and invaluable brand awareness for the clients.

Quick Links

• Advertise With Us
• Privacy Policy
• Terms & Conditions

• Focus & Scope
• Author Guidelines
• Author Fees
• Online Submission
• Publication Ethics
• Screening For Plagiarism
• Editorial Board
• Peer Reviewers
• Visitor Statistics
• Indexing & Abstacting
• Journal History

IN COLLABORATION WITH

Certificate SINTA 2

• Other Journals

REFERENCE MANAGEMENT TOOLS

• For Readers
• For Authors
• For Librarians

ISSN BARCODE ISSN (PRINT)

ISSN (ONLINE)

Statcounter

• Announcements

Digital Pedagogy Philosophy: Building Critical Awareness of The Role of Technology in Education

Technology integration in education raises the need for a philosophical foundation that guides the use of technology in learning contexts. The philosophy of digital pedagogy is an approach that provides an ethical basis and values that guide the application of technology in the educational process. This paper aims to explore the relationship between digital pedagogical philosophy, critical consciousness, and the role of technology in shaping contextual and adaptive learning experiences. This research uses a hermeneutic approach to describe the reality of Digital Pedagogical Philosophy in building critical awareness of the role of technology in education. This method involves elements of interpretation and description in analyzing and understanding the implications and significance of technology integration in the learning context. The philosophy of digital pedagogy provides a foundation for integrating technology into learning to support the formation of critical, creative, and responsible individuals. Critical awareness of the role of technology in education creates a deeper understanding of the challenges and opportunities faced in the digital environment. This approach can increase student interaction with course material, increase understanding of concepts, and promote critical thinking.

Acquah, E. O., & Commins, N. L. (2015). Critical reflection as a key component in promoting pre-service teachers’ awareness of cultural diversity. Reflective Practice , 16 (6), 790–805. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2015.1095729

Aguilera, E., & Salazar, C. (2023). Critical Digital Pedagogy in the Platform Society. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education . Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.1888

Baharizqi, S. L., Muhtar, T., Herlambang, Y. T., & Nur Fahrozy, F. P. (2023). Kompetensi Pedagogik Di Era Society 5.0: Sebuah Tinjauan Dalam Perspektif Pedagogik Kritis. ELEMENTARY SCHOOL JOURNAL PGSD FIP UNIMED , 13 (2), 259. https://doi.org/10.24114/esjpgsd.v13i2.46286

Balbay, S. (2019). Enhancing Critical Awareness through Socratic Pedagogy. Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics , 5 (3), 515–536. https://doi.org/10.32601/ejal.651348

Baroud, J., & Dharamshi, P. (2020). A Collaborative Self Study of Critical Digital Pedagogies in Teacher Education. Studying Teacher Education , 16 (2), 164–182. https://doi.org/10.1080/17425964.2020.1739639

Bernacki, M. L., Greene, J. A., & Crompton, H. (2020). Mobile technology, learning, and achievement: Advances in understanding and measuring the role of mobile technology in education. Contemporary Educational Psychology , 60 , 101827. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.101827

Bohlmann, M., Lanius, D., Maisenhölder, P., Moser, T., Noller, J., & Schwartz, M. (2023). On the Use of YouTube, Digital Games, Argument Maps, and Digital Feedback in Teaching Philosophy. Journal of Didactics of Philosophy , 7 , 1–20. https://doi.org/10.46586/JDPh.2023.9863

Buchanan, R. A., Forster, D. J., Douglas, S., Nakar, S., Boon, H. J., Heath, T., Heyward, P., D’Olimpio, L., Ailwood, J., Eacott, S., Smith, S., Peters, M., & Tesar, M. (2022). Philosophy of education in a new key: Exploring new ways of teaching and doing ethics in education in the 21st century. Educational Philosophy and Theory , 54 (8), 1178–1197. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2021.1880387

Byram, M. (2012). Language awareness and (critical) cultural awareness – relationships, comparisons and contrasts. Language Awareness , 21 (1–2), 5–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2011.639887

Chen, Z. (2022). Exploring the application scenarios and issues facing Metaverse technology in education. Interactive Learning Environments , 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2022.2133148

Clements, E. (2019). A conceptual framework for digital civics pedagogy informed by the philosophy of information. Journal of Documentation , 76 (2), 571–585. https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-07-2019-0139

Coker, H. (2018). Purpose, Pedagogy and Philosophy: “Being” an Online Lecturer. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning , 19 (5). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v19i5.3312

Coker, H. (2020). Why Does Digital Learning Matter? Digital Competencies, Social Justice and Critical Pedagogy in Initial Teacher Education. Journal of Teaching and Learning , 14 (1). https://doi.org/10.22329/jtl.v14i1.6259

Costa-Lopes, V. da, & Cunha, M. V. da. (2020). John Dewey: a busca por uma pedagogia retórica. Educação e Pesquisa , 46 . https://doi.org/10.1590/s1678-4634202046218071

Daniela, L. (2019). Didactics of Smart Pedagogy (L. Daniela, Ed.). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01551-0

Darics, E. (2019). Critical Language and Discourse Awareness in Management Education. Journal of Management Education , 43 (6), 651–672. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562919848023

David, N. N., & Cain, K. (2023). Peopling Technologies educational model. ASCILITE Publications , 75–83. https://doi.org/10.14742/apubs.2023.589

Doddington, C. (2014). Philosophy, Art or Pedagogy? How should children experience education? Educational Philosophy and Theory , 46 (11), 1258–1269. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2012.755753

Dreamson, N. (2020). Critical Understandings of Digital Technology in Education: Meta-Connective Pedagogy . Routledge.

Fallace, T. (2020). John Dewey and the New Left, 1960-1988. Journal of Curriculum Studies , 52 (5), 593–607. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2020.1783702

Farag, A., Greeley, L., & Swindell, A. (2022). Freire 2.0: Pedagogy of the digitally oppressed. Educational Philosophy and Theory , 54 (13), 2214–2227. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2021.2010541

Farquhar, S., & White, E. J. (2014). Philosophy and Pedagogy of Early Childhood. Educational Philosophy and Theory , 46 (8), 821–832. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2013.783964

Fawns, T. (2022). An Entangled Pedagogy: Looking Beyond the Pedagogy—Technology Dichotomy. Postdigital Science and Education , 4 (3), 711–728. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-022-00302-7

From, J. (2017). Pedagogical Digital Competence—Between Values, Knowledge and Skills. Higher Education Studies , 7 (2), 43. https://doi.org/10.5539/hes.v7n2p43

Gadotti, M., & Torres, C. A. (2009). Paulo Freire: Education for Development. Development and Change , 40 (6), 1255–1267. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7660.2009.01606.x

Giroux, H. A. (2010). Rethinking Education as the Practice of Freedom: Paulo Freire and the Promise of Critical Pedagogy. Policy Futures in Education , 8 (6), 715–721. https://doi.org/10.2304/pfie.2010.8.6.715

Giroux, H. A. (2020). On Critical Pedagogy . Bloomsbury Publishing.

Giroux, H. A., & Giroux, S. S. (2006). Challenging Neoliberalism’s New World Order: The Promise of Critical Pedagogy. Cultural Studies ↔ Critical Methodologies , 6 (1), 21–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532708605282810

Hanson‐Smith, E. (2016). Games, Gaming, and Gamification: Some Aspects of Motivation. TESOL Journal , 7 (1), 227–232. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.233

Hansson, S. O. (2020). Social constructionism and climate science denial. European Journal for Philosophy of Science , 10 (3), 37. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-020-00305-w

Horn, R. A. (2003). Developing a Critical Awareness of the Hidden Curriculum through Media Literacy. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas , 76 (6), 298–300. https://doi.org/10.1080/00098650309602024

Jardilino, J. R. L., & Soto-Arango, D. E. (2020). Paulo Freire e a Pedagogia Crítica: seu legado para uma nova pedagogia do Sul. Revista Ibero-Americana de Estudos Em Educação , 15 (3), 1072–1093. https://doi.org/10.21723/riaee.v15i3.12472

Kahn, K., & Winters, N. (2021). Constructionism and AI: A history and possible futures. British Journal of Educational Technology , 52 (3), 1130–1142. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13088

Kearney, M., Schuck, S., & Burden, K. (2022). Digital pedagogies for future school education: promoting inclusion. Irish Educational Studies , 41 (1), 117–133. https://doi.org/10.1080/03323315.2021.2024446

Kellner, D. (2001). Critical Pedagogy, Cultural Studies, and Radical Democracy at the Turn of the Millennium: Reflections on the Work of Henry Giroux. Cultural Studies ↔ Critical Methodologies , 1 (2), 220–239. https://doi.org/10.1177/153270860100100205

Kellsey, D., & Taylor, A. (2017). The Learning Wheel: A model of digital pedagogy . Critical Publishing Ltd.

Kester, K., & Aryoubi, H. (2020). Paulo Freire: Citizenship and Education. In The Palgrave Handbook of Citizenship and Education (pp. 95–111). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-67828-3_29

Knight, J., Dooly, M., & Barberà, E. (2023). Getting smart: towards critical digital literacy pedagogies. Social Semiotics , 33 (2), 326–349. https://doi.org/10.1080/10350330.2020.1836815

Knox, J. (2017). Data Power in Education: Exploring Critical Awareness with the “Learning Analytics Report Card.” Television & New Media , 18 (8), 734–752. https://doi.org/10.1177/1527476417690029

Knox, J. (2019). What Does the ‘Postdigital’ Mean for Education? Three Critical Perspectives on the Digital, with Implications for Educational Research and Practice. Postdigital Science and Education , 1 (2), 357–370. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-019-00045-y

Lang, G. (2015). Maintaining Online Engagement in e-Learning Through Games Based Learning and Gamification Techniques (pp. 193–205). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-19875-0_18

Lazarus, J. (2019). Hacking the MOOC: Towards a Postdigital Pedagogy of Critical Hope. Postdigital Science and Education , 1 (2), 391–412. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-019-00063-w

Levin, I., & Tsybulsky, D. (2017). The Constructionist Learning Approach in the Digital Age. Creative Education , 08 (15), 2463–2475. https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2017.815169

Lewin, C., Cranmer, S., & McNicol, S. (2018). Developing digital pedagogy through learning design: An activity theory perspective. British Journal of Educational Technology , 49 (6), 1131–1144. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12705

Lewin, D., & Lundie, D. (2016). Philosophies of Digital Pedagogy. Studies in Philosophy and Education , 35 (3), 235–240. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-016-9514-7

Lunevich, L. (2022a). Critical Digital Pedagogy: Alternative Ways of Being and Educating, Connected Knowledge and Connective Learning. Creative Education , 13 (06), 1884–1896. https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2022.136118

Lunevich, L. (2022b). Critical Digital Pedagogy–Innovative Model Creativity in Teaching and Teaching for Creativity. In Creativity in Teaching and Teaching for Creativity . CRC Press.

Lynch, J. (2023). Critical Digital Pedagogy for the Anthropocene. In Critical Digital Pedagogy in Higher Education (pp. 205–218). Athabasca University Press. https://doi.org/10.15215/aupress/9781778290015.013

Maboloc, C. R. (2021). Deep Thinking or Resistance? On Finding a Middle Ground between Paolo Freire’s Critical Pedagogy and John Dewey’s Pragmatism. Philosophia , 49 (3), 1097–1108. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11406-020-00292-5

Marlowe, J. M., Appleton, C., Chinnery, S.-A., & Van Stratum, S. (2015). The Integration of Personal and Professional Selves: Developing Students’ Critical Awareness in Social Work Practice. Social Work Education , 34 (1), 60–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/02615479.2014.949230

McLaren, P. (2001). Che Guevara, Paulo Freire, and the Politics of Hope: Reclaiming Critical Pedagogy. Cultural Studies ↔ Critical Methodologies , 1 (1), 108–131. https://doi.org/10.1177/153270860100100112

Mclaren, P. (2020). The future of critical pedagogy. Educational Philosophy and Theory , 52 (12), 1243–1248. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2019.1686963

Neumeyer, X., Santos, S. C., & Morris, M. H. (2021). Overcoming Barriers to Technology Adoption When Fostering Entrepreneurship Among the Poor: The Role of Technology and Digital Literacy. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management , 68 (6), 1605–1618. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2020.2989740

Ng, W. (2015). New Digital Technology in Education . Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05822-1

Olusola O. Adesope, & Rud, A. G. (2019). Contemporary Technologies in Education (O. O. Adesope & A. G. Rud, Eds.). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-89680-9

Örtegren, A. (2024). Philosophical underpinnings of digital citizenship through a postdigital lens: Implications for teacher educators’ professional digital competence. Education and Information Technologies , 29 (4), 4253–4285. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11965-5

Papastephanou, M., Zembylas, M., Bostad, I., Oral, S. B., Drousioti, K., Kouppanou, A., Strand, T., Wain, K., Peters, M. A., & Tesar, M. (2022). Philosophy of education in a new key: Education for justice now. Educational Philosophy and Theory , 54 (8), 1083–1098. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2020.1793539

Peters, M. A. (2020). Philosophy as pedagogy. In Wittgenstein, Anti-foundationalism, Technoscience and Philosophy of Education . Routledge.

Peters, M. A., & Besley, T. (2019). Critical Philosophy of the Postdigital. Postdigital Science and Education , 1 (1), 29–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-018-0004-9

Phelan, L., & Lumb, M. (2021). Higher education for times of climate crisis – critical awareness, purpose and community. International Studies in Sociology of Education , 30 (1–2), 173–190. https://doi.org/10.1080/09620214.2020.1854828

Prahani, B. K., Utama Alan Deta, Mochammad Yasir, Sri Astutik, Paken Pandiangan, Sayidah Mahtari, & Husni Mubarok. (2020). The Concept of “Kampus Merdeka” in Accordance with Freire’s Critical Pedagogy. Studies in Philosophy of Science and Education , 1 (1), 21–37. https://doi.org/10.46627/sipose.v1i1.8

Rahayuningsih, Y. S., & Muhtar, T. (2022). Pedagogik Digital Sebagai Upaya untuk Meningkatkan Kompetensi Guru Abad 21. Jurnal Basicedu , 6 (4), 6960–6966. https://doi.org/10.31004/basicedu.v6i4.3433

Redman, C., & Rodrigues, S. (2014). From Philosophy and Research to Pedagogy and Practice. In Handbook for Teacher Educators . Brill.

Rich, E., & Miah, A. (2014). Understanding Digital Health as Public Pedagogy: A Critical Framework. Societies , 4 (2), 296–315. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc4020296

Ridge, M. (2021). The Value of Value Capture. Journal of the Philosophy of Games . https://doi.org/10.5617/jpg.8760

Riga, F. (2020). Pragmatism—John Dewey (pp. 227–239). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-43620-9_16

Sadovnik, A. R., Semel, S. F., Coughlan, R. W., Kanze, B., & Tyner-Mullings, A. R. (2017). Progressive Education in The 21st Century: The Enduring Influence of John Dewey. The Journal of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era , 16 (4), 515–530. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537781417000378

Samacá Bohórquez, Y. (2020). Self-Dialogue with the Thoughts of Paulo Freire: A Critical Pedagogy Encounter. HOW , 27 (1), 125–139. https://doi.org/10.19183/how.27.1.520

Santoianni, F. (2017). Models in Pedagogy and Education. In Springer Handbook of Model-Based Science (pp. 1033–1049). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-30526-4_49

Sargent, J., & Casey, A. (2020). Flipped learning, pedagogy and digital technology: Establishing consistent practice to optimise lesson time. European Physical Education Review , 26 (1), 70–84. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336X19826603

Seidman, R. H. (2017). Tribute to Seymour Papert (1928–2016). Journal of Educational Computing Research , 55 (4), 447–448. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633117710860

Shih, Y.-H. (2018). Some critical thinking on Paulo Freire’s critical pedagogy and its educational implications. International Education Studies , 11 (9), 64. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v11n9p64

Smoleń, M. (2015). Gamification as creation of a social system. In Gamification: Critical Approaches . University of Warsaw.

Stanczyk, P. (2021). The critique of the critical critique of critical pedagogy Freire, Suchodolski and the Materialist Pedagogy of Emancipation. Critical Education , 12 (4).

Szűts, Z. (2019). A critical approach to digital pedagogy - A holistic methodology in the information society. Opus et Educatio , 6 (4). https://doi.org/10.3311/ope.342

Szymkowiak, A., Melović, B., Dabić, M., Jeganathan, K., & Kundi, G. S. (2021). Information technology and Gen Z: The role of teachers, the internet, and technology in the education of young people. Technology in Society , 65 , 101565. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2021.101565

Tagg, C., & Seargeant, P. (2021). Context design and critical language/media awareness: Implications for a social digital literacies education. Linguistics and Education , 62 , 100776. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2019.100776

Tarrant, S. P., & Thiele, L. P. (2016). Practice makes pedagogy – John Dewey and skills-based sustainability education. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education , 17 (1), 54–67. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-09-2014-0127

Tesar, M., Hytten, K., Hoskins, T. K., Rosiek, J., Jackson, A. Y., Hand, M., Roberts, P., Opiniano, G. A., Matapo, J., St. Pierre, E. A., Azada-Palacios, R., Kuby, C. R., Jones, A., Mazzei, L. A., Maruyama, Y., O’Donnell, A., Dixon-Román, E., Chengbing, W., Huang, Z., … Jackson, L. (2022). Philosophy of education in a new key: Future of philosophy of education. Educational Philosophy and Theory , 54 (8), 1234–1255. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2021.1946792

Toda, A. M., Valle, P. H. D., & Isotani, S. (2018). The dark side of gamification: An overview of negative effects of gamification in education (pp. 143–156). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-97934-2_9

Trifonas, P. P. (2012). Learning the virtual Life: Public pedagogy in a digital World . Routledge.

Urdang, E. (2010). Awareness of self—A critical tool. Social Work Education , 29 (5), 523–538. https://doi.org/10.1080/02615470903164950

Väätäjä, J. O., & Ruokamo, H. (2021). Conceptualizing dimensions and a model for digital pedagogy. Journal of Pacific Rim Psychology , 15 , 183449092199539. https://doi.org/10.1177/1834490921995395

Voronin, D. M., Saienko, V. G., & Tolchieva, H. V. (2020). Digital transformation of pedagogical education at the university. Proceedings of the International Scientific Conference “Digitalization of Education: History, Trends and Prospects” (DETP 2020) . https://doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.200509.135

Wattimena, R. A. A. (2018). Pedagogi kritis: Pemikiran Henry Giroux tentang pendidikan dan relevansinya untuk Indonesia. Jurnal Filsafat , 28 (2), 180. https://doi.org/10.22146/jf.34714

Williams, P. J. (2020). An introduction to effective pedagogies of design and technology education. In Pedagogy for Technology Education in Secondary Schools. Contemporary Issues in Technology Education (pp. 1–17). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-41548-8_1

Ye, Y., & Shih, Y.-H. (2021). Development of John Dewey’s educational philosophy and its implications for children’s education. Policy Futures in Education , 19 (8), 877–890. https://doi.org/10.1177/1478210320987678

Zhang, J., & Yu, S. (2023). Reconceptualising digital pedagogy during the COVID-19 pandemic: A qualitative inquiry into distance teaching in China. Innovations in Education and Teaching International , 60 (2), 174–184. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2021.2000473

Zhu, L. (2018). An embodied cognition perspective on translation education: philosophy and pedagogy. Perspectives , 26 (1), 135–151. https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2017.1328449

Article Metrics

• There are currently no refbacks.

Jurnal Filsafat Indexed by:

Jurnal Filsafat ISSN 0853-1870 (print), ISSN 2528-6811 (online)

Youth Leadership in Climate Action: Shaping a Sustainable Future

Last month it was International Youth Day, which highlights the significant role young people play in addressing one of the most pressing challenges of our time: climate change. With 16% of the world's population being under 24, the energy, creativity, and digital fluency of today’s youth make them powerful advocates for sustainable solutions. 

Youth Representation in Climate Action 

The current generation of young people are deeply concerned about the future of our planet. They understand the impact of climate change and are actively demanding change from governments, businesses, and communities. Across the globe, youth-led organizations are emerging, exemplifying a firm commitment to a sustainable future. These young leaders are at the forefront of advocating for change, proving they are not just the leaders of tomorrow but also today. 

The Role of Freight Forwarding in Empowering Youth Activism 

As a leading freight forwarder, EFL Global recognizes the impact of the logistics industry on the environment and the importance of fostering a culture of sustainability in our practices. We believe in empowering the next generation to lead this charge. Through our internships, we provide young talent with the opportunity to understand the complexities of the logistics industry and its environmental footprint. We encourage our young employees to think creatively, offering platforms like the ‘Global Goodness’ programs to educate and motivate them to adopt sustainable practices.  

“In today's world, young people are more passionate than ever about protecting and preserving our planet. They're not just learning about climate action-they're actively taking steps to mitigate its impacts. At EFL, we're proud to support these efforts by providing the foundation they need to become true green champions, particularly through our 'Global Goodness' sub-brand, 'Global Goodness: Next Gen.'” 

-Jayamal Rathnayake, Sustainability Officer 

Innovation Through Collaboration: Bridging Generations 

Youth leadership thrives when combined with the experience of industry professionals. At EFL Global, we encourage collaboration between generations, blending fresh ideas with industry knowledge to create sustainable solutions. Mentorship and teamwork between young talent and experts power innovation, ensuring that creative strategies are both forward-thinking and feasible. As we work towards bridging generational gaps, we expand our impact on climate action and pave the way for a more sustainable future. 

Empowering Youth for a Greener Tomorrow 

For meaningful progress in climate action, young people must have a seat at the decision-making table. Their voices, ideas, and solutions are critical to shaping policies and strategies for a sustainable future. Integrating climate change education into school education programs is essential in building a climate-literate generation that can lead with knowledge and purpose. 

Let us continue to recognize the vital role of youth in climate action and commit to supporting and empowering them as they lead us toward a greener tomorrow. 

• Sustainability

Continue Reading

SDG 14: EFL Nicaragua Ocean Conservation Project

As an organization utilizing air, ocean, and land freight for our logistics solutions, EFL Global is aware of the interconnected nature of ecosystems both on land and water. This thought process...

Creating Sustainable Change: Our Global Goodness Mission

In today’s world, incorporating sustainability in your overall business strategy is not just a consideration; it’s a requirement to ensure generations to come have a viable future. As a logistics...

How to Create Zero Waste Work Environments

Sustainability is not a fad – it’s becoming more and more critical to the future of our health, economies, and environments across the world. While many global citizens have opted to practice a...

• Project Cargo
• Customs Brokerage
• Trade Consulting
• Cross Dock and Transloading
• Consolidation Services
• Value Added Services
• Storage Solutions
• Order Management
• Global Reach
• Awards & Certifications
• Global Goodness
• Environment
• Memberships & Partnerships
• Get a Quote
• EFL Global Customer Portal
• EFL Global Market Report