illustrate the link between philosophy and critical thinking

8. Philosophy and Critical Thinking: The Value of Asking the Deep Questions

Although we’ve emphasized in this guide that critical thinking skills cannot be taught in isolation from subject matter, there is a great deal of critical thinking to be learned from a subject that studies thinking itself: namely, philosophy. Philosophy and critical thinking are a natural pair.

American schools, unlike schools in some other parts of the world, have been hesitant to adopt philosophy courses into the curriculum. (One exception is the International Baccalaureate curriculum which includes a course called “Theory of Knowledge.”) One reason for this is that philosophical texts are often thought of as too dense and difficult for primary and secondary school students. 

Philosophy does, of course, involve a corpus of often quite difficult texts from different traditions, but philosophical reasoning itself is not at all outside the reach of even young children. Indeed, children show an interest in philosophical questions at a very young age. 

Philosophical reasoning itself is not at all outside the reach of even young children. Indeed, children show an interest in philosophical questions at a very young age.

And older students, especially those who might be demotivated or struggle in other subjects, can be stimulated by the more open-ended, argumentative, and profound nature of philosophical thinking. Philosophical thinking also has a unique, interdisciplinary character that makes it ideal for helping students see connections across disciplines.

Philosophy for Kids

Philosophical reasoning is not something foreign to kids that needs to be forced on them from the outside. They all naturally ask philosophical questions like : 

• “How can we be sure that everything is not a dream?”
• “When Dad tells me to be good, what does he mean?”
• “Why is time so slow sometimes?”

Philosophy for kids programs and courses can help encourage this inquisitiveness and help kids to learn to channel it into a reflective frame of mind.

Many philosophy for kids programs attempt to initiate this type of thinking through narrative. For example, the Institute for the Advancement of Philosophy for Children ( IAPC ) at Montclair State University, which goes back to the work of Matthew Lipman in the 1970s, uses stories to stimulate discussion of a philosophical topic. Children then discuss the topic in a “community of inquiry” where the teacher acts as a facilitator, who “both guides the children and models for them — by asking open-ended questions, posing alternative views, seeking clarification, questioning reasons, and by demonstrating self-correcting behavior.”

Other philosophy for kids initiatives use other stimuli, like visuals, thought experiments, or simply probing questions. But they share the goal of building a “community of inquiry,” where students get a chance to discuss and refine their ideas with one another, undertake to understand outside perspectives, and consider big questions outside the scope of more standard learning.

There is evidence that these kinds of philosophical activities can have a positive impact on student achievement . The Education Endowment Foundation in the UK found in an initial study of Philosophy for Children for 8-10 year olds that the program was promising: students made gains in math and reading compared to those who did not participate.

Teaching Philosophy to Middle and High School Students

As they get older, students are ready for more complex philosophical reasoning as well as instruction in formal logic. Philosophy can, moreover, be a driver of interdisciplinarity during middle and high school, since reflecting on the state of knowledge in other disciplines is one of the core tasks of philosophy.

Philosophy can, moreover, be a driver of interdisciplinarity during middle and high school, since reflecting on the state of knowledge in other disciplines is one of the core tasks of philosophy.

This kind of interdisciplinarity may help address one of the thorniest problems with critical thinking instruction: namely, transferability. As we’ve noted, critical thinking skills in one domain do not easily transfer to other domains. Teaching general critical thinking skills without any context is thus generally not effective . But that doesn’t mean students shouldn’t spend time thinking about how the skills and knowledge they’ve gained in one domain relate to those gained in another. Philosophical reasoning is a perfect complement here. 

One way teachers can get middle and high school students to start thinking more philosophically in an interdisciplinary context is through epistemology, or the study of knowledge.

Idea for Discussion : What Is Knowledge?

Philosophy is concerned, more than many other disciplines, with definitions. It takes concepts that we might take for granted, like knowledge, and problematizes them, by asking questions like:

• How do we know something?
• Are there general principles for what counts as knowledge or does it depend on the discipline?
• How do we come to know things in science? In our daily lives? In religion or aesthetic experiences?

It’s easy for these conversations to become too abstract so it’s best to start with something concrete. Break students up and assign them each a particular subject matter: art, science, religion, and morality, for example. Ask them to define knowledge in each of these domains?

• How do you know a piece of artwork is good?
• How is a scientific theory known to be true?
• How do people know a religious belief they have is true?
• How do we know the difference between right and wrong moral actions?

Ask students to come up with a definition. As they discuss, circulate to make sure students are using examples from their own study and experiences and trying to develop a list of criteria for knowledge in these different domains.

Bring the class back together to evaluate the definitions. Ask students from other groups to scrutinize each others’ definitions. The teacher might raise certain objections to try and deepen discussion:

• In science, for example, a group might say a theory is known to be true because it is verified in experimental results. But Isaac Newton’s physics were eventually shown to be inaccurate in certain cases. Is it right to say that before Albert Einstein came along, with a new, more experimentally accurate theory, people knew Newton’s theory was true? Or did they only think they knew?

Then, ask students to reflect on whether there is anything shared among these different kinds of “knowledge.” Questions that might come up include:

• Are there any general shared principles of inquiry common to these different domains: for example, experimentation or learning from one’s predecessors?
• Is it just happenstance that we happen to apply the words “know” and “knowledge” to these very different activities?
• Can we draw a clean distinction between practical knowledge (“knowing how”) and theoretical knowledge (“knowing that”)?

Download our

 teachers’ guide.

(please click here)

Sources and Resources

Goering, Sara, Nicholas J. Shudak, and Thomas E. Wartenberg, eds (2013). Philosophy in schools: An introduction for philosophers and teachers . Routledge. Collection of essays on different aspects of pre-college philosophy education.

Lone, J. M. & Burroughs, M.D. (2016). Philosophy in education: Questioning and dialogue in schools . Rowman & Littlefield. Argument for introducing philosophy in the K-12 context, with lesson ideas for elementary, middle, and high school. 

Millett, S., & Tapper, A. (2012). Benefits of collaborative philosophical inquiry in schools. Educational Philosophy and Theory , 44(5), 546-567. Overview on research into philosophy for kids and collaborative philosophical inquiry more broadly. 

Pritchard, Michael (2018). Philosophy for children . The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy . Encyclopedia entry on the history of rationale for philosophy for children. Also offers details on different approaches and more resources.

Privacy Overview

• Board Members
• Management Team
• Become a Contributor
• Volunteer Opportunities
• Code of Ethical Practices

KNOWLEDGE NETWORK

• Search Engines List
• Suggested Reading Library
• Web Directories
• Research Papers
• Industry News

• Become a Member
• Associate Membership
• Certified Membership
• Membership Application
• Corporate Application

• CIRS Certification Program
• CIRS Certification Objectives
• CIRS Certification Benefits
• CIRS Certification Exam
• Maintain Your Certification

• Upcoming Events
• Live Classes
• Classes Schedule
• Webinars Schedules

• Latest Articles
• Internet Research
• Search Techniques
• Research Methods
• Business Research
• Search Engines
• Research & Tools
• Investigative Research
• Internet Search
• Work from Home
• Internet Ethics
• Internet Privacy

The Role of the Study of Philosophy in Shaping Critical Thinking and Intellectual Inquiry

Philosophy is a kind of subject that can give your brain a serious workout, and here's why. Firstly, it deals with some pretty big, abstract questions: What's the meaning of life? Do we have free will? How do we determine what's right and wrong? These aren't easy questions with straightforward answers. They're complex and thought-provoking, and they often lead to more questions than answers. This can make philosophy challenging but also incredibly fascinating. 

Then there's the language of philosophy. Philosophers have a way of using words that might seem unusual to most of us. They often use familiar words but with very specific, nuanced meanings that can be quite different from everyday usage. This specialized language can be tricky to get the hang of but is essential for conveying complex philosophical concepts. 

Cultivating Critical Thinking Skills

Let's dive into philosophy's secret power: its ability to cultivate some serious critical thinking skills. You see, philosophy isn't just about pondering life's big questions - it's also about learning how to think deeply, critically, and analytically. 

When you're studying philosophy, you're not just memorizing facts or learning procedures. You're engaging with:

•       complex ideas
•       evaluating arguments
•       learning to see things from different perspectives.

This requires critical thinking - the ability to analyze information, assess its validity, and use it to form reasoned judgments.

Take a philosophy debate, for instance. You'll need to understand the different viewpoints, evaluate the evidence supporting each one, and come up with a reasoned response . This isn't about choosing sides or proving someone wrong, but about understanding the strengths and weaknesses of different arguments. 

•       analyzing information
•       making logical connections
•       forming reasoned conclusions. 

But here's the real kicker: the critical thinking skills you develop through studying philosophy don't just stay in the classroom. They're transferable skills that can be incredibly valuable in other areas of your life, from making decisions to solving problems and even understanding other people's viewpoints. 

So yes, philosophy might have a reputation for being abstract and complex, but it's also a powerful tool for cultivating critical thinking. It encourages us to question, analyze, and reason - and that's a skill set that can benefit us in many ways, both in the academic world and beyond.

Stimulating Intellectual Inquiry

You see, philosophy thrives on questions. Not just any old questions, but those really big, head-scratching ones. What is the nature of reality? How can we truly know anything? What is the meaning of life? These questions might not have easy or definite answers, but they prompt us to dig deep, to explore different ideas, and to think in new ways. That's intellectual inquiry at its finest! 

Then there's the way philosophy encourages us to question our assumptions. We all have beliefs about the world, but philosophy pushes us to examine these beliefs critically. Why do we hold these beliefs? Are they justified? Could we be wrong? This kind of self-examination can be challenging, but it also fosters intellectual growth and self-awareness. 

Moreover, philosophy promotes logical thinking. It teaches us:

•       how to construct coherent arguments
•       how to spot logical fallacies
•       how to reason effectively.

These skills are essential for intellectual inquiry, helping us to navigate complex ideas and debates. 

And finally, philosophy nurtures curiosity and wonder. It invites us:

•       to marvel at the mysteries of the universe
•       to ponder the complexities of existence
•       to grapple with profound ethical dilemmas.

This sense of wonder and curiosity can fuel our intellectual journey, driving us to learn more, to question more, and to deepen our understanding.

Final Thoughts

Live classes schedule.

World's leading professional association of Internet Research Specialists - We deliver Knowledge, Education, Training, and Certification in the field of Professional Online Research. The AOFIRS is considered a major contributor in improving Web Search Skills and recognizes Online Research work as a full-time occupation for those that use the Internet as their primary source of information.

Get Exclusive Research Tips in Your Inbox

• Privacy Policy
• Terms & Conditions
• Advertising Opportunities
• Knowledge Network

• Tools and Resources
• Customer Services
• Original Language Spotlight
• Alternative and Non-formal Education 
• Cognition, Emotion, and Learning
• Curriculum and Pedagogy
• Education and Society
• Education, Change, and Development
• Education, Cultures, and Ethnicities
• Education, Gender, and Sexualities
• Education, Health, and Social Services
• Educational Administration and Leadership
• Educational History
• Educational Politics and Policy
• Educational Purposes and Ideals
• Educational Systems
• Educational Theories and Philosophies
• Globalization, Economics, and Education
• Languages and Literacies
• Professional Learning and Development
• Research and Assessment Methods
• Technology and Education
• Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Article contents

Philosophical issues in critical thinking.

• Juho Ritola Juho Ritola University of Turku
• https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.1480
• Published online: 26 May 2021

Critical thinking is active, good-quality thinking. This kind of thinking is initiated by an agent’s desire to decide what to believe, it satisfies relevant norms, and the decision on the matter at hand is reached through the use of available reasons under the control of the thinking agent. In the educational context, critical thinking refers to an educational aim that includes certain skills and abilities to think according to relevant standards and corresponding attitudes, habits, and dispositions to apply those skills to problems the agent wants to solve. The basis of this ideal is the conviction that we ought to be rational. This rationality is manifested through the proper use of reasons that a cognizing agent is able to appreciate. From the philosophical perspective, this fascinating ability to appreciate reasons leads into interesting philosophical problems in epistemology, moral philosophy, and political philosophy.

Critical thinking in itself and the educational ideal are closely connected to the idea that we ought to be rational. But why exactly? This profound question seems to contain the elements needed for its solution. To ask why is to ask either for an explanation or for reasons for accepting a claim. Concentrating on the latter, we notice that such a question presupposes that the acceptability of a claim depends on the quality of the reasons that can be given for it: asking this question grants us the claim that we ought to be rational, that is, to make our beliefs fit what we have reason to believe. In the center of this fit are the concepts of knowledge and justified belief. A critical thinker wants to know and strives to achieve the state of knowledge by mentally examining reasons and the relation those reasons bear to candidate beliefs. Both these aspects include fascinating philosophical problems. How does this mental examination bring about knowledge? What is the relation my belief must have to a putative reason for my belief to qualify as knowledge?

The appreciation of reason has been a key theme in the writings of the key figures of philosophy of education, but the ideal of individual justifying reasoning is not the sole value that guides educational theory and practice. It is therefore important to discuss tensions this ideal has with other important concepts and values, such as autonomy, liberty, and political justification. For example, given that we take critical thinking to be essential for the liberty and autonomy of an individual, how far can we try to inculcate a student with this ideal when the student rejects it? These issues underline important practical choices an educator has to make.

• critical thinking
• rationality
• epistemic justification
• internalism
• public reason

You do not currently have access to this article

Please login to access the full content.

Access to the full content requires a subscription

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Education. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 17 April 2024

• Cookie Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility
• [66.249.64.20|81.177.182.154]
• 81.177.182.154

Character limit 500 /500

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Chapter 1. Introducing Critical Thinking and Philosophical Inquiry

This chapter….

• Introduces the concept of critical thinking and its importance.
• Discusses the basics of critical thinking and emphasizes its relevance.
• Explores the concept of a love for knowledge and why it is important.
• Addresses the questions of what philosophy is and its role as an educational foundation.
• Includes practice exercises included to help improve critical thinking skills.
• Ends with a review of the main points and recommended readings.

§1 Understanding Critical Thinking

1.1 What is “critical thinking”?

1.2 The Importance of Critical Thinking

1.3 Characteristics of Critical Thinkers

1.4 The Relationship between Critical Thinking and Philosophical Inquiry

§2 The Process of Critical Thinking

2.1 Recognizing Assumptions

2.2 Analyzing Arguments

2.3 Evaluating Evidence

2.4 Avoiding Fallacies

2.5 Formulating Well-Reasoned Judgments

§3 Why Critical Thinking Matters

3.1 Applications of Critical Thinking

3.2 Critics of Critical Thinking

3.3 Why It Matters: The Value of Philosophy [forthcoming]

§4 Critical Thinking Basics

4.1 Statements [Claims]

4.2 Non-statements

4.3 Arguments

4.4 Argument Identification

4.5 Arguments v. Explanations

15 PRACTICE EXERCISES

§5 Love of Knowledge

5.1 What is ‘Philosophy’?

5.2 No Single Definition

5.3 Are You a Philosopher?

5.4 Questions & Answers

5.5 Philosophy of Anything & Everything!

5 SHORT ANSWER QUESTIONS

• Argument = gives reasons for believing that something is the case
• Assertion = a statement that something is or is not the case / either true or false
• Axiology = the study of value, including both aesthetic value and moral value
• Bias = obstacle to thinking well by preferring someone / thing for irrelevant reasons
• Critical Thinking = the systematic evaluation or formulation of beliefs, or statements, by rational standards
• Epistemology = the study of knowledge / justified belief
• Explanation = tells us why or how something is the case
• Fallacy =  error in reasoning
• Issue = topic being discussed; whether something is [not] the case
• Inference = the logical link between premises and a conclusion
• Logic = the study of / codification of rules for correct reasoning
• Metaphysics = the study of reality
• Philosophy = “the love of wisdom”; study of general and fundamental problems in the form of questions
• Philosophical Questions = arise from the critical examination of one’s ordinary beliefs
• Philosophical Beliefs = fundamental beliefs that underlie many other ordinary beliefs
• Philosophical Thinking = thinking about the truth of a philosophical belief
• Premise(s) = supporting statement(s) in an argument
• Conclusion = statement being supported in an argument
• Value Judgment = evaluation of something that is neither true nor false.

How to Think For Yourself Copyright © 2023 by Rebeka Ferreira, Anthony Ferrucci is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Philosophical Issues in Critical Thinking

Critical thinking is active, good-quality thinking. This kind of thinking is initiated by an agent’s desire to decide what to believe, it satisfies relevant norms, and the decision on the matter at hand is reached through the use of available reasons under the control of the thinking agent. In the educational context, critical thinking refers to an educational aim that includes certain skills and abilities to think according to relevant standards and corresponding attitudes, habits, and dispositions to apply those skills to problems the agent wants to solve. The basis of this ideal is the conviction that we ought to be rational. This rationality is manifested through the proper use of reasons that a cognizing agent is able to appreciate. From the philosophical perspective, this fascinating ability to appreciate reasons leads into interesting philosophical problems in epistemology, moral philosophy, and political philosophy. Critical thinking in itself and the educational ideal are closely connected to the idea that we ought to be rational. But why exactly? This profound question seems to contain the elements needed for its solution. To ask why is to ask either for an explanation or for reasons for accepting a claim. Concentrating on the latter, we notice that such a question presupposes that the acceptability of a claim depends on the quality of the reasons that can be given for it: asking this question grants us the claim that we ought to be rational, that is, to make our beliefs fit what we have reason to believe. In the center of this fit are the concepts of knowledge and justified belief. A critical thinker wants to know and strives to achieve the state of knowledge by mentally examining reasons and the relation those reasons bear to candidate beliefs. Both these aspects include fascinating philosophical problems. How does this mental examination bring about knowledge? What is the relation my belief must have to a putative reason for my belief to qualify as knowledge? The appreciation of reason has been a key theme in the writings of the key figures of philosophy of education, but the ideal of individual justifying reasoning is not the sole value that guides educational theory and practice. It is therefore important to discuss tensions this ideal has with other important concepts and values, such as autonomy, liberty, and political justification. For example, given that we take critical thinking to be essential for the liberty and autonomy of an individual, how far can we try to inculcate a student with this ideal when the student rejects it? These issues underline important practical choices an educator has to make.

• Related Documents

Open-Mindedness, Critical Thinking, and Indoctrination

William Hare has made fundamental contributions to philosophy of education. His work on various matters of educational theory and practice is of the first importance and will influence the field for decades to come. Among the most important of these contributions is his hugely important work on open-mindedness, an ideal that Hare has clarified and defended powerfully and tellingly. In this paper I explore the several relationships that exist between Hare’s favored educational ideal (open-mindedness) and my own (critical thinking). Both are important educational aims, but I argue here that while both are of central importance, it is the latter that is the more fundamental of the two.

Education's Epistemology

This collection extends and further defends the “reasons conception” of critical thinking that Harvey Siegel has articulated and defended over the last three-plus decades. This conception analyzes and emphasizes both the epistemic quality of candidate beliefs, and the dispositions and character traits that constitute the “critical spirit”, that are central to a proper account of critical thinking; argues that epistemic quality must be understood ultimately in terms of epistemic rationality; defends a conception of rationality that involves both rules and judgment; and argues that critical thinking has normative value over and above its instrumental tie to truth. Siegel also argues, contrary to currently popular multiculturalist thought, for both transcultural and universal philosophical ideals, including those of multiculturalism and critical thinking themselves. Over seventeen chapters, Siegel makes the case for regarding critical thinking, or the cultivation of rationality, as a preeminent educational ideal, and the fostering of it as a fundamental educational aim. A wide range of alternative views are critically examined. Important related topics, including indoctrination, moral education, open-mindedness, testimony, epistemological diversity, and cultural difference are treated. The result is a systematic account and defense of critical thinking, an educational ideal widely proclaimed but seldom submitted to critical scrutiny itself.

SOME BASIC AND BEGINNING ISSUES FOR KHMER ETHNIC COMMUNITY, NOW

With the majority of the population working in agriculture, the economy of Khmer people is mainly agricultural. At present, the Khmer ethnic group has a workingstructure in the ideal age, but the number of young and healthy workers who have not been trained is still high and laborers lack knowledge and skills to do business. Labor productivity is still very low ... Problems in education quality, human resources; the transformation of traditional religion; effects of climate change; Cross-border relations of the people have always been and are of great interest and challenges to the development of the Khmer ethnic community. Identifying fundamental and urgent issues, forecasting the socio-economic trends in areas with large numbers of Khmer people living in the future will be the basis for the theory and practice for us to have. Solutions in the development and implementation of policies for Khmer compatriots suitable and effective.

EL PENSAMIENTO CRÍTICO EN LA EDUCACIÓN DE POSGRADO: PROPUESTA DE UN MODELO PARA SU INTEGRACIÓN AL PROCESO EDUCATIVO

La presente investigación, analiza los conceptos más importantes del pensamiento Crítico, así como su importancia y utilidad en los procesos de formación profesional a nivel de Posgrado. Se hace un análisis detallado de los conceptos más ampliamente aceptado y de los factores inmersos en el desarrollo y aplicación de este tipo de pensamiento. Finalmente se propone un modelo que engloba los conceptos y factores analizados y como se interrelacionan entre ellos; el objetivo final es brindar a los docentes y directivos de Instituciones de Educación Superior, una herramienta que posibilite la inclusión de este tipo de pensamiento en sus procesos enseñanza-aprendizaje con el fin último de mejorar la calidad de los procesos de formación. Palabras Clave: Pensamiento Crítico, Educación Superior, Educación ABSTRACT This research analyzes the most important concepts of critical thinking as well as their importance and usefulness for the educational processes at graduate level. A detailed analysis of the most widely accepted concepts and factors involved in the development and application of this kind of thinking has been made. Finally, a model that includes the concepts and analyzed factors and their interrelations is proposed; the ultimate goal is to provide teachers and directors of Institutions in Higher Education, a tool that enables the inclusion of this type of thinking in their teaching and learning processes with the ultimate intention of improving the quality of the training processes. Keywords: Critical thinking, Higher Education, Education Recibido: mayo de 2016Aprobado: septiembre de 2016

Modifikasi Model Pembelajaran Problem Based Learning (PBL) dengan Strategi Pembelajaran Tugas dan Paksa

This writing aims to help teachers to increase motivation, activity, creativity, and critical thinking of students in solving problems in class. The way to increase student motivation in learning in class is to choose the right learning model with ongoing learning material. One learning model that increases students' creativity and critical thinking in problem solving is a Problem Based Learning (PBL) learning model. To improve students' insights in order to easily solve problems there is a need to do tasks, if students do not do the task then they must accept the agreed upon consequences when making learning contracts, thus modifying the Problem Based Learning (PBL) learning model with task strategies and forced. The results of the modification of learning with the Problem Based Learning (PBL) learning model through forced and forced strategies are expected to improve the learning process so that students become more disciplined and do not waste time doing assignments. The advantages of modifying the Problem Based Learning (PBL) learning model with task and forced learning strategies are increasing student learning motivation, improving the quality of learning, training students' understanding by giving assignments continuously, teaching discipline to students in order to be accountable for tasks assigned, and reducing laziness in students.

La Formación Continua y el Desarrollo de Competencias en los Docentes en Ejercicio del Nivel Secundario

Este artículo está encaminado a caracterizar el proceso de formación continua del docente del nivel medio en ejercicio asociado a la formación y desarrollo de sus competencias docentes, para lo que fueron utilizados métodos como   el análisis y síntesis, inducción y deducción, abstracción y concreción, la entrevista, la encuesta y  el cuestionario, donde a partir de sus resultados se  llega a la consideración de que la formación continua es la vía idónea para la formación y desarrollo de competencias docentes en los profesores en ejercicio, donde se debe asumir un modelo que propicie la reflexión sobre la propia práctica del docente, un clima de colaboración   y el profesor como sujeto activo de ese proceso.   Palabras claves: calidad educativa,   competencias docentes,   educador, estudio, preparación continua,  ABSTRACT   This article aims to characterize the process of education for teachers of middle level associated with exercise training and development of their teaching skills, for which methods were used as analysis and synthesis, induction and deduction, abstraction and concreteness, interview and questionnaire survey, where from their results leads to the consideration that the training is the ideal way for the formation and development of teaching skills in practicing teachers, where they must assume a model that encourages reflection on own teaching practice, a climate of collaboration and the teacher as an active subject of that process Keywords: quality of education, teaching skills, teacher, study, continuous preparation

Neither Humean nor (Fully) Kantian Be

This chapter offers a reply to Stefaan Cuypers’ explication and critique of the views of rationality and critical thinking laid out in the previous chapters and in earlier work (see his “Critical Thinking, Autonomy and Practical Reason,” 2004). While Cuypers’ discussion is praiseworthy in several respects, it (1) mistakenly attributes to those views a Humean conception of (practical) reason, and (2) unsuccessfully argues that the positions articulated and defended in those earlier chapters lack the resources required to defend the basic claim that critical thinking is a fundamental educational ideal. Cuypers’ analysis also raises deep issues about the motivational character of reasons; I briefly address this matter as well.

Cultivating Reason

The Western philosophical tradition has historically valorized the cultivation of reason as a fundamental intellectual ideal. This ideal continues to be defended by many as educationally basic. However, recent philosophical work has challenged it on several fronts, including worries stemming from relativistic tendencies in the philosophy of science, the apparent ubiquity of epistemic dependence in social epistemology, and broad critiques of objectionable hegemony launched from feminist and postmodernist perspectives. This chapter briefly reviews the historical record, connects the cultivation of reason to the educational ideal of critical thinking, spells out the latter ideal, and evaluates these challenges. It ends by sketching a general, “transcendental” reply to all such critiques of reason.

Rhetoric, Commonplacing, and Poetics

Chapter 4 examines a variety of treatises and debates about rhetoric and its value, and whether the art of persuasion could be a dangerous tool in the hands of the unscrupulous or even whether it was a skill that risked corrupting the user, dangers that were identified by Quintilian, whose Institutio Oratoria (The Orator’s Education) shaped so much rhetorical theory and practice in the Renaissance. The chapter explores the practice of commonplacing, noting down particular maxims which could then serve as the basis of explorations of issues, a practice that, like rhetoric, generated anxiety about truth, falsehood, and lying. Particular attention is paid to Erasmus’s Colloquies and Lingua; William Baldwin’s A Treatise of Moral Philosophy, the most popular work of philosophy in sixteenth-century England; the use of commonplaces in Montaigne’s Essays; George Puttenham’s use of proverbs and figures in his Arte of English Poesie (1589); and Sir Philip Sidney’s understanding of poetry as lying in The Defence of Poetry.

Oxford Studies in Agency and Responsibility Volume 6

This is the sixth volume of Oxford Studies in Agency and Responsibility. The papers were drawn from the fourth biennial New Orleans Workshop in Agency and Responsibility (NOWAR), held November 2–4, 2017. The essays cover a wide range of topics relevant to agency and responsibility: the threat of neuroscience to free will; the relevance of resentment and guilt to responsibility; how control and self-control pertain to moral agency, oppression, and poverty; responsibility for joint agency; the role and conditions of shame in theories of attributability; how one might take responsibility without blameworthy quality of will; what it means to have standing to blame others; the relevance of moral testimony to moral responsibility; how to build a theory of attributabiity that captures all the relevant cases; and how thinking about blame better enables us to dissolve a dispute in moral philosophy between actualists and possibilists.

Export Citation Format

Share document.

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Working with sources
• What Is Critical Thinking? | Definition & Examples

What Is Critical Thinking? | Definition & Examples

Published on May 30, 2022 by Eoghan Ryan . Revised on May 31, 2023.

Critical thinking is the ability to effectively analyze information and form a judgment .

To think critically, you must be aware of your own biases and assumptions when encountering information, and apply consistent standards when evaluating sources .

Critical thinking skills help you to:

• Identify credible sources
• Evaluate and respond to arguments
• Assess alternative viewpoints
• Test hypotheses against relevant criteria

Table of contents

Why is critical thinking important, critical thinking examples, how to think critically, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about critical thinking.

Critical thinking is important for making judgments about sources of information and forming your own arguments. It emphasizes a rational, objective, and self-aware approach that can help you to identify credible sources and strengthen your conclusions.

Critical thinking is important in all disciplines and throughout all stages of the research process . The types of evidence used in the sciences and in the humanities may differ, but critical thinking skills are relevant to both.

In academic writing , critical thinking can help you to determine whether a source:

• Is free from research bias
• Provides evidence to support its research findings
• Considers alternative viewpoints

Outside of academia, critical thinking goes hand in hand with information literacy to help you form opinions rationally and engage independently and critically with popular media.

Scribbr Citation Checker New

The AI-powered Citation Checker helps you avoid common mistakes such as:

• Missing commas and periods
• Incorrect usage of “et al.”
• Ampersands (&) in narrative citations
• Missing reference entries

Critical thinking can help you to identify reliable sources of information that you can cite in your research paper . It can also guide your own research methods and inform your own arguments.

Outside of academia, critical thinking can help you to be aware of both your own and others’ biases and assumptions.

Academic examples

However, when you compare the findings of the study with other current research, you determine that the results seem improbable. You analyze the paper again, consulting the sources it cites.

You notice that the research was funded by the pharmaceutical company that created the treatment. Because of this, you view its results skeptically and determine that more independent research is necessary to confirm or refute them. Example: Poor critical thinking in an academic context You’re researching a paper on the impact wireless technology has had on developing countries that previously did not have large-scale communications infrastructure. You read an article that seems to confirm your hypothesis: the impact is mainly positive. Rather than evaluating the research methodology, you accept the findings uncritically.

Nonacademic examples

However, you decide to compare this review article with consumer reviews on a different site. You find that these reviews are not as positive. Some customers have had problems installing the alarm, and some have noted that it activates for no apparent reason.

You revisit the original review article. You notice that the words “sponsored content” appear in small print under the article title. Based on this, you conclude that the review is advertising and is therefore not an unbiased source. Example: Poor critical thinking in a nonacademic context You support a candidate in an upcoming election. You visit an online news site affiliated with their political party and read an article that criticizes their opponent. The article claims that the opponent is inexperienced in politics. You accept this without evidence, because it fits your preconceptions about the opponent.

There is no single way to think critically. How you engage with information will depend on the type of source you’re using and the information you need.

However, you can engage with sources in a systematic and critical way by asking certain questions when you encounter information. Like the CRAAP test , these questions focus on the currency , relevance , authority , accuracy , and purpose of a source of information.

When encountering information, ask:

• Who is the author? Are they an expert in their field?
• What do they say? Is their argument clear? Can you summarize it?
• When did they say this? Is the source current?
• Where is the information published? Is it an academic article? Is it peer-reviewed ?
• Why did the author publish it? What is their motivation?
• How do they make their argument? Is it backed up by evidence? Does it rely on opinion, speculation, or appeals to emotion ? Do they address alternative arguments?

Critical thinking also involves being aware of your own biases, not only those of others. When you make an argument or draw your own conclusions, you can ask similar questions about your own writing:

• Am I only considering evidence that supports my preconceptions?
• Is my argument expressed clearly and backed up with credible sources?
• Would I be convinced by this argument coming from someone else?

If you want to know more about ChatGPT, AI tools , citation , and plagiarism , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

• ChatGPT vs human editor
• ChatGPT citations
• Is ChatGPT trustworthy?
• Using ChatGPT for your studies
• What is ChatGPT?
• Chicago style
• Paraphrasing

 Plagiarism

• Types of plagiarism
• Self-plagiarism
• Avoiding plagiarism
• Academic integrity
• Consequences of plagiarism
• Common knowledge

The only proofreading tool specialized in correcting academic writing - try for free!

The academic proofreading tool has been trained on 1000s of academic texts and by native English editors. Making it the most accurate and reliable proofreading tool for students.

Try for free

Critical thinking refers to the ability to evaluate information and to be aware of biases or assumptions, including your own.

Like information literacy , it involves evaluating arguments, identifying and solving problems in an objective and systematic way, and clearly communicating your ideas.

Critical thinking skills include the ability to:

You can assess information and arguments critically by asking certain questions about the source. You can use the CRAAP test , focusing on the currency , relevance , authority , accuracy , and purpose of a source of information.

Ask questions such as:

• Who is the author? Are they an expert?
• How do they make their argument? Is it backed up by evidence?

A credible source should pass the CRAAP test  and follow these guidelines:

• The information should be up to date and current.
• The author and publication should be a trusted authority on the subject you are researching.
• The sources the author cited should be easy to find, clear, and unbiased.
• For a web source, the URL and layout should signify that it is trustworthy.

Information literacy refers to a broad range of skills, including the ability to find, evaluate, and use sources of information effectively.

Being information literate means that you:

• Know how to find credible sources
• Use relevant sources to inform your research
• Understand what constitutes plagiarism
• Know how to cite your sources correctly

Confirmation bias is the tendency to search, interpret, and recall information in a way that aligns with our pre-existing values, opinions, or beliefs. It refers to the ability to recollect information best when it amplifies what we already believe. Relatedly, we tend to forget information that contradicts our opinions.

Although selective recall is a component of confirmation bias, it should not be confused with recall bias.

On the other hand, recall bias refers to the differences in the ability between study participants to recall past events when self-reporting is used. This difference in accuracy or completeness of recollection is not related to beliefs or opinions. Rather, recall bias relates to other factors, such as the length of the recall period, age, and the characteristics of the disease under investigation.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

Ryan, E. (2023, May 31). What Is Critical Thinking? | Definition & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved April 15, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/working-with-sources/critical-thinking/

Is this article helpful?

Eoghan Ryan

Other students also liked, student guide: information literacy | meaning & examples, what are credible sources & how to spot them | examples, applying the craap test & evaluating sources, unlimited academic ai-proofreading.

✔ Document error-free in 5minutes ✔ Unlimited document corrections ✔ Specialized in correcting academic texts

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Open Nurs J

Can One Learn to Think Critically? – A Philosophical Exploration

Christy raymond-seniuk.

1 University of Alberta, Canada

2 Grant MacEwan University, Canada

Joanne Profetto-McGrath

Within nursing, critical thinking is a required skill that educators strive to foster in their students’ development for use in complex healthcare settings. Hence the numerous studies published measuring critical thinking as a terminal outcome of education. However, an important comparison between different philosophical underpinnings such as person, truth and the nature of nursing, and how one defines and utilizes critical thinking in practice, has been absent from discussions about critical thinking and learning. When one views critical thinking with varying philosophical lenses, important questions are raised and discussion is expanded. These questions illuminate different perspectives of critical thinking and attempt to explore whether critical thinking can be learned in nursing. The implications of taking a single philosophical viewpoint and a pluralistic approach to understanding critical thinking and learning are explored.

Critical thinking in nursing is complex and described by a mosaic of different definitions. These various definitions have led to confusion about what critical thinking entails [ 1 ]. In nursing education, critical thinking is a key objective and/or desired outcome for almost every nursing course and is an aspect of knowledge-based nursing practice evident in Canadian provincial standards [ 2 ]. A strong emphasis on the need to develop critical thinking is evident in nursing education despite the lack of an agreed upon definition to guide teaching practice. The variety of critical thinking definitions has also made measurement of students’ critical thinking more difficult [ 3 ]. To this end, research has been inconclusive as to whether critical thinking results from nursing educational experiences and has called into question whether critical thinking can be learned [ 4 ]. Due to the presence of inconclusive literature, a different approach to conceptualizing critical thinking is warranted. Many literature reviews have examined critical thinking and the related definitions and measurement, however none have offered a new lens from which to view similar conclusions [ 5 , 6 ]. More specifically, the philosophical underpinnings upon which critical thinking is based should be explored to determine whether critical thinking is a result of nursing education. By using a philosophical inquiry approach, how critical thinking is conceptualized and operationalized in nursing education can be more thoroughly examined.

In this article, we offer a discussion related to the philosophical issue of whether nursing students can learn to think critically. Prompting the need for this exploration was a review of the critical thinking literature in nursing. Articles written in English and published from 2000-2010 focusing on critical thinking in nursing were examined. From those articles, the issues of defining and measuring critical thinking in nursing education were evident. Seminal works that contribute to a definition of critical thinking were included, as well as articles more specifically related to measurement of critical thinking in nursing education. Narrative articles were also incorporated to represent the current perspectives on critical thinking in a nursing context. Limits to the literature reviewed for this paper include the exclusion of non-English written articles, anecdotal articles describing methods to enhance critical thinking in nursing, critical thinking research articles outside nursing, and other formats of literature including dissertations and unpublished works. This paper is meant as a starting point to spark additional discourse examining concepts, such as critical thinking, using a philosophical approach.

We begin this discussion with a brief overview of what is known about critical thinking in nursing education, more specifically the definitions available in nursing and the predominant results from measurement efforts. Given the more general nature of the nursing education critical thinking literature, a philosophical look at the feasibility of learning critical thinking in nursing is then offered. Using the broader philosophical perspectives of person, knowledge, truth and the nature of nursing, various positions outlining whether a nursing based definition of critical thinking is compatible with learning, are analyzed and discussed. We conclude with suggestions as to how the discipline should proceed, and the potential implications of not examining the philosophical implications associated with learning critical thinking in nursing.

OVERVIEW OF CRITICAL THINKING: DEFINITIONS AND MEASUREMENT IN NURSING EDUCATION

The multiple definitions of critical thinking highlight various interpretations of what ‘thinking critically’ is believed to be. These definitions also vary depending on the discipline. For example, the most cited non-nursing critical thinking definitions evident in the literature are those by Facione [ 7 ], Brookfield [ 8 ], and Paul [ 9 ]. Scheffer and Rubenfeld [ 10 ], and Alfaro-Lefevre [ 11 ] offer the most commonly cited nursing specific critical thinking definitions in published literature. Each are included and discussed below.

Facione’s [ 7 ] critical thinking definition emerged from his work with the American Philosophical Association (APA), which led to the creation of the Delphi consensus statement. This definition states:

We understand critical thinking to be purposeful, self-regulatory judgment that results in interpretation, analysis, evaluation, and inference, as well as explanation of the evidential, conceptual, methodological, criteriological, or contextual considerations upon which that judgment is based… The ideal critical thinker is habitually inquisitive, well-informed, trustful of reason, open-minded, flexible, fair-minded in evaluation, honest in facing personal biases, prudent in making judgments, willing to reconsider, clear about issues, orderly in complex matters, diligent in seeking relevant information, reasonable in the selection of criteria, focused in inquiry, and persistent in seeking results which are as precise as the subject and the circumstances of inquiry permit (p. 4).

Facione’s critical thinking definition includes both skills and dispositions and served as the basis for the development of the California Critical Thinking Skills Test (CCTST) and the California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory (CCTDI). Both tools are commonly used to measure critical thinking in various populations, including nursing students and educators.

Brookfield [ 8 ] is also cited for his definition and description of critical thinking. It includes: a) identifying and challenging assumptions; b) challenging the importance of context; c) imagining and exploring alternatives; and d) engaging in reflective skepticism. These components illustrate Brookfield’s view of critical thinking as a process with both emotive and rational aspects. Similar to Brookfield, Dewey [ 12 ] asserted that reflection resulted from some disbelief in thought. The dissonance in one’s thinking then triggers a careful consideration of one’s beliefs in order to re-establish beliefs based on knowledge. Similarly, Brookfield identified that reflective skepticism is initiated by imaging and exploring alternatives to problems and situations.

Another critical thinking definition frequently cited in the literature is by Paul [ 9 ]. Similar to Facione [ 7 ], Paul defines critical thinking including cognitive aspects, more specifically perfections of thought. Paul stated:

Critical thinking is self-disciplined, self-directed thinking that exemplifies the perfections of thinking appropriate to a particular mode or domain of thought. It comes in two forms. If disciplined to serve the interests of a particular individual or group, to the exclusion of other relevant persons and groups, it is sophistic or weak-sense critical thinking. If disciplined to take into account the interests of diverse persons or groups, it is fair-minded or strong-sense critical thinking (p. 10).

The definitions by Facione [ 7 ], Brookfield [ 8 ], and Paul [ 9 ] are non-nursing definitions. Scheffer and Rubenfeld [ 10 ] also used a Delphi technique to generate a nursing based definition of critical thinking. This definition will be used as a reference point for this discussion and it states:

Critical thinking in nursing is an essential component of professional accountability and quality nursing care. Critical thinkers exhibit these habits of mind: confidence, contextual perspective, creativity, flexibility, inquisitiveness, intellectual integrity, intuition, open-mindedness, perseverance, and reflection. Critical thinkers in nursing practice the cognitive skills of analyzing, applying standards, discriminating, information seeking, logical reasoning, predicting and transforming knowledge (p.357).

The above definition by Scheffer and Rubenfeld [ 10 ] situates critical thinking as an integral part of nursing practice and asserts that both skills and dispositions are required by nurses to think critically. The obvious difference in this definition is the emphasis on intuition, contextual perspective, and creativity as part of how critical thinking is defined in nursing. These more feminine concepts highlight the difference between definitions created from within nursing compared to those more cognitively emphasized and created from outside nursing.

Another nursing definition frequently cited in critical thinking literature is authored by Alfaro-Lefevre [ 11 ]. She stated:

Critical thinking and clinical judgment in nursing is: a) purposeful, informed, outcome-focused (results oriented) thinking, b) carefully identifies key problems, issues and risks, c) is based on principles of nursing process, problem solving and the scientific method, d) applies logic, intuition, and creativity, e) is driven by patient, family, and community needs, f) calls for strategies that make the most of the human potential and, g) requires constant reevaluating self-correcting, and striving to improve (p. 7). This definition offers a comprehensive description of elements comprising critical thinking from a nursing perspective. It is evident that Alfaro-Lefevre infers a strong link between critical thinking and clinical judgment, which is not evident in other definitions.

Given the various definitions and perspectives, critical thinking is not consistently defined [ 3 , 1 ] and is “not one, monolithic thing” [ 13 , p. 216]. Therefore, the diversity of critical thinking definitions and perspectives is understandable, yet remains problematic for some [ 14 ]. Not having a clear conceptualization of what it means to think critically within or outside of nursing is challenging and requires reexamination why and how critical thinking is being operationalized within the discipline.

In nursing critical thinking is often employed as a goal of education, to promote quality nursing care, and positive patient outcomes. Interestingly, the application of this concept as a desirable educational outcome was determined by educational institutions and the academic community to ensure nursing graduates and practicing nurses have the necessary ‘skills’ to deal with the acuity and complex nature of nursing practice. Moreover, critical thinking is mainly conceived as a cognitive process to assist nurses in managing their expanding knowledge base and to foster the application of knowledge into practice [ 5 ]. However, the underlying philosophical implications of critical thinking and whether it can be learned as a cognitive skill or otherwise, has not been explored or discussed in recent literature.

The predominantly cognitive nature of critical thinking definitions, such as those proposed by Facione [ 7 ] and Paul [ 9 ] are evident. More specifically, a chiasm of difference has been created between the more cognitive definitions and those definitions emphasizing more feminine aspects, such as those emanating from nursing. For example, critical thinking has been equated with reflection, problem solving, decision-making, clinical judgment and practical reasoning in nursing [ 15 ], whereas others believe that critical thinking is a set of more defined thinking skills such as analysis, evaluation, inference, as well as inductive and deductive reasoning [ 7 ]. As a result, it appears many authors use critical thinking as a blanket statement to capture its fluid and non-linear nature.

Looking at our reference definition for this discussion, the components of the critical thinking definition offered by Scheffer and Rubenfeld [ 10 ] are inclusive of both skills and dispositions. The generalizability of these skills and dispositions; that is, can critical thinking skills and dispositions be transferred to different contexts, is not clear. Generally there is no consensus as to whether critical thinking is contextually specific to nursing. Forneris [ 16 ] describes how different philosophers address context but limited discussion occurs whether critical thinking is transferable. Based on Scheffer and Rubenfeld’s definition, critical thinking will manifest differently in varying situations and contexts, which makes the task of conceptualizing and operationalizing critical thinking more difficult. In addition to various definitive aspects of critical thinking, the varying philosophical beliefs concerning the nature of the individual responsible for the thinking process also impacts whether one believes critical thinking can be learned. Yet without a fundamental discipline specific definition of critical thinking, it is difficult to measure educational outcomes.

Another problematic aspect of trying to clearly understand critical thinking and its place in nursing education results from attempts to measure it. Measurement of critical thinking in nursing has yielded inconclusive findings. For example, some studies identify significant increases in students’ critical thinking following the completion of a nursing education program [ 17 - 21 ]. Yet, other studies reported insignificant increases in critical thinking and unexplained decreases that occurred at certain points in students’ nursing programs [ 22 - 26 ]. These contradictory findings require further exploration and understanding to better design and complete future research in this area.

A clear link between nursing education and critical thinking has not been established despite prominent calls for the necessity of critical thinking in nurses and the proof of critically thinking graduates. Ferguson and Day [ 27 ] purport that many scholars believe critical thinking is not necessarily a direct outcome of nursing education. Inconsistent and mixed results are evident in many studies examining the critical thinking skills and abilities of students at various points in their nursing education programs. This inconsistency speaks to the need for additional exploration into critical thinking as an outcome of nursing education programs and the potential creation of a nursing specific critical thinking measure [ 1 , 4 , 26 ]. There has been no nursing specific critical thinking measure created to date and given the varied nature of definitions and measurement results, a deeper examination of critical thinking from various perspectives is warranted. By using the concepts of person, truth and nature of nursing, the potential of learning critical thinking is investigated.

THE CONCEPT OF PERSON AND CRITICAL THINKING

Critical thinking is usually associated with skills and abilities demonstrated at the individual level. As individuals we are unique in personalities and abilities. One philosophical perspective purports that man is a rational and autonomous being [ 28 ]. However, it would appear that what makes us similar and different is at the heart of whether one can learn to think critically. More specifically, if individuals are similar, then some aspects of the processes of thinking critically must be similar in order to clearly identify and label such skills and dispositions found in general definitions. These similarities provide a common foundation from which core thinking skills can be defined, taught and hopefully measured. Conversely, the differences in each individual showcase the autonomous and personal nature of applying critical thinking skills in various contexts. Critical thinking may in fact be the application of common cognitive abilities in tandem with each individual’s own adaptation and application. We therefore propose that it is through understanding both similarities and differences between individuals that students’ critical thinking can be fostered. Different philosophical perspectives on the nature of being offer an interesting starting point to understand whether critical thinking can be learned.

From a reductionist perspective, humans are essentially similar biological beings with brain power regulated by chemicals. Cognitive activity is supported by evidence and as human beings we have more similarities than differences. However, any differences are usually explained by physical changes and validated by science. The assumptions underlying a reductionist perspective on being are that science explains all intellectual activity by reducing each step to a simple, empirically proven brain state [ 29 ]. Overall, a reductionist perspective is not compatible with the definition of critical thinking offered by Scheffer and Rubenfeld [ 10 ]. More specifically there is a lack of consideration for individuals’ non-physical attributes in reductionism that does not resonate with a nursing definition of critical thinking. Furthermore, a reductionist viewpoint does not account for the relational properties human beings exhibit within a larger social context. Although some cognitive processes, such as logic and rational thought can be explained by scientific evidence, the main essence of individuality related critical thinking and the reliance on the specific context of nursing is not explained through reductionist principles. Moreover, a linear scientific viewpoint fails to consider the critical thinking process and the overall goals of nursing. One could not learn anything contextually based or meaning driven (part of thinking critically in nursing) if critical thinking was viewed using this perspective. Although learning of cognitive behavioral skills would be feasible using a reductionist lens, it is unclear whether the less tangible critical thinking skills and dispositions could be learned or even valued from this perspective.

Another perspective on ‘person’ is based on the work of Merleau-Ponty and follows a dualistic approach. Dualism espouses that mind and body are seamlessly connected and that sensory perceptions and motor skills are inseparable [ 29 ]. The unified being would then focus on the relationship between oneself and the world, ultimately becoming part of that environment. From a dualistic perspective, each human being experiences the world differently, without similarities to other individuals. Critical thinking in nursing, as defined by Scheffer and Rubenfeld [ 10 ], appears incongruent with this perspective. The main reason for this incongruency is the dualistic tendency to focus on one individual’s experiences without considering similarities of those experiences to other individuals. Since critical thinking as defined by Scheffer and Rubenfeld predicts and transforms knowledge as one aspect of quality nursing care, it is suggestive of a relational process. Critical thinking based on a dualistic perspective would be so personalized that the overall goal of nursing, doing good for others, would be lost. Individuals could not learn critical thinking from this perspective because they might not consider undertaking similar processes and actions not driven from their own interpretation.

An alternate viewpoint is that of the dependent concept of person where mental and physical states are thought to be closely linked but not inseparable. From this perspective thinking relies on a person’s physical state but would not be driven by it [ 29 ]. As well, this perspective allows for feelings in addition to brain states to be involved in thinking, through the link with the physical world. The main principle of the dependent position focuses on the cognitive realm being related to the physical self and the physical world. Although it does not specifically say how the mind and body are linked, this perspective allows for mind and body to be somewhat independent from each other where neither the mind nor body can claim full control of one’s actions. This perspective embraces the role of self, inclusive of similar physical attributes and unique mental states. Within the nursing context, individuals from this perspective would be able to learn critical thinking through similar cognitive processes as others, with a unique application that would celebrate individual differences. Scheffer and Rubenfeld’s [ 10 ] definition of critical thinking further supports an independent conceptualization of ‘being’ by emphasizing individual introspection alongside application of common standards to one’s thinking. These are evident in the included definitive elements of reflection and intellectual standards such as those found in Paul’s [ 9 ] critical thinking definition.

KNOWLEDGE, TRUTH, AND CRITICAL THINKING

Whenever an individual thinks, it is undoubtedly about something. It is this ‘something’ that is important in the domain of critical thinking in nursing. How one attains and applies knowledge to one’s nursing practice involves critical thinking. As well, how one views truth is an important piece in how knowledge is utilized when thinking critically. In order to better understand how knowledge and critical thinking impact whether one can learn to think critically, the received and perceived viewpoints are compared to Scheffer and Rubenfeld’s [ 10 ] critical thinking definition.

Based on a received viewpoint of knowledge, information is solely obtained through deductive methods that verify propositions through scientific means and deem valuable facts empirically proven [ 30 ]. This viewpoint assumes a general stance that knowledge is value free, objective and quantifiable. From the correspondence perspective of truth, knowledge is proven and justifiable until it is contested and falsified [ 30 ]. This view of the Truth (big T versus small t) is based on one objective and removed reality - the pursuit of one universal Truth.

When comparing a nursing critical thinking [ 10 ] definition to the received viewpoint, some aspects related to making rational, operational and sound judgments resonate between them. However, the overall complexities in the world of nursing would not be compatible with the unbending nature of knowledge and Truth associated with the received or correspondence viewpoint. Thus, although individuals might be able to learn structured and logical thinking based on empirical knowledge, incorporating values, human situations, and personal feelings into one’s thinking would not be supported by those in the received or correspondence camp. Seymour, Kinn, and Sutherland [ 31 ] argued against adopting a received or correspondence perspective as it would narrow the reasoning strategies one could use in critical thinking and limit the overall goal of engaging in thinking for mere truth versus understanding. If one adopts a received or correspondence perspective, the important personal attributes and necessary context to critically think in nursing would be rendered unimportant. Based on these viewpoints of knowledge and truth, there would be no room for an individual to learn to think critically as these perspectives do not align with the more feminine skills and dispositions of critical thinking as defined in nursing. If one believes that truth emanates from a variety of sources and ways of knowing in nursing, these philosophical perspectives would not foster the growth of individuals’ critical thinking since it only supports an empirically driven reality.

The perceived view acknowledges a value laden nature of understanding and supports knowing from multiple means. The perceived view highlights the individual nature of knowledge construction and emphasizes the need for subjective, intuitive, human factors in both theoretical and practical knowledge [ 30 ]. Similar to this viewpoint is the pragmatic perspective on truth, and the existence of probable truths in nursing. This viewpoint is open to numerous understandings and thus various origins of what constitutes truth. The goal of this perspective on truth is to not rely on evidence as defined in the correspondence view, but to examine observations and to respect the humanity, subjectivity, and usefulness of claims [ 30 ]. The perceived and pragmatic perspectives on knowledge and truth are congruent with the multiple ways of knowing represented by a nursing based definition of critical thinking. Based on the critical thinking definition provided by Scheffer and Rubenfeld [ 10 ], the personal traits of critical thinking include intuition as do the perceived and pragmatic viewpoints. The main goal of the perceived view for knowledge and the pragmatic view on truth is understanding, which also resonates and corresponds with the goals of critical thinking in a nursing context. Although critical thinking involves inductive reasoning, it also involves deduction as evident in the received viewpoint. Thus the full cognitive complement of skills that are involved in critical thinking is not necessarily captured entirely with the perceived and pragmatic perspectives.

THE NATURE OF NURSING AND CRITICAL THINKING

Another important aspect of this debate is how one views the nature of nursing and whether a certain perspective supports critical thinking and is conducive to the facilitation of critical thinking in nursing. Thus far we have discussed the viewpoints on how one might view the concept of person, knowledge and truth. The concept of the nature of nursing offers a macro layer to this discussion, where the overall essence of nursing is brought into the equation.

Is nursing a science, an art, both or none? Nursing is constantly evolving and increasing in complexity. One perspective is that nursing is a science. Johnson [ 32 ] categorized nursing from a science perspective and discussed three distinct sub-types: basic, applied or practical. The basic science view supports the attainment of knowledge and Truth as the main goal of nursing [ 32 ]. This view does not address the means for obtaining this knowledge but relies solely on description and explanation to make generalizations about nursing. Applied science supports the integration of other disciplinary knowledge into nursing through a resynthesis process [ 32 ]. Nursing integrates knowledge from other disciplines to achieve pragmatic outcomes and to develop a more rich and diverse knowledge base. Nursing as an applied science does not foster nursing built solely from knowledge created from within the discipline but supports the ongoing development of nursing knowledge through contributions from other disciplines. Nursing as a practical science embraces truths as a means to an end goal of helping others and doing good. This practical perspective aligns science with art in nursing and uses practical knowledge to presuppose theoretical knowledge [ 32 ].

Based on Scheffer and Rubenfeld’s [ 10 ] critical thinking definition, conceptualizing nursing as a practical science is congruent with the application of scientific and theoretical knowledge to foster the understanding and quality care of individuals within practice. The practical science viewpoint offers the same goal of using critical thinking to integrate truths, which achieve higher order outcomes of quality care. Many would argue that choosing not to use scientifically-based knowledge created to enhance what is known about the world, is immoral and could ultimately cause harm to patients if ignored. Shared principles of analysis, purposeful application, reasoning and action based on principles are evident in both critical thinking and nursing as a practical science. Thus, the learning of critical thinking in a practical nursing context is justifiable and possible due to the congruence of principles and goals. In this sense, students learn to employ theoretical knowledge through critical thinking to meet pragmatic outcomes.

Another perspective supposes that nursing is an art. From this perspective, nursing is more than just the application of science and objective facts. It is the ability to nurse in an artful manner that more specifically encompasses what Johnson [ 33 ] regarded as the ability to grasp meaning, establish meaningful connections, skillfully perform nursing activities, rationally determine an applicable course of action, and morally conduct his or her nursing practice (p.1). Johnson [ 33 ] suggested that there is no consensus whether one’s thinking is part of the art of nursing however discussed the importance of intellectual activity in the performance of nursing care. The importance or irrelevance of thinking as artful practice is not addressed in many philosophical pieces of literature despite many authors’ focus on how knowledge is transferred, gained, applied and questioned [ 33 , 34 ]. From an artful perspective, nursing can be learned in the practice setting and consists of behaviors and intellectual activities that draw upon nursing knowledge applied in a practical sense. Scientific knowledge plays a part in nursing as an art and is used as the antecedent to action [ 33 ]. Artful nursing actions are not considered automatic but are more grounded in intellectualism and judged by certain established standards [ 33 ]. If nursing is considered an art, nurses’ personal traits include intuition, esthetic knowing, sensitivity, and an ability to use past experiences to understand situations would impact how that practice is enacted. In this sense, the nature of nursing as an art is a very fertile ground from which those who think critically can grow. This perspective also supports the view that individuals could learn something as elusive as critical thinking as it mirrors the ambiguity and complexity of an artful nursing environment.

IMPLICATION FOR THE DISCIPLINE

A discipline can be defined as a branch of knowledge, education or learning that evolves from creative thinking about pertinent issues [ 35 ]. The discourse surrounding critical thinking in nursing education is necessary to advance the discipline through questioning and scholarly discussions. By asking and attempting to answer critical questions about critical thinking within the context of nursing, nursing’s knowledge base develops and theoretical operationalizations can be explored and tested. To generate and foster the application of nursing knowledge in practice, critical thinking is a necessary skill. As the discipline evolves alongside societal needs, the complexity of health care, increased use of technology, and increased patient acuity requires nurses with well-developed critical thinking. In turn, this requires educational nursing institutions to ensure that its graduates have these higher order thinking skills in order to provide quality patient care and to further the application and questioning of important philosophical issues such as critical thinking within the discipline. Further discussion about whether students can learn critical thinking is at the crux of whether nursing as a discipline should focus on this concept as a valuable and viable outcome in nursing education. We believe, as do others, that critical thinking can be learned to a certain point and that fostering this skill should remain an important aim in nursing education [ 5 , 16 , 31 ].

It is evident that multiple views exist related to whether critical thinking can be learned in nursing. Not all available views have been discussed in this paper. However, based on the discussions focused on the concepts of person, knowledge, truth and the nature of nursing, we believe some are more aligned with supporting, fostering, and developing critical thinking. It is suggested that the discipline should support a pluralistic approach to explain and welcome a variety of perspectives on critical thinking. As situational contexts vary and the nature of nursing varies dependent on the context, critical thinking can transcend these differences and assume a variety of different forms to best suit the situation. We believe that one perspective alone cannot possibly explain and support critical thinking in nursing. Thus the use of pluralism or multiple lenses and perspective is necessary to capture the depth and breadth of the knowledge and essence of what constitutes nursing. Guiliano, Tyer-Voila and Lopez [ 36 ] support pluralism and multiple ways of knowing, which translates into supporting unity versus diversity of knowledge. Given the complexity and diversity of nursing, it is feasible and realistic that the philosophical perspectives within nursing are also complex and diverse [ 37 ]. Multiple perspectives would more effectively capture the various aspects of critical thinking and could help explain the concept, its principles, and how critical thinking is learned by students.

LOOKING FORWARD

Whether or not critical thinking can be learned is a difficult topic to philosophically debate. However, this paper has attempted to add to the discussion surrounding this subject and foster a critical spirit of discourse. This issue cannot be solved without further scholarly exploration to uncover and understand the various facets of critical thinking, beginning with a solid conceptual analysis of critical thinking in the literature. Without further attention and questioning, the very vagueness that is thought to plague many definitions of critical thinking and critical thinking research attempting to measure outcomes, will continue to grow and lead to ambivalent operationalization of critical thinking in nursing. This could affect our ability to measure and gauge potential progress and perpetuate the use of the term ‘critical thinking’ without the necessary knowledge behind it for meaningful application. Although one could advocate for a pluralistic approach to explain the multifaceted nature of critical thinking and its many applications in a nursing context, there are drawbacks to treading this path as well. By not examining specific perspectives further and not analyzing why some perspectives are better suited to the current definition and application of critical thinking, one becomes complacent in accepting that everything has multiple meanings and viewpoints. This perspective can fragment the nursing profession and discipline by raising more questions than answers. Moreover, it would cause confusion among educators and nurses by continuing to use an elusive concept without truly knowing whether it fits within the nursing context. Thus, if we decide to adopt a pluralistic approach, we should do so with caution and with the intent to foster scholarly discussion versus agreeing to disagree without thought. A further incentive for nursing to take a closer look at critical thinking is that much of the literature currently used in nursing derives from other disciplines. More needs to be known about critical thinking in nursing and more specifically how students learn this important skill and its associated attributes.

The goal of this initial philosophical exploration was to further understand critical thinking and the implications of exploring it using different philosophical perspectives. If the discussion ends here we are no further along from where we started. There needs to be additional scholarly attempts to understand critical thinking within nursing by comparing it to various philosophical concepts and previous understanding. By exploring critical thinking philosophically, multiple ways of understanding this important concept are illuminated to better inform whether we think critical thinking can be learned in nursing education.

Critical & Creative Thinking - OER & More Resources: Philosophy & Thinking

• Self evaluation
• Creating goals
• Creating personal mission statement
• Creative Thinking
• Problem Solving
• IDEAL problem solving
• CRITICAL THINKING
• Critical Thinking Tips
• Logic Terms
• Logic Traps
• Free OER Textbooks
• More Thinking: OER
• Ethics - OER Textbooks
• Evidence-Based Critical Thinking
• BELIEFS & BIAS
• Limits of Perception
• Reality & Assumptions
• Stereotypes & Race
• MAKING YOUR CASE
• Argument (OER)
• Inductive Arguments
• Information Literacy: Be Savvy about your Sources
• Persuasive Speaking (OER)
• Philosophy & Thinking
• WiPhi Philosophy Project
• Browse All Guides

Ideas to ponder

Philosophy is love of wisdom, so it implies that one wants to know and understand something.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_philosophy
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_philosophy

Foundations, or the basis of study, started with the beginnings of questioning the world around us. Critical thinking looks at the facts, or most defensible facts. This is important because emotion often creates a filter to hide or ignore uncomfortable factoids.

• Creative thinking is combining known or imagined ideas in new ways.
• When people have cherished beliefs/world-views that conflict with new facts, they need to use critical thinking skills to question why they do not want to accept the new “facts”.
• In science, if multiple experiments find the same range of values in the results, then the results are expected to be a reliable foundation for further study.

Even scientists can be susceptible to the adage: I’ll see it when I believe it.”

The American Philosophical Association

• Statement on the Role of Philosophy Programs in Higher Education Discusses the value of philosophy to education: (1) a philosophy program’s fundamental contributions to education (2) a philosophy program’s contributions to an institution’s core curriculum. (3) philosophy’s relations to other areas of inquiry (4) the contributions that philosophers can make beyond the curriculum. (5) different levels of philosophy programs (6) how one might go about measuring the success of philosophy programs

Why study philosophy?

• Why study philosophy? (.jmu.edu) "The study of philosophy helps us to enhance our ability to solve problems, our communication skills, our persuasive powers, and our writing skills. Below is a description of how philosophy helps us develop these various important skills."..Including... 1. General Problem Solving Skills 2. Communication Skills 3. Persuasive Powers 4. Writing Skills 5. Understanding Other Disciplines 6. Development of Sound Methods of Research and Analysis
• philosophy phi·los·o·phy noun • Love of wisdom • The study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence.
• wisdom noun • The quality of having experience, knowledge, and good judgment
• think verb • To have a particular opinion, belief, or idea about someone or something. • To direct one's mind toward someone or something; • To use one's mind actively to form connected ideas. noun: think; plural noun: thinks • an act of thinking.
• belief be·lief noun • an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists. • trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something.
• fallacy noun • a mistaken belief, especially one based on unsound argument. • a failure in reasoning which renders an argument invalid. • faulty reasoning; misleading or unsound argument.

College and University Faculty (criticalthinking.org)

• College and University Faculty (criticalthinking.org) The following articles on our website are directly relevant to higher education instruction in critical thinking and are offered complimentary.
• A Professional Development Model for Colleges and Universities that Fosters Critical Thinking
• Professional Development in Critical Thinking for Higher Education
• An Overview of How to Design Instruction Using Critical Thinking Concepts
• Recommendations for Departmental Self-Evaluation
• College-Wide Grading Standards
• Sample Course: American History: 1600 to 1800
• CT Class Syllabus
• A Sample Assignment Format
• Syllabus - Psychology I
• Critical Thinking Class: Grading Policies
• Critical Thinking Class: Student Understandings
• Grade Profiles
• John Stuart Mill: On Instruction, Intellectual Development, and Disciplined Learning
• Socratic Teaching
• Structures for Student Self-Assessment

Foundation for Critical Thinking

• Critical Thinking: Where to Begin

Philosophy - Thinking about how to think.

• What is Philosophy, and Why Should I Study It? (phil.washington.edu)

Learning about Philosophy Seems to Improve Critical Thinking

• College and University Students

Studying the following articles and pages will help you build a stronger understanding of the core concepts in critical thinking

• Becoming a Critic Of Your Thinking
• Glossary of Critical Thinking Terms
• Universal Intellectual Standards
• Valuable Intellectual Traits
• Distinguishing Between Inferences and Assumptions
• Thinking With Concepts

In addition to the basic  review of the definition and concept of critical thinking , the following pages and articles are recommended reading for the college, university or pre-collegiate student.  

FUNDAMENTALS OF CRITICAL THINKING

Main Library of Critical Thinking Resources About Critical Thinking Fundamentals of Critical Thinking Richard Paul Anthology Classic Documenting the Problem Higher Education Instruction K-12 Instruction Strategies & Samples For Students Issues in Critical Thinking The Questioning Mind Reading Backwards: Classic Books Online

ISSUES IN CRITICAL THINKING Ethics Without Indoctrination Accelerating Change Applied Disciplines: A Critical Thinking Model for Engineering Critical Thinking and Emotional Intelligence Critical Thinking, Moral Integrity and Citizenship Diversity: Making Sense of It Through Critical Thinking Global Change: Why C.T. is Essential To the Community College Mission Natural Egocentric Dispositions

• << Previous: Persuasive Speaking (OER)
• Next: WiPhi Philosophy Project >>
• Last Updated: Mar 13, 2024 3:04 PM
• URL: https://library.fvtc.edu/Thinking

About Us • Contact Us • FVTC Terms of Service • Sitemap FVTC Privacy Statement • FVTC Library Services Accessibility Statement DISCLAIMER: Any commercial mentions on our website are for instructional purposes only. Our guides are not a substitute for professional legal or medical advice. Fox Valley Technical College • Library Services • 1825 N. Bluemound Drive • Room G113 Appleton, WI 54912-2277 • United States • (920) 735-5653 © 2024 • Fox Valley Technical College • All Rights Reserved.

The https://library.fvtc.edu/ pages are hosted by SpringShare. Springshare Privacy Policy.

• Table of Contents
• New in this Archive
• Chronological
• Editorial Information
• About the SEP
• Editorial Board
• How to Cite the SEP
• Special Characters
• 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. Political and business leaders endorse its importance.

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. Morevoer, 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 line 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), others on the resulting judgment (Facione 1990a), and still others on the subsequent emotive response (Siegel 1988).

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 frequency 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 frequency 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 2016) 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.

Critical thinking dispositions can usefully be divided 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) (Facione 1990a: 25). 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.
• 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), and Black (2012).

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.

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? Abrami et al. (2015) found that in the experimental and quasi-experimental studies that they analyzed 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), and Bailin et al. (1999b).

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 ]
• –––, 2016, “Fostering the Virtues of Inquiry”, Topoi , 35(2): 367–374. doi:10.1007/s11245-015-9307-6
• 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
• 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.
• Casserly, Megan, 2012, “The 10 Skills That Will Get You Hired in 2013”, Forbes , Dec. 10, 2012. Available at https://www.forbes.com/sites/meghancasserly/2012/12/10/the-10-skills-that-will-get-you-a-job-in-2013/#79e7ff4e633d ; accessed 2017 11 06.
• Center for Assessment & Improvement of Learning, 2017, Critical Thinking Assessment Test , Cookeville, TN: Tennessee Technological University.
• 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 ; accessed 2017 09 26.
• 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 ; accessed 2018 04 09.
• ––– (coord.), 2018b, A European Review on Critical Thinking Educational Practices in Higher Education Institutions , Vila Real: UTAD. Available at http://bit.ly/CRITHINKEDUO2 ; accessed 2018 04 14.
• Dumke, Glenn S., 1980, Chancellor’s Executive Order 338 , Long Beach, CA: California State University, Chancellor’s Office. Available at https://www.calstate.edu/eo/EO-338.pdf ; accessed 2017 11 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 ; accessed 2017 12 02.
• –––, 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.
• Glaser, Edward Maynard, 1941, An Experiment in the Development of Critical Thinking , New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University.
• 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://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzUoP_pmwy1gdEpCR05PeW9qUzA/view ; accessed 2017 12 01.
• 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.
• 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
• 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
• 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.
• 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
• Lipman, Matthew, 1987, “Critical Thinking–What Can It Be?”, Analytic Teaching , 8(1): 5–12. [ Lipman 1987 available online ]
• Loftus, Elizabeth F., 2017, “Eavesdropping on Memory”, Annual Review of Psychology , 68: 1–18. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-010416-044138
• 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.
• 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.
• Obama, Barack, 2014, State of the Union Address , January 28, 2014. [ Obama 2014 available online ]
• OCR [Oxford, Cambridge and RSA Examinations], 2011, AS/A Level GCE: Critical Thinking – H052, H452 , Cambridge: OCR. Information available at http://www.ocr.org.uk/qualifications/as-a-level-gce-critical-thinking-h052-h452/ ; accessed 2017 10 12.
• OECD [Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development] Centre for Educational Research and Innovation, 2018, Fostering and Assessing Students’ Creative and Critical Thinking Skills in Higher Education , Paris: OECD. Available at http://www.oecd.org/education/ceri/Fostering-and-assessing-students-creative-and-critical-thinking-skills-in-higher-education.pdf ; accessed 2018 04 22.
• 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 ; accessed 2017 11 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 ]
• –––, 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 ]
• Rawls, John, 1971, A Theory of Justice , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• 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 ; accessed 2017 11 29.
• 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
• 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, 2011, Curriculum for the Compulsory School, Preschool Class and the Recreation Centre , Stockholm: Ordförrådet AB. Available at http://malmo.se/download/18.29c3b78a132728ecb52800034181/pdf2687.pdf ; accessed 2017 11 16.
• 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/ >
• 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.
• 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 this entry topic 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)
• Center for Teaching Thinking (CTT)
• Critical Thinking Across the European Higher Education Curricula (CRITHINKEDU)
• Critical Thinking Definition, Instruction, and Assessment: A Rigorous Approach (criticalTHINKING.net)
• 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 © 2018 by David Hitchcock < hitchckd @ mcmaster . ca >

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

• Info about mirror sites

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is copyright © 2016 by The Metaphysics Research Lab , Center for the Study of Language and Information (CSLI), Stanford University

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

Mapping the Relationship Between Critical Thinking and Design Thinking

• Published: 02 February 2021
• Volume 13 , pages 406–429, ( 2022 )

Cite this article

• Jonathan D. Ericson   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-9076-0596 1  

2421 Accesses

12 Citations

2 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Critical thinking has been a longstanding goal of education, while design thinking has gradually emerged as a popular method for supporting entrepreneurship, innovation, and problem solving in modern business. While some scholars have posited that design thinking may support critical thinking, empirical research examining the relationship between these two modes of thinking is lacking because their shared conceptual structure has not been articulated in detail and because they have remained siloed in practice. This essay maps eleven essential components of critical thinking to a variety of methods drawn from three popular design thinking frameworks. The mapping reveals that these seemingly unrelated modes of thinking share common features but also differ in important respects. A detailed comparison of the two modes of thinking suggests that design thinking methods have the potential to support and augment traditional critical thinking practices, and that design thinking frameworks could be modified to more explicitly incorporate critical thinking. The article concludes with a discussion of implications for the knowledge economy, and a research agenda for researchers, educators, and practitioners.

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

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Cognitive Architecture and Instructional Design: 20 Years Later

John Sweller, Jeroen J. G. van Merriënboer & Fred Paas

Research design: the methodology for interdisciplinary research framework

Hilde Tobi & Jarl K. Kampen

Introduction to Design Science Research

Aranda, M. L., Lie, R., & Guzey, S. (2019). Productive thinking in middle school science students’ design conversations in a design-based engineering challenge. International Journal of Technology and Design Education , (January). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-019-09498-5 .

Association for Computing Machinery. (2018). ACM Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct . Retrieved from https://www.acm.org/code-of-ethics .

Bailin, S. (1987). Critical and creative thinking. Informal Logic, 9 (1), 23–30.

Article   Google Scholar  

Bailin, S. (1988). Achieving extraordinary ends: An essay on creativity . Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Book   Google Scholar  

Banfield, R., Lombardo, C. T., & Wax, T. (2015). Design sprint: A practical guidebook for building great digital products . Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media Inc.

Google Scholar  

Benson, J., & Dresdow, S. (2014). Design thinking: A fresh approach for transformative assessment practice. Journal of Management Education, 38 (3), 436–461. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562913507571 .

Bloom, B.S. (Ed.), Engelhart, M.D., Furst, E.J., Hill, W.H., & Krathwohl, D.R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook 1: Cognitive domain. New York: David McKay.

Wilner, S., & Micheli, P. (2015). Reconciling the tension between consistency and relevance: design thinking as a mechanism for brand ambidexterity. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43 (5), 589–609.

Bonwell, C., & Eison, J. (1991). Active Learning: Creating excitement in the classroom (ASHEERIC Higher Education Report No. 1) . Washington, DC: George Washington University.

Brown, A. (2015). Developing career adaptability and innovative capabilities through learning and working in Norway and the United Kingdom. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 6 (2), 402–419. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-014-0215-6 .

Brown, J. S., Collins, A., Duguid, P., & Seely, J. (2007). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18 (1), 32–42. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X018001032 .

Brown, T. (2021). Design thinking. Accessed 4 January 2021. http://www.ideou.com/pages/design-thinking

Callaway, M. R., & Esser, J. K. (1984). Groupthink: Effects of cohesiveness and problemsolving on group decision making. Social Behavior and Personality, 12, 157–164.

Carayannis, E. G., & Rakhmatullin, R. (2014). The quadruple/quintuple innovation helixes and smart specialisation strategies for sustainable and inclusive growth in Europe and beyond. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 5 (2), 212–239. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-014-0185-8 .

Churchman, C. W. (1967). Guest editorial: Wicked problems. Management Science, 14 (4), B141–B214.

Colzato, L. S., Szapora, A., Lippelt, D., & Hommel, B. (2017). Prior meditation practice modulates performance and strategy use in convergent- and divergent-thinking problems. Mindfulness, 8 (1), 10–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-014-0352-9 .

Cropley, A. (2006). In praise of convergent thinking. Creativity Research Journal, 18 (3), 391–404. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj1803_13 .

Cross, N, Dorst, K. & Roozenburg, N. (Ed.). (1992). Research in design thinking . Delft: Delft University Press.

Cross, N. (1993). A history of design methodology. In M. J. de Vries, N. Cross, & D. Grant (Eds.), Design methodology and relationships with science (pp. 15–27). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-8220-9_2 .

Crossan, M. M. (1998). Improvisation in action. Organization Science, 9 (5), 593–599. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.9.5.593 .

Davies, M. (2015). A model of critical thinking in higher education. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12835-1_2 .

Davis, C. M. (1990). What is empathy, and can empathy be taught. Physical Therapy, 70 (11), 707–711. https://doi.org/10.2519/jospt.2011.3225 .

Dewey, J. (1910). How we think . Boston, MA: D.C. Health.

Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process . Lexington, MA: D.C. Health.

Dorst, K. (2011). The core of “design thinking” and its application. Design Studies, 32 (6), 521–532. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2011.07.006 .

Dym, C., Agogino, A., Erics, O., Frey, D., & Leifer, L. (2005). Engineering design thinking, teaching, and learning. Journal of Engineering Education, 94 (1), 103–120.

Ennis, R. H. (1962). A concept of critical thinking. Harvard Educational Review, 32 (1), 81–111.

Ennis, R. H. (1987a). A taxonomy of critical thinking dispositions and abilities. In Teaching Thinking Skills: Theory and practice . New York, NY: W. H. Freeman.

Ennis, R. H. (1987b). Critical thinking and the curriculum. Slomianko: In M. Heiman & J.(Eds.), Thinking skills instruction: Concepts and techniques. Building Students’ Thinking Skills Series. (pp. 40–48). National Education Association. https://doi.org/10.1177/019263658807250830 .

Ennis, R. H. (1991). Critical thinking: a streamlined conception. Teaching Philosophy, 14 (1), 5–24. https://doi.org/10.5840/teachphil19911412 .

Eyler, J., & Giles, D. (1999). Where’s the learning in service-learning . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Facione, P. A. (1990). Critical thinking : A statement of expert consensus for purposes of educational assessment and instruction executive summary “ The Delphi Report. American Philosophical Association Delphi Research Report . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2009.07.002 .

Fisher, A., & Scriven, M. (1997). Critical thinking: Its definition and assessment . Norwich: Centre for Research in Critical Thinking, University of East Anglia.

Gibbons, S. (2018). Empathy Mapping: The first step in design thinking. Retrieved from https://www.nngroup.com/articles/empathy-mapping/ .

Glaser, E. M. (1941). An experiment in the development of critical thinking . New York: Columbia University Teacher’s College.

Gokhale, A. A. (1995). Collaborative learning enhances critical thinking. Journal of Technology Education , 7 (1), 22–30. https://doi.org/10.21061/jte.v7i1.a.2 .

Halonen, J. S. (1995). Demystifying critical thinking. Teaching of Psychology, 22 (1), 75–81. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328023top2201_23 .

Halpern, D. F. (1998). Teaching critical thinking for transfer across domains. American Psychologist, 53 (4), 449–455. https://doi.org/10.1037//0003-066X.53.4.449 .

Haupt, G. (2015). Learning from experts: fostering extended thinking in the early phases of the design process. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 25 (4), 483–520. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-014-9295-7 .

Harley, A. (2018). UX Expert Reviews. https://www.nngroup.com/articles/ux-expert-reviews/

Haupt, G. (2018). Hierarchical thinking: a cognitive tool for guiding coherent decision making in design problem solving. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 28 (1), 207–237. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-016-9381-0 .

Hitchcock, D. (2018). Critical thinking. In E. Zalta (Ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2018). Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2018/entries/critical-thinking/ .

Hogland-Smith. (2017). Critical thinking skills are now in top demand in sales, business. Chicago Tribune . Retrieved from https://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/post-tribune/opinion/ct-ptb-hoagland-smith-problem-st-0723-20170723-story.html .

Hu, Y., Du, X., Bryan-Kinns, N., & Guo, Y. (2018). Identifying divergent design thinking through the observable behavior of service design novices. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 1, 13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-018-9479-7 .

Hutchins, E. (1996). Cognition in the Wild . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Hutchins, E. (2010). Cognitive ecology. Topics in Cognitive . Science, 2 (4), 705–715. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-8765.2010.01089.x .

IDEO. (2015). The field guide to human-centered design (1st ed.). Canada: IDEO.org / DesignKit.

ITEA (2007). Standards for technological literacy: Content for the study of technology. (2007). In Phi Delta Kappan (3rd ed.). International Technology Education Association (ITEA). https://doi.org/10.1177/003172170108200707 .

Janis, I. L. (1971). Groupthink. Psychology Today, 5 (6), 43–46.

Janis, I. (1982). Groupthink: Psychological studies of policy decisions and fiascoes (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin.

Janis, I. L. (2008). Groupthink. IEEE Engineering Management Review, 36 (1), 36.

Johansson-Sköldberg, U., & Woodilla, J. (2013). Design thinking: past, present and possible futures. Creativity and Innovation Management, 22 (2), 121–146. https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12023 .

Joyce, A., & Paquin, R. L. (2016). The triple layered business model canvas: A tool to design more sustainable business models. Journal of Cleaner Production , 135 (November 2017), 1474–1486. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.06.067 .

Kelley, T. R., & Sung, E. (2017). Sketching by design: Teaching sketching to young learners. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 27 (3), 363–386. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-016-9354-3 .

Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. (2016). Learning styles and learning spaces: Enhancing experiential learning in higher education. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4 (2), 193–212. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMLE.2005.17268566 .

Kolko, J. (2018). The Divisiveness of Design Thinking. Interactions, 25 (3), 28–34. https://doi.org/10.1145/3194313 .

Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(4), 212–218. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1477405

Kuiper, R. (2002). Enhancing metacognition through the reflective use of self-regulated learning strategies. Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing, 33 (2), 78–87. https://doi.org/10.3928/0022-0124-20020301-11 .

Lancione, M., & Clegg, S. R. (2015). The lightness of management learning. Management Learning, 46 (3), 280–298. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507614526533 .

Levin, J. S. (2018, May). Sharpen your critical thinking skills with these 14 leadership practices. Forbes . Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbescoachescouncil/2018/05/31/sharpen-your-critical-thinking-skills-with-these-14-leadership-practices/ .

Lloyd, P. (2013). Embedded creativity: Teaching design thinking via distance education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 23 (3), 749–765. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-012-9214-8 .

Luchs, M. (2016). A brief introduction to design thinking. In M. Luchs, K. Swan & A. Griffin (eds.), Design thinking: new product development essentials from the PDMA (pp. 1–12). Hoboken: (NJ): Wiley.

Lukovics, M., Udvari, B., Nádas, N., & Fisher, E. (2019). Raising awareness of researchers-in-the-making toward responsible research and innovation. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 10 (4), 1558–1577. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-019-00624-1 .

LUMA. (2012). Innovating for People: Handbook of Human-Centered Design Methods (1st ed.). Pittsburg, PA: LUMA Institute LLC.

Mason, T. H., Pollard, C. R., Chimalakonda, D., Guerrero, A. M., Kerr-Smith, C., Milheiras, S. A., & Bunnefeld, N. (2018). Wicked conflict: Using wicked problem thinking for holistic management of conservation conflict. Conservation letters, 11 (6), e12460.

McPeck (1981/2017). Critical thinking and education . New York: Routledge.

Montini, L. (2014, October). The trouble with hiring for “critical thinking” skills. Inc. Retrieved from https://www.inc.com/laura-montini/are-you-sure-you-want-to-hire-a-critical-thinker.html .

Moshavi, D. (2001). “Yes and...”: Introducing improvisational theatre techniques to the management classroom. Journal of Management Education , 25 (4), 437–449.

Nodder, C. (2013). Evil by design: Interaction design to lead us into temptation. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0703993104 .

Norris, P. E., O’Rourke, M., Mayer, A. S., & Halvorsen, K. E. (2016). Managing the wicked problem of transdisciplinary team formation in socioecological systems. Landscape and Urban Planning, 154, 115–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.01.008 .

Osterwalder, A., & Pigneur, Y. (2010). Business model generation: A handbook for visionaries, game changers, and challengers. In Booksgooglecom (Vol. 30). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Owen, R., Macnaghten, P., & Stilgoe, J. (2012). Responsible research and innovation: from science in society to science for society, with society. Science and Public Policy, 39 (6), 751–760.

Park, W. W. (1990). A review of research on groupthink. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 3, 229–245.

Pithers, R. T., & Soden, R. (2000). Critical thinking in education: A review. Educational Research, 42 (3), 237–249. https://doi.org/10.1080/001318800440579 .

Price, R. (2016). March) . Business Insider: Microsoft is deleting its AI chatbot’s incredibly racist tweets.

Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work ? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93 (3), 223–231.

Quitadamo, I. J., Brahler, C. J., & Crouch, G. J. (2009). Peer-led team learning: A prospective method for increasing critical thinking in undergraduate science courses. Science Educator, 18 (1), 29–39.

Razzouk, R., & Shute, V. (2012). What is design thinking and why is it important? Review of Educational Research, 82 (3), 330–348.

Reed, L. (2018, January). Building critical thinking skills to solve problems at work. Business.Com . Retrieved from https://www.business.com/articles/building-critical-thinking-skills-at-work/ .

van Reine, P. P. (2017). The culture of design thinking for innovation. Journal of Innovation Management, 5 (2), 56–80.

Rittel, H. W., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4 (2), 155–169.

Rosenberger, C. (2000). Beyond empathy: Developing critical consciousness through service learning. In Integrating service learning and multicultural education in colleges and universities (pp. 23–43). https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410606051-9 .

Rowe (1987). Design thinking . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Runco, M. A. (1991). Divergent thinking (creativity research) . Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.

Runco, M. A., & Acar, S. (2012). Divergent thinking as an indicator of creative potential. Creativity Research Journal, 24 (1), 66–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2012.652929 .

Scheer, A., Noweski, C., & Meinel, C. (2012). Transforming constructivist learning into action: Design thinking in education. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 17 (3), 8–19.

Schleicher, D., Jones, P., & Kachur, O. (2010). Bodystorming as embodied designing. Interactions, 17 (6), 47. https://doi.org/10.1145/1865245.1865256 .

Scriven, M., & Paul, R. (1987). Critical thinking. 8th Annual International Conference on Critical Thinking and Education Reform [Web page]. Retrieved from http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/defining-critical-thinking/766

Spiro, H. M. (1992). What is empathy and can it be taught? Annals of Internal Medicine, 116 (10), 843–846. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-116-10-843 .

Somerson, R. (2013). The art of Critical Making: An introduction. In E. Somerson, M. Hermano, & J. Maeda (Eds.), The Art of Critical Making: Rhode Island School of Design on Creative Practice (pp. 19–31). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Stempfle, J., & Badke-Schaub, P. (2002). Thinking in design teams - An analysis of team communication. Design Studies, 23 (5), 473–496. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-694X(02)00004-2 .

Suchman, L. (1987). Plans and situated actions . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Sun, J., Chen, Q., Zhang, Q., Li, Y., Li, H., Wei, D., & Qiu, J. (2016). Training your brain to be more creative: Brain functional and structural changes induced by divergent thinking training. Human Brain Mapping, 37 (10), 3375–3387. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.23246 .

Totten, S., Sills, T., Digby, A., & Russ, P. (1991). Cooperative learning: A guide to research . New York, NY: Garland.

Varela, F., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. (1991). The embodied mind . Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Waddock, S. (2013). The wicked problems of global sustainability need wicked (good) leaders and wicked (good) collaborative solutions. Journal of Management for Global Sustainability , 1 (1), 91–111. https://doi.org/10.13185/JM2013.01106 .

Wells, A. (2013). The importance of design thinking for technological literacy: A phenomenological perspective. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 23 (3), 623–636. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-012-9207-7 .

Wilson, M. (2002). Six views of embodied cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 9 (4), 625–636. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196322 .

Yildirim, B., & Özkahraman, Ş. (2011). Critical thinking in nursing process and education. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 1 (13), 257–262.

Zidulka, A., & Mitchell, I. K. (2018). Creativity or cooptation? thinking beyond instrumentalism when teaching design thinking. Journal of Management Education, 42 (6), 749–760. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562918799797 .

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Information Design & Corporate Communication, Bentley University, 175 Forest Street, Waltham, MA, 02452, USA

Jonathan D. Ericson

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jonathan D. Ericson .

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Design Thinking: Challenges and Opportunities

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Ericson, J.D. Mapping the Relationship Between Critical Thinking and Design Thinking. J Knowl Econ 13 , 406–429 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-021-00733-w

Download citation

Received : 20 July 2020

Accepted : 19 January 2021

Published : 02 February 2021

Issue Date : March 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-021-00733-w

Share this article

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

• Critical thinking
• Design thinking
• Entrepreneurship
• Knowledge economy

Advertisement

• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research