how to nurture critical thinking

How it works

Transform your enterprise with the scalable mindsets, skills, & behavior change that drive performance.

Explore how BetterUp connects to your core business systems.

We pair AI with the latest in human-centered coaching to drive powerful, lasting learning and behavior change.

Build leaders that accelerate team performance and engagement.

Unlock performance potential at scale with AI-powered curated growth journeys.

Build resilience, well-being and agility to drive performance across your entire enterprise.

Transform your business, starting with your sales leaders.

Unlock business impact from the top with executive coaching.

Foster a culture of inclusion and belonging.

Accelerate the performance and potential of your agencies and employees.

See how innovative organizations use BetterUp to build a thriving workforce.

Discover how BetterUp measurably impacts key business outcomes for organizations like yours.

A demo is the first step to transforming your business. Meet with us to develop a plan for attaining your goals.

• What is coaching?

Learn how 1:1 coaching works, who its for, and if it's right for you.

Accelerate your personal and professional growth with the expert guidance of a BetterUp Coach.

Types of Coaching

Navigate career transitions, accelerate your professional growth, and achieve your career goals with expert coaching.

Enhance your communication skills for better personal and professional relationships, with tailored coaching that focuses on your needs.

Find balance, resilience, and well-being in all areas of your life with holistic coaching designed to empower you.

Discover your perfect match : Take our 5-minute assessment and let us pair you with one of our top Coaches tailored just for you.

Research, expert insights, and resources to develop courageous leaders within your organization.

Best practices, research, and tools to fuel individual and business growth.

View on-demand BetterUp events and learn about upcoming live discussions.

The latest insights and ideas for building a high-performing workplace.

• BetterUp Briefing

The online magazine that helps you understand tomorrow's workforce trends, today.

Innovative research featured in peer-reviewed journals, press, and more.

Founded in 2022 to deepen the understanding of the intersection of well-being, purpose, and performance

We're on a mission to help everyone live with clarity, purpose, and passion.

Join us and create impactful change.

Read the buzz about BetterUp.

Meet the leadership that's passionate about empowering your workforce.

For Business

For Individuals

How to develop critical thinking skills

Jump to section

What are critical thinking skills?

How to develop critical thinking skills: 12 tips, how to practice critical thinking skills at work, become your own best critic.

A client requests a tight deadline on an intense project. Your childcare provider calls in sick on a day full of meetings. Payment from a contract gig is a month behind. 

Your day-to-day will always have challenges, big and small. And no matter the size and urgency, they all ask you to use critical thinking to analyze the situation and arrive at the right solution. 

Critical thinking includes a wide set of soft skills that encourage continuous learning, resilience , and self-reflection. The more you add to your professional toolbelt, the more equipped you’ll be to tackle whatever challenge presents itself. Here’s how to develop critical thinking, with examples explaining how to use it.

Critical thinking skills are the skills you use to analyze information, imagine scenarios holistically, and create rational solutions. It’s a type of emotional intelligence that stimulates effective problem-solving and decision-making . 

When you fine-tune your critical thinking skills, you seek beyond face-value observations and knee-jerk reactions. Instead, you harvest deeper insights and string together ideas and concepts in logical, sometimes out-of-the-box , ways. 

Imagine a team working on a marketing strategy for a new set of services. That team might use critical thinking to balance goals and key performance indicators , like new customer acquisition costs, average monthly sales, and net profit margins. They understand the connections between overlapping factors to build a strategy that stays within budget and attracts new sales. 

Looking for ways to improve critical thinking skills? Start by brushing up on the following soft skills that fall under this umbrella: 

• Analytical thinking: Approaching problems with an analytical eye includes breaking down complex issues into small chunks and examining their significance. An example could be organizing customer feedback to identify trends and improve your product offerings. 
• Open-mindedness: Push past cognitive biases and be receptive to different points of view and constructive feedback . Managers and team members who keep an open mind position themselves to hear new ideas that foster innovation . 
• Creative thinking: With creative thinking , you can develop several ideas to address a single problem, like brainstorming more efficient workflow best practices to boost productivity and employee morale . 
• Self-reflection: Self-reflection lets you examine your thinking and assumptions to stimulate healthier collaboration and thought processes. Maybe a bad first impression created a negative anchoring bias with a new coworker. Reflecting on your own behavior stirs up empathy and improves the relationship. 
• Evaluation: With evaluation skills, you tackle the pros and cons of a situation based on logic rather than emotion. When prioritizing tasks , you might be tempted to do the fun or easy ones first, but evaluating their urgency and importance can help you make better decisions. 

There’s no magic method to change your thinking processes. Improvement happens with small, intentional changes to your everyday habits until a more critical approach to thinking is automatic. 

Here are 12 tips for building stronger self-awareness and learning how to improve critical thinking: 

1. Be cautious

There’s nothing wrong with a little bit of skepticism. One of the core principles of critical thinking is asking questions and dissecting the available information. You might surprise yourself at what you find when you stop to think before taking action. 

Before making a decision, use evidence, logic, and deductive reasoning to support your own opinions or challenge ideas. It helps you and your team avoid falling prey to bad information or resistance to change .

2. Ask open-ended questions

“Yes” or “no” questions invite agreement rather than reflection. Instead, ask open-ended questions that force you to engage in analysis and rumination. Digging deeper can help you identify potential biases, uncover assumptions, and arrive at new hypotheses and possible solutions. 

3. Do your research

No matter your proficiency, you can always learn more. Turning to different points of view and information is a great way to develop a comprehensive understanding of a topic and make informed decisions. You’ll prioritize reliable information rather than fall into emotional or automatic decision-making. 

4. Consider several opinions

You might spend so much time on your work that it’s easy to get stuck in your own perspective, especially if you work independently on a remote team . Make an effort to reach out to colleagues to hear different ideas and thought patterns. Their input might surprise you.

If or when you disagree, remember that you and your team share a common goal. Divergent opinions are constructive, so shift the focus to finding solutions rather than defending disagreements. 

5. Learn to be quiet

Active listening is the intentional practice of concentrating on a conversation partner instead of your own thoughts. It’s about paying attention to detail and letting people know you value their opinions, which can open your mind to new perspectives and thought processes.

If you’re brainstorming with your team or having a 1:1 with a coworker , listen, ask clarifying questions, and work to understand other peoples’ viewpoints. Listening to your team will help you find fallacies in arguments to improve possible solutions.

6. Schedule reflection

Whether waking up at 5 am or using a procrastination hack, scheduling time to think puts you in a growth mindset . Your mind has natural cognitive biases to help you simplify decision-making, but squashing them is key to thinking critically and finding new solutions besides the ones you might gravitate toward. Creating time and calm space in your day gives you the chance to step back and visualize the biases that impact your decision-making. 

7. Cultivate curiosity

With so many demands and job responsibilities, it’s easy to seek solace in routine. But getting out of your comfort zone helps spark critical thinking and find more solutions than you usually might.

If curiosity doesn’t come naturally to you, cultivate a thirst for knowledge by reskilling and upskilling . Not only will you add a new skill to your resume , but expanding the limits of your professional knowledge might motivate you to ask more questions. 

You don’t have to develop critical thinking skills exclusively in the office. Whether on your break or finding a hobby to do after work, playing strategic games or filling out crosswords can prime your brain for problem-solving. 

9. Write it down

Recording your thoughts with pen and paper can lead to stronger brain activity than typing them out on a keyboard. If you’re stuck and want to think more critically about a problem, writing your ideas can help you process information more deeply.

The act of recording ideas on paper can also improve your memory . Ideas are more likely to linger in the background of your mind, leading to deeper thinking that informs your decision-making process. 

10. Speak up

Take opportunities to share your opinion, even if it intimidates you. Whether at a networking event with new people or a meeting with close colleagues, try to engage with people who challenge or help you develop your ideas. Having conversations that force you to support your position encourages you to refine your argument and think critically. 

11. Stay humble

Ideas and concepts aren’t the same as real-life actions. There may be such a thing as negative outcomes, but there’s no such thing as a bad idea. At the brainstorming stage , don’t be afraid to make mistakes.

Sometimes the best solutions come from off-the-wall, unorthodox decisions. Sit in your creativity , let ideas flow, and don’t be afraid to share them with your colleagues. Putting yourself in a creative mindset helps you see situations from new perspectives and arrive at innovative conclusions. 

12. Embrace discomfort

Get comfortable feeling uncomfortable . It isn’t easy when others challenge your ideas, but sometimes, it’s the only way to see new perspectives and think critically.

By willingly stepping into unfamiliar territory, you foster the resilience and flexibility you need to become a better thinker. You’ll learn how to pick yourself up from failure and approach problems from fresh angles. 

Thinking critically is easier said than done. To help you understand its impact (and how to use it), here are two scenarios that require critical thinking skills and provide teachable moments. 

Scenario #1: Unexpected delays and budget

Imagine your team is working on producing an event. Unexpectedly, a vendor explains they’ll be a week behind on delivering materials. Then another vendor sends a quote that’s more than you can afford. Unless you develop a creative solution, the team will have to push back deadlines and go over budget, potentially costing the client’s trust. 

Here’s how you could approach the situation with creative thinking:

• Analyze the situation holistically: Determine how the delayed materials and over-budget quote will impact the rest of your timeline and financial resources . That way, you can identify whether you need to build an entirely new plan with new vendors, or if it’s worth it to readjust time and resources. 
• Identify your alternative options: With careful assessment, your team decides that another vendor can’t provide the same materials in a quicker time frame. You’ll need to rearrange assignment schedules to complete everything on time. 
• Collaborate and adapt: Your team has an emergency meeting to rearrange your project schedule. You write down each deliverable and determine which ones you can and can’t complete by the deadline. To compensate for lost time, you rearrange your task schedule to complete everything that doesn’t need the delayed materials first, then advance as far as you can on the tasks that do. 
• Check different resources: In the meantime, you scour through your contact sheet to find alternative vendors that fit your budget. Accounting helps by providing old invoices to determine which vendors have quoted less for previous jobs. After pulling all your sources, you find a vendor that fits your budget. 
• Maintain open communication: You create a special Slack channel to keep everyone up to date on changes, challenges, and additional delays. Keeping an open line encourages transparency on the team’s progress and boosts everyone’s confidence. 

Scenario #2: Differing opinions 

A conflict arises between two team members on the best approach for a new strategy for a gaming app. One believes that small tweaks to the current content are necessary to maintain user engagement and stay within budget. The other believes a bold revamp is needed to encourage new followers and stronger sales revenue. 

Here’s how critical thinking could help this conflict:

• Listen actively: Give both team members the opportunity to present their ideas free of interruption. Encourage the entire team to ask open-ended questions to more fully understand and develop each argument. 
• Flex your analytical skills: After learning more about both ideas, everyone should objectively assess the benefits and drawbacks of each approach. Analyze each idea's risk, merits, and feasibility based on available data and the app’s goals and objectives. 
• Identify common ground: The team discusses similarities between each approach and brainstorms ways to integrate both idea s, like making small but eye-catching modifications to existing content or using the same visual design in new media formats. 
• Test new strategy: To test out the potential of a bolder strategy, the team decides to A/B test both approaches. You create a set of criteria to evenly distribute users by different demographics to analyze engagement, revenue, and customer turnover. 
• Monitor and adapt: After implementing the A/B test, the team closely monitors the results of each strategy. You regroup and optimize the changes that provide stronger results after the testing. That way, all team members understand why you’re making the changes you decide to make.

You can’t think your problems away. But you can equip yourself with skills that help you move through your biggest challenges and find innovative solutions. Learning how to develop critical thinking is the start of honing an adaptable growth mindset. 

Now that you have resources to increase critical thinking skills in your professional development, you can identify whether you embrace change or routine, are open or resistant to feedback, or turn to research or emotion will build self-awareness. From there, tweak and incorporate techniques to be a critical thinker when life presents you with a problem.

Cultivate your creativity

Foster creativity and continuous learning with guidance from our certified Coaches.

Elizabeth Perry, ACC

Elizabeth Perry is a Coach Community Manager at BetterUp. She uses strategic engagement strategies to cultivate a learning community across a global network of Coaches through in-person and virtual experiences, technology-enabled platforms, and strategic coaching industry partnerships. With over 3 years of coaching experience and a certification in transformative leadership and life coaching from Sofia University, Elizabeth leverages transpersonal psychology expertise to help coaches and clients gain awareness of their behavioral and thought patterns, discover their purpose and passions, and elevate their potential. She is a lifelong student of psychology, personal growth, and human potential as well as an ICF-certified ACC transpersonal life and leadership Coach.

How to improve your creative skills for effective problem-solving

6 ways to leverage ai for hyper-personalized corporate learning, can dreams help you solve problems 6 ways to try, what is lateral thinking 7 techniques to encourage creative ideas, how divergent thinking can drive your creativity, what’s convergent thinking how to be a better problem-solver, 8 creative solutions to your most challenging problems, thinking outside the box: 8 ways to become a creative problem solver, why asynchronous learning is the key to successful upskilling, similar articles, what is creative thinking and why does it matter, discover the 7 essential types of life skills you need, 6 big picture thinking strategies that you'll actually use, what are analytical skills examples and how to level up, the most critical skills for leaders are fundamentally human, critical thinking is the one skillset you can't afford not to master, stay connected with betterup, get our newsletter, event invites, plus product insights and research..

3100 E 5th Street, Suite 350 Austin, TX 78702

• Platform Overview
• Integrations
• Powered by AI
• BetterUp Lead™
• BetterUp Manage™
• BetterUp Care®
• Sales Performance
• Diversity & Inclusion
• Case Studies
• Why BetterUp?
• About Coaching
• Find your Coach
• Career Coaching
• Communication Coaching
• Life Coaching
• News and Press
• Leadership Team
• Become a BetterUp Coach
• BetterUp Labs
• Center for Purpose & Performance
• Leadership Training
• Business Coaching
• Contact Support
• Contact Sales
• Privacy Policy
• Acceptable Use Policy
• Trust & Security
• Cookie Preferences

How it works

For Business

Join Mind Tools

Article • 8 min read

Critical Thinking

Developing the right mindset and skills.

By the Mind Tools Content Team

We make hundreds of decisions every day and, whether we realize it or not, we're all critical thinkers.

We use critical thinking each time we weigh up our options, prioritize our responsibilities, or think about the likely effects of our actions. It's a crucial skill that helps us to cut out misinformation and make wise decisions. The trouble is, we're not always very good at it!

In this article, we'll explore the key skills that you need to develop your critical thinking skills, and how to adopt a critical thinking mindset, so that you can make well-informed decisions.

What Is Critical Thinking?

Critical thinking is the discipline of rigorously and skillfully using information, experience, observation, and reasoning to guide your decisions, actions, and beliefs. You'll need to actively question every step of your thinking process to do it well.

Collecting, analyzing and evaluating information is an important skill in life, and a highly valued asset in the workplace. People who score highly in critical thinking assessments are also rated by their managers as having good problem-solving skills, creativity, strong decision-making skills, and good overall performance. [1]

Key Critical Thinking Skills

Critical thinkers possess a set of key characteristics which help them to question information and their own thinking. Focus on the following areas to develop your critical thinking skills:

Being willing and able to explore alternative approaches and experimental ideas is crucial. Can you think through "what if" scenarios, create plausible options, and test out your theories? If not, you'll tend to write off ideas and options too soon, so you may miss the best answer to your situation.

To nurture your curiosity, stay up to date with facts and trends. You'll overlook important information if you allow yourself to become "blinkered," so always be open to new information.

But don't stop there! Look for opposing views or evidence to challenge your information, and seek clarification when things are unclear. This will help you to reassess your beliefs and make a well-informed decision later. Read our article, Opening Closed Minds , for more ways to stay receptive.

Logical Thinking

You must be skilled at reasoning and extending logic to come up with plausible options or outcomes.

It's also important to emphasize logic over emotion. Emotion can be motivating but it can also lead you to take hasty and unwise action, so control your emotions and be cautious in your judgments. Know when a conclusion is "fact" and when it is not. "Could-be-true" conclusions are based on assumptions and must be tested further. Read our article, Logical Fallacies , for help with this.

Use creative problem solving to balance cold logic. By thinking outside of the box you can identify new possible outcomes by using pieces of information that you already have.

Self-Awareness

Many of the decisions we make in life are subtly informed by our values and beliefs. These influences are called cognitive biases and it can be difficult to identify them in ourselves because they're often subconscious.

Practicing self-awareness will allow you to reflect on the beliefs you have and the choices you make. You'll then be better equipped to challenge your own thinking and make improved, unbiased decisions.

One particularly useful tool for critical thinking is the Ladder of Inference . It allows you to test and validate your thinking process, rather than jumping to poorly supported conclusions.

Developing a Critical Thinking Mindset

Combine the above skills with the right mindset so that you can make better decisions and adopt more effective courses of action. You can develop your critical thinking mindset by following this process:

Gather Information

First, collect data, opinions and facts on the issue that you need to solve. Draw on what you already know, and turn to new sources of information to help inform your understanding. Consider what gaps there are in your knowledge and seek to fill them. And look for information that challenges your assumptions and beliefs.

Be sure to verify the authority and authenticity of your sources. Not everything you read is true! Use this checklist to ensure that your information is valid:

• Are your information sources trustworthy ? (For example, well-respected authors, trusted colleagues or peers, recognized industry publications, websites, blogs, etc.)
• Is the information you have gathered up to date ?
• Has the information received any direct criticism ?
• Does the information have any errors or inaccuracies ?
• Is there any evidence to support or corroborate the information you have gathered?
• Is the information you have gathered subjective or biased in any way? (For example, is it based on opinion, rather than fact? Is any of the information you have gathered designed to promote a particular service or organization?)

If any information appears to be irrelevant or invalid, don't include it in your decision making. But don't omit information just because you disagree with it, or your final decision will be flawed and bias.

Now observe the information you have gathered, and interpret it. What are the key findings and main takeaways? What does the evidence point to? Start to build one or two possible arguments based on what you have found.

You'll need to look for the details within the mass of information, so use your powers of observation to identify any patterns or similarities. You can then analyze and extend these trends to make sensible predictions about the future.

To help you to sift through the multiple ideas and theories, it can be useful to group and order items according to their characteristics. From here, you can compare and contrast the different items. And once you've determined how similar or different things are from one another, Paired Comparison Analysis can help you to analyze them.

The final step involves challenging the information and rationalizing its arguments.

Apply the laws of reason (induction, deduction, analogy) to judge an argument and determine its merits. To do this, it's essential that you can determine the significance and validity of an argument to put it in the correct perspective. Take a look at our article, Rational Thinking , for more information about how to do this.

Once you have considered all of the arguments and options rationally, you can finally make an informed decision.

Afterward, take time to reflect on what you have learned and what you found challenging. Step back from the detail of your decision or problem, and look at the bigger picture. Record what you've learned from your observations and experience.

Critical thinking involves rigorously and skilfully using information, experience, observation, and reasoning to guide your decisions, actions and beliefs. It's a useful skill in the workplace and in life.

You'll need to be curious and creative to explore alternative possibilities, but rational to apply logic, and self-aware to identify when your beliefs could affect your decisions or actions.

You can demonstrate a high level of critical thinking by validating your information, analyzing its meaning, and finally evaluating the argument.

Critical Thinking Infographic

See Critical Thinking represented in our infographic: An Elementary Guide to Critical Thinking .

You've accessed 1 of your 2 free resources.

Get unlimited access

Discover more content

How can i improve my memory.

Four Techniques That Can Help

What Is Leadership?

How to Lead Your Team Skilfully

Add comment

Comments (1)

priyanka ghogare

Gain essential management and leadership skills

Busy schedule? No problem. Learn anytime, anywhere. 

Subscribe to unlimited access to meticulously researched, evidence-based resources.

Join today and take advantage of our 30% offer, available until May 31st .

Sign-up to our newsletter

Subscribing to the Mind Tools newsletter will keep you up-to-date with our latest updates and newest resources.

Subscribe now

Business Skills

Personal Development

Leadership and Management

Member Extras

Most Popular

Latest Updates

Winning Body Language

Business Stripped Bare

Mind Tools Store

About Mind Tools Content

Discover something new today

Nine ways to get the best from x (twitter).

Growing Your Business Quickly and Safely on Social Media

Managing Your Emotions at Work

Controlling Your Feelings... Before They Control You

How Emotionally Intelligent Are You?

Boosting Your People Skills

Self-Assessment

What's Your Leadership Style?

Learn About the Strengths and Weaknesses of the Way You Like to Lead

Recommended for you

What is posdcorb.

Running Your Team in the Most Efficient Way

Business Operations and Process Management

Strategy Tools

Customer Service

Business Ethics and Values

Handling Information and Data

Project Management

Knowledge Management

Self-Development and Goal Setting

Time Management

Presentation Skills

Learning Skills

Career Skills

Communication Skills

Negotiation, Persuasion and Influence

Working With Others

Difficult Conversations

Creativity Tools

Self-Management

Work-Life Balance

Stress Management and Wellbeing

Coaching and Mentoring

Change Management

Team Management

Managing Conflict

Delegation and Empowerment

Performance Management

Leadership Skills

Developing Your Team

Talent Management

Problem Solving

Decision Making

Member Podcast

Developing Critical Thinking

• Posted January 10, 2018
• By Iman Rastegari

In a time where deliberately false information is continually introduced into public discourse, and quickly spread through social media shares and likes, it is more important than ever for young people to develop their critical thinking. That skill, says Georgetown professor William T. Gormley, consists of three elements: a capacity to spot weakness in other arguments, a passion for good evidence, and a capacity to reflect on your own views and values with an eye to possibly change them. But are educators making the development of these skills a priority?

"Some teachers embrace critical thinking pedagogy with enthusiasm and they make it a high priority in their classrooms; other teachers do not," says Gormley, author of the recent Harvard Education Press release The Critical Advantage: Developing Critical Thinking Skills in School . "So if you are to assess the extent of critical-thinking instruction in U.S. classrooms, you’d find some very wide variations." Which is unfortunate, he says, since developing critical-thinking skills is vital not only to students' readiness for college and career, but to their civic readiness, as well.

"It's important to recognize that critical thinking is not just something that takes place in the classroom or in the workplace, it's something that takes place — and should take place — in our daily lives," says Gormley.

In this edition of the Harvard EdCast, Gormley looks at the value of teaching critical thinking, and explores how it can be an important solution to some of the problems that we face, including "fake news."

About the Harvard EdCast

The Harvard EdCast is a weekly series of podcasts, available on the Harvard University iT unes U page, that features a 15-20 minute conversation with thought leaders in the field of education from across the country and around the world. Hosted by Matt Weber and co-produced by Jill Anderson, the Harvard EdCast is a space for educational discourse and openness, focusing on the myriad issues and current events related to the field.

An education podcast that keeps the focus simple: what makes a difference for learners, educators, parents, and communities

Related Articles

Roots of the School Gardening Movement

Student-centered learning, reading and the common core.

How To Nurture Critical Thinking In Your World

It’s time to critique “critical thinking”.

“Critical thinking” has become a new panacea—society’s go-to antidote to the spread of fake news, the rise of populism, and the AI-driven atomization of our social media feeds. If no one should control which messages get published and spread (given the priority we place on free speech), then everyone should at least possess the skills to judge the logic and legitimacy of the messages they consume.

And how do we develop those critical thinking skills? Education, obviously.

Yes, the power of lies to mislead whole sections of society may be a big problem. But education can solve it.

Individual fault? Or systemic failing?

That is a comforting thought.

But here’s a discomfiting one. What if “critical thinking” isn’t just a discrete skill that can be taught or trained in individuals ? What if it’s also an emergent property of society as a whole—the same way that “intelligence” is an emergent property of the brain, or that “niceness” is an emergent property of certain communities, like Minnesota, USA or Gothenburg, Sweden ?

What if the popular power of obvious lies isn’t due simply to the failure to teach specific skills well enough, fast enough, to consumers of social media? What if the real problem is some sort of systemic failure?

Critical thinking requires complex truths

In order for us to exercise strong critical thinking skills as individuals, society needs to supply us with diverse ways of getting at truth. Scientific truths. Moral truths. Economic truths. Historical truths. Rational truths…Thinking critically isn’t just about sorting “truth” from “lies”; it’s often about recognizing that someone is trying to persuade us with just one of these truths (e.g., “Policy X will create significant economic benefits“), then complicating their argument by drawing upon other truths that also merit a hearing (e.g., “But X is the wrong thing to do“).

My years living in China and studying its political system drove home for me this whole-of-society view of where critical thinking comes from. When a single sector of society—in China’s case, the government—lines up all the other engines of truth-making (religion, science, academia, the elites, the peasantry, the media, the market, etc) to generate the same truth, just imagining ways to complicate the clear logic of Policy X can be hard. Finding other people who think your critique merits a hearing is even harder.

Simple truths make lies look legitimate

In an autocracy, the truth is simple—and stays simple. Monopolizing truth is the autocrat’s easiest way to maintain order.

But in a democracy , if a single sector manages to gain a monopoly on truth, society can be thrown into total confusion. The reason is free speech, and the value we put upon it. Think about it. If all the engines of truth-making in a free-speech society stand together on one side of a debate, then it becomes very hard to tell whether that lone free-speaker on the other side is a truth-teller or a demagogue . The truth-teller is someone who is bravely speaking an unpopular truth that has been suppressed because the mainstream finds it inconvenient (Al Gore’s climate campaigning comes to mind). The demagogue is someone who is speaking lies to rally people against the mainstream, in order to profit from the ensuing social chaos.

Both speakers are standing up to challenge a consensus, which in a free-speech society is an act imbued with a certain indiscriminate “merit.” Put another way: When the truth becomes tyrannical, lies start to look legitimate.

And I wonder if this isn’t precisely the confusion in which many democracies now find themselves. I have a hunch that before “Fake News!” became a populist rallying cry, “the truth” had already become too uniform, too simplistic, too monopolized, for our own good.

If that hunch is right, we don’t just need “critical thinking skills.” We need to find and break up that truth-monopoly. If the goal is to produce a society of critical, free thinkers who are not easily convinced by social media or their social group, then society must serve up a truth that is complex, many-sided and endlessly contested. And that means each engine of truth-making needs the autonomy to embark on its own search for truth.

Divided—but in the wrong way

But surely, many would say, we already have that.

Have you seen the state of our politics?!?

Society is more divided than ever by separate “truths”!

My reply would be, “Yes, but we’re divided by lies, not truths. By demagogues, not truth-tellers. And that’s the problem.” (The easiest way to spot the difference is that the truth-teller tries to complicate the truth: “ Okay, yes, some Central American migrants to the US do commit violent crimes, but statistically they’re less likely to do so than the average American.” The demagogue tries to simplify the truth: “They’re terrorists!”)

This is not an easy fix. It involves taking a long, hard look at how the truth gets made in society today, and why it’s no longer complex enough to contain all our conversations. But if there’s a silver lining to society’s present-day dysfunctions, it’s that now it’s much easier to see what needs fixing. Deep concerns that were once painfully abstract now reveal painful, concrete consequences.

Is the academy still free?

Take, for instance, society’s core engine of independent truth-making: the academy. Is the academy still free to find its own truths? And if not, what truth has been lost and what real harm has been done?

Classically, the academy has a designated role to play in keeping democratic society from getting too comfortable in its own truths. Just as the ideal role of the justice system is to be blind —to apply the laws that society has set without bias—so the ideal role of the academy is to be naïve , and always ask society “Why?” Even when the answer’s obvious to everyone else.

In this idealized role, the academy performs a public service. By seeking knowledge for its own sake, it adds an independent, evidence-based truth-engine to the fabric of society. It’s free to shake up prevailing wisdom, social taboos and popular groupthink with an aloof curiosity that is faithful to its own logics and principles.

This academy-as-public-good is worthy of public support. In practice, that support level varies. Among the rich democracies, Germany’s academy enjoys one of the highest levels of hands-off public funding. In Germany, university students pay as little as €200 a term in tuition fees. Instead, most of the sector’s core funding is constitutionally guaranteed by the country’s sixteen states, with the federal government allowed to pitch in on a project-by-project basis only. Given Germany’s 20th-century experience with dictatorship, in which the academy—like all truth-engines—was made to serve Nazi ideology, Germans have taken steps to insulate their academy from outside influences.

From public good to private investment

The German model—publicly funded higher education—is rapidly becoming the exception. Most other advanced democracies, including the whole Anglo-American sphere, have reimagined the modern academy to be, not a separate truth-engine free to govern itself by its own logics, but rather an integrated sector of the knowledge economy (governed by the market).

By this (“neoliberal”) thinking, the benefits of higher education flow mainly to those who study and do the research. So, it makes more sense if the users (students), not the general public, pay the larger share of the cost of their education. And for the remaining (public) share, far from being hands-off, it makes more sense for the government to be a hands-on overseer of how public monies are spent by the academy. The public’s return on investment into the higher education sector needs to be made clear and measurable, so that taxpayers can be assured that their money is well-spent—or, if it’s not, so that they can choose to spend it elsewhere.

Exposing the academy to signals like these enables the invisible hand of the competitive marketplace to do its good work: weeding out the poor service providers, driving out waste and inefficiency, and stimulating innovations—all of which will increase the overall value and usefulness of higher education to society.

In a very short time (say, since the days of Reagan and Thatcher), these market logics have come to dominate how the rest of society looks at the academy—and, increasingly, how the academy looks at itself.

The value of a university comes down to its ability to meet workforce needs. The success of an academic comes down to how much grant-money and investment her research attracts. The success of a degree program comes down to the future earnings of its graduates. (Degree programs that don’t produce high-earning graduates are socially impractical and economically wasteful—and, at the student level, irrational, since they burden the student with high levels of debt and limited prospects of ever paying it off.)

There are other judgments we might make of the academy, in service of other values, but it seems quixotic, naïve, even arrogant to defy the way the world obviously works.

Systemic sameness

In the real world we inhabit, it is vital that the modern academy be an engine, not just of truth, but of the economy. This seems obvious.

And yet, if we accept the capture of the academy by market logics, by government oversight, by private investment and philanthropy, then we are also accepting less argument, and more monopoly, over “truth” in our society. We are accepting less critical thinking and more systemic sameness. We are accepting less of the kinds of truth that can’t be measured, and more of the truths that can be measured—and therefore priced, and therefore traded in the marketplace.

So what? Who cares? At least the work of judges, who likewise traditionally enjoy “tenure,” intersects directly with the lives of citizens in ways that makes us appreciate their independence. But the work of academics rarely does. “The academy” has traditionally held itself so aloof from the rest of society that most of us are oblivious to the fact that academic freedom has, over the past few decades, slowly but surely become shackled to market signals. (What do academics actually do, anyway?)

Is this just the tea-time anxiety of political philosophers sitting high in their ivory towers? Or is something real and important being lost here?

Losing trust in the mainstream

For decades now, academics across the democratic world have written and spoken out about how market logics and managerialism are polluting the capacity of the academy to serve its public function as an independent truth-seeker. But it’s always been hard to communicate this loss to the rest of society, if indeed there is something being lost.

Now, however, in a moment when “mainstream media” is widely panned as biased and demagogues shrug off as “fake news” any truths they find inconvenient, we can more easily see the consequences. An academy that merely repeats the truths being told by the market and/or by government lends credence to the complaint that the truth has become tyrannical and can no longer be trusted.

Exhibit A: Public debate on immigration.

Ever since the refugee crisis in Europe in 2015, up to the present US debates on border security, immigration has been the site of the sharpest, starkest lies. It’s also the site where truth should be a complex, many-sided and endlessly contested morass of morality, economics, history, culture, reason and psychology.

Given that complexity, and given the academy’s societal role as a complexifier of truth, it’s extraordinary that much of the higher education sector has begun to take a public, unambiguously pro-immigration stance—almost entirely on economic grounds. (See, for example, this recent white paper by Universities UK, which is “the collective voice of 136 UK universities.”)

I happen to agree entirely with the white paper—my own, published stance is radically pro-immigration—but I also recognize that my stance demands serious rebuttal from multiple angles. Instead, what we’re given is a clear example of how society’s diverse truth-engines are failing to generate diverse vehicles for getting at truth.

An undisclosed conflict of interest

Why this failure? The most immediate explanation is that the collective voice of the academy now copies market logics.

Across the Anglophone world, as public support for higher education has fallen, universities have increasingly looked overseas to foreign students (to whom they can charge higher tuition fees) to make up the difference. In the United States, foreign student enrolments have doubled since the mid-2000s . By some reports, the Australian academy now depends on foreign students for one-quarter of its total budget.

A shift in public sentiment toward less immigration-friendly government policies doesn’t just compromise the global circulation of brains and ideas; these days, it threatens the academy’s whole business model.

In the legal system, a judge is expected to recuse herself in the face of such conflicts of interest. Or at least she should reveal the conflict, so that society can view her judgement in the light of that context. The academy, by contrast, in wading into the immigration debate hasn’t been transparent about its own stake in the outcome.

Nor has the academy been frank with the wider public about the mixed results of its efforts to increase the foreign-student intake into the academy. The public story is that everyone wins. Universities become more cosmopolitan places, home to the world’s best minds. Students get to live their best lives, with the opportunity to develop their talents to the full. Society attracts the next Sergey Brin to create wealth and jobs here.

That story may be true—in part. But it’s incomplete. A new three-way market has emerged, with corrupting incentives for each participant.

A critical (cynical?) perspective

The university participates in this market to get money. And this market is highly competitive . There’s a limited pool of foreign students that can afford to pay very high international fees. So admission standards are locked in a race to the bottom. (e.g., All Anglophone universities demand a certain level of English proficiency, but most also relax that requirement if an applicant is willing to pay $X more for a preliminary half-year of overpriced English language training.) And academic rigor takes a backseat to market appeal. Research degrees are self-directed, ambiguous and difficult; taught degrees are step-by-step journeys toward marketable credentials. So more academic resources get shunted into taught degrees with sexy titles and big foreign enrolments.

The student participates in this market to get a visa, to get residency, and to get work. The stereotypical foreign student is on a free ride paid for by wealthy parents or government scholarships. Crazy rich Asians. The typical foreign student took on significant financial risks to buy into a potentially life-changing opportunity for her and her family: spending life savings, borrowing money from relatives and banks, and rarer but, yes, paying bribes or committing visa fraud. Their top priority isn’t a higher education. It’s a credential—followed by a job, followed by permanent residency.

Sham universities have sprung up to serve this market. They do away entirely with the pretense of academic study. They set up however much of a public profile is needed to fool immigration authorities (who, especially in the US, have limited budgets for due diligence) and collect tuition fees from sham foreign students who get absolutely nothing in return—except for a successful visa application. (In January, 2019, the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency revealed that one such sham university was actually their own sting operation—from which I infer that the practice has now become so widespread, it is actually easier to catch would-be “foreign students” than it is to shut down domestic so-called “universities.”)

The local economy participates in this market to get labor—casual, vulnerable labor. First-in-line to exploit this labor is often the university itself (which is not only a place of learning, but also a big local real estate company and employer). In the US, most foreign students arrive on an F-1 class visa, which prohibits them from working off-campus. Plenty of studies have illuminated how universities exploit this ample, trapped labor pool to do a range of part-time jobs around campus at low cost without benefits: admin, cleaning labs and offices, staffing food courts, etc.

This (mostly hidden) migrant labor market regularly puts vulnerable migrants in situations ripe for abuse. It dampens the wage-bargaining power of workers in the local service economy. And it further pollutes the academy’s position as an independent truth-engine when it comes to one of society’s most profound and divisive questions.

The big questions

The larger point here is to illustrate, by way of this concrete case, that the critical thinking capacities of democratic society may be weakening at a systemic level . And while we moan about the flashy phenomenon of “fake news” and urge schools to jam “critical thinking skills” into the curriculum, we may be missing the bigger story: the slow, creeping monopolization of truth.

Here are three questions that I think we should sit with:

• Is society’s capacity for independent critical thought weakening?

Is the logic of the market taking over too many domains, such that it’s almost impossible to argue against “economic truth”? If this is happening in the academy (supposedly, the most independent thought-zone of society), where else might it be happening? (My hypothesis would be: everywhere.)

Or maybe that’s a good thing? Perhaps we should embrace the market as the best neutral “arbiter of social destiny.” (I can’t remember who said that. Probably an economist. Friedrich Hayek ? Personally, I’m in the camp of people who think that the market is not neutral. Most obviously, it weighs in favor of that which is currently being measured, and therefore priced, and therefore traded. It discounts the rest.)

• Is “critical thinking” the answer? Or is it the problem?

Count me among those who think it is the latter.

We call for more “critical thinking skills” to challenge the fake news and false reporting that is being used to mobilize support, action or votes. Meanwhile, insubordinate spaces —spaces where people can challenge the basic, governing logics of the system—are disappearing.

The crux of democracy’s problem right now, I think, is that the range of what people can debate publicly (in society, in the university, in the workplace) is far narrower than the range of what people think privately.

More critical thinking skills would be good. But they won’t do much good unless society can supply more insubordinate spaces.

• How do we tell the truth from the lie?

What’s the difference between the insubordinate truth that deserves a hearing, and the lie that has no place in society?

For me, the telltale sign is complexity . In any healthy democracy, the truth is going to be complex. If it’s simple, I’m suspicious.

So, if the question is: “Within the set of all possible futures, which one do we want to live in?”

Then the demagogue says, “That one!”

And the truth-teller asks, “Are we doing a good enough job of asking this question? Or have some answers become so dominant, that it’s no longer permissible in society to question them?”

Here’s a new phrase that I find more helpful than “lie” in this context: diseased reasoning . I define it as coming to a position by simplifying away relevancies .

What we want instead is to build a “community of dissensus” (not my phrase) that seeks to work through differences by putting more complexity on the table.

Discover What You're Missing

Why do entrepreneurs, scientists, teachers, designers, policy-makers and philosophers around the world all read Brave New Ways ?  Find out here:

Related Articles

How Do Journeys of Transformation Begin?

Explorers' Gym: Dare to Define Diversity

Think more new things. together..

Do original thinking. Guide people to a new world.

Nurturing Students’ Meta-Cognition and Self-Reflection Through Online Journaling

This document is a best practices essay from the international, multidisciplinary collection of teaching and training techniques, “ Critical thinking and Clinical Reasoning in the Health Sciences .” Each essay in this set provides an example of training reasoning skills and thinking mindset described by international experts in training clinical reasoning.

Dean Carol Ann Gittens

Dr Carol Ann Gittens is Professor and Dean of the Kalmonovitz School of Education at Saint Mary’s College of California. She has served as the Director of Assessment and Associate Dean of the School of Education, Counseling Psychology and Pastoral Ministries at Santa Clara University. In addition to her administrative roles, Dr. Gittens teaches critical thinking pedagogy, developmental psychology, foundations of education, curriculum innovation, educational assessment, research methods, and community health education. Her research examines the relationship between critical thinking, motivation, and academic achievement in adolescent and young adult samples. She is author of the EDUCATE INSIGHT series of K-12 critical thinking skills and mindset assessments, and a collaborator on numerous other college and adult level reasoning skills and thinking mindset assessment instruments.

In this chapter, Dr. Gittens describes the use of computer-mediated communication (CMC) to provide students with the opportunity to more deeply interpret, analyze, and draw inferences from classroom content or field experiences. The lesson brings important insights not found elsewhere in this volume on how to focus the training of thinking on specific skills (problem framing, analysis of consequences, and the explanation of evaluation). Dr Gittens presents the Critical Thinking (CT) Reflective Log, an on-line journaling assignment that was first developed to nurture pre-service teachers’ reflective and meta-cognitive skills. It is a wonderfully adaptable lesson for students and clinicians at all levels of practice, well referenced to assist those new to the field of educational research, and it offers a focused effort to build skills in meta- cognitive awareness and critical reflection. Although presented here in a book dedicated to health care educators, Dr. Gittens’ Reflective Log can readily be applied in a very wide variety of professional training and educational contexts — in fact, anyplace where training in reflective problem-solving and thoughtful decision-making is advantageous.

Background and Context

As computer-mediated communication (CMC) becomes more and more common in higher education, learning opportunities expand beyond the physical and temporal boundaries of the university classroom (Frank, 2004; Van Gorp, 1998). Substantial benefits to students result from using CMC to augment face-to-face classroom discussions (Dutt-Doner & Powers, 2000; Frank 2004; Jetton, 2004, MacKnight, 2000; Thomas 2002; Wepner & Mobley, 1998). One of the most noted benefits from using CMC is that it permits students to share and discuss with one another their beliefs and experiences about the content of a course or issues pertaining to field experiences (Andrusyszyn & Davie, 1997; Jetton, 2004; Wepner & Mobley, 1998). A second benefit is that CMC serves as a tool to facilitate collaborations on projects or other shared activities. A third benefit is that CMC provides a virtual learning environment that offers students opportunities to more deeply process information that has been presented in class or is being offered by classmates, and thus to build their critical and reflective thinking skills as they participate in the online discussions (Andrusyszyn & Davie, 1997; Frank, 2004; Harasim, 1990, 2000; Jetton, 2004; Hawkes & Romiszowski, 2001; McComb, 1993, Newman, Johnson, Cochrane & Webb, 1996). The purpose of this paper is to present the Critical Thinking (CT) Reflective Log, an online journaling assignment that was developed with the express purpose of nurturing students’ reflective and meta-cognitive skills.

The conceptualization of critical thinking that serves as the foundation for the CT Reflective Log is derived from the consensus definition articulated by the American Philosophical Association (APA). In 1990, under the sponsorship of the APA, a cross- disciplinary panel completed a two-year Delphi project yielding a robust conceptualization of CT understood as an outcome of college level education (Facione, 1990). Before the Delphi Project, no clear consensus definition of critical thinking existed (see Kurfiss, 1988 for a review). Broadly conceived by the Delphi panelists, CT was characterized as the process of purposeful, self-regulatory judgment. Throughout this cognitive, non-linear, recursive process a person gathers and evaluates evidence in order to form a judgment about what to believe or what to do in a given context. In so doing, a person engaged in CT uses his/her cognitive skills to form a judgment and to monitor and improve the quality of that judgment (Facione, 1990).

Contemporary critical thinking scholars acknowledge that any discussion of critical thinking must include both thinking skills and thinking attitudes, or dispositions (Ennis & Norris, 1990; Halpern, 1996). The term critical thinking disposition refers to a person’s internal motivation to think critically when faced with problems to solve, ideas to evaluate, or decisions to make (Facione, Facione & Giancarlo, 1997; Giancarlo, Blohm & Urdan, 2004). These attitudes, values, and inclinations are dimensions of one’s personality which relate to how likely a person is to approach problem identification and problem solving by using reasoning. Many would agree with the assertion that it is pointless to learn a skill if, when you find yourself in situations that require the skill, you fail to exercise what you have learned. The honing of one’s CT skills, as well as developing the disposition to use one’s skills, is vital for success in school and throughout a person’s life (Halpern, 1998).

Can critical thinking be accomplished in an on-line environment? Astleitner (2002) provides one of the most thorough reviews of educational literature as to whether critical thinking can be nurtured in an online environment. Astleitner considered multiple modes of electronic communication as well as dynamic differences presented by synchronous versus asynchronous environments. A major contribution stemming from this review was Astleitner’s assertion that educators interested in using CMC must craft the online assignment with care, that the assignment be integrated with other course activities, and finally that educators consider the motivational and emotional elements that can impact learning in an online environment (Astleitner, 2002).

Newman and colleagues performed a series of studies to investigate how computer-mediated communication compares to face-to-face interaction in terms of the quality of group learning in college level courses. Newman, Webb and Cochrane (1995), in their examination of students’ asynchronous discussion postings, found that students were more likely to provide thoughtful reflection as opposed to novel, creative ideas. They concluded that the asynchronous nature of on-line discussion activities seems best suited for encouraging students to make contemplative, and more considered contributions. The strengths of this line of inquiry include an emphasis on the need to examine the quality of the content of students’ on-line discussions not just the quantity or frequency of those interactions (Newman, Webb & Cochrane, 1995).

Issues of democracy, community, gendered discourse, and critical thinking within computer-mediated discussions have been investigated. Fauske and Wade (2004) examined whether gendered power differences often seen in face-to-face discussions would also be present in an online discussion assignment in a teacher education course. The authors found that males and females were similar in the tendency to create a supportive, intellectually challenging and inquiry-based discussion forums. Fauske and Wade offered recommendations that educators critically examine how they plan and participate in CMC assignments and that asynchronous environments be used to allow students to reflect on their posts to increase the likelihood of thoughtful responses.

An Overview of the Exercise

This chapter presents a reflective log assignment developed to nurture students’ critical and reflective thinking skills. The CT Reflective Log was first created in collaboration with Dr. Peter Facione as an assignment in a senior Capstone seminar for students majoring in Liberal Studies. With experience I’ve learned that there is more potential benefit to students’ critical thinking if the exercise is introduced early in an educational program. I further revised this lesson in 2001 when I began using it with an on-line asynchronous bulletin-board software program to deliver the assignment as an accompaniment to students’ out of class discussion. Well-designed online discussions have been shown to enhance students’ inquiry and reflection during field experiences (Dutt-Doner & Powers, 2000; Edens, 2000; Frank, 2004; Wepner & Mobley, 1998).

The CT Reflective Log can be viewed as a form of case study analysis where the students create their own authentic critical thinking case studies based on real life experiences rather than contrived cases created by the professor. Students document the cases and then engage in critical evaluation, analysis, and reflection to promote their awareness of strong and weak reasoning as exhibited by others and themselves (Chong, 1998; Jetton, 2004; MacKnight, 2000). The CT Reflective Log is one part of a multifaceted instructional approach that includes a dialogical style of classroom teaching as well as readings that address CT and other topics pertaining to education and the profession of teaching.

The Learning Outcomes

Students who complete this capstone seminar will be able to:

• Demonstrate increased meta-cognitive awareness about the role of critical thinking in teaching and learning
• Infuse one’s teaching practices with a pedagogical eye toward critical thinking.
• Exercise cognitive skills in critical thinking (analysis, inference, interpretation, explanation, evaluation, and meta- cognitive self-regulation).
• Develop a stronger disposition toward critical thinking (truth-seeking, open-mindedness, analyticity, systematicity, confidence in one’s thinking, cognitive maturity).
• Detect, evaluate, and log striking examples of good and bad thinking in daily life.
• Demonstrate one’s ability to critically evaluate information available (from the Internet and other sources) and develop basic information technological skills.
• Estimated one’s own level of fair-mindedness and critical thinking skill.

Implementation of the CT Reflective Log

On the first day of class, students receive the CT Reflective Log assignment as part of their course syllabus. I’ve included the CT Reflective portion here at the end of this chapter so you can refer to it as needed. To complete their assignment, students are asked to integrate a specific new question into their daily conversations each week. The instructor implicitly directs the development of critical thinking through these intentionally crafted weekly questions and the targets of the inquiry specifically identified (King, 1995; MacKnight, 2000). Though students are asked to engage each week with a unique critical thinking reflection prompt, these prompts can be clustered into three major categories: 1) evaluation of evidence, 2) analysis of alternatives or consequences, and 3) problem identification and problem framing . Of these, the majority of weekly prompts pertain to the evaluation of evidence. For this first category, prompts from weeks 2, 3, 7 and 9 are relevant. Weekly prompts 4 and 6 serve the second category. Prompts 5 and 8 address the third category. Finally, the last prompt in the assignment requires each student to reflect meta-cognitively on what she or he has learned about his or her own thinking as a result of the journaling activity.

I teach at a university that is on the quarter system and thus there are only nine or ten weeks to implement this assignment. Instructors who teach on a semester system can include additional self-referent prompts of this second categorical type to provide students with more opportunities to overcome the challenges that are presented by reflecting on the degree to which sufficient attention has been paid on anticipating consequences and evaluating alternatives in regard to personal decisions.

Students are told that each weekly prompt can be modified to reflect their personal style of speech, as long as the main gist of the question remains intact. They are told specifically to whom the question must be addressed. Sometime the questions must be posed to members of a group (e.g., college graduates, or fellow students not enrolled in the present course), and other times the questions are to be posed to a narrower range of acquaintances, such as best friends, or a professor of their choosing. Finally, some of the questions are reserved for personal reflection. Directing the questions to different targets helps students to generalize their growth in meta-cognition to broader contexts.

What is expected from class participants?

Each week students are asked to select a salient interaction and post a discussion of that interaction on the class’s electronic bulletin board. The description, they are told, should protect the anonymity of those involved, but should provide enough contextual information for the reader to be reasonably able to envision the exchange. I ask my students to first convey the interaction and then evaluate the quality of thinking expressed in the interaction. They are to indicate whether the thinking was strong or weak, and to explain why they are making their determination. As an additional layer of complexity to this aspect of the reflective log assignment, out of the nine total posts students will be making throughout the term, only three can be posts recounting encounters deemed to be examples of strong thinking. The requirement that students must write about examples of weak thinking is based on the idea that, regrettable as it may seem, the most fruitful learning experiences are often negative ones. Consequently, students are encouraged to strive to find experiences of weak, poor, flawed, fallacious, uncritical, or erroneous thinking. However, since it takes some familiarity with quality to appreciate and to seek excellence in one’s own thinking, some of the entries in the log were to be about strong, correct, high quality experiences.

In addition to their original weekly postings, students are obligated to “reply” to at least two other students’ posts each week. Early iterations of this assignment asked students to submit their reflections in a handwritten “lab book”. As educational technology became more commonplace, the written journals were transitioned to responses emailed to the instructor, and then finally to online bulletin board posts to all in the course. Along with the transition to a more public submission of the reflections was the addition of online peer replies. This aspect of the assignment was added as a means for training students’ skills in providing professional peer feedback and to lessen the burden on the professor as the sole source of feedback.

An Analysis of the Design of the Reflective Log Assignment

Recall that three category areas are covered in the CT Reflective Log: evaluation of evidence (EE), consideration of alternatives and / or consequences (AC) and problem framing (PF). The first question that was considered addressed whether there were any prominent themes stemming from the three categorical prompt types.

EE: The Evaluation of Evidence. Four of the nine prompts ask students to evaluate the extent to which sufficient evidence was being provided to support an asserted claim or point of view. In three of the Evaluation of Evidence prompts the students are asked to solicit and evaluate supporting evidence from another person, and the fourth EE prompt was to evaluate the evidence provided in a television commercial. The goal of the first prompt (“Why do you think that?”) is to engage the students in the activity of analyzing the quality of explanation. This explanation provides both a snapshot of the critical thinking skills of the targeted respondent, as well as the skills of the student who must then evaluate the ability to distinguish between evidence and opinion . The subsequent posts relating to the evaluation of evidence, in weeks 3, 7 and 9 provide students with additional practice in this valuable critical thinking skill, namely the ability to judge the soundness of an argument based on the evaluation of evidentiary support.

AC: Analysis of Alternatives / Consequences : Weekly prompts 4 and 6 focus students’ attention on the consideration and analysis of alternatives or consequences in a decision-making situation. In the Week 4 prompt, the students are to ask someone who has attained a higher level of education than themselves (in this case a college graduate) ‘what else they had considered.’ Week 6 asks students to consider the implications of a personal decision. The cognitive skills and dispositions nurtured by these prompts are multifaceted. They differ from the Evaluation of Evidence prompts. When asking a respondent to reflect upon a prior decision, students are exposed to the extent to which the respondent endeavored to identify her or his options, and the degree to which these options were seriously considered. A reflection upon one’s own process of identifying alternatives and considering consequences is what confronts students in week 6. The act of seeking to identify options and alternatives is evidence of one’s inquisitiveness and open-mindedness. To have consequences to consider, we must first desire to identify our options. Furthermore, beyond the brainstorm activity of listing one’s choices in any given decision-making context, we must exercise skill in analyzing and evaluating the many alternatives in order to identify the best path to take. One’s truth-seeking is displayed in this analysis and evaluation process as well in the extent to which the individual desires the “best” decision rather than the easiest or most expeditious decision or conclusion.

PF: Problem Framing. Weeks 5 and 8 present students with prompts designed to elicit from others the factors that determined how they framed a particular problem they were facing or had faced in the past. Week 5 requires students to evaluate the problem framing skills of their best friend, and Week 8 asks students to evaluate the problem framing skills of one of their professors. Problem framing, or in other words, problem identification, is one cognitive skill that is often underdeveloped. More frequently, instructors present problem-solving situations (essay prompts, lab experiments, out-of-class projects, examinations, etc.) where the parameters of the problem are fairly, if not completely, demarcated in advance. There is a reasonable amount of certainty that comes from this advanced staging, namely increased control of the problem-solving situation and increased certainty that the desired learning outcome will be experienced by the students.

The recent pedagogical trend of utilizing problem-based learning (PBL; Duch, Groh, & Allen, 2001) provides a teaching method that encourages students to direct their own learning process while working in collaborative groups to solve real-world problems. PBL is an effective strategy for developing students’ thinking skills and motivating them to learn across disciplinary boundaries. Through PBL students are practiced in the pre-problem-solving task of determining the nature of the problem, and the parameters of the problem-solving situation in addition to deriving an evidence-based solution. In a similar vein, the Problem Framing prompts of the Reflective Log activity seek to build students’ metacognitive awareness of this critical pre- problem-solving skill.

Role of the Instructor during the CT Reflective Log

It is optimal that the CT Reflective Log be introduced to students at the beginning of a course or program of study. It is particularly important that students are exposed to the online environment, know how to use the web-based bulletin board system being used for the exercise, and are comfortable with the software interface so they will be able to successfully post their reflections and reply to their peers. It is also important that students can ask questions about the CT Reflective Log activity. Depending on cultural background, students sometimes need to hear a clear explanation of the importance of the exercise and the reason why they are being asked to evaluate the thinking represented in their own posts and that of their peers.

I’ve found that students may not immediately feel confident in their ability to ask the weekly questions, especially if the task requires the student to be more intentional in their queries (i.e., the student might perhaps need to seek out interactions to pose the prompt to particular others). This potential was taken into consideration when the CT Reflective Log was developed. The weekly exercise starts with a question that is relatively easy to incorporate into everyday conversations – “Why do you think that?” The first target was similarly identified as a familiar “other” – a fellow student / peer. The weekly prompts gradually increase in challenge over the first few weeks to allow students to acclimate to the process. It has been the experience of this author over the past ten years that by Week 4 students typically become quite engaged and enthusiastic about this exercise. Frequently, students will display an eagerness and intentionality by actively seeking out multiple opportunities to pose the weekly question to see what quality of thinking responses they will receive from different targets and what reactions they receive from their peer group when they make their online posts.

Instructors should thoroughly debrief each week’s experiences, but only after students have had an opportunity to post their reflections and reply to their peers. It will be tempting for the instructor who is monitoring the online bulletin board to want to contribute to the discussion. Frank (2004) however suggests that instructors should resist joining as a regular participant in CMC discussions when student-centered learning is the primary goal. The peer group is intended to serve as the source of corrective feedback when a class member’s post regarding his or her evaluation of the quality of the target’s thinking is inaccurate or insufficiently reflective. When the instructor is an active and regular participant in the online environment the quality and frequency of thoughtful peer feedback is negatively influenced. The presence of the knowledgeable authority figure is, in this context, a detriment to peer-supported, student-centered learning. This is not to say that the instructor must let fallacious thinking and insufficient reflective practice go unnoticed. Instructors may wish to intercede by placing their own post in the bulletin board environment. This should be done sparingly and sporadically so as to avoid the anticipation of on-going instructor participation. To facilitate meta-cognitive reflection and the peer feedback process without interacting in the virtual environment, instructors can create a classroom climate that is welcoming of active discussion where self-reflections and peer reactions are encouraged. When necessary, it is in the context of the in-class discussion that the instructor can pose questions to the group that will encourage students to advance their thinking regarding examples being proffered for a given weekly prompt.

Thus, the primary role of the professor in guiding this activity to nurture critical thinking is to guide the debriefing discussion by asking students to offer a verbal description of her or his weekly post (the scenario and their evaluation of the quality of the target’s reasoning) and to solicit comments from peers in response to the scenario the student is presenting. It has been my consistent experience that students require guidance in the argument analysis and evaluation process. For this assignment to be optimally effective in nurturing critical thinking, the instructor should use these in class debriefing sessions to discuss techniques of argument evaluation that include a consideration of argument form (structure and agreement), content (veracity and reliability of claims or conclusions being posited) and context (validity and appropriateness of the argument to the situation in which it is being offered).

Empirical Evaluation of Reflective Logs: Analysis of the Qualitative Data

Using the CT Reflective Log exercise in my classes for the past ten years has generated numerous examples of reflections and peer responses. I’ve done a qualitative analysis of these reflective examples to observe whether they would reveal a noticeable change in students’ critical thinking and reflective practice over the ten-week academic term. The following two questions guided my evaluation of this assignment as to whether it indeed nurtured students’ critical thinking and reflection: 1) what are the prominent features about the posts from each of the categorical prompt types? And 2) Do students demonstrate reflective practice in their posts or in their approach to this assignment?

As an attempt to answer these questions, I’ve included here an analysis of one group of students’ prompts drawn from students’ posts. There were seventeen students in this group. All seventeen gave posts worthy of quoting; only the most salient of which I’ve included here, along with my interpretation of their progress on the specified learning objectives.

Prominent features about posts from each of the thematic prompt types

EE: The Evaluation of Evidence. As mentioned above, students begin the journaling assignment in Week 2 by posing a question that is often perceived as one that is easy to incorporate into everyday conversation. For example, one student wrote “I really tried hard to incorporate this week’s question into my conversations. It was good we started with an easy one so people wouldn’t be that taken aback.”

For the most part, students seemed to recognize the lack of supportive evidence as indicative of weak thinking. One student in her Week 2 reflection wrote, “This was weak thinking in my opinion because the claim that he made lacked any type of evidence”. Another said, “She made her decision through speculation and didn’t even stop to think about other possibilities. She let her anger and emotions get the best of her.” Correlated to this was the recognition of the need to be open-minded when considering all relevant evidence in a situation. This is reflected in the following student’s response to Week 9 prompt: “I think this is weak thinking. To not take other points of view seriously or to consider all the effects a decision can have is not using critical thinking.”

However, there were a small number of instances where the students seemed to be forgiving of the fact that the speaker failed to support their position with evidence, and thus were less likely to deem the thinking as weak. This was a common occurrence in instances where the student felt that the speaker’s thinking was being “clouded” by emotions. This is evident in the following quote: “with relationships and feelings, I suppose that some things cannot always be explained.” Overall, out of the three categories of question prompts in the CT Reflective Log, the evaluation of evidence seemed to be executed with general ease by most of the students.

AC: Consideration of Alternatives / Consequences. Though not explicitly determined by the language of the prompt, the question for Week 4 was usually posed in relation to another’s career decision making. Interestingly, this question tended to be asked to the student’s parent or older sibling rather than an acquaintance or friend. In most cases the students in this sample reflected upon an impending career decision, namely whether to begin a teaching credential program the following year. In other words, it appears that they focus on the implications of a decision that needs to be made. Notice though that the wording of the prompt is not temporally bound. It is worth mentioning that students who complete this assignment in the spring quarter also focus on a career decision, but by the spring the decision has already been made, so they are reflecting on the implications of an already set decision.

The overwhelming consideration in determining thinking to be strong was whether the student felt they saw evidence of open-mindedness and thorough consideration of all possible alternatives during the decision-making process rather than logical strength. In her response to Week 4, one student wrote, “I think this was good thinking because she did not have her mind set all along but was open to different options until the one that felt right came along.” Another said: “He really considered many options and had ligit [sic] reasons why he narrowed some down and went with others. I would call this strong thinking because he gave thought to what he had considered before he answered my question. He also had reasons why he did what he did.”

Students were more challenged by the task of evaluating their own thinking in terms of their consideration of alternatives and consequences. Responses to Week 6 where students were asked to reflect on the ramifications of a personal decision exhibited some students’ tendency to feel that the process of critical thinking is at times daunting, emotionally charged, and even overwhelming when the decision is deemed to be “high stakes” such as a career decision or relationship decision.

PF: Problem Framing. The discussion will be limited here to Week 8 as this was clearly the one prompt of the full set of nine that gave students the most challenge. In some cases, the students were unable to perform this action. Other students took advantage of situations where the question was posed to a professor by another individual. Still another student encountered a situation where it was the professor asking the question rhetorically to his class after the group had performed poorly on a quiz. When debriefing in class about students’ difficulty with this week’s prompts, students reported discomfort in what they felt was their implicit questioning of their instructor’s authority and expertise. This enabled the author to have a wonderful discussion of the role of authority and power in influencing human behavior and impacting the decision-making process. We discussed the forceful cognitive heuristic, the human tendency of deferring to or following perceived authoritative others when determining how to feel or how to act in a given situation.

An overall impression that comes from reading students’ posts for Week 8 is that they were surprised by the effect their questioning had on the professor’s behavior. One student wrote:

“I thought [my professor’s thinking] was strong because my professor gave me numerous reasons. I also believe this to be strong because she sifted through her notes in order to best answer my question and then she also told me her own personal feelings on it. She was also then able to base what she said upon factual information and gave out specific statistics.”

Probably the most moving post for Week 8 came from a student who reflected that she was unable to complete the assignment as planned, but nonetheless still recognized the influence she had on her professor. She wrote:

“For this week’s question I chickened out and asked one of my professors the question via e-mail and not in person; but at least it was asked. I e-mailed my political science teacher and asked her what exactly the problem was with giving women paid or longer maternity leave? After a day or so she e-mailed me back … she said that she sees a “correlation between who makes the policies (heads of business and government tend to be men) and what they prioritize in business decisions.” Then, she sent out an e-mail to the class forwarding an article that she found in the paper that day regarding this issue of women’s pay in which it said women just don’t negotiate for better pay. So, I would like to think my question sparked her to look for more information on this topic and then find the news article. The fact that she looked for more information on the topic makes me think she really thought about my question. Therefore, I would classify her thinking as strong because she gave me valid reasons and she did further investigating into the topic to back up her opinions.”

Many students conveyed observations in their posts for Week 8 that the question caused their professor to deviate from the preplanned lecture or discussion topic. In most cases, students were impressed by their professor’s level of enthusiasm and knowledge about their discipline. Finally, students reported that the conversation in the classroom became considerably more “interesting” after they posed their question and launched the new class discussion focus. Perhaps one explanation for this experience is the fact that professors often omit the process and problem framing that went into something as grand as a disciplinary theorem or as seemingly mundane as the selection of lecture topics for any given class session. Professors rarely expose students to the thinking process that went into class session planning, but rather restrict presentation to the product of that thinking. Though not a direct goal in this assignment, it is evident from at least some of the prompts that students gained a sense of empowerment from the practice of asking thought provoking questions of their professors.

Do students demonstrate reflective practice in this assignment?

The other question guiding this effectiveness investigation focused directly on the issue of validity. The students’ prompts were read with an eye for statements that were indicative of students’ reflection. Two modes of reflection were identified. First, students gave examples of reflection during or after the posing of the weekly prompt. Sometimes the examples were of active reflection. One student wrote: “I wasn’t even thinking about this class when this conversation happened, but as I reflected upon it after, I realized that it was a perfect example of weak thinking”. Other times the students supported their decision to label another’s thinking as weak by stating that there was a lack of reflection. Consider the following quotes: “I think her thinking was weak because she did not take even a second to think about what I had said.” Or “I think that it displayed very weak thinking as he said only the most obvious thing and did not really consider it very much.”

The other mode of reflection came in the form of statements students gave to indicate that they were engaging in meta- cognitive reflection on the assignment. One student stated: “I didn’t really ask her the question at the right time in the conversation, but I think it fit. Next time I will insert the question better.” Another, in response to a television commercial said:

“I think their reasoning is non-existent. I think my refusal to see the commercial as good advertising for their product is good thinking. It would be dumb of me to see [Brand] as a good choice in response to this commercial since they give no reasoning at all.”

A final way to evaluate whether the Reflective Log worked to increase students’ meta-cognition and reflection was to examine the students’ statements on what they learned about their thinking. Insights about the nature of critical thinking and one’s personal skills and dispositions were evident in other students’ Week 10 posts. Some of the insights on the nature of CT are reflected in the following quotes:

• I think being a good critical thinker is looking at all sides of the story and figuring out what would be the best solution from that point on.
• I’ve learned that being a good critical thinker does not always mean that I will find the right or wrong answer, but I know it will help me find the best solution. I’m sure there is more room for me to improve on becoming a better critical thinker, but this class has definitely provided a strong foundation for me.

Many students provided an assessment of their own thinking skills. Some students reflected that they did not consider themselves ones who thought well or often, whereas others recognized that they were strong thinkers, and that the assignment enabled them to be more assured in this self-assessment. This is evident in statements such as the following:

• I’ve come to the conclusion that I need to practice my critical thinking skills more often.
• I feel questioning other peoples [sic] thinking has really made me understand how little thought most people put into what they have to say, and this has in turn made me more aware of, not only what I choose to agree with, but also how thought out my own statements are.
• There have been times I’ve been trying to stretch my mind to explain certain things or evaluate thinking in this log and felt like my own thinking wasn’t strong enough. However, on the flip side, I also noticed myself becoming more reflective. At my placement I was evaluating and judging every action to ensure that it was beneficial to the students. I was surprised to realize that I was constantly in a state of reflection in this case.
• I have realized the importance of critical thinking in the teaching profession. Reflecting is important to understand what went well or what didn’t and why this is so.

Summary Comments to Guide our Future Research on Meta-Cognition

What are the reasons for the effectiveness of this CT Reflective Log assignment? I believe that a key element of this assignment that positively stimulates students’ reflective practice is the asynchronous nature of the online environment. There is ample evidence that asynchronous CMC allows students to consider without constraint not only the discussion posted by their peers but their thoughts, feelings and reactions to the discussion before posting a reply (Andrusyszyn & Davie, 1997). Furthermore, the professor is able to interject into the asynchronous discussion in order to provide feedback and scaffolding (Angeli, Valanides & Bonk, 2003, Bullen, 1998; McLoughlin & Luca, 2000). Feedback in this assignment comes in the form of the occasional online corrective comment when a student was applying weak thinking or if thinking was absent, as well in class discussion that focus on improving students’ thinking as well as praising examples of strong thinking skills or dispositions.

A unique feature of this assignment as a vehicle for nurturing reflective practice is that the content of the prompts is not based on a specific disciplinary subject matter or context, but rather focus on generalizable CT skills and dispositions. While the CT Reflective Log has been used exclusively in the context of the author’s pre-service education courses, it is conceivable that this assignment could be modified to be used in other disciplines. Minnich (2003) argues that social communication is central to the development and active participating in critical thought. The CT Reflective Log serves this social communication purpose, particularly because the vast majority of the weekly prompts are directed at others rather than self-reflection. It is also this idea of social communication that is given opportunity in the online CMC environment. While the examples in this chapter have focused thus far exclusively on the content of the original weekly posts of students, the replies to those posts can provide valuable information about the nature and degree of students’ reflection and critical thinking that is possible through CMC.

More can be learned by examining the on-going communication that occurs as a result of this type of exercise. What follows is an example of a string of replies to an original post. This is typical of posts and replies throughout the nine-week assignment in the author’s undergraduate courses.

Original Post for Week 10: I feel that this class has made me think critically about critical thinking; that is I learned to better evaluate my own thinking and others. In general, many of us are capable of critical thinking, but often times choose not to use these skills. I wonder why that is. Perhaps it’s because it’s tiring, or we don’t really want to because we’re scared of the conclusion or answer we may come to. I think that this is one of the most interesting aspects of critical thinking, simply when we choose to use it.

• REPLY #1: I totally agree. I think it will be interesting now that we are more aware of our own critical thinking to be able to see when we use it and when we don’t!
• REPLY #2: Sometimes I think that’s the hardest part of critical thinking. It’s like when you know what’s right for you, but you don’t do it anyway because you’re scared of the effect. REPLY #3: I see what you mean about people not using their critical thinking skills, even though they are capable of it. I actually see myself doing that a lot, but I think it’s more because I like to keep things as simple as possible, even though that’s not the way things usually end up. But imagine how life would be if we always thought critically about everything…
• REPLY #4: I am also really drawn to when people choose to use critical thinking. Can we stimulate this? Can we motivate this in others?

These exchanges give one a sense of the tone that is created, the habits that are nurtured, and the valuing of the assignment at the end of the ten-week term. What is most encouraging is that the replies to this assignment tended not to be based solely on the content of the original post. Instead, as can be seen above, the replies often times go on to give independent evaluations of the critical thinking evidence, suggest reflective and meta-cognitive activity, and as is the case in Reply #4, go on to pose new questions about pedagogy to enhance critical thinking. These dialogues clearly cannot be achieved through a hard copy journal or email journal that is submitted periodically to the instructor. In summary, this assignment works because it supports the students as they create a mutually supportive community of thinkers.

THE CRITICAL THINKING REFLECTIVE LOG

WHY: This exercise calls for you to write brief descriptions of interesting experiences with regard to thinking critically or scientifically. Meta-cognitive self-correction is the key to becoming a better thinker, and it is the reasoning behind this assignment. Rather than mindlessly repeating one’s own errors of reasoning, or being misled by the errors of others, one is able, through meta-cognition, to reflect on one’s own thinking. By applying critical thinking skills to the products of one’s own critical thinking, one is able to analyze, interpret, explain, and evaluate one’s thinking by the standards of good reasoning. One can, in fact, use one’s own thinking to correct and to improve one’s own thinking. This remarkable human mental ability, known as “meta-cognitive self-correction” is the real engine which drives an individual’s and a collaborative team’s growth in thinking. It is why good thinking can be found in many people, even those who have not had the benefit of formal education. In some cases, its absence, even in those who have received many years of schooling or “scripted training,” is why persons fail to grow and mature as thinkers, and why their reasoning, regardless of their status or power, leaves so much to be desired.

HOW: The reflective log activity will begin in WEEK 2 and will continue through WEEK 10 . Each week, students will post their weekly reflection response as a news item on our class electronic Bulletin Board. In preparation for your weekly post, take notice of the thinking demonstrated around you in relation to the weekly “reflection question”. You may find it useful to keep a written record in a notebook to facilitate your recollection. The process and progress of your interpretations, analyses, inferences, evaluations, and explanations will be manifest, albeit probably only in sketchy ways, in these preliminary notes. Since this log is about reflecting on thinking, those preliminary notes are valuable markers to you of the progress and development of your ideas. Each week, when your thinking becomes more developed, compose a final paragraph for that week. The week’s final paragraph must include your reflection and evaluation (strong or weak & why?) of the thinking involved in addition to the date and description of event or circumstance. This final paragraph should be added as a post to the Bulletin Board. In addition , each student should COMMENT (reply) on at least two (2) classmates’ posts each week. We will discuss these “reflection questions of the week,” so come prepared!

WHAT: Each week’s post must relate a striking experience regarding thinking critically or scientifically. What is striking for you might not be striking for someone else. It is YOUR experience and your reflection on it that this log is intended to record. Regrettably, the most fruitful learning experiences are often negative ones. In responding to the question for each week, you should strive to find experiences of weak, poor, flawed, fallacious, uncritical, or erroneous thinking. On the other hand, since it takes some familiarity with quality to appreciate and to seek excellence, some of the entries in the log must also be about strong, correct, high quality experiences that are striking to you because of how good the scientific or critical thinking was. Of the nine weekly entries, no more than three may be about good thinking. The post for each week should evaluate (with supporting reasoning) the quality of thinking being discussed.

Weekly Prompts for the Critical Thinking Reflective Log

Week 2: Why do you think that? (EE) ASK: A student (or co-worker) not in this course

Week 3: How good is the evidence for that? (EE) ASK: Anyone who is stating an opinion, not yourself

Week 4: What else did you consider? (AC) ASK: Someone who has completed college

Week 5: Exactly why do you say that’s the problem? (PF) ASK: Your best friend

Week 6: What does this decision imply? (AC) ASK: Yourself

Week 7: How sound is the reason they’re giving? (EE) ASK: Yourself, relative to TV commercial

Week 8: What’s really the problem here? (PF) ASK: A professor

Week 9: What evidence would disconfirm our view? (EE) ASK: Someone who agrees with you

Week 10: What did I learn about my own thinking? ASK: Yourself

Weel 11: What are the consequences of making this decision? (AC) ASK: Yourself, at least once a day

Week12: What’s really the problem here? (PF) ASK: Your field / practicum supervisor

Week 13: Are we correct in making this decision /policy? (AC) ASK: Someone who shares with you the responsibility for making the decision

Week 14: What are the options / alternatives? (AC) ASK: Yourself in relation to an important decision

Week 15: How strong is our thinking up to this point? (EE) ASK: Others in a group decision-making moment

Note . The thematic type of each weekly prompt is indicated in parentheses. EE refers to Evaluating Evidence, AC refers to Alternatives / Consequences and PF refers to Problem Framing.

* * * * * *

Although the anthology from which this chapter is excerpted focuses on health science content, the techniques are highly transferrable to all types of training programs and educational projects.

Download other essays in this anthology by visiting Dr. Peter Facione’s page at ResearchGate.com or Acdemia.com. For online professional development tools to build your reasoning skills and to boost thinking mindset, visit www.insightbasecamp.com For other valuable training techniques that focus student learning of reasoning skills and thinking mindset, see the other Resources on our Insight Assessment website.

Andrusyszyn, M. & Davie, L. (1997). Facilitating reflection through interactive journal writing in an online graduate course: A qualitative study. Journal of Distance Education , 12 (1/2), 103-126.

Angeli, C., Valanides, N. & Bonk, C. J. (2003). Communication in a web-based conferencing system: The quality of computer-mediated interactions. British Journal of Educational Technology, 34 (1) , 31-43.

Astleitner, H. (2002). Teaching critical thinking online. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 29 (2), 53-76.

Bullen, M. (1998). Participation and critical thinking in online university distance education. Journal of Distance Education [WWW document].

URL: http://cade.athabascau.ca/vol3.2/bullen.html.

Chong, S. M. Models of asynchronous computer conferencing for collaborative learning in large college classes. In C. J. Bonk & K. S. King (Eds.), Electronic collaborators: Learner-centered technologies for literacy, apprenticeship, and discourse (pp. 157-182). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum., 1998.

Duch, B. J., Groh, S. E. & Allen, D. E. The problem of problem based learning: A practical “How To” for teaching undergraduate courses in any discipline.

Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing, 2001.

Dutt-Doner, K. M. & Powers, S. M. (2000). The use of electronic communication to develop alternative avenues for classroom discussion . Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 8 (2), 153-172.

Edens, K. M. (2000). Promoting communication, inquiry, and reflection in an early practicum experience via an on-line discussion group. Action in Teacher Education, 22 (2), 14-23.

Ennis, R. H. & Norris, S. P. Critical thinking assessment: Status, issues, needs. In S. Legg & J. Algina (Eds.), Cognitive assessment of language and math outcomes: Advances in discourse processes (Vol. 46, pp. 1-42). Stamford, CT: Abblex. 1990.

Facione (1990). Critical thinking: A statement of expert consensus for purposes of educational assessment and instruction. The Delphi Report Executive Summary: Research findings and recommendations prepared for the committee on pre-college philosophy . ERIC Document No. ED 315-423.

Facione, P. A., Facione, N. C. & Giancarlo, C. A. The motivation to think in working and learning. In E. A. Jones (Ed.) Preparing competent college graduates: Setting new and higher expectations for student learning, New Directions for Higher Education , Vol. 96 (pp. 67-79). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1997.

Fauske, J. & Wade, S. E. (2004). Research to practice online: Conditions that foster democracy, community and critical thinking in computer-mediated discussions . Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36 (2), 137-153.

Frank, A. M. (2004). Integrating computer mediated communication into a pedagogical education course: Increasing opportunity for reflection. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 20 (2), 81-89.

Giancarlo, C. A., Blohm, S. W., & Urdan, T. (2004). Assessing Secondary Students’ Disposition toward Critical Thinking: Development of the California Measure of Mental Motivation. Educational and Psychological Measurement , 64(2), 347-364.

Giancarlo-Gittens, C. A. Assessing critical thinking dispositions in an era of high-stakes standardized testing. In J. Sobocan & L. Groake (Eds.), Critical Thinking, Education and Assessment , London, Ontario, Canada: The University of Western Ontario through the Althouse Press (In Press).

Halpern, D. F. Thought and knowledge: An introduction to critical thinking (3rd. Ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1996.

Halpern, D. F. (1998). Teaching critical thinking for transfer across domains: Dispositions, skills, structure training, and metacognitive monitoring. American Psychologist, 53 (4), 449-455.

Harasim, L. Online education: An environment for collaboration and intellectual amplification. In L. Harasim (Ed.), Online education: Perspectives on a new environment (pp. 39-64). New York: Praeger, 1990.

Harasim, L. (2000). Shift happens: Online education as a new paradigm in learning. Internet and Higher Education, 3 (1-2), 41-61.

Hawkes, M. & Romiszowski, A. (2001). Examining the reflective outcomes of asynchronous computer-mediated communication on in-service teacher development. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 9 (2), 285-308.

Jetton, T. L. (2004). Using computer-mediated discussion to facilitate pre-service teachers’ understanding of literacy assessment and instruction. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36 (2), 171-191.

Kurfiss, J. (1998). Critical thinking: Theory, research, practice and possibilities . ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 2. Washington, DC: Association for the Study of Higher Education.

King, A. (1995). Designing the instructional process to enhance critical thinking across the curriculum: Inquiring minds really do want to know: Using questioning to teach critical thinking. Teaching of Psychology, 22 (1), 13-18.

MacKnight, C. (2000). Teaching critical thinking through online discussions. Educause Quarterly, 23 (4), 38-41.

McComb, M. (1993). Augmenting a group discussion course with computer-mediated communication in a small college setting. Interpersonal Computing and Technology: An Electronic Journal for the 21st Century, 1 (3), Retrieved May 20, 2004, from: http://www.helsinki.fi/science/optek/1993/n3/mccomb.txt

McLoughlin, C. & Luca, J. (2000). Cognitive engagement and higher order thinking through computer conferencing: We know why but do we know how?

Teaching and Learning Forum [WWW Document].

URL: http://cleo.murdoch.edu.au/confs/tlf/tlf2000/mcloughlin.html

Minnich, E. K. (2003). Teaching thinking: Moral and political considerations. Change , Sept. / Oct., 19-24.

Newman, D. R., Johnson, C., Cochrane, C., & Webb, B. (1996). An experiment in group learning technology: Evaluating critical thinking in face-to-face and computer-supported seminars. Interpersonal Computing and Technology, 4 , 57-74.

Newman, D. R., Webb, B., & Cochrane, C. (1995). A content analysis method to measure critical thinking in face-to-face and computer supported group learning. Interpersonal Computing and Technology, 3 (2), 56-77.

Thomas, M. (2002). Learning within incoherent structures: The space of online discussion forums. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18 (3), 351-66.

Van Gorp, M. J. (1998). Computer-mediated communication in pre-service teacher education: Surveying research, identifying problems, and considering needs. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 14 (2), 8-14.

Wepner, S. B. & Mobley, M. M. (1998). Reaping new harvests: Collaboration and communication through field experiences. Action in Teacher Education, 20 (3), 50-61.

Culver City

(310) 215 -3388

(323) 795-0200

(562) 291-2324

Nurturing Critical Thinking Skills in Preschoolers: Engaging Activities and Games

• By MontsAdm
• August 20, 2021
• No Comments

6.  Improve Memory and Observation Skills

Having good memory and observation skills is essential for all kids, but these skills are effective tools for developing critical thinking skills. For example, if you give your child a list of different items, ask them to find the item you’re looking for. It will help your kid improve their memory. Or, if you want them to develop their observation skills, tell them about the things around your house and ask them what color they are and how they are different from each other. They should be able to use their observed skills on various objects like toys, and it will also help them determine what colors match best with each other.

7.  Let them Play Games

Boredom leads kids to lose interest, but fun can help them cultivate critical thinking skills.  Keep your child entertained  with various games and activities that stimulate their mind and help them develop good motor skills and problem-solving abilities. For example, your kids can play brain teasers, a logic game called connect four, or a word search and  imagination gameplay  like Hide and Seek. These games help children increase their concentration span and focus. Thus, improve their thinking abilities.

8.  Board Games

Board games are excellent ways to help kids develop critical thinking skills because they make decisions based on different factors. For example, they will have to use their analytical skills to determine where they will move next and the probability of winning the game. Then, they have to reach their final destination by rolling the dice and making decisions based on different factors like the number on the dice and its relation to their surroundings.

9.  Read

Reading is an excellent way of improving critical thinking skills in kids, especially if they want to become writers one day or become good at writing essays.  Reading different kinds of books  will help them with their reading and writing skills and improve their critical thinking abilities and logical thinking.

10.  Use Question and Answer

Different kinds of questions can help kids develop their critical thinking skills. For example, ask them questions like “Why is it so?” or “What do you think will happen if…?” to get them to think about the situation. Then, when they answer, ask them to explain how they got to that point and see if they understand the situation. If not, ask them why they do not understand a particular situation.

Critical thinking skills improve when children are taught to see the world around them with different perspectives and make better decisions by considering the various possibilities.

• Critical Thinking , Critical Thinking Skills , parenting , Toddler

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Copyright © 2024— All rights Reserved. Website Design by SpringHive

AHA Center for Education

How to Nurture Curiosity & Critical Thinking Skills in Kids

J.R. Becker will discuss how to cultivate curiosity and healthy skepticism in children, why it is important, and how he implements these tactics in his children’s books on “big questions for little thinkers” in science and philosophy. 

After becoming a father, J.R. Becker was inspired to found the Annabelle & Aiden children’s book series, dedicated to inspiring a new generation of scientists, thinkers, and all-around adventurers. The first book, on evolution, was banned by Christian World News, and went on to become a #1 Bestseller on Amazon. Since it launched in late-2016, the 7-book series has won various awards, raised over $100,000 on Kickstarter, and has sold over 30,000 copies. J.R. Holds a BA in Philosophy, and a Juris Doctorate from Emory University’s School of Law. When he is not wearing his lawyer hat or playing drums, J.R. is taking in all the science & philosophy podcasts and books he can, and dreaming up whimsical ideas for future children’s stories that will both entertain and inform. Joseph lives in New Jersey with his wife Leah, and three children, Annabelle, Aiden, & Liam. Learn more:  www.AnnabelleAndAiden.com

What is Critical Thinking in Nursing? (With Examples, Importance, & How to Improve)

Successful nursing requires learning several skills used to communicate with patients, families, and healthcare teams. One of the most essential skills nurses must develop is the ability to demonstrate critical thinking. If you are a nurse, perhaps you have asked if there is a way to know how to improve critical thinking in nursing? As you read this article, you will learn what critical thinking in nursing is and why it is important. You will also find 18 simple tips to improve critical thinking in nursing and sample scenarios about how to apply critical thinking in your nursing career.

What Is Critical Thinking In Nursing?

4 reasons why critical thinking is so important in nursing, 1. critical thinking skills will help you anticipate and understand changes in your patient’s condition., 2. with strong critical thinking skills, you can make decisions about patient care that is most favorable for the patient and intended outcomes., 3. strong critical thinking skills in nursing can contribute to innovative improvements and professional development., 4. critical thinking skills in nursing contribute to rational decision-making, which improves patient outcomes., what are the 8 important attributes of excellent critical thinking in nursing, 1. the ability to interpret information:, 2. independent thought:, 3. impartiality:, 4. intuition:, 5. problem solving:, 6. flexibility:, 7. perseverance:, 8. integrity:, examples of poor critical thinking vs excellent critical thinking in nursing, 1. scenario: patient/caregiver interactions, poor critical thinking:, excellent critical thinking:, 2. scenario: improving patient care quality, 3. scenario: interdisciplinary collaboration, 4. scenario: precepting nursing students and other nurses, how to improve critical thinking in nursing, 1. demonstrate open-mindedness., 2. practice self-awareness., 3. avoid judgment., 4. eliminate personal biases., 5. do not be afraid to ask questions., 6. find an experienced mentor., 7. join professional nursing organizations., 8. establish a routine of self-reflection., 9. utilize the chain of command., 10. determine the significance of data and decide if it is sufficient for decision-making., 11. volunteer for leadership positions or opportunities., 12. use previous facts and experiences to help develop stronger critical thinking skills in nursing., 13. establish priorities., 14. trust your knowledge and be confident in your abilities., 15. be curious about everything., 16. practice fair-mindedness., 17. learn the value of intellectual humility., 18. never stop learning., 4 consequences of poor critical thinking in nursing, 1. the most significant risk associated with poor critical thinking in nursing is inadequate patient care., 2. failure to recognize changes in patient status:, 3. lack of effective critical thinking in nursing can impact the cost of healthcare., 4. lack of critical thinking skills in nursing can cause a breakdown in communication within the interdisciplinary team., useful resources to improve critical thinking in nursing, youtube videos, my final thoughts, frequently asked questions answered by our expert, 1. will lack of critical thinking impact my nursing career, 2. usually, how long does it take for a nurse to improve their critical thinking skills, 3. do all types of nurses require excellent critical thinking skills, 4. how can i assess my critical thinking skills in nursing.

• Ask relevant questions • Justify opinions • Address and evaluate multiple points of view • Explain assumptions and reasons related to your choice of patient care options

5. Can I Be a Nurse If I Cannot Think Critically?

• Military & Veterans
• Transfer Students
• Education Partnerships
• COVID-19 Info
• 844-PURDUE-G
• Student Login
• Request Info
• Bachelor of Science
• Master of Science
• Associate of Applied Science
• Graduate Certificate
• Master of Business Administration
• ExcelTrack Master of Business Administration
• ExcelTrack Bachelor of Science
• Postbaccalaureate Certificate
• Certificate
• Associate of Applied Science (For Military Students)
• Programs and Courses
• Master of Public Administration
• Doctor of Education
• Postgraduate Certificate
• Bachelor of Science in Psychology
• Master of Health Care Administration
• Master of Health Informatics
• Doctor of Health Science
• Associate of Applied of Science (For Military Students)
• Associate of Science (For Military Students)
• Master of Public Health
• Executive Juris Doctor
• Juris Doctor
• Dual Master's Degrees
• ExcelTrack Master of Science
• Master of Science (DNP Path)
• Bachelor of Science (RN-to-BSN)
• ExcelTrack Bachelor of Science (RN-to-BSN)
• Associate of Science
• Doctor of Nursing Practice
• Master of Professional Studies

The average Purdue Global military student is awarded 54% of the credits needed for an associate's and 45% of the credits needed for a bachelor's.

• General Education Mobile (GEM) Program
• AAS in Health Science
• AS in Health Science
• BS in Organizational Management
• BS in Professional Studies
• AAS in Criminal Justice
• AAS in Small Group Management
• AAS Small Group Management
• Master's Degrees
• Bachelor's Degrees
• Associate's Degrees
• Certificate Programs
• Noncredit Courses
• Tuition and Financial Aid Overview
• Financial Aid Process
• Financial Aid Awards
• Financial Aid Resources
• Financial Aid Frequently Asked Questions
• Financial Aid Information Guide
• Tuition and Savings
• Aviation Degree Tuition and Fees
• Professional Studies Tuition and Fees
• Single Courses and Micro-Credentials
• Time and Tuition Calculator
• Net Price Calculator
• Military Benefits and Tuition Assistance
• Military Educational Resources
• Military Tuition Reductions
• Military Spouses
• Student Loans
• Student Grants
• Outside Scholarships
• Loan Management
• Financial Literacy Tools
• Academic Calendar
• General Requirements
• Technology Requirements
• Work and Life Experience Credit
• DREAMers Education Initiative
• Student Identity
• Student Experience
• Online Experience
• Student Life
• Alumni Engagement
• International Students
• Academic Support
• All Purdue Online Degrees
• Career Services
• COVID-19 FAQs
• Student Accessibility Services
• Student Resources
• Transcript Request
• About Purdue Global
• Accreditation
• Approach to Learning
• Career Opportunities
• Diversity Initiatives
• Purdue Global Commitment
• Cybersecurity Center
• Chancellor's Corner
• Purdue Global Moves
• Leadership and Board
• Facts and Statistics
• Researcher Request Intake Form

Most Commonly Searched:

• All Degree Programs
• Communication
• Criminal Justice
• Fire Science
• Health Sciences
• Human Services
• Information Technology
• Legal Studies
• Professional Studies
• Psychology and ABA
• Public Policy
• Military and Veterans
• Tuition and Fee Finder
• Financial Aid FAQs
• Military Benefits and Aid
• Admissions Overview
• Student Experience Overview
• Academic Support Overview

How to Improve Critical Thinking in the Workplace

Employers want critical thinkers — those with sound judgment who can evaluate and analyze issues, make decisions, and overcome obstacles. Hiring managers are looking for people who can think critically and resolve issues quickly and effectively.

The National Association of Colleges and Employers ( NACE ) lists critical thinking as one of the eight career readiness competencies that demonstrate a recent college graduate has been educated for success in the workplace. Career readiness is “key to ensuring successful entrance into the workforce,” NACE reports.

Employers have not been shy about the lack of critical thinking skills in the workforce.

According to a 2023 ZipRecruiter skills hiring report , for which more than 2,000 U.S. employers were surveyed, the top three skills employers say candidates are “most lacking in” are:

• Time management
• Professionalism
• Critical thinking

In addition, the global management consulting firm McKinsey and Company projects that the demand for skills such as critical thinking and decision-making will grow by 19% in the U.S. and by 14% in Europe through 2030.

Critical thinkers, where are you? Hone your critical thinking skills, and become an indispensable member of your team with these five steps.

1. Formulate Your Questions

First thing to do: Identify the problem and the questions you need to ask. When you ask smart questions from the beginning, you can get a clearer picture of the issues involved. Questions to ask during this stage include:

• What’s happening?
• Why is this happening?
• What is most concerning about X?
• What is holding people back from solving X?
• What is the desired outcome?

2. Gather Information

Now it’s time to perform research. Depending on the nature of your problem, you may need to interview people, gather data and statistics, get historical project information, etc.

Make sure to get diverse input, too. It’s natural to want to talk with like-minded people, but this does nothing to help you get diverse perspectives and potential solutions.

In the research phase, consider asking stakeholders:

• How would you solve the problem?
• What other ways have you tried so far?
• What do you need to happen for this problem to be solved?
• Is there anything we haven’t discussed that you need me to know?

Don’t be afraid to ask for clarity. If someone you’re interviewing says something you’re not familiar with, ask them to tell you more about it. How does it fit into the problem or solution?

Aim to ask open-ended yet short questions. “How can I better understand this issue?” and “What if we tried a new approach?” can help others frame and communicate their own hypotheses.

3. Question Your Assumptions

Critical thinking depends on objectivity. You just collected a slew of facts in step two; now it’s time to vet your information.

If it’s from an online source, make sure the site is reputable and trustworthy. What’s their motive in sharing this information? Is the information complete and current? Are they trying to get you to take action (for example, send money or vote for them)?

Look for evidence that the source itself received diverse input. Ask if someone’s voice is missing in the presentation of the facts.

Finally, as you move to step four to apply the information, keep this question in mind: “Am I making any assumptions about this information?” Decisions need facts, not assumptions, to support them.

4. Apply the Information to Identify the Best Solution

Ask yourself this at the start of this step: “Are there any viewpoints I missed?” If all stakeholders have had an equal voice, you’re good to proceed. At this stage, you will use reason and logic to synthesize your information and arrive at the best solution. Questions to consider include:

• Are there other factors I haven’t considered?
• Have I evaluated the information from every perspective?
• Are my conclusions supported by sufficient evidence?

After completing the due diligence outlined above, you are ready to form your own opinion about the problem and devise a solution — or, solutions. There may be more than one, so plan to present them all.

5. Communicate and Evaluate Your Solution

Now you will share your findings with the stakeholders, such as your manager, executives, coworkers, and anybody else who should be involved.

After you’ve implemented your solution, evaluate whether it was effective. Did it solve the initial problem? What lessons can you take from this experience? How will you improve your critical thinking for next time?

Earn a College Degree Online With Purdue Global

As you navigate the working world, consider Purdue Global if a certificate or college degree could help you achieve your goals. With more than 175 online programs , you can earn a certificate or degree while still working and taking care of your family. Reach out for more information .

See Notes and Conditions below for important information.

About the Author

Purdue Global

Earn a degree you're proud of and employers respect at Purdue Global, Purdue's online university for working adults. Accredited and online, Purdue Global gives you the flexibility and support you need to come back and move your career forward. Choose from 175+ programs, all backed by the power of Purdue.

• General Education
• Legal Studies & Public Policy
• Online Learning

Your Path to Success Begins Here

Learn more about online programs at Purdue Global and download our program guide.

Connect with an Advisor to explore program requirements, curriculum, credit for prior learning process, and financial aid options.

Employment and Career Advancement: Purdue Global does not guarantee employment placement or career advancement. Actual outcomes vary by geographic area, previous work experience and opportunities for employment.

Building better minds: SRM University advances curricula through creativity and critical thinking

T hrough embracing interdisciplinary learning, empowering student agency, fostering a culture of inquiry and innovation, educators can create transformative learning experiences that prepare students for a dynamic world. Indiatoday.in in coversation with Dr. Ravi Pachamuthu, Chairman of SRM University, explores insights on enriching University curricula.

In the dynamic landscape of education, the imperative to nurture creativity and critical thinking has never been more pressing. 

Dr. Ravi Pachamuthu, Chairman of SRM University, advocates for enriching university curricula to nurture creativity and critical thinking, vital skills for success in the 21st century.

Understanding the Importance of Creativity and Critical Thinking:

In an era defined by rapid technological advancement and global connectivity, the ability to think creatively and critically is paramount. "These skills not only facilitate academic achievement but also empower students to navigate complex challenges, innovate solutions, and contribute meaningfully to society," says Dr. Pachamuthu.

Embracing an Interdisciplinary Approach:

One of Dr. Ravi Pachamuthu's core principles in enriching curricula is the embrace of interdisciplinary learning. By breaking down silos between subjects and integrating diverse perspectives, students are encouraged to make connections, think holistically, and approach problems with versatility and creativity.

Empowering Student Agency and Self-Expression:

He emphasises the importance of empowering student agency and self-expression in enriching the curricula. By providing opportunities for student-led enquiry, project-based learning, and creative expression, colleges can foster a sense of ownership over learning, igniting students' passion for exploration and discovery.

Cultivating a Culture of Enquiry and Innovation:

At the heart of Dr. Pachamuthu's approach lies a commitment to cultivating a culture of inquiry and innovation within universities. By nurturing a growth mindset, encouraging risk-taking, and celebrating failure as a stepping stone to success, educators can instil in students the confidence to challenge assumptions, push boundaries, and embrace experimentation.

Harnessing Technology as a Catalyst for Learning:

One should recognise the transformative potential of technology in enriching the curricula. By leveraging digital tools, online resources, and immersive learning experiences, educators can create dynamic and engaging learning environments that spark creativity, foster collaboration, and expand students' horizons beyond the confines of the classroom.

Promoting Equity and Inclusion:

"By addressing systemic barriers, embracing diversity, and honoring students' unique backgrounds and perspectives, educators can create inclusive learning environments where every student feels valued, supported, and empowered to succeed," Dr. Pachamuthu added further.

Charting Future Directions:

Looking ahead, Dr. Ravi Pachamuthu envisions a future where university curricula continue to evolve to meet the changing needs of students and society. By embracing innovation, embracing student-centered approaches, and fostering a culture of lifelong learning, educators can prepare students to thrive in a rapidly changing world and make meaningful contributions to the global community.

In conclusion, Dr. Ravi Pachamuthu's expert insight offers a compelling vision for enriching curricula for universities to foster creativity and critical thinking. By embracing interdisciplinary learning, empowering student agency, cultivating a culture of inquiry and innovation, harnessing technology, promoting equity and inclusion, and charting future directions, educators can create transformative learning experiences that prepare students to thrive in an ever-changing world.

Related Topics

• Manufacturing
• Mechatronics
• Motion Control
• Motors, Actuators, Conveyors
• Virtual & Augmented Reality

Recent in  Automation

• Auto Components
• Auto Design
• Autonomous Vehicles
• Electric Vehicles

Recent in  Automotive

• Artificial Intelligence
• Batteries/Energy Storage
• Components & Subsystems
• Embedded Systems
• Semiconductors & Chips
• Testing & Measurement

Recent in  Electronics

• Cybersecurity
• Design Software
• Gadget Freak
• Prototyping

Recent in  Design

• Biomaterials
• Sustainability

Recent in  Materials

• 3D-Printing Materials
• 3D-Printing Software

Recent in  3DP

• Consumer Electronics
• Government/Defense
• Industrial Machinery
• Power & Energy

Recent in  Industry

• Current/Upcoming Classes
• CEC Archive
• Product Releases
• Design Engineering

The Age of Intelligence: How to Spur & Nurture Innovation Today

Experts examine how the pandemic changed the way in which corporations innovate and how engineers and their colleagues can better collaborate.

May 21, 2024

At a Glance

• Innovation needs to involve everyone––from engineers and designers to marketers and the C-suite.
• There’s been a false separation of design and engineering that needs to end so teams can meet user needs.
• Engineers are needed not only in the lab but in the C-suite.

COVID-19 changed everything –– including how companies innovate and individuals interact. And now, four years later, some are still struggling with the “new normal.” 

The topic of how to stimulate and nurture innovation was the focus of a panel discussion at the recent  Fibertech 2024  conference in Chattanooga, TN. Organized by materials design specialist  Techmer PM LLC , this 25 th  edition of Fibertech used the panel to examine the very nature of creativity and innovation in current times. 

The participants, both during the panel and in post-event interviews, shared their thoughts on how innovation impacts and needs to involve  everyone  –– from engineers and designers to marketers and the C-suite. Or, as panelist Marc Shillum states: “Design and engineering are intrinsically linked, and innovation is one of the major places this is true.”

Titled “Innovation in the Intelligent Age,” the 75-minute session featured three diverse leaders –– Shillum as well as Platt Boyd and Jenny Whitener. [Full disclosure, this journalist moderated the panel.]  

Boyd is an Alabama architect who founded Chattanooga-based 3D printing construction company  Branch Technology  in 2014. Shillum  is a British-born, San Francisco-based designer, entrepreneur, and cross-disciplinary consultant. And Whitener is the former Americas chief learning officer for Cap Gemini/Ernst & Young who in 2002 founded  Bridge Innovate Inc.  in Rossville, GA, and continues to serve as CEO and strategy lead of that leadership consultancy. 

Whitener, who has been advising corporations and senior executives about leadership skills and innovation strategy for more than 25 years, saw COVID-19 as a sort of watershed moment in business. She saw some of her clients, out of necessity, gain the confidence to accelerate innovation.

“It’s the whole concept of crisis is a mother of invention.” Some, she said, “discovered the ability to collaborate across companies, across communities, [and found] the ability to rapidly iterate and test and scale innovation in a matter of days, rather than in a matter of a matter of years.”

Outsourcing Innovation 

Others, however, struggled mightily. “In fact,” Whitener told attendees, “some large corporates have almost eliminated an internal innovation capability and only do innovation through acquisition.” That could involve acquiring an entire company, or specific talent, or intellectual property. But the challenge then becomes how to integrate that new capability into the existing business structure. 

“What we often see is they'll go through all this effort to find a startup, find a new capability to try to bolt it into the new corporate only to have the corporate culture completely kill it.

“Yes, acquisition gives you speed ...,” she said, “but the real challenge then is how to integrate them into the corporation. ... How do you ensure that that investment pays off?”

Headshot by Debbie Wilson Photography, courtesy of Techmer PM; graphic created in Canva

New Challenges, New Competition

Boyd brought his perspective of COVID’s impact on an ultra-conservative industry such as construction. The pandemic forced the hands of many in his sector. Out of necessity, that industry suddenly started adopting new technologies that they had long resisted. That, in a way, he said, was a silver lining of COVID, at least for that industry. 

Shillum, who has worked with the likes of eBay, Nike, Lego, Condé Nast, Disney, and Aston Martin, sees another potential sea-change in the competition landscape. 

COVID caused various long-standing structures to collapse –– logistics, human infrastructure, etc. People began working at home, using tools that can be effective and yet are relatively cheap. “Think about the kind of people you're going to compete against in this new age,” he said. Going forward, Shillum said, tiny companies can take on much larger enterprises. “Think about their nimbleness and their cost of overhead and of doing business.”

The Broader Impact 

These changes are impacting individuals and departments well beyond the C-suite. Engineers, designers, and marketers will all feel the effects. 

Shillum, in a post-panel interview, put it this way: “This folds back into a much larger problem––the false separation of design and engineering. If we go back a century this wasn’t the case. ... We try to build things that are valuable for people, the end experience of the products and services we make are designed, even if a designer wasn’t involved. Over time, we become desensitized to customer needs, and instead fall back on existing processes and iterative evolutions of products that have worked.”

Design and the innovation it spurs, he continued, is obsessed with smashing that mindset and creating products and services that answer new needs, that spur new products and markets. 

“As the tools of production, at scale, are becoming more democratized, and the intelligence needed to find new products becomes more computational, more people have access to the ability to develop what’s next,” he said.

Leveraging AI 

The panel also discussed the real and likely impacts of artificial intelligence (AI) on the innovation process. 

Speaking as an architect, Boyd said he doesn’t see AI replacing creativity, but rather supplementing it and speeding the process. He notes that his innovative ideas come from his personal experience.  “But if you have the entire internet's experience of seeing things ... then [AI] brings that to the table. ... So I'm very bullish on AI and how we might integrate that.”

Whitener agreed. “We see extraordinary potential with it.” AI can greatly accelerate the pace of analyzing incoming customer data, for example. 

Shillum, for his part, says that he has seen machine learning’s ability to help and assist people to be better at their jobs, allowing businesses “to scale much, much faster and without a drop in quality.”

The Benefits of ‘Difficult People’

Then there is the very human aspect of managing businesses and nurturing innovation. 

Shillum says “organizations are like sandpaper, they tend to wear you down pretty quick. I love resilience. An innate characteristic of, shall we say ‘difficult people’ is that they're very hard to wear down. 

“It’s important to bring different kinds of mindsets into the organization. Difficult people need careful handling. It’s important to create safe spaces for them to operate.”

Critical Skills Needed 

From a people standpoint, Whitener cited certain critical skills–– curiosity, critical thinking, and leadership. “If you're not guiding the leadership culture, they’ll kill the curiosity and they’ll kill the creative thinking and the critical thinking.” 

Boyd said: “The best ideas are coming from the people who are encountering the problem. And so it's bottom up.” He recalled how Branch Technology implemented the recommendation of one of his board members who suggested the company launch a “demo day,” once a quarter, at which anybody in the company could pitch anything. They had to do it in five minutes or less and it had to be about whatever they see as a problem for the company.   

So they implemented the concept, with Boyd unsure how it was going to go. “People started coming up with some crazy ideas, but really good ideas and pitched them to the whole company.” He says that Branch ended up implementing about 70 percent of those ideas over time. “People felt empowered to share their ideas,” he said.

Setting Expectations 

Shillum said that expectation-setting with the executive team is vital. Rather than asking how much money a new idea can generate, the better questions to ask, he suggests, are “how does it challenge your logistics and infrastructure? How does it challenge people?” 

Shillum quoted former Apple Design Director Jony Ive as saying how “new ideas are fragile.” The point is that they have to be fragile and one shouldn’t be applying mature criteria to a fragile idea. Rather, “how do we create a finishing school for new ideas? And how do we speed them up, and manage expectations around them?“

Stay Curious 

Whitener stressed the importance of encouraging curiosity within your organization. In staff meetings, ask employees what they are curious about. Stress critical thinking––create failure scenarios and then ask your people to come up with ways to overcome the problem. 

It’s also important, she stressed, to support internal innovation efforts adequately––give people the time, resources, knowledge and skills to succeed. 

The Importance of Beauty

Branch Technology, meanwhile, emphasizes the importance of what Boyd calls “designed beauty” as one of its core values. 

“We celebrate beauty and love when our end product is as beautiful and elegant as it can be. We don’t settle for mediocrity but take the time and effort needed to create integrated solutions, expecting innovation to reveal the best solutions. Complexity is embraced, patterns are observed, principles are derived, and solutions are designed that move from complexity to elegant simplicity,” he said.

Keys to Collaboration Among Engineers and Colleagues

Whitener, also in a post-panel interview, noted that “collaboration for diverse perspective[s] is also a technique many engineers fail to tap as it is human behavior to communicate with those ‘like us.' Many innovators find inspiration in analogous situations or adjacent areas through unlikely collaborations. 

“How might engineers not only be the designers of great solutions but be the champions for business cultures that embrace the skills and abilities for broad-based innovation capacity? Their vison, problem-solving abilities, and test/learn acumen are key skills for agile business,” she said. “We need engineers not only in the lab but in the C-suite!”

About the Author(s)

Robert Grace

Robert Grace is a writer, editor, and marketing communications professional who has been active in B2B journalism since 1980. After editing trade publications in London for seven years, he returned to the US in 1989 to help start the weekly Plastics News . Bob was PN ’s editor-in-chief for 25 years and also served as its associate publisher and conference director. In May 2014 he founded RC Grace LLC and has developed an active freelance business.

You May Also Like

Editors' Choice

May 13, 2024

May 10, 2024

May 6, 2024

Mazda’s Jumbo-Sized Two-Row 2025 CX-70 Crossover SUV

How Repairable Is Apple’s Latest iPad?

Move from Being Tactical to Strategic with Smart Manufacturing

2024 Cadillac Escalade V-Series Shines with Black OLED

There’s more than one type of anxiety. Here are tips to cope.

This state of alertness and rigid thinking can dominate our lives, making it hard to feel settled and keeping us in a constant state of worry.

Key takeaways

Summarized by AI, reviewed by humans.

• Anxiety can be overwhelming, affecting thoughts and sleep.
• Different forms include social anxiety, generalized anxiety, panic attacks and phobias.
• Strategies include self-acceptance, exposure hierarchy and reframing thoughts.

Did our AI help? Share your thoughts.

Anxiety can be overwhelming and all-consuming. One patient with severe anxiety told me, “Nothing feels safe, and I feel there are no grown-ups left in the world.”

Another patient would feel terribly anxious whenever she thought anyone said something critical about her. She compared it to someone “poisoning” her mind, as she would replay the words over and over, making it impossible to do or think about anything else. This led to her isolating and calling out from work until her mind would settle.

Get Well+Being tips straight to your inbox

If certain cues set off a cascade of worry and stress , we may fixate on them and magnify their meaning, keeping our mind and body on overdrive. This can make it hard to think our way through situations. Our thoughts can be emotion-driven, negative, repetitive and hard to change (what has been termed “ perseverative cognition ”).

Neurobiologically, during anxiety, the “emotional brain” (including areas such as the amygdala, which determines the quality and strength of our emotional reactions) is overactivated, overriding the “thinking brain” (which includes areas within the prefrontal cortex or PFC, responsible for limiting amygdala activity).

As anxiety increases, we have less access to the prefrontal cortical areas that would allow for flexible thinking. In such instances, the amygdala takes over, stimulating other areas to release stress hormones such as cortisol and noradrenaline, preparing the body and mind for the perceived threat.

Anxiety can also disrupt sleep since it is hard to shake off these troubling thoughts at night. When sleep is limited or fragmented, the brain may prioritize consolidating negative experiences and fear memories during the sleep we do achieve. This can strengthen pessimistic outlooks.

Many patients report their anxiety peaks upon awakening, feeling dread about the day ahead.

There are many ways in which anxiety can manifest, and oftentimes people’s experiences don’t fit neatly into a certain category. Here are some common ways in which anxiety can be felt.

1. Social anxiety

In social anxiety we might be concerned about being judged, imagining others are scrutinizing us. Such beliefs can be fueled by a “ negativity bias ,” which impairs recognition of people’s actual intentions and mind-set, reinforcing skewed beliefs.

As a result, we may behave in ways that limit our exposure to others, minimizing social interactions and situations that would direct too much attention onto us. When the fear of shame or embarrassment is great, we may go to extremes to avoid any social engagements. Several patients struggling with social anxiety have shared their relief at being afforded opportunities to work remotely.

2. Generalized anxiety

In generalized anxiety, there may be several recurring situations or stressors constantly driving anxiety (such as work and home obligations, deadlines and bills), leading to a persistent state of worry. Generalized anxiety is also marked by body-related symptoms such as muscle tension, fatigue and restlessness.

While other forms of anxiety are often attributed to specific stressors, generalized anxiety can feel more diffuse, with an ongoing feeling of unease that may not be attached as readily to any one thing. Patients who have generalized anxiety often report that “everything, anything” is cause for worry, making it hard to find satisfying coping strategies.

3. Panic attacks

One of the most distressing forms of anxiety is a panic attack, marked by a surge of intense fear or discomfort that can peak within minutes, as well as strong effects on body and mind — for instance, a fear of dying or losing control, chest and abdominal pains, shaking, increased breathing, heart pounding, sweating and feeling lightheaded.

Panic is so overpowering that brain activation can go into “survival mode,” stimulating areas such as the periaqueductal gray , which drives behavioral responses along the fight-flight-freeze spectrum, such as paralysis or freezing, or escape strategies.

Some panic attacks are linked to situations or circumstances; however, if someone has had one before, there may be significant concern about having another, given how distressing they are. The person may have a panic attack driven by the worry about having a future panic attack.

The idea of engaging with objects or environments that cause us fear or worry can lead to life choices that are dictated by “negative reinforcement” strategies (behaviors aimed at removing or avoiding unpleasant feelings).

For instance, someone with a phobia of needles or seeing blood may refuse to seek medical care, given the possibility of lab work. Or, someone with a fear of busy roads may turn down a promising job because the commute would require driving on the highway. These behaviors may limit anxiety, but there can be significant trade-offs.

Helpful coping strategies

When anxiety takes over, try these methods:

Give yourself a break: There is no way to fully control our reactions to our environments. We all have limitations and individual responses to situations. Respecting how our minds operate, as opposed to trying to change them at all costs, can help us nurture self-acceptance.

Lean in, as you can: As self-acceptance grows, we may find small, sustainable ways of “inviting” anxiety and sitting with it, as opposed to avoiding or getting rid of it. Creating an “exposure hierarchy” can help map the pattern of our anxious responses and find acceptable ways to engage with distressing cues. For instance, someone with a fear of elevators may have “standing outside a building with an elevator” first on the list and “entering a packed elevator” last, with several intermediate steps.

Find a middle space: Anxiety-driven thinking is hard to redirect, keeping us stuck in unchanging thought loops. Finding ways to view thoughts as just that (“thoughts”) instead of absolute reality can create distance from our troubling mind-set. We can write down our “automatic thought records” — responses to stressors (including anxiety-driven cognitions) — and alternative ways of thinking about the situation (for instance, what we would tell a friend who was having anxiety and negative thoughts in similar circumstances). That perspective can serve as an “inner compass” we can access when we are anxious, helping reframe rigid cognitions amid difficult circumstances.

Christopher W.T. Miller, MD, is a psychiatrist and psychoanalyst practicing at the University of Maryland Medical Center and an associate professor at the University of Maryland School of Medicine. He is the author of “ The Object Relations Lens: A Psychodynamic Framework for the Beginning Therapist .”

We welcome your comments on this column at [email protected] .

Read more from Well+Being

Well+Being shares news and advice for living well every day. Sign up for our newsletter to get tips directly in your inbox.

Diabetes, air pollution and alcohol consumption could be the biggest risk factors for dementia .

Dairy vs. plant milk : Which is better?

Why is my gas so smelly ? Gender, diet and plane rides can play a role.

Quitting can be a superpower that helps your mental health. Here’s how to quit smarter .

Our relationships with pets can be strong and uncomplicated.