critical thinking involves hypothesis testing

An Introduction to Critical Thinking and Creativity: Think More, Think Better by

Get full access to An Introduction to Critical Thinking and Creativity: Think More, Think Better and 60K+ other titles, with a free 10-day trial of O'Reilly.

There are also live events, courses curated by job role, and more.

SCIENTIFIC REASONING

Science is regarded as one of the greatest achievements of human beings, alongside art, music, and literature. Technology is a product of science, and it has a huge impact on our lives. But the core of scientific methodology is hypothesis testing, an essential part of critical thinking.

Broadly speaking, hypothesis testing is a matter of gathering evidence to select the best hypothesis. (In this book, a hypothesis is the same as a theory or a claim—a statement that can be either true or false.) But hypothesis testing is not just for scientists. In any type of career, we have to solve problems, and hypothesis testing helps us find the best solutions to our problems. Suppose your mobile phone is not working. Is the battery dead or is the phone broken? You try to recharge it to see if it works. If it does the phone wasn’t broken. This is hypothesis testing. Or think about how to improve your health. What should you eat and what exercises should you do? You need to gather information and evaluate different theories before coming up with a plan. This also involves hypothesis testing.

There are two noteworthy features about hypothesis testing. First, it is based on evidence, not on gut feelings, tradition, popularity, authority, or personal preferences. Second, hypothesis testing is fallible, and it is often difficult to prove that a theory must be correct. Our evidence might be tainted without our knowledge, or perhaps the evidence is inconclusive. This ...

Get An Introduction to Critical Thinking and Creativity: Think More, Think Better now with the O’Reilly learning platform.

O’Reilly members experience books, live events, courses curated by job role, and more from O’Reilly and nearly 200 top publishers.

Don’t leave empty-handed

Get Mark Richards’s Software Architecture Patterns ebook to better understand how to design components—and how they should interact.

It’s yours, free.

Check it out now on O’Reilly

Dive in for free with a 10-day trial of the O’Reilly learning platform—then explore all the other resources our members count on to build skills and solve problems every day.

Critical Thinking and Evaluating Information

• Introduction
• Words Of Wisdom

What Is Critical Thinking?

Five simple strategies to sharpen your critical thinking, were critical thinking skills used in this video.

• Critical Thinking and Reflective Judgement
• Problem Solving Skills
• Critical Reading
• Critical Writing
• Use the CRAAP Test
• Evaluating Fake News
• Explore Different Viewpoints
• The Peer-Review Process
• Critical ThinkingTutorials
• Books on Critical Thinking
• Explore More With These Links

Live Chat with a Librarian 24/7

Text a Librarian at 912-600-2782

Critical thinking is a complex process of deliberation that involves a wide range of skills and attitudes. It includes:

• identifying other people's positions,  arguments and conclusions 
• evaluating the evidence  for alternative points of view
• weighing up the opposing arguments  and evidence fairly
• being able to read between the lines,  seeing behind surfaces and identifying false or unfair assumptions
• recognizing techniques  used to make certain positions more appealing than others, such as false logic and persuasive devices
• reflecting on issues  in a structured way, bringing logic and insight to bear
• drawing conclusions  about whether arguments are valid and justifiable, based on good evidence and sensible assumptions
• presenting a point of view  in a structured, clear, well-reasoned way that convinces others

(Contrell, 2011)

Check Out More From This Source: 

A well-cultivated critical thinker:

• raises vital questions and problems, formulating them clearly and precisely;
• gathers and assesses relevant information, using abstract ideas to interpret it effectively  come to well-reasoned conclusions and solutions, testing them against relevant criteria and standards;
• thinks openmindedly within alternative systems of thought, recognizing and assessing, as need be, their assumptions, implications, and practical consequences; and
• communicates effectively with others in figuring out solutions to complex problems.

Critical thinking is, in short, self-directed, self-disciplined, self-monitored, and self-corrective thinking. It presupposes assent to rigorous standards of excellence and mindful command of their use. It entails effective communication and problem solving abilities and a commitment to overcome our native egocentrism and sociocentrism.  

(Taken from Richard Paul and Linda Elder,  The Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking Concepts and Tools,  Foundation for Critical Thinking Press, 2008)

Source: criticalthinking.org

Is the sky really blue? That might seem obvious. But sometimes things are more nuanced and complicated than you think. Here are five strategies to boost your critical thinking skills. Animated by Ana Stefaniak. Made in partnership with The Open University.

Video Source: BBC Ideas

Video Source: Dr. Bachyrycz

• << Previous: Introduction
• Next: Critical Thinking and Reflective Judgement >>
• Last Updated: Mar 25, 2024 8:18 AM
• URL: https://libguides.coastalpines.edu/thinkcritically

Hypothesis Testing: A Comprehensive Guide to Scientific Decision-Making

In scientific research and experimentation, one needs a structured framework for answering questions, confirming results, and making decisions.

This framework, known as hypothesis testing , plays a pivotal role both in research and in various industries like healthcare, finance, and technology.

This guide will delve into the principles and processes of hypothesis testing, offering readers a holistic understanding of this fundamental aspect of scientific decision-making.

Definition of Hypothesis Testing

Hypothesis testing is a method used in statistics to decide whether a statement about a population parameter is likely to be true based on sample data.

The process involves making an initial assumption, observing data, then determining how compatible the data is with the assumption. It's a core part of many o nline certificate programs and widely used in fields requiring data analysis.

Importance of Hypothesis Testing in Research and Industry

The value of hypothesis testing goes beyond science and research. Businesses use it for making crucial decisions, such as whether a new product will succeed in the market, or if a change in strategy will lead to increased profit margins.

Similarly, in the healthcare sector, hypothesis testing helps determine if a new medication is more effective than the current standard treatment. This broad applicability underlies the significance of a problem-solving course that includes hypothesis testing.

Understanding the Basics of Hypothesis Testing

Before embarking on the journey of hypothesis testing, it's crucial to understand its fundamental elements - the Null and Alternate Hypotheses.

Explanation of Null Hypothesis

Definition Null Hypothesis

The Null Hypothesis, symbolized as H0, is a statement we test for possible rejection under the assumption that it is true. In most cases, it anticipates no effect, no difference, or no relationship between variables.

How to Formulate a Null Hypothesis

Formulating a null hypothesis requires identifying your research question, specifying your outcome variable, and expressing a statement of no effect or difference. For instance, you may hypothesize, "There is no significant difference between the performance of students who have breakfast and those who don't."

Practical Examples of Null Hypotheses

Consider a beverage company aiming to reduce its plastic use by 20% within a year. The null hypothesis might state that "There has been no decrease in the company's plastic use."

Explanation of Alternate Hypothesis

Definition Alternate Hypothesis

The alternative hypothesis, symbolized as H1, is the statement we accept when there's sufficient evidence against the null hypothesis. It anticipates an effect, a difference, or a relationship between variables.

How to Construct an Alternate Hypothesis

In constructing an alternate hypothesis, we simply state the counter of the null hypothesis. Following the above example, the alternate hypothesis would be, "There's a significant difference between the performance of students who have breakfast and those who don't."

Case Examples of Alternate Hypotheses

Referring to the beverage company example, the alternate hypothesis would state, "There has been a decrease in the company's plastic use."

Differentiating between Null and Alternate Hypotheses

While both form the crux of hypothesis testing, their roles differ significantly. The null hypothesis is the claim we test for possible rejection, while the alternate hypothesis is accepted when there's evidence against the null. However, neither proof nor disproof of either hypothesis is definitive since all statistical tests are susceptible to errors.

Understanding Errors in Hypothesis Testing

A critical aspect of hypothesis testing is the recognition and management of two types of errors: Type I and Type II errors. Understanding these errors is paramount for interpreting the results accurately and making informed decisions.

Type I Error: False Positive

A Type I error occurs when the null hypothesis is wrongly rejected when it is actually true. This is akin to a false alarm, where, for instance, a test indicates a drug is effective against a disease when it actually isn't. The probability of committing a Type I error is denoted by alpha (α), often set at 0.05 or 5%, indicating a 5% risk of rejecting the null hypothesis incorrectly.

Type II Error: False Negative

Conversely, a Type II error happens when the null hypothesis is not rejected when it is false. This can be compared to a missed detection, such as failing to identify the effectiveness of a beneficial drug. The probability of a Type II error is denoted by beta (β), and researchers strive to minimize this risk to ensure that genuine effects are detected.

Balancing the Risks: Power of the Test

The power of a statistical test is the probability that it correctly rejects a false null hypothesis, essentially avoiding a Type II error. High-powered tests are more reliable for detecting true effects. The power is influenced by the sample size, effect size, significance level, and variability within the data. Optimizing these factors can reduce the chances of both Type I and Type II errors, leading to more trustworthy conclusions.

Steps in Hypothesis Testing

Hypothesis testing involves a series of structured steps to guide researchers and professionals through the decision-making process:

Formulate Hypotheses : Clearly define the null and alternative hypotheses based on the research question or problem statement.

Choose a Significance Level (α) : Decide on the alpha level, which determines the threshold for rejecting the null hypothesis.

Select the Appropriate Test : Based on the data type and study design, choose a statistical test that aligns with the research objectives.

Collect and Analyze Data : Gather the necessary data and perform the statistical test to calculate the test statistic and p-value.

Make a Decision : Compare the p-value to the significance level. If the p-value is less than α, reject the null hypothesis in favor of the alternative. Otherwise, do not reject the null hypothesis.

Hypothesis testing is a cornerstone of scientific inquiry, providing a rigorous framework for evaluating theories, exploring relationships, and making decisions based on empirical evidence.

Whether in academia, healthcare, finance, or technology, the principles of hypothesis testing enable practitioners to draw conclusions with a defined level of confidence, navigate uncertainties, and contribute to advancements in their fields. By understanding its fundamentals, errors, and steps, professionals can apply hypothesis testing to enhance decision-making processes and achieve more reliable outcomes.

Through this exploration of hypothesis testing, it becomes clear that the method is not just a statistical tool but a comprehensive approach to answering complex questions across various domains. As researchers and industry professionals continue to harness its power, the potential for innovation and discovery remains boundless.

What is the fundamental concept and importance of hypothesis testing in scientific decision-making?

Understanding hypothesis testing.

Hypothesis testing is a cornerstone of scientific inquiry. It involves making an assumption, the hypothesis, about a population parameter. Scientists test these assumptions through experimentation and observation.

The Essence of Hypotheses

At its core, a hypothesis is a predictive statement. It usually pertains to an outcome or a relationship between variables. The hypothesis asserts a specific effect, direction, or magnitude will emerge under certain conditions.

Types of Hypotheses

There are two primary hypotheses in testing: null and alternative. The null hypothesis ( H0 ) suggests no effect or relationship exists. It represents a default position, waiting for evidence to challenge it. The alternative hypothesis ( H1 ) posits there is an effect or relationship. It states the specific condition the researcher believes is true.

Role of Evidence

Evidence plays a critical role. Researchers collect data through controlled methods. They aim to either support or refute the hypothesis. This data must be empirical and measurable, ensuring objectivity.

Decision-Making with P-Values

The p-value is a crucial concept in hypothesis testing. It is the probability of observing a test statistic as extreme as the one observed, given the null hypothesis is true. A low p-value indicates the observed data is unlikely under the null hypothesis. This typically leads to rejection of the null in favor of the alternative.

The Importance of Hypothesis Testing

Provides structure to research

Ensures consistency in methods

Allows quantification of evidence

Facilitates replication of studies

Shields from personal biases

Hypothesis testing helps map the unknown territory of scientific phenomena. It allows researchers to make informed decisions grounded in statistical evidence. This rational approach to understanding ensures that conclusions drawn from scientific work are reliable and valid.

The process also shapes the scientific method itself. It demands rigorous standards for evidence and reproducibility. Hypothesis testing thus builds a foundation on which scientific knowledge advances. It underpins the integrity of scientific disciplines. It challenges scientists to prove, disprove, and refine their understanding of the world.

Hypothesis testing is fundamental to the scientific decision-making process. It turns subjective questions into objective inquiries. It drives the pursuit of knowledge through empirical evidence. With hypothesis testing, science moves from conjecture to proven or disproven theories. It is this disciplined approach that adds credibility to scientific findings. Without it, distinguishing between chance results and true discoveries becomes impossible.

How do Type I and Type II errors relate to hypothesis testing and what are their implications on the results?

Understanding type i and type ii errors.

When delving into hypothesis testing, the concepts of Type I and Type II errors often emerge as critical elements. These errors play a paramount role in the interpretation of results. They convey the instances where our conclusions could be incorrect.

What Are Type I and Type II Errors?

Type I error occurs when we wrongly reject a true null hypothesis. We call this a false positive. It implies that the evidence suggests an effect or difference exists when it does not. In statistical terms, this is the 'alpha' (α), which defines the likelihood of a Type I error.

Type II error , in contrast, happens when we fail to reject a false null hypothesis. This error, termed a false negative, means that one overlooks an actual effect or difference. It's quantified by 'beta' (β), which gives the probability of a Type II error occurring.

Implications of Type I and Type II Errors

The implications of these errors reach far into hypothesis testing and the trustworthiness of results.

Confidence Levels : High risks of Type I errors lower confidence in findings. To mitigate this, researchers set a low alpha level, commonly 0.05. It shows a willingness to accept a 5% chance of a false positive.

Power of the Test : The risk of Type II errors correlates with the power of the test—the probability of correctly detecting an effect when it exists. A high beta value means a higher chance of missing an actual effect due to low test power.

Sample Size : Larger samples reduce both Type I and Type II error risks. They offer more accurate estimates and a clearer distinction between the null and alternative hypotheses.

Consequences : Type I errors might lead to unwarranted actions based on false positives. Type II errors could result in missed opportunities due to unrecognized truths.

Balancing Errors in Hypothesis Testing

Researchers must balance Type I and Type II errors in hypothesis testing. The balance depends on the context and potential consequences of each error.

Safety in Medicine : In drug testing, Type I errors can lead to harmful side effects if a drug isn't actually safe. Minimizing Type I errors is crucial here.

Effectiveness in Treatment : Conversely, Type II errors in medicine may miss a treatment effect. Ensuring sufficient power to detect treatment efficacy is essential.

Type I and Type II errors remind us of the limitations in hypothesis testing. No test is infallible. Decisions on alpha and beta levels depend on the stakes of potential errors.

Understanding and addressing these errors are vital. They enhance credibility in conclusions drawn from statistical testing. Proper balance ensures valuable and trustworthy research outcomes.

Can you explain the critical role of the p-value in hypothesis testing and its influence on accepting or rejecting the null hypothesis?

Understanding the p-value.

Researchers often turn to hypothesis testing to understand data. They make an initial assumption called the null hypothesis . This hypothesis suggests no effect or no difference exists. To challenge this, they use an alternative hypothesis.

The Null Hypothesis and P-value

In hypothesis testing, the p-value helps measure the strength of the results against the null hypothesis. It calculates the probability of observing data as extreme as the test results, assuming the null hypothesis is true. A low p-value indicates that the observed data would be very unlikely if the null hypothesis were true.

Significance Threshold

Scientists usually set a significance level before testing. Often, this level is 0.05 . It marks the cut-off for determining statistical significance.

If the p-value is below 0.05, the result is statistically significant.

This means the test provides enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis.

What Does Rejecting the Null Hypothesis Mean?

Rejecting the null does not prove the alternative hypothesis. It merely suggests that the data are not consistent with the null. Researchers can be more confident that an effect or difference might exist.

Misinterpretations of the P-value

A common mistake is seeing the p-value as the odds that the null hypothesis is true or false. It is not. It only assesses how compatible the data are with the null hypothesis.

Influencing Factors

Several factors influence the p-value. This includes the size of the effect and the sample size. Larger samples may detect smaller differences and result in smaller p-values.

The p-value is critical in deciding whether to accept or reject the null hypothesis. It quantifies how surprising the data are, assuming the null is true. A small p-value can lead to rejecting the null, paving the way for new scientific insights. However, it is crucial to use this tool wisely, with an understanding of its limitations and context.

He is a content producer who specializes in blog content. He has a master's degree in business administration and he lives in the Netherlands.

Unlocking Da Vinci's Problem Solving Skills

Developing Problem Solving Skills Since 1960s WSEIAC Report

The First Step in Critical Thinking & Problem Solving

What are Problem Solving Skills?

22 August 2024: Due to technical disruption, we are experiencing some delays to publication. We are working to restore services and apologise for the inconvenience. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/universitypress/about-us/news-and-blogs/cambridge-university-press-publishing-update-following-technical-disruption

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings .

Login Alert

• > The Cambridge Handbook of the Imagination
• > Hypothetical Thinking

Book contents

• The Cambridge Handbook of the Imagination
• Copyright page
• Contributors
• Acknowledgments
• 1 Surveying the Imagination Landscape
• Part I Theoretical Perspectives on the Imagination
• Part II Imagery-Based Forms of the Imagination
• Part III Intentionality-Based Forms of the Imagination
• Part IV Novel Combinatorial Forms of the Imagination
• 27 On the Interaction Between Episodic and Semantic Representations – Constructing a Unified Account of Imagination
• 28 How Imagination Supports Narrative Experiences for Textual, Audiovisual, and Interactive Narratives
• 29 Development of the Fantasy-Reality Distinction
• 30 Imagining the Real: Buddhist Paths to Wholeness in Tibet
• 31 Hypothetical Thinking
• 32 The Counterfactual Imagination: The Impact of Alternatives to Reality on Morality
• 33 A Look Back at Pioneering Theories of the Creative Brain
• Part V Phenomenology-Based Forms of the Imagination
• Part VI Altered States of the Imagination
• Subject Index

31 - Hypothetical Thinking

from Part IV - Novel Combinatorial Forms of the Imagination

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 May 2020

Hypothetical thinking involves imagining possibilities and mentally exploring their consequences. This chapter overviews a contemporary, integrative account of such thinking in the form of Jonathan Evans’s hypothetical thinking theory. This default-interventionist, dual–process theory operates according to three principles: relevance, singularity, and satisficing. To illustrate the explanatory strength of the theory a range of empirical evidence is considered that has arisen from extensive research on hypothesis testing, which involves individuals generating and evaluating hypotheses as they attempt to derive a more general understanding of information. The chapter shows how key findings from hypothesis-testing research undertaken in both laboratory and real-world studies (e.g. in domains such as scientific reasoning) are readily explained by the principles embedded in hypothetical thinking theory. The chapter additionally points to important new directions for future research on hypothetical thinking, including the need for: (1) further studies of real-world hypothesis testing in collaborative contexts, including ones outside of the domain of scientific reasoning; (2) increased neuroscientific analysis of the brain systems underpinning hypothetical thinking so as to inform theoretical developments; and (3) systematic individual-differences investigations to explore the likely association between people’s capacity to think creatively and their ability to engage in effective hypothetical thinking.

Access options

Save book to kindle.

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle .

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service .

• Hypothetical Thinking
• By Linden J. Ball
• Edited by Anna Abraham , University of Georgia
• Book: The Cambridge Handbook of the Imagination
• Online publication: 26 May 2020
• Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108580298.031

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox .

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive .

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

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

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection

The Use of Critical Thinking to Identify Fake News: A Systematic Literature Review

Paul machete.

Department of Informatics, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, 0001 South Africa

Marita Turpin

With the large amount of news currently being published online, the ability to evaluate the credibility of online news has become essential. While there are many studies involving fake news and tools on how to detect it, there is a limited amount of work that focuses on the use of information literacy to assist people to critically access online information and news. Critical thinking, as a form of information literacy, provides a means to critically engage with online content, for example by looking for evidence to support claims and by evaluating the plausibility of arguments. The purpose of this study is to investigate the current state of knowledge on the use of critical thinking to identify fake news. A systematic literature review (SLR) has been performed to identify previous studies on evaluating the credibility of news, and in particular to see what has been done in terms of the use of critical thinking to evaluate online news. During the SLR’s sifting process, 22 relevant studies were identified. Although some of these studies referred to information literacy, only three explicitly dealt with critical thinking as a means to identify fake news. The studies on critical thinking noted critical thinking as an essential skill for identifying fake news. The recommendation of these studies was that information literacy be included in academic institutions, specifically to encourage critical thinking.

Introduction

The information age has brought a significant increase in available sources of information; this is in line with the unparalleled increase in internet availability and connection, in addition to the accessibility of technological devices [ 1 ]. People no longer rely on television and print media alone for obtaining news, but increasingly make use of social media and news apps. The variety of information sources that we have today has contributed to the spread of alternative facts [ 1 ]. With over 1.8 billion active users per month in 2016 [ 2 ], Facebook accounted for 20% of total traffic to reliable websites and up to 50% of all the traffic to fake news sites [ 3 ]. Twitter comes second to Facebook, with over 400 million active users per month [ 2 ]. Posts on social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter spread rapidly due to how they attempt to grab the readers’ attention as quickly as possible, with little substantive information provided, and thus create a breeding ground for the dissemination of fake news [ 4 ].

While social media is a convenient way of accessing news and staying connected to friends and family, it is not easy to distinguish real news from fake news on social media [ 5 ]. Social media continues to contribute to the increasing distribution of user-generated information; this includes hoaxes, false claims, fabricated news and conspiracy theories, with primary sources being social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter [ 6 ]. This means that any person who is in possession of a device, which can connect to the internet, is potentially a consumer or distributor of fake news. While social media platforms and search engines do not encourage people to believe the information being circulated, they are complicit in people’s propensity to believe the information they come across on these platforms, without determining their validity [ 6 ]. The spread of fake news can cause a multitude of damages to the subject; varying from reputational damage of an individual, to having an effect on the perceived value of a company [ 7 ].

The purpose of this study is to investigate the use of critical thinking methods to detect news stories that are untrue or otherwise help to develop a critical attitude to online news. This work was performed by means of a systematic literature review (SLR). The paper is presented as follows. The next section provides background information on fake news, its importance in the day-to-day lives of social media users and how information literacy and critical thinking can be used to identify fake news. Thereafter, the SLR research approach is discussed. Following this, the findings of the review are reported, first in terms of descriptive statistics and the in terms of a thematic analysis of the identified studies. The paper ends with the Conclusion and recommendations.

Background: Fake News, Information Literacy and Critical Thinking

This section discusses the history of fake news, the fake news that we know today and the role of information literacy can be used to help with the identification of fake news. It also provides a brief definition of critical thinking.

The History of Fake News

Although fake news has received increased attention recently, the term has been used by scholars for many years [ 4 ]. Fake news emerged from the tradition of yellow journalism of the 1890s, which can be described as a reliance on the familiar aspects of sensationalism—crime news, scandal and gossip, divorces and sex, and stress upon the reporting of disasters, sports sensationalism as well as possibly satirical news [ 5 ]. The emergence of online news in the early 2000s raised concerns, among them being that people who share similar ideologies may form “echo chambers” where they can filter out alternative ideas [ 2 ]. This emergence came about as news media transformed from one that was dominated by newspapers printed by authentic and trusted journalists to one where online news from an untrusted source is believed by many [ 5 ]. The term later grew to describe “satirical news shows”, “parody news shows” or “fake-news comedy shows” where a television show, or segment on a television show was dedicated to political satire [ 4 ]. Some of these include popular television shows such as The Daily Show (now with Trevor Noah), Saturday Night Live ’s “The Weekend Update” segment, and other similar shows such as Last Week Tonight with John Oliver and The Colbert Report with Stephen Colbert [ 4 ]. News stories in these shows were labelled “fake” not because of their content, but for parodying network news for the use of sarcasm, and using comedy as a tool to engage real public issues [ 4 ]. The term “Fake News” further became prominent during the course of the 2016 US presidential elections, as members of the opposing parties would post incorrect news headlines in order to sway the decision of voters [ 6 ].

Fake News Today

The term fake news has a more literal meaning today [ 4 ]. The Macquarie Dictionary named fake news the word of the year for 2016 [ 8 ]. In this dictionary, fake news is described it as a word that captures a fascinating evolution in the creation of deceiving content, also allowing people to believe what they see fit. There are many definitions for the phrase, however, a concise description of the term can be found in Paskin [ 4 ] who states that certain news articles originating from either social media or mainstream (online or offline) platforms, that are not factual, but are presented as such and are not satirical, are considered fake news. In some instances, editorials, reports, and exposés may be knowingly disseminating information with intent to deceive for the purposes of monetary or political benefit [ 4 ].

A distinction amongst three types of fake news can be made on a conceptual level, namely: serious fabrications, hoaxes and satire [ 3 ]. Serious fabrications are explained as news items written on false information, including celebrity gossip. Hoaxes refer to false information provided via social media, aiming to be syndicated by traditional news platforms. Lastly, satire refers to the use of humour in the news to imitate real news, but through irony and absurdity. Some examples of famous satirical news platforms in circulation in the modern day are The Onion and The Beaverton , when contrasted with real news publishers such as The New York Times [ 3 ].

Although there are many studies involving fake news and tools on how to detect it, there is a limited amount of academic work that focuses on the need to encourage information literacy so that people are able to critically access the information they have been presented, in order to make better informed decisions [ 9 ].

Stein-Smith [ 5 ] urges that information/media literacy has become a more critical skill since the appearance of the notion of fake news has become public conversation. Information literacy is no longer a nice-to-have proficiency but a requirement for interpreting news headlines and participation in public discussions. It is essential for academic institutions of higher learning to present information literacy courses that will empower students and staff members with the prerequisite tools to identify, select, understand and use trustworthy information [ 1 ]. Outside of its academic uses, information literacy is also a lifelong skill with multiple applications in everyday life [ 5 ]. The choices people make in their lives, and opinions they form need to be informed by the appropriate interpretation of correct, opportune, and significant information [ 5 ].

Critical Thinking

Critical thinking covers a broad range of skills that includes the following: verbal reasoning skills; argument analysis; thinking as hypothesis testing; dealing with likelihood and uncertainties; and decision making and problem solving skills [ 10 ]. For the purpose of this study, where we are concerned with the evaluation of the credibility of online news, the following definition will be used: critical thinking is “the ability to analyse and evaluate arguments according to their soundness and credibility, respond to arguments and reach conclusions through deduction from given information” [ 11 ]. In this study, we want to investigate how the skills mentioned by [ 11 ] can be used as part of information literacy, to better identify fake news.

The next section presents the research approach that was followed to perform the SLR.

Research Method

This section addresses the research question, the search terms that were applied to a database in relation to the research question, as well as the search criteria used on the search results. The following research question was addressed in this SLR:

• What is the role of critical thinking in identifying fake news, according to previous studies?

The research question was identified in accordance to the research topic. The intention of the research question is to determine if the identified studies in this review provide insights into the use of critical thinking to evaluate the credibility of online news and in particular to identify fake news.

Delimitations.

In the construction of this SLR, the following definitions of fake news and other related terms have been excluded, following the suggestion of [ 2 ]:

• Unintentional reporting mistakes;
• Rumours that do not originate from a particular news article;
• Conspiracy theories;
• Satire that is unlikely to be misconstrued as factual;
• False statements by politicians; and
• Reports that are slanted or misleading, but not outright false.

Search Terms.

The database tool used to extract sources to conduct the SLR was Google Scholar ( https://scholar.google.com ). The process for extracting the sources involved executing the search string on Google Scholar and the retrieval of the articles and their meta-data into a tool called Mendeley, which was used for reference management.

The search string used to retrieve the sources was defined below:

(“critical think*” OR “critically (NEAR/2) reason*” OR “critical (NEAR/2) thought*” OR “critical (NEAR/2) judge*” AND “fake news” AND (identify* OR analyse* OR find* OR describe* OR review).

To construct the search criteria, the following factors have been taken into consideration: the research topic guided the search string, as the key words were used to create the base search criteria. The second step was to construct the search string according to the search engine requirements on Google Scholar.

Selection Criteria.

The selection criteria outlined the rules applied in the SLR to identify sources, narrow down the search criteria and focus the study on a specific topic. The inclusion and exclusion criteria are outlined in Table  1 to show which filters were applied to remove irrelevant sources.

Table 1.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria for paper selection

Source Selection.

The search criteria were applied on the online database and 91 papers were retrieved. The criteria in Table  1 were used on the search results in order to narrow down the results to appropriate papers only.

PRISMA Flowchart.

The selection criteria included four stages of filtering and this is depicted in Fig.  1 . In then Identification stage, the 91 search results from Google Scholar were returned and 3 sources were derived from the sources already identified from the search results, making a total of 94 available sources. In the screening stage, no duplicates were identified. After a thorough screening of the search results, which included looking at the availability of the article (free to use), 39 in total records were available – to which 55 articles were excluded. Of the 39 articles, nine were excluded based on their titles and abstract being irrelevant to the topic in the eligibility stage. A final list of 22 articles was included as part of this SLR. As preparation for the data analysis, a data extraction table was made that classified each article according to the following: article author; article title; theme (a short summary of the article); year; country; and type of publication. The data extraction table assisted in the analysis of findings as presented in the next section.

PRISMA flowchart

Analysis of Findings

Descriptive statistics.

Due to the limited number of relevant studies, the information search did not have a specified start date. Articles were included up to 31 August 2019. The majority of the papers found were published in 2017 (8 papers) and 2018 (9 papers). This is in line with the term “fake news” being announced the word of the year in the 2016 [ 8 ].

The selected papers were classified into themes. Figure  2 is a Venn diagram that represents the overlap of articles by themes across the review. Articles that fall under the “fake news” theme had the highest number of occurrences, with 11 in total. Three articles focused mainly on “Critical Thinking”, and “Information Literacy” was the main focus of four articles. Two articles combined all three topics of critical thinking, information literacy, and fake news.

Venn diagram depicting the overlap of articles by main focus

An analysis of the number of articles published per country indicate that the US had a dominating amount of articles published on this topic, a total of 17 articles - this represents 74% of the selected articles in this review. The remaining countries where articles were published are Australia, Germany, Ireland, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and Sweden - with each having one article published.

In terms of publication type, 15 of the articles were journal articles, four were reports, one was a thesis, one was a magazine article and one, a web page.

Discussion of Themes

The following emerged from a thematic analysis of the articles.

Fake News and Accountability.

With the influence that social media has on the drive of fake news [ 2 ], who then becomes responsible for the dissemination and intake of fake news by the general population? The immediate assumption is that in the digital age, social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter should be able to curate information, or do some form of fact-checking when posts are uploaded onto their platforms [ 12 ], but that leans closely to infringing on freedom of speech. While different authors agree that there need to be measures in place for the minimisation of fake news being spread [ 12 , 13 ], where that accountability lies differs between the authors. Metaxas and Mustafaraj [ 13 ] aimed to develop algorithms or plug-ins that can assist in trust and postulated that consumers should be able to identify misinformation, thus making an informed decision on whether to share that information or not. Lazer et al. [ 12 ] on the other hand, believe the onus should be on the platform owners to put restrictions on the kind of data distributed. Considering that the work by Metaxas and Mustafaraj [ 13 ] was done seven years ago, one can conclude that the use of fact-checking algorithms/plug-ins has not been successful in curbing the propulsion of fake news.

Fake News and Student Research.

There were a total of four articles that had a focus on student research in relation to fake news. Harris, Paskin and Stein-Smith [ 4 , 5 , 14 ] all agree that students do not have the ability to discern between real and fake news. A Stanford History Education Group study reveals that students are not geared up for distinguishing real from fake news [ 4 ]. Most students are able to perform a simple Google search for information; however, they are unable to identify the author of an online source, or if the information is misleading [ 14 ]. Furthermore, students are not aware of the benefits of learning information literacy in school in equipping them with the skills required to accurately identify fake news [ 5 ]. At the Metropolitan Campus of Fairleigh Dickson University, librarians have undertaken the role of providing training on information literacy skills for identifying fake news [ 5 ].

Fake News and Social Media.

A number of authors [ 6 , 15 ] are in agreement that social media, the leading source of news, is the biggest driving force for fake news. It provides substantial advantage to broadcast manipulated information. It is an open platform of unfiltered editors and open to contributions from all. According to Nielsen and Graves as well as Janetzko, [ 6 , 15 ], people are unable to identify fake news correctly. They are likely to associate fake news with low quality journalism than false information designed to mislead. Two articles, [ 15 ] and [ 6 ] discussed the role of critical thinking when interacting on social media. Social media presents information to us that has been filtered according to what we already consume, thereby making it a challenge for consumers to think critically. The study by Nielsen and Graves [ 6 ] confirm that students’ failure to verify incorrect online sources requires urgent attention as this could indicate that students are a simple target for presenting manipulated information.

Fake News That Drive Politics.

Two studies mention the effect of social and the spread of fake news, and how it may have propelled Donald Trump to win the US election in 2016 [ 2 , 16 ]. Also, [ 8 ] and [ 2 ] mention how a story on the Pope supporting Trump in his presidential campaign, was widely shared (more than a million times) on Facebook in 2016. These articles also point out how in the information age, fact-checking has become relatively easy, but people are more likely to trust their intuition on news stories they consume, rather than checking the reliability of a story. The use of paid trolls and Russian bots to populate social media feeds with misinformation in an effort to swing the US presidential election in Donald Trump’s favour, is highlighted [ 16 ]. The creation of fake news, with the use of alarmist headlines (“click bait”), generates huge traffic into the original websites, which drives up advertising revenue [ 2 ]. This means content creators are compelled to create fake news, to drive ad revenue on their websites - even though they may not be believe in the fake news themselves [ 2 ].

Information Literacy.

Information literacy is when a person has access to information, and thus can process the parts they need, and create ways in which to best use the information [ 1 ]. Teaching students the importance of information literacy skills is key, not only for identifying fake news but also for navigating life aspects that require managing and scrutinising information, as discussed by [ 1 , 17 ], and [ 9 ]. Courtney [ 17 ] highlights how journalism students, above students from other disciplines, may need to have some form of information literacy incorporated into their syllabi to increase their awareness of fake news stories, creating a narrative of being objective and reliable news creators. Courtney assessed different universities that teach journalism and media-related studies, and established that students generally lack awareness on how useful library services are in offering services related to information literacy. Courtney [ 17 ] and Rose-Wiles [ 9 ] discuss how the use of library resources should be normalised to students. With millennials and generation Z having social media as their first point of contact, Rose-Wiles [ 9 ] urges universities, colleges and other academic research institutes to promote the use of more library resources than those from the internet, to encourage students to lean on reliable sources. Overall, this may prove difficult, therefore Rose-Wiles [ 9 ] proposes that by teaching information literacy skills and critical thinking, students can use these skills to apply in any situation or information source.

Referred to as “truth decay”, people have reached a point where they no longer need to agree with facts [ 18 ]. Due to political polarisation, the general public hold the opinion of being part of an oppressed group of people, and therefore will believe a political leader who appeals to that narrative [ 18 ]. There needs to be tangible action put into driving civil engagement, to encourage people to think critically, analyse information and not believe everything they read.

Critical Thinking.

Only three of the articles had critical thinking as a main theme. Bronstein et al. [ 19 ] discuss how certain dogmatic and religious beliefs create a tendency in individuals to belief any information given, without them having a need to interrogate the information further and then deciding ion its veracity. The article further elaborates how these individuals are also more likely to engage in conspiracy theories, and tend to rationalise absurd events. Bronstein et al.’s [ 19 ] study conclude that dogmatism and religious fundamentalism highly correlate with a belief in fake news. Their study [ 19 ] suggests the use of interventions that aim to increase open-minded thinking, and also increase analytical thinking as a way to help religious, curb belief in fake news. Howlett [ 20 ] describes critical thinking as evidence-based practice, which is taking the theories of the skills and concepts of critical thinking and converting those for use in everyday applications. Jackson [ 21 ] explains how the internet purposely prides itself in being a platform for “unreviewed content”, due to the idea that people may not see said content again, therefore it needs to be attention-grabbing for this moment, and not necessarily accurate. Jackson [ 21 ] expands that social media affected critical thinking in how it changed the view on published information, what is now seen as old forms of information media. This then presents a challenge to critical thinking in that a large portion of information found on the internet is not only unreliable, it may also be false. Jackson [ 21 ] posits that one of the biggest dangers to critical thinking may be that people have a sense of perceived power for being able to find the others they seek with a simple web search. People are no longer interested in evaluation the credibility of the information they receive and share, and thus leading to the propagation of fake news [ 21 ].

Discussion of Findings

The aggregated data in this review has provided insight into how fake news is perceived, the level of attention it is receiving and the shortcomings of people when identifying fake news. Since the increase in awareness of fake news in 2016, there has been an increase in academic focus on the subject, with most of the articles published between 2017 and 2018. Fifty percent of the articles released focused on the subject of fake news, with 18% reflecting on information literacy, and only 13% on critical thinking.

The thematic discussion grouped and synthesised the articles in this review according to the main themes of fake news, information literacy and critical thinking. The Fake news and accountability discussion raised the question of who becomes accountable for the spreading of fake news between social media and the user. The articles presented a conclusion that fact-checking algorithms are not successful in reducing the dissemination of fake news. The discussion also included a focus on fake news and student research , whereby a Stanford History Education Group study revealed that students are not well educated in thinking critically and identifying real from fake news [ 4 ]. The Fake news and social media discussion provided insight on social media is the leading source of news as well as a contributor to fake news. It provides a challenge for consumers who are not able to think critically about online news, or have basic information literacy skills that can aid in identifying fake news. Fake news that drive politics highlighted fake news’ role in politics, particularly the 2016 US presidential elections and the influence it had on the voters [ 22 ].

Information literacy related publications highlighted the need for educating the public on being able to identify fake news, as well as the benefits of having information literacy as a life skill [ 1 , 9 , 17 ]. It was shown that students are often misinformed about the potential benefits of library services. The authors suggested that university libraries should become more recognised and involved as role-players in providing and assisting with information literacy skills.

The articles that focused on critical thinking pointed out two areas where a lack of critical thinking prevented readers from discerning between accurate and false information. In the one case, it was shown that people’s confidence in their ability to find information online gave made them overly confident about the accuracy of that information [ 21 ]. In the other case, it was shown that dogmatism and religious fundamentalism, which led people to believe certain fake news, were associated with a lack of critical thinking and a questioning mind-set [ 21 ].

The articles that focused on information literacy and critical thinking were in agreement on the value of promoting and teaching these skills, in particular to the university students who were often the subjects of the studies performed.

This review identified 22 articles that were synthesised and used as evidence to determine the role of critical thinking in identifying fake news. The articles were classified according to year of publication, country of publication, type of publication and theme. Based on the descriptive statistics, fake news has been a growing trend in recent years, predominantly in the US since the presidential election in 2016. The research presented in most of the articles was aimed at the assessment of students’ ability to identify fake news. The various studies were consistent in their findings of research subjects’ lack of ability to distinguish between true and fake news.

Information literacy emerged as a new theme from the studies, with Rose-Wiles [ 9 ] advising academic institutions to teach information literacy and encourage students to think critically when accessing online news. The potential role of university libraries to assist in not only teaching information literacy, but also assisting student to evaluate the credibility of online information, was highlighted. The three articles that explicitly dealt with critical thinking, all found critical thinking to be lacking among their research subjects. They further indicated how this lack of critical thinking could be linked to people’s inability to identify fake news.

This review has pointed out people’s general inability to identify fake news. It highlighted the importance of information literacy as well as critical thinking, as essential skills to evaluate the credibility of online information.

The limitations in this review include the use of students as the main participants in most of the research - this would indicate a need to shift the academic focus towards having the general public as participants. This is imperative because anyone who possesses a mobile device is potentially a contributor or distributor of fake news.

For future research, it is suggested that the value of the formal teaching of information literacy at universities be further investigated, as a means to assist students in assessing the credibility of online news. Given the very limited number of studies on the role of critical thinking to identify fake news, this is also an important area for further research.

Contributor Information

Marié Hattingh, Email: [email protected] .

Machdel Matthee, Email: [email protected] .

Hanlie Smuts, Email: [email protected] .

Ilias Pappas, Email: [email protected] .

Yogesh K. Dwivedi, Email: moc.liamg@ideviwdky .

Matti Mäntymäki, Email: [email protected] .

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

• Knowledge Base

Hypothesis Testing | A Step-by-Step Guide with Easy Examples

Published on November 8, 2019 by Rebecca Bevans . Revised on June 22, 2023.

Hypothesis testing is a formal procedure for investigating our ideas about the world using statistics . It is most often used by scientists to test specific predictions, called hypotheses, that arise from theories.

There are 5 main steps in hypothesis testing:

• State your research hypothesis as a null hypothesis and alternate hypothesis (H o ) and (H a  or H 1 ).
• Collect data in a way designed to test the hypothesis.
• Perform an appropriate statistical test .
• Decide whether to reject or fail to reject your null hypothesis.
• Present the findings in your results and discussion section.

Though the specific details might vary, the procedure you will use when testing a hypothesis will always follow some version of these steps.

Table of contents

Step 1: state your null and alternate hypothesis, step 2: collect data, step 3: perform a statistical test, step 4: decide whether to reject or fail to reject your null hypothesis, step 5: present your findings, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about hypothesis testing.

After developing your initial research hypothesis (the prediction that you want to investigate), it is important to restate it as a null (H o ) and alternate (H a ) hypothesis so that you can test it mathematically.

The alternate hypothesis is usually your initial hypothesis that predicts a relationship between variables. The null hypothesis is a prediction of no relationship between the variables you are interested in.

• H 0 : Men are, on average, not taller than women. H a : Men are, on average, taller than women.

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Discover proofreading & editing

For a statistical test to be valid , it is important to perform sampling and collect data in a way that is designed to test your hypothesis. If your data are not representative, then you cannot make statistical inferences about the population you are interested in.

There are a variety of statistical tests available, but they are all based on the comparison of within-group variance (how spread out the data is within a category) versus between-group variance (how different the categories are from one another).

If the between-group variance is large enough that there is little or no overlap between groups, then your statistical test will reflect that by showing a low p -value . This means it is unlikely that the differences between these groups came about by chance.

Alternatively, if there is high within-group variance and low between-group variance, then your statistical test will reflect that with a high p -value. This means it is likely that any difference you measure between groups is due to chance.

Your choice of statistical test will be based on the type of variables and the level of measurement of your collected data .

• an estimate of the difference in average height between the two groups.
• a p -value showing how likely you are to see this difference if the null hypothesis of no difference is true.

Based on the outcome of your statistical test, you will have to decide whether to reject or fail to reject your null hypothesis.

In most cases you will use the p -value generated by your statistical test to guide your decision. And in most cases, your predetermined level of significance for rejecting the null hypothesis will be 0.05 – that is, when there is a less than 5% chance that you would see these results if the null hypothesis were true.

In some cases, researchers choose a more conservative level of significance, such as 0.01 (1%). This minimizes the risk of incorrectly rejecting the null hypothesis ( Type I error ).

The results of hypothesis testing will be presented in the results and discussion sections of your research paper , dissertation or thesis .

In the results section you should give a brief summary of the data and a summary of the results of your statistical test (for example, the estimated difference between group means and associated p -value). In the discussion , you can discuss whether your initial hypothesis was supported by your results or not.

In the formal language of hypothesis testing, we talk about rejecting or failing to reject the null hypothesis. You will probably be asked to do this in your statistics assignments.

However, when presenting research results in academic papers we rarely talk this way. Instead, we go back to our alternate hypothesis (in this case, the hypothesis that men are on average taller than women) and state whether the result of our test did or did not support the alternate hypothesis.

If your null hypothesis was rejected, this result is interpreted as “supported the alternate hypothesis.”

These are superficial differences; you can see that they mean the same thing.

You might notice that we don’t say that we reject or fail to reject the alternate hypothesis . This is because hypothesis testing is not designed to prove or disprove anything. It is only designed to test whether a pattern we measure could have arisen spuriously, or by chance.

If we reject the null hypothesis based on our research (i.e., we find that it is unlikely that the pattern arose by chance), then we can say our test lends support to our hypothesis . But if the pattern does not pass our decision rule, meaning that it could have arisen by chance, then we say the test is inconsistent with our hypothesis .

If you want to know more about statistics , methodology , or research bias , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

• Normal distribution
• Descriptive statistics
• Measures of central tendency
• Correlation coefficient

Methodology

• Cluster sampling
• Stratified sampling
• Types of interviews
• Cohort study
• Thematic analysis

Research bias

• Implicit bias
• Cognitive bias
• Survivorship bias
• Availability heuristic
• Nonresponse bias
• Regression to the mean

Hypothesis testing is a formal procedure for investigating our ideas about the world using statistics. It is used by scientists to test specific predictions, called hypotheses , by calculating how likely it is that a pattern or relationship between variables could have arisen by chance.

A hypothesis states your predictions about what your research will find. It is a tentative answer to your research question that has not yet been tested. For some research projects, you might have to write several hypotheses that address different aspects of your research question.

A hypothesis is not just a guess — it should be based on existing theories and knowledge. It also has to be testable, which means you can support or refute it through scientific research methods (such as experiments, observations and statistical analysis of data).

Null and alternative hypotheses are used in statistical hypothesis testing . The null hypothesis of a test always predicts no effect or no relationship between variables, while the alternative hypothesis states your research prediction of an effect or relationship.

Cite this Scribbr article

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

Bevans, R. (2023, June 22). Hypothesis Testing | A Step-by-Step Guide with Easy Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved September 3, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/statistics/hypothesis-testing/

Is this article helpful?

Rebecca Bevans

Other students also liked, choosing the right statistical test | types & examples, understanding p values | definition and examples, what is your plagiarism score.

Paperless Is Not a Pedagogy

Alice keeler, 5 myths about dok (critical thinking).

How to Convert Your Slides to Spanish

Google Docs TABS – Organize Your Document

Especially in an age of AI, the conversation about DOK (critical thinking) is extremely important. As educators, we’re constantly striving to create engaging learning experiences that prepare our students for the complexities of the 21st century. Depth of Knowledge (DOK) offers a powerful framework for crafting lessons that push students beyond rote memorization and surface-level understanding. However, several myths of DOK hinder its effective implementation. 

What is DOK (Depth of Knowledge)

Depth of Knowledge, or DOK, is a framework developed by Dr. Norman Webb to help us gauge the cognitive complexity of tasks. It’s like a scale, measuring how deeply students need to engage with information. At DOK 1, it’s about recalling facts; DOK 2 involves applying skills and concepts; DOK 3 demands strategic thinking and reasoning; and DOK 4 challenges students with extended thinking and complex problem-solving.

Depth of Knowledge (DOK) in Mathematics

#DOKchat – DOK is Hard Let’s Talk About It

Homework Did NOT Prepare My Daughter for College! by @MarciaMentor

Note Taking is DOK 0

Myth #1: dok is a wheel of verbs.

One of the most pervasive misunderstandings about DOK is that it can be neatly categorized into a “wheel of verbs,” where specific action words automatically dictate the level of cognitive complexity. While verbs can offer clues, they don’t define DOK. This oversimplification leads to shallow interpretations, focusing on surface-level actions rather than the depth of thinking required. DOK transcends mere verbs; it’s about the intricate cognitive processes students engage in, whether they’re “identifying” simple facts or “analyzing” complex patterns.

Ditch the DOK Wheel

Ditching the wheel reminds us that DOK is about fostering genuine critical thinking, not just ticking boxes on a verb checklist.

Myth #2: DOK is a Ladder

One common myth surrounding DOK is the misconception that it functions like a staircase, where learning must sequentially progress from DOK 1 to DOK 4. This rigid approach can stifle creativity and limit opportunities for student engagement. In reality, DOK is a flexible framework that allows for dynamic movement across different levels.

Thinking is Engaging

It’s important to understand that you don’t have to start with DOK 1 and gradually work your way up. In fact, launching with a challenging DOK 3 or 4 task can be incredibly motivating, sparking curiosity and prompting students to actively seek out the foundational knowledge (DOK 1 or 2) they need to tackle the challenge. 

Students with low self-efficacy may avoid engaging in tasks altogether, fearing they might appear “dumb.” DOK 1 and DOK 2 questions often have a single correct answer, and not being able to recall that information quickly can be stressful and embarrassing. In contrast, DOK 3 and DOK 4 questions encourage an initial response of “Hmmm, I don’t know. Let me think about it.” Strategic thinking kicks in, leading students to try something, receive feedback (even if it’s just realizing a solution is incorrect), and adjust their approach. These higher-level DOK questions may have multiple solutions or approaches. When students know they’re not expected to immediately recall an answer, but rather to spend time thinking and potentially making initial mistakes without penalty, they’re more likely to engage in the task.

Want More Help with This?

Myth #3: AI Can Assist with DOK

It’s tempting to believe that Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools can effortlessly assist with DOK implementation. After all, AI chatbots can generate questions, analyze texts, and even provide feedback on student work. But here’s the catch: while AI can offer valuable support, it’s essential to remember that these tools are trained on the vast and often chaotic expanse of the internet.

The internet is rife with misinformation, outdated resources, and questionable examples of DOK. Relying solely on AI for DOK implementation can lead to inaccurate assessments and misguided instructional decisions. It’s crucial to recognize that AI tools are not infallible when it comes to DOK. They might misinterpret nuances, provide oversimplified explanations, or even generate questions that don’t align with the intended DOK level.

As educators, it’s our responsibility to be the ultimate arbiters of DOK. We need to be highly knowledgeable about the different DOK levels, their nuances, and how to effectively apply them in our classrooms. AI tools can be valuable assistants, providing inspiration and streamlining certain tasks, but they should never replace our own expertise and judgment.

For Example… AI Made These

English language arts:.

• DOK 1: Define the term “metaphor.”
• DOK 2: Identify metaphors in a poem and explain their meaning.
• DOK 3: Analyze how metaphors contribute to the overall theme of a novel.
• DOK 4: Write an original poem using metaphors to convey a personal experience.

👩🏼‍🏫 If not flat out wrong, the DOK application could be a “maybe.” In this ELA example AI did a fairly good job. However, the DOK 4 example MIGHT be DOK 4. Just writing an original poem doesn’t describe the complexity of the students reasoning. The student can do a very superficial poem that contains metaphors and it is only a DOK 2 assignment. However, if the student struggles through multiple examples of metaphors and how they fit into a complex structure of ideas and prose, it could be DOK 4.

Mathematics:

• DOK 1: Solve a simple addition problem.
• DOK 2: Apply the Pythagorean theorem to solve for the missing side of a right triangle.
• DOK 3: Analyze a real-world scenario and use mathematical modeling to solve a complex problem.
• DOK 4: Design and conduct an experiment to investigate a mathematical concept and present your findings.

Especially for mathematics, generative AI can produce errors in DOK alignment. Generally, AI does a good job with DOK 1, which is true in this mathematics example. However, applying the Pythagorean theorem to find a missing side is always DOK 1. It is following an algorithm of steps. Notice the nuance of the DOK 3 in this AI created situation. Mathematical modeling is NOT a word problem, and when done correctly is probably DOK 4. For the DOK 4 example, this is fairly lazy of AI. A quick and dirty to design and conduct an experiment COULD be DOK 4, but without more specifications on the complexity that the student needs to include in the presentation, it is too ambitious to assign a DOK level to this activity.

• DOK 1: List the steps of the scientific method.
• DOK 2: Design an experiment to test a hypothesis about plant growth.
• DOK 3: Analyze data from an experiment and draw conclusions about the relationship between variables.
• DOK 4: Conduct independent research on a scientific topic and present your findings in a multimedia presentation.

In this DOK 2 example, usually but not always, designing an experiment would be DOK 3. 

Social Studies:

• DOK 1: Name the three branches of government.
• DOK 2: Compare and contrast the roles of the three branches of government.
• DOK 3: Analyze the impact of a historical event on contemporary society.
• DOK 4: Develop a proposal for addressing a current social issue and present your plan to the class.

AI did a fairly good job with this social studies list. However, as my friend Shelley Burgess says… “I’d have to see the students engaged in it to determine the level of actual complex reasoning for the task.” 

Send Google Form Responses to Google Slides

Link a Google Form to your Slides. Responses populate back to the Slides. 

Myth #4: DOK is About Difficulty

At its core, DOK is about the cognitive complexity of tasks and questions. It moves beyond simple recall of facts (DOK 1) and encourages students to engage in more complex activities like interpreting information, making connections, and generating original ideas.

• DOK 1 (Recall & Reproduction): This level involves basic recall of information, facts, and procedures. It’s about remembering and reproducing knowledge.
• DOK 2 (Skills & Concepts): Here, students go beyond recall to apply skills and concepts. They might compare and contrast ideas, organize information, or solve routine problems.
• DOK 3 (Strategic Thinking): This level demands more complex reasoning and planning. Students analyze, synthesize, and evaluate information to draw conclusions and solve non-routine problems.
• DOK 4 (Extended Thinking): At the highest level, students engage in extended thinking and complex reasoning. They might conduct investigations, design projects, or create original works that require in-depth analysis and application of knowledge.

DOK is How Much COMPLEX REASONING the STUDENT is Doing

The essence of DOK lies in the cognitive demand, not the perceived difficulty. It’s about the level of thinking and reasoning involved, not just the surface-level complexity of the task. A challenging task might require a lot of effort, but if it primarily relies on recall or routine procedures, it’s not necessarily high DOK.

Myth #5: More Steps Equal Higher DOK

Don’t fall into the trap of thinking that simply piling on steps or making tasks longer automatically elevates the DOK level. It’s a common misconception that a lengthy worksheet or a multi-step project guarantees deeper learning. In reality, a task can involve numerous steps and still remain at a low DOK level if it primarily focuses on recall or routine procedures.

Imagine a science project that involves meticulously following a recipe to create a volcano eruption. While it might be visually impressive and require careful execution, it doesn’t necessarily challenge students to think critically or analyze scientific principles. It is in fact DOK 1 to follow directions. 

On the other hand, a seemingly simple task like “Design an experiment to test the effects of different fertilizers on plant growth” demands a higher DOK level, even with fewer steps. It requires students to hypothesize, plan, analyze, and draw conclusions, fostering a much deeper level of engagement with the scientific process.

True DOK progression isn’t about adding more busywork; it’s about encouraging deeper cognitive engagement with the content. Focus on tasks that challenge students to analyze, evaluate, synthesize, and create, even if they seem shorter or less complex on the surface. Remember, quality trumps quantity when it comes to fostering deep understanding and critical thinking skills.

Myths of DOK

In an era where AI tools like ChatGPT can effortlessly generate answers and complete tasks, the true value of education lies in fostering critical thinking, creativity, and problem-solving skills. DOK provides a powerful framework for achieving this goal, but only if we understand and apply it correctly.

By dispelling the myths surrounding DOK and embracing its flexible, dynamic nature, we empower ourselves as educators to create learning experiences that transcend the limitations of AI. We can challenge students to think deeply, connect ideas, and express themselves creatively, preparing them for a future where AI will undoubtedly play a significant role.

Recent Teacher Tech Blog Posts

Google Classroom Tutorial: How Students Turn in Work

Who Didn’t Respond to a Google Form

How to Delete Multiple Tabs in Google Sheets

Wow! Daily Agenda Slides for Google Slides

Create Scratchers in FigJam

Leave a reply cancel reply.

You must be logged in to post a comment.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

© 2024 All Rights Reserved.

How to test your idea: start with the most critical hypotheses

To validate business ideas you need to perform many small experiments. At the centre of any one of these experiments should be a deep understanding of the most critical hypotheses and why you are testing them.

In the world of Lean Startup, the Build, Measure, Learn cycle is a means to an end to test the attractiveness of business ideas. Unfortunately, some innovators and entrepreneurs take the “Build” step too literally and immediately start building prototypes. However, at the centre of this cycle there is actually a step zero: shaping your idea and defining the most critical assumptions and hypotheses underlying it (Note: I’ll be interchanging between assumptions and hypotheses throughout the rest of the post).

Step 0 - think (& hypothesize)

Shape your idea (product, tech, market opportunity, etc.) into an attractive customer value proposition and prototype a potential profitable and scalable business model. Use the Value Proposition & Business Model Canvas to do this. Then ask: What are the critical assumptions and hypotheses that need to be true for this to work. Define assumptions as to desirability (market risk: will customers want it?); feasibility (tech & implementation risk: can I build/execute it?); and viability (financial risk: can I earn more money from it than it will cost me to build?). To test these assumptions/hypotheses you will perform many, many experiments. With your hypotheses mapped out, you can now start to move through the steps of the Build, Measure, Learn cycle:

Step 1 - build

In this step you design and build the experiments that are best suited to test your assumptions? Ask: Which hypothesis will we test first and how? Ask: Which tests will yield the most valuable data and evidence? ‍

Step 2 - measure

In this step you actually perform the experiments. That might be through interviews and talking to a series of customers and stakeholders; by launching a landing page to see if people click on, sign up for, or even buy your (non existing because it’s not yet implemented) value proposition. ‍

Step 3 - learn

In this step you analyze the data and gain insights. You systematically connect the evidence and data from experiments back to the initial hypotheses, how you tested them, and what you learned. This is where you identify if your initial hypotheses were right, wrong, or still unclear. You might learn that you have to reshape your idea, to pivot, to create new hypotheses, to continue testing, or you might prove with evidence that your idea has legs and you’re on the right rack. At the centre of all testing should always be a deep understanding of the critical hypotheses underlying how you intend to create value for customers (Value Proposition Canvas) and how you hope to create value for your company (Business Model Canvas). I’ve seen too many innovators and entrepreneurs get lost in building experiments, but losing sight of their initial hypotheses and the ultimate prize. At the end there’s only one thing that counts: Are you making progress in turning your initial idea into a profitable and scalable business model that creates value for customers?

About the speakers

Dr. Alexander (Alex) Osterwalder is one of the world’s most influential innovation experts, a leading author, entrepreneur and in-demand speaker whose work has changed the way established companies do business and how new ventures get started.

Download your free copy of this whitepaper now

Explore other examples, get strategyzer updates straight in your inbox.

The impact of cognitive flexibility on prospective EFL teachers' critical thinking disposition: the mediating role of self-efficacy

• Research Article
• Published: 31 August 2024

Cite this article

• Şenol Orakcı   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-1534-1310 1 &
• Tahmineh Khalili   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-6268-0991 2  

Critical thinking as one of the key skills for success in the 21st-century has been considered by many scholars in teacher education. This study tries to examine the interaction of critical thinking disposition with two other key characteristics of successful teachers: cognitive flexibility and self-efficacy. To this end, a sample of pre-service English as a Foreign Language (EFL) teachers was selected for this study. Based on the findings, a positive and strong relationship between cognitive flexibility and critical thinking disposition, and a positive and robust correlation between self-efficacy and critical thinking disposition were observed. Hence, it can be suggested that teacher-educationists can use this link for designing teacher-training courses with tailored tasks for both in and pre-service teachers. The main contribution of the findings might be beneficial for homogenizing teacher-training courses around the globe with the 21st-century trends. In addition, this line of research can be followed by empirical studies for checking the effectiveness of tailored tasks for provoking teachers’ critical thinking dispositions, cognitive flexibility, and self-efficacy in teaching activities.

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

Access this article

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Assessing the Contribution of Autonomy and Self-Efficacy to EFL Teachers’ Self-Regulation

Learning-oriented assessment in the classroom: the contribution of self-assessment and critical thinking to EFL learners’ academic engagement and self-esteem

Measuring in-service teacher self-efficacy for teaching computational thinking: development and validation of the T-STEM CT

Explore related subjects.

• Artificial Intelligence

Data availability

Data will be made available on request. The final datasets of the current study are available from the author on a strong reasonable request.

Ajzen I (2020) The theory of planned behavior: Frequently asked questions. Human Behav Emerg Technol 2(4):314–324. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbe2.195

Article   Google Scholar  

Akbar RA (2023) Critical thinking as a twenty first century skill. J Educ Res Soc Sci Rev (JERSSR) 3(1):8–15

Google Scholar  

Artino AR (2008) Motivational beliefs and perceptions of instructional quality: predicting satisfaction with online training. J Comput Assist Learn 24(3):260–270. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2007.00258.x

Atkinson, S. (2024). Literary Creation and the Fusion of Critical Thinking: Project-Centered Teaching Strategies in Australian Higher Education at the Beginning of the 21st Century.  Research and Advances in Education ,  3 (1), 44–53. etrieved from https://www.paradigmpress.org/rae/article/view/983

Awouda A, Traini E, Asranov M, Chiabert P (2024) Bloom’s IoT Taxonomy towards an effective Industry 4.0 education: case study on open-source IoT laboratory. Educ Inf Technol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12468-7

Bacangallo LB, Buella RT, Rentasan KY, Pentang JT, Bautista RM (2022) Creative thinking and problem-solving: can preservice teachers think creatively and solve statistics problems? Stud Technol Educ 1(1):14–27

Baky, N. A. H. A. A. (2024). Designing an Assistant Application for Teachers with Varying Cognitive Flexibility to Use the Pedagogical Applications Wheel as a Reference Tool to Improve the Integration of Technology into Classrooms Preparation.  Kurdish Studies ,  12 (2), 1157–1188. Retrieved from https://kurdishstudies.net/menu-script/index.php/KS/article/view/1976

Bandura A (1978) Social learning theory of aggression. J Commun 28(3):12–29. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1978.tb01621.x

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Bandura A (2006) Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. In: Pajares F, Urdan T (eds) Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents, vol 5. Information Age Publishing, Greenwich, CT, pp 307–337

Bandura, A., & Watts, R. E. (1996). Self-efficacy in changing societies. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy , 10 (4). https://doi.org/10.1891/0889-8391.10.4.313

Bandura, A., & Wessels, S. (1994). Self-efficacy (Vol. 4, pp. 71–81). na.

Bariroh, N. M., Triyanto, T., & Fitriana, L. (2023, January). Critical thinking ability of students at SMPN 2 Kudus with impulsive cognitive style on two variables linear equation system material. In  AIP Conference Proceedings  (Vol. 2540, No. 1). AIP Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0105903

Baron RM, Kenny DA (1986) The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J Pers Soc Psychol 51(6):1173–1182. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173

Beswick K, Fraser S (2019) Developing mathematics teachers’ 21st century competence for teaching in STEM contexts. ZDM Mathematics Education 51:955–965. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-019-01084-2

Bezanilla MJ, Fernández-Nogueira D, Poblete M, Galindo-Domínguez H (2019) Methodologies for teaching-learning critical thinking in higher education: the teacher’s view. Think Skills Creat 33:100584. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2019.100584

Brečka P, Valentová M, Lančarič D (2022) The implementation of critical thinking development strategies into technology education: the evidence from Slovakia. Teach Teach Educ 109:103555. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2021.103555

Buku, M. N. I., Corebima A. D, & Fatchur, R. (2016). The correlation between metacognitive skills and the critical thinking skills of the senior high school students in biology learning through the implementation of problem-based learning (pbl) in Malang, Indonesia. Int. Journal of Academic Research and Development . 1 (5): 58-63.

Bunt B, Gouws G (2020) Using an artificial life simulation to enhance reflective critical thinking among student teachers. Smart Learn Environ 7(1):1–19

Campo L, Galindo-Domínguez H, Bezanilla MJ, Fernández-Nogueira D, Poblete M (2023) Methodologies for fostering critical thinking skills from university students’ points of view. Educ Sci 13(2):132. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13020132

Canas JJ, Fajardo I, Salmeron L (2006) Cognitive flexibility. Int Encycl Ergonomics Human Factors. 1:296–301

Chevalier N, Blaye A (2008) Cognitive flexibility in preschoolers: The role of representation activation and maintenance. Dev Sci 11(3):339–353. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2008.00679.x

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Cottrell S (2023) Critical thinking skills: Effective analysis, argument and reflection. Bloomsbury Publishing

Cragg L, Chevalier N (2012) The processes underlying flexibility in childhood. Q J Exp Psychol 65(2):209–232. https://doi.org/10.1080/1747021090320461

Cáceres M, Nussbaum M, Ortiz J (2020) Integrating critical thinking into the classroom: a teacher’s perspective. Think Skills Creat 37:100674. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2020.100674

Dajani DR, Uddin LQ (2015) Demystifying cognitive flexibility: Implications for clinical and developmental neuroscience. Trends Neurosci 38(9):571–578. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tins.2015.07.003

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Davies M (2015) A model of critical thinking in higher education. Higher Educ: Handb Theory Res: 30:41–92. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12835-1_2

Dawson DL, Golijani-Moghaddam N (2020) COVID-19: psychological flexibility, coping, mental health, and wellbeing in the UK during the pandemic. J Contextual Behav Sci 17:126–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcbs.2020.07.010

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

De-La-Peña C, Fernádez-Cézar R, Solano-Pinto N (2021) Attitude toward mathematics of future teachers: how important are creativity and cognitive flexibility? Front Psychol 12:713941. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.713941

Dehghani M, Pakmehr H, Malekzadeh A (2011) relationship between students’ critical thinking and self-efficacy beliefs in ferdowsi university of Mashhad. Iran Procedia-Soc Behav Sci 15:2952–2955. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.04.221

Demirtaş AS (2020) Cognitive flexibility and mental wellbeing in Turkish adolescents: the mediating role of academic, social, and emotional self-efficacy. Anales De Psicología 36(1):111–121. https://doi.org/10.6018/analesps.336681

Dennis JP, Vander Wal JS (2010) The cognitive flexibility inventory: instrument development and estimates of reliability and validity. Cogn Ther Res 34(3):241–253. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10608-009-9276-4

Deák GO, Wiseheart M (2015) Cognitive flexibility in young children: general or task-specific capacity? J Exp Child Psychol 138:31–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2015.04.003

Doğan Laçin BG, Yalçın İ (2019) Üniversite öğrencilerinde öz-yeterlilik ve stresle başa çıkma stratejilerinin bilişsel esnekliği yordama düzeyleri. Hacet Üniv EğItim Fakültesi Dergisi. 34(2):358–371

Edmunds DB (2007) The impact of a cognitive flexibility hypermedia system on preservice teachers’ sense of self-efficacy. University of North Carolina, Masterís Paper

Eghtesadi, A., & Jeddi, A. (2019). Teachers’ Critical Thinking and Self-efficacy as Predictors of their Pedagogical Success.  International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 8 (1), 62–70. Retrieved from  https://journals.aiac.org.au/index.php/IJALEL/article/view/5246

Elder L, Paul R (1996) Critical thinking: a stage theory of critical thinking: part I. J Dev Educ 20(1):34

Emiru EK, Gedifew MT (2024) The effect of teacher self-efficacy on learning engagement of secondary school students. Cogent Educ. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2024.2308432

Ennis RH (1993) Critical thinking assessment. Theory into Practice 32(3):179–186

Esen Aygün H (2018) The relationship between pre–service teachers’ cognitive flexibility and interpersonal problem solving skills. Eurasian J Educ Res 77:105–128

Esen BK, Özcan HD, Sezgin M (2017) High school students’ cognitive flexibility is predicted by self-efficacy and achievement. Eur J Educ Stud 3(2):143–151. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.244470

Exintaris B, Karunaratne N, Yuriev E (2023) Metacognition and critical thinking: using chatgpt-generated responses as prompts for critique in a problem-solving workshop (SMARTCHEMPer). J Chem Educ 100(8):2972–2980

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Filgona J, Sakiyo J, Gwany DM, Okoronka AU (2020) Motivation in learning. Asian J Educ Soc Stud 10(4):16–37. https://doi.org/10.9734/ajess/2020/v10i430273

Fisher, R. (2005). Teaching children to think . Nelson Thornes Ltd

Fraenkel RJ, Wallen EN (2006) How to design and evaluate research in education. McGraw-Hill

Gelles LA, Lord SM, Hoople GD, Chen DA, Mejia JA (2020) Compassionate flexibility and self-discipline: student adaptation to emergency remote teaching in an integrated engineering energy course during COVID-19. Educ Sci 10(11):304. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci10110304

Gibbs S, Powell B (2012) Teacher efficacy and pupil behavior: the structure of teachers’ individual and collective beliefs and their relationship with numbers of pupils excluded from school. Br J Educ Psychol 82(4):564–584. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.2011.02046.x

Gill, S.A., Bencheva, N., Karayel, S., & Usman, M. (2021). Does entrepreneurial self-efficacy moderate effects of cognitive flexibility and entrepreneurial alertness on entrepreneurial intentions Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Review . https://doi.org/10.15678/EBER.2021.09030

Gilquin, G., & Granger, S. (2011). From EFL to ESL: evidence from the International Corpus of Learner English.  Exploring second-language varieties of English and learner Englishes: Bridging a paradigm gap , 55–78.

Golja T, Clerke T( 2020) Towards understanding the development of 21st century capabilities: A scoping review of critical thinking. ICERI2020 Proceedings. https://doi.org/10.21125/iceri.2020.1644

Greene JA, Yu SB (2016) Educating critical thinkers: the role of epistemic cognition. Policy Insights Behav Brain Sci 3(1):45–53. https://doi.org/10.1177/2372732215622223

Gupta P, Bamel U (2023) Need for metacognition and critical thinking in the e-learning ecosystem: the new normal in post covid era. Glob Bus Organ Excell. https://doi.org/10.1002/joe.22208

Güner P, Gökçe S (2021) Linking critical thinking disposition, cognitive flexibility, and achievement: math anxiety’s mediating role. J Educ Res 114(5):458–473. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2021.1975618

Halonen JS (1995) Demystifying critical thinking. Teach Psychol 22(1):75–81. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328023top2201_23

Hamann KR, Wullenkord MC, Reese G, van Zomeren M (2024) Believing that we can change our world for the better: a triple-a (agent-action-aim) framework of self-efficacy beliefs in the context of collective social and ecological aims. Personal Soc Psychol Rev 28(1):11–53. https://doi.org/10.1177/10888683231178

Hascher T, Waber J (2021) Teacher well-being: a systematic review of the research literature from the year 2000–2019. Educational Res Rev. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2021.100411

Hayes, A.F. (2013). Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach . Guilford Publications

Hermita N, Ware A, Wijaya T, Zhou Y (2021) Improving the creative thinking skills of the next generation of mathematics teachers using dynamic mathematics software. Int J Emerg Technol Learn 16(13):212–226. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v16i13.21535

Hershkovitz A, Daniel E, Klein Y, Shacham M (2023) Technology integration in emergency remote teaching: teachers’ self-efficacy and sense of success. Educ Inf Technol 28(10):12433–12464. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11688-7

Hu W, Jia X, Plucker JA, Shan X (2016) Effects of a critical thinking skills program on the learning motivation of primary school students. Roeper Rev: A J Gifted Educ 38(2):70–83. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2016.1150374

Huang J, Sang G (2023) Conceptualising critical thinking and its research in teacher education: a systematic review. Teach Teach. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2023.2212364

Hursen C (2021) The effect of problem-based learning method supported by web 2.0 tools on academic achievement and critical thinking skills in teacher education. Technol Knowl Learn 26:515–533. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-020-09458-2

Ionescu T (2012) Exploring the nature of cognitive flexibility. New Ideas Psychol 30(2):190–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2011.11.001

Jabari S, Esmaeelbeygi HM (2017) The role of critical thinking in predicting self-efficacy. Mod J Lang Teach Methods. 7(8):550–554

Jacques S, Zelazo PD (2005) On the possible roots of cognitive flexibility. In: Homer BD, Tamis-LeMonda CS (eds) The development of social cognition and communication. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, pp 53–81

Johnson, B. T. (2016). The relationship between cognitive flexibility, coping and symptomatology in psychotherapy . (Dissertation/Thesis), ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.

Kamalizad J, Samuel M (2016) The role of EFL/ESL settings in using language learning strategies. Asian EFL J Q 18(1):75–108

Karaca-Atik A, Meeuwisse M, Gorgievski M, Smeets G (2023) Uncovering important 21st-century skills for sustainable career development of social sciences graduates: a systematic review. Educ Res Rev. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2023.100528

Kartal E, Onbaşı Sİ, İlhan EL (2024) Examining the relationship between self-efficacy and cognitive flexibility of physical education and sports teachers towards inclusive education. Ankara Univ Fac Educ Sci J Spec Educ. 25(2):141–154

Kazu H, Pullu S (2023) Cognitive flexibility levels and self-efficacy perceptions of preservice teachers. Disco Commun Sustain Educ 14(1):36–47. https://doi.org/10.2478/dcse-2023-0004

Khalili T, Ketabi S, Pnevmatikos D, Nejadansari Mahabadi D (2024) A meta-analysis on the (quasi) experimental studies of critical thinking in second language education in Iran. Lang Relat Res 14(6):245–270

Kim, D. (2016).  Role of cognitive flexibility in bilingualism and creativity  (Doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia).

Klassen RM, Tze VM, Betts SM, Gordon KA (2011) Teacher efficacy research 1998–2009: signs of progress or unfulfilled promise? Educ Psychol Rev 23(1):21–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9141-8

Kuiper RA, Murdock N, Grant N (2010) Thinking strategies of baccalaureate nursing students prompted by self-regulated learning strategies. J Nurs Educ 49(8):429–436. https://doi.org/10.3928/01484834-20100430-01

Lackner JM, Gudleski GD, Radziwon CD, Krasner SS, Firth RS, Naliboff BD, Vargovich AM, Borden AB, Mayer EA (2022) Cognitive flexibility improves in cognitive behavioral therapy for irritable bowel syndrome but not nonspecific education/support. Behav Res Ther 154:104033. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2022.104033

Lauermann F, Berger JL (2021) Linking teacher self-efficacy and responsibility with teachers’ self-reported and student-reported motivating styles and student engagement. Learn Instr 76:101441. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2020.101441

Leclercq M, Gimenes G, Maintenant C, Clerc J (2023) goal choice in preschoolers is influenced by context, cognitive flexibility, and metacognition. Front Psychol 13:8257. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1063566

Li S (2023) Enhancing professional success: Chinese EFL teachers’ workplace buoyancy and cognitive flexibility. Heliyon 9(2):e13394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e13394

Liu Y, Bellibaş MŞ, Gümüş S (2020) The effect of instructional leadership and distributed leadership on teacher self-efficacy and job satisfaction: mediating roles of supportive school culture and teacher collaboration. Educ Manag Adm Leadersh 49(3):430–453. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143220910438

Lorencová H, Jarošová E, Avgitidou S, Dimitriadou C (2019) Critical thinking practices in teacher education programmes: a systematic review. Stud High Educ 44(5):844–859. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2019.1586331

Luft A (2020) Theorizing moral cognition: culture in action, situations, and relationships. Socius. https://doi.org/10.1177/2378023120916125

Ma L, Liu N (2023) Teacher belief about integrating critical thinking in english teaching in China. J Educ Teach 49(1):137–152. https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2022.2044267

Mafarja N, Zulnaidi H (2022) Relationship between critical thinking and academic self-concept: an experimental study of Reciprocal teaching strategy. Think Skills Creat 45:101113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2022.101113

Maknun J (2023) Development of Critical Thinking Skills Through Science Learning. Integrated Education and Learning. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 129–141

Malkoç A, Aydın Sünbül ZEYNEP (2020) The relationship between emotional literacy, cognitive flexibility and counseling self-efficacy of senior students in psychology and psychological counseling and guidance. Educ Res Rev. https://doi.org/10.5897/err2019.3848

Martin MM, Anderson CM (1998) The cognitive flexibility scale: three validity studies. Commun Rep 11(1):1–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/08934219809367680

Martin MM, Rubin RB (1995) A new measure of cognitive flexibility. Psychol Rep 76(2):623–626. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1995.76.2.623

Mena J, Peinado C, Hernández I (2023) Pre-service teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs on their role as teachers during the practicum. Teacher Education as an Ongoing Professional Trajectory: Implications for Policy and Practice. Springer International Publishing, Cham, p 71

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Meyers C (1986) Teaching students to think critically. Jossey Bass, San Francisco, CA

Meyers LS, Gamst G, Guarino A (2006) Applied multivariate research: Design and interpretation. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA

Mudhar G, Ertesvåg SK, Pakarinen E (2024) Patterns of teachers’ self-efficacy and attitudes toward inclusive education associated with teacher emotional support, collective teacher efficacy, and collegial collaboration. Eur J Spec Needs Educ 39(3):446–462. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2023.2233297

Nezu AM, Nezu CM, Gerber HR (2019) (Emotion-centered) problem-solving therapy: an update. Australian Psychol 54(5):361–371

Nezu, A. M., Nezu, C. M., & D'Zurilla, T. (2012). Problem-solving therapy: A treatment manual . Springer publishing company

Oner D, Aggul YG (2023) Critical thinking for teachers. Integrated Education and Learning. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 319–336

Orakcı Ş, Durnali M (2023) The mediating effects of metacognition and creative thinking on the relationship between teachers’ autonomy support and teachers’ self efficacy. Psychol Sch 60(1):162–181. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22770

Orakcı Ş, Durnali M, Aktan O (2019) Fostering Critical Thinking Using Instructional Strategies in English Classes. In: Robinson S, Knight V (eds) Handbook of Research on Critical Thinking and Teacher Education Pedagogy. IGI Global, pp 299–316

Orakcı Ş, Khalili T (2024) Iranian and Turkish EFL instructors’ Critical Openness. A comparative study. Heliyon, Reflective Skepticism, Innovative Thinking and Accountability. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e29097

Book   Google Scholar  

Paul RW (1990) Critical Thinking. Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, CA, Pennycook

Paul R, Elder L (2019) The miniature guide to critical thinking concepts and tools. Rowman & Littlefield

Paul, R. & Elder, L. (2001). Critical thinking: Tools for taking charge of your learning and your life . Prentice Hal

Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2006).  Critical thinking competency standards . Dillon Beach: Foundation for critical thinking.

Pepe Ş (2021) The relationship between academic self-efficacy and cognitive flexibility: physical education and sports teacher candidates. Propósitos y Representaciones 9(2):113

Phan HP (2009) Relations between goals, self-efficacy, critical thinking, and deep processing strategies: a path analysis. Educ Psychol 29(7):777–799. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410903289423

Pollarolo E, Størksen I, Skarstein TH, Kucirkova N (2023) Children’s critical thinking skills: perceptions of norwegian early childhood educators. Eur Early Child Educ Res J 31(2):259–271. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2022.2081349

Preiss DD (2022) Metacognition, mind wandering, and cognitive flexibility: understanding creativity. J Intelligence 10(3):69. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence10030069

Prifti R (2022) Self–efficacy and student satisfaction in the context of blended learning courses. Op Learn: J Op, Distance e-Learn 37(2):111–125. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680513.2020.1755642

Pöllänen E, Osika W, Bojner Horwitz E, Wamsler C (2023) Education for sustainability: understanding processes of change across individual, collective, and system levels. Challenges 14(1):5. https://doi.org/10.3390/challe14010005

Qiang R, Han Q, Guo Y, Bai J, Karwowski M (2020) Critical thinking disposition and scientific creativity: the mediating role of creative self-efficacy. J Creat Behav 54(1):90–99. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.347

Qiang RC, Han Q, Guo YY, Bai J, Karwowski M (2021) Critical thinking disposition and scientific creativity: the mediating role of creative self-efficacy. J Creat Behav 54(1):90–99. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.347

R Kupriyanov, E Valeeva, N S Valeyeva, S Ketabi, T Khalili. (2021). The role of metacognition and critical thinking for engineering students in EFL learning. In  Educating Engineers for Future Industrial Revolutions: Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Interactive Collaborative Learning (ICL2020), Volume 2 23  (pp. 96–106). Springer International Publishing.

Ramanathan V, Ariffin MZ, Goh GD, Goh GL, Rikat MA, Tan XX, Campolo D (2023) The design and development of instrumented toys for the assessment of infant cognitive flexibility. Sensors. https://doi.org/10.3390/s23052709

Rezaei S, Derakhshan A, Bagherkazemi M (2011) Critical thinking in language education. J Lang Teach Res 2(4):769. https://doi.org/10.4304/jltr.2.4.733-739

Richards JB, Hayes MM, Schwartzstein RM (2020) Teaching clinical reasoning and critical thinking: from cognitive theory to practical application. Chest 158(4):1617–1628

Rudd RD (2007) Defining critical thinking. Tech Connect Educ Careers. 82(7):46–49

Ruppar A, Kurth J, Bubash S, Lockman Turner E (2023) A framework for preparing to teach students with extensive support needs in the 21st century. Teach Educ Spec Educ 46(1):26–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/08884064211059853

Rönnlund M, Ledman K, Nylund M, Rosvall PÅ (2019) Life skills for ‘real life’: how critical thinking is contextualised across vocational programmes. Educ Res 61(3):302–318. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2019.1633942

Sadeghi B, Hassani MT, Rahmatkhah M (2014) The relationship between EFL learners’ metacognitive strategies, and their critical thinking. J Lang Teach Res 5(5):1167–1175

Sang G, Valcke M, Braak JV, Tondeur J (2010) Student teachers’ thinking processes and ICT integration: predictors of prospective teaching behaviors with educational technology. Comput Educ 54(1):103–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.07.010

Santana AN, de Roazzi A, Nobre APMC (2022) The relationship between cognitive flexibility and mathematical performance in children: a meta-analysis. Trends Neurosci Educ 28:100179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tine.2022.100179

Saputro AD, Atun S, Wilujeng I, Ariyanto A, Arifin S (2020) Enhancing pre-service elementary teachers’ self-efficacy and critical thinking using problem-based learning. Eur J Educ Res 9(5):765–773

Saud WI (2019) Contrastive analysis of ESL and EFL learning strategies. J Lang Teach Res. 10(2):311–321

Scheibling-Sève C, Pasquinelli E, Sander E (2022) Critical thinking and flexibility. In: Clément E (ed) Cognitive flexibility: The cornerstone of learning. ISTE Ltd and Wiley, pp 77–112

Schwarzer R, Luszczynska A (2008) How to overcome health-compromising behaviors: the health action process approach. Eur Psychol 13(2):141–151. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040.13.2.141

Shaabani F, Maktabi GH, Yeylagh MS, Morovati Z (2011) The relationship between academic self-efficacy and creativity with critical thinking in university students. J Educ Manag Stud 1(1):32–37

Shahzad K, Naureen S (2017) Impact of teacher self-efficacy on secondary school students’ academic achievement. J Educ Educ Dev. 4(1):48–72

Shaw PA, Traunter JE, Nguyen N, Huong TT, Thao-Do TP (2021) Immersive-learning experiences in real-life contexts: deconstructing and reconstructing Vietnamese kindergarten teachers’ understanding of STEAM education. Int J Early Years Educ 29(3):329–348. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669760.2021.1933920

Shimogori, Y. (2013). Impact of Biculturalism on Self-Efficacy and Cognitive Flexibility of Japanese Adults . Unpublished Doctoral Thesis. Claremont Graduate University and San Diego State University.

Sosu EM (2013) The development and psychometric validation of a critical thinking disposition scale. Think Skills Creat 9:107–119

Spiro RJ, Klautke HA, Cheng C, Gaunt A (2017) Cognitive flexibility theory and the assessment of 21st-century skills. In: Secolsky C, Denison DB (eds) Handbook on measurement, assessment, and evaluation in higher education. Routledge, NY, pp 631–637

Stein KC, Miness A, Kintz T (2018) Teachers’ cognitive flexibility on engagement and their ability to engage students: a theoretical and empirical exploration. Teach Coll Rec 120(6):1–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811812000607

Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS (2013) Using multivariate statistics. Pearson, Boston

Taguchi N (2008) The role of learning environment in the development of pragmaticcomprehension: a comparison of gains between EFL and ESL learners. Stud Insecond Lang Acquis 30(4):423–452. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263108080716

Taşgın A, Dilek Ç (2023) The mediating role of critical thinking dispositions between secondary school student’s self-efficacy and problem-solving skills. Think Skills Creat 50:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2023.101400

Tolan ÖÇ, KARA BC (2023) The Mediating Role of Cognitive Flexibility in the Relationship between Social Anxiety and General Self-Efficacy. E-Int J Educ Res. 14(1):229–244

Topno I (2020) Attitude towards development of creative thinking among prospective teachers. Int J Creat Res Thoughts. 8(3):1684–1689

Toprak E, Metin A, Ünalan D (2023) The mediating role of cognitive flexibility and critical thinking in the relationship between academic motivation and fear of negative evaluation. Psychol Sch. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.23080

Tschannen-Moran M, McMaster P (2009) Sources of self-efficacy: Four professional development formats and their relationship to self-efficacy and implementation of a new teaching strategy. Elem Sch J 110(2):228–245. https://doi.org/10.1086/605771

Tschannen-Moran M, Woolfolk Hoy A (2001) Teacher efficacy: Capturing and elusive construct. Teach Teach Educ 17:783–805

Uddin LQ (2021) Cognitive and behavioural flexibility: neural mechanisms and clinical0considerations. Nat Rev Neurosci 22(3):167–179. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41583-021-00428-w

Uskola A (2022) Fostering Critical Thinking About Health Issues: Facts of Success and Failure in the Case of Homeopathy. Critical Thinking in Biology and Environmental Education: Facing Challenges in a Post-Truth World. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 147–166

Voogt J, Erstad O, Dede C, Mishra P (2013) Challenges to learning and schooling in the digitalnetworked world of the 21st century. J Comput Assist Learn 29(5):403–413. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12029

Wang D, Jia Q (2023) Twenty years of research development on teachers’ critical thinking: current status and future implications——a bibliometric analysis of research articles collected in WOS. Think Skills Creat. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2023.101252

Wanga S-L, Wub P-Y (2008) The role of feedback and self-efficacy on web-based learning: the social cognitive perspective. Comput Educ 51:1589–1598. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.03.004

Watts R, Luoma JB (2020) The use of the psychological flexibility model to support psychedelic assisted therapy. J Contextual Behav Sci 15:92–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcbs.2019.12.004

Wen T, Geddert RM, Madlon-Kay S, Egner T (2023) Transfer of learned cognitive flexibility to novel stimuli and task sets. Psychol Sci 34(4):435–454. https://doi.org/10.1177/09567976221141854

West RF, Toplak ME, Stanovich KE (2008) Heuristics and biases as measures of criticalthinking: associations with cognitive ability and thinking dispositions. J Educ Psychol 100(4):930. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012842

Yu DSF, De Maria M, Barbaranelli C, Vellone E, Matarese M, Ausili D, Riegel B (2021) Cross-cultural applicability of the self-care self-efficacy scale in a multi-national study. J Adv Nurs 77(2):681–692. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.14617

Yuan R, Yang M, Stapleton P (2020) Enhancing undergraduates’ critical thinking through research engagement: a practitioner research approach. Think Skills Creat 38:100737. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2020.100737

Zaragoza MC, Díaz-Gibson J, Caparrós AF, Solé SL (2021) The teacher of the 21st century: professional competencies in catalonia today. Educ Stud 47(2):217–237. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2019.1686697

Zee M, Koomen HM (2016) Teacher self-efficacy and its effects on classroom processes, student academic adjustment, and teacher well-being: a synthesis of 40 years of research. Rev Educ Res 86(4):981–1015. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315626801

Zhang Y, Bian Y, Wu H, Tang W, Li Q (2023) Intuition or rationality: Impact of critical thinking dispositions on the cognitive processing of creative information. Think Skills Creat. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2023.101278

Zhang H, Yuan R, He X (2020) Investigating university EFL teachers’ perceptions of critical thinking and its teaching: voices from China. Asia Pac Educ Res 29:483–493. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-020-00500-6

Zheng W, Akaliyski P, Ma C, Xu Y (2024) Cognitive flexibility and academic performance: individual and cross-national patterns among adolescents in 57 countries. Personality Individ Differ 217:112455. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2023.112455

Zhou Y, Gan L, Chen J, Wijaya TT, Li Y (2023) Development and validation of a higher-order thinking skills assessment scale for pre-service teachers. Thinking Skills Creat 48:101272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2023.101272

Zou D, Xie H, Wang FL (2023) Effects of technology enhanced peer, teacher and self-feedback on students’ collaborative writing, critical thinking tendency and engagement in learning. J Comput High Educ 35(1):166–185. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-022-09337-y

Çelikkaleli, Ö. (2014). The relation between cognitive flexibility and academic, social, and emotional self-efficacy beliefs among adolescents. Egitim ve Bilim . https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2014.3467

Çetin İ, Padır MA, Çoğaltay N (2023) Examining the relationship between cognitive flexibility and effective problem solving skills in school principals: a canonical correlation analysis. J Human Soc Sci Res. 12(5):2442–2457

Çuhadaroğlu A (2013) Bilişsel esnekliğin yordayıcıları. Cumhuriyet Int J Educ 2(1):86–101

Öztürk, K., Denkci-Akkaş, D., & Tikiz-Ertürk, G. (2022). Pre-service EFL Teachers' Perceptions Regarding Their Critical Reading Self-Efficacy and Cognitive Flexibility, The Reading Matrix: An International Online Journal, 22 (2), 121–137. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1359299

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to express their appreciation’ to anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments.

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Curriculum and Instruction, Aksaray University, Aksaray, Turkey

Şenol Orakcı

Department of English Language and Literature, Hakim Sabzevari University, Sabzevar, Iran

Tahmineh Khalili

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Şenol Orakcı .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors report there are no competing interests to declare.

Ethical Approval

Ethics committee approval was obtained from "Aksaray University Human Research Ethics Committee" before starting the research (Date: 03.03.2023, Decision no: 2023/01- 35).

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants involved in the study.

Human or Animal Rigth

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. We, as an author, accept statements below on compliance with ethical standards and standards of research involving humans.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

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

Editors: Mikkel Wallentin (University of Aarhus), Johanne S.K. Nedergaard (University of Copenhagen); Reviewers: Enrico Pollarolo (University of Stavanger) and a second researcher who prefers to remain anonymous.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Orakcı, Ş., Khalili, T. The impact of cognitive flexibility on prospective EFL teachers' critical thinking disposition: the mediating role of self-efficacy. Cogn Process (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-024-01227-8

Download citation

Received : 22 March 2024

Accepted : 22 August 2024

Published : 31 August 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-024-01227-8

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• EFL teachers
• Cognitive flexibility
• Critical thinking disposition
• Self-efficacy
• Correlation
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Table of Contents
• New in this Archive
• Chronological
• Editorial Information
• About the SEP
• Editorial Board
• How to Cite the SEP
• Special Characters
• Support the SEP
• PDFs for SEP Friends
• Make a Donation
• SEPIA for Libraries
• Entry Contents

Bibliography

Academic tools.

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

Critical Thinking

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

2.1 Dewey’s Three Main Examples

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. Examples and Non-Examples

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8. Critical Thinking Dispositions

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

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

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

Critical thinking dispositions can usefully be divided into initiating dispositions (those that contribute causally to starting to think critically about an issue) and internal dispositions (those that contribute causally to doing a good job of thinking critically once one has started) (Facione 1990a: 25). The two categories are not mutually exclusive. For example, open-mindedness, in the sense of willingness to consider alternative points of view to one’s own, is both an initiating and an internal disposition.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

12. Controversies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Abrami, Philip C., Robert M. Bernard, Eugene Borokhovski, David I. Waddington, C. Anne Wade, and Tonje Person, 2015, “Strategies for Teaching Students to Think Critically: A Meta-analysis”, Review of Educational Research , 85(2): 275–314. doi:10.3102/0034654314551063
• Aikin, Wilford M., 1942, The Story of the Eight-year Study, with Conclusions and Recommendations , Volume I of Adventure in American Education , New York and London: Harper & Brothers. [ Aikin 1942 available online ]
• Alston, Kal, 1995, “Begging the Question: Is Critical Thinking Biased?”, Educational Theory , 45(2): 225–233. doi:10.1111/j.1741-5446.1995.00225.x
• –––, 2001, “Re/Thinking Critical Thinking: The Seductions of Everyday Life”, Studies in Philosophy and Education , 20(1): 27–40. doi:10.1023/A:1005247128053
• American Educational Research Association, 2014, Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing / American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, National Council on Measurement in Education , Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
• Anderson, Lorin W., David R. Krathwohl, Peter W. Airiasian, Kathleen A. Cruikshank, Richard E. Mayer, Paul R. Pintrich, James Raths, and Merlin C. Wittrock, 2001, A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives , New York: Longman, complete edition.
• Bailin, Sharon, 1987, “Critical and Creative Thinking”, Informal Logic , 9(1): 23–30. [ Bailin 1987 available online ]
• –––, 1988, Achieving Extraordinary Ends: An Essay on Creativity , Dordrecht: Kluwer. doi:10.1007/978-94-009-2780-3
• –––, 1995, “Is Critical Thinking Biased? Clarifications and Implications”, Educational Theory , 45(2): 191–197. doi:10.1111/j.1741-5446.1995.00191.x
• Bailin, Sharon and Mark Battersby, 2009, “Inquiry: A Dialectical Approach to Teaching Critical Thinking”, in Juho Ritola (ed.), Argument Cultures: Proceedings of OSSA 09 , CD-ROM (pp. 1–10), Windsor, ON: OSSA. [ Bailin & Battersby 2009 available online ]
• –––, 2016, “Fostering the Virtues of Inquiry”, Topoi , 35(2): 367–374. doi:10.1007/s11245-015-9307-6
• Bailin, Sharon, Roland Case, Jerrold R. Coombs, and Leroi B. Daniels, 1999a, “Common Misconceptions of Critical Thinking”, Journal of Curriculum Studies , 31(3): 269–283. doi:10.1080/002202799183124
• –––, 1999b, “Conceptualizing Critical Thinking”, Journal of Curriculum Studies , 31(3): 285–302. doi:10.1080/002202799183133
• Berman, Alan M., Seth J. Schwartz, William M. Kurtines, and Steven L. Berman, 2001, “The Process of Exploration in Identity Formation: The Role of Style and Competence”, Journal of Adolescence , 24(4): 513–528. doi:10.1006/jado.2001.0386
• Black, Beth (ed.), 2012, An A to Z of Critical Thinking , London: Continuum International Publishing Group.
• Bloom, Benjamin Samuel, Max D. Engelhart, Edward J. Furst, Walter H. Hill, and David R. Krathwohl, 1956, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Handbook I: Cognitive Domain , New York: David McKay.
• Casserly, Megan, 2012, “The 10 Skills That Will Get You Hired in 2013”, Forbes , Dec. 10, 2012. Available at https://www.forbes.com/sites/meghancasserly/2012/12/10/the-10-skills-that-will-get-you-a-job-in-2013/#79e7ff4e633d ; accessed 2017 11 06.
• Center for Assessment & Improvement of Learning, 2017, Critical Thinking Assessment Test , Cookeville, TN: Tennessee Technological University.
• Cohen, Jacob, 1988, Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences , Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2nd edition.
• College Board, 1983, Academic Preparation for College. What Students Need to Know and Be Able to Do , New York: College Entrance Examination Board, ERIC document ED232517.
• Commission on the Relation of School and College of the Progressive Education Association, 1943, Thirty Schools Tell Their Story , Volume V of Adventure in American Education , New York and London: Harper & Brothers.
• Council for Aid to Education, 2017, CLA+ Student Guide . Available at http://cae.org/images/uploads/pdf/CLA_Student_Guide_Institution.pdf ; accessed 2017 09 26.
• Dalgleish, Adam, Patrick Girard, and Maree Davies, 2017, “Critical Thinking, Bias and Feminist Philosophy: Building a Better Framework through Collaboration”, Informal Logic , 37(4): 351–369. [ Dalgleish et al. available online ]
• Dewey, John, 1910, How We Think , Boston: D.C. Heath. [ Dewey 1910 available online ]
• –––, 1916, Democracy and Education: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Education , New York: Macmillan.
• –––, 1933, How We Think: A Restatement of the Relation of Reflective Thinking to the Educative Process , Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath.
• –––, 1936, “The Theory of the Chicago Experiment”, Appendix II of Mayhew & Edwards 1936: 463–477.
• –––, 1938, Logic: The Theory of Inquiry , New York: Henry Holt and Company.
• Dominguez, Caroline (coord.), 2018a, A European Collection of the Critical Thinking Skills and Dispositions Needed in Different Professional Fields for the 21st Century , Vila Real, Portugal: UTAD. Available at http://bit.ly/CRITHINKEDUO1 ; accessed 2018 04 09.
• ––– (coord.), 2018b, A European Review on Critical Thinking Educational Practices in Higher Education Institutions , Vila Real: UTAD. Available at http://bit.ly/CRITHINKEDUO2 ; accessed 2018 04 14.
• Dumke, Glenn S., 1980, Chancellor’s Executive Order 338 , Long Beach, CA: California State University, Chancellor’s Office. Available at https://www.calstate.edu/eo/EO-338.pdf ; accessed 2017 11 16.
• Ennis, Robert H., 1958, “An Appraisal of the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal”, The Journal of Educational Research , 52(4): 155–158. doi:10.1080/00220671.1958.10882558
• –––, 1962, “A Concept of Critical Thinking: A Proposed Basis for Research on the Teaching and Evaluation of Critical Thinking Ability”, Harvard Educational Review , 32(1): 81–111.
• –––, 1981a, “A Conception of Deductive Logical Competence”, Teaching Philosophy , 4(3/4): 337–385. doi:10.5840/teachphil198143/429
• –––, 1981b, “Eight Fallacies in Bloom’s Taxonomy”, in C. J. B. Macmillan (ed.), Philosophy of Education 1980: Proceedings of the Thirty-seventh Annual Meeting of the Philosophy of Education Society , Bloomington, IL: Philosophy of Education Society, pp. 269–273.
• –––, 1984, “Problems in Testing Informal Logic, Critical Thinking, Reasoning Ability”. Informal Logic , 6(1): 3–9. [ Ennis 1984 available online ]
• –––, 1987, “A Taxonomy of Critical Thinking Dispositions and Abilities”, in Joan Boykoff Baron and Robert J. Sternberg (eds.), Teaching Thinking Skills: Theory and Practice , New York: W. H. Freeman, pp. 9–26.
• –––, 1989, “Critical Thinking and Subject Specificity: Clarification and Needed Research”, Educational Researcher , 18(3): 4–10. doi:10.3102/0013189X018003004
• –––, 1991, “Critical Thinking: A Streamlined Conception”, Teaching Philosophy , 14(1): 5–24. doi:10.5840/teachphil19911412
• –––, 1996, “Critical Thinking Dispositions: Their Nature and Assessability”, Informal Logic , 18(2–3): 165–182. [ Ennis 1996 available online ]
• –––, 1998, “Is Critical Thinking Culturally Biased?”, Teaching Philosophy , 21(1): 15–33. doi:10.5840/teachphil19982113
• –––, 2011, “Critical Thinking: Reflection and Perspective Part I”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking across the Disciplines , 26(1): 4–18. doi:10.5840/inquiryctnews20112613
• –––, 2013, “Critical Thinking across the Curriculum: The Wisdom CTAC Program”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking across the Disciplines , 28(2): 25–45. doi:10.5840/inquiryct20132828
• –––, 2016, “Definition: A Three-Dimensional Analysis with Bearing on Key Concepts”, in Patrick Bondy and Laura Benacquista (eds.), Argumentation, Objectivity, and Bias: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA), 18–21 May 2016 , Windsor, ON: OSSA, pp. 1–19. Available at http://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive/OSSA11/papersandcommentaries/105 ; accessed 2017 12 02.
• –––, 2018, “Critical Thinking Across the Curriculum: A Vision”, Topoi , 37(1): 165–184. doi:10.1007/s11245-016-9401-4
• Ennis, Robert H., and Jason Millman, 1971, Manual for Cornell Critical Thinking Test, Level X, and Cornell Critical Thinking Test, Level Z , Urbana, IL: Critical Thinking Project, University of Illinois.
• Ennis, Robert H., Jason Millman, and Thomas Norbert Tomko, 1985, Cornell Critical Thinking Tests Level X & Level Z: Manual , Pacific Grove, CA: Midwest Publication, 3rd edition.
• –––, 2005, Cornell Critical Thinking Tests Level X & Level Z: Manual , Seaside, CA: Critical Thinking Company, 5th edition.
• Ennis, Robert H. and Eric Weir, 1985, The Ennis-Weir Critical Thinking Essay Test: Test, Manual, Criteria, Scoring Sheet: An Instrument for Teaching and Testing , Pacific Grove, CA: Midwest Publications.
• Facione, Peter A., 1990a, Critical Thinking: A Statement of Expert Consensus for Purposes of Educational Assessment and Instruction , Research Findings and Recommendations Prepared for the Committee on Pre-College Philosophy of the American Philosophical Association, ERIC Document ED315423.
• –––, 1990b, California Critical Thinking Skills Test, CCTST – Form A , Millbrae, CA: The California Academic Press.
• –––, 1990c, The California Critical Thinking Skills Test--College Level. Technical Report #3. Gender, Ethnicity, Major, CT Self-Esteem, and the CCTST , ERIC Document ED326584.
• –––, 1992, California Critical Thinking Skills Test: CCTST – Form B, Millbrae, CA: The California Academic Press.
• –––, 2000, “The Disposition Toward Critical Thinking: Its Character, Measurement, and Relationship to Critical Thinking Skill”, Informal Logic , 20(1): 61–84. [ Facione 2000 available online ]
• Facione, Peter A. and Noreen C. Facione, 1992, CCTDI: A Disposition Inventory , Millbrae, CA: The California Academic Press.
• Facione, Peter A., Noreen C. Facione, and Carol Ann F. Giancarlo, 2001, California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory: CCTDI: Inventory Manual , Millbrae, CA: The California Academic Press.
• Facione, Peter A., Carol A. Sánchez, and Noreen C. Facione, 1994, Are College Students Disposed to Think? , Millbrae, CA: The California Academic Press. ERIC Document ED368311.
• Fisher, Alec, and Michael Scriven, 1997, Critical Thinking: Its Definition and Assessment , Norwich: Centre for Research in Critical Thinking, University of East Anglia.
• Freire, Paulo, 1968 [1970], Pedagogia do Oprimido . Translated as Pedagogy of the Oppressed , Myra Bergman Ramos (trans.), New York: Continuum, 1970.
• Glaser, Edward Maynard, 1941, An Experiment in the Development of Critical Thinking , New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University.
• Halpern, Diane F., 1998, “Teaching Critical Thinking for Transfer Across Domains: Disposition, Skills, Structure Training, and Metacognitive Monitoring”, American Psychologist , 53(4): 449–455. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.53.4.449
• –––, 2016, Manual: Halpern Critical Thinking Assessment , Mödling, Austria: Schuhfried. Available at https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzUoP_pmwy1gdEpCR05PeW9qUzA/view ; accessed 2017 12 01.
• Hamby, Benjamin, 2014, The Virtues of Critical Thinkers , Doctoral dissertation, Philosophy, McMaster University. [ Hamby 2014 available online ]
• –––, 2015, “Willingness to Inquire: The Cardinal Critical Thinking Virtue”, in Martin Davies and Ronald Barnett (eds.), The Palgrave Handbook of Critical Thinking in Higher Education , New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 77–87.
• Haynes, Ada, Elizabeth Lisic, Kevin Harris, Katie Leming, Kyle Shanks, and Barry Stein, 2015, “Using the Critical Thinking Assessment Test (CAT) as a Model for Designing Within-Course Assessments: Changing How Faculty Assess Student Learning”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines , 30(3): 38–48. doi:10.5840/inquiryct201530316
• Hitchcock, David, 2017, “Critical Thinking as an Educational Ideal”, in his On Reasoning and Argument: Essays in Informal Logic and on Critical Thinking , Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 477–497. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-53562-3_30
• hooks, bell, 1994, Teaching to Transgress: Education as the Practice of Freedom , New York and London: Routledge.
• –––, 2010, Teaching Critical Thinking: Practical Wisdom , New York and London: Routledge.
• Johnson, Ralph H., 1992, “The Problem of Defining Critical Thinking”, in Stephen P, Norris (ed.), The Generalizability of Critical Thinking , New York: Teachers College Press, pp. 38–53.
• Kahane, Howard, 1971, Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric: The Use of Reason in Everyday Life , Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
• Kahneman, Daniel, 2011, Thinking, Fast and Slow , New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
• Kenyon, Tim, and Guillaume Beaulac, 2014, “Critical Thinking Education and Debasing”, Informal Logic , 34(4): 341–363. [ Kenyon & Beaulac 2014 available online ]
• Krathwohl, David R., Benjamin S. Bloom, and Bertram B. Masia, 1964, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook II: Affective Domain , New York: David McKay.
• Kuhn, Deanna, 1991, The Skills of Argument , New York: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511571350
• Lipman, Matthew, 1987, “Critical Thinking–What Can It Be?”, Analytic Teaching , 8(1): 5–12. [ Lipman 1987 available online ]
• Loftus, Elizabeth F., 2017, “Eavesdropping on Memory”, Annual Review of Psychology , 68: 1–18. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-010416-044138
• Martin, Jane Roland, 1992, “Critical Thinking for a Humane World”, in Stephen P. Norris (ed.), The Generalizability of Critical Thinking , New York: Teachers College Press, pp. 163–180.
• Mayhew, Katherine Camp, and Anna Camp Edwards, 1936, The Dewey School: The Laboratory School of the University of Chicago, 1896–1903 , New York: Appleton-Century. [ Mayhew & Edwards 1936 available online ]
• McPeck, John E., 1981, Critical Thinking and Education , New York: St. Martin’s Press.
• Nickerson, Raymond S., 1998, “Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises”, Review of General Psychology , 2(2): 175–220. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175
• Nieto, Ana Maria, and Jorge Valenzuela, 2012, “A Study of the Internal Structure of Critical Thinking Dispositions”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking across the Disciplines , 27(1): 31–38. doi:10.5840/inquiryct20122713
• Norris, Stephen P., 1985, “Controlling for Background Beliefs When Developing Multiple-choice Critical Thinking Tests”, Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice , 7(3): 5–11. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3992.1988.tb00437.x
• Norris, Stephen P. and Robert H. Ennis, 1989, Evaluating Critical Thinking (The Practitioners’ Guide to Teaching Thinking Series), Pacific Grove, CA: Midwest Publications.
• Norris, Stephen P. and Ruth Elizabeth King, 1983, Test on Appraising Observations , St. John’s, NL: Institute for Educational Research and Development, Memorial University of Newfoundland.
• –––, 1984, The Design of a Critical Thinking Test on Appraising Observations , St. John’s, NL: Institute for Educational Research and Development, Memorial University of Newfoundland. ERIC Document ED260083.
• –––, 1985, Test on Appraising Observations: Manual , St. John’s, NL: Institute for Educational Research and Development, Memorial University of Newfoundland.
• –––, 1990a, Test on Appraising Observations , St. John’s, NL: Institute for Educational Research and Development, Memorial University of Newfoundland, 2nd edition.
• –––, 1990b, Test on Appraising Observations: Manual , St. John’s, NL: Institute for Educational Research and Development, Memorial University of Newfoundland, 2nd edition.
• Obama, Barack, 2014, State of the Union Address , January 28, 2014. [ Obama 2014 available online ]
• OCR [Oxford, Cambridge and RSA Examinations], 2011, AS/A Level GCE: Critical Thinking – H052, H452 , Cambridge: OCR. Information available at http://www.ocr.org.uk/qualifications/as-a-level-gce-critical-thinking-h052-h452/ ; accessed 2017 10 12.
• OECD [Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development] Centre for Educational Research and Innovation, 2018, Fostering and Assessing Students’ Creative and Critical Thinking Skills in Higher Education , Paris: OECD. Available at http://www.oecd.org/education/ceri/Fostering-and-assessing-students-creative-and-critical-thinking-skills-in-higher-education.pdf ; accessed 2018 04 22.
• Ontario Ministry of Education, 2013, The Ontario Curriculum Grades 9 to 12: Social Sciences and Humanities . Available at http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/curriculum/secondary/ssciences9to122013.pdf ; accessed 2017 11 16.
• Passmore, John Arthur, 1980, The Philosophy of Teaching , London: Duckworth.
• Paul, Richard W., 1981, “Teaching Critical Thinking in the ‘Strong’ Sense: A Focus on Self-Deception, World Views, and a Dialectical Mode of Analysis”, Informal Logic , 4(2): 2–7. [ Paul 1981 available online ]
• –––, 1984, “Critical Thinking: Fundamental to Education for a Free Society”, Educational Leadership , 42(1): 4–14.
• –––, 1985, “McPeck’s Mistakes”, Informal Logic , 7(1): 35–43. [ Paul 1985 available online ]
• Paul, Richard W. and Linda Elder, 2006, The Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking: Concepts and Tools , Dillon Beach, CA: Foundation for Critical Thinking, 4th edition.
• Payette, Patricia, and Edna Ross, 2016, “Making a Campus-Wide Commitment to Critical Thinking: Insights and Promising Practices Utilizing the Paul-Elder Approach at the University of Louisville”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines , 31(1): 98–110. doi:10.5840/inquiryct20163118
• Possin, Kevin, 2008, “A Field Guide to Critical-Thinking Assessment”, Teaching Philosophy , 31(3): 201–228. doi:10.5840/teachphil200831324
• –––, 2013a, “Some Problems with the Halpern Critical Thinking Assessment (HCTA) Test”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking across the Disciplines , 28(3): 4–12. doi:10.5840/inquiryct201328313
• –––, 2013b, “A Serious Flaw in the Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA) Test”, Informal Logic , 33(3): 390–405. [ Possin 2013b available online ]
• –––, 2014, “Critique of the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal Test: The More You Know, the Lower Your Score”, Informal Logic , 34(4): 393–416. [ Possin 2014 available online ]
• Rawls, John, 1971, A Theory of Justice , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, 1762, Émile , Amsterdam: Jean Néaulme.
• Scheffler, Israel, 1960, The Language of Education , Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
• Scriven, Michael, and Richard W. Paul, 1987, Defining Critical Thinking , Draft statement written for the National Council for Excellence in Critical Thinking Instruction. Available at http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/defining-critical-thinking/766 ; accessed 2017 11 29.
• Sheffield, Clarence Burton Jr., 2018, “Promoting Critical Thinking in Higher Education: My Experiences as the Inaugural Eugene H. Fram Chair in Applied Critical Thinking at Rochester Institute of Technology”, Topoi , 37(1): 155–163. doi:10.1007/s11245-016-9392-1
• Siegel, Harvey, 1985, “McPeck, Informal Logic and the Nature of Critical Thinking”, in David Nyberg (ed.), Philosophy of Education 1985: Proceedings of the Forty-First Annual Meeting of the Philosophy of Education Society , Normal, IL: Philosophy of Education Society, pp. 61–72.
• –––, 1988, Educating Reason: Rationality, Critical Thinking, and Education , New York: Routledge.
• –––, 1999, “What (Good) Are Thinking Dispositions?”, Educational Theory , 49(2): 207–221. doi:10.1111/j.1741-5446.1999.00207.x
• Simpson, Elizabeth, 1966–67, “The Classification of Educational Objectives: Psychomotor Domain”, Illinois Teacher of Home Economics , 10(4): 110–144, ERIC document ED0103613. [ Simpson 1966–67 available online ]
• Skolverket, 2011, Curriculum for the Compulsory School, Preschool Class and the Recreation Centre , Stockholm: Ordförrådet AB. Available at http://malmo.se/download/18.29c3b78a132728ecb52800034181/pdf2687.pdf ; accessed 2017 11 16.
• Smith, B. Othanel, 1953, “The Improvement of Critical Thinking”, Progressive Education , 30(5): 129–134.
• Smith, Eugene Randolph, Ralph Winfred Tyler, and the Evaluation Staff, 1942, Appraising and Recording Student Progress , Volume III of Adventure in American Education , New York and London: Harper & Brothers.
• Splitter, Laurance J., 1987, “Educational Reform through Philosophy for Children”, Thinking: The Journal of Philosophy for Children , 7(2): 32–39. doi:10.5840/thinking1987729
• Stanovich Keith E., and Paula J. Stanovich, 2010, “A Framework for Critical Thinking, Rational Thinking, and Intelligence”, in David D. Preiss and Robert J. Sternberg (eds), Innovations in Educational Psychology: Perspectives on Learning, Teaching and Human Development , New York: Springer Publishing, pp 195–237.
• Stanovich Keith E., Richard F. West, and Maggie E. Toplak, 2011, “Intelligence and Rationality”, in Robert J. Sternberg and Scott Barry Kaufman (eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 3rd edition, pp. 784–826. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511977244.040
• Tankersley, Karen, 2005, Literacy Strategies for Grades 4–12: Reinforcing the Threads of Reading , Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
• Thayer-Bacon, Barbara J., 1992, “Is Modern Critical Thinking Theory Sexist?”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines , 10(1): 3–7. doi:10.5840/inquiryctnews199210123
• –––, 1993, “Caring and Its Relationship to Critical Thinking”, Educational Theory , 43(3): 323–340. doi:10.1111/j.1741-5446.1993.00323.x
• –––, 1995a, “Constructive Thinking: Personal Voice”, Journal of Thought , 30(1): 55–70.
• –––, 1995b, “Doubting and Believing: Both are Important for Critical Thinking”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking across the Disciplines , 15(2): 59–66. doi:10.5840/inquiryctnews199515226
• –––, 2000, Transforming Critical Thinking: Thinking Constructively , New York: Teachers College Press.
• Toulmin, Stephen Edelston, 1958, The Uses of Argument , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Turri, John, Mark Alfano, and John Greco, 2017, “Virtue Epistemology”, in Edward N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2017 Edition). URL = < https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2017/entries/epistemology-virtue/ >
• Warren, Karen J. 1988. “Critical Thinking and Feminism”, Informal Logic , 10(1): 31–44. [ Warren 1988 available online ]
• Watson, Goodwin, and Edward M. Glaser, 1980a, Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal, Form A , San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
• –––, 1980b, Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal: Forms A and B; Manual , San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation,
• –––, 1994, Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal, Form B , San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
• Weinstein, Mark, 1990, “Towards a Research Agenda for Informal Logic and Critical Thinking”, Informal Logic , 12(3): 121–143. [ Weinstein 1990 available online ]
• –––, 2013, Logic, Truth and Inquiry , London: College Publications.
• Zagzebski, Linda Trinkaus, 1996, Virtues of the Mind: An Inquiry into the Nature of Virtue and the Ethical Foundations of Knowledge , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139174763

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

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

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

Copyright © 2018 by David Hitchcock < hitchckd @ mcmaster . ca >

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

• Info about mirror sites

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

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

• Your Health
• Treatments & Tests
• Health Inc.
• Public Health

Shots - Health News

This metabolic brain boost revives memory in alzheimer’s mice.

Jon Hamilton

A drug that restores brain metabolism could help treat Alzheimer's

Aging and Alzheimer's leave the brain starved of energy. Now scientists think they've found a way to aid the brain's metabolism — in mice. PM Images/Getty Images hide caption

The brain needs a lot of energy — far more than any other organ in the body — to work properly. And aging and Alzheimer’s disease both seem to leave the brain underpowered.

But an experimental cancer drug appeared to re-energize the brains of mice that had a form of Alzheimer’s — and even restore their ability to learn and remember.

The finding, published in the journal Science , suggests that it may eventually be possible to reverse some symptoms of Alzheimer’s in people, using drugs that boost brain metabolism.

The results also offer an approach to treatment that’s unlike anything on the market today. Current drugs for treating Alzheimer’s, such as lecanemab and donanemab, target the sticky amyloid plaques that build up in a patient’s brain. These drugs can remove plaques and slow the disease process, but do not improve memory or thinking.

The result should help “change how we think about targeting this disease,” says Shannon Macauley , an associate professor at the University of Kentucky who was not involved in the study.

A surprise, then a discovery

The new research was prompted by a lab experiment that didn’t go as planned.

A team at Stanford was studying an enzyme called IDO1 that plays a key role in keeping a cell’s metabolism running properly. They suspected that in Alzheimer’s disease, IDO1 was malfunctioning in a way that limited the brain’s ability to turn nutrients into energy.

So the team used genetics to eliminate the enzyme entirely from mice that develop a form of Alzheimer’s. They figured that without any IDO1, brain metabolism would decline.

The brain makes a lot of waste. Now scientists think they know where it goes

“We expected to see everything [get] much, much, much worse”, says Dr. Katrin Andreasson , a professor of neurology and neuroscience at Stanford. “But no, it was the complete opposite.”

Without the enzyme, the mouse brains were actually better at turning glucose into energy and didn’t exhibit the memory loss usually associated with Alzheimer’s.

“It was such a profound rescue that we sort of went back to the drawing board and tried to figure out what was going on,” Andreasson says.

Eventually, the team found an explanation.

Getting rid of the enzyme had altered the behavior of cells called astrocytes.

Usually, astrocytes help provide energy to neurons, the cells that allow for learning and memory. But when the toxic plaques and tangles of Alzheimer’s begin to appear in the brain, levels of IDO1 rise and astrocytes stop doing this job.

What causes Alzheimer's? Study puts leading theory to 'ultimate test'

“They’re kind of put to sleep,” Andreasson says. So “you’ve got to wake them up to get them to help the neurons.”

And that’s what happened when scientists used genetics to remove IDO1.

Their hypothesis was that high levels of IDO1 were limiting the astrocytes’ ability to produce lactate, a chemical that helps brain cells, including neurons, transform food into energy.

To confirm the hypothesis, the team, led by Dr. Paras Minhas , did a series of experiments. One involved placing a mouse in the center of a shiny white disk under a bright light.

“It really wants to get out of there,” Andreasson says. “But it has to learn where the escape hole is” by following visual cues.

Healthy mice learned how to read those cues after a few days of training, and would escape almost instantly.

“But in the Alzheimer mice, the time to find the escape hole really skyrocketed,” Andreasson says.

That changed when the team gave these mice an experimental cancer drug that could block the enzyme much the way genetic engineering had.

A protein called Reelin keeps popping up in brains that resist aging and Alzheimer’s

The treated mice learned to escape the bright light as quickly as healthy animals. And a look at their brains showed that their astrocytes had woken up and were helping neurons produce the energy needed for memory and thinking.

In the hippocampus, a brain area that’s critical for memory and navigation, tests showed that the drug had restored normal glucose metabolism even though the plaques and tangles of Alzheimer’s were still present.

The team also tested human astrocytes and neurons derived from Alzheimer’s patients. And once again, the drug restored normal function.

Beyond plaques and tangles

The experiments add to the evidence that Alzheimer’s involves a lot more than just the appearance of plaques and tangles.

“We can have these metabolic changes in our brain,” Macaulay says, “but they’re reversible.”

Neurons have long been the focus of Alzheimer’s research. But the new results also show how other kinds of cells in the brain can play an important role in the disease.

The brain is a bit like a beehive, where a neuron is the queen, Macaulay says. But she’s kept alive by worker bees, like astrocytes, which are asked to do more as Alzheimer’s changes the brain.

“Those worker bees are getting unbelievably taxed from all the things they are being asked to do,” Macaulay says. “When that happens, then the whole system doesn’t work well.”

Metabolic treatments that restore astrocytes and other helper cells in the brain could someday augment existing Alzheimer’s drugs that remove amyloid plaques, Macauley says.

And the metabolic approach may be able to improve memory and thinking — something amyloid drugs don’t do.

“Maybe this can make your astrocytes and your neurons work a little bit better, so that you function a little bit better,” Macaulay says.

But first, she says, the promising results will have to be replicated in people.

• Alzheimer's research
• Alzheimer's disease
• Brain research