schools and critical thinking

Why schools should teach critical thinking

From online misinformation and divisive political discourse to science skepticism, there are many challenges when it comes to making sense of the world around us. Having critical thinking skills is essential in ensuring students can navigate the increasingly complex events and contexts they will encounter throughout their lives.

And in a world calling out for problem-solvers, the value of critical thinking skills is recognized far beyond the classroom walls. Let’s take a look at how prioritizing teaching critical thinking skills benefits students and sets them up for success.

What are critical thinking skills for students?

Critical thinking is the art of clear thinking that is rational and reasoned. Critical thinkers don’t simply accept information at face-value but rather interpret and analyze it to arrive at their own conclusions grounded in evidence. They come at a question from different perspectives, seeking out opposing viewpoints, and questioning their assumptions.

For students, critical thinking skills are relevant across subject areas and crucial in guiding them to become independent thinkers. What’s more, schools are in a good position to help nurture the required skills! Let’s explore their role and the benefits of making critical thinking an educational goal.

Why schools are well-placed to teach critical thinking skills

Developing critical thinking skills is an ongoing process, requiring guidance and deliberate practice. Schools can take a longer-term and systematic approach to teaching critical thinking by integrating it into the curriculum. This provides students with a structured learning environment with access to expert educators who use pedagogy to support students in building on existing skills, promoting transfer , and fostering thinking skills. 

Added to that, domain knowledge is a crucial factor in thinking skills and educators can integrate domain-specific skills to support critical thinking alongside content delivery in the classroom.

How educators can successfully teach critical thinking skills to students

Educators are in a strong position to teach critical thinking skills, whether by cultivating a classroom environment that values inquiry, modeling thinking processes through think-alouds, or giving attention to key skills such as perspective-taking. 

Importantly, educators can foster critical thinking skills in real-world contexts while building curriculum knowledge to emphasize their practical application. 

Using collaborative learning strategies, teachers can expose students to different perspectives or integrate activities that prompt students to justify their thinking, such as through discussion or argument mapping on Kialo Edu . And though developing critical thinking skills takes time, students reap unparalleled benefits that last them a lifetime. 

How students benefit from critical thinking skills

Critical thinking improves student learning outcomes.

Helping students learn how to think critically ensures they aren’t simply passive recipients of information, but rather can interpret and apply their knowledge across subject areas. It is immensely satisfying to watch them learn to take control of their learning, ask important questions, and actively engage with material with a discerning eye. This type of dialogic teaching sets them up to become independent learners. 

Not only that, critical thinking skills also help students become better communicators . Effective communication relies on the ability to organize our thoughts clearly and logically — a central element of developed thinking!

Students hone 21st-century skills with critical thinking

Critical thinking sits alongside creativity, collaboration, and communication as a key 21st-century skill . These skills are vital to helping students respond to the demands of a rapidly changing world, whether that involves dealing with information overload, adapting to new technologies or understanding diverse perspectives in a multi-cultural context.

By working on critical thought in the classroom, students will be better equipped to deal with whatever the future brings. For example, you can encourage students to become active participants in conversations on changes happening around them by having a Kialo discussion on how AI will impact the world .

Students use critical thinking skills to battle against misinformation

To fully benefit from today’s information-rich world, students need to successfully identify and evaluate good sources, assessing the reams of (credible and not-so-credible) content at their fingertips. A combination of information literacy and critical thinking skills makes for a well-rounded skill set, supporting students to come to reasoned conclusions amid the deluge of information available. 

Critical thinking skills complement civic literacy

As another closely intertwined skill set, civic l i teracy works hand-in-hand with critical thinking skills to nurture informed and engaged citizenship. An ability to recognize different points of view, question political and media rhetoric, and understand the broader implications of policy decisions empowers students to participate in meaningful discussions about how society and structures function around them. 

To engage students on these topics, try choosing a Kialo discussion from the Civics and Society section in our Topics Library to help scaffold these complex topics. Students might discuss the relevance of democracy to their lives or debate whether voting should be a civic duty expected of all!

Is democracy a good form of government? — kialo-edu.com

Students can make better decisions with critical thinking skills

The power to make thoughtful, well-informed decisions can positively impact every aspect of our lives, and critical thinking is the linchpin for effective decision-making. A critical thinker makes decisions from a place of objective understanding and sound evidence. Educators can help students weigh up arguments from different perspectives and become aware of cognitive biases , making students better placed to compensate for such influences as groupthink , the availability heuristic and confirmation bias.

To develop decision-making skills in a clear context, try a classic desert island survival discussion. This lighthearted approach can still emphasize real-world applications in making difficult choices around resource allocation . You might even get students to explore their own capacity for decision-making with a discussion on the implications of turning 18 !  

Students can better their problem-solving skills through critical thinking

Problem-solving is a highly complex skill, essential in our personal and professional lives to deal with the inevitable challenges that come our way. And critical thinking is a core component of good problem-solving, helping students systematically approach a problem and ask the right questions to get to the root cause.

By giving students the opportunity to work on true problems in the classroom, teachers can contextualize and model effective problem-solving processes and rational thinking . One approach is to task your students to practice engaging with more than one solution to a given problem, such as exploring an argument map on proposed responses to climate change . Or create your own to get your students exploring challenges in your preferred curricular area.

Critical thinking boosts student creativity

Another 21st-century skill, creativity has the potential to enhance learning and student well-being. Closely intertwined with problem-solving, creative thinking is essential to generating novel and innovative solutions. Those solutions, however, need to be useful and address the underlying issue! 

Students versed in critical thinking can examine their creative ideas, identifying areas for modification or recognizing fundamental flaws that make them unfeasible. Not only that, students can reflect on the outcomes of their ideas to inform future creative processes, enhancing the quality and effectiveness of their ideas beyond the task they’re working on.

Critical thinking helps student self-reflect on their actions

An ability to engage in meaningful reflection is integral for students to develop positive relationships and work towards meaningful goals. These goals can be for an academic achievement, or other personal goals that motivate them. By utilizing critical thinking skills, students are better placed to identify lessons learned from past experiences or to engage in an honest assessment of their personal strengths and weaknesses. 

We’d love to know what benefits you see from working on critical thinking in your classroom! Get in touch at [email protected] , or on any of our social media platforms. And if you haven’t yet tried a class discussion to activate your students’ critical thinking skills, take some inspiration from some of our ready-made debate topics !

Want to try Kialo Edu with your class?

Sign up for free and use Kialo Edu to have thoughtful classroom discussions and train students’ argumentation and critical thinking skills.

Classroom Q&A

With larry ferlazzo.

In this EdWeek blog, an experiment in knowledge-gathering, Ferlazzo will address readers’ questions on classroom management, ELL instruction, lesson planning, and other issues facing teachers. Send your questions to [email protected]. Read more from this blog.

Eight Instructional Strategies for Promoting Critical Thinking

• Share article

(This is the first post in a three-part series.)

The new question-of-the-week is:

What is critical thinking and how can we integrate it into the classroom?

This three-part series will explore what critical thinking is, if it can be specifically taught and, if so, how can teachers do so in their classrooms.

Today’s guests are Dara Laws Savage, Patrick Brown, Meg Riordan, Ph.D., and Dr. PJ Caposey. Dara, Patrick, and Meg were also guests on my 10-minute BAM! Radio Show . You can also find a list of, and links to, previous shows here.

You might also be interested in The Best Resources On Teaching & Learning Critical Thinking In The Classroom .

Current Events

Dara Laws Savage is an English teacher at the Early College High School at Delaware State University, where she serves as a teacher and instructional coach and lead mentor. Dara has been teaching for 25 years (career preparation, English, photography, yearbook, newspaper, and graphic design) and has presented nationally on project-based learning and technology integration:

There is so much going on right now and there is an overload of information for us to process. Did you ever stop to think how our students are processing current events? They see news feeds, hear news reports, and scan photos and posts, but are they truly thinking about what they are hearing and seeing?

I tell my students that my job is not to give them answers but to teach them how to think about what they read and hear. So what is critical thinking and how can we integrate it into the classroom? There are just as many definitions of critical thinking as there are people trying to define it. However, the Critical Think Consortium focuses on the tools to create a thinking-based classroom rather than a definition: “Shape the climate to support thinking, create opportunities for thinking, build capacity to think, provide guidance to inform thinking.” Using these four criteria and pairing them with current events, teachers easily create learning spaces that thrive on thinking and keep students engaged.

One successful technique I use is the FIRE Write. Students are given a quote, a paragraph, an excerpt, or a photo from the headlines. Students are asked to F ocus and respond to the selection for three minutes. Next, students are asked to I dentify a phrase or section of the photo and write for two minutes. Third, students are asked to R eframe their response around a specific word, phrase, or section within their previous selection. Finally, students E xchange their thoughts with a classmate. Within the exchange, students also talk about how the selection connects to what we are covering in class.

There was a controversial Pepsi ad in 2017 involving Kylie Jenner and a protest with a police presence. The imagery in the photo was strikingly similar to a photo that went viral with a young lady standing opposite a police line. Using that image from a current event engaged my students and gave them the opportunity to critically think about events of the time.

Here are the two photos and a student response:

F - Focus on both photos and respond for three minutes

In the first picture, you see a strong and courageous black female, bravely standing in front of two officers in protest. She is risking her life to do so. Iesha Evans is simply proving to the world she does NOT mean less because she is black … and yet officers are there to stop her. She did not step down. In the picture below, you see Kendall Jenner handing a police officer a Pepsi. Maybe this wouldn’t be a big deal, except this was Pepsi’s weak, pathetic, and outrageous excuse of a commercial that belittles the whole movement of people fighting for their lives.

I - Identify a word or phrase, underline it, then write about it for two minutes

A white, privileged female in place of a fighting black woman was asking for trouble. A struggle we are continuously fighting every day, and they make a mockery of it. “I know what will work! Here Mr. Police Officer! Drink some Pepsi!” As if. Pepsi made a fool of themselves, and now their already dwindling fan base continues to ever shrink smaller.

R - Reframe your thoughts by choosing a different word, then write about that for one minute

You don’t know privilege until it’s gone. You don’t know privilege while it’s there—but you can and will be made accountable and aware. Don’t use it for evil. You are not stupid. Use it to do something. Kendall could’ve NOT done the commercial. Kendall could’ve released another commercial standing behind a black woman. Anything!

Exchange - Remember to discuss how this connects to our school song project and our previous discussions?

This connects two ways - 1) We want to convey a strong message. Be powerful. Show who we are. And Pepsi definitely tried. … Which leads to the second connection. 2) Not mess up and offend anyone, as had the one alma mater had been linked to black minstrels. We want to be amazing, but we have to be smart and careful and make sure we include everyone who goes to our school and everyone who may go to our school.

As a final step, students read and annotate the full article and compare it to their initial response.

Using current events and critical-thinking strategies like FIRE writing helps create a learning space where thinking is the goal rather than a score on a multiple-choice assessment. Critical-thinking skills can cross over to any of students’ other courses and into life outside the classroom. After all, we as teachers want to help the whole student be successful, and critical thinking is an important part of navigating life after they leave our classrooms.

‘Before-Explore-Explain’

Patrick Brown is the executive director of STEM and CTE for the Fort Zumwalt school district in Missouri and an experienced educator and author :

Planning for critical thinking focuses on teaching the most crucial science concepts, practices, and logical-thinking skills as well as the best use of instructional time. One way to ensure that lessons maintain a focus on critical thinking is to focus on the instructional sequence used to teach.

Explore-before-explain teaching is all about promoting critical thinking for learners to better prepare students for the reality of their world. What having an explore-before-explain mindset means is that in our planning, we prioritize giving students firsthand experiences with data, allow students to construct evidence-based claims that focus on conceptual understanding, and challenge students to discuss and think about the why behind phenomena.

Just think of the critical thinking that has to occur for students to construct a scientific claim. 1) They need the opportunity to collect data, analyze it, and determine how to make sense of what the data may mean. 2) With data in hand, students can begin thinking about the validity and reliability of their experience and information collected. 3) They can consider what differences, if any, they might have if they completed the investigation again. 4) They can scrutinize outlying data points for they may be an artifact of a true difference that merits further exploration of a misstep in the procedure, measuring device, or measurement. All of these intellectual activities help them form more robust understanding and are evidence of their critical thinking.

In explore-before-explain teaching, all of these hard critical-thinking tasks come before teacher explanations of content. Whether we use discovery experiences, problem-based learning, and or inquiry-based activities, strategies that are geared toward helping students construct understanding promote critical thinking because students learn content by doing the practices valued in the field to generate knowledge.

An Issue of Equity

Meg Riordan, Ph.D., is the chief learning officer at The Possible Project, an out-of-school program that collaborates with youth to build entrepreneurial skills and mindsets and provides pathways to careers and long-term economic prosperity. She has been in the field of education for over 25 years as a middle and high school teacher, school coach, college professor, regional director of N.Y.C. Outward Bound Schools, and director of external research with EL Education:

Although critical thinking often defies straightforward definition, most in the education field agree it consists of several components: reasoning, problem-solving, and decisionmaking, plus analysis and evaluation of information, such that multiple sides of an issue can be explored. It also includes dispositions and “the willingness to apply critical-thinking principles, rather than fall back on existing unexamined beliefs, or simply believe what you’re told by authority figures.”

Despite variation in definitions, critical thinking is nonetheless promoted as an essential outcome of students’ learning—we want to see students and adults demonstrate it across all fields, professions, and in their personal lives. Yet there is simultaneously a rationing of opportunities in schools for students of color, students from under-resourced communities, and other historically marginalized groups to deeply learn and practice critical thinking.

For example, many of our most underserved students often spend class time filling out worksheets, promoting high compliance but low engagement, inquiry, critical thinking, or creation of new ideas. At a time in our world when college and careers are critical for participation in society and the global, knowledge-based economy, far too many students struggle within classrooms and schools that reinforce low-expectations and inequity.

If educators aim to prepare all students for an ever-evolving marketplace and develop skills that will be valued no matter what tomorrow’s jobs are, then we must move critical thinking to the forefront of classroom experiences. And educators must design learning to cultivate it.

So, what does that really look like?

Unpack and define critical thinking

To understand critical thinking, educators need to first unpack and define its components. What exactly are we looking for when we speak about reasoning or exploring multiple perspectives on an issue? How does problem-solving show up in English, math, science, art, or other disciplines—and how is it assessed? At Two Rivers, an EL Education school, the faculty identified five constructs of critical thinking, defined each, and created rubrics to generate a shared picture of quality for teachers and students. The rubrics were then adapted across grade levels to indicate students’ learning progressions.

At Avenues World School, critical thinking is one of the Avenues World Elements and is an enduring outcome embedded in students’ early experiences through 12th grade. For instance, a kindergarten student may be expected to “identify cause and effect in familiar contexts,” while an 8th grader should demonstrate the ability to “seek out sufficient evidence before accepting a claim as true,” “identify bias in claims and evidence,” and “reconsider strongly held points of view in light of new evidence.”

When faculty and students embrace a common vision of what critical thinking looks and sounds like and how it is assessed, educators can then explicitly design learning experiences that call for students to employ critical-thinking skills. This kind of work must occur across all schools and programs, especially those serving large numbers of students of color. As Linda Darling-Hammond asserts , “Schools that serve large numbers of students of color are least likely to offer the kind of curriculum needed to ... help students attain the [critical-thinking] skills needed in a knowledge work economy. ”

So, what can it look like to create those kinds of learning experiences?

Designing experiences for critical thinking

After defining a shared understanding of “what” critical thinking is and “how” it shows up across multiple disciplines and grade levels, it is essential to create learning experiences that impel students to cultivate, practice, and apply these skills. There are several levers that offer pathways for teachers to promote critical thinking in lessons:

1.Choose Compelling Topics: Keep it relevant

A key Common Core State Standard asks for students to “write arguments to support claims in an analysis of substantive topics or texts using valid reasoning and relevant and sufficient evidence.” That might not sound exciting or culturally relevant. But a learning experience designed for a 12th grade humanities class engaged learners in a compelling topic— policing in America —to analyze and evaluate multiple texts (including primary sources) and share the reasoning for their perspectives through discussion and writing. Students grappled with ideas and their beliefs and employed deep critical-thinking skills to develop arguments for their claims. Embedding critical-thinking skills in curriculum that students care about and connect with can ignite powerful learning experiences.

2. Make Local Connections: Keep it real

At The Possible Project , an out-of-school-time program designed to promote entrepreneurial skills and mindsets, students in a recent summer online program (modified from in-person due to COVID-19) explored the impact of COVID-19 on their communities and local BIPOC-owned businesses. They learned interviewing skills through a partnership with Everyday Boston , conducted virtual interviews with entrepreneurs, evaluated information from their interviews and local data, and examined their previously held beliefs. They created blog posts and videos to reflect on their learning and consider how their mindsets had changed as a result of the experience. In this way, we can design powerful community-based learning and invite students into productive struggle with multiple perspectives.

3. Create Authentic Projects: Keep it rigorous

At Big Picture Learning schools, students engage in internship-based learning experiences as a central part of their schooling. Their school-based adviser and internship-based mentor support them in developing real-world projects that promote deeper learning and critical-thinking skills. Such authentic experiences teach “young people to be thinkers, to be curious, to get from curiosity to creation … and it helps students design a learning experience that answers their questions, [providing an] opportunity to communicate it to a larger audience—a major indicator of postsecondary success.” Even in a remote environment, we can design projects that ask more of students than rote memorization and that spark critical thinking.

Our call to action is this: As educators, we need to make opportunities for critical thinking available not only to the affluent or those fortunate enough to be placed in advanced courses. The tools are available, let’s use them. Let’s interrogate our current curriculum and design learning experiences that engage all students in real, relevant, and rigorous experiences that require critical thinking and prepare them for promising postsecondary pathways.

Critical Thinking & Student Engagement

Dr. PJ Caposey is an award-winning educator, keynote speaker, consultant, and author of seven books who currently serves as the superintendent of schools for the award-winning Meridian CUSD 223 in northwest Illinois. You can find PJ on most social-media platforms as MCUSDSupe:

When I start my keynote on student engagement, I invite two people up on stage and give them each five paper balls to shoot at a garbage can also conveniently placed on stage. Contestant One shoots their shot, and the audience gives approval. Four out of 5 is a heckuva score. Then just before Contestant Two shoots, I blindfold them and start moving the garbage can back and forth. I usually try to ensure that they can at least make one of their shots. Nobody is successful in this unfair environment.

I thank them and send them back to their seats and then explain that this little activity was akin to student engagement. While we all know we want student engagement, we are shooting at different targets. More importantly, for teachers, it is near impossible for them to hit a target that is moving and that they cannot see.

Within the world of education and particularly as educational leaders, we have failed to simplify what student engagement looks like, and it is impossible to define or articulate what student engagement looks like if we cannot clearly articulate what critical thinking is and looks like in a classroom. Because, simply, without critical thought, there is no engagement.

The good news here is that critical thought has been defined and placed into taxonomies for decades already. This is not something new and not something that needs to be redefined. I am a Bloom’s person, but there is nothing wrong with DOK or some of the other taxonomies, either. To be precise, I am a huge fan of Daggett’s Rigor and Relevance Framework. I have used that as a core element of my practice for years, and it has shaped who I am as an instructional leader.

So, in order to explain critical thought, a teacher or a leader must familiarize themselves with these tried and true taxonomies. Easy, right? Yes, sort of. The issue is not understanding what critical thought is; it is the ability to integrate it into the classrooms. In order to do so, there are a four key steps every educator must take.

• Integrating critical thought/rigor into a lesson does not happen by chance, it happens by design. Planning for critical thought and engagement is much different from planning for a traditional lesson. In order to plan for kids to think critically, you have to provide a base of knowledge and excellent prompts to allow them to explore their own thinking in order to analyze, evaluate, or synthesize information.
• SIDE NOTE – Bloom’s verbs are a great way to start when writing objectives, but true planning will take you deeper than this.

QUESTIONING

• If the questions and prompts given in a classroom have correct answers or if the teacher ends up answering their own questions, the lesson will lack critical thought and rigor.
• Script five questions forcing higher-order thought prior to every lesson. Experienced teachers may not feel they need this, but it helps to create an effective habit.
• If lessons are rigorous and assessments are not, students will do well on their assessments, and that may not be an accurate representation of the knowledge and skills they have mastered. If lessons are easy and assessments are rigorous, the exact opposite will happen. When deciding to increase critical thought, it must happen in all three phases of the game: planning, instruction, and assessment.

TALK TIME / CONTROL

• To increase rigor, the teacher must DO LESS. This feels counterintuitive but is accurate. Rigorous lessons involving tons of critical thought must allow for students to work on their own, collaborate with peers, and connect their ideas. This cannot happen in a silent room except for the teacher talking. In order to increase rigor, decrease talk time and become comfortable with less control. Asking questions and giving prompts that lead to no true correct answer also means less control. This is a tough ask for some teachers. Explained differently, if you assign one assignment and get 30 very similar products, you have most likely assigned a low-rigor recipe. If you assign one assignment and get multiple varied products, then the students have had a chance to think deeply, and you have successfully integrated critical thought into your classroom.

Thanks to Dara, Patrick, Meg, and PJ for their contributions!

Please feel free to leave a comment with your reactions to the topic or directly to anything that has been said in this post.

Consider contributing a question to be answered in a future post. You can send one to me at [email protected] . When you send it in, let me know if I can use your real name if it’s selected or if you’d prefer remaining anonymous and have a pseudonym in mind.

You can also contact me on Twitter at @Larryferlazzo .

Education Week has published a collection of posts from this blog, along with new material, in an e-book form. It’s titled Classroom Management Q&As: Expert Strategies for Teaching .

Just a reminder; you can subscribe and receive updates from this blog via email (The RSS feed for this blog, and for all Ed Week articles, has been changed by the new redesign—new ones won’t be available until February). And if you missed any of the highlights from the first nine years of this blog, you can see a categorized list below.

• This Year’s Most Popular Q&A Posts
• Race & Racism in Schools
• School Closures & the Coronavirus Crisis
• Classroom-Management Advice
• Best Ways to Begin the School Year
• Best Ways to End the School Year
• Student Motivation & Social-Emotional Learning
• Implementing the Common Core
• Facing Gender Challenges in Education
• Teaching Social Studies
• Cooperative & Collaborative Learning
• Using Tech in the Classroom
• Student Voices
• Parent Engagement in Schools
• Teaching English-Language Learners
• Reading Instruction
• Writing Instruction
• Education Policy Issues
• Differentiating Instruction
• Math Instruction
• Science Instruction
• Advice for New Teachers
• Author Interviews
• Entering the Teaching Profession
• The Inclusive Classroom
• Learning & the Brain
• Administrator Leadership
• Teacher Leadership
• Relationships in Schools
• Professional Development
• Instructional Strategies
• Best of Classroom Q&A
• Professional Collaboration
• Classroom Organization
• Mistakes in Education
• Project-Based Learning

I am also creating a Twitter list including all contributors to this column .

The opinions expressed in Classroom Q&A With Larry Ferlazzo are strictly those of the author(s) and do not reflect the opinions or endorsement of Editorial Projects in Education, or any of its publications.

Sign Up for EdWeek Update

Edweek top school jobs.

Sign Up & Sign In

The Will to Teach

Critical Thinking in the Classroom: A Guide for Teachers

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

Why is Fostering Critical Thinking Important?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related Posts

7 simple strategies for strong student-teacher relationships.

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

Connecting Learning to Real-World Contexts: Strategies for Teachers

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

Encouraging Active Involvement in Learning: Strategies for Teachers

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

Collaborative and Cooperative Learning: A Guide for Teachers

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

Experiential Teaching: Role-Play and Simulations in Teaching

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

Project-Based Learning Activities: A Guide for Teachers

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

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

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

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

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Recommended Articles
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

Fostering critical thinking across the primary school’s curriculum in the european schools system.

1. Introduction

1.1. concept of critical thinking, 1.2. characteristics of instruction and core skills of critical thinking in the school curriculum, 1.3. critical thinking approaches in the school curriculum, 1.4. context of the european schools system.

• Language I/mother tongue
• Language II
• Mathematics
• Discovery of the world
• Physical education
• Religion (protestant, catholic, orthodox religious education) or ethics
• European hours
• Information and communication technology (ICT)

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. purpose and research questions.

• Which characteristics of instruction refer to the concept of critical thinking in the primary school curriculum?
• Which core skills of critical thinking do the syllabi represent?
• Which critical thinking approaches does the school curriculum report?

2.2. Data Collection

2.3. instrument, 2.4. data analysis, 3.1. critical thinking across the primary school curriculum of the european schools’ system, 3.1.1. critical thinking skills in language 1 syllabus, 3.1.2. critical thinking skills in language 2 syllabus, 3.1.3. critical thinking skills in the mathematics syllabus, 3.1.4. critical thinking skills in discovery of the world syllabus, 3.1.5. critical thinking skills in the art education syllabus, 3.1.6. critical thinking skills in the music syllabus, 3.1.7. critical thinking skills in the physical education syllabus, 3.1.8. critical thinking skills in the religious education syllabus, 3.1.9. critical thinking skills in ethics syllabus, 3.1.10. critical thinking skills in the european hours syllabus, 3.1.11. critical thinking skills in the ict syllabus, 4. discussion, 4.1. methodological limitations, 4.2. follow-up research, author contributions, institutional review board statement, informed consent statement, data availability statement, conflicts of interest.

• Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. The Future of Education and Skills: Education 2030 ; Secretary-General: Paris, France, 2018; Available online: https://www.oecd.org/education/2030/E2030%20Position%20Paper%20(05.04.2018).pdf (accessed on 15 July 2021).
• UNESCO-IBE. Glossary of Curriculum Terminology ; UNESCO: Paris, France, 2013; Available online: http://www.ibe.unesco.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Publications/IBE_GlossaryCurriculumTerminology2013_eng.pdf (accessed on 15 July 2021).
• Council of European Union. Declaration on Promoting Citizenship and the Common Values of Freedom, Tolerance and Non-Discrimination through Education ; Eurydice: Brussels, Belgium, 2015; Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/assets/eac/education/news/2015/documents/citizenship-education-declaration_en.pdf (accessed on 15 July 2021).
• Council of Europe. Competences for Democratic Culture. Living Together as Equals in Culturally Diverse Democratic Societies ; CoE: Strasbourg, France, 2016; Available online: https://rm.coe.int/16806ccc07 (accessed on 15 July 2021).
• Lee, Y.L. Nurturing critical thinking for implementation beyond the classroom: Implications from social psychological theories of behavior change. Think. Ski. Creat. 2018 , 27 , 139–146. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Al-Zou’bi, R. The impact of media and information literacy on acquiring the critical thinking skill by the educational faculty’s students. Think. Ski. Creat. 2021 , 39 , 100782. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Davies, M. Critical thinking and the disciplines reconsidered. High. Educ. Res. Dev. 2013 , 32 , 529–544. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ab Kadir, M.A. What teacher knowledge matters in effectively developing critical thinkers in the 21st century curriculum? Think. Ski. Creat. 2017 , 23 , 79–90. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• McLaren, P. Life in Schools: An Introduction to Critical Pedagogy in the Foundations of Education ; Routledge: London, UK, 2015. [ Google Scholar ]
• Daud, N.M.; Husin, Z. Developing critical thinking skills in computer-aided extended reading classes. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 2004 , 35 , 477–487. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Behar-Horenstein, L.S.; Niu, L. Teaching critical thinking skills in higher education: A review of the literature. J. Coll. Teach. Learn. (TLC) 2011 , 8 , 25–42. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kennedy, M.; Fisher, M.B.; Ennis, R.H. Critical thinking: Literature review and needed research. Educ. Values Cogn. Instr. Implic. Reform 1991 , 2 , 11–40. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bailin, S.; Case, R.; Coombs, J.R.; Daniels, L.B. Conceptualizing critical thinking. J. Curric. Stud. 1999 , 31 , 285–302. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gelerstein, D.; Del Rio, R.; Nussbaum, M.; Chiuminatto, P.; López, X. Designing and implementing a test for measuring critical thinking in primary school. Think. Ski. Creat. 2016 , 20 , 40–49. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Coles, M.J. Critical thinking talks and a community of enquiry in the primary school. Lang. Educ. 1995 , 9 , 161–177. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lai, E.R. Critical thinking: A literature review. Pearson’s Res. Rep. 2011 , 6 , 40–41. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lamb, S.; Maire, Q.; Doecke, E. Key Skills for the 21st Century: An Evidence-Based Review ; NSW: Melbourne, Australia, 2017; Available online: http://vuir.vu.edu.au/35865/1/Key-Skills-for-the-21st-Century-Analytical-Report.pdf (accessed on 15 July 2021).
• Paul, R.; Elder, L.; Bartell, T. A Brief History of the Idea of Critical Thinking ; Foundation for Critical Thinking: Tomale, CA, USA, 1997; Available online: https://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/a-brief-history-of-the-idea-of-critical-thinking/408 (accessed on 15 July 2021).
• Paul, R.; Elder, L. The Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking. Concepts and Tools ; Foundation for Critical Thinking: Tomale, CA, USA, 2006; Available online: www.criticalthinking.org (accessed on 15 July 2021).
• Dewey, J. How We Think: A Restatement of the Relation of Reflective Thinking to the Educative Process ; Heath & Co Publishers: Boston, MA, USA, 1933. [ Google Scholar ]
• Costa, A.L. Developing Minds: A Resource Book for Teaching Thinking , 3rd ed.; Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development: Alexandria, VA, Canada, 2001. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ennis, R.H. A concept of critical thinking. Harv. Educ. Rev. 1962 , 32 , 81–111. [ Google Scholar ]
• Facione, P.A. Executive Summary of “The Delphi Report” ; The California Academic Press: Oakland, CA, USA, 1990. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fisher, A.; Scriven, M. Critical Thinking. Its Definition and Evaluation ; Edgepress: Point Reyes, CA, USA, 1997. [ Google Scholar ]
• Glaser, E.M. An experiment in the development of critical thinking. Teach. Coll. Rec. 1942 , 43 , 409–410. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hatcher, D.L.; Spencer, L.A. Reasoning and Writing: From Critical Thinking to Composition ; American Press: Boston, MA, USA, 2005. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hooks, B. Teaching Critical Thinking: Practical Wisdom ; Routledge: London, UK, 2010. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lipman, M. Critical thinking—What can it be? Educ. Leadersh. 1988 , 46 , 38–43. [ Google Scholar ]
• McPeck, J. Critical Thinking and Education ; Routledge: London, UK, 2016. [ Google Scholar ]
• Siegel, H. Educating Reason ; Routledge: London, UK, 1988. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bialik, M.; Fadel, C. Skills for the 21st Century: What Should Students Learn? Centre for Curriculum Redesign: Boston, MA, USA, 2015. [ Google Scholar ]
• Liang, W.; Fung, D. Fostering critical thinking in English-as-a-second-language classrooms: Challenges and opportunities. Think. Ski. Creat. 2021 , 39 , 100769. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Liyanage, I.; Walker, T.; Shokouhi, H. Are we thinking critically about critical thinking? Uncovering uncertainties in internationalized higher education. Think. Ski. Creat. 2021 , 39 , 100762. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Snehi, N. Improving teaching-learning process in schools: A challenge for the 21st century. Learn. Community-Int. J. Educ. Soc. Dev. 2011 , 2 , 1–12. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kaeppel, K. The influence of collaborative argument mapping on college students’ critical thinking about contentious arguments. Think. Ski. Creat. 2021 , 40 , 100809. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Trede, F.; McEwen, C. Critical thinking for future practice: Learning to question. In The Palgrave Handbook of Critical Thinking in Higher Education ; Davies, M., Barnett, R., Eds.; Palgrave Macmillan: London, UK, 2015; pp. 457–474. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bailin, S.; Battersby, M. Reason in the Balance: An Inquiry Approach to Critical Thinking ; Hackett Publishing: Indianapolis, IN, USA, 2016. [ Google Scholar ]
• Molnar, A.; Boninger, F.; Fogarty, J. The Educational Cost of Schoolhouse Commercialism ; NEPC: Boulder, CO, USA, 2011. [ Google Scholar ]
• Burnett, C.; Dickinson, P.; Myers, J.; Merchant, G. Digital connections: Transforming literacy in the primary school. Camb. J. Educ. 2006 , 36 , 11–29. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Friesen, S.; Scott, D. Inquiry-Based Learning: A Review of the Research Literature ; Alberta Ministry of Education: Edmonton, AB, Canada, 2013; Volume 32. [ Google Scholar ]
• Llano, S.M. Debate’s relationship to critical thinking. In The Palgrave Handbook of Critical Thinking in Higher Education ; Davies, M., Barnett, R., Eds.; Palgrave Macmillan: London, UK, 2015; pp. 139–152. [ Google Scholar ]
• Salmon, A.K. Engaging young children in thinking routines. Child. Educ. 2010 , 86 , 132–137. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Smith, H.; Higgins, S. Opening classroom interaction: The importance of feedback. Camb. J. Educ. 2006 , 36 , 485–502. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Facione, P.A. Critical Thinking: What It Is and Why It Counts ; The California Academic Press: Oakland, CA, USA, 2015. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ennis, R.H. Critical thinking and subject specificity: Clarification and needed research. Educ. Res. 1989 , 18 , 4–10. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Niu, L.; Behar-Horenstein, L.S.; Garvan, C.W. Do instructional interventions influence college students’ critical thinking skills? A meta-analysis. Educ. Res. Rev. 2013 , 9 , 114–128. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Radulović, L.; Stančić, M. What is needed to develop critical thinking in schools? Cent. Educ. Policy Stud. J. 2017 , 7 , 9–25. [ Google Scholar ]
• Halpern, D.F. Thought Knowledge: An Introduction to Critical Thinking , 4th ed.; Francis & Taylor: Milton Park, UK, 2013. [ Google Scholar ]
• van Gelder, T. The rationale for rationale. Law Probab. Risk 2013 , 6 , 23–42. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Meng, K.H. Infusion of Critical Thinking across the English Language Curriculum: A Multiple Case Study of Primary School In-Service Expert Teachers in Singapore. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia, 2016. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ennis, R.H. Critical thinking and the curriculum. In Thinking Skills Instruction: Concepts and Techniques ; National Education Association: Washington, DC, USA, 1987; pp. 40–48. [ Google Scholar ]
• Abrami, P.C.; Bernard, R.M.; Borokhovski, E.; Wade, A.; Surkes, M.A.; Tamim, R.; Zhang, D. Instructional interventions affecting critical thinking skills and dispositions: A stage 1 meta-analysis. Rev. Educ. Res. 2008 , 78 , 1102–1134. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Marin, L.M.; Halpern, D.F. Pedagogy for developing critical thinking in adolescents: Explicit instruction produces greatest gains. Think. Ski. Creat. 2011 , 6 , 1–13. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pithers, R.T.; Soden, R. Critical thinking in education: A review. Educ. Res. 2000 , 42 , 237–249. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Schola Europaea. Guidelines for Primary Education ; Office of the Secretary-General of the European Schools, Pedagogical Development Unit: Brussels, Belgium, 2006; Available online: https://www.eursc.eu/Syllabuses/2006-D-105-en-7.pdf (accessed on 15 July 2021).
• Savvides, N. The European dimension in education: Exploring pupils’ perceptions at three European Schools. J. Res. Int. Educ. 2008 , 7 , 304–326. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Martínez, M.; Hetterschijt, C.; Iglesias, M.J. The European Schools: Perspectives of parents as participants in a learning community. J. Res. Int. Educ. 2015 , 14 , 44–60. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Swan, D. A Singular Pluralism. The European Schools 1984–1994 ; IPA: Dublin, Ireland, 1996. [ Google Scholar ]
• Schola Europaea. Structure for All Syllabi in the System of European Schools ; Office of the Secretary-General of the European Schools, Pedagogical Development Unit: Brussels, Belgium, 2019; Available online: https://www.eursc.eu/BasicTexts/2019-09-D-27-en-5.pdf (accessed on 15 July 2021).
• Osakwe, R.N. The effect of early childhood education experience on the academic performances of primary school children. Stud. Home Community Sci. 2009 , 3 , 143–147. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Stake, R.E. The Art of Case Study Research ; SAGE: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 1995. [ Google Scholar ]
• Braun, V.; Clarke, V. (Mis) conceptualising themes, thematic analysis, and other problems with Fugard and Potts’ (2015) sample-size tool for thematic analysis. Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol. 2016 , 19 , 739–743. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Fraenkel, J.R.; Wallen, N.E.; Hyun, H.H. How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education , 10th ed.; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 2019. [ Google Scholar ]
• Schola Europaea. Primary Education Curriculum (P1–P5) ; Office of the Secretary-General of the European Schools, Pedagogical Development Unit: Brussels, Belgium, 2006; Available online: https://www.eursc.eu/en/European-Schools/studies/studies-organisation (accessed on 15 July 2021).
• Schola Europaea. Key Competences for Lifelong Learning in European Schools ; Office of the Secretary-General of the European Schools, Pedagogical Development Unit: Brussels, Belgium, 2018; Available online: https://www.eursc.eu/BasicTexts/2018-09-D-69-en-1.pdf (accessed on 15 July 2021).
• Schola Europaea. Attainment Descriptors for L2 at the End of P5 (Primary Cycle) ; Office of the Secretary-General of the European Schools, Pedagogical Development Unit: Brussels, Belgium, 2018; Available online: https://www.eursc.eu/Syllabuses/2018-01-D-37-enfrde-2.pdf (accessed on 15 July 2021).
• Schola Europaea. Language 1—Primary Cycle (P1–P5) ; Office of the Secretary-General of the European Schools, Pedagogical Development Unit: Brussels, Belgium, 2016; Available online: https://www.eursc.eu/Syllabuses/2016-01-D-45-en-4.pdf (accessed on 15 July 2021).
• Schola Europaea. Second Language Curriculum—Primary Cycle (P1–P5) ; Office of the Secretary-General of the European Schools, Pedagogical Development Unit: Brussels, Belgium, 2012; Available online: https://www.eursc.eu/Syllabuses/2012-08-D-13-en-2.pdf (accessed on 15 July 2021).
• Schola Europaea. Mathematics Syllabus—Primary Cycle (P1–P5) ; Office of the Secretary-General of the European Schools, Pedagogical Development Unit: Brussels, Belgium, 2012; Available online: https://www.eursc.eu/Syllabuses/2012-01-D-20-en-4.pdf (accessed on 15 July 2021).
• Schola Europaea. Discovery of the World Syllabus—Primary Cycle (P1–P5) ; Office of the Secretary-General of the European Schools, Pedagogical Development Unit: Brussels, Belgium, 2015; Available online: https://www.eursc.eu/Syllabuses/2015-09-D-30-en-3.pdf (accessed on 15 July 2021).
• Schola Europaea. Art Education Syllabus ; Office of the Secretary-General of the European Schools, Pedagogical Development Unit: Brussels, Belgium, 2013; Available online: https://www.eursc.eu/Syllabuses/2013-04-D-10-en-2.pdf (accessed on 15 July 2021).
• Schola Europaea. Music Syllabus ; Office of the Secretary-General of the European Schools, Pedagogical Development Unit: Brussels, Belgium, 2016; Available online: https://www.eursc.eu/Syllabuses/2016-10-D-14-en-4.pdf (accessed on 15 July 2021).
• Schola Europaea. Physical Education Syllabus—Primary Cycle (P1–P5) ; Office of the Secretary-General of the European Schools Pedagogical Development Unit: Brussels, Belgium, 2015; Available online: https://www.eursc.eu/Syllabuses/2015-01-D-39-en-4.pdf (accessed on 15 July 2021).
• Schola Europaea. Catholic Religious Education—Primary Cycle (P1–P5) ; Office of the Secretary-General of the European Schools, Pedagogical Development Unit: Brussels, Belgium, 2011; Available online: https://www.eursc.eu/Syllabuses/2011-02-D-3-fr-2.pdf (accessed on 15 July 2021).
• Schola Europaea. Orthodox Religious Education—Primary Cycle (P1–P5) ; Office of the Secretary-General of the European Schools, Pedagogical Development Unit: Brussels, Belgium, 2011; Available online: https://www.eursc.eu/Syllabuses/2011-01-D-87-en-2.pdf (accessed on 15 July 2021).
• Schola Europaea. Protestant Religious Education—Primary Cycle (P1–P5) ; Office of the Secretary-General of the European Schools, Pedagogical Development Unit: Brussels, Belgium, 2012; Available online: https://www.eursc.eu/Syllabuses/2012-01-D-41-en-2.pdf (accessed on 15 July 2021).
• Schola Europaea. Non-Denominational Ethics Syllabus–Primary Cycle (P1–P5) ; Office of the Secretary-General of the European Schools, Pedagogical Development Unit: Brussels, Belgium, 2016; Available online: https://www.eursc.eu/Syllabuses/2016-01-D-32-en-3.pdf (accessed on 15 July 2021).
• Schola Europaea. European Hours Syllabus—Primary Cycle (P3–P5) ; Office of the Secretary-General of the European Schools, Pedagogical Development Unit: Brussels, Belgium, 2016; Available online: https://www.eursc.eu/Syllabuses/2016-08-D-17-en-3.pdf (accessed on 15 July 2021).
• Schola Europaea. ICT Syllabus—Primary Cycle (P1–P5) ; Office of the Secretary-General of the European Schools, Pedagogical Development Unit: Brussels, Belgium, 2014; Available online: https://www.eursc.eu/Syllabuses/2014-01-D-49-en-5.pdf#search=ICT%20syllabus%20primary%20cycle%202000 (accessed on 15 July 2021).
• McBride, R.E. If you structure it, they will learn…: Critical thinking in physical education Classes. Clear. House 2004 , 77 , 114–117. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Swartz, R.J.; Fischer, S.D.; Parks, S. Infusing the Teaching of Critical and Creative Thinking into Secondary Science: A Lesson Design Handbook. Critical Thinking Books and Software ; ERIC: Washington, DC, USA, 1998. [ Google Scholar ]
• Case, R. Moving critical thinking to the main stage. Educ. Can. 2005 , 45 , 45–49. [ Google Scholar ]
• Silva, E. Measuring Skills for the 21st Century. Education Sector Reports ; ERIC: Washington, DC, USA, 2008. [ Google Scholar ]

Share and Cite

Lombardi, L.; Mednick, F.J.; De Backer, F.; Lombaerts, K. Fostering Critical Thinking across the Primary School’s Curriculum in the European Schools System. Educ. Sci. 2021 , 11 , 505. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11090505

Lombardi L, Mednick FJ, De Backer F, Lombaerts K. Fostering Critical Thinking across the Primary School’s Curriculum in the European Schools System. Education Sciences . 2021; 11(9):505. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11090505

Lombardi, Loredana, Frederick Jan Mednick, Free De Backer, and Koen Lombaerts. 2021. "Fostering Critical Thinking across the Primary School’s Curriculum in the European Schools System" Education Sciences 11, no. 9: 505. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11090505

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

Working together for critical thinking in schools

Lecturer in Critical Thinking, The University of Queensland

Disclosure statement

Peter Ellerton was recently hosted in South Africa by Thinking Schools South Africa as a keynote speaker.

University of Queensland provides funding as a member of The Conversation AU.

View all partners

One of the most desirable characteristics of school graduates is that they can think critically. This helps them individually and also helps the societies in which they will play a role. It’s a game in which no one loses. So why is it so difficult to achieve?

Teaching critical thinking is not something that teachers are explicitly trained to do – in fact very few people are. Nor does the curriculum generally demand it. Too often an instructing syllabus focuses on the recall of content, and this in turn forms the basis for assessment.

Standardised testing

In standardised assessment in particular it is simply cheaper and quicker to algorithmically mark multiple-choice questions than it is to read and assess nuanced responses showing an advanced use of cognitive skills.

South Africa has a standardised system including a highly regulated matriculation programme and national testing that together act as the barometer of good schooling. But there is some debate as to how effectively these kinds of tests measure the outcomes of an education in critical thinking, let alone their value as an educational device.

People often define a rigorous course as one that is heavy in content. This is misleading. Intellectual rigour lies in the sophisticated use of a range of cognitive critical thinking skills such as analysis, justification, synthesis and evaluation. Recalling content or demonstrating algorithmic procedures makes up only a small part of this.

The desire to teach to the test at the expense of skills not measured by them is a universal characteristic of standardised testing. The danger is that if critical thinking is not explicitly assessed, it will not be valued and therefore not taught.

The South African context

None of this is unique to South Africa, but several things make the problem more acute.

The first is that the country’s teacher workforce is not well monitored and there are significant shortages in many regions.

Attendance in South African schools is generally high but some schools are struggling to provide continuity of learning because of problems with student attendance and engagement.

A stated objective of the relatively new CAPS curriculum in South Africa is to develop critical thinking. This is an important step in the right direction, though a strategy needs to be developed for how this can be achieved.

I recently spoke to a number of schools throughout the country as a guest of Thinking Schools South Africa (TSSA), a non-profit organisation encouraging and resourcing the teaching of effective thinking in schools.

Faced with these problems, TSSA has developed several principles that seem, to this international observer, quite effective. These principles (the phrasing is mine) include:

a commitment to work collaboratively with local and international universities, academics, schools, teachers, communities and other relevant bodies including government organisations;

adopting a broad theoretical approach that is informed by and inclusive of existing successful practice;

• driving systemic change that makes learning visible and goes beyond the “tips and tricks” mentality found too often in educational environments; and,
• a commitment to teachers and schools that includes ongoing training and resourcing over a well defined developmental cycle.

This is intended to produce sustainable, whole-school transformation through globally tried and tested methodologies involving local communities of practice. TSSA-affiliated schools and teachers become part of the TSSA Network to support and train others.

There are many advantages available to students who can think critically. One significant but overlooked advantage is that it develops resilience .

Students who have an ability to think their way through problems, a confidence in their ability to do so, and who can apply critical thinking skills to understand their circumstances and explore options open to them are more likely to successfully navigate through their school years.

Within the context of South Africa’s complex social and economic challenges and opportunities, resilience is likely to be a vital virtue.

Teaching critical thinking

There are a variety of approaches to developing courses in critical thinking though it’s preferable that critical thinking pedagogies are used in the delivery of all subjects. In this comprehensive model, students are taught the explicit skills of thinking as they learn their discipline knowledge.

But as teaching Mathematics, Science or English is not just about knowing the subject matter but knowing how to teach that subject matter (called pedagogical content knowledge ), so too the teaching of critical thinking is about more than just knowing some useful thinking tools.

It’s not enough to know about critical thinking, you have to know how to teach for it. It’s difficult to create students who are critical thinkers without teachers who are critical thinkers.

Teaching someone to surf by just handing them a surfboard seems less than optimal, as does teaching students to think by simply delivering worksheets. Without knowing what to do with them, without an insight into their purpose and function, goals falls short of being realised.

In the case of surfing, it also helps to have a beach. In critical thinking, it’s about the community - social, educational and institutional.

This is the advantage of the TSSA approach, and all approaches that focus on working collaboratively and inclusively to build capacity in schools, teachers and communities for sustainable and effective teaching and learning.

Like a language, critical thinking is not something you can learn alone. The best way to produce a critically thinking student is from within a critical thinking community.

• South Africa
• Cognitive development
• Critical thinking
• Standardized testing

Research Fellow in Coastal Numerical Modelling

Director of STEM

Community member - Training Delivery and Development Committee (Volunteer part-time)

Chief Executive Officer

Head of Evidence to Action

• Our Mission

Boosting Critical Thinking Across the Curriculum

Visible thinking routines that encourage students to document and share their ideas can have a profound effect on their learning.

In my coaching work with schools, I am often requested to model strategies that help learners think deeply and critically across multiple disciplines and content areas. Many teachers are looking to adapt research-based methods to help students think about content in meaningful ways by making connections to previous learning, asking relevant questions, displaying understanding through learning artifacts , and identifying their challenges with the material.

Educator Alfred Mander said, “Thinking is skilled work. It is not true that we are naturally endowed with the ability to think clearly and logically—without learning how and without practicing.”

Visible thinking routines can be an excellent and simple way to start using systematic but flexible approaches to teaching thinking dispositions to young people at any grade level. Focusing on thinking types, powerful routines can strengthen learners’ ability to analyze, synthesize (design), and question effectively. Classroom teachers want these skills to become habits, making students the most informed stakeholder in their own learning.

Not to be confused with visible learning research by John Hattie , Visible Thinking is a research-based initiative by Harvard’s Project Zero with more than 30 routines aimed at making learning the consequence of good thinking dispositions . Students begin to comprehend content through thinking routines composed of short questions or a series of steps. During routines, their learning becomes visible because their ideas are documented, voiced, discussed with others, and reflected on.

For example, the routine See, Think, Wonder can be used to get students to analyze and interpret graphs, text, infographics, or video during the entry event of project-based learning units or daily lessons. Guiding students to have rich and lively discussions about their thoughts, interpretations, and wonderings (questions) can help teachers decide on appropriate lessons and next steps.

Another effective visible thinking routine is Connect, Extend, Challenge (CEC). Learners can use CEC to organize, clarify, and simplify complex information on graphic organizers. The graphic organizer becomes a kinesthetic activity for creating an informational artifact that students can refer to as the lesson or unit progresses.

Here are some creative but simple ways to carry out these two routines across multiple classrooms.

See, Think, Wonder

See, Think, Wonder can be leveraged as a thinking routine to launch engagement and inquiry in daily lessons by introducing an interesting object (graphic, artifact, etc.). The idea is for students to think carefully about why the object looks or is a certain way. Teachers introduce the following question prompts to guide students’ thinking:

• What do you see?
• What do you think about that?
• What does it make you wonder?

When the routine is new, sometimes young children may not know where to begin expressing themselves—this is where converting the above question prompts into sentence stems, “I see…,” “I think…,” and “I wonder…,” comes into play. For students struggling with analytical skills, it’s empowering for them to accept themselves where they currently are—learning how to analyze critically can be achieved over time and with practice. Teachers can help them build confidence with positive reinforcement .

Adapt the routine to meet the needs of your kids, which may be to have them work individually or to engage with classmates. I use it frequently—especially when introducing emotionally compelling graphics to students learning about environmental issues (e.g., the UN’s Goals for Sustainable Development) and social issues . This is useful in helping them better understand how to interpret graphs, infographics, and what’s happening in text and visuals. Furthermore, it also promotes interpretations, analysis, and questioning.

Content teachers can use See, Think, Wonder to get learners thinking critically by introducing graphics that reinforce essential academic information and follow up the routine with lessons and scaffolds to support students’ ideas and interpretations.

Connect, Extend, Challenge

CEC is a powerful visible learning routine to help students connect previous learning to new learning and identify where they are struggling in various educational concepts. Taking stock of where they are stuck in the material is as vital as articulating their connections and extensions. Again, they might struggle initially, but here’s where front-loading vocabulary and giving them time to talk through challenges can help.

A good place to introduce CEC is after students have analyzed or observed something new. This works as a natural next step to have them dig deeper with reflection and use what they learned in the analysis process to create their own synthesis of ideas. I also like to use CEC after engaging them in the See, Think, Wonder routine and at the end of a unit.

Again, learners can work individually or in small groups. Teachers can also have them move into the routine after reading an article or some form of targeted informational text where the learning is critical to moving forward (e.g., proportional relationships, measurement, unit conversion). Regardless of your approach, Project Zero suggests having learners reflect on the following question prompts:

• How is the _____ connected to something you already know?
• What new ideas or impressions do you have that extended your thinking in new directions?
• What is challenging or confusing? What do you need to improve your understanding?

I like to have learners in small groups answer a version of the question prompts in a simple three-column graphic organizer. The graphic organizer can also become a road map for prioritizing the next steps in learning for students of all ages. Here are some visual examples of how I used the activity with educators in a professional development session targeting emotional intelligence skills.

More Visible Thinking Resources

• Project Zero’s Thinking Routine Toolbox : Access to core thinking routines
• Making Thinking Visible: How to Promote Engagement, Understanding, and Independence for All Learners , by Ron Ritchhart, Mark Church, and Karin Morrison
• Creating Cultures of Thinking: The 8 Forces We Must Master to Truly Transform Our Schools , by Ron Ritchhart

Practicing Critical Thinking: Issues and Challenges

• First Online: 04 September 2024

Cite this chapter

• K. Venkat Reddy 3 &
• G. Suvarna Lakshmi 4  

Despite acknowledging the importance of teaching or promoting critical thinking as part of education, practicing critical thinking in the real world and life has its own challenges to be resolved. Some of them are presented in the studies included in this chapter. The first article is on the gap between the perceptions on cognitive active learning of teachers and learners. The focus of the study is on exploring learners’ perceptions on deep learning particularly in Virtual Learning Environment (VLE). Instructors facing organizational difficulties, lack of experience in synchronous learning for the students, unable to have peer interaction while learning in VLE, inadequate training for the instructors and students to teach and learning virtually, students’ not experiencing the benefits of deep learning are among the major gaps or problems identified in this study. The second article is about techniques that enhance higher order thinking skills in EFL learners by using post-reading strategies resulting in better speech production and reasoning power. The output of the research states that concept mapping and argumentation enhance EFL learners’ reasoning power when private speech is used to understand the process of thinking. The third article in this chapter is on cross-cultural psychology where the cultural influence on making inferences and participating in debates by Asian students who are studying in western institutions. Though there are intercultural differences in the inferences made because of cultural backgrounds and first language variations, they are insignificant. Then the reasons for obvious differences could be learning environment, literacy and higher education. The statement that Asian students are unable to perform well in western logic might be true not because the Asian students are less capable of thinking critically but because they are not trained in or used to western logical problems. The last article of this chapter is on assessment of critical thinking in first year dental curriculum that establishes the importance of critical thinking in dental education. The assessment is on the importance of critical thinking and the need to change the curriculum incorporating critical thinking.

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

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Smith, T. W., & Colby, S. A. (2007). Teaching for deep learning. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 80 (5), 205–210.

Article   Google Scholar  

Platow, M. J., Mavor, K. I., & Grace, D. M. (2013). On the role of discipline-related self-concept in deep and surface approaches to learning among university students. Instructional Science, 41 (2), 271–285.

Reinhardt, M. M. (2010). The use of deep learning strategies in online business courses to impact student retention. American Journal of Business Education, 3 (12), 49.

Google Scholar  

Mimirinis, M., & Bhattacharya, M. (2007). Design of virtual learning environments for deep learning. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 18 (1), 55–64.

Smart, K., & Cappel, J. (2006). Students’ perceptions of online learning: A comparative study. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 5 (1), 201–219.

Jain, P. (2015). Virtual learning environment. International Journal in IT & Engineering, 3 (5), 75–84.

Molnár, G. (2013). Challenges and opportunities in virtual and electronic learning environments. In IEEE 11th international symposium on intelligent systems and informatics .

Riley, S. K. L. (2008). Teaching in virtual worlds: Opportunities and challenges. Setting Knowledge Free: The Journal of Issues in Informing Science and Information Technology, 5 (5), 127–135.

Warden, C. A., Stanworth, J. O., Ren, J. B., & Warden, A. R. (2013). Synchronous learning best practices: An action research study. Computers & Education, 63 , 197–207.

Yamagata-Lynch, L. C. (2014). Blending online asynchronous and synchronous learning. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 15 (2), 189–212.

Cole, M. (2009). Using wiki technology to support student engagement: Lessons from the trenches. Computers & Education, 52 (1), 141–146.

Tyler, J., & Zurick, A. (2014). Synchronous versus asynchronous learning-is there a measurable difference? In Proceedings of the 2014 Institute for Behavioral and Applied Management Conference, IBAM22 . October 9–11, 2014, 52.

Asikainen, H., & Gijbels, D. (2017). Do students develop towards more deep approaches to learning during studies? A systematic review on the development of students’ deep and surface approaches to learning in higher education. Educational Psychology Review, 29 (2), 205–234.

Biggs, J. B. (1993). From theory to practice: A cognitive systems approach. Higher Education Research and Development, 12 (1), 73–86.

Garrison, D. R., & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2005). Facilitating cognitive presence in online learning: Interaction is not enough. The American Journal of Distance Education, 19 (3), 133–148.

Van Raaij, E. M., & Schepers, J. J. (2008). The acceptance and use of a virtual learning environment in China. Computers & Education, 50 (3), 838–852.

Postareff, L., Parpala, A., & Lindblom-Ylänne, S. (2015). Factors contributing to changes in a deep approach to learning in different learning environments. Learning Environments Research, 18 , 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-015-9186-1

Dolmans, D., Loyens, S., Marcq, H., & Gijbels, D. (2016). Deep and surface learning in problem-based learning: A review of the literature. Advances in Health Science Education, 21 (5), 1087–1112. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-015-9645-6

Wildemuth, B. M. (Ed.). (2016). Applications of social research methods to questions in information and library science . ABC-CLIO.

Silverman, D. (Ed.). (2016). Qualitative research . Sage.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25 (1), 54–67.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language . MIT Press.

McCafferty, S. G. (1994). The use of private speech by adult ESL learners at different levels of proficiency. In J. P. Lantolf & G. Appel (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 135–156). Ablex.

Centeno-Cortes, B., & Jimenez Jimenez, A. F. (2004). Problem-solving tasks in a foreign language: The importance of the L1 in private verbal thinking. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 14 (1), 7–35. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.2004.00052.x

Ghanizadeh, A., & Mirzaee, S. (2012). Critical thinking: How to enhance it in language classes . Lambert Academic Publishing.

Choi, I., Nisbett, R., & Smith, E. E. (1997a). Culture, categorization and inductive reasoning. Cognition, 65 (1), 15–32.

Nisbett, R. E., Peng, K., Choi, I., & Norenzayan, A. (2001). Culture and systems of thought: Holistic versus analytic cognition. Psychological Review, 108 (2), 291–310.

Peng, K. (1997). Naive dialecticism and its effects on reasoning and judgement about contradiction . University of Michigan.

Peng, K., & Nisbett, R. (1996). Cross-cultural similarities and differences in the understanding of physical causality. In Paper presented at the science and culture: Proceedings of the seventh interdisciplinary conference on science and culture .

Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline . Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Nisbett, R. E. (2003). The geography of thought: How Asians and westerners think differently … and why . Free Press.

Ji, L.-J., Zhang, Z., & Nisbett, R. E. (2004). Is it culture or is it language? Examination of language effects in cross-cultural research on categorisation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87 (1), 57–65.

Norenzayan, A. (2001). Rule-based and experience-based thinking: The cognitive consequences of intellectual traditions. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences & Engineering, 62 (6-B), 2992.

Norenzayan, A., Smith, E. E., Kim, B. J., & Nisbett, R. E. (2002). Cultural preferences for formal versus intuitive reasoning. Cognitive Science, 26 (5), 653–684.

Peng, K., Ames, D. R., & Knowles, E. D. (2000). Culture and human inference: Perspectives from three traditions. In D. Matsumoto (Ed.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology (pp. 1–2). Oxford University Press.

Whorf, B. L. (1962b). The relation of habitual thought to language, and an American Indian model of the universe from language. In J. B. Carroll (Ed.), Language, thought and reality: Selected writings of Benjamin . MIT Press.

Davidson, D. (1984). On the very idea of a conceptual scheme. In inquiries into truth and interpretation . Oxford University Press.

Devitt, M., & Sterelny, K. (1997). Language and reality . MIT Press.

Gellatly, A. (1995). Colourful whorfian ideas: Linguistic and cultural influences on the perception and cognition of colour and on the investigation of time. Mind and Language, 10 (3).

Pinker, S. (1994). The language instinct . Penguin Books.

Book   Google Scholar  

Davies, W. M. (2006b). Intensive teaching formats: A review. Issues in Educational Research, 16 (1), 1–20.

Felix, U., & Lawson, M. (1994). Evaluation of an integrated bridging program course on academic writing for overseas postgraduate students. Higher Education Research and Development, 13 (1), 59–70.

Felix, U., & Martin, C. (1991). A report on the program of instruction in essay writing techniques for overseas post-graduate students . School of Education, Flinders University.

Brand, D. (1987). The new whizz kids: Why Asian Americans are doing well and what it costs them. Time, August (42–50) .

Murphy, D. (1987). Offshore education: A Hong Kong perspective. Australian Universities Review, 30 (2), 43–44.

Wong, N.-Y. (2002). Conceptions of doing and learning mathematics among Chinese. Journal of Intercultural Studies, 23 (2), 211–229.

Accreditation standards for dental education programs. Commission on dental accreditation. Commission on dental Education 2019.

Elangovan, S., Venugopalan, S. R., Srinivasan, S., Karimbux, N. Y., Weistroffer, P., & Allareddy, V. (2016). Integration of basic-clinical sciences, PBL, CBL, and IPE in U.S. dental schools’ curricula and a proposed integrated curriculum model for the future. Journal of Dental Education, 80 , 281–290.

Duong, M. T., Cothron, A. E., Lawson, N. C., & Doherty, E. H. (2018). U.S. Dental schools’ preparation for the integrated national board dental examination. Journal of Dental Education, 82 , 252–259.

Annansingh, F. (2019). Mind the gap: Cognitive active learning in virtual learning environment perception of instructors and students. Education and Information Technologies . https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-09949-5

Mirzaee, S., & Maftoon, P. (2016). An examination of Vygotsky’s socio-cultural theory in second language acquisition: The role of higher order thinking enhancing techniques and the EFL learners’ use of private speech in the construction of reasoning. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education . https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-016-0022-7

Martin Davies, W. (2006). Cognitive contours: Recent work on cross-cultural psychology and its relevance for education. Studies in Philosophy and Education . https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-006-9012-4

van der Hoeven, D., Truong, T. T. L. A., Holland, J. N., & Quock, R. L. (2020). Assessment of critical thinking in a first-year dental curriculum. Medical. Science Educator . https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-020-00914-3

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Training and Development, The English and Foreign Languages University, Hyderabad, Telangana, India

K. Venkat Reddy

Department of English Language Teaching, The English and Foreign Languages University, Hyderabad, Telangana, India

G. Suvarna Lakshmi

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Department of English Language Teaching, English and Foreign Languages University, Hyderabad, Telangana, India

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2024 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Reddy, K.V., Lakshmi, G.S. (2024). Practicing Critical Thinking: Issues and Challenges. In: Reddy, K.V., Lakshmi, G.S. (eds) Critical Thinking for Professional and Language Education. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-37951-2_5

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-37951-2_5

Published : 04 September 2024

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-031-37950-5

Online ISBN : 978-3-031-37951-2

eBook Packages : Education Education (R0)

Share this chapter

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Professors say they teach critical thinking. But is that what students are learning?

Suzanne Cooper. " Do we teach critical thinking? A mixed methods study of faculty and student perceptions of teaching and learning critical thinking at three professional schools . February 21, 2024

Faculty Authors

Suzanne Cooper

What’s the issue.

The ability to think critically is an essential skill for professionals, including doctors, government officials, and educators. But are instructors at professional schools teaching it, or do they just think they are? Approaches to teaching and assessing critical thinking skills vary substantially across academic disciplines and are not standardized. And little data exists on how much students are learning—or even whether they know their instructors are trying to teach them critical thinking. 

What does the research say? 

The researchers, including Suzanne Cooper, the Edith M. Stokey Senior Lecturer in Public Policy at HKS, compared instructors’ approaches to teaching critical thinking with students’ perceptions of what they were being taught. They surveyed instructors and conducted focus groups with students at three professional schools (Harvard Medical School, Harvard Kennedy School, and the Harvard Graduate School of Education). 

The researchers found that more than half (54%) of faculty surveyed said they explicitly taught critical thinking in their courses (27% said they did not and 19% were unsure). When the researchers talked to students, however, the consensus was that critical thinking was primarily being taught implicitly. One student said discussions, debates, and case study analyses were viewed as opportunities “for critical thinking to emerge” but that methods and techniques were not a specific focus. The students were also generally unable to recall or define key terms, such as “metacognition” (an understanding of one’s own thought process) and “cognitive biases” (systematic deviations from norms or rationality in which individuals create their own subjective reality). 

Based on their findings, the researchers recommend that faculty should be required to teach critical thinking explicitly and be given specific approaches and definitions that are appropriate to their academic discipline. They also recommend that professional schools consider teaching core critical thinking skills, as well as skills specific to their area of study.   

More from HKS

Developing a rehabilitation program that works for incarcerated people, the link between poor housing conditions and covid-19 infection, parents play a role in leading boys and girls down different paths of study.

Get smart & reliable public policy insights right in your inbox. 

The State of Critical Thinking 2020

November 2020, introduction.

In 2018, the Reboot Foundation released a first-of-its-kind survey looking at the public’s attitudes toward critical thinking and critical thinking education. The report found that critical thinking skills are highly valued, but not taught or practiced as much as might be hoped for in schools or in public life. 

The survey suggested that, despite recognizing the importance of critical thinking, when it came to critical thinking practices—like seeking out multiple sources of information and engaging others with opposing views—many people’s habits were lacking. Significant numbers of respondents reported relying on inadequate sources of information, making decisions without doing enough research, and avoiding those with conflicting viewpoints.

In late 2019, the Foundation conducted a follow up survey in order to see how the landscape may have shifted. Without question, the stakes surrounding better reasoning have increased. The COVID-19 pandemic requires deeper interpretive and analytical skills. For instance, when it comes to news about a possible vaccine, people need to assess how it was developed in order to judge whether it will actually work. 

Misinformation, from both foreign and domestic sources, continues to proliferate online and, perhaps most disturbingly, surrounding the COVID-19 health crisis. Meanwhile, political polarization has deepened and become more personal . At the same time, there’s both a growing awareness and divide over issues of racism and inequality. If that wasn’t enough, changes to the journalism industry have weakened local civic life and incentivized clickbait, and sensationalized and siloed content. 

Part of the problem is that much of our public discourse takes place online, where cognitive biases can become amplified, and where groupthink and filter bubbles proliferate. Meanwhile, face-to-face conversations—which can dissolve misunderstandings and help us recognize the shared humanity of those we disagree with—go missing. 

Critical thinking is, of course, not a cure-all, but a lack of critical thinking skills across the population exacerbates all these problems. More than ever, we need skills and practice in managing our emotions, stepping back from quick-trigger evaluations and decisions, and over-relying on biased or false sources of information. 

To keep apprised of the public’s view of critical thinking, the Reboot Foundation conducted its second annual survey in late 2019. Unfortunately, the COVID-19 pandemic forced a delay in the release of the results. Nevertheless, this most recent survey dug deeper than our 2018 poll, and looked especially into how the public understands the state of critical thinking education. For the first time, our team also surveyed teachers on their views on teaching critical thinking.

General Findings

Support for critical thinking skills remains high, but there is also clearly skepticism that individuals are getting the help they need to acquire improved reasoning skills. A very high majority of people surveyed (94 percent) believe that critical thinking is “extremely” or “very important.” But they generally (86 percent) find those skills lacking in the public at large. Indeed, 60 percent of the respondents reported not having studied critical thinking in school. And only about 55 percent reported that their critical thinking skills had improved since high school, with almost a quarter reporting that those skills had deteriorated. 

There is also broad support among the public and teachers for critical thinking education, both at the K-12 and collegiate levels. For example, 90 percent think courses covering critical thinking should be required in K-12. 

Many respondents (43 percent) also encouragingly identified early childhood as the best age to develop critical thinking skills. This was a big increase from our previous survey (just 20 percent) and is consistent with the general consensus among social scientists and psychologists. 

There are worrisome trends—and promising signs—in critical thinking habits and daily practices. In particular, individuals still don’t do enough to engage people with whom they disagree. 

Given the deficits in critical thinking acquisition during school, we would hope that respondents’ critical thinking skills continued to improve after they’ve left school. But only about 55 percent reported that their critical thinking skills had improved since high school, with almost a quarter reporting that their skills had actually deteriorated since then. 

Questions about respondents’ critical thinking habits brought out some encouraging information. People reported using more than one source of information when making a decision at a high rate (around 77 percent said they did this “always” or “often”) and giving reasons for their opinions (85 percent). These numbers were, in general, higher than in our previous survey (see “Comparing Survey Results” below).

In other areas of critical thinking, responses were more mixed. Almost half of respondents, for example, reported only “sometimes,” “rarely,” or “never” seeking out people with different opinions to engage in discussion. Many also reported only “sometimes,” “rarely,” or “never” planning where (35 percent) or how (36 percent) to get information on a given topic. 

These factors are tied closely together. Critical thinking skills have been challenged and devalued at many different levels of society. There is, therefore, no simple fix. Simply cleansing the internet of misinformation, for example, would not suddenly make us better thinkers. Improving critical thinking across society will take a many-pronged effort.

Comparing Survey Results  

Several interesting details emerged in the comparison of results from this survey to our 2018 poll. First, a word of caution: there were some demographic differences in the respondents between the two surveys. This survey skewed a bit older: the average age was 47, as opposed to 36.5. In addition, more females responded this time: 57 percent versus 46 percent.

That said, there was a great deal of consistency between the surveys on participants’ general views of critical thinking. Belief in the importance of critical thinking remains high (94 percent versus 96 percent), as does belief that these skills are generally lacking in society at large. Blame, moreover, was spread to many of the same culprits. Slightly more participants blamed technology this time (29 versus 27 percent), while slightly fewer blamed the education system (22 versus 26 percent). 

Respondents were also generally agreed on the importance of teaching critical thinking at all levels. Ninety-five percent thought critical thinking courses should be required at the K-12 level (slightly up from 92 percent); and 91 percent thought they should be required in college (slightly up from 90 percent). (These questions were framed slightly differently from year to year, which could have contributed to the small increases.)

One significant change came over the question of when it is appropriate to start developing critical thinking skills. In our first survey, less than 20 percent of respondents said that early childhood was the ideal time to develop critical thinking skills. This time, 43 percent of respondents did so. As discussed below, this is an encouraging development since research indicates that children become capable of learning how to think critically at a young age. 

In one potentially discouraging difference between the two surveys, our most recent survey saw more respondents indicate that they did less critical thinking since high school (18 percent versus just 4 percent). But similar numbers of respondents indicated their critical thinking skills had deteriorated since high school (23 percent versus 21 percent).

Finally, encouraging points of comparison emerged in responses to questions about particular critical thinking activities. Our most recent survey saw a slight uptick in the number of respondents reporting engagement in activities like collaborating with others, planning on where to get information, seeking out the opinions of those they disagree with, keeping an open mind, and verifying information. (See Appendix 1: Data Tables.)

These results could reflect genuine differences from 2018, in either actual activity or respondents’ sense of the importance of these activities. But demographic differences in age and gender could also be responsible. 

There is reason to believe, however, that demographic differences are not the main factor, since there is no evident correlation between gender and responses in either survey. Meanwhile, in our most recent survey older respondents reported doing these activities less frequently . Since this survey skewed older, it might have been anticipated that respondents would report doing these activities less. But the opposite is the case.

Findings From Teacher Survey

Teachers generally agree with general survey respondents about the importance of critical thinking. Ninety-four percent regard critical thinking as “extremely” or “very important.” 

Teachers, like general survey participants, also share concerns that young people aren’t acquiring the critical thinking skills they need. They worry, in particular, about the impact of technology on their students’ critical thinking skills. In response to a question about how their school’s administration can help them teach critical thinking education more effectively, some teachers said updated technology (along with new textbooks and other materials) would help, but others thought laptops, tablets, and smartphones were inhibiting students’ critical thinking development. 

This is an important point to clarify if we are to better integrate critical thinking into K-12 education. Research strongly suggests that critical thinking skills are best acquired in combination with basic facts in a particular subject area. The idea that critical thinking is a skill that can be effectively taught in isolation from basic facts is mistaken. 

Another common misconception reflected in the teacher survey involves critical thinking and achievement. Although a majority of teachers (52 percent) thought all students benefited from critical thinking instruction, a significant percentage (35) said it primarily benefited high-ability students. 

At Reboot, we believe that all students are capable of critical thinking and will benefit from critical thinking instruction. Critical thinking is, after all, just a refinement of everyday thinking, decision-making, and problem-solving. These are skills all students must have. The key is instilling in our young people both the habits and subject-area knowledge needed to facilitate the improvement and refinement of these skills.

Teachers need more support when it comes to critical thinking instruction. In the survey, educators repeatedly mentioned a lack of resources and updated professional development. In response to a question about how administrators could help teachers teach critical thinking more effectively, one teacher asked for “better tools and materials for teaching us how to teach these things.” 

Others wanted more training, asking directly for additional support in terms of resources and professional training. One educator put it bluntly: “Provide extra professional development to give resources and training on how to do this in multiple disciplines.” 

Media literacy is still not being taught as widely as it should be. Forty-four percent of teachers reported that media literacy courses are not offered at their schools, with just 31 percent reporting required media literacy courses. 

This is despite the fact that teachers, in their open responses, recognized the importance of media literacy, with some suggesting it should be a graduation requirement. Many organizations and some governments, notably   Finland’s , have recognized the media literacy deficit and taken action to address it, but the U.S. education system has been slow to act.

Thinking skills have been valuable in all places and at all times. But with the recent upheavals in communication, information, and media, particularly around the COVID-19 crisis, such skills are perhaps more important than ever. 

Part of the issue is that the production of information has been democratized—no longer vetted by gatekeepers but generated by anyone who has an internet connection and something to say. This has undoubtedly had positive effects, as events and voices come to light that might have previously not emerged. The recording of George Floyd’s killing is one such example. But, at the same time, finding and verifying good information has become much more difficult. 

Technological changes have also put financial pressures on so-called “legacy media” like newspapers and television stations, leading to sometimes precipitous drops in quality, less rigorous fact-checking (in the original sense of the term), and the blending of news reports and opinion pieces. The success of internet articles and videos is too often measured by clicks instead of quality. A stable business model for high-quality public interest journalism remains lacking. And, as biased information and propaganda fills gaps left by shrinking newsrooms, polarization worsens. (1)

Traditional and social media both play into our biases and needs for in-group approval. Online platforms have proven ideal venues for misinformation and manipulation. And distractions abound, damaging attention spans and the quality of debate.

Many hold this digital upheaval at least partially responsible for recent political upheavals around the world. Our media consumption habits increasingly reinforce biases and previously held beliefs, and expose us to only the worst and most inflammatory views from the other side. Demagogues and the simple, emotion-driven ideas they advance thrive in this environment of confusion, isolation, and sensationalism. 

It’s not only our public discourse that suffers. Some studies have suggested that digital media may be partially responsible for rising rates of depression and other mood disorders among the young. (2)

Coping with this fast-paced, distraction-filled world in a healthy and productive manner requires better thinking and better habits of mind, but the online world itself tends to encourage the opposite. This is not to suggest our collective thinking skills were pristine before the internet came along, only that the internet presents challenges to our thinking that we have not seen before and have not yet proven able to meet. 

There are some positive signs, with more attention and resources being devoted to neglected areas of education like civics and media literacy ; organizations trying to address internet-fueled polarization and extremism; and online tools being developed to counter fake news and flawed information. 

But we also need to support the development of more general reasoning skills and habits: in other words, “critical thinking.” 

Critical thinking has long been a staple of K-12 and college education, theoretically, at least, if not always in practice. But the concept can easily appear vague and merely rhetorical without definite ideas and practices attached to it. 

When, for example, is the best age to teach critical thinking? What activities are appropriate? Should basic knowledge be acquired at the same time as critical thinking skills, or separately? Some of these questions remain difficult to answer, but research and practice have gone far in addressing others.

Part of the goal of our survey was to compare general attitudes about critical thinking education—both in the teaching profession and the general public—to what the best and most recent research suggests. If there is to be progress in the development of critical thinking skills across society, it requires not just learning how best to teach critical thinking but diffusing that knowledge widely, especially to parents and educators. 

The surveys were distributed through Amazon’s MTurk Prime service. 

For the general survey, respondents answered a series of questions about critical thinking, followed by a section that asked respondents to estimate how often they do certain things, such as consult more than one source when searching for information. The questions in the “personal habit” section appeared in a randomized order to reduce question ordering effects. Demographic questions appeared at the end of the survey.

For the teacher survey, respondents were all part of a teacher panel created by MTurk Prime. They also answered a series of questions on critical thinking, especially focused on the role of critical thinking in their classrooms. After that, respondents answered a series of questions about how they teach—these questions were also randomized to reduce question ordering effects. Finally, we asked questions related to the role of media literacy in their classrooms.

To maintain consistency with the prior survey and to explore relationships across time, many of the questions remained the same from 2018. In some cases, following best practices in questionnaire design , we revamped questions to improve clarity and increase the validity and reliability of the responses.

For all surveys, only completed responses coming from IP addresses located in the U.S. were analyzed. 1152 respondents completed the general survey; 499 teachers completed the teacher survey.

The complete set of questions for each survey is available upon request

Detailed Findings and Discussion

As summarized above, the survey produced a number of noteworthy findings. One central theme that emerged was a general pessimism about the state of critical thinking and uncertainty about how to improve it. That is, despite the near-universal acknowledgment of the importance of critical thinking, respondents generally think society at large is doing a bad job of cultivating critical thinking skills. Respondents were, moreover, divided about what needs to be done.

Almost all the people surveyed (94 percent) believe that critical thinking is “extremely” or “very important.” But they generally (86 percent) find those skills lacking in the public at large. These numbers don’t come as a huge surprise—and they echo the 2018 results—but they do suggest broad public support for initiatives that advance critical thinking skills, both inside and outside of schools.

Respondents also reported deficits in their own critical thinking training and practices. They tended not to think critical thinking had been a point of emphasis in their own education, with a substantial majority of over 63 percent reporting that they had not studied critical thinking in school. Around 20 percent said their schools had provided no background in critical thinking at all, and another 20 percent said the background in critical thinking they gained from school was only slight.

There were significant differences among age groups in these self-reports. Around half of respondents in both the 0-19 and 20-39 age groups reported having studied critical thinking in school. Those numbers dwindled among older groups, bottoming out at 11 percent among 80 to 100-year-olds.

This result is likely in part due to the increased popularity of the phrase “critical thinking”: prior generations may have spent a substantial amount of time on reasoning skills without it coming under the same vocabulary. The young are also closer to school-age, of course, so may simply have sharper memories of critical thinking activities. But the differences in responses might also reflect genuine differences in education. 

In any case it’s clear that, even recently, many—if not most—students come out of school feeling as if they have not learned how to think critically, despite the fact that there is broad consensus on the importance of these skills. Only around 25 percent of respondents reported receiving an “extremely” or “very” strong background in critical thinking from their schools. 

There are a number of potential causes—technology, social norms, misguided educational priorities—but perhaps the most salient is that, as cognitive scientist Tim van Gelder puts it, “critical thinking is hard.” As van Gelder emphasizes, we don’t naturally think reasonably and rationally; instead we tend to rely on narrative, emotion, and intuition—what feels right. (3)   Teaching students to think critically requires much more guidance and practice, throughout the curriculum, than is currently being provided. 

There is broad support among the public and among teachers for critical thinking education, both at the K-12 and collegiate levels. 

Around 90 percent of respondents in the general public said that courses covering critical thinking should be required at the K-12 level, while 94 percent of teachers said critical thinking is important.

And schools usually echo this sentiment as well, citing the phrase “critical thinking” frequently in curricula and other materials. But it remains unclear if, in practice, critical thinking is really the priority it’s made out to be rhetorically.

One problem is a tendency to think critical thinking and reasoning are too complex for younger students to tackle. But research has shown that children start reasoning logically at a very young age. (4)   Critical thinking through activities like open-ended dialogue, weighing opposing perspectives, and backing up opinions with reasoning can have a positive effect even at the K-5 level. For example, philosophy for kids courses have shown some  positive effects on students’ reading and math skills (gains were even more substantial for disadvantaged students). (5)

Our survey respondents generally agreed that critical thinking skills should be taught from an early age. Forty-three percent favored beginning critical thinking instruction during early childhood (another 27 percent favored beginning at ages 6-12). This was more than a twofold increase over the results from 2018’s survey, in which just 20 percent thought it was best to begin instruction in critical thinking before the age of 6. This increase is encouraging since it’s consistent with recent research that understands critical thinking as part of general cognitive development that starts even before children enter school. (6)

Many teachers likewise support critical thinking instruction beginning at a young age. In the open response, for example, one wrote, “Critical thinking should be explicitly taught in earlier grades than late middle school and high school.” 

Another wrote: “By the time students get to high school they should have this skill [critical thinking] well tuned. The pressure to meet standards earlier and earlier makes it harder to teach basic skills like critical thinking.” 

Many teachers (55 percent) also thought the emphasis on standardized testing has made it more difficult to incorporate critical thinking instruction in the classroom. For example, one wrote, “Standardized testing has created an environment of quantitative results that don’t always represent qualitative gains.” 

Moreover, a plurality of teachers (25 percent) believe that state standardized tests do not assess critical thinking skills well at all, while just 13 percent believe they assess critical thinking skills extremely well. Teachers generally (52 percent) believe that their own tests do a better job of measuring critical thinking skills.

The survey also found some worrisome trends—as well as some promising signs—in how people evaluated their own critical thinking skills and daily practices. In particular, individuals don’t do enough to engage people with whom they disagree. 

Given the deficits in critical thinking acquisition during school, it might be hoped that respondents’ critical thinking skills continued to improve after they’ve left school. But only about 55 percent reported that their critical thinking skills had improved since high school, with almost a quarter reporting that their skills had actually deteriorated since then. 

This is especially alarming because thinking critically, unlike say learning about calculus or the Russian Revolution, is generally thought to be a lifelong endeavour. We are supposed to become better with age and experience. Research into adult education suggests that it’s never too late to make gains in critical thinking.  (7)

Questions about respondents’ critical thinking habits brought out more detailed information. Some of these responses were encouraging. People reported using more than one source of information when making a decision at a high rate (around 77 percent said they did this “always” or “often”), giving reason for their opinions (85 percent), supporting their decisions with information (84 percent), and listening to the ideas of those they disagree with (81 percent). Participants generally reported engaging in more critical thinking activities this time than in our initial survey. (See “Comparing Survey Results” above.)

It’s difficult to totally identify the drivers of these figures. After all, all humans are prone to overestimating the amount and quality of reasoning we do when we come to decisions, solve problems, or research information. But, at the very least, these numbers indicate that people acknowledge that these various critical thinking habits are admirable goals to shoot for. 

At the same time and unsurprisingly, these results suggest a reluctance to engage in the more demanding aspects of critical thinking: difficult or unpleasant tasks like seriously considering the possibility that our opponents might be right or thinking carefully about how to approach information-gathering before we engage in it.

Weaknesses in these areas of critical thinking can be especially easily exploited by emotionalized, oversimplified, and sensationalistic news and rhetoric. If people jump in to information-gathering without even a rough plan or method in mind they’re more likely to get swept up by clickbait or worse. 

The current media environment requires a mindful and deliberate approach if it is to be navigated successfully. And one’s own opinions will remain under-nuanced, reactive, and prone to groupthink if they’re influenced by the extreme opinions and caricatures that are often found online and on television instead of by engagement with well-reasoned and well-intentioned perspectives.

Poor media consumption habits can have a distorting effect on our political perceptions, especially. Recent research, for example, has identified wildly inaccurate stereotypes among the general public about the composition of political parties. One study found that “people think that 32% of Democrats are LGBT (versus 6% in reality) and 38% of Republicans earn over $250,000 per year (vs. 2% in reality).” (8) The study also suggested, alarmingly, that “those who pay the most attention to political media may […] also [be] the likeliest to possess the most misinformation about party composition.” (9)

The public is worried about the impact of technology on the acquisition of critical thinking skills. They also blamed deficits in critical thinking on changing societal norms and the education system.

Modern technology was the most cited reason for a lack of critical thinking skills among the general public, with “changing societal norms” coming in a close second. Over 200 respondents also cited the educational system (see chart below).

A number of the teachers also mentioned potential drawbacks of technology in the classroom environment. For example, in the open response portion of the survey, which allowed teachers to voice general concerns, one teacher wrote: “Get rid of the laptops and tablets and bring back pencil and paper because the students aren’t learning anything using technology.” Another said: “Personal Electronic devices need to be banned in schools.”

In our own work at the Reboot Foundation, the research team found evidence of negative correlations between technology use at schools and achievement. For example, an analysis of data from the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) showed that fourth graders using tablets “in all or almost all” classes performed significantly worse (the equivalent of a full grade level) than their peers who didn’t use them. 

Another recent study the foundation supported also suggested students benefited from using pencil and paper as opposed to technology to do math homework. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development found similar results a few years ago in their international study of 15-year-olds and computer usage. (10)

There is a great deal the field still doesn’t know about the effects of different kinds of technology on different kinds of learning. But a growing stock of research suggests that schools should be cautious about introducing technology into classrooms and the lives of students in general, especially young students. (11)

It would also be a mistake to slip into simple Luddism though. Technology, obviously, provides benefits as well—making education more accessible, reducing costs, helping teachers to fine-tune instruction to student needs, to name a few. During the coronavirus crisis, moreover, educators have had no choice but to rely and hopefully help improve these tools.

Still, too often in the past schools have turn ed to technology without properly weighing the costs against the benefits, and without determining whether technology is truly needed or effective. A recent RAND Corporation paper, for example, discussed programs “seeking to implement personalized learning” but without “clearly defined evidence-based models to adopt.” (12)

The Reboot survey suggests that members of the public as well as teachers generally share these concerns, both about educational technology specifically and about the general impact of technology on student learning.

While teachers support critical thinking instruction, they are divided about how to teach it, and some educators have beliefs about critical thinking instruction that conflict with established research.

One central question in the research about how to best instill critical thinking skills in students is whether critical thinking should be taught in conjunction with basic facts and knowledge or separated from it. 

Teachers were split on this question, with 41 percent thinking students should engage in critical thinking practice while learning basic facts, while 42 percent thought students should learn basic facts first then engage in critical thinking practice. A further 16 percent believe that basic facts and critical thinking should be taught separately. (However, only about 13 percent of teachers surveyed say that content knowledge either doesn’t matter at all or only matters slightly for critical thinking skills.)

The view that knowledge and critical thinking skills can and should be taught separately is mistaken. There is a common view that since information is so widely accessible today, learning basic facts is no longer important. According to this view, it’s only cognitive skills that matter. But the two cannot be so neatly divorced as is often assumed. (13)

Research in cognitive science strongly suggests that critical thinking is not the type of skill that can be divorced from content and applied generically to all kinds of different contexts. As cognitive scientist Daniel T. Willingham argues, “The ability to think critically […] depends on domain knowledge and practice.” (14)

This means students need to practice critical thinking in many different kinds of contexts throughout the curriculum as they acquire the background knowledge needed to reason in a given context. There are of course general skills and habits that can be extrapolated from these various kinds of practice, but it is very unlikely that critical thinking can be taught as a skill divorced from content. “It […] makes no sense,” Willingham writes, “to try to teach critical thinking devoid of factual content.”

This doesn’t necessarily mean standalone critical thinking courses should be rejected. Students can still gain a lot from learning about formal logic, for example, and from learning about metacognition and the best research practices. But these standalone courses or programs should include acquisition of basic factual knowledge as well, and the skills and habits learned in them must be applied and reinforced in other courses and contexts.

Students, moreover, should be reminded that being “critical” is an empty slogan unless they have the requisite factual knowledge to make a cogent argument in a given domain. They need background knowledge to be able to seek out evidence from relevant sources, to develop reliable and nuanced interpretations of information, and to back the arguments they want to make with evidence.

Reboot also asked teachers about which students they thought benefited from critical thinking instruction. A majority (52 percent) thought it benefits all students, but 35 percent said (with the remaining 13 percent thinking it primarily benefits lower-ability students). 

The view that critical thinking instruction is only effective for higher achieving students is another common misconception. Everyone is capable of critical thinking, and even, to a certain extent, engages in critical thinking on their own. The key is for students to develop metacognitive habits and subject-area knowledge so that they can apply critical thought in the right contexts and in the right way. Educators should not assume that lower-achieving students will not benefit from critical thinking instruction. 

Teachers need more support when it comes to critical thinking instruction, though at least some teacher training and professional development programs do seem to help.

In the survey, educators repeatedly mentioned a lack of resources and updated professional development. In response to a question about how administrators could help teachers teach critical thinking more effectively, one teacher asked for “better tools and materials for teaching us how to teach these things.” 

Another said, “Provide opportunities for teachers to collaborate and cross train across subject areas, as well as providing professional development that is not dry or outdated.” Another characteristic comment: “Provide extra professional development to give resources and training on how to do this in multiple disciplines.”

Overall teachers were relatively satisfied that teacher training and professional development programs were helping them teach critical thinking. Forty-six percent said that their teacher training helped them a lot or a great deal, while 50 percent said professional development programs help them a lot or a great deal.

But other teachers reported burdensome administrative tasks and guidelines were getting in the way of teacher autonomy and critical thinking instruction. For example, one teacher wrote, “Earlier in my career I had much more freedom to incorporate instruction of critical thinking into my lessons.”

Media literacy is still not being taught as widely as it should be. 

In our survey, teachers rightly recognized that media literacy is closely bound up with critical thinking. One said, “I believe that media literacy goes hand in hand with critical thinking skills and should be a requirement […] especially due to the increase in use of technology among our youth.” Another offered that “media literacy should be a graduation requirement like economics or government.”

But schools, at least judging by teachers’ responses in the survey, have been slow in prioritizing media literacy. More than 44 percent reported that media literacy courses are not offered at their schools, and just around 30 percent reported that media literacy courses are required. That said, the majority of teachers did report teaching typical media literacy skills occasionally in their classes. 

For example, over 60 percent said that, in at least one class, they “teach students how to distinguish legitimate from illegitimate sources,” and over two-thirds said they “teach students how to find reliable sources.” (15)

Despite the assumption sometimes made that young people (“digital natives”) must be adept navigators of the internet, recent studies have found that students have trouble evaluating the information they consume online. They have problems recognizing bias and misinformation, distinguishing between advertising and legitimate journalism, and verifying information using credible sources. 

Our age is one in which unreliable information proliferates; nefarious interests use the internet to influence public opinion; and social media encourages groupthink, emotional thinking, and pile-on. New skills and training are required to navigate this environment. Our schools must adapt. 

This means generating and implementing specific interventions that help students learn to identify markers of misinformation and develop healthy information-gathering habits. The Reboot Foundation’s own research suggests that even quick and immediate interventions can have a positive impact. But it also means instilling students with life-long critical thinking habits and skills which they’ll be able to apply to an ever-changing media landscape. 

Despite its importance, which is widely acknowledged by the general public, critical thinking remains a somewhat vague and poorly understood concept. Most people realize that it is of vital importance to individual success and educational attainment, as well as to civic life in a liberal democracy. And most seem to realize that 21st-century challenges and changes make acquiring critical thinking skills of even more urgent importance. But when it comes to instilling them in children and developing them in adults, we are, in many ways, still at square one. 

Over the course of the last few decades, K-12 educators have been urged to teach critical thinking, but they have been given conflicting and inconsistent advice on how to do it. There remains a lack of proven resources for them to rely on, a lack of administrative support—and sometimes even a lack of a clear sense of what exactly critical thinking is. Perhaps most importantly, teachers lack the time and freedom within the curriculum to teach these skills.

But there have been a number of insights from cognitive science and other disciplines that suggest a way forward. Perhaps the most important is that critical thinking cannot be understood as a skill on par with learning a musical instrument or a foreign language. It is more complicated than those kinds of skills, involving cognitive development in a number of different areas and integrated with general knowledge learned in other subject areas. Critical thinking courses and interventions that ignore this basic fact may produce some gains, but they will not give students the tools to develop their thinking more broadly and apply critical thought to the world outside of school.

College and continuing education deserve attention too. It should be considered a red flag that only 55 percent of respondents didn’t think they’d made any strides in critical thinking skills since high school. Colleges have long been moving away from a traditional liberal arts curriculum . The critical thinking skills acquired across those disciplines have likely suffered as a result. 

In recent years, we’ve seen smart people who should know better time and again exhibit poor judgment online. It is important to remind each other of the importance of stepping back, managing emotions, engaging with others charitably, and seriously considering the possibility that we are wrong. This is especially important when we are searching for information online, an environment that can easily discourage these intellectual virtues. Ramping up media literacy—for both adults and young people—will be a vital part of the solution.

But, ultimately, critical thinking, which touches on so many different aspects of personal and civic life, must be fostered in a multitude of different ways and different domains. A secure, prosperous, and civil future may, quite literally, depend on it.

Appendix 1: Data Tables

When I have a task to do, I collaborate with other people to get ideas.

I plan where to get information on a topic.

[table id=72 /]

I listen to the ideas of others even if I disagree with them.

[table id=73 /]

I keep an open mind to different ideas when making a decision.

[table id=74/]

I make sure the information I use is correct.

[table id=75 /]

I seek out people who tend to have different opinions than me to engage in discussion or debate

[table id=76 /]

To download the PDF of this survey,

(please click here)

(1)* W  Gandour, R. (2016) A new information environment: How digital fragmentation is shaping the way we produce and consume news. Knight Center for Journalism in the Americas. https://knightcenter.utexas.edu/books/NewInfoEnvironmentEnglishLink.pdf (2)* Twenge, J. M., Cooper, A. B., Joiner, T. E., Duffy, M. E., & Binau, S. G. (2019). Age, period, and cohort trends in mood disorder indicators and suicide-related outcomes in a nationally representative dataset, 2005–2017. Journal of Abnormal Psychology .

(3)*  Gelder, T. V. (2005). Teaching critical thinking: Some lessons from cognitive science. College Teaching , 53 (1), 41-48.

(4)*  Gelman, S. A., & Markman, E. M. (1986). Categories and induction in young children. Cognition, 23 , 183-209.

(5)*  Gorard, S., Siddiqui, N., & See, B. H. (2015). Philosophy for Children: Evaluation report and executive summary. Education Endowment Foundation. https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/public/files/ Projects/Evaluation_Reports/EEF_Project_Report_PhilosophyForChildren.pdf

(6)*  Kuhn, D. (1999). A developmental model of critical thinking. Educational researcher , 28 (2), 16-46.

(7)*  Dwyer, C. P., & Walsh, A. (2019). An exploratory quantitative case study of critical thinking development through adult distance learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 1-19.

(8)*  Ahler, D. J., & Sood, G. (2018). The parties in our heads: Misperceptions about party composition and their consequences. The Journal of Politics, 80 (3), 964-981. 964.

(9)*  Ibid., 965.

(10)*  Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2015). Students, computers and learning: Making the connection . https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264239555-en

(11)*  Madigan, S., Browne, D., Racine, N., Mori, C., & Tough, S. (2019). Association between screen time and children’s performance on a developmental screening test. JAMA pediatrics, 173(3), 244-250.

(12)*  Pane, J. F. (2018). Strategies for implementing personalized learning while evidence and resources are underdeveloped. RAND Corporation. https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PE314.html

(13)*  Wexler, N. (2019). The knowledge gap: The hidden cause of America’s broken education system–and how to fix it. Avery.

(14)*  Willingham, D. T. (2007). Critical thinking: Why is it so hard to teach? American Federation of Teachers (Summer 2007) 8-19.

(15)*  Wineburg, S., McGrew, S., Breakstone, J., & Ortega, T. (2016). Evaluating information: The cornerstone of civic online reasoning. Stanford Digital Repository, 8, 2018.

please click here.

Privacy Overview

• History & Society
• Science & Tech
• Biographies
• Animals & Nature
• Geography & Travel
• Arts & Culture
• Games & Quizzes
• On This Day
• One Good Fact
• New Articles
• Lifestyles & Social Issues
• Philosophy & Religion
• Politics, Law & Government
• World History
• Health & Medicine
• Browse Biographies
• Birds, Reptiles & Other Vertebrates
• Bugs, Mollusks & Other Invertebrates
• Environment
• Fossils & Geologic Time
• Entertainment & Pop Culture
• Sports & Recreation
• Visual Arts
• Demystified
• Image Galleries
• Infographics
• Top Questions
• Britannica Kids
• Saving Earth
• Space Next 50
• Student Center
• What was education like in ancient Athens?
• How does social class affect education attainment?
• When did education become compulsory?
• What are alternative forms of education?
• Do school vouchers offer students access to better education?

critical thinking

Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.

• Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy - Critical Thinking
• Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy - Critical Thinking
• Monash University - Student Academic Success - What is critical thinking?
• Oklahoma State University Pressbooks - Critical Thinking - Introduction to Critical Thinking
• University of Louisville - Critical Thinking

Recent News

critical thinking , in educational theory, mode of cognition using deliberative reasoning and impartial scrutiny of information to arrive at a possible solution to a problem. From the perspective of educators, critical thinking encompasses both a set of logical skills that can be taught and a disposition toward reflective open inquiry that can be cultivated . The term critical thinking was coined by American philosopher and educator John Dewey in the book How We Think (1910) and was adopted by the progressive education movement as a core instructional goal that offered a dynamic modern alternative to traditional educational methods such as rote memorization.

Critical thinking is characterized by a broad set of related skills usually including the abilities to

• break down a problem into its constituent parts to reveal its underlying logic and assumptions
• recognize and account for one’s own biases in judgment and experience
• collect and assess relevant evidence from either personal observations and experimentation or by gathering external information
• adjust and reevaluate one’s own thinking in response to what one has learned
• form a reasoned assessment in order to propose a solution to a problem or a more accurate understanding of the topic at hand

Theorists have noted that such skills are only valuable insofar as a person is inclined to use them. Consequently, they emphasize that certain habits of mind are necessary components of critical thinking. This disposition may include curiosity, open-mindedness, self-awareness, empathy , and persistence.

Although there is a generally accepted set of qualities that are associated with critical thinking, scholarly writing about the term has highlighted disagreements over its exact definition and whether and how it differs from related concepts such as problem solving . In addition, some theorists have insisted that critical thinking be regarded and valued as a process and not as a goal-oriented skill set to be used to solve problems. Critical-thinking theory has also been accused of reflecting patriarchal assumptions about knowledge and ways of knowing that are inherently biased against women.

Dewey, who also used the term reflective thinking , connected critical thinking to a tradition of rational inquiry associated with modern science . From the turn of the 20th century, he and others working in the overlapping fields of psychology , philosophy , and educational theory sought to rigorously apply the scientific method to understand and define the process of thinking. They conceived critical thinking to be related to the scientific method but more open, flexible, and self-correcting; instead of a recipe or a series of steps, critical thinking would be a wider set of skills, patterns, and strategies that allow someone to reason through an intellectual topic, constantly reassessing assumptions and potential explanations in order to arrive at a sound judgment and understanding.

In the progressive education movement in the United States , critical thinking was seen as a crucial component of raising citizens in a democratic society. Instead of imparting a particular series of lessons or teaching only canonical subject matter, theorists thought that teachers should train students in how to think. As critical thinkers, such students would be equipped to be productive and engaged citizens who could cooperate and rationally overcome differences inherent in a pluralistic society.

Beginning in the 1970s and ’80s, critical thinking as a key outcome of school and university curriculum leapt to the forefront of U.S. education policy. In an atmosphere of renewed Cold War competition and amid reports of declining U.S. test scores, there were growing fears that the quality of education in the United States was falling and that students were unprepared. In response, a concerted effort was made to systematically define curriculum goals and implement standardized testing regimens , and critical-thinking skills were frequently included as a crucially important outcome of a successful education. A notable event in this movement was the release of the 1980 report of the Rockefeller Commission on the Humanities that called for the U.S. Department of Education to include critical thinking on its list of “basic skills.” Three years later the California State University system implemented a policy that required every undergraduate student to complete a course in critical thinking.

Critical thinking continued to be put forward as a central goal of education in the early 21st century. Its ubiquity in the language of education policy and in such guidelines as the Common Core State Standards in the United States generated some criticism that the concept itself was both overused and ill-defined. In addition, an argument was made by teachers, theorists, and others that educators were not being adequately trained to teach critical thinking.

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

Bibliography

Academic tools.

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

Critical Thinking

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

2.1 Dewey’s Three Main Examples

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. Examples and Non-Examples

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8. Critical Thinking Dispositions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

12. Controversies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

• Info about mirror sites

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

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

More From Forbes

Critical thinking skills not emphasized by most middle school teachers.

• Share to Facebook
• Share to Twitter
• Share to Linkedin

Students raise their hands to answer a teacher's question at the KIPP Academy in the South Bronx, ... [+] part of a network of public middle schools that is becoming a model for educating poor children. KIPP — which stands for Knowledge is Power Program — institutions are rigorous college preparatory schools where both students and their parents must sign a contract pledging long hours, extra homework, summer school, and excellent attendance records. Using strict discipline with highly motivated — and paid — teachers, the KIPP program has proven that public education can work. In the Bronx, the school has a famous music program, where children practice the songs of Lauryn Hill and Alicia Keys. (Photo by Andrew Lichtenstein/Corbis via Getty Images)

Recent events show that there has never been a more crucial time for critical thinking. A global onslaught of misinformation, social media saturation, partisan politics, and science skepticism continuously challenge how information is shared, understood, and how it influences the decisions people make.

Research from the Reboot Foundation and others show that an overwhelming majority of the population recognizes the importance of critical thinking skills in today’s modern society. From parents to employers, there is near unanimous support for the teaching of critical skills in American classrooms, yet new national survey data shows schools may not be teaching those skills often enough.

A new Reboot paper, Teaching Critical Thinking in K-12: When There’s A Will But Not Always A Way , examines the U.S. Department of Education’s National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) and found that the teaching of critical thinking skills is inconsistent across states and tends to drop as students get older.

Among some of the key findings from NAEP:

• While 86 percent of 4th grade teachers said they put “quite a bit” or “a lot of emphasis” on deductive reasoning, that figure fell to only 39 percent of teachers in 8th grade. Deductive reasoning is one of the key skills in critical thinking, as it requires students to take a logical approach to turning general ideas into specific conclusions.
• At the state level, the analysis found that only seven states had at least 50 percent of their 8th grade teachers report that they place “quite a bit or a lot of emphasis” on teaching their students to engage in deductive reasoning.

While the numbers themselves are cause for concern, the age range at which these statistics are being reported is equally concerning. Research shows that while critical thinking skills can be learned at any stage of life, the teen years are an opportune time to engage young people as their brains are developing strong cognitive abilities.

Best Travel Insurance Companies

Best covid-19 travel insurance plans.

These years are exactly when students should be building a strong foundation of critical thinking competencies that can last a lifetime. Developmental psychologists have noted that beginning at around age 13, adolescents can begin to acquire and apply formal logical rules and processes, if they are shown how. Yet the data shows that schools are largely failing to capitalize on this period, despite a desire by many educators to do so.

Per NAEP, nearly 90% of 4th grade teachers nationally said they put “quite a bit” or “a lot of emphasis” on deductive reasoning, only for that figure to fall to less than 40% of teachers in 8th grade – what issues are contributing to the drastic drop?

In 2020, Reboot surveyed teachers and found that many teachers harbored misconceptions about how to best teach critical thinking. The survey found that, among teachers, 42 percent reported that students should learn basic facts first, then engage in critical thinking practice, while an additional 16 percent said that they believed basic facts and critical thinking should be taught separately. This line of thinking is wrong, as research strongly suggests that critical thinking skills are best acquired in combination with the teaching of basic facts in a subject area.

This commonly-held misconception about when and how to teach critical thinking skills might be a clue as to why deductive reasoning instruction seems to tail off as students get older and take more specialized, content-driven classes. This might be made worse by the fact that eighth grade is a crucial year for many schools to show success under their state accountability measures.

In many states, students cannot move on to high school if they fail state exams in eighth grade. And things such as teacher pay, school funding and other “high-stakes” accountability measures often hinge on student performance in that grade. This pressure forces schools and teachers to focus on preparing their eighth graders for state exams in lieu of a more well-rounded educational experience. Indeed, our 2020 survey of teachers revealed that 55 percent believed that the emphasis on standardized testing made it more difficult to incorporate critical thinking instruction in their classrooms.

Reboot and others are working to identify ways teachers can implement critical thinking skills education into their curriculums more simply and efficiently. Among the stepping stones toward broader adoption are:

• A shared standard or consensus around critical thinking education that could contribute to more uniform and equitable teaching of these key skills nationwide.
• An easier way to broach critical thinking for a wide-ranging group of students. New research by Reboot and researchers from Indiana University explores innovative, inexpensive and scalable ways to teach critical thinking skills. The research found that educators and others can teach and hone essential critical thinking skills using a simple method that is easy to implement across diverse groups of students.

So even as the recent data from NAEP is disappointing on skills like deductive reasoning, it also shows where improvement needs to occur. What remains to be seen is the nation’s commitment to advancing critical thinking skills and its support for the educators, administrators and stakeholders working to knock down the challenges being faced. As NAEP and other surveys show, there is indeed a will to move forward with critical thinking skills education among teachers. Dedicated resources and consistent collaboration will be crucial to finding “the way.”

• Editorial Standards
• Reprints & Permissions

Join The Conversation

One Community. Many Voices. Create a free account to share your thoughts. 

Forbes Community Guidelines

Our community is about connecting people through open and thoughtful conversations. We want our readers to share their views and exchange ideas and facts in a safe space.

In order to do so, please follow the posting rules in our site's  Terms of Service.   We've summarized some of those key rules below. Simply put, keep it civil.

Your post will be rejected if we notice that it seems to contain:

• False or intentionally out-of-context or misleading information
• Insults, profanity, incoherent, obscene or inflammatory language or threats of any kind
• Attacks on the identity of other commenters or the article's author
• Content that otherwise violates our site's  terms.

User accounts will be blocked if we notice or believe that users are engaged in:

• Continuous attempts to re-post comments that have been previously moderated/rejected
• Racist, sexist, homophobic or other discriminatory comments
• Attempts or tactics that put the site security at risk
• Actions that otherwise violate our site's  terms.

So, how can you be a power user?

• Stay on topic and share your insights
• Feel free to be clear and thoughtful to get your point across
• ‘Like’ or ‘Dislike’ to show your point of view.
• Protect your community.
• Use the report tool to alert us when someone breaks the rules.

Thanks for reading our community guidelines. Please read the full list of posting rules found in our site's  Terms of Service.

• Call for Volunteers!
• Our Team of Presenters
• Fellows of the Foundation
• Dr. Richard Paul
• Dr. Linda Elder
• Dr. Gerald Nosich
• Contact Us - Office Information
• Permission to Use Our Work
• Create a CriticalThinking.Org Account
• Contributions to the Foundation for Critical Thinking
• Testimonials
• Center for Critical Thinking
• The National Council for Excellence in Critical Thinking
• International Center for the Assessment of Higher Order Thinking
• Library of Critical Thinking Resources
• Professional Development
• Inservice Information Request Form
• Certification Online Course
• The State of Critical Thinking Today
• Higher Education
• K-12 Instruction
• Customized Webinars and Online Courses for Faculty
• Business & Professional Groups
• The Center for Critical Thinking Community Online
• Certification in the Paul-Elder Approach to Critical Thinking
• Professional Development Model - College and University
• Professional Development Model for K-12
• Workshop Descriptions
• Online Courses in Critical Thinking
• Critical Thinking Training for Law Enforcement
• Consulting for Leaders and Key Personnel at Your Organization
• Critical Thinking Therapy
• Conferences & Events
• Upcoming Learning Opportunities
• 2024 Fall Academy on Critical Thinking
• Daily Schedule
• Transportation, Lodging, and Social Functions
• Academy Presuppositions
• Save the Date: 45th Annual International Conference on Critical Thinking
• Presuppositions of the Conference
• Call for Proposals
• Conference Archives
• 44th Annual International Conference on Critical Thinking
• Focal Session Descriptions
• Guest Presentation Program
• Presuppositions of the 44th Annual International Conference on Critical Thinking
• Recommended Reading
• 43rd Annual International Conference on Critical Thinking
• Register as an Ambassador
• Testimonials from Past Attendees
• Thank You to Our Donors
• 42nd Annual International Conference on Critical Thinking
• Overview of Sessions (Flyer)
• Presuppositions of the Annual International Conference
• Testimonials from Past Conferences
• 41st Annual International Conference on Critical Thinking
• Recommended Publications
• Dedication to Our Donors
• 40th Annual International Conference on Critical Thinking
• Session Descriptions
• Testimonials from Prior Conferences
• International Critical Thinking Manifesto
• Scholarships Available
• 39th Annual International Conference on Critical Thinking
• Travel and Lodging Info
• FAQ & General Announcements
• Focal and Plenary Session Descriptions
• Program and Proceedings of the 39th Annual International Conference on Critical Thinking
• The Venue: KU Leuven
• Call for Critical Thinking Ambassadors
• Conference Background Information
• 38th Annual International Conference on Critical Thinking
• Call for Ambassadors for Critical Thinking
• Conference Focal Session Descriptions
• Conference Concurrent Session Descriptions
• Conference Roundtable Discussions
• Conference Announcements and FAQ
• Conference Program and Proceedings
• Conference Daily Schedule
• Conference Hotel Information
• Conference Academic Credit
• Conference Presuppositions
• What Participants Have Said About the Conference
• 37th Annual International Conference on Critical Thinking
• Registration & Fees
• FAQ and Announcements
• Conference Presenters
• 37th Conference Flyer
• Program and Proceedings of the 37th Conference
• 36th International Conference
• Conference Sessions
• Conference Flyer
• Program and Proceedings
• Academic Credit
• 35th International Conference
• Conference Session Descriptions
• Available Online Sessions
• Bertrand Russell Distinguished Scholar - Daniel Ellsberg
• 35th International Conference Program
• Concurrent Sessions
• Posthumous Bertrand Russell Scholar
• Hotel Information
• Conference FAQs
• Visiting UC Berkeley
• 34th INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE
• Bertrand Russell Distinguished Scholar - Ralph Nader
• Conference Concurrent Presenters
• Conference Program
• Conference Theme
• Roundtable Discussions
• Flyer for Bulletin Boards
• 33rd INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE
• 33rd International Conference Program
• 33rd International Conference Sessions
• 33rd International Conference Presenters
• The Bertrand Russell Distinguished Scholars Critical Thinking Conversations
• 33rd International Conference - Fees & Registration
• 33rd International Conference Concurrent Presenters
• 33rd International Conference - Hotel Information
• 33rd International Conference Flyer
• 32nd INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE
• 32nd Annual Conference Sessions
• 32nd Annual Conference Presenter Information
• 32nd Conference Program
• The Bertrand Russell Distinguished Scholars Critical Thinking Lecture Series
• 32nd Annual Conference Concurrent Presenters
• 32nd Annual Conference Academic Credit
• 31st INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE
• 31st Conference Sessions
• Comments about previous conferences
• Conference Hotel (2011)
• 31st Concurrent Presenters
• Registration Fees
• 31st International Conference
• 30th INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON CRITICAL THINKING
• 30th International Conference Theme
• 30th Conference Sessions
• PreConference Sessions
• 30th Concurrent Presenters
• 30th Conference Presuppositions
• Hilton Garden Inn
• 29th International Conference
• 29th Conference Theme
• 29th Conference Sessions
• 29th Preconference Sessions
• 29th Conference Concurrent Sessions
• 2008 International Conference on Critical Thinking
• 2008 Preconference Sessions (28th Intl. Conference)
• 2007 Conference on Critical Thinking (Main Page)
• 2007 Conference Theme and sessions
• 2007 Pre-Conference Workshops
• 2006 Annual International Conference (archived)
• 2006 International Conference Theme
• 2005 International Conference (archived)
• Prior Conference Programs (Pre 2000)
• Workshop Archives
• Spring 2022 Online Workshops
• 2021 Online Workshops for Winter & Spring
• 2019 Seminar for Military and Intelligence Trainers and Instructors
• Transportation, Lodging, and Recreation
• Seminar Flyer
• 2013 Spring Workshops
• Our Presenters
• 2013 Spring Workshops - Hotel Information
• 2013 Spring Workshops Flyer
• 2013 Spring Workshops - Schedule
• Spring Workshop 2012
• 2012 Spring Workshop Strands
• 2012 Spring Workshop Flier
• 2011 Spring Workshop
• Spring 2010 Workshop Strands
• 2009 Spring Workshops on Critical Thinking
• 2008 SPRING Workshops and Seminars on Critical Thinking
• 2008 Ethical Reasoning Workshop
• 2008 - On Richard Paul's Teaching Design
• 2008 Engineering Reasoning Workshop
• 2008 Academia sobre Formulando Preguntas Esenciales
• Fellows Academy Archives
• 2017 Fall International Fellows Academy
• 4th International Fellows Academy - 2016
• 3rd International Fellows Academy
• 2nd International Fellows Academy
• 1st International Fellows Academy
• Academy Archives
• October 2019 Critical Thinking Academy for Educators and Administrators
• Transportation, Lodging, and Leisure
• Advanced Seminar: Oxford Tutorial
• Recreational Group Activities
• Limited Scholarships Available
• September 2019 Critical Thinking Educators and Administrators Academy
• 2019 Critical Thinking Training for Trainers and Advanced Academy
• Academy Flyer
• Seattle, WA 2017 Spring Academy
• San Diego, CA 2017 Spring Academy
• 2016 Spring Academy -- Washington D.C.
• 2016 Spring Academy -- Houston, TX
• The 2nd International Academy on Critical Thinking (Oxford 2008)
• 2007 National Academy on Critical Thinking Testing and Assessment
• 2006 Cambridge Academy (archived)
• 2006 Cambridge Academy Theme
• 2006 Cambridge Academy Sessions
• Accommodations at St. John's College
• Assessment & Testing
• A Model for the National Assessment of Higher Order Thinking
• International Critical Thinking Essay Test
• Online Critical Thinking Basic Concepts Test
• Online Critical Thinking Basic Concepts Sample Test
• Consequential Validity: Using Assessment to Drive Instruction
• News & Announcements
• Newest Pages Added to CriticalThinking.Org
• Online Learning
• Critical Thinking Online Courses
• Critical Thinking Blog
• 2019 Blog Entries
• 2020 Blog Entries
• 2021 Blog Entries
• 2022 Blog Entries
• 2023 Blog Entries
• Online Courses for Your Students
• 2023 Webinar Archives
• 2022 Webinar Archives
• 2021 Webinar Archive
• 2020 Webinar Archive
• Guided Study Groups
• Critical Thinking Channel on YouTube
• CT800: Fall 2024

Translate this page from English...

*Machine translated pages not guaranteed for accuracy. Click Here for our professional translations.

Critical Thinking: Where to Begin

• For College and University Faculty
• For College and University Students
• For High School Teachers
• For Jr. High School Teachers
• For Elementary Teachers (Grades 4-6)
• For Elementary Teachers (Kindergarten - 3rd Grade)
• For Science and Engineering Instruction
• For Business and Professional Development
• For Nursing and Health Care
• For Home Schooling and Home Study

If you are new to critical thinking or wish to deepen your conception of it, we recommend you review the content below and bookmark this page for future reference.

Our Conception of Critical Thinking...

"Critical thinking is the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action. In its exemplary form, it is based on universal intellectual values that transcend subject matter divisions: clarity, accuracy, precision, consistency, relevance, sound evidence, good reasons, depth, breadth, and fairness..."

"Critical thinking is self-guided, self-disciplined thinking which attempts to reason at the highest level of quality in a fairminded way. People who think critically attempt, with consistent and conscious effort, to live rationally, reasonably, and empathically. They are keenly aware of the inherently flawed nature of human thinking when left unchecked. They strive to diminish the power of their egocentric and sociocentric tendencies. They use the intellectual tools that critical thinking offers – concepts and principles that enable them to analyze, assess, and improve thinking. They work diligently to develop the intellectual virtues of intellectual integrity, intellectual humility, intellectual civility, intellectual empathy, intellectual sense of justice and confidence in reason. They realize that no matter how skilled they are as thinkers, they can always improve their reasoning abilities and they will at times fall prey to mistakes in reasoning, human irrationality, prejudices, biases, distortions, uncritically accepted social rules and taboos, self-interest, and vested interest.

They strive to improve the world in whatever ways they can and contribute to a more rational, civilized society. At the same time, they recognize the complexities often inherent in doing so. They strive never to think simplistically about complicated issues and always to consider the rights and needs of relevant others. They recognize the complexities in developing as thinkers, and commit themselves to life-long practice toward self-improvement. They embody the Socratic principle: The unexamined life is not worth living , because they realize that many unexamined lives together result in an uncritical, unjust, dangerous world."

Why Critical Thinking?

The Problem:

Everyone thinks; it is our nature to do so. But much of our thinking, left to itself, is biased, distorted, partial, uninformed, or down-right prejudiced. Yet the quality of our lives and that of what we produce, make, or build depends precisely on the quality of our thought. Shoddy thinking is costly, both in money and in quality of life. Excellence in thought, however, must be systematically cultivated.

A Brief Definition:

Critical thinking is the art of analyzing and evaluating thinking with a view to improving it. The Result: 

  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;
• comes 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 requires rigorous standards of excellence and mindful command of their use. It entails effective communication and problem-solving abilities, and a commitment to overcoming our native egocentrism and sociocentrism. Read more about our concept of critical thinking .

The Essential Dimensions of Critical Thinking

Our conception of critical thinking is based on the substantive approach developed by Dr. Richard Paul and his colleagues at the Center and Foundation for Critical Thinking over multiple decades. It is relevant to every subject, discipline, and profession, and to reasoning through the problems of everyday life. It entails five essential dimensions of critical thinking:

At the left is an overview of the first three dimensions. In sum, the elements or structures of thought enable us to "take our thinking apart" and analyze it. The intellectual standards are used to assess and evaluate the elements. The intellectual traits are dispositions of mind embodied by the fairminded critical thinker. To cultivate the mind, we need command of these essential dimensions, and we need to consistently apply them as we think through the many problems and issues in our lives.

The Elements of Reasoning and Intellectual Standards

To learn more about the elements of thought and how to apply the intellectual standards, check out our interactive model. Simply click on the link below, scroll to the bottom of the page, and explore the model with your mouse.

Why the Analysis of Thinking Is Important If you want to think well, you must understand at least the rudiments of thought, the most basic structures out of which all thinking is made. You must learn how to take thinking apart. Analyzing the Logic of a Subject When we understand the elements of reasoning, we realize that all subjects, all disciplines, have a fundamental logic defined by the structures of thought embedded within them. Therefore, to lay bare a subject’s most fundamental logic, we should begin with these questions:

Going Deeper...

The Critical Thinking Bookstore  

Our online bookstore houses numerous books and teacher's manuals , Thinker's Guides , videos , and other educational materials .  

Learn From Our Fellows and Scholars

Watch our Event Calendar , which provides an overview of all upcoming conferences and academies hosted by the Foundation for Critical Thinking. Clicking an entry on the Event Calendar will bring up that event's details, and the option to register. For those interested in online learning, the Foundation offers accredited online courses in critical thinking for both educators and the general public, as well as an online test for evaluating basic comprehension of critical thinking concepts . We are in the process of developing more online learning tools and tests to offer the community.  

Utilizing this Website

This website contains large amounts research and an online library of articles , both of which are freely available to the public. We also invite you to become a member of the Critical Thinking Community , where you will gain access to more tools and materials.  If you cannot locate a resource on a specific topic or concept, try searching for it using our Search Tool . The Search Tool is at the upper-right of every page on the website.

Why Schools Need to Change Knowing What’s True and Knowing What’s You

​Matthew Riggan (he/his) Co-Founder Workshop School in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Today’s learners face an uncertain present and a rapidly changing future that demand far different skills and knowledge than were needed in the 20th century. We also know so much more about enabling deep, powerful learning than we ever did before. Our collective future depends on how well young people prepare for the challenges and opportunities of 21st-century life.

Teaching critical thinking and decision making involves helping students know what’s true, and it should also include helping them know who they are and what they value.

By design, my Twitter feed is mostly basketball, school reform, and random Philadelphia stuff. I try to keep it light.

But the algorithms are always trying to widen the aperture to my attention, testing what I’ll respond to and foisting content on me accordingly. As a result, I get a decent amount of content about politics pushed into my feed. (To be clear: I’m not looking to avoid information on political issues, I am looking to avoid information about these issues on Twitter . It’s not the medium for nuance.) And while I am reluctant to linger too long for fear of encouraging the algos, it doesn’t take much probing to realize that some significant portion of what I am seeing—let’s call it a third—is either totally fabricated or intentionally misleading.

Disinformation and PsyOps are hardly new, but the cocktail of AI to generate content and social media to spread it is probably the most potent we’ve ever seen. Given the fact that these tools are so easily accessible to anyone, including and especially those acting in bad faith, it’s no surprise that my formerly fun Twitter feed can read like dystopian satire.

All of which inevitably leads me back to the simplest and most basic of questions:

How do we know what is true?

Critical thinking, media literacy, blah blah blah. Yes, all of these. Way smarter people than me have written a ton about that. (My one small addition is the reminder that these need to be modes of inquiry and reflection rather than electives layered on top of school-as-we-have always-known-it. It’s not what we’re teaching and learning, it’s how we’re doing it.)

What’s really interesting to me is the logical extension of that question in the year 2024:

How do we know what is true when we almost always have incomplete and/or bad information ?

As educators, our approach to knowing what’s true is usually characterized by a kind of empiricism: if we get good enough at identifying credible sources and checking claims against evidence, we can sleuth out the truth and distill the signal from the noise. That may be true for the simple stuff—I am confident that I can get a third grader to fact check Donald Trump’s claim that he reduced insulin prices—but most of the things we need to understand, from the effects of climate change to how to talk to our relatives, aren’t simple.

I’m currently designing a project for a college class at our postsecondary program, Workshop U , called “How to decide.” It’s rooted in our students’ lives and experiences (they are literally deciding what kind of internship experience they want to design), but really, it’s about 1.) how to make a choice with incomplete information and imperfect options, and 2.) how to commit to, and be at peace with, that decision once you’ve made it. There is a high-level cognitive aspect to this work. An entire field is dedicated to decision making under uncertainty, and understanding or estimating risk is as critical as it is complex. But just as important as our cognitive tools is the ethical or moral foundation on which we build our learning. We know what’s true first by knowing ourselves, what we believe, and what we value. This is reflective, philosophical, even spiritual work. It steadies us amid the inability to fully know and impels us to turn our decisions into commitments.

Our values and beliefs shape what kinds of activity feed us and what drains us. They influence what we pay attention to and what we marginalize. If we think about our movement through life as a vector, our effort is the magnitude but our values and beliefs set the direction.

In schools, our approach to teaching critical thinking, media literacy, and the like sometimes assumes that arriving at a decision is simply a matter of adjudication. On important questions (the war in Gaza, reproductive freedom, economic policy), what is true is seldom that objective. The more information we have, the more nuanced, and often muddled, the picture can become. In these instances, what is true becomes a question of which pieces of the picture matter most to each of us. Failure to realize this leads us to view those who arrive at other conclusions as dishonest or corrupt.

At the Workshop School , the curriculum is designed so that students can “sample” different kinds of subject matter and ways of working. We want them to build knowledge and skills, but the most important subject they are learning is themselves. Through community building rituals like morning circle, reflective practices such as exhibitions, and diverse explorations of how they might change the world, we’re trying to help them build a foundation of self-awareness. A deep understanding of our values and commitments serves as our home base, the place we return to when we encounter new information and experience or when we reach key decision points in our lives.

A grounding in values is also what makes voice and choice meaningful. In both our high school and postsecondary programs we ask students to make big decisions about what they want to work on. The ones who succeed at this are those who have a deep commitment to what they want to do and understand why they want to do it. Those who are loosely attached to their vision are quick to abandon projects when obstacles arise, as they inevitably do. The offer of choice does not automatically make work meaningful.

So yes: let’s teach students a healthy skepticism, an ability to filter, and a capacity to weigh claims against evidence. But let’s also remember that these capabilities are like a spotlight. The deeper work is helping students figure out where to point it.

Photo at top courtesy of Workshop School.

​Matthew Riggan (he/his)

Co-founder, workshop school.

Matthew Riggan is the co-founder of the Workshop School in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Read More About Why Schools Need to Change

AI in Schools Has Prevailed for a Full Year. What Happens Next?

August 13, 2024

Connections over Consequences: Effective Strategies for Collaborative Problem-Solving with Students

Sanchel Hall

August 6, 2024

Incorporating Leadership Skills into a Student-Centered Classroom

Elizabeth Lennon (she, her)

July 8, 2024

When Critical Thinking Is Not Worth It

Personal perspective: should we always share our critical thinking.

Updated September 5, 2024 | Reviewed by Lybi Ma

In a recent post, I discussed social barriers to applying critical thinking . I received interesting feedback on this particular topic and I thought further discussion around this dialogue would be of interest. First and foremost, consider when we should apply critical thinking. As I’ve stated before, it might come as a surprise to readers that someone like me, who places great value on such thought, would suggest that critical thinking doesn’t need to be applied as often as many might think. The reality is that critical thinking is effortful and time-consuming. If we thought critically about every mundane decision we had to make each day, we’d be exhausted before mid-morning. We should only think critically about issues that we care about and that are important to us.

Why would someone even contemplate engaging in critical thinking when they could potentially face negative outcomes for it? It’s because the issue is important to them. But, is that a good enough reason? It depends. For example, I have thought critically about some rather controversial topics (arguably, these are the ones that require the most critical thinking given that what makes them controversial is that so many people care about them, yet have very different views) and I recognise that the conclusions yielded, in light of logic and evidence, may not always be palatable to people in certain contexts. Depending on the situation, I will choose to share my conclusions or choose against them. This, of course, is where we find the fork in the road at the crux of this conversation.

As I mentioned in the aforementioned post, there are arguably two different perspectives on whether or not one should share their critical thinking in environments that might discourage or even punish this thinking, if the conclusions drawn contradict what is deemed acceptable (be it socially, politically, or even legally). First, there is the idealistic, yes, we should always share critical thinking. Second is the practical, ‘know your audience’. Often, staying quiet seems like a practical and prudent move.

With that, such prudence might be seen to contradict what many might view as intellectual integrity; but, on the other hand, it can just as easily be argued that inhibiting such response is appropriate—an act of metacognition (thinking about thinking) about a specific metacognitive process (critical thinking). And so, the intellectually appropriate thing would be to make the best decision you can for the preservation of what or who you care about, such as through this 'meta-metacognition'. Perhaps the key is the question of what’s contextually more important, being right or avoiding punishment ? What is to be gained from speaking out? For me, the only situation I would share my critical thinking, in this context, is if my well-being or that of my family was at risk to the extent that such risk surpasses the impact of the punishment.

To reiterate, context is key here; what I do depends on the situation. Sometimes, having a conclusion is all that is needed. If I have thought critically about a topic to determine what is best for me or my family, why would I have to advertise my decision publicly? I don’t. Sure, I may choose to if I’m in discussion with friends, but I’m not required to do so (of course, this might change in situations where we are ‘forced’ to share our thinking, such as in cases where important decisions are being made for us or when we are specifically asked to infer a conclusion—for example, at work). Moreover, I’m less likely to share if I think it’s going to start a fight or annoyance. Why risk the hassle if there’s nothing real to gain? In both cases, self-regulation is useful. Most of the time, we can simultaneously benefit from engaging in critical thinking and keeping it to ourselves.

Consistent with this perspective, an important aspect of critical thinking is being practical. A practical person would not risk punishment unless they have a genuine chance of positively affecting the issue that they care about. An unfortunate by-product of this, in context, is that many critical thinkers remain quiet on controversial topics presented in the media (particularly if their thinking contradicts the status quo of the moral majority and their value signaling ). Even though you may not be imprisoned for your conclusions (that is, in nations where people enjoy free speech), you might risk other negative outcomes. Sure, we are aware of various sides of the argument; but quite often, we only hear the bias and emotion -based perspectives. Passion is distinct from care in consideration of applying such thinking.

We often hear the emotional callouts of those ‘for’ and ‘against’ particular ideas and movements; but less often do we hear the critical thinking. That’s not to say that the thinking isn’t there; rather, it’s less likely to get the focus because of social mechanisms that thrive when emotion is at play—like ‘they who shout loudest’ or the ‘squeaky wheel gets the grease.’ It could well be the case, in terms of controversial topics, that critical thinkers might actually represent a substantially large, though silent population.

I’m cognisant that some people fear that critical thinking is dying. I don’t think this is necessarily the case; rather, it might be that those not engaging in such thinking are getting louder – not because there are growing numbers of people who lack critical thinking , but because we have so many platforms available for people to spread their messages. I’m not saying that this is harmless and that such people can simply be ignored (for example, uninformed populations can vote other uninformed individuals into positions of power and law-making), but at the same time, we should not overestimate the impact of every erroneous statement made publicly. Give people credit – just because one person posts something silly online, doesn’t mean that the majority agrees with them. With that, some errors are more influential than others. Avoid stressing over the ones that don’t affect you. Be concerned about the ones that do and evaluate whether it is in your interest to share your thinking in those situations. Engage critical thinking but be practical; and don’t get baited into discourses with people who haven’t thought critically, are not open-minded to other perspectives, and not willing to change their mind.

Christopher Dwyer, Ph.D., is a lecturer at the Technological University of the Shannon in Athlone, Ireland.

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Psychiatrist
• Find a Support Group
• Find Online Therapy
• United States
• Brooklyn, NY
• Chicago, IL
• Houston, TX
• Los Angeles, CA
• New York, NY
• Portland, OR
• San Diego, CA
• San Francisco, CA
• Seattle, WA
• Washington, DC
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Relationships
• Child Development
• Self Tests NEW
• Therapy Center
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

It’s increasingly common for someone to be diagnosed with a condition such as ADHD or autism as an adult. A diagnosis often brings relief, but it can also come with as many questions as answers.

• Emotional Intelligence
• Gaslighting
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

Log in using your username and password

• Search More Search for this keyword Advanced search
• Latest content
• For authors
• Browse by collection
• BMJ Journals

You are here

• Volume 14, Issue 8
• Exploring the link of personality traits and tutors’ instruction on critical thinking disposition: a cross-sectional study among Chinese medical graduate students
• Article Text
• Article info
• Citation Tools
• Rapid Responses
• Article metrics

• LingYing Wang 1 ,
• WenLing Chang 2 ,
• http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1507-7890 HaiTao Tang 3 ,
• WenBo He 4 ,
• http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6682-8279 Yan Wu 3 , 5
• 1 Critical Care Medicine Department, West China Hospital, Sichuan University/West China School of Nursing, Sichuan University , Chengdu , China
• 2 School of Population Health & Environmental Sciences , King’s College London , London SE1 1UL , UK
• 3 Department of Postgraduate Students, West China School of Medicine/West China Hospital, Sichuan University , Chengdu , China
• 4 Institute of Hospital Management, West China Hospital, Sichuan University , Chengdu , Sichuan , China
• 5 College of Marxism, Sichuan University , Chengdu , China
• Correspondence to Yan Wu; wuyan{at}wchscu.cn

Objectives This study aimed to investigate the associations between critical thinking (CT) disposition and personal characteristics and tutors’ guidance among medical graduate students, which may provide a theoretical basis for cultivating CT.

Design A cross-sectional study was conducted.

Setting This study was conducted in Sichuan and Chongqing from November to December 2021.

Participants A total of 1488 graduate students from clinical medical schools were included in this study.

Data analysis The distribution of the study participants’ underlying characteristics and CT was described and tested. The Spearman rank correlation coefficient was used to evaluate the correlation between each factor and the CT score. The independent risk factors for CT were assessed using a logistic regression model.

Results The average total CT score was 81.79±11.42 points, and the proportion of CT (score ≥72 points) was 78.9% (1174/1488). Female sex (OR 1.405, 95% CI 1.042 to 1.895), curiosity (OR 1.847, 95% CI 1.459 to 2.338), completion of scientific research design with reference (OR 1.779, 95% CI 1.460 to 2.167), asking ‘why’ (OR 1.942, 95% CI 1.508 to 2.501) and team members’ logical thinking ability (OR 1.373, 95% CI 1.122 to 1.681) were positively associated with CT while exhaustion and burn-out (OR 0.721, 95% CI 0.526 to 0.989), inattention (OR 0.572, 95% CI 0.431 to 0.759), Following others’ opinions in decision-making (OR 0.425, 95% CI 0.337 to 0.534) and no allow of doubt to tutors (OR 0.674, 95% CI 0.561 to 0.809) had negative associations with the formation of CT disposition in the fully adjusted model.

Conclusions Factors associated with motivation and internal drive are more important in the educational practice of cultivating CT. Educators should change the reward mechanism from result-oriented to motivation-maintaining to cultivate students’ CT awareness.

• risk factors
• public health

Data availability statement

Data are available on reasonable request.

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See:  http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ .

https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2023-082461

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request permissions.

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THIS STUDY

Our study focused on postgraduate medical students, and the sample size was relatively large.

Previous research on critical thinking has focused primarily on Europe, the USA and Japan. Hence, researching critical thinking in Chinese populations is a valuable addition to this area.

Given the traditional limitations of cross-sectional studies, the findings of this study cannot be used as direct evidence of a causal relationship between potential influences and outcomes. Nevertheless, they can provide clues to reveal causal relationships.

Introduction

Critical thinking (CT) is reasoned, reflective thinking that decides what to believe or do. The emphasis is on reasonableness, reflection and decision-making. 1 CT is even more important in the medical field, where a lack of CT can lead to delayed or missed diagnoses, incorrect cognition and mismanagement. The centrality of CT is reflected in the competency framework of health professions and is a core skill of healthcare professionals. 2–6 Six crucial skills have been proposed to operationalise the definition of CT: interpretation, analysis, evaluation, inference, explanation and self-regulation. Specifically, interpretation involves comprehending the significance of information and conveying it effectively to others. Analysis requires piecing together fragmented data to decipher their intended purpose. Inference entails identifying and leveraging relevant information to formulate logical conclusions or hypotheses. Evaluation necessitates assessing the trustworthiness of a statement or information. Explanation aims to clarify shared information to ensure its comprehensibility to others. Finally, self-regulation pertains to regulating one’s thoughts, behaviours and emotions. 7–9

The role of CT in assisting medical students in navigating complex health scenarios and resolving clinical issues through sound decision-making is paramount. Extensive research has established positive correlations between CT and clinical proficiency, 10 11 academic excellence 12 and research capabilities. 13 Consequently, the Institute for International Medical Education has emphasised ‘CT and research’ as one of the seven crucial competencies that medical graduates must possess, as outlined in the Global Minimum Essential Requirements. 14 Similarly, the Ministry of Education in the People’s Republic of China has underscored the importance of ‘scientific attitude, innovation and CT’ as essential requirements for Chinese medical graduates. 15

Research on CT in medical students has been carried out to varying degrees in Western countries and many Asian countries. 16 17 Some scholars have pointed out that Western methods, including CT and clinical reasoning, are used in thinking skills education worldwide. However, there are significant differences between Chinese and Western culture, especially educational culture while cultural differences affect ways of thinking 17 18 ; therefore, previous research may not be able to reflect the actual situation of Chinese students and teaching methods may not apply to them. Most Western students tend to possess assimilating learning styles, enabling them to excel in student-centred learning environments. Conversely, Eastern students often exhibit accommodating learning styles that align more with teacher-centred instruction. 19 The discipline-based curriculum in China may not adequately foster the development of CT dispositions among Chinese medical students. This curriculum typically comprises isolated phases (theory, clerkship and internship), limited faculty–student interaction and a knowledge-focused evaluation system. 20

Previous research has suggested that a range of personal characteristics, including gender, major, blended learning methods, increased self-study hours, heightened self-efficacy in learning and performance, exposure to supportive environments and active participation in research activities, contribute to varying degrees of CT dispositions and skills. 21–24 A study conducted in Vietnam revealed that age, gender, ethnicity, educational level, health status, nursing experience, tenure at the current hospital, familiarity with ‘CT’ and job position all influence CT ability. 25 Furthermore, teacher support is paramount to learners’ mental and psychological development. This support encompasses educators’ empathy, compassion, commitment, reliability and warmth towards their students. 26 According to Tardy’s social support paradigm, 27 teacher support is defined as providing informational, instrumental, emotional or appraisal assistance to students, irrespective of their learning setting. Supportive teachers prioritise fostering personal relationships with their students and offering aid, assistance and guidance to those in need. 28 Practical teacher assistance can make students feel comfortable and inspired, motivating them to invest more effort in their studies, engage more actively in educational pursuits and achieve superior educational outcomes. 29

Current CT research on mainland Chinese medical students focuses on the impact of undergraduates’ experiences and classroom instruction. However, for postgraduates, their tutors play a more critical role in education and cultivation. According to Wosinski’s study, 30 tutors should be trained to effectively guide the teamwork of undergraduate nursing students during the problem-based learning (PBL) process to achieve their goals. There is no analysis of the influencing factors of CT focused on medical postgraduates.

Therefore, assessing the tutor’s effect on postgraduates’ CT disposition. This study investigated the associations between CT disposition and personal characteristics and tutors’ guidance among medical graduate students, which may provide a theoretical basis for cultivating CT.

Study design and participants

Study design.

This was a cross-sectional observational study. The project team sent 1525 electronic questionnaire links to WeChat groups of full-time medical graduate students in higher medical institutions in Sichuan and Chongqing between November and December 2021. After removing incomplete and duplicate questionnaires, a total of 1488 valid questionnaires were returned for an effective rate of 97.57%.

Sampling procedure

We employed a random sampling method to select medical graduate students carefully and used PASS V.15.0 software to calculate the sample size for different analyses and outcome scenarios. In the estimation of the sample size with the proportion of CT disposition as the primary outcome, we considered p=0.5, adopted the two-sided Z value under the significance level of a=0.05, and the sample size was the largest when the sampling error was 3%, which was 1067. Moreover, estimating of sample size with the correlation coefficient as the primary outcome, we considered r=0.1 according to the results from the prestudy, and the test power was 0.9; thus, we obtained n=1048. The sample size should be at least 1334 considering a 20% non-response rate.

The inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) full-time medical graduate students (clinical medicine, medicine technology, integrative Chinese and Western medicine, medical laboratory, nursing and so on) in higher medical institutions in Sichuan and Chongqing and (2) after reading the introduction to the research, participants voluntarily agreed to participate and electronically signed the study’s informed consent form. The exclusion criterion was a refusal to participate in the study.

Procedure and data collection

The electronic questionnaire we used consisted of a condensed version of the Critical Thinking Measurement Scale, which was used to evaluate participants’ scores on CT disposition and a Potential Influencing Factors Questionnaire, which investigated participants’ underlying information, personal factors and education-related factors. To increase the response rate, we told the students how long it might take to fill out this questionnaire when we sent the questionnaire link to WeChat groups. Moreover, our participants all had master’s degrees or above whose understanding ability and compliance were better. We also sent reminders to all invited participants three times, and the survey lasted approximately 1 month.

Critical Thinking Measurement Scale

We used the Chinese version of the short-form critical thinking disposition inventory (SF-CTDI-CV), which is based on the CTDI-CV reported by Huang. 31 The CTDI-CV includes seven subscales, namely Truth Seeking, Open-mindedness, Analyticity, Systematicity, Critical Thinking Self-confidence, Inquisitiveness and Cognitive Maturity, which have good reliability and validity (0.90 for the overall Cronbach’s alpha and 0.89 for the overall Content Validity Index). 32 Huang removed ineffective questions based on the CTDI-CV and obtained a simplified scale with 18 items of three factors, which increased the proportion of total explained variation and had better reliability and validity than the original version. Huang selected items according to important indicators in factor analysis, including factor loading and communality. Specifically, Huang removed items whose factor loading was less than 0.4 or whose commonality was less than 0.3. Each item of the SF-CTDI-CV has six options (Likert scale) from 1 to 6 (1 means complete agreement and 6 means disagree entirely); the higher the score is, the stronger the CT tendency. 31 The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) value for SF-CTDI-CV is 0.90 while the p value of Bartlett’s test is less than 0.05, indicating that this short-form inventory has ideal structural validity. A total score of 72 or more indicates a CT disposition, and all participants were divided into two groups according to whether they possessed essential characteristics of thinking.

Potential Influencing Factors Questionnaire

The Potential Influencing Factors Questionnaire was based on previous research and interviews. The interviewees including senior education practitioners and invited medical postgraduate students, focused on their experiences and feelings regarding medical education in China. We compiled an interview outline and invited a total of 22 professionals, including 9 doctoral candidates, 5 doctoral supervisors, 2 counsellors and 6 young backbone teachers, to participate in the interviews. The interview schedule is flexible, but to ensure efficiency, we controlled the interview duration for each participant to within 40 min. After the interviews, we used professional NVivo V.11.0 software to analyse the collected interview data thoroughly.

The Potential Influencing Factors Questionnaire consists of 10 questions in the essential information section, 35 questions in the influencing factors section and 3 flexible questions, for 48 valid entries. The essential information section includes gender, age, secondary education background, higher education major, level of education, type of degree, full-time work experience, type of household registration, the highest level of parental education and whether the respondent was from an only child family. The influencing factors section can be grouped into two main areas: ‘personal factors’ and ‘educational factors’, with personal factors including the individual characteristics section. The educational factors include the practice and training, tutor and team, and educational environment section. This study defines every potential factor as an ordinal variable, with greater rank, depth and frequency of the corresponding factors. For reliability, Cronbach’s alpha=0.795 indicates that the questionnaire’s reliability is good enough for investigation. The content validity of the questionnaire was tested to determine whether the content met the objectives and requirements of the study. Most of the items of the influencing factors questionnaire were selected from previous literature, and the content validity was good. The KMO values and p values for the Bartlett’s test of sphericity for every aspect indicate that the structural validity of the questionnaire is good (see more details in online supplemental table S1 ).

Supplemental material

In the questionnaire design process, we first formed a preliminary framework concerning previous qualitative and quantitative research. Then we conducted interviews with educators, doctoral supervisors and representatives of medical postgraduate students according to the initial framework to understand their work experience in the practice of medical postgraduate education in China. Then, the questionnaire was supplemented according to the frequently mentioned items in the interviews. Finally, a questionnaire focusing on whether personal and educational pathways influence the formation of CT disposition was developed, as well as the key points of CT cultivation.

Data collection and organisation

The project team designed the electronic questionnaire based on the Influencing Factors Questionnaire and Critical Thinking Measurement Scale. Excel 2019 collated the raw data exported from the electronic questionnaire platform. Using the electronic questionnaire platform, answer completion settings rule out the possibility of logical anomalies. Samples with missing answers on the Critical Thinking Inventory were eliminated. Participants who were missing other information were asked to fill in as much as possible through the telephone number they had left. Those who were unable to do so were eliminated. Each factor in the influencing factors section was assigned a value in steps of 1 from lowest to highest (eg, the four categorical variables were assigned values of 1, 2, 3, and 4; 1 for never and 4 for always).

Students and public involvement

Former students were involved in the preparatory phase of this study. They reviewed the informed consent form and provided feedback.

Statistical analysis

The data were analysed by using SPSS V.24.0 software. The distribution of the study participants’ underlying characteristics and CT were described and tested. Continuous variables are described as the mean±SD, and t-tests or one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) were used for hypothesis tests. Categorical variables are expressed as composition ratios and χ 2 tests are used for hypothesis tests. Correlation analysis: The Spearman rank correlation coefficient was used to evaluate the correlation between each factor and the CT score. Difference analysis: Trend ANOVA was used to test whether there was a trend change in CT scores at different levels of each potential influencing factor. A t-test was used to compare the differences in the levels of influencing factors between different CT trait groups. Factors with differences between groups were included in a multivariate unconditional logistic regression model. We fitted several multivariate logistic regression models to evaluate potential confounding variables. By comparing the χ 2 value, the −2-likelihood ratio, the Akaike information criterion, and the practical meanings of this study’s interesting factors, the final model in which X variables could explain most of the Y variables (CT scores) was chosen. The above tests were performed at 0.05, and a p<0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Essential characteristics

A total of 1488 medical graduate students were included in this study, with an average age of 26.63±3.72 years. Most of the participants had a science background in high school (96.84%), a higher education major in clinical medicine (78.43%) and had never participated in full-time work (71.91%). Most of the participants were female (65.93%), lived in urban areas (61.69%), had parents with junior school education or below (39.18%), were not the only child in the family (51.48%), scientific graduate students (51.61%) and had a master’s degree (55.51%). Among all the research subjects, the average total CT score was 81.79±11.42 points, and the proportion of CT (score ≥72 points) was 78.9% (1174/1488). The essential characteristics of the included subjects are shown in table 1 .

• View inline

Participants’ essential characteristics and the distribution of critical thinking dispositions

Distribution of CT disposition

Table 1 demonstrates the distribution of CT disposition among the study participants. For the essential CT scores, participants with urban residence, higher parental education, only-child families, a science background before admission, science-based graduates, longer full-time employment and higher education levels had significantly greater CT scores (p<0.05). According to the CT questionnaire used in this project, subjects with a score more excellent than 72 points were considered to have an apparent CT disposition. The results showed that among our participants, women (80.80% vs 75.10%), science students (79.50% vs 61.70%) and PhD students (81.60% vs 76.80%) had a more significant proportion of CT disposition (p<0.05).

CT scores are linearly correlated with impact factor scores

Table 2 shows the correlation between each factor and the CT scores. The Spearman correlation coefficients suggested that most terms related to personal factors were correlated with CT scores (p<0.001). Sense of achievement (r=0.324), curiosity (r=0.480) and following others’ opinions in decision-making (r=−0.292) were strongly correlated with CT scores. Regarding educational factors, all factors in the practice and training section, all factors in the tutor and team section, and most factors in the educational environment impacted CT scores (p<0.001). Factors in the tutor and team section were more strongly related to CT scores, such as teaching students according to their aptitude (r=0.247) and tutors asking heuristic questions (r=0.242). Only no allow of doubt to tutors hurt the CT scores (r=−0.179, p<0.001).

The correlation between the potential influencing factors and the score of critical thinking

Factors influencing CT disposition

Univariate analysis.

The influencing factors associated with CT disposition are presented in table 3 . Univariate analysis revealed that in terms of personal factors, a sense of achievement, curiosity and interpersonal skills were all possible facilitators of CT disposition (p<0.05), and the group with CT disposition had higher average scores. In contrast, fatigue and burn-out, inattention and following others’ opinions in decision-making were possible hindering factors. Regarding educational factors, most factors in the ‘practice and training’ section, all factors in the ‘tutor and team’ section, and some factors in the ‘educational environment’ section were impact factors on CT disposition. In the practice and traning section, academic performance (p<0.001), number of intensively reading (p<0.001), paper writing (p=0.001), participation in academic conferences (p=0.009), completion of scientific research design with reference (p<0.001), time for extracurricular reading (p=0.006), summarisation and reflection (p<0.001), asking ‘why’ (p<0.001) and knowledge of critical thinking (p<0.001) were all positively related to CT disposition. For the tutor and team section, participants with CT disposition had higher scores for the following factors (p<0.01): tutors sharing thinking methods, communicating learning and life with tutors, tutors asking heuristic questions, encouragement of using ‘possible’ and ‘potential’, advocation of logical thinking training and lifelong learning, teaching students according to their aptitude and team members’ logical thinking skills. No allow to doubt tutors hurt CT disposition (p<0.001). The use of multifunctional classrooms (p<0.001) and having active classes (TBL class, flipped class, p=0.006) in the educational environment section were also correlated with CT disposition.

Impact factors

Multivariate logistics regression analyses

Multivariate logistics regression analysis demonstrated that female (OR 1.405, 95% CI 1.042 to 1.895), curiosity (OR 1.847, 95% CI 1.459 to 2.338), completion of scientific research design with reference (OR 1.779, 95% CI 1.460 to 2.167), asking ‘why’ (OR 1.942, 95% CI 1.508 to 2.501) and team members’ logical thinking ability (OR 1.373, 95% CI 1.122 to 1.681) were the promoting factors for the development of CT disposition after adjusting for other confounding factors. However, exhaustion and burn-out (OR 0.721, 95% CI 0.526 to 0.989), inattention (OR 0.572, 95% CI 0.431 to 0.759) and following others’ opinions in decision-making (OR 0.425, 95% CI 0.337 to 0.534) and no allow of doubt to tutors (OR 0.674, 95% CI 0.561 to 0.809) may be hindering factors for the formation of CT disposition in the fully adjusted model ( table 4 , adjusted R 2 =0.323).

Multifactor regression model

This cross-sectional study explored the factors influencing the CT disposition of Chinese medical graduate students in terms of both personal and educational factors. A total of 78.9% of the participants in this study had positive CT dispositions (score ≥72, 1174/1488), and women were 40.5% more likely than men to have CT dispositions (OR 1.405, 95% CI 1.042 to 1.895). Multivariate logistics regression analysis revealed that among personal factors, curiosity was the promoting factor while exhaustion and burn-out, inattention and following others’ opinions in decision-making may be the hindering factors. For educational factors, completing the scientific research design with reference, asking ‘why’ and the high logical thinking ability of team members were associated with CT disposition. However, no allow of doubt to tutors may hinder the disposition of CT.

According to our demographic information, our study revealed a greater prevalence of CT disposition among women, aligning with Zhai’s findings. 22 Several factors may contribute to this observed gender disparity. A systematic review established that men tend to engage more with objects while women prefer interpersonal interactions. 33 Women are more inclined to engage in dialogue and foster their understanding through collaborative learning, often exhibiting a more receptive mindset. Second, a study using fractional anisotropy measures derived from diffusion tensor imaging in 425 participants, including 118 males, revealed that divergent thinking in females correlates positively with fractional anisotropy in the corpus callosum and the right superior longitudinal fasciculus. 34 Conversely, it correlates with fractional anisotropy in the right tapetum in males. Zhang et al ’s 34 research sheds light on the sex-specific structural connectivity within and between hemispheres that underpins divergent thinking. These gender differences in creativity may reflect the inherent diversity between males and females in society. However, Faramarzi and Khafri 35 reported contrasting results. They concluded that although the results differed between the sexes, the likely cause was females’ higher education level rather than a difference due to gender. Several studies concur that self-esteem is a principal determinant of CT. 22 35 Barkhordary et al , 36 in their study of 170 third-year and fourth-year nursing students in Yazd, identified a significant link between CT and self-esteem. Pilevarzadeh et al further demonstrated that students with higher self-esteem exhibit more robust CT skills. 37 Self-esteem is defined as ‘an individual’s overall subjective emotional assessment of their worth’. 38 Bleidorn et al 39 conducted a groundbreaking large-scale, cross-cultural study with an internet sample of 985 937 participants, examining gender and age differences in self-esteem across 48 nations. They discovered significant gender differences, with males consistently reporting higher self-esteem levels than females, which may influence their responses to negative feedback to some degree.

In the section on personal factors, the results of this study on personal internal and external environmental factors such as curiosity, burn-out and inattention are consistent with previous studies. 40–45 The relationship between these internal and external environmental factors and cognitive capacity has been described in cognitive load theory, 46 particularly the role of ‘working memory’, the capacity to process information. Specifically, researchers 47 reported on a consensus on CT teaching, assessment and faculty development compiled by a high-level team recommended by 32 medical schools across the USA. Learners’ personal attributes, characteristics, perspectives and behaviours are critical components of their motivation to prepare for and engage in deeper learning and laborious clinical reasoning. Distractions and interruptions, on the other hand, can reduce attention to important issues, affecting learners’ ability to engage in clinical reasoning and their CT skills. 48 Making decisions based on the opinions of others in this study may reflect the participants’ interdependent view of self, which was identified by Futami et al 49 as a negative factor for CT dispositions.

Regarding the educational factors, learning methods and research group membership characteristics were more strongly associated with CT disposition than learning frequency and learning form. Completing the scientific research design with reference and asking ‘why’ are learning methods that promote the formation of CT for medical graduate students. Research 50 suggests that CT requires a persistent effort to test any belief or supposed form of knowledge according to the evidence supporting it and the further conclusions it tends to help. Completing scientific research design with reference is the specific manifestation of evidence-based reasoning in the scientific research field, which may be why it affects the formation process of CT. Furthermore, similar to our research, much research has explored the crucial role that questioning or problem-based thinking plays in CT. 47 51–53 Our research also suggested that the teaching style of the group supervisor and the logical thinking ability of other group members also impacted CT dispositions. Although no previous research has explored the role-specific behaviours of subject mentors and peers in CT disposition from a quantitative perspective, Futami et al 49 reported higher CT scores for subjects who had connections with research experts, suggesting a positive influence of research mentors on CT. Self-esteem positively affects CT, and overbearing instructors may undermine students’ self-esteem and, thus, their CT disposition. Moreover, several authors 47 53 54 have argued that professors’ encouragement of students to express uncertainty, to question and assess the quality of knowledge learnt, and to improve team members’ logical thinking skills are all positively associated with CT, consistent with our findings.

The CT scores in our study were lower than those in several Western countries among medical students, 55 56 possibly because of differences in educational culture and methods. In China, medical education comprises three stages: primary medical education, clinical education and internships. Primary medical education introduces students to the medical world. The delivery of traditional courses used to be prescribed and even dull simply because teachers were accustomed to a conventional teaching style and were afraid of making changes to course delivery. 57 The strategies to develop reflective and CT in nursing students in eight countries indicated that reflexive CT was found in most curricula, although with diverse denominations. The principal learning strategies used were PBL, group dynamics, reflective reading, clinical practice and simulation laboratories. The evaluation methods are the knowledge test, case analysis and practical exam. 58

The importance of early clinical exposure is universally acknowledged, particularly in developing countries where its value is profoundly esteemed. For instance, the South African Health Professions Council has spearheaded educational reforms for medical professionals, enabling first-year medical students to participate in healthcare visits. These visits aim to enrich the comprehension of future professional environments and foster a more profound passion for medicine. 59 Notably, most students perceived these visits as invaluable learning experiences, leaving them better prepared for medical practice. Similarly, Chinese medical colleges offer comparable programmes spanning 1–2 weeks. A Peking University study using questionnaires and reports revealed that all students benefited from these activities, gaining perceptual knowledge of clinical work. Remarkably, 61.5% of students reported that their early clinical exposure had significantly assisted them. 60

Interestingly, there was a more significant proportion of PhD students with a CT disposition in our study. This may be because doctoral research is more in-depth and complex, requiring students to engage in more detailed, rigorous and innovative thinking based on their existing knowledge. During the research process, doctoral students must constantly question, analyse, evaluate and reconstruct knowledge, which undoubtedly exercises and enhances their CT abilities. 61 However, this does not imply that master’s students possess lower CT skills than doctoral students. The master’s programme also emphasises cultivating CT, although possibly differing in depth and breadth. Both stages have unique development paths and manifestations in terms of CT. Regardless of the stage, graduate students should focus on developing their CT skills to address challenges in academic research and life.

Our research revealed that factors influencing CT motivation appear to be more closely linked to CT tendencies in personal and educational components. Miele and Wigfield 50 suggested that the factors affecting students’ critical analytical thinking motivation can be divided into two aspects: quantity and quality, the quantitative relationship between motivation and CT, that is, whether students have sufficient motivation to make high-level spiritual efforts. This is reflected in our study regarding curiosity, burn-out, distraction, an interdependent self-view and influence by research team members. The qualitative relationship is the willingness of students to engage in CT, which corresponds to the desire to ask ‘why’ and to refer to existing evidence to complete a research design in this study. This suggests that internal motivation may play an essential role in CT and that educators should focus more on maintaining students’ motivation and building awareness than on the frequency of rigid external research training and curriculum formats. Students are actively promoted and encouraged to apply CT in practice. At the same time, the existing overly outcome-oriented reward mechanism is changed, and assessment criteria are enriched, for example, by including ‘whether you ask interesting questions’ as one of the criteria for classroom assessment to motivate people to become more proactive learners. Recently, medical education has garnered considerable attention and traditionally assumes that medical students are inherently motivated by their dedication to specialised training and a highly focused profession. However, motivation plays a crucial role in determining the quality of learning and ultimate success. Its absence may provide a plausible explanation for why teachers occasionally encounter medical students who appear discouraged, have lost interest or abandon their studies, feeling a sense of powerlessness or resignation. 62

To foster CT among medical students, educational reform should encompass several key aspects: (1) Encouraging active learning and exploration: Teachers must urge students to engage actively in the learning process, providing resources and guidance to kindle their intellectual curiosity. This will empower students to seek out challenges, pose inquiries and address them through a critical lens. 63 (2) Implementing heuristic learning and case studies: Educators should incorporate case studies, enabling students to hone their CT, discriminatory skills and decision-making abilities by analysing authentic or hypothetical scenarios. 64 65 (3) Stressing the mastery of professional knowledge: It is imperative to ensure that students grasp the fundamental theories and principles of the medical field, along with proficiency in practical medical skills. 66 (4) Nurturing teamwork skills: Group discussions, collaborative projects and similar activities should be used to cultivate teamwork among medical students. This teaches them to listen attentively, manage team dynamics, and allocate resources effectively, enhancing their CT and problem-solving capabilities. 67 (5) Providing clinical practical experience: Early exposure to clinical practice is crucial in developing students’ analytical and problem-solving skills through firsthand observation and participation in real-life case management. 68 (6) Shifting teachers’ roles: Educators must evolve into mentors and role models for CT, leading by example and inspiring students through their practices and teachings. 69 Collectively, these recommendations for educational reform will empower medical students to address intricate issues they may encounter in their future medical careers, ultimately increasing the quality and safety of healthcare services.

It is worth noting that our questionnaire incorporated many potential entries with high reliability. It mostly also showed differences between the two groups with or without CT disposition in univariate analysis but were not ultimately presented in the regression models. These factors are meaningful for the development of CT but taking into account the simplicity and informativeness of the model, other entries in the model may have represented them. Our model explained more of the variance in CT than regression models from previous studies. 49 70 71

Strengths and limitations

This study has particular strengths. First, the questionnaire for this study was scientific and practice based. The findings of previous studies on personal and educational factors were extensively referenced, and in-depth interviews were also conducted. Second, our study focused on postgraduate medical students and the sample size was relatively large. Postgraduate medical students are the key group for CT development, and the findings obtained among postgraduate medical students are more relevant and better reflect the thinking characteristics of postgraduate medical students. Research from China has considerably enriched the worldwide sample of CT influencing factors. It has been suggested that cultural context strongly influences CT, 72 but previous research on CT has mostly focused on Europe, the USA and Japan. Therefore, researching CT in Chinese populations is a valuable addition to this area. In addition, this study is the first to quantitatively explore the impact of tutor and team on CT disposition. For Chinese postgraduates, tutors and their scientific research teams are the people who have the most contact during their studies. In our previous interviews, educators, tutors and postgraduates all recognised the vital role of tutors in postgraduate education, especially in the cultivation of thinking. Based on interviews and literature extraction, we summarise the specific influence of tutors and teams and present them as numerical indicators to refine the influence of tutors on educational factors to make them more comprehensive and exact.

There are several limitations to our study. First, given the traditional constraints of cross-sectional studies, the findings of this study cannot be used as direct evidence of a causal relationship between potential influences and outcomes. Still, they can provide clues to reveal causal relationships. Second, some influencing factors, such as participation in project submissions, participation in CT courses, attempts at innovation and entrepreneurship, and exchange abroad may need to be revised when measured due to limited educational resources. The lack of opportunity for most students to participate in the projects mentioned above, even if they had the will to do so, may help obscure the correlation between CT and these factors. Our regression models did not include other factors of the same type with higher coverage, such as article writing. This suggests that specific formal factors do not significantly influence CT disposition and that bias may not affect the overall results. In addition, we did not use the CTDI-CV scale. Given the busy workload of postgraduate medical students and the fact that online surveys are challenging to monitor and quality control, to avoid as much as possible the impact of too many questions on the quality of the study and to increase the recall rate, we used a condensed version of the Critical Thinking Scale, which has a greater total explained variance than the CTDI-CV scale and has good reliability and validity.

Conclusions

In conclusion, this study provides a comprehensive scientific assessment of the factors influencing the CT disposition of Chinese medical postgraduates in terms of personal and educational factors. Being curious, completing the scientific research design with reference, asking ‘why’, and having high logical thinking ability among team members were positively associated with CT. Exhaustion and burn-out, inattention, following others’ opinions in decision-making and not allowing to doubt tutors were negatively associated with CT scores. These findings suggest that we pay more attention to factors related to motivation and internal drive in our educational practice, shift from an outcome-focused reward mechanism and focus on motivation maintenance to build students’ CT awareness.

Ethics statements

Patient consent for publication.

Not applicable.

Ethics approval

The research team collected data after obtaining their consent and signatures on the study’s informed consent form. The Ethics Committee of West China Hospital (tertiary), Sichuan University, approved the study in 2021 (Ethics No. 980).

Acknowledgments

The authors want to acknowledge the medical students who participated in this study.

• Westerdahl F ,
• Carlson E ,
• Wennick A , et al
• Diamond-Fox S ,
• Biesta GJJ ,
• van Braak M
• Barnes TA ,
• Kacmarek RM , et al
• Persky AM ,
• Medina MS ,
• Castleberry AN
• Kuo SH , et al
• Onwuegbuzie AJ
• Committee C
• Ministry of Education, Ministry of Health
• Christenson M ,
• Chandratilake M , et al
• Hodges BD ,
• Maniate JM ,
• Martimianakis MAT , et al
• Chuenjitwongsa S ,
• Bullock A ,
• Colucciello ML
• Nguyen TV ,
• Kuo S-Y , et al
• Liu J , et al
• Hung C-A , et al
• Van Nguyen T ,
• Hejazi SY ,
• Zhang H , et al
• Wosinski J ,
• Belcher AE ,
• Dürrenberger Y , et al
• Briley DA ,
• Wee CJM , et al
• Fan L , et al
• Faramarzi M ,
• Barkhordary M ,
• Jalalmanesh S ,
• Pilevarzadeh M ,
• Mashayekhi F ,
• Faramarzpoor M , et al
• Bleidorn W ,
• Arslan RC ,
• Denissen JJA , et al
• Jimenez J-M ,
• Castro M-J , et al
• Gershman SJ ,
• Ratcliffe T ,
• Picho K , et al
• Durning SJ ,
• Costanzo M ,
• Artino AR , et al
• Van Merrienboer J ,
• Durning S , et al
• Newman LR ,
• Schwartzstein RM
• Ratwani RM ,
• Puthumana JS , et al
• Noguchi-Watanabe M ,
• Mikoshiba N , et al
• Ghezzi JFSA ,
• Higa E de FR ,
• Lemes MA , et al
• Henderson KJ ,
• Coppens ER ,
• Richards JB ,
• Frederix GW ,
• Profetto-McGrath Joanne
• Cianelli R ,
• Valenzuela J , et al
• Yuan W , et al
• Cárdenas-Becerril L ,
• Jiménez-Gómez MA ,
• Bardallo-Porras MD , et al
• Wang H , et al
• Pelaccia T ,
• D’Isanto T ,
• Aliberti S ,
• Altavilla G , et al
• Kaluzeviciute Greta
• Sa YTR , et al
• De Prada E ,
• Mareque M ,
• Pino-Juste M
• Hughes LJ ,
• Wardrop R , et al
• Godoy-Pozo J , et al
• Zhang Y. Q ,
• Chen Y , et al

LW and WC contributed equally.

Contributors LW and WC were involved in designing the study, reviewing the literature, designing the protocol, developing the questionnaire, collecting the data, performing the statistical analysis and preparing the manuscript. TH and W-BH were involved in searching and collecting the data. YW was involved in interpreting the data and critically reviewed the manuscript. YW is responsible for the overall content as the guarantor . All the authors have read and approved the final manuscript.

Funding This study was supported by the Sichuan University Postgraduate Education Reform project (GSSCU2021038).

Competing interests None declared.

Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research. Refer to the Methods section for further details.

Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.

Read the full text or download the PDF:

• Frequently Asked Questions
• Join HS Insider

About                   FAQs                       Join

(Photo courtesy Phase 1)

Opinion: The power of youth research: Phase 1’s mission to revolutionize education

Vedant Sagare

As someone deeply involved with Phase 1, I have witnessed firsthand the transformative power of youth engagement in research and education. At Phase 1, we believe that research is not merely a tool for academics and professionals but a fundamental skill that every young person should cultivate. Our mission is clear: to democratize access to research opportunities and mentorship, ensuring that every student, regardless of background, can explore their potential and contribute meaningfully to society.

Why does this work matter? It’s about equipping young minds with essential skills that extend far beyond the classroom. Research fosters critical thinking, problem-solving, and resilience—qualities crucial for navigating an increasingly complex world. Through our initiatives, we not only empower students to innovate but also instill in them a lifelong love of learning and a sense of curiosity about the world around them.

Beyond skills development, Phase 1 addresses profound disparities in educational access globally. From providing laptops and Wi-Fi routers to underserved communities to educating students in sustainable energy solutions, our efforts bridge gaps that inhibit learning and growth. In India, we empower youth with knowledge about renewable energy, while in Zambia, we lay foundations for computer science education in remote areas. These initiatives not only enhance educational outcomes but also empower communities to thrive.

Our commitment to cutting-edge research is evident in projects like Engineering Antibodies for Cancer Treatment, where young researchers are tackling pressing health challenges with innovation and determination. This isn’t just about academic achievement—it’s about making tangible contributions to society’s well-being.

Looking ahead, our goals are ambitious yet essential. We aim to expand educational initiatives globally, ensuring that every youth has access to quality education and research opportunities. By establishing schools and educational facilities in underserved regions, such as Zambia, and developing educational resources in emerging fields like computer science and data analysis, Phase 1 is laying the groundwork for a more equitable future.

Phase 1 is not just an organization; it’s a movement that empowers youth to shape their futures and drive societal progress through research and education. Join us in our mission to make research and quality education accessible to all. Together, we can build a world where every young person has the tools and opportunities to thrive.

Jellycats are clawing their way to adult popularity

by Francesca Lesinski | Arts and Entertainment , Features

The stuffed animal brand Jellycat has been around for 25 years, and so has one of its main demographics.  Marketed toward “people of all ages,” Jellycat is experiencing an unprecedented surge in popularity among adults. The owner of Beverly Hills children’s boutique...

Review: A transformative summer experience at UCI program, “Investments, Financial Planning and You”

by Leon Chung | Education , Opinion

Attending the summer Investments, Financial Planning and You (IFPY) program at UCI provided a fantastic first-hand experience of the intricacies of finance. UCI business professors passionately explained complex concepts, making them accessible to young minds like...

Unveiling bias: college programs and the workforce

by Ava DeJesus | Education , Schools

College students with learning disabilities cannot access the programs and accommodations they need to ensure they graduate and succeed in the workforce. Cal Poly Pomona freshman, Andrew Katz, has auditory processing and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorders. Katz...

Column: Finding solace in the saddle: how horseback riding helped me heal

by sophiaryandonald | Education , Sports

Losing someone dear at any age can present a challenge that greatly influences the path one takes in life. When I was five years old, I received the devastating news that my father passed away unexpectedly from a heart attack while on a business trip. This moment...

Discover more from HS Insider

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Type your email…

Continue reading