the critical thinking schools

Developing Critical Thinking

• Posted January 10, 2018
• By Iman Rastegari

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

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

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

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

About the Harvard EdCast

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

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

Related Articles

Finding Passion in Learning

Roots of the school gardening movement, student-centered learning.

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

Lecturer (Hindi-Urdu)

Initiative Tech Lead, Digital Products COE

Director, Defence and Security

Opportunities with the new CIEHF

School of Social Sciences – Public Policy and International Relations opportunities

• 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

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

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

What Is Critical Thinking? | Definition & Examples

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

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

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

Critical thinking skills help you to:

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

Table of contents

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

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

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

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

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

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

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

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

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

Academic examples

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

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

Nonacademic examples

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

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

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

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

When encountering information, ask:

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

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

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

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

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

 Plagiarism

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

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

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

Try for free

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

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

Critical thinking skills include the ability to:

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

Ask questions such as:

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

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

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

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

Being information literate means that you:

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

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

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

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

Cite this Scribbr article

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

Ryan, E. (2023, May 31). What Is Critical Thinking? | Definition & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved March 25, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/working-with-sources/critical-thinking/

Is this article helpful?

Eoghan Ryan

Other students also liked, student guide: information literacy | meaning & examples, what are credible sources & how to spot them | examples, applying the craap test & evaluating sources, "i thought ai proofreading was useless but..".

I've been using Scribbr for years now and I know it's a service that won't disappoint. It does a good job spotting mistakes”

Want a daily email of lesson plans that span all subjects and age groups?

Subjects all subjects all subjects the arts all the arts visual arts performing arts value of the arts back business & economics all business & economics global economics macroeconomics microeconomics personal finance business back design, engineering & technology all design, engineering & technology design engineering technology back health all health growth & development medical conditions consumer health public health nutrition physical fitness emotional health sex education back literature & language all literature & language literature linguistics writing/composition speaking back mathematics all mathematics algebra data analysis & probability geometry measurement numbers & operations back philosophy & religion all philosophy & religion philosophy religion back psychology all psychology history, approaches and methods biological bases of behavior consciousness, sensation and perception cognition and learning motivation and emotion developmental psychology personality psychological disorders and treatment social psychology back science & technology all science & technology earth and space science life sciences physical science environmental science nature of science back social studies all social studies anthropology area studies civics geography history media and journalism sociology back teaching & education all teaching & education education leadership education policy structure and function of schools teaching strategies back thinking & learning all thinking & learning attention and engagement memory critical thinking problem solving creativity collaboration information literacy organization and time management back, filter by none.

• Elementary/Primary
• Middle School/Lower Secondary
• High School/Upper Secondary
• College/University
• TED-Ed Animations
• TED Talk Lessons
• TED-Ed Best of Web
• Under 3 minutes
• Under 6 minutes
• Under 9 minutes
• Under 12 minutes
• Under 18 minutes
• Over 18 minutes
• Algerian Arabic
• Azerbaijani
• Cantonese (Hong Kong)
• Chinese (Hong Kong)
• Chinese (Singapore)
• Chinese (Taiwan)
• Chinese Simplified
• Chinese Traditional
• Chinese Traditional (Taiwan)
• Dutch (Belgium)
• Dutch (Netherlands)
• French (Canada)
• French (France)
• French (Switzerland)
• Kurdish (Central)
• Luxembourgish
• Persian (Afghanistan)
• Persian (Iran)
• Portuguese (Brazil)
• Portuguese (Portugal)
• Spanish (Argentina)
• Spanish (Latin America)
• Spanish (Mexico)
• Spanish (Spain)
• Spanish (United States)
• Western Frisian

sort by none

• Longest video
• Shortest video
• Most video views
• Least video views
• Most questions answered
• Least questions answered

Can you solve the magical maze riddle?

Lesson duration 04:51

292,483 Views

How to make smart decisions more easily

Lesson duration 05:16

994,364 Views

Can you solve a mystery before Sherlock Holmes?

Lesson duration 05:17

448,145 Views

Can you solve the secret assassin society riddle?

Lesson duration 05:01

633,091 Views

How to overcome your mistakes

Lesson duration 04:52

857,072 Views

Can you solve the cursed dice riddle?

Lesson duration 04:31

639,710 Views

Why some people don't have an inner monologue

Lesson duration 12:03

2,629,006 Views

Science vs. Pseudoscience

Lesson duration 05:48

344,011 Views

Can you solve the time traveling car riddle?

Lesson duration 05:18

603,063 Views

This one weird trick will get you infinite gold

Lesson duration 05:08

932,044 Views

How to quit your job — without ruining your career - Gala Jackson

Lesson duration 06:13

101,436 Views

What if you experienced every human life in history?

Lesson duration 05:21

2,713,287 Views

How to design climate-resilient buildings - Alyssa-Amor Gibbons

Lesson duration 14:12

42,630 Views

The case for free, universal basic services - Aaron Bastani

Lesson duration 19:09

79,646 Views

Can you steal the most powerful wand in the wizarding world?

Lesson duration 05:20

743,398 Views

History vs. Thomas Jefferson

439,424 Views

The best way to apologize (according to science)

Lesson duration 05:06

1,398,794 Views

How do we determine the value of a life?

Lesson duration 06:06

639,486 Views

What’s the smartest age?

Lesson duration 04:53

1,516,980 Views

The Boltzmann brain paradox

Lesson duration 05:40

1,095,859 Views

The 4 greatest threats to the survival of humanity

Lesson duration 05:24

482,981 Views

Can you outsmart the college admissions fallacy?

Lesson duration 06:17

806,173 Views

Can you solve the fortress riddle?

Lesson duration 05:23

1,177,875 Views

Can you solve the private eye riddle?

1,268,679 Views

  WHAT is Critical Thinking?

Critical = Evaluative

To avoid misunderstanding, in the context of "critical thinking" we need to understand what "critical" does mean, and doesn't mean.  In this context, critical thinking is just logical thinking;   critical thinking is not necessarily being “negatively critical” as in a commonly used meaning of the word.  In fact, a more accurate term would be logical thinking (re: its process) or evaluative thinking (re: its goal).  The result of evaluation can range from positive to negative, from acceptance to rejection or anything in-between.  Yes, critical evaluation can produce a glowing recommendation.  On this page, for example, the quotes and links — which are recommended, but (as with all sources of information) should be used with an attitude of "critical thinking" evaluation — are the result of my own critical thinking.

Here are two brief definitions of what it is:   Critical thinking is "reasonably and reflectively deciding what to believe or do." ...  Critical thinking means making reasoned judgments.  Basically, it is using criteria to judge the quality of something, from cooking to a conclusion of a research paper.  In essence, critical thinking is a disciplined manner of thought that a person uses to assess the validity of something:  of a statement, news story, argument, research, etc.  {quoting Robert Ennis, and paraphrasing Barry Beyer}

A page that is brief yet is rich in ideas, and is worth reading carefully, is Defining Critical Thinking by Michael Scriven & Richard Paul.  You can read Our Concept of Critical Thinking from The Critical Thinking Community which offers a comprehensive Library of Articles for you to explore.

Barbara Fowler has selected 19 brief definitions of critical thinking from a variety of sources, and Robert Ennis has a brief 11-point outline and a Long Definition .

Characteristics of Critical Thinkers

For a quick overview, read Characteristics of Critical Thinking which begins with "What is Critical Thinking?" and continues with: Characteristics of Critical Thinking, Why teach Critical Thinking?, and Teaching Strategies to help promote Critical Thinking Skills.

Linda Elder and Richard Paul describe Valuable Intellectual Traits (Intellectual Humility, Courage, Empathy, Integrity, Perseverance, Faith In Reason, and Fairmindedness) and Universal Intellectual Standards (Clarity, Accuracy, Precision, Relevance, Depth, Breadth, and Logic).

For a more comprehensive overview, use their 35 Dimensions of Critical Thought as a launching pad to read 35 pages with brief, clear descriptions of Affective Strategies, Cognitive Strategies (Macro-Abilities), and Cognitive Strategies (Micro-Skills).

And you can find much more by exploring the sitemap for CriticalThinking.org

Willing and Able, with Disposition and Skill:  An effective thinker must be willing to think and able to think.   These requirements — for disposition (be willing) and skill (be able) — are described in the pages above, and with more detail in a series of papers by Peter Facione, Noreen Facione, Carol Giancarlo, and Joanne Gainen.  I suggest The Motivation to Think in Working and Learning and Professional Judgment and the Disposition Toward Critical Thinking ;  or you can read the abstracts to see what looks interesting.  [[check: is there a url-link to the series?]]

Beneficial Uses of Critical Thinking

A person's critical thinking will be more generally-beneficial if they're able to think well and use their thinking well, in ways that will be more beneficial in more ways for more people.  A person's beneficial use of critical thinking can decrease if they're not "able to think well" (e.g. if they can't recognize fallacious reasoning "that is logically incorrect" or they unintentionally use it with unconscious motivated reasoning ) or if they don't "use their thinking well" (e.g. if they intentionally use fallacious reasoning in ways that might be considered unethical ).

Critical Thinking for Problem Solving:   A “big picture” perspective on critical thinking views it in the wider context of thinking that is productive for problem solving, where...

Knowledge + Creative Thinking + Critical Thinking → Productive Thinking   .

My links-page for PRACTICAL CREATIVITY begins by describing the productive interactions between Creative Thinking and Critical Thinking:   "Creative Thinking is extremely useful – and it's fun! – but it should be combined with Critical Thinking, during your process of Productive Thinking [that effectively combines Knowledge plus Creative Thinking and Critical Thinking ].  Why?  During productive PROBLEM SOLVING you ‘make things better’ by creatively Generating Ideas and critically Evaluating Ideas.   Usually, creative generation is the most exciting part of creative-and-critical Productive Thinking and it's very important.  But critical evaluation (i.e. logical evaluation ) is usually more important, in two ways:  • if creative ideas are immediately converted into action [due to uncontrolled enthusiasm] without being wisely evaluated, the result can be unwise action;   • your critical evaluation of ideas can motivate-and-guide your creative generation of ideas" in a productive process of...

  WHY should we teach Critical Thinking?

As explained in the pages above, critical thinking is essential for effective functioning in the modern world.

IOU – Soon, probably mid-October 2022, here I will describe (and quote from, and link to) web-pages that describe its importance, after evaluating some of the many pages about this.

In an essay that "takes a Socratic approach to defining critical thinking and identifying its value in one's personal, professional, educational, and civic life," Peter Facione discusses “what and why” in Critical Thinking: What It Is and Why It Counts and concludes with a consensus statement (of experts in the field) about critical thinking and the ideal critical thinker:

We understand critical thinking to be purposeful, self-regulatory judgment which results in interpretation, analysis, evaluation, and inference, as well as explanation of the evidential, conceptual, methodological, criteriological, or contextual considerations upon which that judgment is based.  [Since this includes almost all types of logical reasoning,] CT is essential as a tool of inquiry.  As such, CT is a liberating force in education and a powerful resource in one's personal and civic life.  While not synonymous with good thinking, CT is a pervasive and self-rectifying human phenomenon.  The ideal critical thinker is habitually inquisitive, well-informed, trustful of reason, open-minded, flexible, fair-minded in evaluation, honest in facing personal biases, prudent in making judgments, willing to reconsider, clear about issues, orderly in complex matters, diligent in seeking relevant information, reasonable in the selection of criteria, focused in inquiry, and persistent in seeking results which are as precise as the subject and the circumstances of inquiry permit.  Thus, educating good critical thinkers means working toward this ideal.  It combines developing CT skills with nurturing those dispositions which consistently yield useful insights and which are the basis of a rational and democratic society."   {the ending-quotation is from "Delphi Report" consensus statement, The Executive Summary for Critical Thinking: A Statement of Expert Consensus for Purposes of Educational Assessment and Instruction, Executive Summary & Expert Consensus from InsightAssessment.com with links for MORE }

Education in critical thinking offers an alternative to a drift toward postmodern relativism, by emphasizing that we can "distinguish between facts and opinions or personal feelings, judgments and inferences, inductive and deductive arguments, and the objective and subjective. {MCC General Education Initiatives}"  Critical thinking encourages us to recognize that our “rationally justifiable confidence” in a claim can span a wide range, from feelings to fact and everything in between.  Three Categories of Questions explains why, because students don't recognize questions involving "reasoned judgment" (which are neither fact nor opinion), they "fail to see the difference between offering legitimate reasons and evidence in support of a view and simply asserting the view as true."   You can see samples from The Art of Asking Essential Questions.

  Causes and Effects of Motivated Reasoning

What is motivated reasoning.

Basically, it's a tendency for people to believe what they want to believe, and find reasons for believing it. 

iResearchNet.com says "Motivated reasoning is a form of reasoning in which people access, construct, and evaluate arguments in a biased fashion to arrive at or endorse a preferred conclusion.  The term motivated in motivated reasoning refers to the fact that people use reasoning strategies that allow them to draw the conclusions they want to draw (i.e., are motivated to draw). ...  motivated reasoning refers [only] to situations in which people want to confirm their preferred conclusion, rather than to [other] situations in which people's reasoning is driven by an accuracy motivation, " by wanting to reach a conclusion that is strongly justified by a logical evaluation of all available evidence.

motivated reasoning occurs when people (quoting Wikipedia ) "use emotionally-biased reasoning to produce justifications or make decisions that are most desired rather than those that accurately reflect the evidence, while still [even though their motivated justifications don't "accurately reflect the evidence"] reducing cognitive dissonance.  In other words, motivated reasoning is the tendency to find arguments in favor of conclusions we want to believe to be stronger than arguments for conclusions we do not want to believe. "

note:  In the quotations above and below, italics and [comments in brackets] are added by me.

A person can use motivated reasoning in any area of life (when thinking about the nature of reality, and principles for living well, policies for governing effectively, evaluating the abilities of themself & others,...) and it's only one aspect of a person's general overconfidence about many kinds of personal abilities in many areas of life.

WHY do people use motivated reasoning?  —  CAUSES

We'll begin by looking at a common deviation from one goal of critical thinking, which ideally should produce...

appropriate confidence:   An evidence-based logical evaluation should lead to improved understanding that promotes an appropriate humility about conclusions, with a logically-justifiable appropriate confidence that is not too little, not too much.    { Bertrand Russell, re: three kind of error }

inappropriate over-confidence:   We often see people being overconfident about the logical justification for their own personal views, and the views of their groups.   Why?  A major cause of overconfidence is the motivated reasoning that often is used by people, both individually and in groups.  So... we then can ask “why do people use motivated reasoning?”

causes of motivated reasoning, by individuals and groups:

A major source of overconfidence is the motivated reasoning that occurs because people (individually and in groups) have mixed motivations, combining logic-and-emotion in our thinking-and-feeling;  logically we want to have accurate understanding;  and emotionally we want to have a positive self-image so we can feel good about ourselves (as individuals & as a group) * and (as individuals in groups) we want to get respect from others and have supportive allies, and (as individuals & as groups) we want to win arguments, to have a positive self-image and a positive group-image.   Being in a group often leads to social pressures, with group dynamics that influence the reasoning of members, and reinforce our tendencies to be individually overconfident.

* The self-image of a person (or group) is improved when they can reduce the unpleasant cognitive dissonance (i.e. dissonance in thinking ) that occurs when they recognize an inconsistency between their beliefs, or between their beliefs and actions.  They want the personal confidence of believing that their system of beliefs-and-actions is internally consistent, and also has high quality because it's better than other beliefs-and-actions they could choose, AND often (in comparisons of self with others, producing effects that are both positive & negative) it's better than the beliefs-and-actions chosen by others.    /   Due to these comparisons, although the motive (of wanting personal confidence ) and strategy (of becoming more confident by reducing cognitive dissonance ) are basically healthy, and the direct results are usually productive (by leading a person to improve their beliefs-and-actions), there also can be unproductive indirect results because...   This motive-and-strategy can lead a person to over-estimate the logical justifications for their own confidence, so they become unjustifiably over-confident about themselves, and (in an extra step that doesn't have to occur, but can occur) they become disrespectful of others.

All of these psychological motives often are related to practical motives.   Definitions of motivated reasoning describe the general motivation of wanting to believe "what we want to believe" in a "preferred conclusion" that is "most desired."  These motives for "wanting... what we want" often are connected with our motives (as individuals & groups) of wanting to achieve practical goals, to get various kinds of benefits.

Most causes of motivated reasoning operate at the levels of individuals & their groups, so we can get useful insights from experts who study the psychology of individuals (alone & in groups) and sociology of groups.

a summary:  Why are so many so confident?  Because it feels good & gains allies, can persuade people, can help achieve practical goals.

HOW does motivated reasoning affect critical thinking?  —  EFFECTS

goals:  We should try to reduce the amount of motivated reasoning and the negative effects when it's used by ourselves and by others, when it's used by you and me, and them.

causes:  Motivated Reasoning {MR} can help a person feel good, gain allies, persuade people, achieve goals.

one effect:  When MR is not regulated by accurate self-evaluations, a motive of wanting confidence can lead to overconfidence .

other effects:  During a process of critical thinking, a person can use MR (consciously or unconsciously) in many ways,...

by selecting their evidence:

While a person is gathering information, MR motivates them to have confirmation bias by seeking-and-accepting evidence that confirms (supports) their own view, while ignoring-or-rejecting evidence that disconfirms their view or confirms opposing views.    {how biased preference is used in business strategies}

In high school our Monday-plus-Tuesday experiences taught us that " IF we want accurate understanding, we should get the best information and arguments that all position-views can claim as support."  But this "if" doesn't describe the way people sometimes think, when instead we actually want to see only evidence that supports our own views (even if this isn't an accurate understanding of reality), so each of us has a tendency to think “I don't want to hear anything about Tuesday.”

by adjusting their logic:

MR affects a person's ability to recognize fallacious reasoning (by themself and by others), their decision to either accept a fallacy (that supports their views) or challenge a fallacy (that opposes their view, supports another view) when it's used in a logical argument by another person, and their willingness to use fallacies when they construct their own arguments.  And...

They use gentle criticism for their own view when evaluating its pros-and-cons, but use harsh criticism for other views .  In doing this they are adjusting their standards for having confidence in a conclusion, shifting the evaluative “burden of proof” so it favors their view by asking “can I believe this?” for a view they want to accept, and “must I believe this?” for a view they want to reject.

They tend to ignore actual complexities that would challenge their overconfidence.

When their thinking is dominated by MR, an overall result is to reverse their sequence-of-logic;   with MR, first comes the desired conclusion, followed by evidence-and-logic to support their conclusion.

by adjusting their values:

MR can affect their evaluative weighting of predicted outcomes, as in a complex situation where they must "make decisions – based on their values & priorities – about the importance of each kind of outcome, and thus how much weight to give it in their evaluation."

by adjusting their ethics:  

If it's necessary because they recognize their bias, they can rationalize the process-and-results of their motivated reasoning — even though it's biased toward reaching conclusions they are motivated to believe — by thinking “my thoughts {and actions} are acceptable because       ” and filling the blank with self-protective rationalizations .

Complexity and Confidence

One way to adjust logic with MR is to oversimplify.  Usually questions asking “what is the best policy?” are complex.  Imagine a trial where a judge is trying to determine which of two (or more) competing policies will have more practical utility.   Even if we agree ( and we m a y not ) that the best practical utility is “producing a greater good for a greater number,” usually each policy will offer some advantages, so a wise critical-thinking judge must weigh all pros & cons.  They must compare different kinds of “good” and “bad” outcomes (each with varying degrees) along with the number of people who are affected by each outcome, and decide (based on their values & priorities) how to weigh the importance of each kind of outcome.  Also, there is complexity in using cause-effect reasoning to make predictions about issues with multiple complex causes and multiple complex outcomes, with outcome-effects that are good and bad, affecting a variety of people in different ways.

In situations that require coping with complexity, a judge-thinker tries to evaluate by using critical thinking that is minimally biased.  But a lawyer-thinker is motivated to think & argue in ways that are biased, and one useful strategy for “winning” (and reducing cognitive dissonance ) is oversimplification.     {decisions about policies-for-society are designing strategies-for-society }

Reversing the Process  –  doing Conclusion first, then Evaluation

Sometimes the overall result of MR-logic is to reverse the usual sequence of reasoning.  In a process that is logical, without bias, we should first do an objective evaluation by using unbiased evidence-and-logic plus values, and then reach a conclusion.  But the sequential order is partially reversed * when thinking is influenced by motivated reasoning, when (due to prior reasoning earlier in life) a person first (Monday) reaches an initial conclusion they want, and then (Tuesday) instead of continuing to learn more about the pros & cons of all positions, they creatively construct biased goal-directed reasoning — by selecting information & adjusting logic & adjusting values — to support their existing position, so they have arguments to logically defend their position internally (for self) and externally (for others).

*   It's only partially reversed (not totally reversed) because their Monday-conclusion is based on prior reasoning that occurred before "Monday" and may have been mainly-objective (with evaluation before conclusion, in the proper logical order) rather than mainly-motivated.

Personal Change-of-View

two possible results of MR:  Although a person's Motivated Reasoning can lead to a changing of views {or actions}, instead MR usually leads to increasing confidence in existing views {or actions}.  In either way, by changing or maintaining, MR can help a person achieve personal goals, e.g. by gaining more allies (in a new group or old group), or by improving their self-perception of internal consistency because they have reduced their cognitive dissonance.

reasons to not-change or to change, using unbiased Logical Reasoning and biased Motivated Reasoning:   When a person re-examines one of their views by continuing to rationally evaluate it with unbiased reasoning (using evidence-and-logic plus values), usually they decide that a change-of-view isn't justified.  But occasionally they decide, based on their evaluation, that a change is justifiable, and they are willing to change this view, so they do change, and they're happy because they are thinking “now my view is better than it was before.”  /  But for another view they are less willing to change, even if this would be justified by an unbiased evaluation.  They don't want to change, so they use biased motivated reasoning to avoid a change, or even to avoid thinking “maybe I should change.”    {Although MR can be one factor in promoting a change, this is less common than using MR to resist a change.}

What causes the difference in being willing to change?   Maybe in one situation this person self-defines the change as wisdom (because it's justified by their evaluation), while in the other situation they think a change would be a sign of weakness.   Or maybe in the overall context of their life, in one situation (but not the other) a change is personally beneficial.    /   situations and people:  For this person, being willing to change differs from one situation to another.  And a tendency for being willing to change differs from one person to another.  A willingness to change varies with SITUATIONS, and with PEOPLE.   /   If a person is not willing to change, this will increase their use of MR, but this won't necessarily determine the result.  Of course, with analysis using my interpretive framework (of “ unbiased Logical Reasoning combined with biased Motivated Reasoning ”) the result – by changing or maintaining – will depend on the COMBINATION of unbiased reasoning plus biased reasoning.   If a person is strongly motivated to maintain (or to change), their use of biased reasoning will increase if this will help them justify (internally & externally, for themself & others) the result they want.  But in “the combination” their biased M-Reasoning could be overcome by the unbiased L-Reasoning they also are doing, with their MR being overcome by their stronger LR.

A person who doesn't want to change their mind will think “Monday I reached a conclusion (made a decision, made up my mind), so Tuesday I don't want to think about it or learn anything new.”

By contrast, a person who is willing to change wants to learn more about the pros & cons of differing views, so their understanding will continually increase in completeness & accuracy.  They will change their views when it seems wise — if they find justifiable evidence-based Logical Reasons for a change — because they see the change as wisdom rather than weakness.  They will think “now I know more, and have evaluated more carefully, so now my views are different.  I want to self-educate myself by learning from experience , and if new experiences (to get more knowledge, do more evaluation) lead to a different conclusion, this is a beneficial change.”

Change of Mind and Change of Status:  During a person's evaluation of competitive Options, they can estimate a “Quality Status” for each Option by considering the many factors that affect its quality;  each Quality Status can be very low, or very high, or in-between;  and it can change during evaluation when the person gathers more evidence, and thinks about everything more carefully.  When an evaluation is done by using accurate evidence and valid logic, usually the evaluation-conclusion won't shift from being 100% for one option (by thinking everything favors it) to 100% for another option.  Instead there will be an honest recognition (unless motivated reasoning leads to a denial of complexity ) that each option offers some benefits, has some pros & cons;  during a period-of-changing there is a change in the person's estimates about the relative benefits of different options, about the “all things considered” conclusions after a careful weighing of all pros & cons.     { using Quality Status for evaluations }

Motivated Reasoning can be Intelligent Reasoning

Sometimes (but not always) a person's use of motivated reasoning {MR} will strongly affect the process-and-results of their critical thinking, leading to cognitive bias because they have selected information and have adjusted their logic & values & ethics .

All aspects of an evaluative process are influenced (consciously & unconsciously) by MR, to a degree that can be small or large.  Is this influence-by-MR reduced by intelligence?  Scientists think “no” based on research, as described by Winston Sieck (2013, updated 2020, with interesting comments) in Does High Intelligence Mean Low Cognitive Bias?   :

    "Ideally, a smart and critical thinker would reason through the pros and cons of the different possibilities and come to a balanced view of the issue.  Yet a great deal of research finds that people tend to just consider what they favor about one side.  We see this ‘myside bias’ all the time in the real world" and in research: "A number of studies have now been conducted on intelligence and the myside bias," showing that "people who scored more highly on the intelligence test showed just as much of the cognitive bias as the rest.  They found no link between intelligence and myside bias. ...  People with high IQ reasoned just like everyone else," even though our intuitions tell us that they should be more able to think rationally: "In everyday discussion, intelligence and rational thinking are often treated as ‘close cousins,’ or even as one and the same thing.  Yet, that does not appear to be the case in actual assessments of intelligence and cognitive bias," because intelligence tests "do not measure the extent of a person's cognitive bias or rationality."   He ends by concluding that "balanced, rational thinking may well be at least as, if not more important than IQ to what it really means to be smart in the modern world."   A person with high IQ might be more able to think logically-and-objectively with minimal cognitive bias, but not necessarily more willing.   Instead they may be motivated to use their intelligence to skillfully construct (by using motivated reasoning) clever arguments that have high cognitive bias, yet are effective in persuasively defending their beliefs.

It's useful to distinguish between different kinds of rationality.  If motivated reasoning helps a person "feel good, gain allies, persuade people, achieve goals," their motivated reasoning is “ personally rational ” for them, even though their MR isn't “ objectively rational ” because it isn't unbiased reasoning.   One definition of MR says " motivated reasoning refers [only] to situations in which people want to confirm their preferred conclusion, rather than to [other] situations in which people's reasoning is driven by an accuracy motivation " so they want to search for truth by using unbiased evaluation.  Here we see two aspects of overall motivation;  people want to find truth, and they have other motives.  The relative strength of these motives will vary, depending on the context.  In some situations a searching-for-truth rationality is actually less personally-rational because it's less effective in helping a person “get what they want” in their whole life.   My overview of Motivations for Learning describes a central goal of educators, who try to "consider all aspects of total motivation – intrinsic, personal, interpersonal, and extrinsic, all hopefully based on good values & priorities – that contribute to how a student thinks about their strategies-and-actions aimed at ‘getting what they want’ in their whole life as a whole person."  Although I think we should try to reduce MR and its negative effects because personal rationalities don't necessarily produce societal rationality we should try to reduce MR “with eyes wide open” by understanding why every person (including you and me) has a tendency to use MR due to their "total motivation... in their whole life as a whole person."

A broad definition of rationality is used in a research review (cited by Winston Sieck), Myside Bias, Rational Thinking, and Intelligence by Keith Stanovich, Richard West, Maggie Toplak:

    "The magnitude of the myside bias shows very little relation to intelligence. ... It is rare when a cognitive process or phenomenon is found to be independent of intelligence.  Nevertheless, some recent research has suggested that individual differences in an important critical thinking skill [reducing one's own myside bias] are largely independent of individual differences in intelligence. .....  Rationality is a more encompassing construct than intelligence. ... To think rationally means to adopt appropriate goals, take appropriate action given one's goals and beliefs, and hold beliefs that are commensurate with available evidence. [it's "and" even though it may not be possible to do all three, to "adopt... take... hold"]  Intelligence tests measure many important things about thinking, but they do not directly assess the degree of rationality of thought.  Thus, it is perhaps not surprising that intelligence is quite weakly related to at least some aspects of rational thought.  Myside bias turns out to be an aspect of rational thought that, compared with others, is particularly unrelated to intelligence."

They consider myside bias to be " an aspect of rational thought" and I agree, because MR can be personally-rational for a person due to the personal benefits it gives them, even if their MR isn't critically-rational (because the conclusion that's based on their MR wouldn't be justifiable based on an unbiased evaluation using evidence-and-logic plus values).  But even though MR with myside bias for persons (and ourside bias for their groups) can be personally-rational for individuals, there are reasons for us to think it will be societally-rational for us to have a goal of "trying to reduce the amount of motivated reasoning and the negative effects when it's used by... you and me, and them."

As explained above , scientists answer “no” when we ask “are MR and its effects decreased by high intelligence ?”  For a related question – “are MR and its effects decreased by high skill in critical thinking?” – experts say “ no, but... ”

Personal Rationality and Societal Rationality:  Even though fallacious arguments (using biased motivated reasoning ) can seem to be personally rational due to benefits that are short-range (are beneficial for only some people) and short-term, fallacies are societally irrational because the overall effects are detrimental for society.  You can see exemplars that unfortunately have expanded from “conversational use by individuals” into “societal use by groups” so they cause widespread societal damage, in this entry from my links-page about Logical Fallacies : 

Dean & Laura VanDruff share Conversational Tricks and Fallacies in a humorous way, illustrating "how not to talk" in an attempt to decrease the "conversational terrorism" (with a disrespectful "cheap shot" style) arising from the "growing abuse in our conversational landscape."

In this section you'll see two analogies ( lawyer -vs- judge and soldier -vs- scout ) that can help us think about two ways to use intelligence ( motivated with bias versus objectively neutral ) while we're evaluating & arguing.

Victory-Seeking Lawyers and Truth-Seeking Judges:  One way to improve our mutual understanding & respecting is by trying to think like a judge, not a lawyer.  How?  During a trial when a judge is trying to determine what is true, first the lawyers for opposing truth-claims each argue for their claim, trying to “win the case” by using evidence-and-logic that is non-neutral (is biased).   Then the judge tries to be neutral (non-biased) when evaluating the evidence-and-logic, trying to determine which truth-claim is more accurate, in what ways.  A wise judge tries to do neutral judging, tries to avoid biased judging based on biased reasoning , on reasoning that is motivated by personally wanting to believe one of the claims.  By contrast, each lawyer wants their own claim to win, so they are motivated to do biased arguing by adjusting all factors ( evidence, logic, values ) to favor the policy they want.     {in different kinds of trials, a judge can try to determine what is true, or what is fair, or what will be effective }

a clarification:  I'm not criticizing the ethical character of people who serve as lawyers.  They are just doing what we're asking them to do, by performing a valuable service in the context of our “adversarial” system of justice.  I am criticizing the transfers of biased lawyer-like arguing into the contexts of everyday life, where our understanding-and-respecting would be improved by a decrease of adversial attitudes & actions.  Similarly, I'm not criticizing the ethical character of the people who bravely serve us as soldiers.

Victory-Seeking Soldiers and Truth-Seeking Scouts:   Another useful analogy (developed by Julia Galef ) illustrates how different goals for thinking lead to different ways of thinking.  During a discussion, if you're behaving like a soldier your goal is to be an effective fighter;  for achieving this goal it can be useful to think over-simplistically, to view yourself as a correct-thinking “good guy” and your opponent as a wrong-thinking “bad guy” who deserves to be the enemy you hate, and fight;  when you're functioning as a soldier, understanding & respect could make you less effective as a single-minded fighter whose only goal is to win, so you don't want to acknowledge that "people with other views also may have good reasons, both logical and ethical, for their choices."  During a war, when you're thinking like a scout your goal is to find truth, to accurately know the actual situation (re: numbers & locations of soldiers, their equipment, the terrain,...) so you want an accurate knowledge-of-reality that will be a solid foundation for an effective planning of battle strategies.  During a discussion, you also can think like a scout who wants to find truth.

Two Analogies — Lawyer-vs-Judge and Soldier-vs-Scout

similarities:  In each analogy we compare biased thinking (by a lawyer or soldier, trying to win) with unbiased thinking (by a judge or scout, trying to determine truth).     {more about the scout analogy of Julia Galef}

    unbiased = neutral = objective:    In this page, all three terms are used with the same meaning.  In fact, many words have a similar meaning;  Collins Thesaurus lists 17 synonyms for objective : "unbiased, neutral, detached, just, fair, judicial, open-minded, equitable, impartial, impersonal, disinterested, even-handed, dispassionate, unemotional, uninvolved, unprejudiced, uncoloured."  Most people think these words describe admirable character traits, so here is...

a societal application:  We can use either analogy to ask, “would our society be more mutually respectful if more people decided to be more judge-like ( more scout-like ) in their feeling & thinking & behaving?   i.e. if more people were less lawyer-like ( less soldier-like )?”

personal applications:  I find that each analogy is useful for different situations, for when I'm alone (be a scout-and-judge) or interacting with others (be a diplomatic scout).  When my goal is to gather information that is relevant & reliable, “exploring like an objective scout” is useful, and “thinking like an unbiased judge” helps me decide what is more true.  Thinking like a scout/judge is also useful for trying to determine what is more fair, or more effective.    /   But... during a discussion it would be relationally-inappropriate if you (or I) tried to “behave like a judge,” and others would be justifiably offended. *   But it could be very useful if you “behave like a scout” who (like my teacher when Monday-and-Tuesday were combined ) tries to help others get accurate descriptions of different views and the best arguments for each view.   And in addition to behaving like a scout, you can imagine also functioning as a referee who unofficially and skillfully (by using diplomacy so the refereeing-actions aren't resented, maybe aren't even noticed) tries to cope with the “critical thinking fouls” that occur when someone uses fallacious reasoning as in presenting incomplete evidence (with biased selectivity) or inaccurate evidence, or describing a weak-and-distorted strawman of a view they oppose.  But... when you're doing these things (as scout & referee) you will be telling people what they don't want to hear (due to their MR) so they may punish you personally with “shooting the messenger” paybacks that hurt you socially or in other ways.    { *  But you will be doing your own internal judging that is kept silently invisible in your own thinking — except when you say “this is what I think” (not “this is what you should think”) — that can become the external judging of a scout who tries to diplomatically provide accurate information for other people. }

The Ethics of Scout-becoming-Soldier:   Of course, nobody is purely soldier or purely scout.  Each of us is some of both, with their strengths depending on what's happening in our life-context, and how we're responding.  Each of us has mixed motives;  we want to have accurate understanding, but we also want to win arguments (internally within ourselves & externally with others) and have supportive allies.  When our main goals are to get wins & allies, a common strategy is to get knowledge as a scout (to improve understanding) and then use knowledge as a soldier (to win arguments & gain allies).  Unfortunately, when this happens our understanding is weaponized, and often the result is a decrease of respect, due to...

Hostile Polarization:   In current society a common tendency is hostile polarizations that lead some people – especially when they're in groups – to have disrespectful attitudes toward people who disagree with them.  The human tendency to join “polarized tribes” can be promoted by many factors, including principles, loyalties, and pressures.

Important Principles:   When a person (and their group) takes a strong position on an issue they think is extremely important, it's more difficult to think an opposing position can be supported (as in our Monday-and-Tuesday classes ) by "good reasons, both logical and ethical," and that people holding this position should be respected.  In this context an opponent may be viewed as an enemy who must be defeated in us-against-them warfare.   This attitude does have a rational basis because — even though it's almost always wise to avoid "warfare" — we shouldn't try to buy peace at the high cost of abandoning important principles.    { polarization: loyalties & pressures }

Avoiding Postmodern Relativism

Yes, it should be avoided.  The pessimistic foolishness of radical postmodern relativists * — who deny the possibility (or even desirability ) of using evidence-and-logic objectively in critical thinking with less biasing by motivated thinking — should be rejected by educators.  Instead we should emphasize the possibility and desirability of trying to consistently use objective logical thinking.   {our Monday-and-Tuesday debates were not postmodern }

When we're thinking about our views, we should aim for a level of confidence that is appropriate (is not too high or too low), steering a path between the two errors of confidence described by Bertrand Russell: "error is not only the absolute error of believing what is false, but also the quantitative error of believing more or less strongly than is warranted by the degree of credibility properly attaching to the proposition believed, in relation to the believer's knowledge."  We can err by "believing more or less strongly than is warranted," with either overconfidence or underconfidence.

But usually a postmodernist isn't self-humbly underconfident about their own views.  Instead they weaponize their relativism by claiming that “YOU cannot effectively use evidence-and-logic objectively & effectively,” in an effort to make the logical arguments of their opponents seem less justifiable and less persuasive.

* Yes, claims of “postmodernists” do vary widely — with a broad range of perspectives being actualized in a variety of ways to produce differing claims, as in the many kinds of Critical Theory(s) that include Critical Race Theory — so my brief summary is oversimplified.  But the essential foundations of radical postmodernism do clash with the worthy goals of objectively-logical critical thinking.    {postmodernists began with a useful question – asking “how confident should you be?” – but then pushed their skepticism to foolish extremes, so we now see the rationality-and-idiocy of postmodern relativism }

More From Forbes

The indispensable role of critical thinking in healthcare leadership.

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

Dr. Hudson Garrett is the President and Chief Executive Officer of Community Health Associates , which is a leader in healthcare consulting.

In the fast-paced and complex landscape of healthcare, where decisions can have life-altering consequences, the value of critical thinking cannot be overstated. Critical thinking is not just a skill; it's a mindset—an essential tool for healthcare leaders to navigate uncertainty, make informed decisions and drive positive outcomes.

Understanding Critical Thinking In Healthcare

Critical thinking involves the ability to analyze, evaluate and synthesize information to form reasoned judgments and make sound decisions. In healthcare, where challenges are multifaceted and solutions are rarely straightforward, critical thinking enables leaders to:

1. Assess complex situations: Healthcare leaders encounter a myriad of complex challenges, from patient care decisions to organizational strategy. Critical thinking allows them to dissect these challenges, consider various perspectives and identify underlying issues to develop effective solutions.

2. Make informed decisions: Informed decision-making is paramount in healthcare, where outcomes directly impact patient well-being. Critical thinking empowers leaders to weigh evidence, anticipate consequences and choose the most appropriate course of action based on the available information and best practices.

Total Solar Eclipse ‘Emoji Map’ Meme Tells You All You Need To Know

The walking dead the ones who live season finale review super easy barely an inconvenience, the russians sent a platoon of grenade hurling robotic mini tanks into battle the ukrainians blew up the bots in the usual way with drones.

3. Promote innovation: Innovation drives progress in healthcare, from medical breakthroughs to operational efficiencies. Critical thinking encourages leaders to question conventional practices, explore alternative approaches and embrace new technologies to improve patient care and organizational performance. An organization must be committed to ongoing innovation both in process and in leadership development. This approach prevents stagnation and encourages growth at truly remarkable levels.

Putting Critical Thinking Into Practice

As a healthcare leader, I have witnessed firsthand the transformative power of critical thinking in addressing complex challenges and driving meaningful change. Here are three examples of how I've applied critical thinking in leadership.

1. Optimizing resource allocation: In a previous role as a department head, I faced the challenge of optimizing resource allocation to meet patient demand while managing budget constraints. Through critical thinking, I conducted a comprehensive analysis of patient flow, staff productivity and resource utilization. By identifying inefficiencies and implementing targeted interventions, such as workflow redesign and staff training initiatives, we were able to improve patient access, reduce wait times and maximize the efficiency of our resources.

2. Implementing quality improvement initiatives: In response to an increase in hospital-acquired infections, I spearheaded a quality improvement initiative aimed at reducing infection rates and enhancing patient safety. Through critical thinking, I led a multidisciplinary team in conducting root cause analyses, identifying contributing factors and developing evidence-based interventions. We then implemented standardized protocols, enhanced staff education and implemented robust surveillance systems, which helped us achieve a significant reduction in infection rates and improved patient outcomes.

3. Navigating ethical dilemmas: Healthcare leaders often encounter ethical dilemmas that require careful consideration and ethical decision-making. In a challenging scenario involving end-of-life care decisions, I relied on critical thinking to navigate conflicting interests, respect patient autonomy and uphold ethical principles. By facilitating open communication, engaging with patients and families and consulting with ethics committees, we were able to reach a consensus on a care plan that honored the patient's wishes and provided compassionate end-of-life care.

Building Your Critical Thinking Skills

I believe critical thinking has become a lost art in a way across healthcare and that modern medicine has, in many aspects, become algorithm-driven. This can create challenges when the patient or situation at hand does not fully fit into the box as defined by the algorithm. The ability to think strategically through a challenge and then leverage solutions in today's dynamic healthcare climate can prove to be invaluable.

Here are a few tips that I have personally found highly effective at addressing complex challenges while using a critical thinking methodology.

1. Start with the end in mind and establish your goal.

2. Remember that you are only able to control your reaction; you cannot directly control the challenge itself in many circumstances.

3. Think outside the box, and don't put constraints on your brainstorming. This will allow your creative juices to flow, and you will not find yourself constrained by guidelines.

4. Engage your trusted network of advisors. You can find tremendous strengths when you band together and bring in different perspectives, expertise and thoughts.

5. Never make assumptions about a solution. Just because it didn't work in the past doesn't mean it can't work now. Timing is everything.

Critical thinking is a fundamental competency for healthcare leaders. It enables them to effectively navigate complexity, drive innovation and promote excellence in patient care. By fostering a culture of critical thinking within healthcare organizations and drawing from personal examples to illustrate its practical application, leaders can enhance their decision-making capabilities, drive positive outcomes and, ultimately, improve the delivery of healthcare services to those who need it most.

Forbes Business Council is the foremost growth and networking organization for business owners and leaders. Do I qualify?

• Editorial Standards
• Reprints & Permissions

Aurora Beacon-News | Problem-solving, critical thinking on display…

Share this:.

• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on X (Opens in new window)
• Click to print (Opens in new window)
• Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)

• Aurora Beacon-News Sports
• Aurora Beacon-News Opinion
• All Suburbs

Aurora Beacon-News

Aurora beacon-news | problem-solving, critical thinking on display at robotics event at aurora municipal airport.

Robots and the kids that built and operated them took center stage all day Friday at the Aurora Municipal Airport in Sugar Grove as 17 students 9 to 16 years old squared off in a competition during the first-ever Elite Robotics Camp, hosted by the U.S. Engineering League and the Wong Center for Education.

The Friday showcase was the culmination of a week-long camp program that included four days of workshops held at the Hampton Inn in Aurora.

A press release issued by the robotics camp said the 17 students involved spent time with a variety of national champions from multiple countries under Anthony Hsu of OFDL Robotics Lab Taiwan, “one of the world’s most accomplished coaches.”

Susan Mackafey, publicist for the Robotics group, said the event in Aurora came about as a result of the competitions that the Wong group hosts worldwide. William Wong, the founder of the Wong Center for Education, is the national organizer for the World Robot Olympiad, according to a press release.

“There were some students from Ukraine and Kazakhstan wondering if there would be any other kind of competitions as they wanted to hone their skills with one of the experts,” she said. “Will Wong ran with it, and has arranged the camp and the competition going on this Friday.”

Two of the camp members from Ukraine – Margo Proutorbva and Sofia Sova – were sponsored by the Wong Center for Education.

“It’s been an emotional trip for them,” Mackafey said, given the war going on in their homeland. “A lot of the kids are looking to train and do this as their careers and they love to compete. There are various levels of this competition that take place on a global scale.”

Local students were on hand as well, some of whom are being sponsored by the Wong Foundation, sources said.

Wong, of Naperville, was supervising Friday at the airport facility and said he started a robotics program with kids back in 2008.

“STEM has become a lot of the focus,” Wong said. “Even before I started, STEM was a big word. Engineering coding has always been there. It’s just how can we have kids do more of it. What’s happened is there are education companies like LEGO and other companies that have built robots that allow us to teach kids robotics in an easy fashion and we can create real world challenges off those robots so they literally are engineering, building and creating, designing and working with teams to have robots do tasks.”

Other than the collaborative learning, Wong said the biggest takeaways of the program “are problem-solving, figuring out how to make things work, a lot of trial-and-error, analysis and critical thinking.”

“There is teamwork, but the biggest is perseverance and working through the problems,” he said. “If the robot doesn’t work the first time or the second time or the 100th time, they are truly going through the engineering process – building, design and the whole cycle.”

Margo Proutorbva, 14, spoke about robotics and said through an interpreter she got interested in them two years ago.

“I’ve learned to assemble them,” she said. “The most difficult part of this has been when you assemble a robot with someone else – it’s way easier when you do it on your own. My robot can grab different objects, follow lines and turn in different ways.”

David Sharos is a freelance reporter for The Beacon-News.

More in Aurora Beacon-News

Aurora Beacon-News | Fox Valley gardeners itching to get back outside to ‘work the soil’

Aurora Beacon-News | Oswego approves video gambling at two more gas stations

Daily Southtown Sports | Baseball and local scores for the Southland, Aurora, Elgin, Naperville and Lake County

Aurora Beacon-News Sports | After winning nationals, Wisconsin-bound Patrick Hilby wants more for Aurora Central Catholic. ‘A prizefighter, man.’

Trending nationally.

• Companies behind cargo ship that destroyed Baltimore’s Key Bridge seek exemption from legal liability
• Powerball jackpot nears $1 billion after no one matches all 6 in latest drawing
• Sierra Nevada snowpack ‘unusually normal’ and reservoirs are brimming as winter season winds down
• Harvard Library removes human skin from binding of French book
• AT&T says a data breach leaked millions of customers’ information online. Were you affected?

• Open access
• Published: 26 March 2024

The effect of “typical case discussion and scenario simulation” on the critical thinking of midwifery students: Evidence from China

• Yuji Wang 1   na1 ,
• Yijuan Peng 1   na1 &
• Yan Huang 1  

BMC Medical Education volume  24 , Article number:  340 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

143 Accesses

Metrics details

Assessment ability lies at the core of midwives’ capacity to judge and treat clinical problems effectively. Influenced by the traditional teaching method of “teacher-led and content-based”, that teachers involve imparting a large amount of knowledge to students and students lack active thinking and active practice, the clinical assessment ability of midwifery students in China is mostly at a medium or low level. Improving clinical assessment ability of midwifery students, especially critical thinking, is highly important in practical midwifery education. Therefore, we implemented a new teaching program, “typical case discussion and scenario simulation”, in the Midwifery Health Assessment course. Guided by typical cases, students were organized to actively participate in typical case discussions and to promote active thinking and were encouraged to practice actively through scenario simulation. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the effect of this strategy on the critical thinking ability of midwifery students.

A total of 104 midwifery students in grades 16–19 at the West China School of Nursing, Sichuan University, were included as participants through convenience sampling. All the students completed the Midwifery Health Assessment course in the third year of university. Students in grades 16 and 17 were assigned to the control group, which received routine teaching in the Midwifery Health Assessment, while students in grades 18 and 19 were assigned to the experimental group, for which the “typical case discussion and scenario simulation” teaching mode was employed. The Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory-Chinese Version (CTDI-CV) and Midwifery Health Assessment Course Satisfaction Questionnaire were administered after the intervention.

After the intervention, the critical thinking ability of the experimental group was greater than that of the control group (284.81 ± 27.98 and 300.94 ± 31.67, p  = 0.008). Furthermore, the experimental group exhibited higher scores on the four dimensions of Open-Mindedness (40.56 ± 5.60 and 43.59 ± 4.90, p  = 0.005), Analyticity (42.83 ± 5.17 and 45.42 ± 5.72, p  = 0.020), Systematicity (38.79 ± 4.70 and 41.88 ± 6.11, p  = 0.006), and Critical Thinking Self-Confidence (41.35 ± 5.92 and 43.83 ± 5.89, p  = 0.039) than did the control group. The course satisfaction exhibited by the experimental group was greater than that exhibited by the control group (84.81 ± 8.49 and 90.19 ± 8.41, p  = 0.002).

The “typical case discussion and scenario simulation” class mode can improve the critical thinking ability of midwifery students and enhance their curriculum satisfaction. This approach carries a certain degree of promotional significance in medical education.

Typical case discussion and scenario simulation can improve midwifery students’ critical thinking ability.

Typical case discussion and scenario simulation can enhance students’ learning interest and guide students to learn independently.

Midwifery students were satisfied with the new teaching mode.

Peer Review reports

Maternal and neonatal health are important indicators to measure of the level of development of a country’s economy, culture and health care. The positive impact of quality midwifery education on maternal and newborn health is acknowledged in the publication framework for action strengthening quality midwifery education issued by the World Health Organization (WHO) [ 1 ]. Extensive evidence has shown that skilled midwifery care is crucial for reducing preventable maternal and neonatal mortality [ 2 , 3 , 4 ]. Clinical practice features high requirements for the clinical thinking ability of midwives, which refers to the process by which medical personnel analyze and integrate data with professional medical knowledge in the context of diagnosis and treatment as well as discover and solve problems through logical reasoning [ 5 ]. Critical thinking is a thoughtful process that is purposeful, disciplined, and self-directed and that aims to improve decisions and subsequent actions [ 6 ]. In 1986, the American Association of Colleges of Nursing formulated the “Higher Education Standards for Nursing Specialty”, which emphasize the fact that critical thinking is the primary core competence that nursing graduates should possess [ 7 ]. Many studies have shown that critical thinking can help nurses detect, analyze and solve problems creatively in clinical work and is a key factor in their ability to make correct clinical decisions [ 8 , 9 , 10 ].

However, the traditional teaching method used for midwifery students in China is “teacher-led and content-based”, and it involves efficiently and conveniently imparting a large amount of knowledge to students over a short period. Students have long failed to engage in active thinking and active practice, and the cultivation of critical thinking has long been ignored [ 5 ]. As a result, the critical thinking ability of midwifery students in China is mostly at a medium or low level [ 5 ]. Therefore, it is necessary to develop a new teaching mode to improve the critical thinking ability of midwifery students.

In 2014, Professor Xuexin Zhang of Fudan University, Shanghai, China, proposed a novel teaching method: the divided class mode. The basic idea of this approach is to divide the class time into two parts. The teachers explain the theoretical knowledge in the first lesson, and the students discuss that knowledge in the second lesson. This approach emphasizes the guiding role of teachers and encourages and empowers students to take responsibility for their studies [ 11 ]. Research has shown that the divided class mode can improve students’ enthusiasm and initiative as well as teaching effectiveness [ 12 ].

The problem-originated clinical medical curriculum mode of teaching was first established at McMaster University in Canada in 1965. This model is based on typical clinical cases and a problem-oriented heuristic teaching model [ 13 ]. The process of teaching used in this approach is guided by typical cases with the goal of helping students combine theoretical knowledge and practical skills. This approach can enhance the enthusiasm and initiative of students by establishing an active learning atmosphere. Students are encouraged to discuss and analyze typical cases to promote their ability to digest and absorb theoretical knowledge. Research has shown that the problem-originated clinical medical curriculum teaching mode can enhance students’ confidence and improve their autonomous learning and exploration ability. Scenario simulation teaching can provide students with real scenarios, allowing them to practice and apply their knowledge in a safe environment [ 14 ], which can effectively improve their knowledge and clinical skills and enhance their self-confidence [ 15 , 16 ].

Based on the teaching concept of divided classes, our research team established a new teaching model of “typical case discussion and scenario simulation”. Half of the class time is allocated for students to discuss typical cases and carry out scenario simulations to promote their active thinking and active practice. The Midwifery Health Assessment is the final professional core course that midwifery students must take in our school before clinical practice. All students must complete the course in Grade 3. Teaching this course is important for cultivating the critical thinking and clinical assessment ability of midwifery students. Therefore, our team adopted the new teaching mode of "typical case discussion and scenario simulation" in the teaching of this course. This study explored the teaching mode’s ability to improve the critical thinking ability of midwifery students.

Study design

The study employed a semiexperimental design.

Participants

A convenience sample of 104 third-year midwifery students who were enrolled in the Midwifery Health Assessment course volunteered to participate in this research at a large public university in Sichuan Province from February 2019 to June 2022 (grades 16 to 19). All the students completed the course in the third year of university. Students in grades 16 and 17 were assigned to the control group, which received the traditional teaching mode. Students in grades 18 and 19 were assigned to the experimental group, in which context the “typical case discussion and scenario simulation” class mode was used. The exclusion criteria for midwifery students were as follows: (1) dropped out of school during the study, (2) took continuous leave from school for more than two weeks, or (3) were unable to complete the questionnaire. The elimination criterion for midwifery students was that all the items were answered in the same way. No significant differences in students’ scores in their previous professional courses (Midwifery) were observed between the two groups. Textbooks, teachers, and teaching hours were the same for both groups.

Development of the “typical case discussion and scenario simulation” class mode

This study is based on the implementation of the new century higher education teaching reform project at Sichuan University. With the support of Sichuan University, we first established a “typical case discussion and scenario simulation” class mode team. The author of this paper was the head of the teaching reform project and served as a consultant, and the first author is responsible for supervising the implementation of the project. Second, the teaching team discussed and developed a standard process for the “typical case discussion and scenario simulation” class mode. Third, the entire team received intensive training in the standard process for the “typical case discussion and scenario simulation” class mode.

Implementation of the “typical case discussion and scenario simulation” class mode

Phase i (before class).

Before class, in accordance with the requirements for evaluating different periods of pregnancy, the teacher conceptualized typical cases and then discussed those cases with the teaching team and made any necessary modifications. After the completion of the discussion, the modified cases were released to the students through the class group. To ensure students’ interest, they were guided through the task of discovering and solving relevant problems using an autonomous learning approach.

Phase II (the first week)

Typical case discussion period. The Midwifery Health Assessment course was taught by 5 teachers and covered 5 health assessment periods, namely, the pregnancy preparation, pregnancy, delivery, puerperium and neonatal periods. The health assessment course focused on each period over 2 consecutive teaching weeks, and 2 lessons were taught per week. The first week focused on the discussion of typical cases. In the first lesson, teachers introduced typical cases, taught key knowledge or difficult evaluation content pertaining to the different periods, and explored the relevant knowledge framework. In the second lesson, teachers organized group discussions, case analyses and intergroup communications for the typical cases. They were also responsible for coordinating and encouraging students to participate actively in the discussion. After the discussion, teachers and students reviewed the definitions, treatments and evaluation points associated with the typical cases. The teachers also encouraged students to internalize knowledge by engaging in a process of summary and reflection to achieve the purpose of combining theory with practice.

Phase III (the second week)

Scenario simulation practice period. The second week focused on the scenario simulation practice period. In the first lesson, teachers reviewed the focus of assessment during the different periods and answered students’ questions. In the second lesson, students performed typical case assessment simulations in subgroups. After the simulation, the teachers commented on and summarized the students’ simulation evaluation and reviewed the evaluation points of typical cases to improve the students’ evaluation ability.

The organizational structure and implementation of the “typical case discussion and scenario simulation” class mode showed in Fig.  1 .

“Typical case discussion and scenario simulation” teaching mode diagram

A demographic questionnaire designed for this purpose was used to collect relevant information from participants, including age, gender, single-child status, family location, experience with typical case discussion or scenario simulation and scores in previous professional courses (Midwifery).

The Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory-Chinese Version (CTDI-CV) was developed by Peng et al. to evaluate the critical thinking ability of midwifery students [ 17 ]. The scale contains 70 items across a total of seven dimensions, namely, open-mindedness, truth-seeking, analytical ability, systematic ability, self-confidence in critical thinking, thirst for knowledge, and cognitive maturity. Each dimension is associated with 10 items, and each item is scored on a 6-point Likert scale, with 1 indicating “extremely agree” and 6 representing “extremely disagree”. The scale includes 30 positive items, which receive scores ranging from “extremely agree” to “extremely disagree” on a scale of 6 to 1, and 40 negative items, which receive scores ranging from “extremely agree” to “extremely disagree” on a scale of 1 to 6. A total score less than 210 indicates negative critical thinking ability, scores between 211 and 279 indicate an unclear meaning, scores of 280 or higher indicate positive critical thinking ability, and scores of 350 or higher indicate strong performance. The score range of each trait is 10–60 points; a score of 30 points or fewer indicates negative trait performance, scores between 31 and 39 points indicate that the trait meaning is incorrect, scores of 40 points or higher indicate positive trait performance, and scores of 50 points or higher indicate extremely positive trait performance. The Cronbach’s α coefficient of the scale was 0.90, thus indicating good content validity and structure. The higher an individual’s score on this measure is, the better that individual’s critical thinking ability.

The evaluation of teaching results was based on a questionnaire used to assess undergraduate course satisfaction, and the researchers deleted and modified items in the questionnaire to suit the context of the “typical case discussion and scenario simulation” teaching mode. Two rounds of discussion were held within the study group to form the final version of the Midwifery Health Assessment satisfaction questionnaire. The questionnaire evaluates the effect of teaching in terms of three dimensions, namely, curriculum content, curriculum teaching and curriculum evaluation. The questionnaire contains 21 items, each of which is scored on a 5-point Likert scale, with 1 indicating “extremely disagree” and 5 representing “extremely agree”. The higher the score is, the better the teaching effect.

Data collection and statistical analysis

We input the survey data into the “Wenjuanxing” platform ( https://www.wjx.cn/ ), which specializes in questionnaire services. At the beginning of the study, an electronic questionnaire was distributed to the students in the control group via student WeChat and QQ groups for data collection. After the intervention, an electronic questionnaire was distributed to the students in the experimental group for data collection in the final class of the Midwifery Health Assessment course. All the data were collected by the first author (Yuji Wang). When students had questions about the survey items, the first author (Yuji Wang) immediately explained the items in detail. To ensure the integrity of the questionnaire, the platform required all the items to be answered before submission.

Statistical Package for Social Sciences Version 26.0 (SPSS 26.0) software was used for data analysis. The Shapiro‒Wilk test was used to test the normality of the data. The measurement data are expressed as the mean ± standard deviation (X ± S), and an independent sample t test was used for comparisons among groups with a normal distribution. The data presented as the number of cases (%), and the chi-square test was performed. A P value < 0.05 indicated that a difference was statistically significant.

Ethical considerations

The study was funded by the New Century Teaching Reform Project of Sichuan University and passed the relevant ethical review. Oral informed consent was obtained from all individual participants in the study.

Characteristics of the participants

A total of 104 third-year midwifery students were enrolled from February 2019 to June 2022, and 98.1% (102/144) of these students completed the survey. Two invalid questionnaires that featured the same answers for each item were eliminated. A total of 100 participants were ultimately included in the analysis. Among the participants, 48 students were assigned to the control group, and 52 students were assigned to the experimental group. The age of the students ranged from 19 to 22 years, and the mean age of the control group was 20.50 years (SD = 0.61). The mean age of the experimental group was 20.63 years (SD = 0.65). Of the 100 students who participated in the study, the majority (96.0%) were women. No significant differences were observed between the intervention and control groups in terms of students’ demographic information (i.e., age, gender, status as an only child, or family location), experience with scenario simulation or typical case discussion and scores in previous Midwifery courses (Table  1 ).

Examining the differences in critical thinking ability between the two groups

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of the new teaching mode of “typical case discussion and scenario simulation” on improving the critical thinking ability of midwifery students. Independent sample t tests were used to examine the differences in critical thinking ability between the two groups (Table  2 ). The results showed that the total critical thinking scores obtained by the experimental group were greater than those obtained by the control group (284.81 ± 27.98 and 300.94 ± 31.67, p  = 0.008). The differences in four dimensions (Open-Mindedness (40.56 ± 5.60 and 43.59 ± 4.90, p  = 0.005), Analyticity (42.83 ± 5.17 and 45.42 ± 5.72, p  = 0.020), Systematicity (38.79 ± 4.70 and 41.88 ± 6.11, p  = 0.006), and Critical Thinking Self-Confidence (41.35 ± 5.92 and 43.83 ± 5.89, p  = 0.039)) were statistically significant.

Examining the differences in curriculum satisfaction between the two groups

To evaluate the effect of the new teaching mode of “the typical case discussion and scenario simulation” on the course satisfaction of midwifery students. Independent sample t tests were used to examine the differences in course satisfaction between the two groups (Table  3 ). The results showed that the curriculum satisfaction of the experimental group was greater than that of the control group (84.81 ± 8.49 and 90.19 ± 8.41, p  = 0.002). Independent sample t tests were used to examine the differences in the three dimensions of curriculum satisfaction between the two groups (Table  3 ). The results showed that the average scores of the intervention group on the three dimensions were significantly greater than those of the control group (curricular content: 20.83 ± 1.96 and 22.17 ± 2.23, p  = 0.002; curriculum teaching: 34.16 ± 3.89 and 36.59 ± 3.66, p  = 0.002; curriculum evaluation: 29.81 ± 3.27 and 31.42 ± 3.19, p  = 0.015).

Midwifery is practical and intensive work. To ensure maternal and child safety, midwives must make decisions and take action quickly. Therefore, midwives should have both critical thinking ability and clinical decision-making ability [ 18 ]. In addition, the Australian Nursing and Midwifery Accreditation Council (ANMAC) regulates the educational requirements for the programs required for registration as a midwife. According to these standards, education providers must incorporate learning activities into curricula to encourage the development and application of critical thinking and reflective practice [ 19 ]. Therefore, the challenge of cultivating the critical thinking ability of midwifery students is an urgent problem that must be solved. However, influenced by the traditional teaching method of “teacher-led and content-based”, the critical thinking ability of midwifery students in China is mostly at a medium or low level. In order to improve the critical thinking ability of midwifery students. Our research team has established a new teaching model, the “typical case discussion and scenario simulation” class model. And applied to the midwifery core curriculum Midwifery Health Assessment. This study aimed to investigate the implementation of a novel systematic and structured teaching model for midwifery students and to provide evidence regarding how to improve the critical thinking ability of midwives.

The results showed that the total CTDI-CV score obtained for the experimental group was greater than that obtained for the control group. These findings indicate that the “typical case discussion and scenario simulation” class mode had a positive effect on the cultivation of students’ critical thinking ability, a conclusion which is similar to the findings of Holdsworth et al. [ 20 ], Lapkin et al. [ 21 ] and Demirören M et al. [ 22 ]. We indicate the following reasons that may explain these results.The core aim of the typical case discussion teaching mode is to raise questions based on typical clinical cases and to provide heuristic teaching to students [ 23 ]. This approach emphasizes asking questions based on specific clinical cases, which enables students to engage in targeted learning. Moreover, scenario simulation allows students to attain certain inner experiences and emotions and actively participate in curriculum practice, which can enhance their ability to remember and understand knowledge [ 24 ]. Through the divided class mode, half of the class time was divided into the students. This method emphasizes the guiding role of teachers and encourages and empowers students to assume learning responsibilities. In addition, students can think, communicate and discuss actively [ 22 , 23 ]. Furthermore, this approach created opportunities for students to analyze and consider problems independently and give students sufficient time to internalize and absorb knowledge and deepen their understanding of relevant knowledge, which can increase their confidence in their ability to address such problems and improve their critical thinking ability [ 12 , 25 , 26 ].

In addition, the results showed that except for Truth-Seeking and Systematicity, the other five dimensions were all positive. These findings are similar to the results reported by Atakro et al.. and Sun et al. [ 27 , 28 ]. Through the intervention, the Systematicity scores became positive, suggesting that the new teaching mode can help students deal with problems in an organized and purposeful way. However, Truth-Seeking still did not become positive; this notion focuses on intellectual honesty, i.e., the disposition to be courageous when asking questions and to be honest and objective in the pursuit of knowledge even when the topics under investigation do not support one’s self-interest [ 29 ]. Studies have shown that this factor is related to the traditional teaching mode used [ 30 ]. The traditional teaching mode focuses on knowledge infusion, helps students remember the greatest possible amount of knowledge in a short time, and does not focus on guiding students to seek knowledge with sincerity and objectivity. Therefore, in future educational practice, we should focus on cultivating students’ ability to seek truth and engage in systematization.

Student evaluative feedback is an important way to test the effectiveness teaching mode. Therefore, understanding students’ evaluations of the effects of classroom teaching is key to promoting teaching reform and improving teaching quality. Therefore, we distributed a satisfaction questionnaire pertaining to the midwifery health assessment curriculum, which was based on the “typical case discussion and scenario simulation” class mode, with the goal of investigating curriculum satisfaction in terms of three dimensions (curriculum content, curriculum teaching and curriculum evaluation). The results showed that the satisfaction scores for each dimension increased significantly. This finding suggests that the new teaching method can enrich the teaching content, diversify the teaching mode and improve students’ curriculum evaluations.

In summary, the “typical case discussion and scenario simulation” class mode focuses on typical cases as its main content. Students’ understanding of this content is deepened through group discussion and scenario simulation. The subjectivity of students in curriculum learning should be accounted for. Students can be encouraged to detect, analyze and solve problems with the goal of improving their critical thinking ability. Moreover, this approach can also enhance curriculum satisfaction. It is recommended that these tools should be used continuously in future curriculum teaching.

This study has several limitations. First, the representativeness of the sample may be limited since the participants were recruited from specific universities in China. Second, we used historical controls, which are less effective than simultaneous controlled trials. Third, online self-report surveys are susceptible to response biases, although we included quality control measurements in the process of data collection. Fourth, we did not use the same critical thinking instrument, CTDI-CV, to investigate the critical thinking of the students in the experimental group or the control group before intervention but used professional course grades from the Midwifery for substitution comparison. This may not be a sufficient substitute. However, these comparisons could be helpful since those grades included some sort of evaluation of critical thinking. In light of these limitations, future multicenter simultaneous controlled studies should be conducted. Nonetheless, this study also has several strengths. First, no adjustment of teachers or change in learning materials occurred since the start of the midwifery health assessment, thus ensuring that the experimental and control groups featured the same teaching materials, teachers and teaching hours. In addition, to ensure the quality of the research, the first author of this paper participated in the entirety of the course teaching.

The “typical case discussion and scenario simulation” class mode can improve the critical thinking of midwifery students, which is helpful for ensuring maternal and child safety. Students are highly satisfied with the new teaching mode, and this approach has a certain degree of promotional significance. However, this approach also entails higher requirements for both teachers and students.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

World Health Organisation, Strengthening quality midwifery education for Universal Health Coverage2030,2019, https://www.who.int/maternal_child_adolescent/topics/quality-of-care/midwifery/strengthening-midwifery-education/en/ (accessed 21.01.20).

Akombi BJ, Renzaho AM. Perinatal mortality in Sub-Saharan Africa: a meta-analysis of demographic and health surveys. Ann Glob Health. 2019;85(1):106.

Article   Google Scholar  

Campbell OM, Graham WJ. Strategies for reducing maternal mortality: getting on with what works. Lancet. 2006;368(9543):1284–99.

Gage AD, Carnes F, Blossom J, Aluvaala J, Amatya A, Mahat K, Malata A, Roder-DeWan S, Twum-Danso N, Yahya T, et al. In low- and middle-income countries, is delivery in high-quality obstetric facilities geographically feasible? Health Aff (Millwood). 2019;38(9):1576–84.

Xing C, Zhou Y, Li M, Wu Q, Zhou Q, Wang Q, Liu X. The effects of CPBL + SBAR teaching mode among the nursing students. Nurse Educ Today. 2021;100:104828.

Carter AG, Creedy DK, Sidebotham M. Critical thinking evaluation in reflective writing: development and testing of Carter assessment of critical thinking in midwifery (Reflection). Midwifery. 2017;54:73–80.

Yeh SL, Lin CT, Wang LH, Lin CC, Ma CT, Han CY. The Outcomes of an Interprofessional simulation program for new graduate nurses. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(21):13839.

Chang MJ, Chang YJ, Kuo SH, Yang YH, Chou FH. Relationships between critical thinking ability and nursing competence in clinical nurses. J Clin Nurs. 2011;20(21–22):3224–32.

Shoulders B, Follett C, Eason J. Enhancing critical thinking in clinical practice: implications for critical and acute care nurses. Dimens Crit Care Nurs. 2014;33(4):207–14.

Jalalpour H, Jahani S, Asadizaker M, Sharhani A, Heybar H. The impact of critical thinking training using critical thinking cards on clinical decision-making of CCU nurses. J Family Med Prim Care. 2021;10(10):3650–6.

Xuexin Z. PAD class: a new attempt in university teaching reform. Fudan Educ Forum. 2014;12(5):5–10 [in Chinese].

Google Scholar  

Zhai J, Dai L, Peng C, Dong B, Jia Y, Yang C. Application of the presentation-assimilation-discussion class in oral pathology teaching. J Dent Educ. 2022;86(1):4–11.

Colliver JA. Effectiveness of problem-based learning curricula: research and theory. Acad Med. 2000;75(3):259–66.

Bryant K, Aebersold ML, Jeffries PR, Kardong-Edgren S. Innovations in simulation: nursing leaders’ exchange of best practices. Clin Simul Nurs. 2020;41:33-40.e31.

Cicero MX, Whitfill T, Walsh B, Diaz MC, Arteaga G, Scherzer DJ, Goldberg S, Madhok M, Bowen A, Paesano G, et al. 60 seconds to survival: a multisite study of a screen-based simulation to improve prehospital providers disaster triage skills. AEM Educ Train. 2018;2(2):100–6.

Lee J, Lee H, Kim S, Choi M, Ko IS, Bae J, Kim SH. Debriefing methods and learning outcomes in simulation nursing education: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Nurse Educ Today. 2020;87:104345.

Peng G, Wang J, Chen M, Chen H, Bai S, Li J, Li Y, Cai J, Wang L. Yin Validity and reliability of the Chinese critical thinking disposition inventory Chin. J Nurs. 2004;39(09):7–10 [in Chinese].

Papathanasiou IV, Kleisiaris CF, Fradelos EC, Kakou K, Kourkouta L. Critical thinking: the development of an essential skill for nursing students. Acta Inform Med. 2014;22(4):283–6.

Australian Nursing and Midwifery Accreditation Council Midwife accreditation standards, 2014 ANMAC, Canberra. 2014. https://anmac.org.au/document/midwife-accreditation-standards-2014 .

Holdsworth C, Skinner EH, Delany CM. Using simulation pedagogy to teach clinical education skills: a randomized trial. Physiother Theory Pract. 2016;32(4):284–95.

Lapkin S, Fernandez R, Levett-Jones T, Bellchambers H. The effectiveness of using human patient simulation manikins in the teaching of clinical reasoning skills to undergraduate nursing students: a systematic review. JBI Libr Syst Rev. 2010;8(16):661–94.

Demirören M, Turan S, Öztuna D. Medical students’ self-efficacy in problem-based learning and its relationship with self-regulated learning. Med Educ Online. 2016;21:30049.

Spaulding WB, Neufeld VR. Regionalization of medical education at McMaster University. Br Med J. 1973;3(5871):95–8.

Rossler KL, Kimble LP. Capturing readiness to learn and collaboration as explored with an interprofessional simulation scenario: A mixed-methods research study. Nurse Educ Today. 2016;36:348–53.

Yang YL, Luo L, Qian Y, Yang F. Cultivation of undergraduates’ self-regulated learning ability in medical genetics based on PAD class. Yi Chuan. 2020;42(11):1133–9.

Felton A, Wright N. Simulation in mental health nurse education: the development, implementation and evaluation of an educational innovation. Nurse Educ Pract. 2017;26:46–52.

Atakro CA, Armah E, Menlah A, Garti I, Addo SB, Adatara P, Boni GS. Clinical placement experiences by undergraduate nursing students in selected teaching hospitals in Ghana. BMC Nurs. 2019;18:1.

Sun Y, Yin Y, Wang J, Ding Z, Wang D, Zhang Y, Zhang J, Wang Y. Critical thinking abilities among newly graduated nurses: a cross-sectional survey study in China. Nurs Open. 2023;10(3):1383–92.

Wangensteen S, Johansson IS, Björkström ME, Nordström G. Critical thinking dispositions among newly graduated nurses. J Adv Nurs. 2010;66(10):2170–81.

Salsali M, Tajvidi M, Ghiyasvandian S. Critical thinking dispositions of nursing students in Asian and non-Asian countries: a literature review. Glob J Health Sci. 2013;5(6):172–8.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

The study was supported by Sichuan University’s New Century Education and Teaching Reform Project (SCU9316).

Author information

Yuji Wang and Yijuan Peng are co-first authors.

Authors and Affiliations

Department of Nursing, West China Second University Hospital, Sichuan University/West China School of Nursing, Sichuan University/Key Laboratory of Birth Defects and Related Diseases of Women and Children (Sichuan University), No. 20 Third Section, Renmin South Road, Chengdu, Sichuan Province, 610041, China

Yuji Wang, Yijuan Peng & Yan Huang

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by Yuji Wang, Yijuan Peng and Yan Huang. The first draft of the manuscript were written by Yuji Wang and Yijuan Peng, and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yan Huang .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

This study was supported by Sichuan University. And it was approved by the Ethics Review Committee of West China School of Nursing, Sichuan University. As it is a teaching research with no harm to samples, we only obtained oral informed consents from the participants including teachers and midwifery students and it was approved by the Ethics Review Committee of West China School of Nursing, Sichuan University(approval number 2021220). We comfirm that all methods were performed in accordance with the relevant guidelines and regulations in Ethics Approval and Consent to participate in Declarations.

Consent for publication

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Wang, Y., Peng, Y. & Huang, Y. The effect of “typical case discussion and scenario simulation” on the critical thinking of midwifery students: Evidence from China. BMC Med Educ 24 , 340 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-05127-5

Download citation

Received : 19 November 2022

Accepted : 02 February 2024

Published : 26 March 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-05127-5

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Medical education
• Critical thinking
• Nurse midwives

BMC Medical Education

ISSN: 1472-6920

• Submission enquiries: [email protected]
• General enquiries: [email protected]

• The Star ePaper
• Subscriptions
• Manage Profile
• Change Password
• Manage Logins
• Manage Subscription
• Transaction History
• Manage Billing Info
• Manage For You
• Manage Bookmarks
• Package & Pricing

Honing critical thinking skills in the classroom

Monday, 01 Apr 2024

Related News

Prioritise morals this Ramadan and don’t slander, says Education Minister

Education ministry plans to expand k9, k11 schools, senate hears, education ministry has already filled 20,000 teaching positions to address shortages, says fadhlina.

THERE is no doubt that the key to solving a large number of this country’s issues is access to high-quality education.

Building strong character traits and emphasising the cultivation of moral principles and virtues should be the main goals of the educational system. Therefore, rather than overwhelming children with too much theory, we need to provide more practical learning tools.

Subscribe to win RM50 Touch 'n Go e-Voucher! More Info

Monthly plan.

RM13.90/month

Annual Plan

RM12.33/month

Billed as RM148.00/year

For new subscribers only

Tags / Keywords: education , teaching , classroom , critical thinking

Found a mistake in this article?

Report it to us.

Thank you for your report!

Fun for everyone

Next in letters.

Trending in Opinion

Air pollutant index, highest api readings, select state and location to view the latest api reading.

• Select Location

Source: Department of Environment, Malaysia

Others Also Read

Best viewed on Chrome browsers.

We would love to keep you posted on the latest promotion. Kindly fill the form below

Thank you for downloading.

We hope you enjoy this feature!

Developmental Debate League launched at Luthuli Combined School

Capricorn District Mayor Mamedupi Teffo said the launch of the much-anticipated school debating competition is an event that promises to ignite the flames of critical thinking and dialogue on various topics.

POLOKWANE – The Developmental Debate League has been launched at Luthuli Combined School recently and is the brainchild of Kedibone Lebea Footprints.

The league aims to develop learners through debate as according to Lebea, charity begins at home.

“Kedibone Lebea Footprints decided to start with the schools in Seshego first, but that does not only mean that the Developmental Debate League will focus only on Seshego. We will later branch out into other areas. Kedibone Footprints is a first of its kind and will become an annual event where ultimately we will be able to take many children from previously disadvantaged backgrounds to institutions of higher learning.

“We commend Kedibone Footprints for putting together such a platform for our learners to sharpen their research and advocacy skills. This competition is in line with debating competitions that we convene annually on road safety and disaster management to extend learning beyond the classroom, and involves schools in our mission to find lasting solutions to disaster risks and road safety. We do not doubt that this competition will empower our learners to navigate the complexities of the modern age. We hope that the topics for debate will center around finding solutions to challenges that are faced by young people today, the key being inequality, poverty, unemployment, crime, and gender-based violence,” said Teffo.

She said with schools being the catalysts for social change, the programme becomes relevant in instilling and educating young people on active citizenry.

“We commend our teachers for embracing the project and we urge you to please, mentor, and guide these learners in this journey and help them prepare. Learners must seize this opportunity with courage and passion. The pillars of this competition are teamwork and collaboration. Working in groups will certainly enhance your public speaking, problem-solving, and leadership skills.”

PEMPS' head boy believes in a good foundation

Video: traffic congestion to ease as easter weekend ends, related articles.

PEMPS’ head boy believes in a good foundation

Eagle’s Nest chess players impress at tournament

PHS kroon Mnr. en Mej. PHS in Casino Nights-styl

Northern Muslim School crowned Dept’s best performing school

Anti-Critical-Race-Theory Laws Are Slowing Down. Here Are 3 Things to Know

• Share article

Is it the beginning of the end of “anti-critical race theory” legislation?

Starting in 2021, state lawmakers introduced a wave of such proposals, many modeled off a 2020 executive order signed by then-President Trump forbidding federal employees from receiving training on a number of “divisive concepts,” including the idea that any race was inherently superior to another, or that individuals should bear guilt for things that happened in the past. Some of these bills explicitly name-checked critical race theory—an academic framework for analyzing structural racism in law and policy.

Education Week recently updated its ongoing tracker of these laws , and concluded the pace of newly introduced legislation has slowed. The organization has counted just 10 bills that would affect K-12 education so far in 2024, of which two have passed.

Analysts from the National Conference of State Legislatures who track trends in state-level proposals said their data generally matched EdWeek’s, and that momentum on this topic seems to have flagged.

But other issues around what schools can teach or discuss have replaced the interest in “divisive concepts” and critical race theory, including “parents’ rights” bills allowing parents to withdraw their children from lessons they object to; bills that specifically take aim at gender identity or students’ use of pronouns; and bills that aim to restrict library materials and other curriculum content. (EdWeek’s bill tracker does not look at those topics.)

Some analysts see the slowdown on critical race theory legislation as a sign of fatigue with this element of the ongoing battle over who should shape curriculum.

“There’s only 50 states and only a subset that are sort of safe Republican ones where politicians can vote for these without worrying about being held politically accountable, so it can’t keep going forever,” noted Jeffrey Henig, a professor of political science and education at Teachers College, Columbia University. “You can only signal-call so long, so it’s not that surprising that once people have done their pass and proven themselves to the true believers in their largely solid, gerrymandered, state-legislated districts, things would run out of steam in some way.”

It’s also possible, he said, that the wave of headlines about book restrictions and attacks on librarians have brought some of these issues home locally in ways that have made some constituents uncomfortable.

Here are three things to know about where states stand on these anti-critical race theory laws.

1. Action seems concentrated in a handful of states

So far, no state that had not already considered such a proposal in prior years has seen a lawmaker introduce one in the 2024 legislative cycle. Overall, 44 states have considered legislation or regulations to curb how issues of race and gender can be taught since 2021, and 18 of them have enacted policy.

Most of the 2024 legislation has been introduced in states where previous proposals have failed to pass. Missouri lawmakers, for example, have introduced four bills this year that would variously prohibit the teaching of certain “divisive concepts” related to gender and race, prohibit the teaching of The New York Times’ 1619 Project—an exploration of slavery’s role in shaping American policy—and prohibit teachers from requiring students to create projects that compel students to lobby or engage in activism on specific policies or social issues, among other things. The state had some 20 bills on these same topics in 2023, none of which passed.

Two new laws have passed so far in 2024, in Alabama and Utah—expanding restrictions those states already had on the books (see No. 3, below).

2. Already-passed laws are here to stay—for now

The 2024 session also brought an early test of these laws’ durability.

In New Hampshire, Democrats attempted to strike statutory language added as part of a 2021 budget law that forbids teachers from teaching about gender and race in specific ways. But on March 14, lawmakers voted 192-183, largely along party lines, to indefinitely postpone the bill, effectively killing it.

Attempts to undo the laws could come through the courts. Lawsuits from various combinations of parents, teachers, students, teachers’ unions, and civil rights organizations have been filed in at least six states— Arizona , Arkansas, Florida, Oklahoma , New Hampshire, and Tennessee. The lawsuits generally allege that the laws are impermissibly vague and violate students’ and teachers’ rights to free speech or due process.

The latest lawsuit, filed just this week by two students and their teacher in Little Rock, Ark., takes aim at that state’s executive order and legislation that forbid “teaching that would indoctrinate students with ideologies,” including critical race theory. State officials had cited those rules when determining that the newly developed AP African American Studies course would not count for credit .

3. A few new laws suggest a pivot toward targeting DEI programs

Two newer laws signed this year suggest that diversity, equity, and inclusion, or DEI, programs could be the latest target.

These anti-DEI laws gained traction after the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling last year that bans affirmative action in college admissions, and appear to be aimed mainly at higher education institutions. But several would also prohibit DEI efforts in K-12 schools and districts.

Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey signed a law that prohibits public universities and schools from sponsoring any diversity, equity, and inclusion program or maintaining a DEI office, or from requiring students or faculty to attend training or affirm the “divisive concepts” the state already had forbidden from teaching.

Similarly, Utah Gov. Spencer Cox in January signed a law aimed mainly at public colleges and universities but also covers other state institutions, including public schools. It prohibits districts from training staff or students on “discriminatory practices,” including any that rely on personal identity characteristics as a marker of moral character, promote resentment, or assert that an individual is inherently privileged or oppressed, among other things. And it prohibits districts from establishing an office, division, or employee who coordinates activities related to those practices.

Here, too, Henig sees the possibility of overreach.

“People’s attitudes about Harvard and Columbia and Penn as these elite, distanced institutions are different if it starts playing out at Michigan State and your local community college,” he said. “I think there’s some of that same friction when it comes closer to home.”

Sign Up for EdWeek Update

Edweek top school jobs.

Sign Up & Sign In

• Weird But True
• Sex & Relationships
• Viral Trends
• Human Interest
• Fashion & Beauty
• Food & Drink

trending now in Lifestyle

We took Ozempic thinking we’d lose weight — we didn’t, and...

I watched a video about solo travel safety — and it saved me

I'm an airline 'nepo baby' — here's what it's like to travel...

Content creator stunned to learn $15 Goodwill dress has...

Van-lifers reveal the most difficult challenges of roving...

Gen Zers are 'ghosting' employers — they're not even showing up...

Dear Abby: Our neighbors keep on copying whatever we do

Women are sharing the reasons they decided not to have children

Playboy model claps back at moms’ response to ‘inappropriate’ outfit she wore to disney.

• View Author Archive
• Follow on Twitter
• Get author RSS feed

Thanks for contacting us. We've received your submission.

This model is too Ep-hot for Disney, critics say.

Janaina Prazeres, a 35-year-old Brazillian model featured on the cover of Playboy Norway a few months ago, recently visited an unspecified Disney amusement park, where her look turned heads — though not in the way she intended.

The influencer modeled her ensemble on her Instagram story for her 60,000-plus followers .

Despite fully covering up with a long-sleeved sweater and denim-inspired leggings — much more clothing than her usual scantily-clad attire — online trolls are saying her look was too form-fitting for a family theme park, The Daily Star reported.  

“This influencer needs to understand that there is a time and place for everything. Disney is not the place to wear such sensual clothes,” one person wrote. 

“As a parent, I feel uncomfortable seeing influencers wear such revealing clothes at Disney. I want my children to enjoy the experience without being exposed to it,” another said. 

The model, deemed the “Perfect Woman” by the Norwegian version of the popular men’s magazine, is nonplussed about what other people have to say. 

“I wear what makes me feel good and confident. I’m not here to please everyone. If they don’t like it, that’s their problem.”

The Post has reached out to Prazeres for further comment.

She’s not the only Disney visitor who has faced attire backlash.

In 2022, a California influencer named Laci Kay Somers claimed that she was shamed by Disneyland staff for wearing a crop top and leggings to the House of Mouse in Anaheim. 

Also in 2022, a makeup influencer named Christie X claimed Disney staff forced her to put a T-shirt over a tank top with spaghetti straps. 

Share this article:

Advertisement

• Our Mission

6 Ways to Improve Students’ Math Literacy

Middle and high school math teachers can use these ideas to build students’ reading comprehension and reasoning skills using real tasks like budgeting.

While a lot has changed in math instruction over the years, the idea that students need to be math literate has been constant. Being math literate means much more than calculations. Life events such as buying a home, paying taxes, or even estimating how much you’ll spend on groceries require modeling and reasoning skills.

State and district tests often include problems that are real-world based, and that means that students will need to use reading comprehension, along with math skills, in order to show proficiency. This can be particularly difficult for students with learning disabilities, those who have had interrupted schooling, and/or emergent multilingual learners. It’s imperative that math teachers develop a tool kit to help students decipher the math moves needed for such problems.

Through my dissertation research and my many years of teaching mathematics with great math teachers, I have found simple ways to help students become more math literate. Here are some practical ideas on how teachers can help students become math literate, from the perspective of Algebra 1 teachers from various backgrounds.

6 Ways to Help Students Gain Math Literacy

1. Use sentence frames. Sentence frames are a simple way to help students of all backgrounds learn how to state their answers and ask any questions they have about a word problem. Teachers can post sentence frames on a board or even on students’ desks for easy access. Here are some examples:

• “I agree with this answer because ____.”
• “I believe the answer is ____ because ____.”
• “I showed my work by ____.”
• “One strategy that may be helpful is ____ because ____.”

2. Bring back the highlighter. Many Algebra 1 teachers agree that the highlighter is a great way to help emphasize learning in mathematics. The highlighter gives students control of the parts of the problem that they find important. A good suggestion is to demonstrate the use of highlighting key words and have highlighters available for every task and assessment. It also helps students see the patterns in math problems.

3. Speak “algebra.” Students in all math classes need to be speaking math in their classes. It’s important to use the appropriate vocabulary words that pertain to the lesson. This is particularly important as students see formal math language in textbooks and standardized tests. Yes, breaking down the vocabulary for comprehension is a great tactic, but bringing it back to the standard math vocabulary is how we make connections.

4. Use word walls. The word wall was an important part of many math classrooms a few decades ago. They made sure that students saw math words that related to a particular topic being taught. For example, when introducing a polynomial unit, teachers would often put words such as monomial , trinomial , and polynomial on the word wall.

Many Algebra 1 teachers feel that having the visual is most important as students learn about new topics. Students need visual reminders. One suggestion was for students to “own” the word wall by passing out the words in advance and having them hang up each word as it was introduced throughout the unit. Students can make the words artsy and creative in an effort to personalize the resource.

5. Provide foldables or graphic organizers. The use of foldables in the math classroom is a game changer for many students, especially in the post-pandemic era. These low-tech student- or teacher-made “books” constructed out of folded paper provide learners with a handy place to write down the main concepts introduced in a unit. Students have been so used to math technology that there is a need to bring them back to tactile methods.

Providing a foldable to sum up or even begin a unit is a cost-effective method and allows students to use paper and scissors in a creative way to refer to math vocabulary and common word problems. You can find lots of free ideas for foldables online , and there are sites that sell them as well. Some of the designs are very creative and bring a bit of visual art into your math classroom.

6. Have students write relevant word problems. Every time there’s a new curriculum or textbook, word problems get a refresher to connect with the current generation, but there’s no reason why students can’t make up their own. Allow them to write their own word problems, using the context you’re teaching. Not only will students own their own learning, but also they will be able to use critical thinking skills to combine math, vocabulary, and everyday life to further their understanding.

Making the math classroom become a laboratory of reading and math enables students to become owners of the learning process. Students can be math literate, which will allow teachers to facilitate learning processes with all types of word problems, and consequently improve math scores and prepare students for the world of infusing mathematics into their everyday lives.

Missouri teen beaten in viral video is out of ICU but has limited speech and trouble walking on her own, attorney says

A Missouri teenager who was brutally beaten in what officials called a "deranged display of violence" by another teen is out of the intensive care unit but has limited speech and trouble walking on her own, an attorney for the family said.

Kaylee Gain has been hospitalized since a March 8 fight near Hazelwood East High School in St. Louis County that was captured in a viral social media video.

The footage shows several people brawling in the street near the intersection of Norgate and Claudine drives, the St. Louis County Police Department said in a  March 11 Facebook post .

One person is seen repeatedly punching Gain and slamming her head to the ground. A 15-year-old girl was arrested on assault charges a day after the fight, authorities said.

Police said the victim was found "suffering a severe head injury" and was taken to the hospital in critical condition.

In an update Friday, an attorney for Gain's family said she was out of the intensive care unit and "has been able to engage in limited verbal conversations."

"Kaylee also recently began speech therapy, and has gone on a few short walks with the assistance of hospital staff as she is still unable to ambulate on her own," attorney Bryan Kaemmerer said. "However, Kaylee does not have any recollection of the altercation that led to her hospitalization."

Kaemmerer addressed several social media rumors about the altercation, denying reports that Gain's mother drove her to the location of the fight.

He said Gain's mother was at work and was driven to the hospital by a co-worker after police informed her of what happened.

The attorney, however, did confirm reports that Gain had been involved in a fight on March 7 with a different teenager. Both girls were suspended after that incident, Kaemmerer said.

He said it was unclear whether the March 8 brawl was retaliation.

Gain's parents are calling for the 15-year-old to be tried as an adult. Kaemmerer said in his statement that "the family believes trying the accused as an adult is the most appropriate way to provide the justice that Kaylee deserves."

Authorities have not said if the 15-year-old would be tried as an adult.

St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney Wesley Bell  said  in a post on X that the fight was "sickening" and the video was "difficult to watch."

Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey called the actions in the video a "deranged display of violence that must be punished to the full extent of the law."

On Thursday, police announced that eight more teenagers were referred to St. Louis County Family Court for consideration of assault charges, NBC affiliate KSDK of St. Louis reported. They include a 17-year-old girl, a 17-year-old boy, two 16-year-old girls, three 16-year-old boys, and one 14-year-old girl. None of the teens have been taken into custody.

Minyvonne Burke is a senior breaking news reporter for NBC News.