problems caused by lack of critical thinking

Lack of Critical Thinking: 14 Reasons Why Do We Lack

Critical thinking is the ability to analyze and evaluate information objectively and rationally. It is essential for making informed decisions and solving problems. However, many people lack this skill and rely on biases, emotions, or external influences. We hope that by reading this post, you have gained some insights into your own critical thinking abilities and how to improve them. Remember, critical thinking is not something you are born with or without; it is something you can learn and develop with time and effort.

Sanju Pradeepa

Critical thinking is the ability to analyze and evaluate information objectively and rationally. It is a skill that can help us make better decisions, solve problems, and avoid biases and fallacies. However, many of us lack critical thinking skills or do not use them effectively. In this blog post, we will explore some of the reasons why we lack of critical thinking and how we can improve it.

Table of Contents

Common barriers to critical thinking.

Critical thinking is a fundamental life skill that most people struggle with. It involves an individual’s ability to think logically and critically about different situations. Unfortunately, several common barriers can prevent people from being able to think critically and apply their skills effectively.

First, many people develop cognitive biases over time due to years of repeating the same behaviors and failing to step outside their comfort zone. This can prevent them from being able to look at problems objectively and make decisions that benefit them in the long run.

Second, people often don’t recognize their limitations and may be too quick to make decisions without considering potential consequences or other perspectives. And finally, a lack of self-awareness can lead individuals to draw invalid conclusions or take unnecessary risks to avoid failure.

These are only a few of the potential barriers that people face when it comes to critical thinking. The good news is that with the right tools, anyone can learn how to think more critically and make better decisions in any situation.

Reasons We Lack of Critical Thinking

Critical thinking is the ability to analyze and evaluate information objectively and rationally. It helps us to make better decisions and solve problems effectively. However, many people lack critical thinking skills for various reasons, such as cognitive biases, emotional influences, social pressures, lack of education, or misinformation. These factors can impair our judgment and prevent us from seeing the truth clearly.

1. Lack of Fundamental Skills

It’s easy to blame our lack of critical thinking on external factors, but the reality is that we may also lack the fundamental skills, like reading comprehension and problem-solving, that is required to engage in practical and profound thinking.

We all know somebody who can put together an impressive argument using facts but then has difficulty articulating how these facts work together in a wider context.

Tip- These skills can be developed through practice and education. Improving your reading comprehension and problem-solving abilities are important steps on the road to becoming a better critical thinker. 

2. Too Quick to Accept Mediocrity

It’s too easy to accept the status quo of mediocrity. We live in a world that rewards instant gratification, which doesn’t lend itself to engaging in deep thought or taking the time to think critically.

We have become accustomed to quick fixes and simple solutions instead of taking a few extra moments to contemplate the problems we face and deduce better solutions.

Think of it this way: we are presented with a “comfortable” path that is easy to follow but is not necessarily the best solution. Our default setting is to take this path and not look for any alternatives.

Unfortunately, this leads us down a road that does not require us to think deeply about the problem, so we never really get to the root cause.

As a result, we accept failure more readily than success. We do not examine our failures objectively and try to learn from them; instead, we just shrug off any failures as mediocre outcomes.

After all, it was easy and comfortable and move on without addressing or resolving the issue at hand.

3. Fear of the Unknown

Fear of the unknown is a big factor when it comes to our lack of critical thinking. We often don’t challenge our beliefs and assumptions because it’s uncomfortable or we don’t want to admit we were wrong.

That’s why, when presented with something we don’t agree with or understand, rather than challenging it, we tend to stick with what feels safe and familiar.

Tip- So how can we overcome this fear of the unknown?

• Reframe the Conversation: This will help us become more open-minded instead of automatically dismissing anything that doesn’t fit in with our own beliefs and experiences.
• Push Beyond Your Comfort Zone : By doing this, you’ll be questioning your assumptions and engaging in dialog with people who have different opinions or approaches.

By taking these steps, we can start to move beyond our fear of the unknown and begin critically thinking about the world around us. 

4. Confirmation Bias

Have you ever heard of confirmation bias? It’s the tendency to look for, focus on, and interpret information that confirms your beliefs while disregarding information that contradicts them.

Say you’re trying to decide if product A is better than product B. You read studies and reviews that tell you that product A is great, but when you come across a study or review that says the opposite, you quickly dismiss it. That’s confirmation bias in action.

This way of thinking has been proven to be detrimental to our society because it can cause us to form flawed conclusions and make poor decisions without even knowing it.

It can also lead to incorrect assumptions based on incomplete evidence, and what’s worse, we may become so attached to these assumptions that we won’t take in any new information that could potentially change our minds.

5. Unwillingness to Challenge Assumptions

At times, we can be too complacent and accepting of the status quo, not questioning or challenging what is already established and accepted.

On the surface, this might make sense; it can feel safer to go along with what we already know than to rock the boat. But if we don’t challenge assumptions, then our thinking quickly stagnates and never evolves. We miss out on life-changing opportunities because we don’t think critically and challenge ourselves to expand our horizons.

Even if you’re not comfortable directly challenging another person or idea, the good news is that there are many other ways to test assumptions without causing major disruption or conflict.

Tip- Here are a few ideas:

• Start brainstorming: Think of creative solutions or alternative ways of doing something that challenges existing beliefs.
• Ask questions: Ask yourself why something needs to be done a certain way—you might just uncover a better solution that no one else thought of before!
• Test your ideas: Run experiments to assess how well your ideas will work in practice.
• Listen to others: Seek out different opinions and listen carefully to open up your mind and gain fresh perspectives that can help you challenge existing assumptions effectively.

6. Avoidance of critical feedback

Are you afraid of criticism? If so, you’re not alone. Everyone experiences criticism in some form or another, and it can be hard to take it in when it’s coming your way. This fear of being judged or rejected can lead to a fear of critical feedback, which can in turn hinder your ability to think critically.

Critical thinking involves analyzing and evaluating information to draw conclusions. Without proper feedback, you don’t get the opportunity to practice this skill or learn by reviewing the results of your efforts.

Unfortunately, many people are so scared of being criticized that they avoid giving or receiving critical feedback, which makes it hard for them to develop their critical thinking skills.

If this sounds familiar to you, there are a few things you can do:

• Make sure that criticism is constructive and focused on the task at hand rather than on the person.
• Ask for more specific advice so that it is easier for you to apply it.
• Take the time to listen and absorb what’s being said.
• Step back from the situation and take a look at it from an objective point of view.
• Have an open mind when receiving criticism.

By taking steps like these and actively seeking out constructive feedback, you will be able to better develop your critical thinking skills.

7. Over dependence on technology

We rely on technology for almost every aspect of our lives, and this extreme dependence has had a not-so-positive effect on our ability to think critically. As soon as we get used to having something done for us, it can become almost impossible to do it ourselves.

Take searching for information, for example. It’s become second nature to type a few words into the search bar and have a wealth of information at our fingertips from the comfort of our home or office.

We’ve become so dependent on it that many people don’t think about where the information is coming from or if it’s accurate or reliable.

Moreover, when people become too comfortable depending on technology, they lose valuable opportunities to practice their critical thinking skills like problem-solving and decision-making.

Without regular practice, these skills atrophy over time, leaving us less able to think critically when faced with complex issues that require high-level analysis.

8. Ignoring Alternative Choices

Maybe you’re in the habit of making decisions without considering any alternatives. But if you really want to make progress in your critical thinking skills, then you must start taking into account all the possible options.

• Weighing Pros and Cons Doing this allows you to see things from multiple perspectives and helps trigger more creative ideas. This way, when faced with a decision, you can thoroughly analyze it before settling on a solution.
• Brainstorming Ideas: Take a few minutes to jot down a list of different ideas, even if some of them seem too wild or impractical at first glance. This can help you come up with unexpected solutions that are tailored to each case.
• Consulting Others: Talking through your ideas with people who are experienced and wise can give you the boost of confidence needed to make the best choice for yourself and your situation.

9. Failure to cultivate intellectual curiosity

You may not know this, but a lack of critical thinking stems partially from a lack of intellectual curiosity. Many people simply don’t take the time to explore new ideas and perspectives, even when they are presented.

• Curiosity Gap: People have a problem with constantly wanting to be “right,” which keeps them in this so-called “curiosity gap,” which is when we make assumptions and tend to stick within our comfort zones of beliefs. It’s easy to accept what makes sense to us without really exploring it scientifically or logically.
• Mental Laziness: Humans also tend towards mental laziness, meaning we easily take shortcuts instead of dedicating energy or time to critically analyzing an idea or concept. 

10. Influenced by cognitive biases

Let’s face it, we all have cognitive biases. A cognitive bias is when we make snap judgments about people and situations without really thinking about them first. This happens all the time and can cause us to make decisions based on false assumptions or incorrect conclusions.

And these biases can lead to some pretty major obstacles when it comes to critical thinking. For instance, we might be more likely to think positively about a decision if it comes from someone we know and trust, even if that decision isn’t actually the best one.

Or, we might dismiss ideas that don’t match our preconceived notions instead of considering them on their own merits.

So how do you fix this? It takes practice and a conscious effort to try not to let your biases impact your decisions. Start by being aware of them, and try to identify any prior beliefs that you have that might be influencing your thinking. Then take a step back and take the time to evaluate an idea or situation objectively before making a decision or forming an opinion.

11. Reluctant To Challenge Their Assumptions, Opinions, Or Worldviews

One of the main reasons people lack critical thinking skills is their reluctance to challenge their assumptions, opinions, or worldviews. It’s quite natural for humans to stay in their comfort zones and avoid questioning the status quo or examining issues from different perspectives.

This can be attributed to our evolutionary roots, which favored a more conservative approach to risk-taking and decision-making.

But if you want to sharpen your critical thinking skills, then this is something you must overcome. You must challenge your beliefs and opinions , question things that you take for granted, and be ready to accept opposing opinions or views.

12. Overconfident in Their Knowledge, Skills, Or Abilities

When it comes to lacking critical thinking, another issue could be that some people are just overconfident in their knowledge, skills, or abilities and don’t take the time to consider other points of view.

It’s a common mistake to think that you know everything there is to know and don’t need to consider other perspectives. After all, if you knew how to solve every problem in life, we’d live in a perfect world. Unfortunately, this kind of attitude cuts off potential solutions to problems.

Luckily, there are a few easy ways for us all to start developing better critical thinking skills:

• Take an honest look at your own knowledge and admit where you lack understanding or information.
• Ask yourself questions and look critically at the answers.
• Look for multiple solutions or perspectives when trying to solve a problem.
• Listen carefully when others provide feedback, and make sure you understand what they’re saying.

13. Underestimate the complexity or uncertainty.

You may be underestimating the complexity or uncertainty of certain situations and decisions, which can make it hard to think critically. Critical thinking is all about considering multiple perspectives and weighing the pros and cons of different courses of action.

But if you don’t open your mind to the possibility that there are more than two sides to a story, then you might be missing out on important information.

Moreover, when people fail to take into account the uncertainty involved with certain outcomes, they’re more likely to make decisions without properly weighing their options.

For example, if you think that a particular decision is black and white, without any room for doubt or differing opinions, then you’re unlikely to exercise critical thinking skills to explore other options or consider possible risks or rewards involved.

So if you find yourself struggling with critical thinking, it could be because you’re failing to recognize that there are always complexities and uncertainties associated with any decision-making process. So, it’s important to take these into account before making any final call.

14. Lack of Motivation 

Doing something well often requires effort , and that effort isn’t easy. The same goes for critical thinking; you need to put in the hard work to become a better thinker. That takes dedication and motivation, but unfortunately, many people don’t have it.

There are lots of things that can get in the way of motivation, everything from being too comfortable with how things are to not feeling like your efforts will make a difference.

To overcome this lack of motivation and become the problem-solving machine you’re meant to be, you’ll need to start with some basic steps:

• Identify the reasons why you lack the motivation to think critically. Is it because you don’t see any value in doing it or because you’re afraid of making mistakes?
• Break down tasks into manageable chunks so that it doesn’t feel too overwhelming or intimidating to tackle problems one step at a time. This will help make each task seem more achievable, giving you a sense of accomplishment along the way instead of dreading every new challenge before even starting it.
• Set goals for yourself and reward yourself when you meet them. Make sure the rewards are motivating and meaningful.

Critical thinking is a valuable skill that can help us make better decisions, solve problems, and avoid biases. However, many of us lack this skill due to various reasons, such as lack of education, exposure, practice, feedback, or motivation. In this blog post, we have explored some of these reasons and suggested some ways to overcome them.

We hope that by reading this post, you have gained some insights into your own critical thinking abilities and how to improve them. Remember, critical thinking is not something you are born with or without; it is something you can learn and develop with time and effort.

• What Causes a Lack of Critical Thinking Skills? by ALEX SAEZ published in study.com
• 10 things that cause a lack of critical thinking in society by Nguyet Yen Tran   published in deapod.com

Call to action

If you want to learn more about this types of topic and discover some tips and tricks to boost your brain power, click the link below and subscribe to our newsletter.

Let’s boost your self-growth with Believe in Mind.

Interested in self-reflection tips, learning hacks, and knowing ways to calm down your mind? We offer you the best content which you have been looking for.

Follow Me on

You May Like Also

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

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

Eberly Center

Teaching excellence & educational innovation.

Identify possible reasons for the problem you have selected. To find the most effective strategies, select the reason that best describes your situation, keeping in mind there may be multiple relevant reasons.

Students don't demonstrate critical thinking..

Students don't understand what critical thinking means in your context.

Students lack an important component of critical thinking: how to ask the "right questions" in your context .

Students lack an important component of critical thinking: how to read critically .

Students lack an important component of critical thinking: how to select and evaluate resources .

Students don't bring a critical perspective to revising or iterating their own work.

Students are not comfortable being critical of or challenging authority.

Course assignments do not adequately support students' critical thinking.

This site supplements our 1-on-1 teaching consultations. CONTACT US to talk with an Eberly colleague in person!

• The Center for Critical Thinking Community Online
• Customized Webinars and Online Courses for Faculty
• Certification in the Paul-Elder Approach to Critical Thinking
• Consulting for Leaders and Key Personnel at Your Organization
• K-12 Instruction
• Higher Education
• Business & Professional Groups
• Build a Local Critical Thinking Town Hall
• Critical Thinking Training for Law Enforcement
• Online Courses for Instructors
• Critical Thinking Therapy
• Bring Critical Thinking Into Your Website's Discussion

The State of Critical Thinking Today

• Professional Development Model for K-12
• Professional Development Model - College and University
• Workshop Descriptions
• Mentor Program
• Inservice Information Request Form
• Institutions Using Our Approach to Critical Thinking

Translate this page from English...

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

“Too many facts, too little conceptualizing, too much memorizing, and too little thinking.” ~  Paul Hurd , the Organizer in Developing Blueprints for Institutional Change

Introduction The question at issue in this paper is: What is the current state of critical thinking in higher education?

Sadly, studies of higher education demonstrate three disturbing, but hardly novel, facts:

• Most college faculty at all levels lack a substantive concept of critical thinking.
• Most college faculty don’t realize that they lack a substantive concept of critical thinking, believe that they sufficiently understand it, and assume they are already teaching students it.  
• Lecture, rote memorization, and (largely ineffective) short-term study habits are still the norm in college instruction and learning today.

These three facts, taken together, represent serious obstacles to essential, long-term institutional change, for only when administrative and faculty leaders grasp the nature, implications, and power of a robust concept of critical thinking — as well as gain insight into the negative implications of its absence — are they able to orchestrate effective professional development. When faculty have a vague notion of critical thinking, or reduce it to a single-discipline model (as in teaching critical thinking through a “logic” or a “study skills” paradigm), it impedes their ability to identify ineffective, or develop more effective, teaching practices. It prevents them from making the essential connections (both within subjects and across them), connections that give order and substance to teaching and learning.

This paper highlights the depth of the problem and its solution — a comprehensive, substantive concept of critical thinking fostered across the curriculum. As long as we rest content with a fuzzy concept of critical thinking or an overly narrow one, we will not be able to effectively teach for it. Consequently, students will continue to leave our colleges without the intellectual skills necessary for reasoning through complex issues.

Part One: An Initial Look at the Difference Between a Substantive and Non-Substantive Concept of Critical Thinking

Faculty Lack a Substantive Concept of Critical Thinking

Studies demonstrate that most college faculty lack a substantive concept of critical thinking. Consequently they do not (and cannot) use it as a central organizer in the design of instruction. It does not inform their conception of the student’s role as learner. It does not affect how they conceptualize their own role as instructors. They do not link it to the essential thinking that defines the content they teach. They, therefore, usually teach content separate from the thinking students need to engage in if they are to take ownership of that content. They teach history but not historical thinking. They teach biology, but not biological thinking. They teach math, but not mathematical thinking. They expect students to do analysis, but have no clear idea of how to teach students the elements of that analysis. They want students to use intellectual standards in their thinking, but have no clear conception of what intellectual standards they want their students to use or how to articulate them. They are unable to describe the intellectual traits (dispositions) presupposed for intellectual discipline. They have no clear idea of the relation between critical thinking and creativity, problem-solving, decision-making, or communication. They do not understand the role that thinking plays in understanding content. They are often unaware that didactic teaching is ineffective. They don’t see why students fail to make the basic concepts of the discipline their own. They lack classroom teaching strategies that would enable students to master content and become skilled learners.

Most faculty have these problems, yet with little awareness that they do. The majority of college faculty consider their teaching strategies just fine, no matter what the data reveal. Whatever problems exist in their instruction they see as the fault of students or beyond their control.

Studies Reveal That Critical Thinking Is Rare in the College Classroom Research demonstrates that, contrary to popular faculty belief, critical thinking is not fostered in the typical college classroom. In a meta-analysis of the literature on teaching effectiveness in higher education, Lion Gardiner, in conjunction with ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education (1995) documented the following disturbing patterns: “Faculty aspire to develop students’ thinking skills, but research consistently shows that in practice we tend to aim at facts and concepts in the disciplines, at the lowest cognitive levels, rather than development of intellect or values."

Numerous studies of college classrooms reveal that, rather than actively involving our students in learning, we lecture, even though lectures are not nearly as effective as other means for developing cognitive skills. In addition, students may be attending to lectures only about one-half of their time in class, and retention from lectures is low.

Studies suggest our methods often fail to dislodge students’ misconceptions and ensure learning of complex, abstract concepts. Capacity for problem solving is limited by our use of inappropriately simple practice exercises.

Classroom tests often set the standard for students’ learning. As with instruction, however, we tend to emphasize recall of memorized factual information rather than intellectual challenge. Taken together with our preference for lecturing, our tests may be reinforcing our students’ commonly fact-oriented memory learning, of limited value to either them or society.

Faculty agree almost universally that the development of students’ higher-order intellectual or cognitive abilities is the most important educational task of colleges and universities. These abilities underpin our students’ perceptions of the world and the consequent decisions they make. Specifically, critical thinking – the capacity to evaluate skillfully and fairly the quality of evidence and detect error, hypocrisy, manipulation, dissembling, and bias – is central to both personal success and national needs.

A 1972 study of 40,000 faculty members by the American Council on Education found that 97 percent of the respondents indicated the most important goal of undergraduate education is to foster students’ ability to think critically.

Process-oriented instructional orientations “have long been more successful than conventional instruction in fostering effective movement from concrete to formal reasoning. Such programs emphasize students’ active involvement in learning and cooperative work with other students and de-emphasize lectures . . .”

Gardiner’s summary of the research coincides with the results of a large study (Paul, et. al. 1997) of 38 public colleges and universities and 28 private ones focused on the question: To what extent are faculty teaching for critical thinking?

The study included randomly selected faculty from colleges and universities across California, and encompassed prestigious universities such as Stanford, Cal Tech, USC, UCLA, UC Berkeley, and the California State University System. Faculty answered both closed and open-ended questions in a 40-50 minute interview.

By direct statement or by implication, most faculty claimed that they permeated their instruction with an emphasis on critical thinking and that the students internalized the concepts in their courses as a result. Yet only the rare interviewee mentioned the importance of students thinking clearly, accurately, precisely, relevantly, or logically, etc... Very few mentioned any of the basic skills of thought such as the ability to clarify questions; gather relevant data; reason to logical or valid conclusions; identify key assumptions; trace significant implications, or enter without distortion into alternative points of view. Intellectual traits of mind, such as intellectual humility, intellectual perseverance, intellectual responsibility, etc . . . were rarely mentioned by the interviewees. Consider the following key results from the study:

• Though the overwhelming majority of faculty claimed critical thinking to be a primary objective of their instruction (89%), only a small minority could give a clear explanation of what critical thinking is (19%). Furthermore, according to their answers, only 9% of the respondents were clearly teaching for critical thinking on a typical day in class.
• Though the overwhelming majority (78%) claimed that their students lacked appropriate intellectual standards (to use in assessing their thinking), and 73% considered that students learning to assess their own work was of primary importance, only a very small minority (8%) could enumerate any intellectual criteria or standards they required of students or could give an intelligible explanation of those criteria and standards.
• While 50% of those interviewed said that they explicitly distinguish critical thinking skills from traits, only 8% were able to provide a clear conception of the critical thinking skills they thought were most important for their students to develop. Furthermore, the overwhelming majority (75%) provided either minimal or vague allusion (33%) or no illusion at all (42%) to intellectual traits of mind.
• Although the majority (67%) said that their concept of critical thinking is largely explicit in their thinking, only 19% could elaborate on their concept of thinking.
• Although the vast majority (89%) stated that critical thinking was of primary importance to their instruction, 77% of the respondents had little, limited or no conception of how to reconcile content coverage with the fostering of critical thinking.
• Although the overwhelming majority (81%) felt that their department’s graduates develop a good or high level of critical thinking ability while in their program, only 20% said that their departments had a shared approach to critical thinking, and only 9% were able to clearly articulate how they would assess the extent to which a faculty member was or was not fostering critical thinking. The remaining respondents had a limited conception or no conception at all of how to do this.

A Substantive Conception of Critical Thinking

If we understand critical thinking substantively, we not only explain the idea explicitly to our students, but we use it to give order and meaning to virtually everything we do as teachers and learners. We use it to organize the design of instruction. It informs how we conceptualize our students as learners. It determines how we conceptualize our role as instructors. It enables us to understand and explain the thinking that defines the content we teach.

When we understand critical thinking at a deep level, we realize that we must teach content through thinking, not content, and then thinking. We model the thinking that students need to formulate if they are to take ownership of the content. We teach history as historical thinking. We teach biology as biological thinking. We teach math as mathematical thinking. We expect students to analyze the thinking that is the content, and then to assess the thinking using intellectual standards. We foster the intellectual traits (dispositions) essential to critical thinking. We teach students to use critical thinking concepts as tools in entering into any system of thought, into any subject or discipline. We teach students to construct in their own minds the concepts that define the discipline. We acquire an array of classroom strategies that enable students to master content using their thinking and to become skilled learners.

The concept of critical thinking, rightly understood, ties together much of what we need to understand as teachers and learners. Properly understood, it leads to a framework for institutional change. For a deeper understanding of critical thinking see The Thinker’s Guide Series , the book, Critical Thinking: Tools for Taking Charge of Your Learning and Your Life , and the Foundation For Critical Thinking Library.

To exemplify my point, The Thinker’s Guide Series consists in a diverse set of contextualizations of one and the same substantive concept of critical thinking. If we truly understand critical thinking, for example, we should be able to explain its implications:

• for analyzing and assessing reasoning
• for identifying strengths and weaknesses in thinking
• for identifying obstacles to rational thought
• for dealing with egocentrism and sociocentrism
• for developing strategies that enable one to apply critical thinking to everyday life
• for understanding the stages of one’s development as a thinker
• for understanding the foundations of ethical reasoning
• for detecting bias and propaganda in the national and international news
• for conceptualizing the human mind as an instrument of intellectual work
• for active and cooperative learning
• for the art of asking essential questions
• for scientific thinking
• for close reading and substantive writing
• for grasping the logic of a discipline.

Each contextualization in this list is developed in one or more of the guides in the series. Together they suggest the robustness of a substantive concept of critical thinking. What is Critical Thinking (Stripped to its Essentials)?

The idea of critical thinking, stripped to its essentials, can be expressed in a number of ways. Here’s one:

Critical thinking is the art of thinking about thinking with a view to improving it. Critical thinkers seek to improve thinking, in three interrelated phases. They analyze thinking. They assess thinking. And they up-grade thinking (as a result). Creative thinking is the work of the third phase, that of replacing weak thinking with strong thinking, or strong thinking with stronger thinking. Creative thinking is a natural by-product of critical thinking, precisely because analyzing and assessing thinking enables one to raise it to a higher level. New and better thinking is the by-product of healthy critical thought.

A person is a critical thinker to the extent that he or she regularly improves thinking by studying and “critiquing” it. Critical thinkers carefully study the way humans ground, develop, and apply thought — to see how thinking can be improved.

The basic idea is simple: “Study thinking for strengths and weaknesses. Then make improvements by building on its strengths and targeting its weaknesses.”

    A critical thinker does not say:

“My thinking is just fine. If everyone thought like me, this would be a pretty good world.”

    A critical thinker says:

“My thinking, as that of everyone else, can always be improved. Self-deception and folly exist at every level of human life. It is foolish ever to take thinking for granted. To think well, we must regularly analyze, assess, and reconstruct thinking — ever mindful as to how we can improve it.”

Part Two: A Substantive Concept of Critical Thinking Reveals Common Denominators in all Academic Work

Substantive Critical Thinking Can be Cultivated in Every Academic Setting

By focusing on the rational capacities of students’ minds, by designing instruction so students explicitly grasp the sense, the logicalness, of what they learn, we can make all learning easier for them. Substantive learning multiplies comprehension and insight; lower order rote memorization multiplies misunderstanding and confusion. Though very little present instruction deliberately aims at lower order learning, most results in it. “Good” students have developed techniques for short term rote memorization; “poor” students have none. But few know what it is to think analytically through the content of a subject; few use critical thinking as a tool for acquiring knowledge.(see Nosich)

We often talk of knowledge as though it could be divorced from thinking, as though it could be gathered up by one person and given to another in the form of a collection of sentences to remember. When we talk in this way we forget that knowledge, by its very nature, depends on thought. Knowledge is produced by thought, analyzed by thought, comprehended by thought, organized, evaluated, maintained, and transformed by thought. Knowledge exists, properly speaking, only in minds that have comprehended it and constructed it through thought. And when we say thought we mean critical thought. Knowledge must be distinguished from the memorization of true statements. Students can easily blindly memorize what they do not understand. A book contains knowledge only in a derivative sense, only because minds can thoughtfully read it and, through this analytic process, gain knowledge. We forget this when we design instruction as though recall were equivalent to knowledge.

Every discipline — mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, geography, sociology, anthropology, history, philosophy, and so on — is a mode of thinking. Every discipline can be understood only through thinking. We know mathematics, not when we can recite mathematical formulas, but when we can think mathematically. We know science, not when we can recall sentences from our science textbooks, but when we can think scientifically. We understand sociology only when we can think sociologically, history only when we can think historically, and philosophy only when we can think philosophically. When we teach so that students are not thinking their way through subjects and disciplines, students leave our courses with no more knowledge than they had when they entered them. When we sacrifice thought to gain coverage, we sacrifice knowledge at the same time.

In the typical history class, for example, students are often asked to remember facts about the past. They therefore come to think of history class as a place where you hear names and dates and places; where you try to memorize and state them on tests. They think that when they can successfully do this, they then “know history.”

Alternatively, consider history taught as a mode of thought. Viewed from the paradigm of a critical education, blindly memorized content ceases to be the focal point. Learning to think historically becomes the order of the day. Students learn historical content by thinking historically about historical questions and problems. They learn through their own thinking and classroom discussion that history is not a simple recounting of past events, but also an interpretation of events selected by and written from someone’s point of view. In recognizing that each historian writes from a point of view, students begin to identify and assess points of view leading to various historical interpretations. They recognize, for example, what it is to interpret the American Revolution from a British as well as a colonial perspective. They role-play different historical perspectives and master content through in-depth historical thought. They relate the present to the past. They discuss how their own stored-up interpretations of their own lives’ events shaped their responses to the present and their plans for the future. They come to understand the daily news as a form of historical thought shaped by the profit-making motivations of news collecting agencies. They learn that historical accounts may be distorted, biased, narrow, misleading.

Every Area or Domain of Thought Must Be Thought-Through to Be Learned

The mind that thinks critically is a mind prepared to take ownership of new ideas and modes of thinking. Critical thinking is a system-opening system. It works its way into a system of thought by thinking-through:

• the purpose or goal of the system
• the kinds of questions it answers (or problems it solves)
• the manner in which it collects data and information
• the kinds of inferences it enables
• the key concepts it generates
• the underlying assumptions it rests upon
• the implications embedded in it
• the point of view or way of seeing things it makes possible.

It assesses the system for clarity, accuracy, precision, relevance, depth, breadth, logic, significance, and (where applicable) fairness. There is no system no subject it cannot open.

There is a Necessary Connection Between Critical Thinking and Learning

The skills in up-grading thinking are the same skills as those required in up-grading learning. The art of thinking well illuminates the art of learning well. The art of learning well illuminates the art of thinking well. Both require intellectually skilled metacognition. For example, to be a skilled thinker in the learning process requires that we regularly note the elements of our thinking/learning:

• What is my purpose?
• What question am I trying to answer?
• What data or information do I need?
• What conclusions or inferences can I make (based on this information)?
• If I come to these conclusions, what will the implications and consequences be?
• What is the key concept (theory, principle, axiom) I am working with?
• What assumptions am I making?
• What is my point of view?

There is a Necessary Connection Between Critical Thinking and Skilled Reading and Writing

The reflective mind improves its thinking by reflectively thinking about it. Likewise, it improves its reading by reflectively thinking about how it is reading. It improves its writing by analyzing and assessing each draft it creates. It moves back and forth between thinking and thinking about thinking. It moves forward a bit, then loops back upon itself to check its own operations. It checks its inferences. It makes good its ground. It rises above itself and exercises oversight on itself.

One of the most important abilities that a thinker can have is the ability to monitor and assess his or her own thinking while processing the thinking of others. In reading, the reflective mind monitors how it is reading while it is reading. The foundation for this ability is knowledge of how the mind functions when reading well. For example, if I know that what I am reading is difficult for me to understand, I intentionally slow down. I put the meaning of each passage that I read into my own words. Knowing that one can understand ideas best when they are exemplified, then, when writing, I give my readers examples of what I am saying. As a reader, I look for examples to better understand what a text is saying. Learning how to read closely and write substantively are complex critical thinking abilities. When I can read closely, I can take ownership of important ideas in a text. When I can write substantively, I am able to say something worth saying about something worth saying something about. Many students today cannot.

The State of Critical Thinking 2021

Introduction.

Social media’s rise has been nothing short of meteoric. In 2005, Facebook had around 5 million active users . As of 2020, more than 2.7 billion use the platform actively. Social media has inserted itself into almost every facet of human life. People use it to maintain relationships with family and friends, to share information on the tiniest aspects of daily life, such as the length of the grass in their lawn, and to get informed about what’s going on in the world.  

Simply put, the adoption of social media is one of the most widespread and rapid changes in communications in human history. It shouldn’t be surprising, therefore, that it has come along with a number of drawbacks and challenges — not least of all to the way we think. The coronavirus pandemic has accelerated our use of social media, of course, making us far more likely to be on Twitter or Facebook. The pandemic has also exacerbated some of the challenges that come with social media, particularly around critical thinking and disinformation.  

For these reasons, in our annual survey on the state of critical thinking, the Reboot Foundation asked people about their use of and views on social media, particularly as it related to their mental health. In the survey, our research team also asked questions about reasoning, media literacy, and critical thinking. Our goal was to take the temperature of popular opinion about social media and to gauge what, if anything, people think should be done to change their relationship with it.

Overall Findings

As social media use rises due to the pandemic, people are increasingly concerned about its impact on mental health.  

Over 60 percent of respondents said their social media use had gone up since the onset of COVID-19 lockdowns, while around half of respondents said they spend more than two hours a day on social media. 

It is not surprising that people reported using social media more during the pandemic. Afterall, people have been asked to physically disconnect from family, friends, and coworkers. But the survey also showed that the public is deeply concerned about the mental health ramifications of rampant social media use. More than half said their social media use intensified feelings of anxiety and hindered their ability to concentrate. 

Despite the general acknowledgment that social media is contributing to symptoms of poor mental health, a significant percentage of people aren’t willing to stop scrolling or to put down their screens. 

There is a disconnect between how people see the impact of social media on society and how they view it on an individual level. Despite their concern about social media’s impact on public mental health, most individuals seem ambivalent about the role of social media in their own lives. To put it bluntly, everyone seems to think their own relationship to social media is healthier than the average. 

This was clear in the survey.  Over 70 percent of users said they would not give up their social media accounts for less than $10,000.  Even more surprising, more than 40 percent said they would give up their TV, car, or pet before they disabled their social media pages. 

But despite being open to giving up Fido for Facebook, only about a third of respondents reported taking steps to limit their social media use, like turning off phones periodically or limiting content on their feeds.

When it comes to the impact of social media on political discourse, the public is similarly ambivalent. While many found social media damaging to their political reasoning, others thought they benefited from being exposed to new ideas online.

A related area of concern with social media is its impact on public discourse. In the survey, the public shows a lot of concern here as well, but, again, on an individual level people seem to view their own use of social media relatively positively. 

While social media has contributed to polarization , exacerbated political biases , and even helped foster radicalism and violence , the survey found that individual users often think social media has helped expose them to alternative viewpoints, become better informed, and even articulate their own political views better.  

Slight majorities indicated that social media had a positive effect on their ability to assess sources of information and articulate their views clearly to others. And some 30 percent deemed social media “somewhat helpful” to their thinking about public issues. 

These results suggest that efforts to improve public discourse online must be cognizant of social media’s real and perceived benefits, and focus on ways to preserve and amplify those benefits, while remediating the problems.

Support for critical thinking skills remains nearly universal, with equally strong support for the teaching of critical thinking at all levels of education. 

In the survey, 95 percent affirmed that critical thinking skills are important in today’s world, and an equal number said they believed those skills should be taught in K-12 schools. Another 85 percent of our respondents said critical thinking skills are generally lacking in the public. “Changing societal norms” was the most commonly cited reason for the lack of critical thinking skills.

When it comes to addressing some of the problems with social media, the good news is that support for critical thinking, in all sectors of society, is high, and people recognize these skills are lacking in the general population. Survey respondents also generally support dedicated critical thinking education, beginning at a young age. Coupled with the public’s understandable attachment to social media, this continued support for critical thinking suggests that the best avenue for addressing the problems with social media is better education at all levels of the society.  

The survey was conducted through Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (MTurk) from March 3 to March 14, 2021.

Participants were recruited using methods that ensure high data quality. Only those with a 95 percent or higher approval rating on the service were permitted to participate, and they were compensated at a fair rate equal to at least $15 an hour. Furthermore, in order to prevent inattentive or overhasty answers, the team included an “attention check” question that filtered out respondents who were not answering thoughtfully. 

Participants completed three sets of questions: first, a survey module on their social media use and opinions; second, a module on critical thinking; and last, a set of demographic questions. Questions with unordered (i.e., categorical) response sets had responses presented in a randomized order to each participant, in order to reduce question ordering effects.

Forty-four percent of our sample self-reported as female, 55 percent as male, and 1 percent as non-binary. Participants ranged in age from 18 to 78, with a modal age of 35. Sixty-six percent of participants had completed a bachelor’s degree or higher. All participants were located in the United States. We sampled about equally from each US state to ensure a balanced geographic distribution.

To maintain consistency with the prior survey and to explore relationships across time, many of the questions remained the same from the 2018 and 2020 versions of the survey. In some cases, following best practices in questionnaire design, we revamped questions to improve clarity and increase the validity and reliability of the responses.

The survey was completed by 1,010 respondents. Its margin of error is 3 percent. The complete set of questions for each survey is available upon request.

Detailed Findings and Discussion

Social media use is up due to the pandemic, and people are concerned about its impact on mental health.

Unsurprisingly, COVID-19 lockdowns seem to have boosted people’s general social media use. Over 60 percent of respondents said their social media usage went up since COVID-19 lockdowns began in March 2020. Of those, around 36 percent said their usage had increased by an hour or more. 

As other surveys have found, social media usage can end up taking up a large portion of people’s day. Around half of the respondents to Reboot’s survey said they spent more than 2 hours a day on social media, with 12 percent indicating they spend more than 4 hours a day on social media. 

These estimates are in line with research that indicates Americans spent an average of 82 minutes a day on social media in 2020, up from 75 minutes in 2019.

None of this is particularly surprising. During a year when in-person social contact was dramatically constrained by COVID-19 lockdowns and restrictions, stromectol , people took to social media more than ever before to keep up-to-date with family and friends, as well as to pass the time at home. 

There is some evidence that this newfound reliance on social media may have prevented growth in social media use from stalling, as well as helped deflect some negative attention around social media. 

Before the pandemic new user numbers were actually stagnant or even in decline in the United States. And during the worldwide political upheaval since the rise of right-wing populism around 2016, social media has taken much of the blame for extremism and a generally toxic political discourse. It will be interesting to see if negative social media sentiment rebounds and usage dips in a post-pandemic environment, or, whether, conversely, a year plus of using social media more has changed people’s habits in the long run.

The Reboot survey also asked participants to evaluate the impact of social media on their own mental health. Of course, self-reports of mental health outcomes have limitations. These results aren’t close to as reliable as a diagnosis by a medical professional. Still, they can help understand public sentiment on the issue, especially as social media and the problems around it become more prominent, both in public discourse and in social science research.

The most striking results came on questions about specific mental-health impacts. Participants were asked whether they thought their social media use intensified any of the following feelings or conditions: anxiety, depression, difficulty concentrating, loneliness, or low self-esteem. 

For each of these conditions, more than 50 percent of respondents indicated those feelings were at least “somewhat” intensified by social media, while at least 20 percent for each option indicated they were “very” or “extremely” intensified. People seemed to have the most trouble with anxiety and difficulty concentrating, with nearly 60 percent in both cases reporting some negative effects from social media usage.

A substantial number of those surveyed also expressed general concern about social media’s mental health impacts. Around 20 percent described their social media use as somewhere on the range of “unhealthy.” Given people’s natural proclivity against admitting to unhealthy behavior, that number is significant. That said, more than half described their use as “somewhat,” “very,” or “extremely healthy.” 

Meanwhile, when asked to evaluate the overall impact of social media on their mental health, around a third of respondents said social media had a “somewhat,” “very,” or “extremely” negative impact. Overall, the survey paints a picture of a majority of users who feel they are able to use social media without doing serious harm to their mental health, but nonetheless do experience negative impacts. There is also a significant minority that is more concerned about the impact of social media usage on their mental health.

Participants expressed even more concern when asked about the impact of social media on the public at large, instead of on their own personal lives. Over 80 percent reported a “moderate” level of concern or greater, with over 50 percent indicating they were “very” or “extremely” concerned. 

Despite the general acknowledgement that social media is contributing to symptoms of poor mental health, a significant percentage of people still aren’t willing to stop scrolling or to put down their screens.  

Social media addiction — and technology addiction more broadly — are also areas where further research is needed. Although survey participants reported concern about their own social media use, they were generally more concerned about the impact on society. This suggests that despite high levels of concern about social media overuse and addiction generally, many people might not see the problem as significant enough in their own lives to take action on an individual level. 

Indeed, the survey found mixed results when it came to participants taking steps to limit social media use in participants’ personal lives. Only about a third or less of respondents reported that they had taken concrete steps to limit their social media use, like deleting or suspending social media accounts, turning off their phones, or limiting content on their feeds. 

Moreover, when asked hypothetically how much money at minimum they would require to delete all their social media accounts permanently, over 70 percent said it would take $10,000 or more, with 20 percent saying it would take at least $1 million. Similarly, 42 percent said they’d give up their TV, pet, or car before giving up their social media accounts.

The survey’s results parallel a growing, but still inconclusive, body of social science research into the effects of social media on mental health. A number of studies suggest links between adolescent anxiety and depression, especially among girls, and social media use. (1)   Other research has explicitly focused on social media addiction and its connections to mental health disorders. (2)   More specifically, researchers have linked depression to social media behaviors like comparing oneself to others who seem better off and worrying about being tagged in unflattering pictures.

But the research is by no means settled, especially since many of social media’s most addictive features, like “like” buttons and feeds with sophisticated algorithms based on user data ,  have only become widespread over the last decade or so. A number of methodological issues complicate research in this area: studies to date tend to focus too much on self-reports; social media companies themselves control the bulk of the data ; negative mental health outcomes tend to be complicated and multi-factor. Good data that can support solid, statistically significant conclusions remains, therefore, hard to come by. 

Moreover, other studies have found little or no reason to conclude that social media has a negative impact on mental health, (3)  including adolescent mental health. Some researchers have even gone so far as to compare current levels of concern about social media and mental health to prior “ technology panics .” (4)   For example, widespread concern about links between real-world violence and violent video games in the 1990s hasn’t been borne out by research. 

It is important to study the issue with care, then, and to remain aware of positive impacts social media can have. More research needs to be done, among different population types, before any definitive conclusions can be ventured. 

Still, given the significant changes to social life brought about social media, especially among young people and especially during the pandemic, it would also be a mistake to ignore these concerns. The internet and social media clearly foster radically new kinds of social interaction and communication, while enabling new kinds of manipulation and addiction. That doesn’t mean an outright panic is justified, but it does mean social media’s social impact — both negative and positive — is well-worth concern and study. 

When it comes to the impact of social media on political discourse, the public is ambivalent. While many found social media damaging to their political reasoning; others thought the way it had exposed them to new ideas was beneficial.

In addition to mental health impacts, commentators and researchers have long been concerned about the impact of social media on our political discourse. More specifically, social media has been implicated in the rise of racist and authoritarian ideas and conspiracy theories , initially on less mainstream forums like 4chan , but later on mainstream social media like Facebook, Reddit, and Twitter. It has contributed heavily to shocking democratic outcomes , including Brexit and Donald Trump’s election in 2016. (5)   It’s also contributed to violence around the world , from countries with authoritarian governments like the Philippines to democracies like the United States, where social media activity fueled the storming of the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. 

Furthermore, social media is typically cited, with good reason, as a cause of polarization and dysfunction in democratic discourse. (6)   Social media enables structures that tend to decrease the quality and increase the intensity of debate : these include filter bubbles that expose users to only viewpoints they already agree with; Twitter dynamics that fuel pile-on and extremism; and algorithms that prioritize sensationalistic and personalized content that keeps users scrolling.

That said, it would perhaps be overhasty to deem that social media’s impact on public discourse has been all negative. In fact, somewhat surprisingly, the respondents to our survey viewed social media’s impact on their own thinking on current events and politics in neutral or even slightly positive ways. 

A plurality of 30 percent indicated that social media had been “somewhat helpful,” when asked whether it was helpful or damaging to their thinking about contemporary issues. Only around 5 percent indicated it had been “very” or “extremely damaging,” although nearly 20 percent thought it had been somewhat damaging. 

Although it might be taken for granted that social media has been polarizing, respondents’ opinion was split, with 27 percent saying they had become less tolerant due to social media, and 43 percent saying social media had made them more tolerant of different views. Around the same number (46 percent) indicated social media had “somewhat increased” the diversity of the news they consumed. (Again, it is worth keeping in mind that self-reports tend to be more flattering than the actuality.)

In the survey, significant numbers thought social media had positive impacts on their media literacy skills. Thirty-eight percent indicated they engage more deeply with social and political issues due to social media, as opposed to 27 percent saying they engage less deeply. And slight majorities said social media affected their ability to assess sources of information at least “somewhat positively” (51 percent) and made them better able to express their views clearly to others (55 percent).

These mixed opinions reflect the ambiguous place social media holds in our public discourse. People seem to be generally wary of the pitfalls of social media, especially around political content, but are unlikely to completely condemn it, especially when evaluating its impact on them personally. 

Other recent research has come to similar conclusions. A Pew survey found that people were optimistic about the role social media can play in building social movements, even while they worried about the distractions it can cause. Another Pew survey , meanwhile, found that 55 percent of Americans describe themselves as feeling “worn out” by political posts and discussions, while 70 percent found it “stressful and frustrating” to discuss politics with those they disagree with on social media. 

Given these attitudes, it seems clear that we can neither dismiss the problems associated with social media, nor expect people to simply give up their social media accounts. What is needed is a concerted effort to give people the cognitive tools to manage the dangers of social media addiction; to engage productively with valuable information and opinion they find online; and, perhaps most importantly, to recognize and avoid low-quality information and opinion that is not worth engaging with. 

Each year, Reboot takes stock of the public’s attitude towards critical thinking and specific critical thinking practices. This year, as expected, general support for critical thinking remains high. Ninety-five percent of respondents affirm that critical thinking skills are important in today’s world, and, similar to previous years, 85 percent believe that they are generally lacking in the public.

Interestingly, when asked for the main reason for the lack of critical thinking skills, “changing societal norms” took the blame much more than in past years, with almost a third of respondents choosing it. Modern technology (21 percent) and the education system (24 percent), were the other significant targets of blame.

There were some changes over time, as the chart below shows. But none of the shifts were very large, except for a shift in the idea that students have always lacked critical thinking due to the “same reason they always lacked these skills.” That grew by more than 5 percentage points. 

The education system, in general, is not highly regarded when it comes to teaching critical thinking, with only a quarter of respondents saying they received an “extremely” or “very” strong background in critical thinking from their schools. About the same number (26 percent) described the background provided as “not strong at all,” with another 23 percent calling it only “slightly strong.” More than half the participants indicated that they did not study critical thinking in school.

When people reflect on their critical thinking development after high school, the results are not much better. Only half of the respondents said their critical thinking skills had improved since high school, with around 16 percent saying their critical thinking skills had actually deteriorated.

There are some positive signs that education in critical thinking and relative fields like civics and media literacy is becoming a priority. Organizations like NAMLE (National Association for Media Literacy Education) and Media Literacy Now are developing curricula and programs to improve media literacy across grade level and in continuing education. The Department of Education and National Endowment for the Humanities have also recently spearheaded an initiative to reinvigorate civics education. The Reboot Foundation has also developed materials for critical thinking , media literacy , and civics education. But overall, as the survey responses’ confirm, there remains a significant discrepancy between how highly critical thinking skills are valued and how few resources are put to use to advance them. 

As behavioral psychologists like Daniel Kahneman have noted , the human brain is a product of evolution that has developed to cope with certain conditions and respond to certain stimuli. (10)    

Although the brain has become very sophisticated, this evolutionary process has also left us with certain biases and shortcuts in reasoning that can lead to error, especially in highly complex, information-rich modern societies. By changing the environment in which we reason, social media — and the internet in general — can exacerbate these biases and distort our thought processes in a number of different ways.

For instance, algorithms prioritize “high-engagement,” sensationalized content that can create emotional, irrational responses. Depending on how their feeds are curated, people may end up being exposed only or predominantly to ideas that confirm what they already think, missing out on the challenges to prejudice and preconceptions that are essential to good reasoning. Finally, a flattened-out environment without the depth and texture of face-to-face conversations can lead to misinterpretations and misunderstandings, and cause hostility and conflict. 

The distorted thinking that results from the social media environment can have widespread negative social consequences, both in terms of public mental health and public discourse, as the survey respondents recognized. 

Critical thinking education, including education in civics and media literacy, is the natural and needed companion to social media. People better trained in good reasoning practices like evaluating sources, weighing opposing views, and formulating logically sound arguments, will also be better able to navigate online life more carefully and thoughtfully. They will be less susceptible to the confirmation bias, groupthink, and ad hominem argumentation that are so widespread in these environments.

Interestingly, many of these critical thinking practices are also relevant to addressing the negative effects of social media on mental health . Adherents of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), for example, have emphasized the extent to which anxiety and depression can be caused and exacerbated by negative thinking patterns . To the extent that social media can reinforce or help foster these thinking patterns, it may be contributing to what has been described as a “ mental health crisis ,” especially among adolescents and young adults. CBT, like critical thinking, involves identifying these distortions and developing the habits of mind to resist them. Better integrating these critical thinking practices into our education system will help young people develop the tools they need to navigate the online world in a healthy and productive way.

This does not require a radical overhaul of the curriculum. Instead, what’s needed is a recommitment to the principles of education in the liberal arts and sciences, which already emphasize many of these practices. Too often students are, instead, subjected to a testing-oriented curriculum that gives them a narrow view of thinking and education. 

Teaching in these areas gets too bogged down in finding right answers, and applying rote processes to fixed and unrealistic problems. There is not enough open-ended questioning and real-world reasoning and interpretation. Students don’t spend enough time talking about the first principles and logic behind the disciplines they are studying. And they don’t develop skills in articulating their own viewpoints persuasively and cogently, in both writing and speech.

In short, what’s needed is ideas for integrating critical thinking into the curriculum. Reboot has contributed to this mission with its Teachers’ Guide , which offers teachers ideas to inject critical thinking into existing lesson plans. These efforts do not just add needed skills to students’ education; they should also help with motivation and the love of learning, since critical thinking is a creative, open-ended process that builds on students’ own interests and opinions. 

The overall goal is a population — and society as a whole — that values patient engagement and reasoned argument over sensationalism and gut responses, and one that is able to use technology mindfully and productively.

To download the PDF of this survey,

(please click here)

(1)*    Haidt, J., & Allen, N. (2020). Scrutinizing the effects of digital technology on mental health. Nature   578 , 226-227. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-00296-x (2)* Robinson, A., Bonnette, A., Howard, K., Ceballos, N., Dailey, S., Lu, Y., & Grimes, T. (2019). Social comparisons, social media addiction, and social interaction: An examination of specific social media behaviors related to major depressive disorder in a millennial population. Journal of Applied Biobehavioral Research, 24 (1).  https://doi.org/10.1111/jabr.12158

(3)*   Orben, A., & Przybylski, A.K. (2019). The association between adolescent well-being and digital technology use.  Nature Human Behaviour   3 ,  173–182. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-018-0506-1

(4)*  Orben, A. (2020). The Sisyphean cycle of technology panics. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15 (5), 1143-1157. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620919372

(5)*  Hall, R. Tinati and W. Jennings (2018). “From Brexit to Trump: Social Media’s Role in Democracy,” Computer , 51 (1), 18–27, https://doi.org/10.1109/MC.2018.1151005

(6)*  Tucker, J.A., Guess, A. and Barbera, P. and Vaccari, C., Siegel, A. and Sanovich, S., Stukal, D., & Nyhan, B. (2018) Social Media, Political Polarization, and Political Disinformation: A Review of the Scientific Literature. Hewlett Foundation . http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3144139

(7)*  Bailin, S., Case, R., Coombs, J. R., & Daniels, L. B. (1999). Conceptualizing critical thinking. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 31 (3), 285–302. https://doi.org/10.1080/002202799183133  

(8)*  Willingham, D. T. (2007). Critical thinking: Why is it so hard to teach? American Educator (Summer), 8–19. https://doi.org/10.3200/AEPR.109.4.21-32  

(9)*  Gopnik, A., Sobel, D. M., Schulz, L. E., & Glymour, C. (2001). Causal learning mechanisms in very young children: two-, three-, and four-year-olds infer causal relations from patterns of variation and covariation. Developmental psychology , 37 (5), 620. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.37.5.620  

(10)*  Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Macmillan.

please click here.

Privacy Overview

Without Critical Thinking Skills, We Can Easily Be Misled

In today's media environment, many of us are defenseless against manipulation..

Posted May 25, 2021 | Reviewed by Ekua Hagan

• Without being able to think critically and analyze information, we are vulnerable to being misled by social media and news outlets.
• Thinking critically takes effort, study, and sometimes a struggle to understand and analyze an argument. It's a skill that is cultivated.
• Developing critical thinking skills allows us to resist the bombardment of misinformation and mount a positive argument for the truth.

I have frequently taught Research Methods and Design to college students at several institutions where I have worked. I love teaching this course. One reason, of course, is that I spent several decades of my life in full-time research, and I enjoy thinking about research methodology and sharing it with others. The other reason I love teaching this course, however, is the obvious impact that it has on students. Every semester, one (if not more) student tells me how taking this course has affected them: “I used to just read articles and believe what they said, but now I find myself asking ‘Is this true? How do they know? Was this a well-designed study?’” That encompasses my goals for the students in this course: to learn to think critically and read analytically.

Dorothy Sayers on the nature of propaganda

This brings to mind something written by Dorothy L Sayers. Dorothy Sayers is one of my favorite authors. One of her books, The Lost Tools of Learning , speaks to Sayers’ thoughts on education and propaganda. This book was written in 1948, and Sayers was very mindful of propaganda and its effects during World War II and was concerned about the implications for the future of society. She wrote:

"For we let our young men and women go out unarmed, in a day when armour was never so necessary. By teaching them all to read, we have left them at the mercy of the printed word. By the invention of the film and the radio, we have made certain that no aversion to reading shall secure them from the incessant battery of words, words, words. They do not know what the words mean; they do not know how to ward them off or blunt their edge or fling them back; they are prey to words in their emotions instead of being the masters of them in their intellects. We who were scandalized in 1940 when men were sent to fight armoured tanks with rifles, are not scandalized when young men and women are sent into the world to fight massed propaganda with a smattering of “subjects”; and when whole classes and whole nations become hypnotized by the arts of the spellbinder, we have the impudence to be astonished."

We are well past the 1940s, but her observation is still relevant. Dorothy Sayers' point is well taken. In the world of 24-hour news and social media that often resembles the Wild West, the ability to evaluate has never been more critical.

The gift of critical thinking

It is a given that we all filter facts through the lens of our understanding. However, these filters can distort or obscure the truth. In order to resist the distortions with which we are constantly bombarded in the media, as well as to be able to present a persuasive argument, we must be able to reason well, think critically, and craft our words effectively.

This is not something with which we are born or develop merely because we acquire language. This takes effort, study, and sometimes a struggle to understand and analyze an argument.

When my students begin the Research Methods and Design course, they are generally not happy with the prospect of reading all those research articles I assign and trying to critique them to my satisfaction. Inevitably, however, by the end of the course, they are excited about their new capacities to think critically and analyze what they read.

This is my gift to them: They are not facing armored tanks with rifles anymore. They have armored tanks of their own. My hope is that we all are concerned with developing the critical thinking skills we need to not only resist the bombardment but also mount a positive argument for the truth.

Maria L. Boccia, Ph.D., D.Min., LMFT, is Professor of Child and Family Studies in the Department of Human Sciences and Design at Baylor University. She studies the neuroscience of attachment and maternal and sexual behavior.

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Psychiatrist
• Find a Support Group
• Find Online Therapy
• International
• New Zealand
• South Africa
• Switzerland
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Relationships
• Child Development
• Therapy Center NEW
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

Understanding what emotional intelligence looks like and the steps needed to improve it could light a path to a more emotionally adept world.

• Emotional Intelligence
• Gaslighting
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

What Causes a Lack of Critical Thinking Skills?

Critical thinking skills are an important tool, especially when it comes to personal beliefs and academics. When applied, critical thinking is a powerful defense against ideas and opinions that are potentially harmful or blatantly wrong. Unfortunately, not everyone possesses this ability, although it can be taught. Understanding what suppresses critical thinking is an important step to obtaining a more open mind.

Explore this article

• Indoctrination
• Lack of Intelligence
• Cognitive Impairment

1 Indoctrination

Indoctrination is a major roadblock to critical thinking. When an individual is surrounded and constantly fed a one-sided view on things like personal beliefs or politics, it stifles critical thinking. Children and students are especially vulnerable to this, so critical thinking must always be encouraged. According to the Association of American Colleges & Universities, teaching students to be skeptical will "help them see through the distortions of propaganda, and enable them to assess judiciously the persuasiveness of powerful emotional appeals." (see source 1)

2 Lack of Intelligence

An article by the University of Phoenix, entitled "Can Critical Thinking be Taught in the Classroom?" asserts that a critical thinker "would need a level of intellectual and cognitive ability." The article implies that some people are more adept than others when it comes to being skeptical and analytical. This is understandable, because people who lack intelligence will find it much easier to simply accept certain ideas at face-value than take the time and effort to research them. According to the Media Awareness Network, "Critical thinking is about how to think, not what to think" and requires "curiosity, open-mindedness, skepticism, and persistence.' In other words, you cannot think critically if you are ignorant of its process. Critical thinking is not about assuming that everything you hear, read or see is potentially wrong. It is about taking any information provided and analyzing it using the critical thinking process. Without this understand, critical thinking skills will be nonexistent.

3 Arrogance

Your attitude can have a profound effect on critical thinking. Even if you are extremely intelligent, you will not think critically if you are not willing to venture outside your own opinions. According to the University of Phoenix, "What stifles critical thinking in some cases is an unwillingness to do research." In other words, if you are not humble, you will avoid examining alternate opinions for fear of being proven wrong.

4 Cognitive Impairment

According the Surgeon General, mental disability and mental illness can cause a variety of obstacles, including disturbances of thought and perception or cognitive dysfunction. As a result, individuals suffering from such issues may be at an intellectual disadvantage. Since critical thinking requires a certain degree of intelligence, cognitive impairment prevents people from grasping the complex rules and processes of critical thinking.

• 1 University of Phoenix: Can Critical Thinking be Taught in the Classroom?

About the Author

Alex Saez is a writer who draws much of his information from his professional and academic experience. Saez holds a Bachelor of Arts in English literature from Queen's University and an advanced diploma in business administration, with a focus on human resources, from St. Lawrence College in Kingston, Ontario.

Related Articles

What Are the Differences Between Bias & Fallacy?

Critical Thinking in the Decision-Making Processes

Can Sexual Orientation Cause Anxiety?

Can I Talk About My Emotions With My Girlfriend?

Effects of Plagiarism on Education

Qualitative Research Pros & Cons

How to Write a Paper on Strengths & Weaknesses

How to Deal with Rejection from a Boyfriend

How Can I Become a Police Officer If I Have a Misdemeanor?

How to Remove the Bootloader From the iPhone

The Disadvantages of Emotional Intelligence

Tools Used in Research

How to Get Along With a Scorpio

How to Write a Report in High School

How to Handle Being Insulted

How to Be Vulnerable and Strong

How to Write a Discursive Essay

Buddhist Beliefs About Vanity

Criminal Background Requirements for USCG Enlistment

A List of Three Characteristics of Orientalism

Regardless of how old we are, we never stop learning. Classroom is the educational resource for people of all ages. Whether you’re studying times tables or applying to college, Classroom has the answers.

• Accessibility
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Copyright Policy
• Manage Preferences

© 2020 Leaf Group Ltd. / Leaf Group Media, All Rights Reserved. Based on the Word Net lexical database for the English Language. See disclaimer .

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

We, the voters

Housing experts say there just aren't enough homes in the u.s..

Mary Louise Kelly

Kathryn Fink

William Troop

Finding affordable housing for both renters and buyers is feeling impossible lately. Experts point to a shortage of an estimated four to seven million homes. Joe Raedle/Getty Images hide caption

Finding affordable housing for both renters and buyers is feeling impossible lately. Experts point to a shortage of an estimated four to seven million homes.

Finding an affordable place to live in the U.S. can feel pretty impossible whether you're a renter or a buyer.

To begin with, there's a massive shortage of homes — somewhere between 4 and 7 million . And those who are able to find homes are spending a much bigger chunk of their paycheck than in recent years.

Natalie French was renting an apartment with a roommate in Albuquerque, New Mexico, when they received a notice that their rent was going up by more than 200 dollars a month. With the added pet fees, they were put out of their price range.

French and her roommate ultimately decided to move out and part ways — and for French, that meant leaving Albuquerque altogether to go back home to live with her mother,

"I would love to be able to afford a place on my own, but with my salary, that is not feasible."

We, The Voters

Four 'american indicators' share their view of the u.s. economy — and their politics.

It's a difficult situation not just for renters, but also for prospective home buyers. Ellen Lamont lives in Denver, Colorado with her partner. They put down offers on more than twenty homes because they kept losing out to other buyers, before finally closing on one.

"This idea of having your dream home is not realistic. Even at my age, it's just – where can I live? Where can I even get a place?"

All Things Considered host Mary Louise Kelly spoke with Alex Horowitz, the director of Pew's Housing Policy Initiative, to help understand why affordable housing feels like a pipe dream, and what can be done about it.

She began by asking about the shortage of 4 to 7 million homes in the U.S., and whether that was a shortage of all homes or affordable ones.

This interview has been lightly edited for length and clarity.

Alex Horowitz : We're short on all homes. Full stop. There just aren't enough of them. And that means that existing homes are getting bid up because we see high income households competing with low income households for the same residences since just not enough are getting built.

Mary Louise Kelly : And what's driving this? Why?

Horowitz : So restrictive zoning is the primary culprit. It's made it hard to build homes in the areas where there are jobs. And so that has created an immense housing shortage. And each home is getting bid up, whether it's a rental or whether it's a home to buy.

Kelly : I want to ask if there are any cities getting this right. Can you give me an example of one that has looked at it's zoning laws and said we could actually make this more affordable if we change things?

Horowitz : There are definitely cities that are getting this right. And we've seen a lot of changes in recent years to allow more homes, especially the kinds of homes that are in short supply, namely apartments, townhouses, duplexes and homes that don't cost as much as a detached single family house. Minneapolis is a great example. Minneapolis updated their zoning to make it much easier to build apartments near commerce and near transit, in part by eliminating parking minimums and also by making permitting easy. And it worked. They're producing housing at triple the rate of the U.S. and the rest of Minnesota, and that has meant that they've kept their rents flat for about seven years.

Many baby boomers own homes that are too big. Can they be enticed to sell them?

Kelly : Is there a downside? I'm thinking of people trying to find a parking place, for starters.

Horowitz : So we see that in places that have actually eliminated parking minimums, that we see fewer people driving at all and having cars and we see vehicle miles traveled decrease because people can get around via other mechanisms. But look, change can be disconcerting. And we certainly see some local elected officials and some residents concerned about changes in their community, even though the evidence suggests that allowing more homes is mostly beneficial by improving affordability and reducing homelessness.

Kelly : Okay, so let's drill down first on the renters side of this. We heard from Natalie French, the renter who had to move out of her apartment when her rent went way up. How typical is that? Is that happening to people all over the country?

Horowitz : That is happening. And rents have been rising rapidly, up about 30% in the U.S. since 2017, with median rents now hitting about 1400 dollars a month. And we've never been at a time before where half of renters were spending 30% or more of income on rent. But that's happening for the first time.

Kelly : And then on the homebuying side, we hear a lot about mortgage rates. They keep climbing. They don't look like they're coming down anytime soon. Are there other factors that make this a tough time to buy?

Horowitz : A lack of starter homes is really keeping it difficult for first time homebuyers to crack the market. And that is because traditionally starter homes are small homes. That means a home on a small lot, maybe a townhouse. And we're seeing far fewer of those come onto the market. Many jurisdictions require large minimum lot sizes, and that means that land costs end up being a big part of the equation. Houston is the place that has had the most success in bringing starter homes into the market. And it was by reducing their minimum lot size. And then 80,000 townhouses followed.

Kelly : So does it boil down to the double whammy of: there aren't enough homes full stop, and even if there were a home, it's really hard to afford a mortgage in an era where mortgage rates are sky high.

Horowitz : Mortgage rates are a piece of the puzzle, but at a fundamental level, even when mortgage rates were low, it was hard to buy a home for the first time because there simply aren't enough of them. And a lot of the ones that we have are bigger than what people need. U.S. household size is at an all time low of 2.50 people per household. And so we see homes that are bigger than what a lot of residents are looking for.

Investigations

The va has its fix for a home loan debacle, but many vets who got hurt won't get help.

Kelly : What about financing and lending? Setting aside what mortgage rates are, is it more difficult than in generations past just to get a loan to buy a house?

Horowitz : Oh, it's gotten much more difficult to get a mortgage. The availability of mortgage credit tightened dramatically during the Great Recession, and it never bounced back. So for someone who gets a mortgage today, they're likely to have a higher credit score than someone who's gotten a mortgage in the past. And that means simply fewer people are eligible for homes. And the cost to originate a mortgage has roughly tripled since 2009. And that has meant that lenders don't offer many small mortgages because they tend not to make money on them unless the mortgage is for over about $150,000.

Kelly : So many different factors at play here. You know, when we call you back, Alex, in two, three, four, five years from now, are you optimistic that more Americans who would like to buy or rent our home will be able to do so?

Horowitz : I am. I'm optimistic because of the steps that are taking place at the state and local level. It's really been remarkable how quickly we're seeing states and cities act to legalize lower cost homes, to reduce the parking minimums that have made apartment buildings difficult to build. And we haven't seen this kind of state level action before, because when a state acts, it increases the housing supply everywhere in the state. A state government has to act in order to fix regional housing affordability. But we're seeing that happen for the first time over the past few years.

This story was edited by Mallory Yu and William Troop

• affordable housing
• Affordable mortgage

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

Bibliography

Academic tools.

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

Critical Thinking

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

2.1 Dewey’s Three Main Examples

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. Examples and Non-Examples

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8. Critical Thinking Dispositions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

12. Controversies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

• Info about mirror sites

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

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054