2 models of critical thinking

• Search Search Search …
• Search Search …

Critical Thinking Models: A Comprehensive Guide for Effective Decision Making

Critical thinking models are valuable frameworks that help individuals develop and enhance their critical thinking skills . These models provide a structured approach to problem-solving and decision-making by encouraging the evaluation of information and arguments in a logical, systematic manner. By understanding and applying these models, one can learn to make well-reasoned judgments and decisions.

Various critical thinking models exist, each catering to different contexts and scenarios. These models offer a step-by-step method to analyze situations, scrutinize assumptions and biases, and consider alternative perspectives. Ultimately, the goal of critical thinking models is to enhance an individual’s ability to think critically, ultimately improving their reasoning and decision-making skills in both personal and professional settings.

Key Takeaways

• Critical thinking models provide structured approaches for enhancing decision-making abilities
• These models help individuals analyze situations, scrutinize assumptions, and consider alternative perspectives
• The application of critical thinking models can significantly improve one’s reasoning and judgment skills.

Fundamentals of Critical Thinking

Definition and Importance

Critical thinking is the intellectual process of logically, objectively, and systematically evaluating information to form reasoned judgments, utilizing reasoning , logic , and evidence . It involves:

• Identifying and questioning assumptions,
• Applying consistent principles and criteria,
• Analyzing and synthesizing information,
• Drawing conclusions based on evidence.

The importance of critical thinking lies in its ability to help individuals make informed decisions, solve complex problems, and differentiate between true and false beliefs .

Core Cognitive Skills

Several core cognitive skills underpin critical thinking:

• Analysis : Breaking down complex information into smaller components to identify patterns or inconsistencies.
• Evaluation : Assessing the credibility and relevance of sources, arguments, and evidence.
• Inference : Drawing conclusions by connecting the dots between analyzed information.
• Synthesis : Incorporating analyzed information into a broader understanding and constructing one’s argument.
• Logic and reasoning : Applying principles of logic to determine the validity of arguments and weigh evidence.

These skills enable individuals to consistently apply intellectual standards in their thought process, which ultimately results in sound judgments and informed decisions.

Influence of Cognitive Biases

A key aspect of critical thinking is recognizing and mitigating the impact of cognitive biases on our thought processes. Cognitive biases are cognitive shortcuts or heuristics that can lead to flawed reasoning and distort our understanding of a situation. Examples of cognitive biases include confirmation bias, anchoring bias, and availability heuristic.

To counter the influence of cognitive biases, critical thinkers must be aware of their own assumptions and strive to apply consistent and objective evaluation criteria in their thinking process. The practice of actively recognizing and addressing cognitive biases promotes an unbiased and rational approach to problem-solving and decision-making.

The Critical Thinking Process

Stages of Critical Thinking

The critical thinking process starts with gathering and evaluating data . This stage involves identifying relevant information and ensuring it is credible and reliable. Next, an individual engages in analysis by examining the data closely to understand its context and interpret its meaning. This step can involve breaking down complex ideas into simpler components for better understanding.

The next stage focuses on determining the quality of the arguments, concepts, and theories present in the analyzed data. Critical thinkers question the credibility and logic behind the information while also considering their own biases and assumptions. They apply consistent standards when evaluating sources, which helps them identify any weaknesses in the arguments.

Values play a significant role in the critical thinking process. Critical thinkers assess the significance of moral, ethical, or cultural values shaping the issue, argument, or decision at hand. They determine whether these values align with the evidence and logic they have analyzed.

After thorough analysis and evaluation, critical thinkers draw conclusions based on the evidence and reasoning gathered. This step includes synthesizing the information and presenting a clear, concise argument or decision. It also involves explaining the reasoning behind the conclusion to ensure it is well-founded.

Application in Decision Making

In decision making, critical thinking is a vital skill that allows individuals to make informed choices. It enables them to:

• Analyze options and their potential consequences
• Evaluate the credibility of sources and the quality of information
• Identify biases, assumptions, and values that may influence the decision
• Construct a reasoned, well-justified conclusion

By using critical thinking in decision making, individuals can make more sound, objective choices. The process helps them to avoid pitfalls like jumping to conclusions, being influenced by biases, or basing decisions on unreliable data. The result is more thoughtful, carefully-considered decisions leading to higher quality outcomes.

Critical Thinking Models

Critical thinking models are frameworks that help individuals develop better problem-solving and decision-making abilities. They provide strategies for analyzing, evaluating, and synthesizing information to reach well-founded conclusions. This section will discuss four notable models: The RED Model, Bloom’s Taxonomy, Paul-Elder Model, and The Halpern Critical Thinking Assessment.

The RED Model

The RED Model stands for Recognize Assumptions, Evaluate Arguments, and Draw Conclusions. It emphasizes the importance of questioning assumptions, weighing evidence, and reaching logical conclusions.

• Recognize Assumptions: Identify and challenge assumptions that underlie statements, beliefs, or arguments.
• Evaluate Arguments: Assess the validity and reliability of evidence to support or refute claims.
• Draw Conclusions: Make well-reasoned decisions based on available information and sound reasoning.

The RED Model helps individuals become more effective problem solvers and decision-makers by guiding them through the critical thinking process ^(source) .

Bloom’s Taxonomy

Bloom’s Taxonomy is a hierarchical model that classifies cognitive skills into six levels of complexity. These levels are remembering, understanding, applying, analyzing, evaluating, and creating. By progressing through these levels, individuals can develop higher-order thinking skills.

• Remembering: Recall information or facts.
• Understanding: Comprehend the meaning of ideas, facts, or problems.
• Applying: Use knowledge in different situations.
• Analyzing: Break down complex topics or problems into sub-parts.
• Evaluating: Assess the quality, relevance, or credibility of information, ideas, or solutions.
• Creating: Combine elements to form a new whole, generate new ideas, or solve complex issues.

Paul-Elder Model

The Paul-Elder Model introduces the concept of “elements of thought,” focusing on a structured approach to critical thinking. This model promotes intellectual standards, such as clarity, accuracy, and relevance. It consists of three stages:

• Critical Thinking: Employ the intellectual standards to problem-solving and decision-making processes.
• Elements of Thought: Consider purpose, question at issue, information, interpretation and inference, concepts, assumptions, implications, and point of view.
• Intellectual Traits: Develop intellectual traits, such as intellectual humility, intellectual empathy, and intellectual perseverance.

This model fosters a deeper understanding and appreciation of critical thinking ^(source) .

The Halpern Critical Thinking Assessment

The Halpern Critical Thinking Assessment is a standardized test developed by Diane Halpern to assess critical thinking skills. The evaluation uses a variety of tasks to measure abilities in core skill areas, such as verbal reasoning, argument analysis, and decision making. Pearson, a leading publisher of educational assessments, offers this test as a means to assess individuals’ critical thinking skills ^(source) .

These four critical thinking models can be used as frameworks to improve and enhance cognitive abilities. By learning and practicing these models, individuals can become better equipped to analyze complex information, evaluate options, and make well-informed decisions.

Evaluating Information and Arguments

In this section, we will discuss the importance of evaluating information and arguments in the process of critical thinking, focusing on evidence assessment, logic and fallacies, and argument analysis.

Evidence Assessment

Evaluating the relevance, accuracy, and credibility of information is a vital aspect of critical thinking. In the process of evidence assessment, a thinker should consider the following factors:

• Source reliability : Research and understand the expertise and credibility of the source to ensure that biased or inaccurate information is not being considered.
• Currency : Check the date of the information to make sure it is still relevant and accurate in the present context.
• Objectivity : Analyze the information for potential bias and always cross-reference it with other credible sources.

When practicing critical thinking skills, it is essential to be aware of your own biases and make efforts to minimize their influence on your decision-making process.

Logic and Fallacies

Logic is crucial for deconstructing and analyzing complex arguments, while identifying and avoiding logical fallacies helps maintain accurate and valid conclusions. Some common fallacies to watch out for in critical thinking include:

• Ad Hominem : Attacking the person making the argument instead of addressing the argument itself.
• Strawman : Misrepresenting an opponent’s argument to make it easier to refute.
• False Dilemma : Presenting only two options when there may be multiple viable alternatives.
• Appeal to Authority : Assuming a claim is true simply because an authority figure supports it.

Being aware of these fallacies enables a thinker to effectively evaluate the strength of an argument and make sound judgments accordingly.

Argument Analysis

Analyzing an argument is the process of evaluating its structure, premises, and conclusion while determining its validity and soundness. To analyze an argument, follow these steps:

• Identify the premises and conclusion : Determine the main point is being argued, how it is related and substance of the argument.
• Evaluate the validity : Assess whether the conclusion logically follows from the premises and if the argument’s structure is sound.
• Test the soundness : Evaluate the truth and relevance of the premises. This may require verifying the accuracy of facts and evidence, as well as assessing the reliability of sources.
• Consider counter-arguments : Identify opposing viewpoints and counter-arguments, and evaluate their credibility to gauge the overall strength of the original argument.

By effectively evaluating information and arguments, critical thinkers develop a solid foundation for making well-informed decisions and solving problems.

Enhancing Critical Thinking

Strategies for improvement.

To enhance critical thinking, individuals can practice different strategies, including asking thought-provoking questions, analyzing ideas and observations, and being open to different perspectives. One effective technique is the Critical Thinking Roadmap , which breaks critical thinking down into four measurable phases: execute, synthesize, recommend, and communicate. It’s important to use deliberate practice in these areas to develop a strong foundation for problem-solving and decision-making. In addition, cultivating a mindset of courage , fair-mindedness , and empathy will support critical thinking development.

Critical Thinking in Education

In the field of education, critical thinking is an essential component of effective learning and pedagogy. Integrating critical thinking into the curriculum encourages student autonomy, fosters innovation, and improves student outcomes. Teachers can use various approaches to promote critical thinking, such as:

• Employing open-ended questions to stimulate ideas
• Incorporating group discussions or debates to facilitate communication and evaluation of viewpoints
• Assessing and providing feedback on student work to encourage reflection and improvement
• Utilizing real-world scenarios and case studies for practical application of concepts

Developing a Critical Thinking Mindset

To truly enhance critical thinking abilities, it’s important to adopt a mindset that values integrity , autonomy , and empathy . These qualities help to create a learning environment that encourages open-mindedness, which is key to critical thinking development. To foster a critical thinking mindset:

• Be curious : Remain open to new ideas and ask questions to gain a deeper understanding.
• Communicate effectively : Clearly convey thoughts and actively listen to others.
• Reflect and assess : Regularly evaluate personal beliefs and assumptions to promote growth.
• Embrace diversity of thought : Welcome different viewpoints and ideas to foster innovation.

Incorporating these approaches can lead to a more robust critical thinking skillset, allowing individuals to better navigate and solve complex problems.

Critical Thinking in Various Contexts

The workplace and beyond.

Critical thinking is a highly valued skill in the workplace, as it enables employees to analyze situations, make informed decisions, and solve problems effectively. It involves a careful thinking process directed towards a specific goal. Employers often seek individuals who possess strong critical thinking abilities, as they can add significant value to the organization.

In the workplace context, critical thinkers are able to recognize assumptions, evaluate arguments, and draw conclusions, following models such as the RED model . They can also adapt their thinking to suit various scenarios, allowing them to tackle complex and diverse problems.

Moreover, critical thinking transcends the workplace and applies to various aspects of life. It empowers an individual to make better decisions, analyze conflicting information, and engage in constructive debates.

Creative and Lateral Thinking

Critical thinking encompasses both creative and lateral thinking. Creative thinking involves generating novel ideas and solutions to problems, while lateral thinking entails looking at problems from different angles to find unique and innovative solutions.

Creative thinking allows thinkers to:

• Devise new concepts and ideas
• Challenge conventional wisdom
• Build on existing knowledge to generate innovative solutions

Lateral thinking, on the other hand, encourages thinkers to:

• Break free from traditional thought patterns
• Combine seemingly unrelated ideas to create unique solutions
• Utilize intuition and intelligence to approach problems from a different perspective

Both creative and lateral thinking are essential components of critical thinking, allowing individuals to view problems in a holistic manner and generate well-rounded solutions. These skills are highly valued by employers and can lead to significant personal and professional growth.

In conclusion, critical thinking is a multifaceted skill that comprises various thought processes, including creative and lateral thinking. By embracing these skills, individuals can excel in the workplace and in their personal lives, making better decisions and solving problems effectively.

Overcoming Challenges

Recognizing and addressing bias.

Cognitive biases and thinking biases can significantly affect the process of critical thinking . One of the key components of overcoming these challenges is to recognize and address them. It is essential to be aware of one’s own beliefs, as well as the beliefs of others, to ensure fairness and clarity throughout the decision-making process. To identify and tackle biases, one can follow these steps:

• Be self-aware : Understand personal beliefs and biases, acknowledging that they may influence the interpretation of information.
• Embrace diverse perspectives : Encourage open discussions and invite different viewpoints to challenge assumptions and foster cognitive diversity.
• Reevaluate evidence : Continuously reassess the relevance and validity of the information being considered.

By adopting these practices, individuals can minimize the impact of biases and enhance the overall quality of their critical thinking skills.

Dealing with Information Overload

In today’s world, information is abundant, and it can become increasingly difficult to demystify and make sense of the available data. Dealing with information overload is a crucial aspect of critical thinking. Here are some strategies to address this challenge:

• Prioritize information : Focus on the most relevant and reliable data, filtering out unnecessary details.
• Organize data : Use tables, charts, and lists to categorize information and identify patterns more efficiently.
• Break down complex information : Divide complex data into smaller, manageable segments to simplify interpretation and inferences.

By implementing these techniques, individuals can effectively manage information overload, enabling them to process and analyze data more effectively, leading to better decision-making.

In conclusion, overcoming challenges such as biases and information overload is essential in the pursuit of effective critical thinking. By recognizing and addressing these obstacles, individuals can develop clarity and fairness in their thought processes, leading to well-informed decisions and improved problem-solving capabilities.

Measuring Critical Thinking

Assessment tools and criteria.

There are several assessment tools designed to measure critical thinking, each focusing on different aspects such as quality, depth, breadth, and significance of thinking. One example of a widely used standardized test is the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal , which evaluates an individual’s ability to interpret information, draw conclusions, and make assumptions. Another test is the Cornell Critical Thinking Tests Level X and Level Z , which assess an individual’s critical thinking skills through multiple-choice questions.

Furthermore, criteria for assessing critical thinking often include precision, relevance, and the ability to gather and analyze relevant information. Some assessors utilize the Halpern Critical Thinking Assessment , which measures the application of cognitive skills such as deduction, observation, and induction in real-world scenarios.

The Role of IQ and Tests

It’s important to note that intelligence quotient (IQ) tests and critical thinking assessments are not the same. While IQ tests aim to measure an individual’s cognitive abilities and general intelligence, critical thinking tests focus specifically on one’s ability to analyze, evaluate, and form well-founded opinions. Therefore, having a high IQ does not necessarily guarantee strong critical thinking skills, as critical thinking requires additional mental processes beyond basic logical reasoning.

To build and enhance critical thinking skills, individuals should practice and develop higher-order thinking, such as critical alertness, critical reflection, and critical analysis. Using a Critical Thinking Roadmap , such as the four-phase framework that includes execution, synthesis, recommendation, and the ability to apply, individuals can continuously work to improve their critical thinking abilities.

Frequently Asked Questions

What are the main steps involved in the paul-elder critical thinking model.

The Paul-Elder Critical Thinking Model is a comprehensive framework for developing critical thinking skills. The main steps include: identifying the purpose, formulating questions, gathering information, identifying assumptions, interpreting information, and evaluating arguments. The model emphasizes clarity, accuracy, precision, relevance, depth, breadth, logic, and fairness throughout the critical thinking process. By following these steps, individuals can efficiently analyze and evaluate complex ideas and issues.

Can you list five techniques to enhance critical thinking skills?

Here are five techniques to help enhance critical thinking skills:

• Ask open-ended questions : Encourages exploration and challenges assumptions.
• Engage in active listening: Focus on understanding others’ viewpoints before responding.
• Reflect on personal biases: Identify and question any preconceived notions or judgments.
• Practice mindfulness: Develop self-awareness and stay present in the moment.
• Collaborate with others: Exchange ideas and learn from diverse perspectives.

What is the RED Model of critical thinking and how is it applied?

The RED Model of critical thinking consists of three key components: Recognize Assumptions, Evaluate Arguments, and Draw Conclusions. To apply the RED Model, begin by recognizing and questioning underlying assumptions, being aware of personal biases and stereotypes. Next, evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of different arguments, considering evidence, logical consistency, and alternative explanations. Lastly, draw well-reasoned conclusions that are based on the analysis and evaluation of the information gathered.

How do the ‘3 C’s’ of critical thinking contribute to effective problem-solving?

The ‘3 C’s’ of critical thinking – Curiosity, Creativity, and Criticism – collectively contribute to effective problem-solving. Curiosity allows individuals to explore various perspectives and ask thought-provoking questions, while Creativity helps develop innovative solutions and unique approaches to challenges. Criticism, or the ability to evaluate and analyze ideas objectively, ensures that the problem-solving process remains grounded in logic and relevance.

What characteristics distinguish critical thinking from creative thinking?

Critical thinking and creative thinking are two complementary cognitive skills. Critical thinking primarily focuses on analyzing, evaluating, and reasoning, using objectivity and logical thinking. It involves identifying problems, assessing evidence, and drawing sound conclusions. Creative thinking, on the other hand, is characterized by the generation of new ideas, concepts, and approaches to solve problems, often involving imagination, originality, and out-of-the-box thinking.

What are some recommended books to help improve problem-solving and critical thinking skills?

There are several books that can help enhance problem-solving and critical thinking skills, including:

• “Thinking, Fast and Slow” by Daniel Kahneman: This book explores the dual process theory of decision-making and reasoning.
• “The 5 Elements of Effective Thinking” by Edward B. Burger and Michael Starbird: Offers practical tips and strategies for improving critical thinking skills.
• “Critique of Pure Reason” by Immanuel Kant: A classic philosophical work that delves into the principles of reason and cognition.
• “Mindware: Tools for Smart Thinking” by Richard E. Nisbett: Presents a range of cognitive tools to enhance critical thinking and decision-making abilities.
• “The Art of Thinking Clearly” by Rolf Dobelli: Explores common cognitive biases and errors in judgment that can affect critical thinking.

You may also like

Using Critical Thinking to Find Your Strengths and Passions

When you hear the words “critical thinking”, the first thought that probably crossed your mind is that this person is a natural […]

Critical thinking questions for team building

Are you considering leading some critical thinking exercises with your team to help them build their teamwork? If so, you’re probably looking […]

The Basics of Using Critical Thinking in Business

In the world of business, being precise and careful is highly recommended. However, how often do you respond too rashly to a […]

Critical thinking vs Creative thinking

Both critical thinking and creative thinking are used for solving problems, only in different ways. For critical thinking, the process is structured […]

• Blogs @Oregon State University

Teaching With Writing: The WIC Newsletter

Critical thinking: multiple models for teaching and learning (abridged), excerpts from critical thinking: multiple models for teaching and learning.

By  Aubrae Vanderpool and Tracy Ann Robinson

“A great truth wants to be criticized, not idolized.”

The development of critical thinking skills increasingly is being identified not only as an essential component of writing courses but even more broadly, as a desired outcome of an undergraduate education. In this article, adapted from a paper by Aubrae Vanderpool that focuses on critical thinking in first-year writing classes, we take a look at what critical thinking means, offer some strategies and suggestions for incorporating critical thinking pedagogy into subject-matter courses, and comment on assessment issues and strategies.

Critical Thinking Defined…Or Not…

For some critical thinking has a lot to do with understanding one’s own perspective and those of others. Another model [of critical thinking] is dialectic, an idea or work is critiqued in a way that produces a counter-perspective and ultimately leads to a synthesis. For some critical thinking evokes a synthetic or inductive model based on testing evidence and making arguments. The exercise of reflective judgment is also a form of critical thinking.  (“Critical Thinking and Broad Knowledge”)

While widely accepted as an educational imperative, critical thinking, as the above statement (excerpted from meeting notes for a Critical Thinking dialogue group at Western Washington University) indicates, is quite variously conceived and described. . . . Clearly, however, how an institution or department defines this intellectual practice will influence where in the curriculum critical thinking is taught, how it is taught, and, equally importantly, how it is assessed. For those in the process of formulating a working definition, familiarity with the following widely utilized models may serve as a helpful starting point.

Bloom’s Taxonomy

According to Benjamin Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives (1956)—a cross-disciplinary model for developing higher-order thinking in students—learning how to think critically involves the mastery of six increasingly complex cognitive skills: knowledge (i.e., possession of specific facts or pieces of information) , comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation . See sidebar for details.

Bloom’s Taxonomy conceives critical thinking mastery as a sequential process, that is, one cannot move to the next cognitive tier without successfully negotiating the previous level.  (“Teaching Critical Thinking”). Thus, some view the taxonomy as “a set of microlevel skills which may be used in critical thinking but do not represent critical thinking” (French and Rhoder 195). Philosopher Richard Paul objects to the taxonomy’s product-oriented conceptualization of thinking as a “one-way hierarchy” as opposed to thinking being a process that involves the recursive use of interrelated skills (French and Rhoder 195).  Nonetheless, Bloom’s Taxonomy has been and continues to be an influential model for those developing critical thinking programs, as its inclusion in the Dartmouth College Composition Center’s critical thinking web page attests (Gocsik).

Knowledge: the remembering (recalling) of appropriate, previously learned terminology/specific facts/ways and means of dealing with specifics (conventions, trends and sequences, classifications and categories, criteria, methodology)/universals and abstractions in a field (principles and generalizations, theories and structures). defines; describes; enumerates; identifies; labels; lists; matches; names; reads; records; reproduces; selects; states; views.

Comprehension: Grasping (understanding) the meaning of informational materials. classifies; cites; converts; describes; discusses; estimates; explains; generalizes; gives examples; makes sense out of; paraphrases; restates (in own words); summarizes; traces; understands.

Application: The use of previously learned information in new and concrete situations to solve problems that have single or best answers. acts; administers; articulates; assesses; charts; collects; computes; constructs; contributes; controls; determines; develops; discovers; establishes; extends; implements; includes; informs; instructs; operationalizes; participates; predicts; prepares; preserves; produces; projects; provides; relates; reports; shows; solves; teaches; transfers; uses; utilizes.

Analysis: The breaking down of informational materials into their component parts, examining (and trying to understand the organizational structure of) such information to develop divergent conclusions by identifying motives or causes, making inferences, and/or finding evidence to support generalizations. breaks down; correlates; diagrams; differentiates; discriminates; distinguishes; focuses; illustrates; infers; limits; outlines; points out; prioritizes; recognizes; separates; subdivides.

Synthesis: Creatively or divergently applying prior knowledge and skills to produce a new or original whole. adapts; anticipates; categorizes; collaborates; combines; communicates; compares; compiles; composes; contrasts; creates; designs; devises; expresses; facilitates; formulates; generates; incorporates; individualizes; initiates; integrates; intervenes; models; modifies; negotiates; plans; progresses; rearranges; reconstructs; reinforces; reorganizes; revises; structures; substitutes; validates.

Evaluation: Judging the value of material based on personal values/opinions, resulting in an end product, with a given purpose, without real right or wrong answers. appraises; compares & contrasts; concludes; criticizes; critiques; decides; defends; interprets; judges; justifies; reframes; supports.

SOURCE: http://faculty.washington.edu/krumme/guides/bloom.html (no longer available)

Beyer’s evaluative thinking model

Barry Beyer, a prominent contemporary thinking skills theorist and teacher, interprets critical thinking as a more specifically evaluative activity than Bloom’s Taxonomy would imply:

Critical thinking is not making decisions or solving problems. It is not the same as reflective thinking, creative thinking, or conceptualizing. Each of these other types of thinking serves a specific purpose. We make decisions in order to choose among alternatives. We solve problems when we encounter an obstacle to a preferred condition. We engage in creative or conceptual thinking to invent or improve things. Critical thinking serves a purpose quite different from these other types of thinking. (Beyer 1995, 8)

For Beyer, the crux of critical thinking is criteria : “ The word critical in critical thinking comes from the Greek word for criterion, kriterion , which means a benchmark for judging” (Beyer 1995, 8-9). Thus, critical (or, to use Beyer’s preferred term, evaluative) thinking provides the means to assess the “accuracy, authenticity, plausibility, or sufficiency of claims” (Beyer 1995, 10).

Beyer asserts that critical thinking involves 10 cognitive operations, which can be employed in any sequence or combination as needed for the thinking task at hand:

• Distinguishing between verifiable facts and value claims
• Distinguishing relevant from irrelevant information, claims, or reasons
• Determining the factual accuracy of a statement
• Determining the credibility of a source
• Identifying ambiguous claims or arguments
• Identifying unstated assumptions
• Detecting bias
• Recognizing logical fallacies
• Recognizing logical inconsistencies in a line of reasoning
• Determining the strength of an argument or claim (Beyer 1988, 57)

Further, Beyer argues that successful critical thinking requires “complex and often simultaneous interaction” of the following six elements:

o Dispositions. Critical thinkers develop habits of mind that “guide and sustain critical thinking”, including skepticism, fairmindedness, openmindedness, respect for evidence and reasoning, respect for clarity and precision, ability to consider different points of view, and a willingness to alter one’s position when reason and evidence call for such a shift.

o Criteria . Critical thinkers know about and have the ability to construct appropriate benchmarks for judging the issue at hand.

o Argument —defined as “a proposition with its supporting evidence and reasoning.” Critical thinkers are skillful at constructing, identifying, and evaluating the strength of arguments.

o Reasoning —the “cement that holds an argument together.” Critical thinkers determine the strength and validity of a conclusion by examining the soundness of the inductive or deductive process through which the conclusion was reached.

o Point of View. Critical thinkers are aware of their own point of view and capable of examining other points of view in order to better evaluate an issue.

o Procedures for applying criteria and judging. Critical thinkers have a repertoire of strategies appropriate to the subject matter and type of judgment to be made (Beyer 1995, 10-20)

In other words, critical thinkers habitually question the authenticity of anything that confronts them to ascertain exactly the extent to which it is an authentic instance of what it purports to be. In addition, they make judgments based on certain standards or other measures that serve as criteria for plausibility and truthfulness. And they pay special attention to the reasons and reasoning that undergird conclusions and claims.” (Beyer 1995, 22)

Critical thinking as a divergent process

While Beyer depicts critical thinking as a “ con vergent,” narrowing process, others prefer to view it as a di vergent, expanding, exploratory practice (French and Rhoder, 184-85) —a way to open  up new solutions as well as evaluate those that have already been identified.  For example, consider this statement from Peter Taylor of the UMass/Boston Graduate College of Education’s Critical and Creative Thinking Program. (In February, 2001, Taylor led a critical thinking workshop at OSU, sponsored jointly by the College of Liberal Arts’ Center for Excellence in Teaching, Learning, and Research, the Center for Water and Environmental Sustain-ability, and the Office of Academic Affairs; and organized by Anita Helle [English] and Denise Lach [CWest].)

My sense of critical thinking […] depends on inquiry being informed by a strong sense of how things could be otherwise. I want students to see that they understand things better when they have placed established facts, theories, and practices in tension with alternatives . Critical thinking at this level should not depend on students rejecting conventional accounts, but they do have to move through uncertainty. Their knowledge is, at least for a time, destabilized; what has been established cannot be taken for granted.

This view suggests a much closer connection between critical and creative thinking than Beyer, for instance, would subscribe to. However, many of the concerns that underlie the current interest in furthering college students’ critical thinking skills recognize and affirm this connection.

Teaching Considerations and Strategies

. . .  B. Lehman and D. Hayes propose the following strategies for promoting critical thinking in the classroom:

o Help students recognize what they already know about a topic. [For suggestions, see next section.]

o Help students learn to recognize their biases and keep an open mind about the topic. Have students list and share opinions on the subject, but postpone evaluation until more information is gathered.

o Formulate open-ended questions to help students analyze, synthesize, and evaluate the topic.

o Guide students in finding and using diverse sources to explain and support their ideas.

o Have students check the validity of sources and qualifications of authors.

o Help students see there is no single, final authority. By reading several sources on the same topic, students will discover that information is often conflicting and contradictory.

o Help students develop criteria for evaluation. As students learn to support their opinions with logical thinking and comparison of sources, they [develop] critical thinking skills. (Smith 350) . . . .

 The Writing–Critical Thinking Connection

For centuries, the rhetorical assumption about language was that “one first finds knowledge and then puts it into words” (Bizzell, Herzberg, and Reynolds 1)—in other words, thinking always precedes writing or speaking. Today, however, we recognize that “knowledge is actually created by words” (Bizzell, Herzberg, and Reynolds 1) and that writing and thinking are recursive, interdependent processes that promote and enhance one another.

James Sheridan  points out that “the act of generating written discourse is not merely a result of critical thinking but also a stimulus to new thinking and new discoveries” (52). This claim echoes Linda Flower’s assertion that “writing is a generative act—a process of not just ‘expressing’ but ‘making’ meaning” (193-94). The fact is that “when students write, they cannot remain passive players in the learning game” (Gocsik-source no longer available). As Peter Elbow suggests, “writing helps us achieve the perennially difficult task of standing outside our own thinking” (27). Hence, the concept of “writing to learn,” which has become so integral to Writing Across the Curriculum courses and programs.

Using writing to uncover knowledge

As well as using writing to reinforce and integrate new information, writing can be a way of discovering existing knowledge. Many critical thinking experts advocate beginning any new learning unit by identifying what students already know (but often don’t know they know) about the topic.  This strategy promotes critical thinking and active learning by allowing students to “establish a context for new information and share ideas with others” (Smith 350). Two writing strategies that can assist in this discovery process are freewriting and the “write-and-pass” exercise:

Freewriting. Describing freewriting as an activity that “helps students break the writing-is-grammar chain [, which] stultifies the freedom and risk-taking necessary for innovative critical thinking” (53), James Sheridan suggests the process has only two r equirements:

( 1) “You cannot stop writing during the 10-minute exercise.” (2) “You are forbidden to think. [. . .] Write whatever comes into your right (or left) hand. You must keep on writing. Even if you say ‘I don’t know what to write,’ write that. You cannot scratch your head. You cannot gaze pensively at the ceiling. Just write. You are not responsible for what you say; your hand is doing it all. Say anything. Say ‘This is the worst exercise I ever heard of and I can’t believe they’re paying this guy good bucks to have us do it.’ Yell, scream, shout, kick (in written words). Say anything, but keep writing” (52)

With unfocused freewriting, students write about whatever they want. With focused , or directed , freewriting, students are given a topic or question to write on.

Write-and-pass.  Another informal writing assignment that helps students discover what they already know is to ask them to spend a few minutes writing everything they can think of about a given topic or question (for example, “What is critical thinking?”). After several minutes, students pass what they’ve written to the person next to them, and that person reads and expands on the original response. The process is repeated a few more times; generally, with each pass, adding new information becomes more challenging..  The exercise provides a way both for students to focus their thoughts on a particular topic and to benefit from one another’s stores of knowledge.

Assessing Critical Thinking: Current Models

[A]n informed choice of an approach to assessing critical thinking can be made only after faculty have [asked and answered] these questions: What do we think critical thinking is? How do the critical thinking skills, processes, and strategies work together, and what aspects or combinations of them do we wish to assess? What are our students like? What are their motivations [and] environments? What are our assumptions relative to the knowledge and abilities that students need prior to engaging in college-level critical thinking? (Carpenter and Doig 34-35)

Carpenter and Doig’s observation comes from a 1988 review of assessment instruments developed for specific critical thinking courses and programs. Alternatively, the  rubric developed in 2002 by Washington State University’s Critical Thinking Project can be used in subject-matter courses across the curriculum that focus on critical thinking. This rubric includes the following criteria for student writing:

• Identifies and summarizes the problem/question at issue.
• Identifies and presents the student’s own perspective and position as it is important to the analysis of the issue.
• Identifies and considers other salient perspectives and positions that are important to the analysis of the issue.
• Identifies and assesses the key assumptions.
• Identifies and assesses the quality of supporting data/evidence and provides additional data/evidence related to the issue.
• Identifies and considers the influence of the context (e.g. cultural/social, scientific, educational, economic, technological, ethical, political, personal, and so on) on the issue.
• Identifies and assesses conclusions, implications, and consequences. “Critical Thinking Rubric” no longer available online.

Each item in the rubric includes a description of what would be considered “scant” vs “substantially developed” coverage of that item. The Washington State Critical Thinking Project website is no longer available online.

A Final Note

In this article, we have focused on what Kerry S. Walters describes as the “logicistic” model of critical thinking—that is (according to Walters) “the unwarranted assumption that good thinking is reducible to logical thinking” (1). In Re-Thinking Reason: New Perspectives in Critical Thinking , Walters explores an alternative model being forwarded by an emerging “second-wave” of critical thinking research and pedagogy. Second-wave advocates argue that while “logical skills are essential functions of good thinking, […] so are non-analytic ones such as imagination and intuition, and the good thinker knows how to utilize both types” (2).  This reconception of critical thinking is grounded in current scholarship in the fields of philosophy, psychology, education, feminist theory, and critical pedagogy; Walters’s book serves as an introduction to and dialogue among some of the proponents and practitioners of this alternative. While beyond the scope of this article, the second-wave perspective on critical thinking deserves our serious attention and consideration as well.

This article was previously published in entirety in Teaching with Writing , Winter 2004.

Works Cited (some sources no longer available)

Beyer, Barry K. Critical Thinking. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation, 1995.

________. Developing a Thinking Skills Program. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1988.

Bizzell, Patricia, Bruce Hertzberg, and Nedra Reynolds. The Bedford Bibliography for Teachers of Writing. 5th Ed. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2000.

Carpenter, C. Blaine, and James C. Doig. “Assessing Critical Thinking Across the Curriculum.” Assessing Student’s Learning 34 (Summer 1988): 33-46.

“Critical Thinking and Broad Knowledge Meeting Notes.” 2 Nov. 2001. Center for Instructional Innovation, Western Washington University. 4 March 2003.  http://pandora.cii.wwu.edu/gened/dialogue/critical_notes_nov.htm Source no longer available.

Elbow, Peter. “Teaching Two Kinds of Thinking by Teaching Writing.” Re-Thinking Reason: New Perspectives in Critical Thinking . Ed. Kerry S. Walters. Albany: SUNY Press, 1994. 25-31.

Flower, Linda. “Taking Thought: The Role of Conscious Processing in the Making of Meaning.” Thinking, Reasoning, and Writing. Ed. Elaine P. Maimon, Barbara F. Nodine, and Finbarr W. O’Connor. NY: Longman, 1989. 185-212.

French, Joyce N. and Carol Rhoder. Teaching Thinking Skills: Theory and Practice. NY: Garland, 1992.

Gocsik, Karen. “Teaching Critical Thinking.: 1997 Dartmouth College Composition Center. Source no longer available.

Scriven, Michael and Richard Paul. “Defining Critical Thinking.” Draft Statement for the National Council for Excellence in Critical Thinking. Foundation for Critical Thinking. 27 Feb. 2003. <http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/definint-critical-thinking/766>

Sheridan, James J. “Skipping on the Brink of the Abyss: Teaching Thinking Through Writing.” Cr itical Thinking: Educational Imperative. Ed. Cynthia A. Barnes. New Directions for Community Colleges, No. 77. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1992. 51-61.

Smith, Carl B. “Two Approaches to Critical Thinking.” The Reading Teacher 4.4  (Dec. 1990): 350-51.

Stewart, Ruth. “Teaching Critical Thinking in First-Year Composition: Sometimes More Is More.” Teaching English at the Two-Year College 29 (Dec. 2001): 162-171.

Taylor, Peter. “We Know More Than We Are, At First, Prepared To Acknowledge: Journeying to Develop Critical Thinking.” 12 March 2003 <http://www.faculty.umb.edu/pjt/journey.html>

Walters, Kerry S. Re-Thinking Reason: New Perspectives in Critical Thinking. Albany: SUNY Press, 1994.

Comments are closed.

Contact Info

• Productivity
• Thoughtful learning

Critical thinking models: definition, benefits, and skills

In the age of memes and misinformation, critical thinking is a must. It's a crucial skill to differentiate between what may be true or false and develop (and explain) reasons for your beliefs.

The hardest part of critical thinking is knowing when to do it. Most of the time, it's easier to accept things as fact rather than to dig deeper to reach a conscious conclusion. This happens for various reasons. The most common being the ease of following the crowd and the fact it would be rather cumbersome to think critically about every single thing in the world!

How then do we know what to think critically about? How do we get the right answers, and how do we know they're correct? This is where a critical thinking model comes in. In this article, we’ll share three critical thinking models, essential critical reasoning skills, and why improving your critical thinking process is a good idea.

What Is Critical Thinking?

"Critical thinking is reasonable and reflective thinking focused on deciding what to believe or do.” This is how renowned professor and author Robert Hugh Ennis defines it. Put another way, the definition of critical thinking is careful consideration and analysis of information to reach a rational conclusion or decision. We practice critical thinking to inform—and own—our beliefs and actions and ensure they truly align with our values and intentions.

That said, critical thinking is not our natural way of thinking . Most of us are never aware of our brain's metacognitive actions, conceptualizations, or synthesis. Instead, we rely on habits, patterns, and competencies from past experiences to understand and interact with the world. While this may save us time and effort, it doesn’t always provide the best results—and often results in fallacies.

What Are Critical Thinking Models?

A critical thinking model provides the structure for practicing this type of thinking. It helps us notice our own thinking biases and allows us to try viewing the world objectively all while providing guidelines for asking the right questions, reaching logical conclusions, and explaining how we did it.

3 Critical Thinking Models That Are Useful in Everyday Life

There are thousands of critical thinking models for almost any subject or discipline. Let’s take a look at three models of critical thinking we find useful in everyday life.

Proximate vs. Root Cause

The proximate vs. root cause critical thinking model encourages people to discover the primary cause of an event. A proximate cause is closest to the observed result or immediately responsible for it. In contrast, the root cause is the actual cause of the result. Both are causes of the event, but the root cause is the main cause, while the proximate cause is the immediate next cause.

This mental model forces you to look beyond obvious reasons to determine the core reason for impact. It helps with innovative problem-solving, so instead of relying on “Band-Aid solutions” or improving currently-existing solutions, you uncover the root of the matter and create something altogether new.

Example: You've gained a lot of weight since March 2021. Upon investigation, you may draw the following inferences:

• Proximate cause: You burn fewer calories than you consume (moving less and eating more due to boredom or food accessibility), thus the weight gain.
• Root cause: Your habits changed because of the lifestyle change from working at the office to working from home.

When you know the root cause of an issue, you can begin to deal with it to reduce the odds of recurrence. In this case, change your habits to fit the work-from-home lifestyle better. The proximate vs. root cause model improves your critical thinking ability and helps formulate a proper understanding of issues before working on them.

Cognitive Bias

Cognitive bias is a tendency to think in ways that can lead to deviations from rationality and objectivity. We all have cognitive biases. This error in thinking happens because of our tendency to process and interpret information swiftly, which can affect our decision-making and the eventual outcome of a situation.

Example: A soccer player scores a goal. In his mind, that means he's a great player. But if he had missed, he would reason that it was because the grass was wet. In self-serving bias, the tendency is to claim more responsibility for successes than failures. In other words: if there's a success, it's because I did something right. If there's a failure, it's something else's fault, not mine.

When you only pay attention or engage with news sources, stories, and conversations that confirm your worldview, you limit yourself from other perspectives and opinions that may be good for you without realizing it. Being aware of your own cognitive bias allows you to create some distance between how you expect the world to be and become more open to how it actually is on any given day.

The human brain is a powerful machine, but it has its limitations. One of them is neglecting facts and evidence to make sense of the world quickly and easily. This habit of mind may allow us to make faster decisions, but it doesn't serve us optimally. When unchecked, cognitive biases hinder fair-mindedness, inclusion, and impartiality.

Hanlon's Razor

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence."

Hanlon's Razor promotes good thinking and teaches us not to assume the worst intentions about people's actions without investigation. It helps regulate our emotions and improve relationships and decision-making. It also helps us develop empathy by giving others the benefit of the doubt and not assuming negative intent with evidence.

Example: You get to work earlier than usual on a Monday morning and notice your things scattered around. This must mean someone used your office! You immediately think a certain coworker did this to annoy you. But when you pause and consider, you realize that a coworker may have used your office during the weekend because it was vacant and they forgot their keys at home.

The stories we tell ourselves about why things happen the way they do are rarely true. It's worth spending some time to objectively view situations and choose a positive narrative that leads to better outcomes in our mental and emotional health and relationships.

Be the first to try it out!

We're developing ABLE, a powerful tool for building your personal knowledge, capturing information from the web, conducting research, taking notes, and writing content.

Critical Thinking Skills and Their Benefits

Critical thinking skills are useful for everyone. They help us think coherently and make advancements with our personal and professional goals. Some of the benefits you can gain from critical thinking are:

• Greater reflective thinking and self-awareness
• Ability to audit new information
• Better interpersonal relationships
• More creative thinking and problem-solving skills
• Expanded open-mindedness
• Improved communication and presentation skills
• Freedom from past experiences and attachments

To gain these types of benefits, it’s important to practice the critical thinking skills listed below.

1. Observation

Observation is the foundation for critical thinking. It’s the ability to notice and predict opportunities, problems, and solutions. Taking the time to observe helps you process information better. Positive habits like meditating, journaling, and active listening will help you improve your observation skills.

2. Analysis

After observing, it's time to analyze the information. Analyzing helps you gain a clearer grasp of the situation at hand. Ask questions that help you get a clearer picture of the subject and get to the root cause or reason. For example, if you’re analyzing a controversial tweet you read, you may ask questions such as:

• Who wrote this?
• What is it about?
• When was it written?
• Why did they write it? Do they have a hidden agenda?
• How sound is the premise?
• What if this tweet was altered to send a misleading message?

These questions help you break your subject into rational bits and consider the relationship between each one and the whole.

3. Inference

Inference is the ability to draw conclusions from the information you've analyzed and other relevant data. It's a higher-level critical thinking skill that helps you reach careful decisions rather than hastily drawn (and likely biased) conclusions.

4. Communication

Once you have a solid foundation for your beliefs, communicating your theory is the next essential part of critical thinking. Share your point of view and get feedback from others to know if it holds up. You can improve your communication skills by participating in thematic forum discussions and sharing your research and insights with others in your community, both online and offline.

5. Problem-solving

Problem-solving is one of the main reasons for critical thinking. The end goal of critical thinking is using your new conclusion to close gaps and solve problems. You start by identifying your viewpoint, analyzing relevant information, and deciding on the right solution for a particular scenario. You can improve your problem-solving skills by self-learning the subject at hand and considering hidden, alternative outcomes.

Tap Into the Power of Critical Thinking

Becoming a critical thinker is challenging but oh-so worth it. It leads to continuous growth in all areas of your life: better relationships, confidence, and problem-solving skills. Critical thinking helps us overcome familiar patterns and ways of thinking, opening us to new perspectives.

To improve your critical thinking, spend time honing the five crucial critical thinking skills: observation, analysis, inference, communication, and problem-solving. Have fun with the process as you pay more attention to your beliefs and experiences and other people's perspectives and experiences as well.

You can use critical thinking models to guide your critical thinking journey, prompting you to realize when to pause and ask questions and when to accept the answers you have and move on. For example, in today’s age of misinformation, you may learn that it’s almost always counterproductive to engage with news and information from unknown sources.

Critical thinking is needed to remove scales from our eyes and improve our knowledge and experience of the world, but it’s also important to know when to turn our attention to focus on a new subject and move on.

Improve your critical thinking with ABLE

Ask better questions and get better answers with ABLEs integrated web search, annotation and note-taking features. Check how ABLE helps you to improve your critical thinking.

We hope you have enjoyed reading this article. Feel free to share, recommend and connect on Twitter: https://twitter.com/meet_able 🙏

Straight from the ABLE team: how we work and what we build. Thoughts, learnings, notes, experiences and what really matters.

Read more posts by this author

follow me :

Simplifying complexity: How to conquer clarity and brevity

How to organize information: the best methods for lifelong learning.

What is abstract thinking? 10 activities to improve your abstract thinking skills

5 examples of cognitive learning theory (and how you can use them)

0 results found.

• Aegis Alpha SA
• We build in public

Building with passion in

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

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

What Is Critical Thinking? | Definition & Examples

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

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

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

Critical thinking skills help you to:

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

Table of contents

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scribbr Citation Checker New

The AI-powered Citation Checker helps you avoid common mistakes such as:

• Missing commas and periods
• Incorrect usage of “et al.”
• Ampersands (&) in narrative citations
• Missing reference entries

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

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

Academic examples

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

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

Nonacademic examples

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

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

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

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

When encountering information, ask:

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

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

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

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

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

 Plagiarism

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

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

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

Try for free

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

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

Critical thinking skills include the ability to:

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

Ask questions such as:

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

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

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

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

Being information literate means that you:

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

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

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

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

Cite this Scribbr article

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

Ryan, E. (2023, May 31). What Is Critical Thinking? | Definition & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved April 9, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/working-with-sources/critical-thinking/

Is this article helpful?

Eoghan Ryan

Other students also liked, student guide: information literacy | meaning & examples, what are credible sources & how to spot them | examples, applying the craap test & evaluating sources, unlimited academic ai-proofreading.

✔ Document error-free in 5minutes ✔ Unlimited document corrections ✔ Specialized in correcting academic texts

• Study and research support
• Academic skills

Critical thinking

A model for critical thinking.

Critical thinking is an important life skill, and an essential part of university studies. Central to critical thinking is asking meaningful questions.

This three-stage model, adapted from LearnHigher , will help you generate questions to understand, analyse, and evaluate something, such as an information source.

Description

Starting with the description stage, you ask questions such as: What? Where? Why? and Who? These help you establish the background and context.

For example, if you are reading a journal article, you might ask questions such as:

• Who wrote this?
• What is it about?
• When was it written?
• What is the aim of the article?

If you are thinking through a problem, you might ask:

• What is this problem about?
• Who does it involve or affect?
• When and where is this happening?

These types of questions lead to descriptive answers. Although the ability to describe something is important, to really develop your understanding and critically engage, we need to move beyond these types of questions. This moves you into the analysis stage.

Here you will ask questions such as: How? Why? and What if? These help you to examine methods and processes, reasons and causes, and the alternative options. For example, if you are reading a journal article, you might ask:

• How was the research conducted?
• Why are these theories discussed?
• What are the alternative methods and theories?
• What are the contributing factors to the problem?
• How might one factor impact another?
• What if one factor is removed or altered?

Asking these questions helps you to break something into parts and consider the relationship between each part, and each part to the whole. This process will help you develop more analytical answers and deeper thinking.

Finally, you come to the evaluation stage, where you will ask 'so what?' and 'what next?' questions to make judgments and consider the relevance; implications; significance and value of something.

You may ask questions such as:

• What do I think about this?
• How is this relevant to my assignment?
• How does this compare to other research I have read?

Making such judgments will lead you to reasonable conclusions, solutions, or recommendations.

The way we think is complex. This model is not intended to be used in a strictly linear way, or as a prescriptive set of instructions. You may move back and forth between different segments. For example, you may ask, 'what is this about?', and then move straight to, 'is this relevant to me?'

The model is intended to encourage a critically questioning approach, and can be applied to many learning scenarios at university, such as: interpreting assignment briefs; developing arguments; evaluating sources; analysing data or formulating your own questions to research an answer.

Watch the ‘Thinking Critically at University’ video for an in-depth description of a critical thinking model. View video using Microsoft Stream (link opens in a new window, available for University members only). The rest of our Critical thinking pages will show you how to use this model in practice.

This model has been adapted from LearnHigher under a Creative Commons BY-NC-SA 3.0.

• Programs & Services
• Delphi Center

Ideas to Action (i2a)

• Paul-Elder Critical Thinking Framework

Critical thinking is that mode of thinking – about any subject, content, or problem — in which the thinker improves the quality of his or her thinking by skillfully taking charge of the structures inherent in thinking and imposing intellectual standards upon them. (Paul and Elder, 2001). The Paul-Elder framework has three components:

• The elements of thought (reasoning)
• The  intellectual standards that should be applied to the elements of reasoning
• The intellectual traits associated with a cultivated critical thinker that result from the consistent and disciplined application of the intellectual standards to the elements of thought

According to Paul and Elder (1997), there are two essential dimensions of thinking that students need to master in order to learn how to upgrade their thinking. They need to be able to identify the "parts" of their thinking, and they need to be able to assess their use of these parts of thinking.

Elements of Thought (reasoning)

The "parts" or elements of thinking are as follows:

• All reasoning has a purpose
• All reasoning is an attempt to figure something out, to settle some question, to solve some problem
• All reasoning is based on assumptions
• All reasoning is done from some point of view
• All reasoning is based on data, information and evidence
• All reasoning is expressed through, and shaped by, concepts and ideas
• All reasoning contains inferences or interpretations by which we draw conclusions and give meaning to data
• All reasoning leads somewhere or has implications and consequences

Universal Intellectual Standards

The intellectual standards that are to these elements are used to determine the quality of reasoning. Good critical thinking requires having a command of these standards. According to Paul and Elder (1997 ,2006), the ultimate goal is for the standards of reasoning to become infused in all thinking so as to become the guide to better and better reasoning. The intellectual standards include:

Intellectual Traits

Consistent application of the standards of thinking to the elements of thinking result in the development of intellectual traits of:

• Intellectual Humility
• Intellectual Courage
• Intellectual Empathy
• Intellectual Autonomy
• Intellectual Integrity
• Intellectual Perseverance
• Confidence in Reason
• Fair-mindedness

Characteristics of a Well-Cultivated Critical Thinker

Habitual utilization of the intellectual traits produce a well-cultivated critical thinker who is able to:

• Raise vital questions and problems, formulating them clearly and precisely
• Gather and assess relevant information, using abstract ideas to interpret it effectively
• Come to well-reasoned conclusions and solutions, testing them against relevant criteria and standards;
• Think open-mindedly within alternative systems of thought, recognizing and assessing, as need be, their assumptions, implications, and practical consequences; and
• Communicate effectively with others in figuring out solutions to complex problems

Paul, R. and Elder, L. (2010). The Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking Concepts and Tools. Dillon Beach: Foundation for Critical Thinking Press.

• SACS & QEP
• Planning and Implementation
• What is Critical Thinking?
• Why Focus on Critical Thinking?
• Culminating Undergraduate Experience
• Community Engagement
• Frequently Asked Questions
• What is i2a?

Copyright © 2012 - University of Louisville , Delphi Center

11 Modeling Critical Thinking

Tutors spend lots of time working with students to develop critical thinking skills. Using Socratic questioning, we guide students from memory, to comprehension, to analysis and evaluation. We coach them through the problem solving process so that they make progress with their studies. Facilitating critical thinking is an important part of what we do.

It’s equally important that tutors do not forget to practice critical thinking themselves. In this section, we review the important components of critical thinking, why they’re important, and how we can actively practice critical thinking in our tutoring sessions.

Defining Critical Thinking

We use the words “critical thinking,” quite a lot, but what does it actually mean? The National Counsel for Excellence in Critical Thinking describes critical thinking as an “intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully using one’s observations, communication, and moments of reflection, to understand, apply, analyze, evaluate, and synthesize information.” 1 Let’s break that down:

• “ Intellectually disciplined ”- Using the critical thinking process is a skill. It takes practice. It takes discipline.
• “ Actively and skillfully ”- Critical thinking is an active process. It requires intention and effort. It’s often not something we automatically do, even once we’ve developed our skills.
• “ Observations, communication, and moments of reflection ”- The critical thinking process begins with how we take in information. We first reflect on the things we observe, the material we read, and the exchanges we have with people.
• After we’ve made observations, we can proceed with the Critical Thinking Process. The definition lists the steps that are included in the process: “understand, apply, analyze, evaluate, and synthesize .”

An important characteristic of critical thinking, as defined here, is that it is universally applicable across disciplines and situations. The same process can be applied in a science class, when reading the news, when modifying a recipe in the kitchen, or when tutoring a student. It’s a skill that we can use in all areas of our lives, and it encourages a type of introspection called metacognition . Metacognition occurs when we think about our own thinking. No matter what task we may encounter, applying critical thinking forces us to question our perceptions and reactions. It creates opportunities for us to reflect on the questions we haven’t yet asked, and perspectives we haven’t yet considered. 2

The Critical Thinking Process

There are many models that exist to describe the critical thinking process. One Model of Learning Theory, called Bloom’s Taxonomy, 3 describes the different ways we can “know” something. Bloom’s Taxonomy arranges these ways of knowing into a hierarchy according to the effort required to achieve that level of understanding (See Figure) The more critical our thinking, the higher we move up the hierarchy.

The stages of Remembering and Understanding information, require the least critical thought. These stages include the observations and reflection mentioned earlier and are preliminary to the critical thinking process. True critical thinking begins when, once we have observed new information and understood it, we begin to Apply and Analyze it. 4 We test it out, place it in various scenarios, and begin to ask more probing questions. These are the stages where we “take the idea apart,” breaking it into its components to better understand what they are and how they fit together.

After a certain level of questioning, scrutiny, and reviewing information from a variety of perspectives, we can begin to make assessments, judgements, and evaluations. Evaluation calls us to bring new information into the situation. Here we’re making judgements based on our prior experience and knowledge in other areas. We also make judgements based on our personal values, our goals, and objectives.

Finally, the most critical stage of thought is the Creation or Synthesis stage. Here is where we take in everything we’ve already learned and create a new idea. Creating solutions, proposing alternatives, and generating new thoughts based on what we’ve learned requires the most effort and is the result of much critical thought. 4 , 5

(Ideas which prove to be exceptionally bad, are likely the result of a lack of critical thought. When we skip over the lower stages of the hierarchy, and attempt to start from the very top, we miss all the critical thinking that informs good ideas.)

How Tutors Can Apply Critical Thinking

It’s easy to see how critical thinking can help students, but we may wonder how we should be applying critical thinking when we’re acting as tutors. Remember that the critical thinking process can be applied to any subject or discipline. It can also be applied to situations outside of the classroom. It’s likely that we’re using some degree of critical thinking in our tutoring sessions already. Recognizing how we already use it, and how we can more actively apply the process, lead to more effective assistance during sessions. 6, 7

Let’s walk through what critical thinking might look like for a tutor (see Figure 2.):

We first begin with observations and information gathering. In a session, this means learning what assignment a student is working on, but also observing the student.

• Is this student new to tutoring, or familiar?
• Do they seem to be embarrassed to ask for help, or are they comfortable sharing their struggles?
• Does the student know exactly what’s giving them trouble, or are they unclear on what piece is challenging them?
• Is the student organized, or do they have trouble finding assignments?
• Can they read and understand their notes from class?

All these observations can inform how we proceed with the tutoring session, if we apply critical thinking.

Next, we move onto our Socratic questioning. In addition to giving us the opportunity to make more observations, these interactions with the student help us to better analyze the student’s situation .

• Which parts does the student understand, and which are elusive?
• Are the student’s notes organized and legible?
• Does the student struggle with the language used in their textbook?

This kind of analysis can give us a more holistic view of the student and their particular case.

After learning as much as we can about the situation, we can begin to evaluate and make assessments . This informs how we move forward with the session, and where we ask the student to focus.

• Perhaps we can confidently assess which parts of a process the student has misinterpreted, and so can guide the student to better understand them.
• Perhaps we have identified patterns in the students’ work and choose to focus our attention on addressing something more systemic, rather than working through the specific assignment.
• It might be the case that you evaluate the student’ understanding of a concept and conclude that the underlying issue is that they can’t read their notes from class, or don’t have access to the textbook, or can’t find the assignment instructions due to poor organization.

With this information, a tutor might choose to spend some time addressing these issues with the student, concluding that they are the greater hindrance to the student’s success.

Finally, the tutor moves on to the creation/synthesis stage of critical thinking. The priority for the tutor is to help the student develop their own solutions to the problems they encounter, but this doesn’t mean that the tutor isn’t creating solutions of their own.

Tutors may synthesize a new strategy or approach, in response to the evaluation the tutor has made of the student’s need.

• The tutor’s solution may be to create some practice problems to demonstrate to the student how the concept is applied.
• The tutor may devise a solution that grounds the concept in real-life scenarios or uses creative metaphors to assist the student’s comprehension.

The tutor’s creative solutions and strategies are informed by the assessments made in the previous stages of the critical thinking process.  Solutions and strategies are not always appropriate or effective unless we first take time to observe, analyze, evaluate, and gain a better understanding of the student and their needs.

Quickwrite Reflection

How do you currently use critical thinking in your interactions with students during a tutoring session? Are you actively making observations and responding? Have you adapted your approach with a student based on your observations?

Take a moment to reflect on how you may already be integrating critical thinking into your interactions with students.

How can you improve your critical thinking in your interactions with students?

Pitfalls to Avoid

We can always find ways to improve, no matter how skilled we are in applying the critical thinking process. In addition, it’s important to recognize that we can also fall into bad habits in our critical thinking, if we’re not careful. Many of the habits that influence our reasoning involve unconscious biases, predispositions, and other beliefs that we may not even realize we carry.

This is where our metacognition and self-reflection become important. It’s always a good idea to remember to check in with ourselves, and ask if there are underlying factors that could be influencing our decision making. Even when we have applied critical thinking appropriately, self-awareness is important in understanding what may be influencing our observations, our conclusions, and the solutions we propose. 8

Some of these factors that can unconsciously influence our critical thinking process include:

• Unintentional Prejudices
• Unconscious Biases
• Social Taboos
• Situational Distortions
• Acceptance of Established Social Norms
• Vested Interest in a Particular Outcome
• Our Own Self-Interest

Even the world’s most logical thinkers know that emotions, prior experiences, and unintentional biases can influence how we view situations. This can impact our ability to truly think critically about them. When other factors begin influencing our critical thinking, it can often be difficult to notice. How do we combat this? We can’t eliminate the influence of these factors entirely. That’s why it’s essential that we remain self-aware and maintain an attitude focused on improvement. 9

What might these pitfalls look like for a tutor? Here are a few examples:

1. The tutor has a party to attend later tonight, and if they finish working with a student early, they have more time to get ready. Instead of taking time to carefully evaluate the student’s need, they apply a strategy that is quick.

Is it a bad strategy? Not necessarily. Is it the best strategy? Maybe not.

In this case the tutor’s critical thinking was influenced by their personal motivations.

2. The tutor is working with a student who has an accent. The tutor automatically begins applying strategies they’ve used for students who struggle reading texts in English.

Are these strategies appropriate here? Maybe not.

By automatically focusing on the student’s language proficiency this way, the student has skipped over the preliminary stages of critical thinking, and went directly to creating a solution. What’s more, is that the student could be offended that the tutor made assumptions about their language proficiency.

3. The tutor is assisting a student with an essay on current events. They start the session by asking helpful questions to assist the student in identifying their stance on the issue and to structure their ideas for the paper. The tutor subtly convinces the student to adopt arguments and stances that more closely align with the tutor’s own beliefs and position on the current event issue.

In this example, evaluation of the student’s situation led the tutor to use guided questioning as a strategy to help the student discover their ideas about the assignment topic. However, the tutor allowed their own beliefs about the issue to interfere with the student’s critical thinking process, sabotaging the original goal to help the student to make their own conclusions.

Something to Try

Take the social attitudes implicit bias self-assessment offered by Project Implicit ® https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/

Reflect on your results. Are you surprised? Did you learn something new about yourself? How do you think the results of your assessment impact how you approach your role as a tutor?

Alternatively, take a moment to reflect on the following questions:

• Think back to your childhood. Remember who your teachers were. Can you remember your school principal, your sports coaches, police officers, community leaders? When you were young, did people in positions of authority in your life look like you?
• What did your household look like? Were you raised by parents? Two parents? One parent? Grandparents? Someone else?
• Think about the movies you see. The books you read. Magazines, music, video games, and other popular media. Do the characters and people in these media look like you? Do these media explore topics that you can relate to?
• When you want to go to a new restaurant, theater, or event, how often do you have to research whether or not they can accommodate you?

Our answers to questions like these reveal the lens by which we see the world, and can help us to understand others whose beliefs and perceptions are different from our own, based on their own set of life experiences.

Effective tutoring requires tutors to be well-versed in the critical thinking process. We use the process to guide students through practicing critical thought in their coursework, and we use it ourselves in our sessions assisting those students. We simultaneously focus on the student’s thinking, and on our own approach.

A thorough understanding of the process, and the importance of each of its parts, can provide tutors a solid foundational knowledge when navigating sessions. Metacognition is an important skill in applying the critical thinking process, and self-reflection is an important component in assessing the effectiveness of our own critical thinking.  With lots of practice and an attitude of continuous improvement, we can advance our tutoring skills and better assist the students with whom we work.

• The Foundation For Critical Thinking. (2019). Defining Critical Thinking. The Foundation for Critical Thinking. http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/defining-critical-thinking/766. Accessed 26 Apr. 2021.
• Sanavi and Tarighat . (2014). Critical Thinking and Speaking Proficiency: A Mixed-method Study. Theory and Practice in Language Studies . 4(1), 79-87. http://www.academypublication.com/issues/past/tpls/vol04/01/12.pdf.
• Bloom, Engelhart, Furst, Hill, Krathwohl. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York: David McKay Company. https://www.uky.edu/~rsand1/china2018/texts/Bloom%20et%20al%20-Taxonomy%20of%20Educational%20Objectives.pdf.
• Fahim and Masouleh. (2012). Critical Thinking in Higher Education: A Pedagogical Look. Theory and Practice in Language Studies. 2(7), 1370-1375. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267426179_Critical_Thinking_in_Higher_Education_A_Pedagogical_Look.
• McLoughlin, and Luca. (2000). Cognitive engagement and higher order thinking through computer conferencing: We know why but do we know how? In A. Herrmann, & M. M. Kulski (Ed.), 9th Annual Teaching Learning Forum (pp. 4-15). Perth: Curtin University of Technology. http://cleo.murdoch.edu.au/confs/tlf/tlf2000/mcloughlin.html..
• Cosgrove. (2011). Critical thinking in the Oxford tutorial: a call for an explicit and systematic approach. Journal of Higher Education Research and Development. 30(3), 343-356. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2010.487259.
• Crook. (2006). Substantive Critical Thinking as Developed by the Foundation for Critical Thinking Proves Effective in Raising SAT and ACT Test Scores. Foundation for Critical Thinking. http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/substantive-critical-thinking-as-developed-by-the-foundation-for-critical-thinking-proves-effective-in-raising-sat-and-act-test-scores/632.
• Ashwin. (2006). Variation in academics’ accounts of tutorials. Studies in Higher Education. 31(6), 651–665. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070601004234.
• Anderson and Soden. (2001). Peer Interaction and the Learning of Critical Thinking Skills. Psychology Learning & Teaching. 1(1), 37-40. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.2304/plat.2001.1.1.37 .

Additional Resources:

Paul and Elder. (2020). The Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking: Concepts and Tools, 8th Ed. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Inc. https://rowman.com/isbn/9781538134955.

Tutor Handbook Copyright © 2021 by Penny Feltner and gapinski is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research pp 41–92 Cite as

A Model of Critical Thinking in Higher Education

• Martin Davies Ph.D. 3  
• First Online: 12 December 2014

5293 Accesses

41 Citations

3 Altmetric

Part of the book series: Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research ((HATR,volume 30))

There has been no shortage of definitions of the concept of “critical thinking” over the years and the concept has been subject to much detailed scholarly work. In social and educational terms critical thinking is an important topic. Of late, critical thinking has also been widely discussed in the popular media, and the concept has been regarded as one of the most important graduate outcomes expected of a university education. However, despite this, scholars have yet to arrive at a holistic conception of critical thinking—a model of critical thinking as it were—that might usefully underpin the range of considerations about critical thinking that occur in the higher education literature. This paper: (1) reviews the various definitions and approaches to critical thinking, and (2) incorporates them into a single, coherent model. A number of disagreements in critical thinking scholarship are outlined as ‘axis disputes’ arising from the proposed model.

• Critical thinking
• Higher education
• Argumentation
• Critical pedagogy
• Criticality
• Critical dispositions
• Critical attitudes
• Critical citizenship
• Delphi definition
• Cognitive elements
• Propensities

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

Buying options

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Airasian, P. W., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R., Pintrich, P. R., Raths, J., & Wittrock, M. C. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives . New York: Longman.

Google Scholar  

Arum, R., & Roska, J. (2011). Academically adrift: Limited learning on college campuses . Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press.

Bailin, S., Case, R., Coombs, J. R., & Daniels, L. B. (1999). Conceptualizing critical thinking. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 31 (3), 285–302.

Article   Google Scholar  

Barnett, R. (1997). Higher education: A critical business . Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

Barnett, R. (2004). Learning for an unknown future. Higher Education Research and Development, 23 (3), 247–260.

Benner, P., & Tanner, C. (1987, January). How expert nurses use intuition. The American Journal of Nursing, 87 (1), 23–34.

Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook I: Cognitive domain . New York: McKay.

Boostrum, R. (1994). Developing creative and critical thinking: An integrated approach . Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Company.

Brookfield, S. (1987). Developing critical thinkers: Challenging adults to explore alternative ways of thinking and acting (1st ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc.

Burbules, N. C., & Berk, R. (1999). Critical thinking and critical pedagogy: Relations, differences, and limits. In T. Popkewitz (Ed.), Critical theories in education: Changing terrains of knowledge and politics (pp. xv, 254 p.). New York: Routledge.

Chance, P. (1986). Thinking in the classroom: A survey of programs . New York: Teachers’ College, Columbia University.

Cooper, A. (2009). In the zone: The zen of sports. Patheos , October 16, from http://www.patheos.com/Resources/Additional-Resources/In-the-Zone.html

Cowden, S., & Singh, G. (2013). Acts of knowing: Critical pedagogy in, against and beyond the university . London: Bloomsbury Academic.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience . New York: Harper and Row.

Cuban, L. (1984). Policy and research dilemmas in the teaching of reasoning. Review of Educational Research, 54 (4), 655–681.

Dane, E., & Pratt, M. G. (2007). Exploring intuition and its role in managerial decision making. Academy of Management Review, 32 (1), 33–54.

Davies, W. M. (2006). An ‘infusion’ approach to critical thinking: Moore on the critical thinking debate. Higher Education Research and Development, 25 (2), 179–193.

Davies, M. (2013). Critical thinking and disciplines reconsidered. Higher Education Research and Development, 32 (4), 529–544.

Dreyfus, H., & Dreyfus, S. (1985). Mind over machine: The power of human intuition and expertise in a era of the computer . New York: Free Press.

Effken, J. A. (2000). Informational basis for expert intuition. Nursing Theory and Concept Development or Analysis, 32 (2), 246–255.

Ennis, R. (1991). Critical thinking: A streamlined conception. Teaching Philosophy, 14 (1), 5–24.

Ennis, R. H. (2011, July 1994, revised and updated). The nature of critical thinking: An outline of critical thinking dispositions and abilities. Paper presented at the sixth international conference on thinking. Cambridge, MA: MIT. http://faculty.education.illinois.edu/rhennis/documents/TheNatureofCriticalThinking_51711_000.pdf

Ennis, R. H. (1962). A concept of critical thinking. Harvard Educational Review, 32 (1), 81–111.

Ennis, R. H. (1985a). Critical thinking and the curriculum. National Forum, 65 , 28–31.

Ennis, R. H. (1985b). A logical basis for measuring critical thinking skills. Educational Leadership, 43 (2), 44–48.

Ennis, R. H. (1987). A taxonomy of critical thinking abilities and dispositions. In J. S. Baron & R. H. Sternberg (Eds.), Teaching thinking skills (pp. 9–26). New York: W.H. Freeman.

Ennis, R. H. (1990). The rationality of rationality: Why think critically? In R. Page (Ed.), Philosophy of education 1989 (pp. 402–405). Bloomington, IL: Philosophy of Education Society.

Ennis, R. H. (1994, April 7). Assessing critical thinking dispositions: Theoretical considerations . Paper presented at annual meeting of the American Education Research Association, New Orleans, LA.

Ennis, R. H. (1996). Critical thinking . Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Ericsson, K. A. (2008). Deliberate practice and acquisition of expert performance: A general overview. Academic Emergency Medicine, 15 , 988–994.

Ericsson, K. A., & Lehmann, A. C. (1996). Expert and exceptional performance: Evidence of maximal adaptation to task constraints. Annual Review of Psychology, 47 , 273–305.

Facione, P. (1998). Critical thinking: What it is and why it counts? Millbrae, CA: California Academic Press. www.insightassessment.com/pdf_files/what&why2006.pdf

Facione, P. (2000). The disposition toward critical thinking: Its character, measurement, and relation to critical thinking skills. Informal Logic, 20 (1), 61–84.

Facione, P., & Facione, N. (1992). The California Critical Thinking Dispositions Inventory (CCTDI) and the CCTDI manual . Millbrae, CA: Academic.

Facione, P. A. (1990). The Delphi Report: Critical thinking: A statement of expert consensus for purposes of educational assessment and instruction . Millbrae, CA: California Academic Press.

Facione, P. A., Sanchez, C. A., Facione, N. C., & Gainen, J. (1995). The disposition toward critical thinking. The Journal of General Education, 44 (1), 1–25.

Fisher, A., & Scriven, D. (1997). Critical thinking: Its definition and assessment . Point Reyes, CA: Edgepress.

Franz, R. (2003). Herbert Simon. Artificial intelligence as a framework for understanding intuition. Journal of Economic Psychology, 24 , 265–277.

Freire, P. (1972). Pedagogy of the oppressed . Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin.

Freire, P. (1973). Education for critical consciousness . New York: Seabury Press.

Giroux, H. A. (1988). Teachers as intellectuals . Granby, MA: Bergin and Garvey.

Giroux, H. A. (1994). Toward a pedagogy of critical thinking. In K. S. Walters (Ed.), Re-thinking reason: New perspectives in critical thinking (pp. 200–201). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Giroux, H. A. (2005). Border crossings: Cultural workers and the politics of education . New York: Routledge.

Giroux, H. A. (2010, October 17). Lessons from Paulo Freire. The Chronicle of Higher Education . Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/Lessons-From-Paulo-Freire/124910/October 18, 2012

Gladwell, M. (2005). Blink: The power of thinking without thinking . New York: Back Bay Books/Little, Brown and Company.

Halonen, J. (1986). Teaching critical thinking in psychology . Milwaukee, WI: Alverno Publications.

Halonen, J. (1995). Demystifying critical thinking. Teaching of Psychology, 22 (1), 75–81.

Halpern, D. (1997). Critical thinking across the curriculum: A brief edition of thought and knowledge . Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.

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

Hennessey, M. G. (1999). Probing the dimensions of metacognition: Implications for conceptual change teaching-learning . Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Boston, MA.

Ip, W., Lee, D. T., Lee, I. F., Chau, J. P., Wootton, Y. S., & Chang, A. M. (2000). Disposition towards critical thinking: a study of Chinese undergraduate nursing students. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 32 (1), 84–90.

Johnston, B., Ford, P., Mitchell, R., & Myles, F. (2011). Developing student criticality in higher education . London: Continuum.

Kaplan, L. D. (1991). Teaching intellectual autonomy: The failure of the critical thinking movement. Educational Theory, 41 (4), 361–370.

Kennedy, M., Fisher, M. B., & Ennis, R. H. (1991). Critical thinking: Literature review and needed research. In L. Idol & B. F. Jones (Eds.), Educational values and cognitive instruction: Implications for reform (pp. 11–40). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.

King, F. J., Goodson, L., & Rohani, F. (n.d.). Higher order thinking skills: Definition, teaching strategies, assessment . Tallahasee, FL: Center for the Advancement of Learning and Assessment Florida State University. http://www.cala.fsu.edu/files/higher_order_thinking_skills.pdf

Knight, P. (2007). Fostering and assessing ‘Wicked’ competencies . Milton Keynes, UK: Institute of Education, Open University. Retrieved from http://www.open.ac.uk/cetl-workspace/cetlcontent/documents/460d1d1481d0f.pdf

Kuhn, D. (1999). A developmental model of critical thinking. Educational Researcher, 28 (2), 12-25+46.

Kuhn, D., & Dean, D. (2004). A bridge between cognitive psychology and educational practice. Theory Into Practice, 43 (4), 268–273.

Kurfiss, J. (1988). Critical thinking: Theory, research, practice and possibilities (ASHE-Eric higher education report no. 2). Washington, DC: Associate for the Study of Higher Education.

Lai, E. R. (2011, June). Critical thinking: A literature review . Retrieved from http://www.pearsonassessments.com/hai/images/tmrs/CriticalThinkingReviewFINAL.pdf

Langer, E. J. (1989). Mindfulness . Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co.

Larkin, J. H., McDermott, J., Simon, D. P., & Simon, H. A. (1980). Expert and novice performance in solving physics problems. Science, 208 (4450), 1335–1342.

Lieberman, M. D. (2000). Intuition: A social cognitive neuroscience approach. Psychological Bulletin, 126 (1), 109–137.

Lipman, M. (1988). Critical thinking: What can it be? Educational Leadership, 46 (1), 38–43.

Martinez, M. E. (2006). What is metacognition? Phi Delta Kappan, 87 (9), 696–699.

Mayer, R., & Goodchild, F. (1990). The critical thinker . New York: Wm. C. Brown.

McLaren, P., & Hammer, R. (1989). Critical pedagogy and the postmodern challenge. Educational Foundations, 3 (3), 29–62.

McPeck, J. E. (1981). Critical thinking and education . New York: St Martin’s Press.

Moore, B., & Parker, R. (1991). Critical thinking (3rd ed.). Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing Company.

Moore, T. (2004). The critical thinking debate: How general are general thinking skills? Higher Education Research and Development, 23 (1), 3–18.

Moore, T. (2011). Critical thinking and disciplinary thinking: A continuing debate. Higher Education Research and Development, 38 (4), 506–522.

Morse, B. (2012). Why critical thinking is overlooked by schools and shunned by students. The Guardian . Retrieved from http://www.guardian.co.uk/teacher-network/2012/sep/12/critical-thinking-overlooked-in-secondary-education

Mulnix, J. W. (2012). Thinking critically about critical thinking. Educational Philosophy and Theory . doi: 10.1111/j.1469-5812.2010.00673.x .

Nelson, J. (2005). Cultivating judgment: A sourcebook for teaching critical thinking . Stillwater, OK: New Forums Press.

Noddings, N. (1992). The challenge to care in schools . New York: Teachers College Press.

Passmore, J. (1967). On teaching to be critical . Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Paul, R. (2011). Critical thinking movement: 3 waves . Retrieved from http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/critical-thinking-movement-3-waves/856 . 20 May 2013.

Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2001). Miniature guide to critical thinking: Concepts & tools . Dillon Beach, CA: Foundation for Critical Thinking.

Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2008). The thinkers’ guide to nature and functions of critical and creative thinking . Dillon Beach, CA: Foundation for Critical Thinking.

Paul, R. W. (1981). Teaching critical thinking in the ‘strong’ sense: A focus on self-deception worldviews, and a dialectical mode of analysis. Informal Logic, 4 (2), 2–7.

Paul, R. W. (1990). Critical thinking: What, why, and how? In A. J. A. Binker (Ed.), Critical thinking: What every person needs to survive in a rapidly changing world . Rohnert Park, CA: Center for Critical Thinking and Moral Critique, Sonoma State University.

Paul, R. W. (1992a). Critical thinking: What every person needs to survive in a rapidly changing world . Santa Rosa, CA: Foundation for Critical Thinking.

Paul, R. W. (1992b). Critical thinking: What, why and how? New Directions for Community Colleges, 77 , 3–24.

Paul, R. W. (1993). Critical thinking: What every person needs to survive in a rapidly changing world . Santa Rosa, CA: Foundation for Critical Thinking.

Perkins, D., Jay, E., & Tishman, S. (1992). Assessing thinking: A framework for measuring critical thinking and problem solving skills at the college level . Washington, DC: The National Center for Educational Statistics Workshop on the Assessment of Higher Order Thinking and Communication Skills of College Graduates: Preliminary Listing of Skills and Levels of Proficiency.

Ryle, G. (1963). The concept of mind . Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin.

Sadler, G. (2010). White paper: Reconciling four models of critical thinking: FSU QEP, Paul-Elder, CLA and APA Delphi Fayetteville State University’s Quality Enhancement Plan Writing Committee, from http://www.academia.edu/480151/Reconciling_Four_Models_of_Critical_Thinking_FSU_QEP_Paul-Elder_CLA_and_APA_Delphi

Salomon, G., & Perkins, D. N. (1998). Individual and social aspects of learning. In P. D. Pearson & A. Iran-Nejad (Eds.), Review of research in education . Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

Scriven, M., & Paul, R. (1987). Defining critical thinking . From http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/defining-critical-thinking/766

Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educational Researcher, 27 , 4–13.

Siegel, H. (1988). Educating reason: Rationality, critical thinking, and education . New York: Routledge.

Siegel, H. (1991). The generalizability of critical thinking. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 23 , 18–30.

Skinner, S. (1976). Cognitive development: A prerequisite for critical thinking. The Clearing House, 49 , 242–299.

Strauss, V. (2012). Texas GOP rejects ‘critical thinking’ skills. Really. The Washington Post . Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/texas-gop-rejects-critical-thinking-skills-really/2012/07/08/gJQAHNpFXW_blog.html

Tama, C. (1989). Critical thinking has a place in every classroom. Journal of Reading, 33 , 64–65.

Tarricone, P. (2011). The taxonomy of metacognition . East Sussex, UK: Psychology Press.

Ten Dam, G., & Volman, M. (2004). Critical thinking as citizenship competence. Learning and Instruction, 14 , 259–379.

The Critical Pedagogy Collective. (2013). From http://critped.wordpress.com/

The Criticality Project. (2013). Retrieved May 17, from http://www.critical.soton.ac.uk/

Tindal, G., & Nolet, V. (1995). Curriculum-based measurement in middle and high schools: Critical thinking skills in content areas. Focus on Exceptional Children, 27 (7), 1–22.

Tishman, S., & Andrade, A. (n.d.). Thinking dispositions: A review of current theories, practices and issues. Available at: learnweb.harvard.edu/alps/thinking/docs/Dispositions.pdf

van Gelder, T. (2005). Teaching critical thinking: Some lessons from cognitive science. College Teaching, 53 (1), 41–48.

Wales, C. E., & Nardi, A. H. (1984). The paradox of critical thinking . Morgantown, WV: Center for Guided Design.

Watson, G., & Glaser, E. M. (2008). Watson-Glaser critical thinking appraisal . Cleveland, OH: Pearson.

Williams, R. (1976). Keywords: A vocabulary of culture and society . New York: Oxford University Press.

Willingham, D. (2007). Critical thinking: Why is it so hard to teach? American Educator, 31 (2), 8–19.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Melbourne Graduate School of Education, University of Melbourne, 234 Queensbury Street, Carlton, VIC, Australia

Martin Davies Ph.D.

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Martin Davies Ph.D. .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Dept. of Educ. Policy and Leadership Stud., The University of Iowa, N491 Lindquist Center, Iowa City, Iowa, USA

Michael B. Paulsen

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter.

Davies, M. (2015). A Model of Critical Thinking in Higher Education. In: Paulsen, M. (eds) Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research. Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, vol 30. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12835-1_2

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12835-1_2

Published : 12 December 2014

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-319-12834-4

Online ISBN : 978-3-319-12835-1

eBook Packages : Humanities, Social Sciences and Law Education (R0)

Share this chapter

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

To read this content please select one of the options below:

Please note you do not have access to teaching notes, history of critical thinking and some models of critical thinking.

A Primer on Critical Thinking and Business Ethics

ISBN : 978-1-83753-309-1 , eISBN : 978-1-83753-308-4

Publication date: 27 July 2023

Executive Summary

In this chapter, we introduce the history of critical thinking briefly, starting from Socrates to contemporary contributions. Based on this history, we derive several modules for training in critical thinking via practical exercises in critical thinking. Three classic critical thinking models are introduced: Socratic questioning method, Cartesian doubting method, and Baconian empirical method. We discuss their potential for critical thinking as foundational methods. The material in this chapter is distributed in three parts. In Part I, we provide a brief history of critical thinking. In Part II, we design models of critical thinking based on its classic history. In Part III, we list some models of critical thinking based on its history, from the Renaissance period to the current times. In the last section, we also discuss critical thinking in the context of business ethics, by delineating its normative domain, assessing its characteristics, and reviewing its processes.

Mascarenhas, O.A.J. , Thakur, M. and Kumar, P. (2023), "History of Critical Thinking and Some Models of Critical Thinking", A Primer on Critical Thinking and Business Ethics , Emerald Publishing Limited, Leeds, pp. 41-80. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-83753-308-420231003

Emerald Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2023 Oswald A. J. Mascarenhas, Munish Thakur and Payal Kumar. Published under exclusive licence by Emerald Publishing Limited

We’re listening — tell us what you think

Something didn’t work….

Report bugs here

All feedback is valuable

Please share your general feedback

Join us on our journey

Platform update page.

Visit emeraldpublishing.com/platformupdate to discover the latest news and updates

Questions & More Information

Answers to the most commonly asked questions here

A Crash Course in Critical Thinking

What you need to know—and read—about one of the essential skills needed today..

Posted April 8, 2024 | Reviewed by Michelle Quirk

• In research for "A More Beautiful Question," I did a deep dive into the current crisis in critical thinking.
• Many people may think of themselves as critical thinkers, but they actually are not.
• Here is a series of questions you can ask yourself to try to ensure that you are thinking critically.

Conspiracy theories. Inability to distinguish facts from falsehoods. Widespread confusion about who and what to believe.

These are some of the hallmarks of the current crisis in critical thinking—which just might be the issue of our times. Because if people aren’t willing or able to think critically as they choose potential leaders, they’re apt to choose bad ones. And if they can’t judge whether the information they’re receiving is sound, they may follow faulty advice while ignoring recommendations that are science-based and solid (and perhaps life-saving).

Moreover, as a society, if we can’t think critically about the many serious challenges we face, it becomes more difficult to agree on what those challenges are—much less solve them.

On a personal level, critical thinking can enable you to make better everyday decisions. It can help you make sense of an increasingly complex and confusing world.

In the new expanded edition of my book A More Beautiful Question ( AMBQ ), I took a deep dive into critical thinking. Here are a few key things I learned.

First off, before you can get better at critical thinking, you should understand what it is. It’s not just about being a skeptic. When thinking critically, we are thoughtfully reasoning, evaluating, and making decisions based on evidence and logic. And—perhaps most important—while doing this, a critical thinker always strives to be open-minded and fair-minded . That’s not easy: It demands that you constantly question your assumptions and biases and that you always remain open to considering opposing views.

In today’s polarized environment, many people think of themselves as critical thinkers simply because they ask skeptical questions—often directed at, say, certain government policies or ideas espoused by those on the “other side” of the political divide. The problem is, they may not be asking these questions with an open mind or a willingness to fairly consider opposing views.

When people do this, they’re engaging in “weak-sense critical thinking”—a term popularized by the late Richard Paul, a co-founder of The Foundation for Critical Thinking . “Weak-sense critical thinking” means applying the tools and practices of critical thinking—questioning, investigating, evaluating—but with the sole purpose of confirming one’s own bias or serving an agenda.

In AMBQ , I lay out a series of questions you can ask yourself to try to ensure that you’re thinking critically. Here are some of the questions to consider:

• Why do I believe what I believe?
• Are my views based on evidence?
• Have I fairly and thoughtfully considered differing viewpoints?
• Am I truly open to changing my mind?

Of course, becoming a better critical thinker is not as simple as just asking yourself a few questions. Critical thinking is a habit of mind that must be developed and strengthened over time. In effect, you must train yourself to think in a manner that is more effortful, aware, grounded, and balanced.

For those interested in giving themselves a crash course in critical thinking—something I did myself, as I was working on my book—I thought it might be helpful to share a list of some of the books that have shaped my own thinking on this subject. As a self-interested author, I naturally would suggest that you start with the new 10th-anniversary edition of A More Beautiful Question , but beyond that, here are the top eight critical-thinking books I’d recommend.

The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark , by Carl Sagan

This book simply must top the list, because the late scientist and author Carl Sagan continues to be such a bright shining light in the critical thinking universe. Chapter 12 includes the details on Sagan’s famous “baloney detection kit,” a collection of lessons and tips on how to deal with bogus arguments and logical fallacies.

Clear Thinking: Turning Ordinary Moments Into Extraordinary Results , by Shane Parrish

The creator of the Farnham Street website and host of the “Knowledge Project” podcast explains how to contend with biases and unconscious reactions so you can make better everyday decisions. It contains insights from many of the brilliant thinkers Shane has studied.

Good Thinking: Why Flawed Logic Puts Us All at Risk and How Critical Thinking Can Save the World , by David Robert Grimes

A brilliant, comprehensive 2021 book on critical thinking that, to my mind, hasn’t received nearly enough attention . The scientist Grimes dissects bad thinking, shows why it persists, and offers the tools to defeat it.

Think Again: The Power of Knowing What You Don't Know , by Adam Grant

Intellectual humility—being willing to admit that you might be wrong—is what this book is primarily about. But Adam, the renowned Wharton psychology professor and bestselling author, takes the reader on a mind-opening journey with colorful stories and characters.

Think Like a Detective: A Kid's Guide to Critical Thinking , by David Pakman

The popular YouTuber and podcast host Pakman—normally known for talking politics —has written a terrific primer on critical thinking for children. The illustrated book presents critical thinking as a “superpower” that enables kids to unlock mysteries and dig for truth. (I also recommend Pakman’s second kids’ book called Think Like a Scientist .)

Rationality: What It Is, Why It Seems Scarce, Why It Matters , by Steven Pinker

The Harvard psychology professor Pinker tackles conspiracy theories head-on but also explores concepts involving risk/reward, probability and randomness, and correlation/causation. And if that strikes you as daunting, be assured that Pinker makes it lively and accessible.

How Minds Change: The Surprising Science of Belief, Opinion and Persuasion , by David McRaney

David is a science writer who hosts the popular podcast “You Are Not So Smart” (and his ideas are featured in A More Beautiful Question ). His well-written book looks at ways you can actually get through to people who see the world very differently than you (hint: bludgeoning them with facts definitely won’t work).

A Healthy Democracy's Best Hope: Building the Critical Thinking Habit , by M Neil Browne and Chelsea Kulhanek

Neil Browne, author of the seminal Asking the Right Questions: A Guide to Critical Thinking, has been a pioneer in presenting critical thinking as a question-based approach to making sense of the world around us. His newest book, co-authored with Chelsea Kulhanek, breaks down critical thinking into “11 explosive questions”—including the “priors question” (which challenges us to question assumptions), the “evidence question” (focusing on how to evaluate and weigh evidence), and the “humility question” (which reminds us that a critical thinker must be humble enough to consider the possibility of being wrong).

Warren Berger is a longtime journalist and author of A More Beautiful Question .

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Support Group
• 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.

• Coronavirus Disease 2019
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

A Short Guide to Building Your Team’s Critical Thinking Skills

• Matt Plummer

Critical thinking isn’t an innate skill. It can be learned.

Most employers lack an effective way to objectively assess critical thinking skills and most managers don’t know how to provide specific instruction to team members in need of becoming better thinkers. Instead, most managers employ a sink-or-swim approach, ultimately creating work-arounds to keep those who can’t figure out how to “swim” from making important decisions. But it doesn’t have to be this way. To demystify what critical thinking is and how it is developed, the author’s team turned to three research-backed models: The Halpern Critical Thinking Assessment, Pearson’s RED Critical Thinking Model, and Bloom’s Taxonomy. Using these models, they developed the Critical Thinking Roadmap, a framework that breaks critical thinking down into four measurable phases: the ability to execute, synthesize, recommend, and generate.

With critical thinking ranking among the most in-demand skills for job candidates , you would think that educational institutions would prepare candidates well to be exceptional thinkers, and employers would be adept at developing such skills in existing employees. Unfortunately, both are largely untrue.

• Matt Plummer (@mtplummer) is the founder of Zarvana, which offers online programs and coaching services to help working professionals become more productive by developing time-saving habits. Before starting Zarvana, Matt spent six years at Bain & Company spin-out, The Bridgespan Group, a strategy and management consulting firm for nonprofits, foundations, and philanthropists.  

Partner Center

• 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
• Back to Entry
• Entry Contents
• Entry Bibliography
• Academic Tools
• Friends PDF Preview
• Author and Citation Info
• Back to Top

Supplement to Critical Thinking

Educational methods.

Experiments have shown that educational interventions can improve critical thinking abilities and dispositions, as measured by standardized tests. Glaser (1941) developed teaching materials suitable for senior primary school, high school and college students. To test their effectiveness, he developed with his sponsor Goodwin Watson the Watson-Glaser Tests of Critical Thinking, whose descendants are in widespread global use under the name “Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal” (Watson & Glaser 1980a, 1980b, 1994). He found that senior secondary school students receiving 10 weeks of instruction using these materials improved their scores on these tests more than other such students receiving the standard English curriculum during the 10 weeks, to a degree that was statistically significant (i.e., probably not due to chance). More recently, Abrami et al. (2015) summarized in a meta-analysis the best available evidence on the effectiveness of various strategies for teaching students to think critically. The meta-analysis used as a measure of effectiveness a modified version of a statistical measure known as “Cohen’s d”: the ratio of a difference in mean score to the statistical deviation (SD) of the scores in a reference group. A difference of 0.2 SD is a small effect, a difference of 0.5 SD is a moderate effect, and a difference of 0.8 is a large effect (Cohen 1988: 25–27). Abrami et al. (2015) found a weighted mean effect size of 0.30 among 341 effect sizes, with effect sizes ranging from −1 to +2. This methodologically careful meta-analysis provides strong statistical evidence that explicit instruction for critical thinking can improve critical thinking abilities and dispositions, as measured by standardized tests.

Although contemporary meta-analysis provides a more justified verdict on claims of causal effectiveness than other methods of investigation, it does not give the reader an intuitive grasp of what difference a particular intervention makes to the lives of those who receive it. To get an appreciation of this difference, it helps to read the testimony of the teachers and students in the Laboratory School of Chicago where Dewey’s ideas obtained concreteness. The history of the school, written by two of its former teachers in collaboration with Dewey, makes the following claim for the effects of its approach:

As a result of this guarding and direction of their freedom, the children retained the power of initiative naturally present in young children through their inquisitive interests. This spirit of inquiry was given plenty of opportunity and developed with most of the children into the habit of trying a thing out for themselves. Thus, they gradually became familiar with, and to varying degrees skilled in, the use of the experimental method to solve problems in all areas of their experience. (Mayhew & Edwards 1936: 402–403)

A science teacher in the school wrote:

I think the children did get the scientific attitude of mind. They found out things for themselves. They worked out the simplest problems that may have involved a most commonplace and everyday fact in the manner that a really scientific investigator goes to work. (Mayhew & Edwards 1936: 403)

An alumna of the school summed up the character of its former students as follows:

It is difficult for me to be restrained about the character building results of the Dewey School. As the years have passed and as I have watched the lives of many Dewey School children, I have always been astonished at the ease which fits them into all sorts and conditions of emergencies. They do not vacillate and flounder under unstable emotions; they go ahead and work out the problem in hand, guided by their positively formed working habits. Discouragement to them is non-existent, almost ad absurdum. For that very fact, accomplishment in daily living is inevitable. Whoever has been given the working pattern of tackling problems has a courage born of self-confidence and achieves. (Mayhew & Edwards 1936: 406–407)

In the absence of control groups, of standardized tests, and of statistical methods of controlling for confounding variables, such testimonies are weak evidence of the effectiveness of educational interventions in developing the abilities and dispositions of a critical thinker—in Dewey’s conception, a scientific attitude. But they give a vivid impression of what might be accomplished in an educational system that takes the development of critical thinking as a goal.

Dewey established the Laboratory School explicitly as an experiment to test his theory of knowledge, which

emphasized the part in the development of thought of problems which originated in active situations and also the necessity of testing thought by action if thought was to pass over into knowledge. (Dewey 1936: 464)

Hence the curriculum of the school started from situations familiar to children from their home life (such as preparing food and making clothing) and posed problems that the children were to solve by doing things and noting the consequences. This curriculum was adjusted in the light of its observed results in the classroom.

The school’s continued experimentation with the subject matter of the elementary curriculum proved that classroom results were best when activities were in accord with the child’s changing interests, his growing consciousness of the relation of means and ends, and his increasing willingness to perfect means and to postpone satisfactions in order to arrive at better ends…. The important question for those guiding this process of growth, and of promoting the alignment and cooperation of interest and effort, is this. What specific subject-matter or mode of skill has such a vital connection with the child’s interest, existing powers, and capabilities as will extend the one [the interest–DH] and stimulate, exercise, and carry forward the others [the powers and capabilities–DH] in a progressive course of action? (Mayhew & Edwards 1936: 420–421)

In an appendix to the history of the Laboratory School, Dewey (1936: 468–469) acknowledges that the school did not solve the problem of finding things in the child’s present experience out of which would grow more elaborate, technical and organized knowledge. Passmore (1980: 91) notes one difficulty of starting from children’s out-of-school experiences: they differ a lot from one child to another. More fundamentally, the everyday out-of-school experiences of a child provide few links to the systematic knowledge of nature and of human history that humanity has developed and that schools should pass on to the next generation. If children are to acquire such knowledge through investigation of problems, teachers must first provide information as a basis for formulating problems that interest them (Passmore 1980: 93–94).

More than a century has passed since Dewey’s experiment. In the interim, researchers have refined the methodology of experimenting with human subjects, in educational research and elsewhere. They have also developed the methodology of meta-analysis for combining the results of various experiments to form a comprehensive picture of what has been discovered. Abrami et al. (2015) report the results of such a meta-analysis of all the experimental and quasi-experimental studies published or archived before 2010 that used as outcome variables standardized measures of critical thinking abilities or dispositions of the sort enumerated in Facione 1990a and described in sections 8 and 9 of the main entry. By an experimental study, they mean one in which participants are divided randomly into two groups, one of which receives the educational intervention designed to improve critical thinking and the other of which serves as a control; they found few such experiments, because of the difficulty of achieving randomization in the classrooms where the studies were conducted. By a quasi-experiment, they mean a study with an intervention group that receives an educational intervention designed to improve critical thinking and a control group, but without random allocation to the two groups. Initially, they included also what they called “pre-experiments”, with single-group pretest-posttest designs, but decided at the analysis stage not to include these studies. By a standardized measure, they mean a test with norms derived from previous administration of the test, as set out in the test’s manual, such as the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal (Watson & Glaser 1980a, 1980b, 1994), the Cornell Critical Thinking Tests (Ennis & Millman 1971; Ennis, Millman, & Tomko 1985; 2005), the California Critical Thinking Skills Test (Facione 1990b, 1992) and the California Critical Thinking Dispositions Inventory (Facione & Facione 1992; Facione, Facione, & Giancarlo 2001). They included all such studies in which the educational intervention lasted at least three hours and the participants were at least six years old.

In these studies they found 341 effect sizes. They rated each educational intervention according to the degree to which it involved dialogue, anchored instruction, and mentoring. They found that each of these factors increased the effectiveness of the educational intervention, and that they were most effective when combined. They explained the three factors as follows.

Dialogue : In critical dialogue, which historically goes back to Socrates, individuals discuss a problem together. The dialogue can be oral or written, and cooperative or adversarial. It can take the form of asking questions, discussion, or debate. Some curricula designed to promote critical thinking establish “communities of inquiry” among the students. Such communities were a prominent feature of Dewey’s Laboratory School, incorporated as a means of promoting the primary moral objective of fostering a spirit of social cooperation among the children.

An important aspect of this conditioning process by means of the school’s daily practices was to aid each child in forming a habit of thinking before doing in all of his various enterprises. The daily classroom procedure began with a face-to-face discussion of the work of the day and its relation to that of the previous period. The new problem was then faced, analyzed, and possible plans and resources for its solution suggested by members of the group. The children soon grew to like this method. It gave both individual and group a sense of power to be intelligent, to know what they wanted to do before they did it, and to realize the reasons why one plan was preferred to another. It also enlisted their best effort to prove the validity of their judgment by testing the plan in action. Each member of the group thus acquired a habit of observing, criticizing, and integrating values in thought, in order that they should guide the action that would integrate them in fact. The value of thus previsioning consequences of action before they became fixed as fact was emphasized in the school’s philosophy. The social implication is evident. The conscious direction of his actions toward considered social ends became an unfailing index of the child’s progress toward maturity. (Mayhew & Edwards 1936: 423–424)

Communities of inquiry are also a feature of the Montessori method described by Thayer-Bacon (2000) and of the Philosophy for Children program developed by Matthew Lipman (Splitter 1987). Lipman (2003) examines theoretically what is involved in creating communities of inquiry. Hitchcock (2021) argues that the most obvious way for schools to develop critical thinking is to foster development of communities of inquiry.

Anchored instruction : In anchored instruction, whose advocacy goes back to Rousseau (1762) and Dewey (1910), there is an effort to present students with problems that make sense to them, engage them, and stimulate them to inquire. Simulations, role-playing and presentation of ethical or medical dilemmas are methods of anchoring.

Mentoring : Mentoring is a one-on-one relationship in which someone with more relevant expertise (the mentor) interacts with someone with less (the mentee). The mentor acts as a model and as a critic correcting errors by the mentee. Examples of mentoring are an advisor talking to a student, a physician modeling a procedure for a medical student, and an employee correcting an intern. Abrami et al. (2015) identified three kinds of mentoring in the studies that they analyzed: one-on-one teacher-student interaction, peer-led dyads, and internships.

Abrami et al. (2015) also compared educational interventions with respect to whether they were part of subject-matter instruction. For this purpose, they used a distinction among four types of intervention articulated by Ennis (1989). A general approach tries to teach critical thinking separately from subject-matter instruction. An infusion approach combines deep subject-matter instruction in which students are encouraged to think critically with explicit reference to critical thinking principles. An immersion approach provides deep subject-matter instruction with encouragement to think critically, but without explicit reference to critical thinking principles. A mixed approach combines the general approach with either the infusion or the immersion approach; students combine a separate thread or course aimed at teaching general critical thinking principles with deep subject-matter instruction in which they are encouraged to think critically about the subject-matter. Although the average effect size in the studies using a mixed intervention (+0.38) was greater than the average effect sizes in the studies using general (+0.26), infusion (+0.29) and immersion (+0.23) interventions, the difference was not statistically significant; in other words, it might have been due to chance.

Cleghorn (2021), Makaiau (2021), and Hiner (2021) make specific suggestions for fostering critical thinking respectively in elementary, secondary and post-secondary education. Vincent-Lancrin et al. (2019) report the results of a project of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development to develop with teachers and schools in 11 countries resources for fostering creativity and critical thinking in elementary and secondary schools.

Ennis (2013, 2018) has made a detailed proposal for a mixed approach to teaching critical thinking across the curriculum of undergraduate education. Attempts at implementing such an approach have faced difficulties. Weinstein (2013: 209–213) describes the attempt at Montclair State University in Montclair, New Jersey, from 1987 through the 1990s. He reports that the university’s requirement to include critical thinking in all general education courses led to the use of the concept in identifying topics and tasks in course syllabi, but without a unifying theoretical basis. The committee that approved courses as satisfying a general education requirement ignored the relation of curricular outcomes to critical thinking, and focused instead on work requirements with a prima facie relation to reflective thought: term papers, projects, group work, and dialogue. Sheffield (2018) reports similar difficulties encountered in his position from 2012 to 2015 as the inaugural Eugene H. Fram Chair in Applied Critical Thinking at Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT) in Rochester, New York. A cross-disciplinary faculty advisory group was not ready to accept RIT’s approved definition of critical thinking, but never reached a consensus on an alternative. Payette and Ross (2016), on the other hand, report widespread acceptance of the Paul-Elder framework, which involves elements of thought, intellectual standards, and intellectual virtues (Paul & Elder 2006). Sheffield (2018) reports that many colleges and universities in the United States have received funding for so-called “Quality Enhancement Plans” (QEPs) devoted to critical thinking, many of them written by Paul and Elder or developed in consultation with them. He faults the plans for having a typical time frame of five years, which he argues is probably too short for meaningful results, since lasting institutional change is often extremely slow.

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

• Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

• Info about mirror sites

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is copyright © 2023 by The Metaphysics Research Lab , Department of Philosophy, Stanford University

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

• school Campus Bookshelves
• menu_book Bookshelves
• perm_media Learning Objects
• login Login
• how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
• hub Instructor Commons
• Download Page (PDF)
• Download Full Book (PDF)
• Periodic Table
• Physics Constants
• Scientific Calculator
• Reference & Cite
• Tools expand_more
• Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

7.2: Critical Thinking and Creative Thinking

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 81999

• Kelvin Seifert & Rosemary Sutton
• University of Manitoba & Cleveland State University via Global Text Project

Critical thinking

Critical thinking requires skill at analyzing the reliability and validity of information, as well as the attitude or disposition to do so. The skill and attitude may be displayed with regard to a particular subject matter or topic, but in principle it can occur in any realm of knowledge (Halpern, 2003; Williams, Oliver, & Stockade, 2004). A critical thinker does not necessarily have a negative attitude in the everyday sense of constantly criticizing someone or something. Instead, he or she can be thought of as astute: the critical thinker asks key questions, evaluates the evidence for ideas, reasons for problems both logically and objectively, and expresses ideas and conclusions clearly and precisely. Last (but not least), the critical thinker can apply these habits of mind in more than one realm of life or knowledge.

With such a broad definition, it is not surprising that educators have suggested a variety of specific cognitive skills as contributing to critical thinking. In one study, for example, the researcher found how critical thinking can be reflected in regard to a published article was stimulated by annotation — writing questions and comments in the margins of the article (Liu, 2006). In this study, students were initially instructed in ways of annotating reading materials. Later, when the students completed additional readings for assignments, it was found that some students in fact used their annotation skills much more than others— some simply underlined passages, for example, with a highlighting pen. When essays written about the readings were later analyzed, the ones written by the annotators were found to be more well reasoned— more critically astute— than the essays written by the other students.

In another study, on the other hand, a researcher found that critical thinking can also involve oral discussion of personal issues or dilemmas (Hawkins, 2006). In this study, students were asked to verbally describe a recent, personal incident that disturbed them. Classmates then discussed the incident together in order to identify the precise reasons why the incident was disturbing, as well as the assumptions that the student made in describing the incident. The original student— the one who had first told the story— then used the results of the group discussion to frame a topic for a research essay. In one story of a troubling incident, a student told of a time when a store clerk has snubbed or rejected the student during a recent shopping errand. Through discussion, classmates decided that an assumption underlying the student's disturbance was her suspicion that she had been a victim of racial profiling based on her skin color. The student then used this idea as the basis for a research essay on the topic of "racial profiling in retail stores". The oral discussion thus stimulated critical thinking in the student and the classmates, but it also relied on their prior critical thinking skills at the same time.

Notice that in both of these research studies, as in others like them, what made the thinking "critical" was students' use of metacognition — strategies for thinking about thinking and for monitoring the success and quality of one's own thinking. This concept was discussed in Chapter 2 as a feature of constructivist views about learning. There we pointed out that when students acquire experience in building their own knowledge, they also become skilled both at knowing how they learn, and at knowing whether they have learned something well. These are two defining qualities of metacognition, but they are part of critical thinking as well. In fostering critical thinking, a teacher is really fostering a student's ability to construct or control his or her own thinking and to avoid being controlled by ideas unreflectively.

How best to teach critical thinking remains a matter of debate. One issue is whether to infuse critical skills into existing courses or to teach them through separate, free-standing units or courses. The first approach has the potential advantage of integrating critical thinking into students' entire educations. But it risks diluting students' understanding and use of critical thinking simply because critical thinking takes on a different form in each learning context. Its details and appearance vary among courses and teachers. The free-standing approach has the opposite qualities: it stands a better chance of being understood clearly and coherently, but at the cost of obscuring how it is related to other courses, tasks, and activities. This dilemma is the issue— again— of transfer , discussed in Chapter 2. Unfortunately, research to compare the different strategies for teaching critical thinking does not settle the matter. The research suggests simply that either infusion or free-standing approaches can work as long as it is implemented thoroughly and teachers are committed to the value of critical thinking (Halpern, 2003).

A related issue about teaching critical thinking is about deciding who needs to learn critical thinking skills the most. Should it be all students, or only some of them? Teaching all students seems the more democratic alternative and thus appropriate for educators. Surveys have found, however, that teachers sometimes favor teaching of critical thinking only to high-advantage students— the ones who already achieve well, who come from relatively high- income families, or (for high school students) who take courses intended for university entrance (Warburton & Torff, 2005). Presumably the rationale for this bias is that high- advantage students can benefit and/or understand and use critical thinking better than other students. Yet, there is little research evidence to support this idea, even if it were not ethically questionable. The study by Hawkins (2006) described above, for example, is that critical thinking was fostered even with students considered low-advantage.

Creative thinking

Creativity is the ability to make or do something new that is also useful or valued by others (Gardner, 1993). The "something" can be an object (like an essay or painting), a skill (like playing an instrument), or an action (like using a familiar tool in a new way). To be creative, the object, skill, or action cannot simply be bizarre or strange; it cannot be new without also being useful or valued, and not simply be the result of accident. If a person types letters at random that form a poem by chance, the result may be beautiful, but it would not be creative by the definition above. Viewed this way, creativity includes a wide range of human experience that many people, if not everyone, have had at some time or other (Kaufman & Baer, 2006). The experience is not restricted to a few geniuses, nor exclusive to specific fields or activities like art or the composing of music.

Especially important for teachers are two facts. The first is that an important form of creativity is creative thinking , the generation of ideas that are new as well as useful, productive, and appropriate. The second is that creative thinking can be stimulated by teachers' efforts. Teachers can, for example, encourage students' divergent thinking — ideas that are open-ended and that lead in many directions (Torrance, 1992; Kim, 2006). Divergent thinking is stimulated by open-ended questions— questions with many possible answers, such as the following:

• How many uses can you think of for a cup?
• Draw a picture that somehow incorporates all of these words: cat, fire engine, and banana.
• What is the most unusual use you can think of for a shoe?

Note that answering these questions creatively depends partly on having already acquired knowledge about the objects to which the questions refer. In this sense divergent thinking depends partly on its converse, convergent thinking , which is focused, logical reasoning about ideas and experiences that lead to specific answers. Up to a point, then, developing students' convergent thinking— as schoolwork often does by emphasizing mastery of content— facilitates students' divergent thinking indirectly, and hence also their creativity (Sternberg, 2003; Runco, 2004; Cropley, 2006). But carried to extremes, excessive emphasis on convergent thinking may discourage creativity.

Whether in school or out, creativity seems to flourish best when the creative activity is its own intrinsic reward, and a person is relatively unconcerned with what others think of the results. Whatever the activity— composing a song, writing an essay, organizing a party, or whatever— it is more likely to be creative if the creator focuses on and enjoys the activity in itself, and thinks relatively little about how others may evaluate the activity (Brophy, 2004). Unfortunately, encouraging students to ignore others' responses can sometimes pose a challenge for teachers. Not only is it the teachers' job to evaluate students' learning of particular ideas or skills, but also they have to do so within restricted time limits of a course or a school year. In spite of these constraints, though, creativity still can be encouraged in classrooms at least some of the time (Claxton, Edwards, & Scale-Constantinou, 2006). Suppose, for example, that students have to be assessed on their understanding and use of particular vocabulary. Testing their understanding may limit creative thinking; students will understandably focus their energies on learning "right" answers for the tests. But assessment does not have to happen constantly. There can also be times to encourage experimentation with vocabulary through writing poems, making word games, or in other thought-provoking ways. These activities are all potentially creative. To some extent, therefore, learning content and experimenting or playing with content can both find a place— in fact one of these activities can often support the other. We return to this point later in this chapter, when we discuss student-centered strategies of instruction, such as cooperative learning and play as a learning medium.

• Our CEO Master Executive Coach
• Our Consulting Team & Coaches
• Our Advisory Board
• Our Strategic Partners
• Client Testimonials
• Abstract of Second Edition Book
• Second Edition Book
• First Edition Book
• NextGen Book
• Second Edition Book (2023)
• First Edition Book (2020)
• NextGen Book (2019)
• Board & CEO Advisory Services
• Organizational Transformation Framework
• Culture Development
• Talent Management & Succession Planning
• Digital Transformation
• Post-Pandemic Recovery
• Crisis Management
• Cognitive Readiness
• Leadership 360 Assessments
• L.E.A.D.E.R. Framework
• C.R.I.S.I.S. Model
• R.B.L. Framework
• Goleman’s Leadership Framework
• Goleman’s ESI Framework
• SCORE™ Framework
• Paragon⁷ Framework
• R.E.D. Model
• A.D.A.M. Model
• G.R.O.W. Model
• A.R.T. Framework
• HPLD Framework
• Keynote Presentation
• CEO & C-Suite Executive Coaching
• Disruptive Leadership Masterclass
• Crisis Leadership Masterclass
• Critical Thinking Bootcamp
• Prophetic Leadership Masterclass
• HiPO Development Program
• Program for Advanced Leadership & Management (PALM)
• MBA in Disruptive Leadership
• Udemy Online Training
• Skillsoft E-learning
• White Papers
• Research Reports
• Online Resources
• IPMA Journal
• LinkedIn Posts
• Singapore Business Review
• The Straits Times Forum

The R.E.D. Model of Development of Critical Thinking Skills

• The R.E.D. Model of Development…

“How and why is critical thinking applied in the workplace? Critical thinking in the workplace comes in many forms. We see critical thinking being used in teams to help effectively resolve problems. We even see critical thinking being used in the workplace to help teams figure out what issues exist, and then we see teams come up with possible answers for those issues. Critical thinking is applied to leadership approaches because leaders need to have critical thinking skills, be able to understand logical relationships between ideas, recognize the importance and the relationship of an argument, as well as recognize mistakes in reasoning and then be able to make the right decisions.”

– sattar bawany (2023), what is critical thinking.

Critical thinking is an active form of reflection which is deliberate, persistent, and careful. It challenges preconceptions, perceptions, and received wisdom. And it is, most important of all, focused on deciding what to believe and what to do. It is, therefore, inherently practical and generates a set of guidelines for the practitioner. It involves what some have called metacognition or the act of thinking about how we think.

Critical thinking aims to better understand the meaning and implications of information, conclusions, options, and decisions and to identify and evaluate the assumptions upon which thinking (our own and others’) is based. It can bring a powerful rigor to crisis management if it is applied with perseverance, determination, and self-awareness.

Critical thinking in the business literature is often confused with skills like “problem solving.” In reality, “problem solving” is quite different from “critical thinking.”

Sometimes problem solving requires thinking skills, like how best to balance profit and loss statements, but not critical thinking skills—rational, reflective thinking. Some business-related problems, for example, require emotional intelligence, which is thinking that is neither rational nor reflective.

In other words, while critical thinking often refers to “problem solving,” not all problem solving is an example of critical thinking. Critical thinking consists more of “habits of mind” providing a framework in which problem solving can occur. Often, these distinctions aren’t clear in business education literature.

How and why is critical thinking applied in the workplace? Critical thinking in the workplace comes in many forms. We see critical thinking being used in teams to help effectively resolve problems. We even see critical thinking being used in the workplace to help teams figure out what issues exist, and then we see teams come up with possible answers for those issues.

Critical thinking is applied to leadership approaches because leaders need to have critical thinking skills, be able to understand logical relationships between ideas, recognize the importance and the relationship of an argument, as well as recognize mistakes in reasoning and then be able to make the right decisions.

The need for critical thinking in leadership has always been around. A model was developed in 1925, called the Watson–Glaser critical thinking model, which helps organizations identify factors in people that are important for critical thinking and judgment making, which explains why critical thinking needs to be a part of leadership approaches.

The Elements of the “R.E.D.” Model of Critical Thinking

Pearson has developed the following RED model—Recognize assumptions, Evaluate arguments, and Draw conclusions as a way to view and apply critical thinking principles when faced with a decision ( Chartrand, Ishikawa, and Flander 2018 ).

Recognize assumptions. This is the ability to separate fact from opinion. It is deceptively easy to listen to a comment or presentation and assume the information presented is true even though no evidence was given to back it up. Perhaps the speaker is particularly credible or trustworthy or the information makes sense or matches our own view. We just don’t question it. Noticing and questioning assumptions helps to reveal information gaps or unfounded logic. Taking it a step further, when we examine assumptions through the eyes of different people (e.g., the viewpoint of different stakeholders), the end result is a richer perspective on a topic.

Why does it matter? This is the ability to separate fact from opinion. It is deceptively easy to listen to a comment or presentation and assume the information presented is true even though no evidence was given to back it up. Noticing and questioning assumptions helps to reveal information gaps or unfounded logic. Taking it a step further, when we examine assumptions through the eyes of different people (e.g., the viewpoint of different stakeholders) the end result is a richer perspective on a topic.

How/when to use it? When you’re gathering information, listening to what people say, or assessing a situation, think about what assumptions you have going in. Perhaps you assume that a trusted co-worker is providing reliable information, but is there really evidence to back it up? Learn to see gaps in logic and opinion disguised as fact.

Evaluate arguments. It is difficult to suspend judgment systematically and walk through various arguments and information with the impartiality of Sherlock Holmes. The art of evaluating arguments entails analyzing information objectively and accurately, questioning the quality of supporting evidence, and understanding how emotion influences the situation. Common barriers include confirmation bias, which is the tendency to seek out and agree with the information that is consistent with your own point of view or allow emotions—yours or others’—to get in the way of objective evaluation. People may quickly conclude simply to avoid conflict. Being able to remain objective and sort through the validity of different positions helps people draw more accurate conclusions.

Why does it matter? We often have problems sorting through conflicting information because we unknowingly let our emotions or pride get in the way or because we only hear what we want to hear (confirmation bias). Being able to remain objective and sort through the validity of different positions helps people draw more accurate conclusions.

How/when to use it? The art of evaluating arguments entails analyzing information objectively and accurately, questioning the quality of supporting evidence, and understanding how emotions—yours or others—influence the situation or get in the way of objectivity. People may quickly conclude simply to avoid conflict. Learn how to push all that aside, and analyze information accurately and objectively.

Draw conclusions. People who possess these skills can bring diverse information together to arrive at conclusions that logically follow from the available evidence, and they do not inappropriately generalize beyond the evidence. Furthermore, they will change their position when the evidence warrants doing so. They are often characterized as having “good judgment” because they typically arrive at a quality decision.

Why does it matter? People who possess this skill can bring diverse information together to arrive at conclusions that logically follow from the available evidence, and they do not inappropriately generalize beyond that evidence. Furthermore, they will change their position when the evidence warrants doing so. They are often characterized as having “good judgment” because of their quality decisions.

How/when to use it? This is the payoff. When you think critically, the true picture becomes clear, and you can make the tough decision or attack the difficult problem.

Each of these critical thinking skills fits together in a process that is both fluid and sequential.

When presented with information, people typically alternate between recognizing assumptions and evaluating arguments. Critical thinking is sequential in that recognizing faulty assumptions or weak arguments improves the likelihood of reaching an appropriate conclusion. It is helpful to focus on each of the RED skills individually when practicing skill development. With concentrated practice over time, typically several months, critical thinking skills can be significantly increased.

Reference: Sattar Bawany (2023), Leadership in Disruptive Times: Negotiating the New Balance. Business Expert Press (BEP) LLC, New York, NY. Abstract available at: https://www.disruptiveleadership.institute/second-edition-book/

Privacy Overview

Click one of our representatives below to chat on WhatsApp or send us an email to [email protected]

Need help? Please contact +65 9002 3848

Critical Thinking and Creative Thinking Skills

Following Calvin Taylor's Model

JGI/Jamie Grill / Getty Images

• Famous Inventions
• Famous Inventors
• Patents & Trademarks
• Invention Timelines
• Computers & The Internet
• American History
• African American History
• African History
• Ancient History and Culture
• Asian History
• European History
• Latin American History
• Medieval & Renaissance History
• Military History
• The 20th Century
• Women's History

The Calvin Taylor creative thinking model describes the talent areas as productive thinking, communication, planning, decision making, and forecasting. This model is best known as Talents Unlimited, a program of the National Diffusion Network of the U.S. Department of Education. The Taylor model incorporates both the critical and creative elements of thinking.

Rather than a taxonomy, this is a thinking skills model that describes the essential elements of thinking, beginning with the academic talent and then incorporating the other talent areas, as described in more detail below.

Productive Thinking

Productivity promotes creative thinking in the Calvin Taylor model. It suggests critical and creative thinking of many ideas, varied ideas, unusual ideas, and adding to those ideas.

Communication

Communication has six elements which include:

• Give many, varied, single words to describe something.
• Give many, varied, single words to describe feelings.
• Think of many, varied things that are like another thing in a special way.
• Let others know that you understand how they feel.
• Make a network of ideas using many, varied and complete thoughts.
• Tell your feelings and needs without using words.

Planning requires that students learn to tell what they are going to plan:

• The materials that they will need.
• The steps that they will need to accomplish the task.
• The problems that might occur.

Decision Making

Decision making teaches the student to:

• Think of the many, varied things that could be done.
• Think more carefully about each alternative.
• Choose one alternative that they think is best.
• Give many, varied reasons for the choice.

Forecasting

Forecasting is the last of the five talents and requires students to make many, varied predictions about a situation, examining cause and effect relationships. Every element of the Calvin Taylor model is used when a child invents.

• Creativity & Creative Thinking
• Benjamin Bloom: Critical Thinking and Critical Thinking Models
• Critical Thinking Definition, Skills, and Examples
• Critical Thinking in Reading and Composition
• Tips for the 8 University of California Personal Insight Questions
• Higher-Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) in Education
• 12 Online Classes to Build Intellectual Character
• Critical Thinking Exercises
• Introduction to Critical Thinking
• 10 Fun Team-Building Activities for Middle School
• The Horse Problem: A Math Challenge
• How to Brainstorm in the Classroom
• Discover Ideas Through Brainstorming
• Definition and Examples of Evaluation Essays
• How to Facilitate Learning and Critical Thinking
• 2020-21 Common Application Essay Option 4—Solving a Problem

• Reference Manager
• Simple TEXT file

People also looked at

Original research article, developing a community of inquiry using an educational blog in higher education from the perspective of bangladesh.

• 1 Institute of Education and Research (IER), University of Dhaka, Dhaka, Bangladesh
• 2 School of Education and Social Sciences, University of the West of Scotland, Paisley, United Kingdom

Web 2.0 tools such as blogs, wikis, social networking, and podcasting have received attention in educational research over the last decade. Blogs enable students to reflect their learning experiences, disseminate ideas, and participate in analytical thinking. The Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework has been widely used in educational research to understand and enhance online and blended learning platforms. There is insufficient research evidence to demonstrate the impact of educational blogging using the CoI model as a framework. This article explores how blogs can be used to support collaborative learning and how such an interaction upholds CoI through enhancing critical thinking and meaningful learning in the context of higher education (HE). An exploratory sequential mixed-method approach has been followed in this study. A convenience sampling method was employed to choose 75 undergraduate students from Dhaka University for a 24-week blogging project. Every publication on the blog was segmented into meaningful units. Whole texts of posts and comments are extracted from the blog, and the transcripts are analyzed in a qualitative manner considering the CoI framework, more specifically, through the lens of cognitive, social, and teaching presence. In addition, the semi-structured questionnaire is used to collect data from students irrespective of whether blogging expedited students' learning or not. The research findings indicate that cognitive presence, namely, the exploration component, is dominant in blog-based learning activity. Moreover, this research has demonstrated that blogs build reliable virtual connections among students through exchanging ideas and information and by offering opportunities for reflective practice and asynchronous feedback. This study also revealed challenges related to blogging in the context of developing countries, including lack of familiarity with blogs, restricted internet connectivity, limited access to devices, and low levels of social interaction. It is recommended that different stakeholders including policymakers, curriculum developers, and teachers take the initiative to synchronize the utilization of educational blogs with the formal curriculum, guaranteeing that blog activities supplement and improve traditional teaching–learning activities.

1 Introduction

The prevalence of online learning is rapidly expanding and has become more advanced due to ongoing technological improvements ( Seaman et al., 2018 ). Web 2.0 tools, such as blogs, wikis, social networking, media sharing, and podcasting, allow for self-directed, collaborative, and widespread learning by sharing resources, regardless of physical or geographical constraints ( Song and Bonk, 2016 ). For instance, blogs can be used in online and blended learning platforms to foster students' reflective learning ( Milad, 2017 ), developing learning communities through several strategies like posting students' work, exchanging hyperlinks, and so on ( Kerawalla et al., 2009 ). In this connection, several researchers added that blogging has obvious advantages to form the Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework and to trigger meaningful learning through improving the social, cognitive, and teaching presence ( Cameron and Anderson, 2006 ; Petit et al., 2023 ). In addition, effective instructional strategies and facilitation of discourse guided by teachers are more significant in creating CoI than any other approach ( Garrison and Akyol, 2013 ). Additionally, Jimoyiannis et al. (2012) argued that properly designed blog activities can help students achieve higher cognitive levels by enhancing their communication and collaboration skills and their critical thinking. However, despite the widespread excitement and curiosity around the learning design framework and online learning environments, there is a lack of research on the educational influence of learning designs ( Bower, 2017 ). Shifting to the reality of the COVID-19 pandemic and the widespread adoption of online learning, the pandemic has initiated a radical and rapid rethinking of the teaching–learning arrangement. The challenge was to provide guidance and support to educators to shift their curriculum to an online environment ( Garrison, 2020 ). The CoI framework may provide a coherent representation of relevant information and the means to navigate between theoretical and practical sources of information ( Garrison, 2020 ). Hence, it is vital to examine how CoI inquiry could be designed and implemented in online environments. Additionally, there is a lack of research evidence to demonstrate the impact of educational blogging when using the CoI model as a framework. Moreover, no research article on the use of educational blogs for a higher education level in Bangladesh has been found yet. The study aims to investigate the potential of the blogging environment in assisting higher education students in their learning process, focusing on key elements of the CoI framework. Hence, the following research questions will be addressed:

i. What is the nature of the students' interaction in the educational blogging practice?

ii. How does participating in blog-based learning activity support students' learning experience?

iii. What problems do the students confront while engaging in educational blogging?

2 Literature review

Blogs can be characterized as a web-based archive displaying contents in reverse chronological entry date. People with little technical knowledge can publish as well as share their thoughts, opinions, and emotions with others using blogs ( Pifarré et al., 2014 ). The use of blogging technologies by students in educational settings is on the rise globally ( Ifinedo, 2017 ). Blogs are commonly advocated as collaborative tools that facilitate active learning among students ( Jimoyiannis and Angelaina, 2012 ). However, the rate of users' participation can diverge from session to session and blog to blog ( Lawrence et al., 2010 ). Blogs can create an online collaborative portfolio for course-related resources, assignments, calendars, events, teaching experiences, open discussions, students' queries, and so on ( Kaya et al., 2012 ). Hence, blogs can play a vital role in establishing the learning community as well as encouraging interpersonal communication among teachers and students of higher education ( Kaçar, 2021 ).

The analysis of the educational use of blogs often involves various methods and frameworks to understand the dynamics, engagement, and impact of the blog content ( Kaul et al., 2018 ). The CoI model is a framework that is particularly relevant for analyzing the educational aspects of blog posts, especially in online learning platforms ( Kim and Gurvitch, 2020 ). CoI was initially developed as a conceptual framework to guide the practice of collaborative learning through asynchronous communication in online settings ( Garrison and Akyol, 2013 ; Shea et al., 2022 ). The origin of the CoI model is grounded in Vygotsky's theory of social development ( 1978 ) and Dewey's practical inquiry and critical thinking model ( 1933 ) ( Garrison and Akyol, 2013 ; Shea et al., 2022 ). The structure depicted in Figure 1 illustrates the three primary components (teaching, cognitive, and social presence) of CoI and their intersection, which are crucial for comprehending the dynamics of profound and significant online learning experiences ( Garrison et al., 2010a ). Subsequently, other research studies focused on collating data related to learning design as well as the evaluation process in the online learning experience to the cognitive dimension to identify and measure three constitutional components of the CoI framework, namely, social presence, teaching presence, and cognitive presence ( Garrison et al., 2010b ; Angeli and Schwartz, 2016 ).

Figure 1 . Community of Inquiry framework [adapted from Akyol and Garrison (2011) ].

Among the three elements of the CoI framework, the role of social presence has been investigated most extensively in online educational settings ( Garrison and Arbaugh, 2007 ). Research has claimed that social presence enhances the learner's satisfaction, while the internet is used as a medium to deliver education ( Cui et al., 2013 ). However, the positive social environments including affective expression, open discussion, and group cohesion lead toward a hidden curriculum of the technological aspects of distance or virtual education ( Moodley et al., 2022 ). In addition, Akyol and Garrison (2011) described cognitive presence as the extent to which learners can construct and confirm meaning through sustained reflection and discourse. Cognitive presence is considered a distinctive outcome of higher education since long rooted in Dewey's (1933) construction of practical inquiry and critical thinking ( Sadaf et al., 2021 ). Akyol and Garrison (2011) implemented cognitive presence in terms of a practical inquiry model and established a four-phase process including triggering, exploration, integration, and resolution in the context of educational settings. However, Marshall and Kostka (2020) emphasized the importance of teaching presence to ensure effective online learning rather than interactions among participants. Teaching presence has been conceptualized to comprise three components: instructional design and organization, facilitating discourse, and direct instruction. Several pieces of literature ( Chakraborty and Nafukho, 2015 ; Chakraborty, 2017 ; Bhatty, 2020 ) highlight the significance of teaching presence in online learning platforms to meet the needs of students, to ensure perceived learning, and to certify the sense of community.

Researchers were likely intrigued by the potential of blogs to foster a sense of community and social presence, which are essential elements of the CoI framework. The exploration of CoI in educational blogs is likely driven by a combination of theoretical considerations, gaps in current research, and practical implications. The research design was meticulously constructed to explicitly address these qualities and offer significant contributions to the field of online education.

3 Theoretical framework: Community of Inquiry (CoI) in educational blogs

Several researchers ( Pifarré et al., 2014 ; Jimoyiannis and Roussinos, 2017 ) have suggested the design of educational blogging activities applying the CoI model as an analysis framework considering students' engagement and presence. The primary approach underlying the design was to integrate an educational blog with both content space and discussion space. The content space encompasses blog posts, articles, multimedia elements, and other sources of information generated by the author or contributors. On the other hand, the discussion space refers to the section of the blog platform where readers and participants can actively participate in conversations, express opinions, ask questions, and offer feedback about the content presented in the content space. This design confirms the collaborative nature of the blog ( Jimoyiannis and Angelaina, 2012 ). Moreover, the CoI model determines indicators to recognize and measure each presence in an educational blog community. Basic components and indicators of CoI are presented in Table 1 considering educational blogs as a collaborative learning platform.

Table 1 . Indicators to recognize and measure each presence in an educational blog [modified from Garrison and Arbaugh (2007) ].

Table 1 provides a more explicit definition of CoI elements, using both indicators and instances. These characteristics have been employed to unambiguously ascertain social presence, cognitive presence, and instructional presence in a blog-assisted educational context. This mapping has been used in laying the groundwork for this research.

4 Methodology

4.1 research context.

Although technology-mediated learning has been introduced at the higher education level in Bangladesh in recent years ( Chowdhury et al., 2018 ), different online-based technologies have yet to be integrated into the curriculum and assessment process ( Arefin et al., 2023 ). In this study, the educational blog was created using Google Sites considering a project-based learning approach, which combines online and in-person instruction to enhance learning by offering guidance, resources, and feedback. The goal of this blog-based activity was to promote for blogs as additional resources in traditional teaching methods, with a focus on developing engaging and efficient instructional materials that are in line with specific learning objectives. This activity also aimed to foster collaborative learning and effective communication among students. However, there was no correlation between student involvement in the blog-based learning activity and the assessment process. Moreover, the curriculum did not provide any guidance on using alternative online platforms like blogs for instructional activities.

This study employed an exploratory sequential mixed-method approach. A convenience sampling method was employed to choose undergraduate students from Dhaka University for a 24-week blogging project. A total of 75 students enrolled in the “Introduction to Computer Course” of the B.Ed. program were invited to participate in this blog-based activities and were assessed on how collaborative learning opportunities contribute to the achievement of learning outcomes. A total of 65 students actively participated in collaborative blog discussions, contributing by uploading content and/or commenting to promote the discourse and reflection.

4.2 Data collection

This study collected both qualitative and quantitative data as part of an exploratory sequential mixed-method research design. Qualitative data were collected from the blogging activities of students and categorized into the following: content posts (e.g., text, image, audio, and video) and comments (e.g., questions, replies to or explanation of previous posts, and new notions). After completing a thorough analysis of the blog's activity, it was ascertained that there were 20 content postings and 71 comments made on the site during the research period. The low level of involvement can be ascribed to students' lack of familiarity with the blogging platform and the optional nature of their participation.

Furthermore, a semi-structured questionnaire, developed on existing research that used the CoI framework in online settings, was employed as an instrument to collect data from the students at the end of the semester to assess whether activities on educational blogs facilitate and contribute to students' learning. The participating students were required to assess quantitative items on a 5-point scale: (1 [strongly disagree], 2 [disagree], 3 [unsure], 4 [agree], and 5 [strongly agree]). They were also asked to provide qualitative responses in an open-text format, expressing their opinions on the effectiveness and challenges of educational blogs.

4.3 Data analysis

To address the first research question, qualitative data (content posts and comments) on the blog were segmented into meaningful units. A meaningful unit refers to a distinct and analyzable segment or component within a content post/comment on the blog. Each meaningful unit is segmented based on the specific characteristics related to cognitive, social, and teaching presence, as outlined in the CoI framework. Afterward, these meaningful data units were categorized according to 13 indicators associated with CoI elements (specified in Table 1 ). Both authors attempted to generate meaningful units from content posts and comments. To evaluate the consistency or agreement between the researchers while assessing the meaningful units, interrater reliability was measured ( Stemler, 2019 ). Subsequently, the researchers employed a consensus-building procedure to address and settle any differences, and this entailed collaborative evaluations of complex instances and deliberations to arrive at mutually acceptable decisions ( Stemler, 2019 ).

In the subsequent phase, students' responses were analyzed to address the second and third research questions. Quantitative data of students' responses were analyzed statistically using descriptive statistics methods (frequency, mean, and standard deviation), whereas qualitative data were analyzed thematically. The qualitative data about blog-based activities were integrated with the quantitative data concerning the students' perspective of blogging to have a more accurate comprehension of the research inquiries. Hence, the validity and reliability of the study were enhanced through cross-verification of results by using both qualitative and quantitative data.

4.4 Ethical consideration

Prior to participation as samples, the participants were provided with an informed consent form about the goal of the study. Subsequently, the participants provided written informed consent to ensure their complete understanding and enable them to make voluntary and well-informed decisions regarding their participation. This study used rigorous measures to guarantee absolute confidentiality and anonymity in both data collection and presentation, thereby safeguarding the privacy of the participants' data. There was no requirement for any type of student identification for the questionnaire. Moreover, the blog activities and analysis of blog publication did not need the use of individual student identities.

The findings were organized into three sections: students' engagement patterns on educational blogs, the impact of blog-based learning activities on students' learning, and the challenges associated with using educational blogs.

5.1 Nature of students' interaction in educational blogging

By converting each content posts and comments into distinct and significant components, a total of 100 meaningful units of units were found. In this specific study, the researchers reached a consensus on 90 out of 100 units, indicating a significant degree of interrater reliability. The results obtained by the researchers reveal a strong correlation across all sets of results, indicating a high level of interrater reliability for the test. Subsequently, after resolving the disagreements through a consensus, meaningful units were categorized in Table 2 according to the 13 indicators of the CoI model.

Table 2 . Blog's Community of Inquiry.

In Table 2 , the analysis of dissimilar proportions among three key presence factors—cognitive, social, and teaching—revealed significant variations. Cognitive presence dominated with 71%, surpassing both social presence (17%) and teaching presence (12%). The feeling of belonging enhanced social presence as individuals had a sense of connection to a collective with common interests and objectives. Within the cognitive domain, the aspect of exploration was prominent, accounting for 43% of the overall presence. Analyzing social presence revealed a fair distribution within this group. Teaching presence referred to a focus on the design and organization aspect, which accounts for 8% of this group. The comprehensive analysis of each category of presence offered a nuanced comprehension of the diverse factors influencing the CoI.

5.2 Blog-based learning activities to contribute and facilitate the way of students' learning

The following sections have highlighted students' responses regarding the blog-based experience.

5.2.1 Influencing factors of blogging experience in terms of perceived learning, community of practice and collaborative learning

The quantitative findings were categorized into perceived learning, community of practice, and collaborative learning and presented in the following sections:

• Perceived learning

It was revealed that students usually hold a favorable impression of using blogs for learning, exhibiting a strong consensus on statements pertaining to enjoyment, knowledge dissemination, and the efficacy of learning ( Table 3 ).

Table 3 . Perceived learning of blogs ( N = 65).

As given in Table 3 , 84.6% of students reported positive attitudes toward using blogs for educational purposes, with a mean score of 3.97 indicating a moderately positive perception and a low level of variability with a standard deviation of 0.59. Similarly, 81.5% of students derived enjoyment from reading and acquiring knowledge from publications on the blog. A significant majority (89.1%) hold the belief that blog conversations are beneficial for exchanging information and expertise with peers. However, a variation in the reactions to accessing the blog more than required was observed, with a significant number of students expressing a neutral position. The average score (M = 2.97) indicated a neutral-to-slightly negative sentiment, and there is a significant range of responses (SD = 0.98). In addition, 89.1% of students strongly asserted that using the blog has facilitated their learning, demonstrating a constant and favorable influence on their educational experience.

• Community of practice

Table 4 illustrated that students perceived positive perceptions of the impact of blog posts on enhanced connectivity, heightened motivation, and greater interaction.

Table 4 . Blogs as a community of practice ( N = 65).

As given in Table 4 , approximately 70.3% of students reported feeling connected when using the blog, suggesting a favorable emotional attachment to the learning environment. The data indicated that a substantial number of students (75.4%) demonstrated a desire to engage with supplementary materials pertaining to the issues mentioned on the blog. This pointed out that the blog can serve as an effective catalyst for encouraging further investigation and study. Approximately 70.4% of students hold the belief that the blog has a role in enhancing the interaction, promoting a feeling of involvement and cooperation within the learning community.

• Collaborative learning

Table 5 demonstrated that the data suggest favorable perceptions regarding the influence of blog posts on the enhancement of skills and the promotion of collaborative learning.

Table 5 . Collaborative learning through blogs ( N = 65).

Approximately 79.7% of students concurred that publications (posts/comments) from peers have been beneficial in enhancing their abilities and knowledge. Likewise, a significant majority of students (75.1%) held the belief that blogging enhances collaborative learning among their peers. Nevertheless, opinions differed regarding the idea that collaborative learning is time-consuming; 36.7% of individuals agreed, while 31.3% remained neutral. The average score was somewhat negative (M = 3.05), and there was a considerable degree of heterogeneity in the replies (SD = 1.06).

• Scale statistics

It was found that students preferred blogs as beneficial for perceived learning use (M = 19.00, SD = 2.078) in comparison to community of practice (M = 11.29, SD = 1.670) and collaborative learning platform (M = 10.63, SD = 1.386). In aggregation, positive experiences were revealed to continue teaching-learning practices using blogs among students ( Table 6 ).

Table 6 . Scale statistics ( N = 65).

5.2.2 Impact of blogging activities on learning experience

The following sections emphasized students' perception of the impact that blog-based learning activities had on their learning experience.

• Flexibility

It was found that more than 75% of the students have mentioned that it is convenient as blogs are easy to access and flexible in timing based on their personal preference even in leisure. However, some of them were worried about the availability of the internet. According to Student 1 ,

“ I can access blog 24/7 anywhere.”

Approximately two-thirds of the students mentioned that blogs give them an opportunity to share learning resources and access different thoughts of a community as well as to develop understanding. Some other students' responses are mentioned below:

“ People learn from reading the comments of different respondents.” (Student 2)     “ Blog helps to develop understanding.” ( Student 3)     “ Blog helps us to know thought of others.” ( Student 4)

Few students mentioned that blogs were a new way of learning collectively and are very fun and interactive. According to Student 5 ,

“ I think it is new way of learning collectively.”

• Feedback

Around half of the students mentioned that they can express themselves through writing, and at the same time, the feedback helps them be motivated as well as accumulate self-confidence. A few of the students reported that they were able to learn many new things through using blogs. According to Student 6 ,

“ Blog makes us confident as it creates opportunities to learn new things.”

• Motivation

Students also demonstrated favorable attitudes toward emotions of connection, motivation for further reading, and apparent enhancement in engagement when using the blog ( Table 4 ).

• Virtual learning communities

Nearly half of the students concurred that blogs had the potential to foster the development of virtual learning communities, facilitating student connectivity, the exchange of experiences, and the provision of mutual support. According to Student 7 ,

“ Blog promotes discussion.”

• Empowerment

Some of the students expressed the view that blogging enables students to assert their thoughts, communicate their viewpoints, and participate in discussions, hence fostering a sense of ownership in their learning experience. According to Student 8 ,

“ As blogs have different people with different perspectives, and I have personally found many thought-provoking ideas in different blogs.”

• Access to resources

A number of students contended that blogs could function as a means for disseminating knowledge, references, and supplementary content, thereby offering benefits to students.

5.3 Challenges of using educational blog

While educational blogs offered numerous benefits, there were also challenges associated with their use in the context of developing countries such as Bangladesh. The subsequent sections delineated several obstacles reported by the students during their use of educational blogs in this study:

• Unfamiliarity of blog

Several students expressed a lack of proficiency in using blogs, which impedes their capacity to successfully explore and use instructional blogs. According to Student 9 ,

“ The problem is that blogs are still unfamiliar.”

• Limited internet access

The majority of the students reported that limited and unreliable access to the internet can hinder the students' ability to participate in blog-based activities. According to Student 10 ,

“ Blogging activity needs internet, and internet is not available everywhere.”

• Limited access to device

The study revealed that several students do not have personal devices such as laptops or smartphones, which presents a difficulty for their involvement in blog activities that require digital interaction. This has the potential to create a digital divide, which could impact the equity of educational opportunities.

• Decreased socialization

It was found that blog users sometimes absorb information alone, not actively participating in social interactions. Furthermore, a few students indicated that, unlike face-to-face contacts, blogs may lack personal connection, resulting in a decreased sense of socialization. According to Student 11 ,

“ It can reduce the tendency of reading the contents carefully and reduce in-person interactions with people.”

6 Discussion

This study has demonstrated that the integration of cognitive, social, and teaching presence is necessary for meaningful learning in online platforms. The results of this investigation are consistent with the conclusions of a prior study ( Fiock, 2020 ). In addition, this study has confirmed that cognitive presence is highly observed in blogging activities, which is similar to the findings of a previous research ( Liu et al., 2022 ). On the contrary, several studies ( Garrison, 2007 ; Galikyan and Admiraal, 2019 ) have found difficulties to move toward higher cognitive and inquiry levels in asynchronous online discussions. This study has confirmed that teaching presence is the least observed in blogging activities, which is similar to the findings of previous research ( Angelaina and Jimoyiannis, 2011 ), where they reported that teaching presence is anticipated to be less tangible in blogging activities while analyzing students' posts using the CoI framework, and it cannot be assumed that all students will actively engage with and read the instructor's posts.

In addition, the majority of the students affirmed that they enjoyed using blogs as a learning tool and have been facilitated through blogs to share knowledge and experience with peers. Furthermore, they added that the presence of conducive academic environments for collaborative learning has spurred their inclination to explore relevant supplementary resources. Similarly, Bener and Yildiz (2019) found blogs as a reflective platform where participants can actively deliberate their thoughts about the topics discussed in the blogs. Students have also uttered that blogging leads toward effective collaboration by creating opportunities for diverse perspectives, which reflects the research outcome of a previous study ( Zawilinski, 2012 ).

The current study indicated that blogs are not familiar enough to the students and that ~15% of them are not interested in posting publications. In addition, approximately one-third of the students were found inattentive to take the maximum advantages of collaboration and feedback due to a lack of technological competency. However, Amichai-Hamburger et al. (2016) noted that individuals who only engage in reading rather than not interested in participating in online discussion may still get the opportunity to learn through passive or indirect participation. In addition, this study revealed that students need clear guidelines, argumentative posts, and constant feedback to optimize learning outcomes in the blogging environment. Similar issues have been mentioned by other research also ( Hansen, 2016 ). This study has revealed that providing constructive feedback can effectively steer students toward enhancing their level of engagement and the quality of their contributions. Additionally, Pifarré et al. (2014) used an exploratory sequential multi-method approach to investigate a blogging project in a secondary class and found that collaborative learning as well as a sense of community were important factors in predicting perceived learning in an online setting. The results of their research align with the results of this study. Hence, it is evident that a supportive community can inspire students to actively participate in the blogging environment and have a sense of belonging. Furthermore, one-third of the students worried about the unfamiliarity and technical difficulties of using blogs. It is to be noted here that this research did not provide any training on blogging. Farmer et al. (2008) emphasized conducting a fully scaffold lab session for ensuring enhanced accessibility as well as providing adequate technical support.

7 Recommendations

This study suggests the following recommendations to leverage students' engagement as well as to enhance learning outcomes through blogging activities:

• Establishing monitoring system: It is recommended to establish a monitoring system to detect the students who may be encountering difficulties with technology or experiencing a lack of involvement.

• Offering training, guidelines, and mentorship: It is imperative to establish comprehensive training programs that focus on technical competency for students, aiming to improve their proficiency in using online platforms. Explicit guidelines or online modules might aid students in comprehending the specific requirements, minimizing ambiguity, and augmenting their capacity to engage actively. Furthermore, offering supplementary aid through individualized guidance, peer mentorship, or supplementary materials can assist these students in surmounting barriers and engaging effectively.

• Fostering open communication: It is suggested to foster a positive environment that encourages students to freely voice their viewpoints, inquire, and engage with their peers, which can serve as a beneficial stimulus to promote active participation.

• Accommodating diverse learning preference: It recommended to focus on designing learning activities that accommodate different diverse learning preferences of the students, guaranteeing that both engaged and unengaged participants can benefit from the blogging platform.

• Redesigning curriculum: It is recommended to synchronize the use of educational blogs with the formal curriculum, guaranteeing that blog activities supplement and improve conventional teaching techniques.

• Redesigning assessment process: It is recommended to establish explicit assessment methods for blog-related tasks, ensuring they are in line with the goals of the course. This study suggests the design of collaborative projects that leverage the interactive features of blogs. Assignments that require group discussions, collaborative projects, or peer evaluations on the blogging platform can enhance collaborative learning and offer exposure to a wide range of ideas.

• Creating awareness: As a social media tool, blogs are still underrated and underutilized, so awareness needs to be created focusing on the impact of blogs to enhance teaching and learning practices.

8 Conclusion

Despite that most of the students were unfamiliar with using blogs, they showed enhanced enthusiasm to participate in the blog activities to boost online learning through posting content and resources, discussing ideas, making queries, and so on. Students' participation in educational blogging practices is characterized by asynchronous collaboration, information exchange, reflection, and constructive feedback. Engaging in a wider dialogue and receiving feedback frequently result in a stronger sense of personal responsibility for one's own learning. Using a blended learning philosophy, well-designed blogs can encompass the students' learning arena beyond the classroom boundaries by combining different approaches to learning. Overall, the findings of this study indicate that blogs are perceived by students as an effective collaborative learning tool. Hence, stakeholders and curriculum developers may emphasize aligning this tool with the existing curriculum to maximize and leverage the potential benefits of blogging. The small sample size and exploratory nature of the study are the major limitations of this study. Further research may be conducted to assess student perception with a larger study group to get a detailed idea about how blogs andragogically or pedagogically can be used to support the creation of a CoI framework that could lead to meaningful and collaborative learning.

Data availability statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

Ethics statement

Ethical approval was not required for the study involving human participants in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. Written informed consent was obtained from the individuals for participation in the study and for the publication of any potentially identifiable images or data included in this article.

Author contributions

SC: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Resources, Software, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. MS: Conceptualization, Methodology, Project administration, Supervision, Validation, Writing – review & editing.

The author(s) declare that no financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher's note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Akyol, Z., and Garrison, D. R. (2011). Understanding cognitive presence in an online and blended community of inquiry: assessing outcomes and processes for deep approaches to learning. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 42, 233–250. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.01029.x

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Amichai-Hamburger, Y., Gazit, T., Bar-Ilan, J., Perez, O., Aharony, N., Bronstein, J., et al. (2016). Psychological factors behind the lack of participation in online discussions. Comput. Human Behav. 55, 268–277. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2015.09.009

Angelaina, S., and Jimoyiannis, A. (2011). “Educational blogging: Developing and investigating a students' community of inquiry,” in Research on e-Learning and ICT in Education (Cham: Springer).

Google Scholar

Angeli, C., and Schwartz, N. H. (2016). Differences in electronic exchanges in synchronous and asynchronous computer-mediated communication: the effect of culture as a mediating variable. Interact. Learn. Environ. 24, 1109–1130. doi: 10.1080/10494820.2014.961484

Arefin, A. S., Chowdhury, S. A., Roy, R. C., Rahaman, M. M., and Cross, B. (2023). Education system in Bangladesh amid COVID-19: traditional scenario, emergency protocols, challenges and a proposed sustainable conceptual framework. Sustainability 15, 8126. doi: 10.3390/su15108126

Bener, E., and Yildiz, S. (2019). The use of blog activities to promote reflection in an ELT practicum. Aust. J. Teach. Educ . 44, 38–56. doi: 10.14221/ajte.2019v44n8.3

Bhatty, M. A. (2020). Impact of Teaching Presence on Learning Outcomes. A Qualitative Study of Perceptions Through the Lens of Online Teachers . Moon Township, PA: Robert Morris University.

Bower, M. (2017). Design of Technology-Enhanced Learning: Integrating Research and Practice . Bingley: Emerald Publishing Limited.

Cameron, D., and Anderson, T. (2006). Comparing weblogs to threaded discussion tools in online educational contexts. Int. J. Instruct. Technol. Dist. Learn. (ITDL) 2006, 3.

Chakraborty, M. (2017). Learner engagement strategies in online class environment (Doctoral dissertation). Texas A & M University, United States.

Chakraborty, M., and Nafukho, F. M. (2015). Strategies for virtual learning environments: Focusing on teaching presence and teaching immediacy. J. Online Learn. Res. Pract. 4. doi: 10.18278/il.4.1.1

Chowdhury, S. A., Arefin, S., and Rahaman, M. M. (2018). Impacts of ICT integration in the higher education classrooms: Bangladesh perspective. J. Educ. pract. 9, 82−86.

Cui, G., Lockee, B., and Meng, C. (2013). Building modern online social presence: a review of social presence theory and its instructional design implications for future trends. Educ. Informat. Technol. 18, 661–685. doi: 10.1007/s10639-012-9192-1

Dewey, J. (1933). How We Think. A Restatement of the Relation of Reflective Thinking to the Educative Process . D.C. Heath and Company.

Farmer, B., Yue, A., and Brooks, C. (2008). Using blogging for higher order learning in large cohort university teaching: a case study. Austral. J. Educ. Technol . 24. doi: 10.14742/ajet.1215

Fiock, H. (2020). Designing a community of inquiry in online courses. Int. Rev. Res. Open Distrib. Learn. 21, 135–153. doi: 10.19173/irrodl.v20i5.3985

Galikyan, I., and Admiraal, W. (2019). Students' engagement in asynchronous online discussion: the relationship between cognitive presence, learner prominence, and academic performance. Intern. Higher Educ. 43, 100692. doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2019.100692

Garrison, D. R. (2007). Online community of inquiry review: social, cognitive, and teaching presence issues. J. Asynchronous Learn. Netw. 11, 61–72. doi: 10.24059/olj.v11i1.1737

Garrison, D. R. (2020). CoI Emergence and Influence . Bronx: The Community of Inquiry.

Garrison, D. R., and Akyol, Z. (2013). The community of inquiry theoretical framework. Handb. Dist. Educ. 3, 104–120. doi: 10.4324/9780203803738.ch7

Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., and Archer, W. (2010a). The first decade of the community of inquiry framework: a retrospective. Intern. Higher Educ. 13, 5–9. doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.10.003

Garrison, D. R., and Arbaugh, J. B. (2007). Researching the community of inquiry framework: Review, issues, and future directions. Intern. Higher Educ. 10, 157–172. doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2007.04.001

Garrison, D. R., Cleveland-Innes, M., and Fung, T. S. (2010b). Exploring causal relationships among teaching, cognitive and social presence: student perceptions of the community of inquiry framework. Intern. Higher Educ. 13, 31–36. doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.10.002

Hansen, H. E. (2016). The impact of blog-style writing on student learning outcomes: a pilot study. J. Polit. Sci. Educ. 12, 85–101. doi: 10.1080/15512169.2015.1060887

Ifinedo, P. (2017). Students' perceived impact of learning and satisfaction with blogs. Int. J. Informat. Learn. Technol. 34, 322–337. doi: 10.1108/IJILT-12-2016-0059

Jimoyiannis, A., and Angelaina, S. (2012). Towards an analysis framework for investigating students' engagement and learning in educational blogs. J. Comp. Assist. Learn. 28, 222–234. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00467.x

Jimoyiannis, A., and Roussinos, D. (2017). Students' collaborative patterns in a wiki-authoring project: towards a theoretical and analysis framework. J. Appl. Res. Higher Educ. 9, 24–39. doi: 10.1108/JARHE-05-2016-0034

Jimoyiannis, A., Tsiotakis, P., and Roussinos, D. (2012). “Blogs in higher education: analysing students' participation and presence in a community of blogging,” in Proceedings of the IADIS International Conference e-Learning 2012 (Lisbon).

Kaçar, I. G. (2021). “Interpersonal dimensions of EFL pre-service teachers' blog discourse from the perspective of the systemic functional linguistics,” in Challenge, Create, Innovate: Voices of ELT Professionals from the Virtual Classroom . Paris: Livre de Lyon.

Kaul, M., Aksela, M., and Wu, X. (2018). Dynamics of the community of inquiry (CoI) within a massive open online course (MOOC) for in-service teachers in environmental education. Educ. Sci. 8, 40. doi: 10.3390/educsci8020040

Kaya, S., Özgür, A. Z., and Koçak, N. G. (2012). “Integrating social media into distance learning,” in 4th International Conference on Education and New Learning Technologies (Barcelona).

Kerawalla, L., Minocha, S., Kirkup, G., and Conole, G. (2009). An empirically grounded framework to guide blogging in higher education. J. Comp. Assist. Learn. 25, 31–42. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2008.00286.x

Kim, G.-C., and Gurvitch, R. (2020). Online education research adopting the community of inquiry framework: a systematic review. Quest 72, 395–409. doi: 10.1080/00336297.2020.1761843

Lawrence, E., Sides, J., and Farrell, H. (2010). Self-segregation or deliberation? Blog readership, participation, and polarization in American politics. Perspect Polit. 8, 141–157. doi: 10.1017/S1537592709992714

Liu, B., Xing, W., Zeng, Y., and Wu, Y. (2022). Linking cognitive processes and learning outcomes: The influence of cognitive presence on learning performance in MOOCs. Br. J. Educat. Technol. 53, 1459–1477. doi: 10.1111/bjet.13193

Marshall, H. W., and Kostka, I. (2020). Fostering teaching presence through the synchronous online flipped learning approach. Tesl-Ej 24, n2.

Milad, M. (2017). Blended learning approach: integrating reading and writing research skills to improve academic writing. Arab J. Appl. Linguist. 3, 23–55.

Moodley, K., Van Wyk, M., Robberts, A., and Wolff, E. (2022). Exploring the education experience in online learning. Int. J. Educ. Dev. Using Inf. Commun. Technol. 18, 146–163.

Petit, M., Babin, J., and Desrochers, M.-È. (2023). Remote supervision of teacher trainee internships: Using digital technology to increase social presence. Front. Educ. 7, 1026417. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2022.1026417

Pifarré, M., Guijosa, A., and Argelagós, E. (2014). Using a blog to create and support a community of inquiry in secondary education. E-Learn. Digit. Media 11, 72–87. doi: 10.2304/elea.2014.11.1.72

Sadaf, A., Wu, T., and Martin, F. (2021). Cognitive presence in online learning: a systematic review of empirical research from 2000 to 2019. Comp. Educ. Open 2, 100050. doi: 10.1016/j.caeo.2021.100050

Seaman, J. E., Allen, I. E., and Seaman, J. (2018). Grade Increase: Tracking Distance Education in the United States. Babson Park, MA: Babson Survey Research Group.

Shea, P., Richardson, J., and Swan, K. (2022). Building bridges to advance the community of inquiry framework for online learning. Educ. Psychol. 57, 148–161. doi: 10.1080/00461520.2022.2089989

Song, D., and Bonk, C. J. (2016). Motivational factors in self-directed informal learning from online learning resources. Cogent Educ. 3, 1205838. doi: 10.1080/2331186X.2016.1205838

Stemler, S. E. (2019). A comparison of consensus, consistency, and measurement approaches to estimating interrater reliability. Pract. Assess. Res. Eval . 9:4. doi: 10.7275/96jp-xz07

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in Society. The Development of Higher Psychological Processes . Harvard University Press.

Zawilinski, L. M. (2012). An Exploration of a Collaborative Blogging Approach to Literacy and Learning: A Mixed Methods Study . Stamford: University of Connecticut.

Keywords: web 2.0, Community of Inquiry (CoI), blog, collaborative learning, learning outcome

Citation: Chowdhury SA and Siddique MNA (2024) Developing a Community of Inquiry using an educational blog in higher education from the perspective of Bangladesh. Front. Educ. 9:1302434. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2024.1302434

Received: 26 September 2023; Accepted: 25 March 2024; Published: 09 April 2024.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2024 Chowdhury and Siddique. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Sabbir Ahmed Chowdhury, sabbir.ahmed@du.ac.bd

This article is part of the Research Topic

Psychological Transformation in Technology-Enhanced Learning Environments (TELEs): Focus on Teachers and Learners