critical thinking surveys

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

Bibliography

Academic tools.

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

Critical Thinking

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

2.1 Dewey’s Three Main Examples

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. Examples and Non-Examples

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8. Critical Thinking Dispositions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

12. Controversies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

• Info about mirror sites

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

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

MindEdge Online Learning

Corporate, Continuing, and Higher Education

The State of Critical Thinking Survey 2019

General info, content area, millennials, boomers, and critical thinking in the digital age.

The Internet is like a fire hose of information – a lot of it good, a lot of it bad – and knowing how to make sense of all that content has never been more important. But MindEdge’s third annual State of Critical Thinking survey suggests that digital literacy and critical thinking skills are in surprisingly short supply, even among tech-savvy Millennials.

While college-educated Americans express a high level of confidence in their critical thinking skills, most could not pass a nine-question quiz designed to gauge their ability to detect fake news. Overall, 69 percent of survey respondents earned a failing grade on the quiz, correctly answering just five or fewer questions.

The failure rate among Millennials – digital natives who’ve grown up with the Internet – was even higher, at 74 percent. Baby Boomers fared somewhat better on the quiz, but a clear majority (58 percent) still received a failing grade. On the positive side, 13 percent of Boomers received an “A” or “B” by answering eight or nine questions correctly – but only 5 percent of Millennials did likewise.

MindEdge’s national survey of 1001 college-educated Americans was conducted online by Qualtrics from May 8 through May 14, 2019. In addition to the Digital Literacy and Critical Thinking Quiz, the survey included questions that probed respondents’ confidence in their own job-related skills; their perceptions of the “mainstream media”; their views on the relative accuracy of online and offline news sources; and their concerns about possible foreign interference in the 2020 presidential election.

Download the Results and Take the Quiz!

Enter Course

Already enrolled?

INSIGHT BASECAMP: The new comprehensive and innovative platform for developing your critical thinking.

Insight Assessment’s high-quality, expertly designed, and interactive critical thinking self-development tools are now available for the first time directly to individuals through INSIGHT BASECAMP . Adults, teens, and children can gain the reasoning skills and habits of mind that will last them a lifetime. With new short courses, quizzes, and surveys designed by experts in the training of critical thinking, everyone can build their critical thinking skills and fortify their positive thinking habits of mind in as little as one hour.

What you will find at INSIGHT BASECAMP

Insight Basecamp offers a wide range of courses and activities to help individuals hone their critical thinking skills and mindset. These courses, quizzes, and surveys are designed so that individuals can identify their own strengths and weaknesses, develop strategies for improving their critical thinking skills, and gain a confident mindset necessary to make sound decisions in their everyday and professional lives.

Standardized tests are used to measure the strength of important skills and attributes in large groups of people. A standardized…

In the demanding realm of emergency response, the capacity for critical thinking and swift action is indispensable. Fire and rescue…

After more than 3 decades of collecting and studying data on the reasoning skills of future professionals, one ability stands…

• A Model for the National Assessment of Higher Order Thinking
• International Critical Thinking Essay Test
• Online Critical Thinking Basic Concepts Test
• Online Critical Thinking Basic Concepts Sample Test

Consequential Validity: Using Assessment to Drive Instruction

Translate this page from English...

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

Critical Thinking Testing and Assessment

The purpose of assessment in instruction is improvement. The purpose of assessing instruction for critical thinking is improving the teaching of discipline-based thinking (historical, biological, sociological, mathematical, etc.) It is to improve students’ abilities to think their way through content using disciplined skill in reasoning. The more particular we can be about what we want students to learn about critical thinking, the better we can devise instruction with that particular end in view.

The Foundation for Critical Thinking offers assessment instruments which share in the same general goal: to enable educators to gather evidence relevant to determining the extent to which instruction is teaching students to think critically (in the process of learning content). To this end, the Fellows of the Foundation recommend:

that academic institutions and units establish an oversight committee for critical thinking, and

that this oversight committee utilizes a combination of assessment instruments (the more the better) to generate incentives for faculty, by providing them with as much evidence as feasible of the actual state of instruction for critical thinking.

The following instruments are available to generate evidence relevant to critical thinking teaching and learning:

Course Evaluation Form : Provides evidence of whether, and to what extent, students perceive faculty as fostering critical thinking in instruction (course by course). Machine-scoreable.

Online Critical Thinking Basic Concepts Test : Provides evidence of whether, and to what extent, students understand the fundamental concepts embedded in critical thinking (and hence tests student readiness to think critically). Machine-scoreable.

Critical Thinking Reading and Writing Test : Provides evidence of whether, and to what extent, students can read closely and write substantively (and hence tests students' abilities to read and write critically). Short-answer.

International Critical Thinking Essay Test : Provides evidence of whether, and to what extent, students are able to analyze and assess excerpts from textbooks or professional writing. Short-answer.

Commission Study Protocol for Interviewing Faculty Regarding Critical Thinking : Provides evidence of whether, and to what extent, critical thinking is being taught at a college or university. Can be adapted for high school. Based on the California Commission Study . Short-answer.

Protocol for Interviewing Faculty Regarding Critical Thinking : Provides evidence of whether, and to what extent, critical thinking is being taught at a college or university. Can be adapted for high school. Short-answer.

Protocol for Interviewing Students Regarding Critical Thinking : Provides evidence of whether, and to what extent, students are learning to think critically at a college or university. Can be adapted for high school). Short-answer. 

Criteria for Critical Thinking Assignments : Can be used by faculty in designing classroom assignments, or by administrators in assessing the extent to which faculty are fostering critical thinking.

Rubrics for Assessing Student Reasoning Abilities : A useful tool in assessing the extent to which students are reasoning well through course content.  

All of the above assessment instruments can be used as part of pre- and post-assessment strategies to gauge development over various time periods.

Consequential Validity

All of the above assessment instruments, when used appropriately and graded accurately, should lead to a high degree of consequential validity. In other words, the use of the instruments should cause teachers to teach in such a way as to foster critical thinking in their various subjects. In this light, for students to perform well on the various instruments, teachers will need to design instruction so that students can perform well on them. Students cannot become skilled in critical thinking without learning (first) the concepts and principles that underlie critical thinking and (second) applying them in a variety of forms of thinking: historical thinking, sociological thinking, biological thinking, etc. Students cannot become skilled in analyzing and assessing reasoning without practicing it. However, when they have routine practice in paraphrasing, summariz­ing, analyzing, and assessing, they will develop skills of mind requisite to the art of thinking well within any subject or discipline, not to mention thinking well within the various domains of human life.

For full copies of this and many other critical thinking articles, books, videos, and more, join us at the Center for Critical Thinking Community Online - the world's leading online community dedicated to critical thinking!   Also featuring interactive learning activities, study groups, and even a social media component, this learning platform will change your conception of intellectual development.

• Open access
• Published: 09 March 2020

Rubrics to assess critical thinking and information processing in undergraduate STEM courses

• Gil Reynders 1 , 2 ,
• Juliette Lantz 3 ,
• Suzanne M. Ruder 2 ,
• Courtney L. Stanford 4 &
• Renée S. Cole   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-2807-1500 1  

International Journal of STEM Education volume  7 , Article number:  9 ( 2020 ) Cite this article

67k Accesses

56 Citations

4 Altmetric

Metrics details

Process skills such as critical thinking and information processing are commonly stated outcomes for STEM undergraduate degree programs, but instructors often do not explicitly assess these skills in their courses. Students are more likely to develop these crucial skills if there is constructive alignment between an instructor’s intended learning outcomes, the tasks that the instructor and students perform, and the assessment tools that the instructor uses. Rubrics for each process skill can enhance this alignment by creating a shared understanding of process skills between instructors and students. Rubrics can also enable instructors to reflect on their teaching practices with regard to developing their students’ process skills and facilitating feedback to students to identify areas for improvement.

Here, we provide rubrics that can be used to assess critical thinking and information processing in STEM undergraduate classrooms and to provide students with formative feedback. As part of the Enhancing Learning by Improving Process Skills in STEM (ELIPSS) Project, rubrics were developed to assess these two skills in STEM undergraduate students’ written work. The rubrics were implemented in multiple STEM disciplines, class sizes, course levels, and institution types to ensure they were practical for everyday classroom use. Instructors reported via surveys that the rubrics supported assessment of students’ written work in multiple STEM learning environments. Graduate teaching assistants also indicated that they could effectively use the rubrics to assess student work and that the rubrics clarified the instructor’s expectations for how they should assess students. Students reported that they understood the content of the rubrics and could use the feedback provided by the rubric to change their future performance.

The ELIPSS rubrics allowed instructors to explicitly assess the critical thinking and information processing skills that they wanted their students to develop in their courses. The instructors were able to clarify their expectations for both their teaching assistants and students and provide consistent feedback to students about their performance. Supporting the adoption of active-learning pedagogies should also include changes to assessment strategies to measure the skills that are developed as students engage in more meaningful learning experiences. Tools such as the ELIPSS rubrics provide a resource for instructors to better align assessments with intended learning outcomes.

Introduction

Why assess process skills.

Process skills, also known as professional skills (ABET Engineering Accreditation Commission, 2012 ), transferable skills (Danczak et al., 2017 ), or cognitive competencies (National Research Council, 2012 ), are commonly cited as critical for students to develop during their undergraduate education (ABET Engineering Accreditation Commission, 2012 ; American Chemical Society Committee on Professional Training, 2015 ; National Research Council, 2012 ; Singer et al., 2012 ; The Royal Society, 2014 ). Process skills such as problem-solving, critical thinking, information processing, and communication are widely applicable to many academic disciplines and careers, and they are receiving increased attention in undergraduate curricula (ABET Engineering Accreditation Commission, 2012 ; American Chemical Society Committee on Professional Training, 2015 ) and workplace hiring decisions (Gray & Koncz, 2018 ; Pearl et al., 2019 ). Recent reports from multiple countries (Brewer & Smith, 2011 ; National Research Council, 2012 ; Singer et al., 2012 ; The Royal Society, 2014 ) indicate that these skills are emphasized in multiple undergraduate academic disciplines, and annual polls of about 200 hiring managers indicate that employers may place more importance on these skills than in applicants’ content knowledge when making hiring decisions (Deloitte Access Economics, 2014 ; Gray & Koncz, 2018 ). The assessment of process skills can provide a benchmark for achievement at the end of an undergraduate program and act as an indicator of student readiness to enter the workforce. Assessing these skills may also enable instructors and researchers to more fully understand the impact of active learning pedagogies on students.

A recent meta-analysis of 225 studies by Freeman et al. ( 2014 ) showed that students in active learning environments may achieve higher content learning gains than students in traditional lectures in multiple STEM fields when comparing scores on equivalent examinations. Active learning environments can have many different attributes, but they are commonly characterized by students “physically manipulating objects, producing new ideas, and discussing ideas with others” (Rau et al., 2017 ) in contrast to students sitting and listening to a lecture. Examples of active learning pedagogies include POGIL (Process Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning) (Moog & Spencer, 2008 ; Simonson, 2019 ) and PLTL (Peer-led Team Learning) (Gafney & Varma-Nelson, 2008 ; Gosser et al., 2001 ) in which students work in groups to complete activities with varying levels of guidance from an instructor. Despite the clear content learning gains that students can achieve from active learning environments (Freeman et al., 2014 ), the non-content-gains (including improvements in process skills) in these learning environments have not been explored to a significant degree. Active learning pedagogies such as POGIL and PLTL place an emphasis on students developing non-content skills in addition to content learning gains, but typically only the content learning is assessed on quizzes and exams, and process skills are not often explicitly assessed (National Research Council, 2012 ). In order to fully understand the effects of active learning pedagogies on all aspects of an undergraduate course, evidence-based tools must be used to assess students’ process skill development. The goal of this work was to develop resources that could enable instructors to explicitly assess process skills in STEM undergraduate classrooms in order to provide feedback to themselves and their students about the students’ process skills development.

Theoretical frameworks

The incorporation of these rubrics and other currently available tools for use in STEM undergraduate classrooms can be viewed through the lenses of constructive alignment (Biggs, 1996 ) and self-regulated learning (Zimmerman, 2002 ). The theory of constructivism posits that students learn by constructing their own understanding of knowledge rather than acquiring the meaning from their instructor (Bodner, 1986 ), and constructive alignment extends the constructivist model to consider how the alignment between a course’s intended learning outcomes, tasks, and assessments affects the knowledge and skills that students develop (Biggs, 2003 ). Students are more likely to develop the intended knowledge and skills if there is alignment between the instructor’s intended learning outcomes that are stated at the beginning of a course, the tasks that the instructor and students perform, and the assessment strategies that the instructor uses (Biggs, 1996 , 2003 , 2014 ). The nature of the tasks and assessments indicates what the instructor values and where students should focus their effort when studying. According to Biggs ( 2003 ) and Ramsden ( 1997 ), students see assessments as defining what they should learn, and a misalignment between the outcomes, tasks, and assessments may hinder students from achieving the intended learning outcomes. In the case of this work, the intended outcomes are improved process skills. In addition to aligning the components of a course, it is also critical that students receive feedback on their performance in order to improve their skills. Zimmerman’s theory of self-regulated learning (Zimmerman, 2002 ) provides a rationale for tailoring assessments to provide feedback to both students and instructors.

Zimmerman’s theory of self-regulated learning defines three phases of learning: forethought/planning, performance, and self-reflection. According to Zimmerman, individuals ideally should progress through these three phases in a cycle: they plan a task, perform the task, and reflect on their performance, then they restart the cycle on a new task. If a student is unable to adequately progress through the phases of self-regulated learning on their own, then feedback provided by an instructor may enable the students to do so (Butler & Winne, 1995 ). Thus, one of our criteria when creating rubrics to assess process skills was to make the rubrics suitable for faculty members to use to provide feedback to their students. Additionally, instructors can use the results from assessments to give themselves feedback regarding their students’ learning in order to regulate their teaching. This theory is called self-regulated learning because the goal is for learners to ultimately reflect on their actions to find ways to improve. We assert that, ideally, both students and instructors should be “learners” and use assessment data to reflect on their actions, although with different aims. Students need consistent feedback from an instructor and/or self-assessment throughout a course to provide a benchmark for their current performance and identify what they can do to improve their process skills (Black & Wiliam, 1998 ; Butler & Winne, 1995 ; Hattie & Gan, 2011 ; Nicol & Macfarlane-Dick, 2006 ). Instructors need feedback on the extent to which their efforts are achieving their intended goals in order to improve their instruction and better facilitate the development of process skills through course experiences.

In accordance with the aforementioned theoretical frameworks, tools used to assess undergraduate STEM student process skills should be tailored to fit the outcomes that are expected for undergraduate students and be able to provide formative assessment and feedback to both students and faculty about the students’ skills. These tools should also be designed for everyday classroom use to enable students to regularly self-assess and faculty to provide consistent feedback throughout a semester. Additionally, it is desirable for assessment tools to be broadly generalizable to measure process skills in multiple STEM disciplines and institutions in order to increase the rubrics’ impact on student learning. Current tools exist to assess these process skills, but they each lack at least one of the desired characteristics for providing regular feedback to STEM students.

Current tools to assess process skills

Current tests available to assess critical thinking include the Critical Thinking Assessment Test (CAT) (Stein & Haynes, 2011 ), California Critical Thinking Skills Test (Facione, 1990a , 1990b ), and Watson Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal (Watson & Glaser, 1964 ). These commercially available, multiple-choice tests are not designed to provide regular, formative feedback throughout a course and have not been implemented for this purpose. Instead, they are designed to provide summative feedback with a focus on assessing this skill at a programmatic or university level rather than for use in the classroom to provide formative feedback to students. Rather than using tests to assess process skills, rubrics could be used instead. Rubrics are effective assessment tools because they can be quick and easy to use, they provide feedback to both students and instructors, and they can evaluate individual aspects of a skill to give more specific feedback (Brookhart & Chen, 2014 ; Smit & Birri, 2014 ). Rubrics for assessing critical thinking are available, but they have not been used to provide feedback to undergraduate STEM students nor were they designed to do so (Association of American Colleges and Universities, 2019 ; Saxton et al., 2012 ). The Critical Thinking Analytic Rubric is designed specifically to assess K-12 students to enhance college readiness and has not been broadly tested in collegiate STEM courses (Saxton et al., 2012 ). The critical thinking rubric developed by the Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U) as part its Valid Assessment of Learning in Undergraduate Education (VALUE) Institute and Liberal Education and America’s Promise (LEAP) initiative (Association of American Colleges and Universities, 2019 ) is intended for programmatic assessment rather than specifically giving feedback to students throughout a course. As with tests for assessing critical thinking, current rubrics to assess critical thinking are not designed to act as formative assessments and give feedback to STEM faculty and undergraduates at the course or task level. Another issue with the assessment of critical thinking is the degree to which the construct is measurable. A National Research Council report (National Research Council, 2011 ) has suggested that there is little evidence of a consistent, measurable definition for critical thinking and that it may not be different from one’s general cognitive ability. Despite this issue, we have found that critical thinking is consistently listed as a programmatic outcome in STEM disciplines (American Chemical Society Committee on Professional Training, 2015 ; The Royal Society, 2014 ), so we argue that it is necessary to support instructors as they attempt to assess this skill.

Current methods for evaluating students’ information processing include discipline-specific tools such as a rubric to assess physics students’ use of graphs and equations to solve work-energy problems (Nguyen et al., 2010 ) and assessments of organic chemistry students’ ability to “[manipulate] and [translate] between various representational forms” including 2D and 3D representations of chemical structures (Kumi et al., 2013 ). Although these assessment tools can be effectively used for their intended context, they were not designed for use in a wide range of STEM disciplines or for a variety of tasks.

Despite the many tools that exist to measure process skills, none has been designed and tested to facilitate frequent, formative feedback to STEM undergraduate students and faculty throughout a semester. The rubrics described here have been designed by the Enhancing Learning by Improving Process Skills in STEM (ELIPSS) Project (Cole et al., 2016 ) to assess undergraduate STEM students’ process skills and to facilitate feedback at the classroom level with the potential to track growth throughout a semester or degree program. The rubrics described here are designed to assess critical thinking and information processing in student written work. Rubrics were chosen as the format for our process skill assessment tools because the highest level of each category in rubrics can serve as an explicit learning outcome that the student is expected to achieve (Panadero & Jonsson, 2013 ). Rubrics that are generalizable to multiple disciplines and institutions can enable the assessment of student learning outcomes and active learning pedagogies throughout a program of study and provide useful tools for a greater number of potential users.

Research questions

This work sought to answer the following research questions for each rubric:

Does the rubric adequately measure relevant aspects of the skill?

How well can the rubrics provide feedback to instructors and students?

Can multiple raters use the rubrics to give consistent scores?

This work received Institutional Review Board approval prior to any data collection involving human subjects. The sources of data used to construct the process skill rubrics and answer these research questions were (1) peer-reviewed literature on how each skill is defined, (2) feedback from content experts in multiple STEM disciplines via surveys and in-person, group discussions regarding the appropriateness of the rubrics for each discipline, (3) interviews with students whose work was scored with the rubrics and teaching assistants who scored the student work, and (4) results of applying the rubrics to samples of student work.

Defining the scope of the rubrics

The rubrics described here and the other rubrics in development by the ELIPSS Project are intended to measure process skills, which are desired learning outcomes identified by the STEM community in recent reports (National Research Council, 2012 ; Singer et al., 2012 ). In order to measure these skills in multiple STEM disciplines, operationalized definitions of each skill were needed. These definitions specify which aspects of student work (operations) would be considered evidence for the student using that skill and establish a shared understanding of each skill by members of each STEM discipline. The starting point for this work was the process skill definitions developed as part of the POGIL project (Cole et al., 2019a ). The POGIL community includes instructors from a variety of disciplines and institutions and represented the intended audience for the rubrics: faculty who value process skills and want to more explicitly assess them. The process skills discussed in this work were defined as follows:

Critical thinking is analyzing, evaluating, or synthesizing relevant information to form an argument or reach a conclusion supported with evidence.

Information processing is evaluating, interpreting, and manipulating or transforming information.

Examples of critical thinking include the tasks that students are asked to perform in a laboratory course. When students are asked to analyze the data they collected, combine data from different sources, and generate arguments or conclusions about their data, we see this as critical thinking. However, when students simply follow the so-called “cookbook” laboratory instructions that require them to confirm pre-determined conclusions, we do not think students are engaging in critical thinking. One example of information processing is when organic chemistry students are required to re-draw molecules in different formats. The students must evaluate and interpret various pieces of one representation, and then they recreate the molecule in another representation. However, if students are asked to simply memorize facts or algorithms to solve problems, we do not see this as information processing.

Iterative rubric development

The development process was the same for the information processing rubric and the critical thinking rubric. After defining the scope of the rubric, an initial version was drafted based upon the definition of the target process skill and how each aspect of the skill is defined in the literature. A more detailed discussion of the literature that informed each rubric category is included in the “Results and Discussion” section. This initial version then underwent iterative testing in which the rubric was reviewed by researchers, practitioners, and students. The rubric was first evaluated by the authors and a group of eight faculty from multiple STEM disciplines who made up the ELIPSS Project’s primary collaborative team (PCT). The PCT was a group of faculty members with experience in discipline-based education research who employ active-learning pedagogies in their classrooms. This initial round of evaluation was intended to ensure that the rubric measured relevant aspects of the skill and was appropriate for each PCT member’s discipline. This evaluation determined how well the rubrics were aligned with each instructor’s understanding of the process skill including both in-person and email discussions that continued until the group came to consensus that each rubric category could be applied to student work in courses within their disciplines. There has been an ongoing debate regarding the role of disciplinary knowledge in critical thinking and the extent to which critical thinking is subject-specific (Davies, 2013 ; Ennis, 1990 ). This work focuses on the creation of rubrics to measure process skills in different domains, but we have not performed cross-discipline comparisons. This initial round of review was also intended to ensure that the rubrics were ready for classroom testing by instructors in each discipline. Next, each rubric was tested over three semesters in multiple classroom environments, illustrated in Table 1 . The rubrics were applied to student work chosen by each PCT member. The PCT members chose the student work based on their views of how the assignments required students to engage in process skills and show evidence of those skills. The information processing and critical thinking rubrics shown in this work were each tested in at least three disciplines, course levels, and institutions.

After each semester, the feedback was collected from the faculty testing the rubric, and further changes to the rubric were made. Feedback was collected in the form of survey responses along with in-person group discussions at annual project meetings. After the first iteration of completing the survey, the PCT members met with the authors to discuss how they were interpreting each survey question. This meeting helped ensure that the surveys were gathering valid data regarding how well the rubrics were measuring the desired process skill. Questions in the survey such as “What aspects of the student work provided evidence for the indicated process skill?” and “Are there edits to the rubric/descriptors that would improve your ability to assess the process skill?” allowed the authors to determine how well the rubric scores were matching the student work and identify necessary changes to the rubric. Further questions asked about the nature and timing of the feedback given to students in order to address the question of how well the rubrics provide feedback to instructors and students. The survey questions are included in the Supporting Information . The survey responses were analyzed qualitatively to determine themes related to each research question.

In addition to the surveys given to faculty rubric testers, twelve students were interviewed in fall 2016 and fall 2017. In the United States of America, the fall semester typically runs from August to December and is the first semester of the academic year. Each student participated in one interview which lasted about 30 min. These interviews were intended to gather further data to answer questions about how well the rubrics were measuring the identified process skills that students were using when they completed their assignments and to ensure that the information provided by the rubrics made sense to students. The protocol for these interviews is included in the Supporting Information . In fall 2016, the students interviewed were enrolled in an organic chemistry laboratory course for non-majors at a large, research-intensive university in the United States. Thirty students agreed to have their work analyzed by the research team, and nine students were interviewed. However, the rubrics were not a component of the laboratory course grading. Instead, the first author assessed the students’ reports for critical thinking and information processing, and then the students were provided electronic copies of their laboratory reports and scored rubrics in advance of the interview. The first author had recently been a graduate teaching assistant for the course and was familiar with the instructor’s expectations for the laboratory reports. During the interview, the students were given time to review their reports and the completed rubrics, and then they were asked about how well they understood the content of the rubrics and how accurately each category score represented their work.

In fall 2017, students enrolled in a physical chemistry thermodynamics course for majors were interviewed. The physical chemistry course took place at the same university as the organic laboratory course, but there was no overlap between participants. Three students and two graduate teaching assistants (GTAs) were interviewed. The course included daily group work, and process skill assessment was an explicit part of the instructor’s curriculum. At the end of each class period, students assessed their groups using portions of ELIPSS rubrics, including the two process skill rubrics included in this paper. About every 2 weeks, the GTAs assessed the student groups with a complete ELIPSS rubric for a particular skill, then gave the groups their scored rubrics with written comments. The students’ individual homework problem sets were assessed once with rubrics for three skills: critical thinking, information processing, and problem-solving. The students received the scored rubric with written comments when the graded problem set was returned to them. In the last third of the semester, the students and GTAs were interviewed about how rubrics were implemented in the course, how well the rubric scores reflected the students’ written work, and how the use of rubrics affected the teaching assistants’ ability to assess the student skills. The protocols for these interviews are included in the Supporting Information .

Gathering evidence for utility, validity, and reliability

The utility, validity, and reliability of the rubrics were measured throughout the development process. The utility is the degree to which the rubrics are perceived as practical to experts and practitioners in the field. Through multiple meetings, the PCT faculty determined that early drafts of the rubric seemed appropriate for use in their classrooms, which represented multiple STEM disciplines. Rubric utility was reexamined multiple times throughout the development process to ensure that the rubrics would remain practical for classroom use. Validity can be defined in multiple ways. For example, the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Psychological Testing, 2014 ) defines validity as “the degree to which all the accumulated evidence supports the intended interpretation of test scores for the proposed use.” For the purposes of this work, we drew on the ways in which two distinct types of validity were examined in the rubric literature: content validity and construct validity. Content validity is the degree to which the rubrics cover relevant aspects of each process skill (Moskal & Leydens, 2000 ). In this case, the process skill definition and a review of the literature determined which categories were included in each rubric. The literature review was finished once the data was saturated: when no more new aspects were found. Construct validity is the degree to which the levels of each rubric category accurately reflect the process that students performed (Moskal & Leydens, 2000 ). Evidence of construct validity was gathered via the faculty surveys, teaching assistant interviews, and student interviews. In the student interviews, students were given one of their completed assignments and asked to explain how they completed the task. Students were then asked to explain how well each category applied to their work and if any changes were needed to the rubric to more accurately reflect their process. Due to logistical challenges, we were not able to obtain evidence for convergent validity, and this is further discussed in the “Limitations” section.

Adjacent agreement, also known as “interrater agreement within one,” was chosen as the measure of interrater reliability due to its common use in rubric development projects (Jonsson & Svingby, 2007 ). The adjacent agreement is the percentage of cases in which two raters agree on a rating or are different by one level (i.e., they give adjacent ratings to the same work). Jonsson and Svingby ( 2007 ) found that most of the rubrics they reviewed had adjacent agreement scores of 90% or greater. However, they noted that the agreement threshold varied based on the number of possible levels of performance for each category in the rubric, with three and four being the most common numbers of levels. Since the rubrics discussed in this report have six levels (scores of zero through five) and are intended for low-stakes assessment and feedback, the goal of 80% adjacent agreement was selected. To calculate agreement for the critical thinking and information processing rubrics, two researchers discussed the scoring criteria for each rubric and then independently assessed the organic chemistry laboratory reports.

Results and discussion

The process skill rubrics to assess critical thinking and information processing in student written work were completed after multiple rounds of revision based on feedback from various sources. These sources include feedback from instructors who tested the rubrics in their classrooms, TAs who scored student work with the rubrics, and students who were assessed with the rubrics. The categories for each rubric will be discussed in terms of the evidence that the rubrics measure the relevant aspects of the skill and how they can be used to assess STEM undergraduate student work. Each category discussion will begin with a general explanation of the category followed by more specific examples from the organic chemistry laboratory course and physical chemistry lecture course to demonstrate how the rubrics can be used to assess student work.

Information processing rubric

The definition of information processing and the focus of the rubric presented here (Fig. 1 ) are distinct from cognitive information processing as defined by the educational psychology literature (Driscoll, 2005 ). The rubric shown here is more aligned with the STEM education construct of representational competency (Daniel et al., 2018 ).

Rubric for assessing information processing

When solving a problem or completing a task, students must evaluate the provided information for relevance or importance to the task (Hanson, 2008 ; Swanson et al., 1990 ). All the information provided in a prompt (e.g., homework or exam questions) may not be relevant for addressing all parts of the prompt. Students should ideally show evidence of their evaluation process by identifying what information is present in the prompt/model, indicating what information is relevant or not relevant, and indicating why information is relevant. Responses with these characteristics would earn high rubric scores for this category. Although students may not explicitly state what information is necessary to address a task, the information they do use can act as indirect evidence of the degree to which they have evaluated all of the available information in the prompt. Evidence for students inaccurately evaluating information for relevance includes the inclusion of irrelevant information or the omission of relevant information in an analysis or in completing a task. When evaluating the organic chemistry laboratory reports, the focus for the evaluating category was the information students presented when identifying the chemical structure of their products. For students who received a high score, this information included their measured value for the product’s melting point, the literature (expected) value for the melting point, and the peaks in a nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectrum. NMR spectroscopy is a commonly used technique in chemistry to obtain structural information about a compound. Lower scores were given if students omitted any of the necessary information or if they included unnecessary information. For example, if a student discussed their reaction yield when discussing the identity of their product, they would receive a low Evaluating score because the yield does not help them determine the identity of their product; the yield, in this case, would be unnecessary information. In the physical chemistry course, students often did not show evidence that they determined which information was relevant to answer the homework questions and thus earned low evaluating scores. These omissions will be further addressed in the “Interpreting” section.

Interpreting

In addition to evaluating, students must often interpret information using their prior knowledge to explain the meaning of something, make inferences, match data to predictions, and extract patterns from data (Hanson, 2008 ; Nakhleh, 1992 ; Schmidt et al., 1989 ; Swanson et al., 1990 ). Students earn high scores for this category if they assign correct meaning to labeled information (e.g., text, tables, graphs, diagrams), extract specific details from information, explain information in their own words, and determine patterns in information. For the organic chemistry laboratory reports, students received high scores if they accurately interpreted their measured values and NMR peaks. Almost every student obtained melting point values that were different than what was expected due to measurement error or impurities in their products, so they needed to describe what types of impurities could cause such discrepancies. Also, each NMR spectrum contained one peak that corresponded to the solvent used to dissolve the students’ product, so the students needed to use their prior knowledge of NMR spectroscopy to recognize that peak did not correspond to part of their product.

In physical chemistry, the graduate teaching assistant often gave students low scores for inaccurately explaining changes to chemical systems such as changes in pressure or entropy. The graduate teaching assistant who assessed the student work used the rubric to identify both the evaluating and interpreting categories as weaknesses in many of the students’ homework submissions. However, the students often earned high scores for the manipulating and transforming categories, so the GTA was able to give students specific feedback on their areas for improvement while also highlighting their strengths.

Manipulating and transforming (extent and accuracy)

In addition to evaluating and interpreting information, students may be asked to manipulate and transform information from one form to another. These transformations should be complete and accurate (Kumi et al., 2013 ; Nguyen et al., 2010 ). Students may be required to construct a figure based on written information, or conversely, they may transform information in a figure into words or mathematical expressions. Two categories for manipulating and transforming (i.e., extent and accuracy) were included to allow instructors to give more specific feedback. It was often found that students would either transform little information but do so accurately, or transform much information and do so inaccurately; the two categories allowed for differentiated feedback to be provided. As stated above, the organic chemistry students were expected to transform their NMR spectral data into a table and provide a labeled structure of their final product. Students were given high scores if they converted all of the relevant peaks from their spectrum into the table format and were able to correctly match the peaks to the hydrogen atoms in their products. Students received lower scores if they were only able to convert the information for a few peaks or if they incorrectly matched the peaks to the hydrogen atoms.

Critical thinking rubric

Critical thinking can be broadly defined in different contexts, but we found that the categories included in the rubric (Fig. 2 ) represented commonly accepted aspects of critical thinking (Danczak et al., 2017 ) and suited the needs of the faculty collaborators who tested the rubric in their classrooms.

Rubric for assessing critical thinking

When completing a task, students must evaluate the relevance of information that they will ultimately use to support a claim or conclusions (Miri et al., 2007 ; Zohar et al., 1994 ). An evaluating category is included in both critical thinking and information processing rubrics because evaluation is a key aspect of both skills. From our previous work developing a problem-solving rubric (manuscript in preparation) and our review of the literature for this work (Danczak et al., 2017 ; Lewis & Smith, 1993 ), the overlap was seen between information processing, critical thinking, and problem-solving. Additionally, while the Evaluating category in the information processing rubric assesses a student’s ability to determine the importance of information to complete a task, the evaluating category in the critical thinking rubric places a heavier emphasis on using the information to support a conclusion or argument.

When scoring student work with the evaluating category, students receive high scores if they indicate what information is likely to be most relevant to the argument they need to make, determine the reliability of the source of their information, and determine the quality and accuracy of the information itself. The information used to assess this category can be indirect as with the Evaluating category in the information processing rubric. In the organic chemistry laboratory reports, students needed to make an argument about whether they successfully produced the desired product, so they needed to discuss which information was relevant to their claims about the product’s identity and purity. Students received high scores for the evaluating category when they accurately determined that the melting point and nearly all peaks except the solvent peak in the NMR spectrum indicated the identity of their product. Students received lower scores for evaluating when they left out relevant information because this was seen as evidence that the student inaccurately evaluated the information’s relevance in supporting their conclusion. They also received lower scores when they incorrectly stated that a high yield indicated a pure product. Students were given the opportunity to demonstrate their ability to evaluate the quality of information when discussing their melting point. Students sometimes struggled to obtain reliable melting point data due to their inexperience in the laboratory, so the rubric provided a way to assess the student’s ability to critique their own data.

In tandem with evaluating information, students also need to analyze that same information to extract meaningful evidence to support their conclusions (Bailin, 2002 ; Lai, 2011 ; Miri et al., 2007 ). The analyzing category provides an assessment of a student’s ability to discuss information and explore the possible meaning of that information, extract patterns from data/information that could be used as evidence for their claims, and summarize information that could be used as evidence. For example, in the organic chemistry laboratory reports, students needed to compare the information they obtained to the expected values for a product. Students received high scores for the analyzing category if they could extract meaningful structural information from the NMR spectrum and their two melting points (observed and expected) for each reaction step.

Synthesizing

Often, students are asked to synthesize or connect multiple pieces of information in order to draw a conclusion or make a claim (Huitt, 1998 ; Lai, 2011 ). Synthesizing involves identifying the relationships between different pieces of information or concepts, identifying ways that different pieces of information or concepts can be combined, and explaining how the newly synthesized information can be used to reach a conclusion and/or support an argument. While performing the organic chemistry laboratory experiments, students obtained multiple types of information such as the melting point and NMR spectrum in addition to other spectroscopic data such as an infrared (IR) spectrum. Students received high scores for this category when they accurately synthesized these multiple data types by showing how the NMR and IR spectra could each reveal different parts of a molecule in order to determine the molecule’s entire structure.

Forming arguments (structure and validity)

The final key aspect of critical thinking is forming a well-structured and valid argument (Facione, 1984 ; Glassner & Schwarz, 2007 ; Lai, 2011 ; Lewis & Smith, 1993 ). It was observed that students can earn high scores for evaluating, analyzing, and synthesizing, but still struggle to form arguments. This was particularly common in assessing problem sets in the physical chemistry course.

As with the manipulating and transforming categories in the information processing rubric, two forming arguments categories were included to allow instructors to give more specific feedback. Some students may be able to include all of the expected structural elements of their arguments but use faulty information or reasoning. Conversely, some students may be able to make scientifically valid claims but not necessarily support them with evidence. The two forming arguments categories are intended to accurately assess both of these scenarios. For the forming arguments (structure) category, students earn high scores if they explicitly state their claim or conclusion, list the evidence used to support the argument, and provide reasoning to link the evidence to their claim/conclusion. Students who do not make a claim or who provide little evidence or reasoning receive lower scores.

For the forming arguments (validity) category, students earn high scores if their claim is accurate and their reasoning is logical and clearly supports the claim with provided evidence. Organic chemistry students earned high scores for the forms and supports arguments categories if they made explicit claims about the identity and purity of their product and provided complete and accurate evidence for their claim(s) such as the melting point values and positions of NMR peaks that correspond to their product. Additionally, the students provided evidence for the purity of their products by pointing to the presence or absence of peaks in their NMR spectrum that would match other potential side products. They also needed to provide logical reasoning for why the peaks indicated the presence or absence of a compound. As previously mentioned, the physical chemistry students received lower scores for the forming arguments categories than for the other aspects of critical thinking. These students were asked to make claims about the relationships between entropy and heat and then provide relevant evidence to justify these claims. Often, the students would make clearly articulated claims but would provide little evidence to support them. As with the information processing rubric, the critical thinking rubric allowed the GTAs to assess aspects of these skills independently and identify specific areas for student improvement.

Validity and reliability

The goal of this work was to create rubrics that can accurately assess student work (validity) and be consistently implemented by instructors or researchers within multiple STEM fields (reliability). The evidence for validity includes the alignment of the rubrics with literature-based descriptions of each skill, review of the rubrics by content experts from multiple STEM disciplines, interviews with undergraduate students whose work was scored using the rubrics, and interviews of the GTAs who scored the student work.

The definitions for each skill, along with multiple iterations of the rubrics, underwent review by STEM content experts. As noted earlier, the instructors who were testing the rubrics were given a survey at the end of each semester and were invited to offer suggested changes to the rubric to better help them assess their students. After multiple rubric revisions, survey responses from the instructors indicated that the rubrics accurately represented the breadth of each process skill as seen in each expert’s content area and that each category could be used to measure multiple levels of student work. By the end of the rubrics’ development, instructors were writing responses such as “N/A” or “no suggestions” to indicate that the rubrics did not need further changes.

Feedback from the faculty also indicated that the rubrics were measuring the intended constructs by the ways they responded to the survey item “What aspects of the student work provided evidence for the indicated process skill?” For example, one instructor noted that for information processing, she saw evidence of the manipulating and transforming categories when “students had to transform their written/mathematical relationships into an energy diagram.” Another instructor elicited evidence of information processing during an in-class group quiz: “A question on the group quiz was written to illicit [sic] IP [information processing]. Students had to transform a structure into three new structures and then interpret/manipulate the structures to compare the pKa values [acidity] of the new structures.” For this instructor, the structures written by the students revealed evidence of their information processing by showing what information they omitted in the new structures or inaccurately transformed. For critical thinking, an instructor assessed short research reports with the critical thinking rubric and “looked for [the students’] ability to use evidence to support their conclusions, to evaluate the literature studies, and to develop their own judgements by synthesizing the information.” Another instructor used the critical thinking rubric to assess their students’ abilities to choose an instrument to perform a chemical analysis. According to the instructor, the students provided evidence of their critical thinking because “in their papers, they needed to justify their choice of instrument. This justification required them to evaluate information and synthesize a new understanding for this specific chemical analysis.”

Analysis of student work indicates multiple levels of achievement for each rubric category (illustrated in Fig. 3 ), although there may have been a ceiling effect for the evaluating and the manipulating and transforming (extent) categories in information processing for organic chemistry laboratory reports because many students earned the highest possible score (five) for those categories. However, other implementations of the ELIPSS rubrics (Reynders et al., 2019 ) have shown more variation in student scores for the two process skills.

Student rubric scores from an organic chemistry laboratory course. The two rubrics were used to evaluate different laboratory reports. Thirty students were assessed for information processing and 28 were assessed for critical thinking

To provide further evidence that the rubrics were measuring the intended skills, students in the physical chemistry course were interviewed about their thought processes and how well the rubric scores reflected the work they performed. During these interviews, students described how they used various aspects of information processing and critical thinking skills. The students first described how they used information processing during a problem set where they had to answer questions about a diagram of systolic and diastolic blood pressure. Students described how they evaluated and interpreted the graph to make statements such as “diastolic [pressure] is our y-intercept” and “volume is the independent variable.” The students then demonstrated their ability to transform information from one form to another, from a graph to a mathematic equation, by recognizing “it’s a linear relationship so I used Y equals M X plus B ” and “integrated it cause it’s the change, the change in V [volume]. For critical thinking, students described their process on a different problem set. In this problem set, the students had to explain why the change of Helmholtz energy and the change in Gibbs free energy were equivalent under a certain given condition. Students first demonstrated how they evaluated the relevant information and analyzed what would and would not change in their system. One student said, “So to calculate the final pressure, I think I just immediately went to the ideal gas law because we know the final volume and the number of moles won’t change and neither will the temperature in this case. Well, I assume that it wouldn’t.” Another student showed evidence of their evaluation by writing out all the necessary information in one place and stating, “Whenever I do these types of problems, I always write what I start with which is why I always have this line of information I’m given.” After evaluating and analyzing, students had to form an argument by claiming that the two energy values were equal and then defending that claim. Students explained that they were not always as clear as they could be when justifying their claim. For instance, one student said, “Usually I just write out equations and then hope people understand what I’m doing mathematically” but they “probably could have explained it a little more.”

Student feedback throughout the organic chemistry course and near the end of the physical chemistry course indicated that the rubric scores were accurate representations of the students’ work with a few exceptions. For example, some students felt like they should have received either a lower or higher score for certain categories, but they did say that the categories themselves applied well to their work. Most notably, one student reported that the forms and supports arguments categories in the critical thinking rubric did not apply to her work because she “wasn’t making an argument” when she was demonstrating that the Helmholtz and Gibbs energy values were equal in her thermodynamics assignment. We see this as an instance where some students and instructors may define argument in different ways. The process skill definitions and the rubric categories are meant to articulate intended learning outcomes from faculty members to their students, so if a student defines the skills or categories differently than the faculty member, then the rubrics can serve to promote a shared understanding of the skill.

As previously mentioned, reliability was measured by two researchers assessing ten laboratory reports independently to ensure that multiple raters could use the rubrics consistently. The average adjacent agreement scores were 92% for critical thinking and 93% for information processing. The exact agreement scores were 86% for critical thinking and 88% for information processing. Additionally, two different raters assessed a statistics assignment that was given to sixteen first-year undergraduates. The average pairwise adjacent agreement scores were 89% for critical thinking and 92% for information processing for this assignment. However, the exact agreement scores were much lower: 34% for critical thinking and 36% for information processing. In this case, neither rater was an expert in the content area. While the exact agreement scores for the statistics assignment are much lower than desirable, the adjacent agreement scores do meet the threshold for reliability as seen in other rubrics (Jonsson & Svingby, 2007 ) despite the disparity in expertise. Based on these results, it may be difficult for multiple raters to give exactly the same scores to the same work if they have varying levels of content knowledge, but it is important to note that the rubrics are primarily intended for formative assessment that can facilitate discussions between instructors and students about the ways for students to improve. The high level of adjacent agreement scores indicates that multiple raters can identify the same areas to improve in examples of student work.

Instructor and teaching assistant reflections

The survey responses from faculty members determined the utility of the rubrics. Faculty members reported that when they used the rubrics to define their expectations and be more specific about their assessment criteria, the students seemed to be better able to articulate the areas in which they needed improvement. As one instructor put it, “having the rubrics helped open conversations and discussions” that were not happening before the rubrics were implemented. We see this as evidence of the clear intended learning outcomes that are an integral aspect of achieving constructive alignment within a course. The instructors’ specific feedback to the students, and the students’ increased awareness of their areas for improvement, may enable the students to better regulate their learning throughout a course. Additionally, the survey responses indicated that the faculty members were changing their teaching practices and becoming more cognizant of how assignments did or did not elicit the process skill evidence that they desired. After using the rubrics, one instructor said, “I realize I need to revise many of my activities to more thoughtfully induce process skill development.” We see this as evidence that the faculty members were using the rubrics to regulate their teaching by reflecting on the outcomes of their practices and then planning for future teaching. These activities represent the reflection and forethought/planning aspects of self-regulated learning on the part of the instructors. Graduate teaching assistants in the physical chemistry course indicated that the rubrics gave them a way to clarify the instructor’s expectations when they were interacting with the students. As one GTA said, “It’s giving [the students] feedback on direct work that they have instead of just right or wrong. It helps them to understand like ‘Okay how can I improve? What areas am I lacking in?’” A more detailed account of how the instructors and teaching assistants implemented the rubrics has been reported elsewhere (Cole et al., 2019a ).

Student reflections

Students in both the organic and physical chemistry courses reported that they could use the rubrics to engage in the three phases of self-regulated learning: forethought/planning, performing, and reflecting. In an organic chemistry interview, one student was discussing how they could improve their low score for the synthesizing category of critical thinking by saying “I could use the data together instead of trying to use them separately,” thus demonstrating forethought/planning for their later work. Another student described how they could use the rubric while performing a task: “I could go through [the rubric] as I’m writing a report…and self-grade.” Finally, one student demonstrated how they could use the rubrics to reflect on their areas for improvement by saying that “When you have the five column [earn a score of five], I can understand that I’m doing something right” but “I really need to work on revising my reports.” We see this as evidence that students can use the rubrics to regulate their own learning, although classroom facilitation can have an effect on the ways in which students use the rubric feedback (Cole et al., 2019b ).

Limitations

The process skill definitions presented here represent a consensus understanding among members of the POGIL community and the instructors who participated in this study, but these skills are often defined in multiple ways by various STEM instructors, employers, and students (Danczak et al., 2017 ). One issue with critical thinking, in particular, is the broadness of how the skill is defined in the literature. Through this work, we have evidence via expert review to indicate that our definitions represent common understandings among a set of STEM faculty. Nonetheless, we cannot claim that all STEM instructors or researchers will share the skill definitions presented here.

There is currently a debate in the STEM literature (National Research Council, 2011 ) about whether the critical thinking construct is domain-general or domain-specific, that is, whether or not one’s critical thinking ability in one discipline can be applied to another discipline. We cannot make claims about the generalness of the construct based on the data presented here because the same students were not tested across multiple disciplines or courses. Additionally, we did not gather evidence for convergent validity, which is “the degree to which an operationalized construct is similar to other operationalized constructs that it theoretically should be similar to” (National Research Council, 2011 ). In other words, evidence for convergent validity would be the comparison of multiple measures of information processing or critical thinking. However, none of the instructors who used the ELIPSS rubrics also used a secondary measure of the constructs. Although the rubrics were examined by a multidisciplinary group of collaborators, this group was primarily chemists and included eight faculties from other disciplines, so the content validity of the rubrics may be somewhat limited.

Finally, the generalizability of the rubrics is limited by the relatively small number of students who were interviewed about their work. During their interviews, the students in the organic and physical chemistry courses each said that they could use the rubric scores as feedback to improve their skills. Additionally, as discussed in the “Validity and Reliability” section, the processes described by the students aligned with the content of the rubric and provided evidence of the rubric scores’ validity. However, the data gathered from the student interviews only represents the views of a subset of students in the courses, and further study is needed to determine the most appropriate contexts in which the rubrics can be implemented.

Conclusions and implications

Two rubrics were developed to assess and provide feedback on undergraduate STEM students’ critical thinking and information processing. Faculty survey responses indicated that the rubrics measured the relevant aspects of each process skill in the disciplines that were examined. Faculty survey responses, TA interviews, and student interviews over multiple semesters indicated that the rubric scores accurately reflected the evidence of process skills that the instructors wanted to see and the processes that the students performed when they were completing their assignments. The rubrics showed high inter-rater agreement scores, indicating that multiple raters could identify the same areas for improvement in student work.

In terms of constructive alignment, courses should ideally have alignment between their intended learning outcomes, student and instructor activities, and assessments. By using the ELIPSS rubrics, instructors were able to explicitly articulate the intended learning outcomes of their courses to their students. The instructors were then able to assess and provide feedback to students on different aspects of their process skills. Future efforts will be focused on modifying student assignments to enable instructors to better elicit evidence of these skills. In terms of self-regulated learning, students indicated in the interviews that the rubric scores were accurate representations of their work (performances), could help them reflect on their previous work (self-reflection), and the feedback they received could be used to inform their future work (forethought). Not only did the students indicate that the rubrics could help them regulate their learning, but the faculty members indicated that the rubrics had helped them regulate their teaching. With the individual categories on each rubric, the faculty members were better able to observe their students’ strengths and areas for improvement and then tailor their instruction to meet those needs. Our results indicated that the rubrics helped instructors in multiple STEM disciplines and at multiple institutions reflect on their teaching and then make changes to better align their teaching with their desired outcomes.

Overall, the rubrics can be used in a number of different ways to modify courses or for programmatic assessment. As previously stated, instructors can use the rubrics to define expectations for their students and provide them with feedback on desired skills throughout a course. The rubric categories can be used to give feedback on individual aspects of student process skills to provide specific feedback to each student. If an instructor or department wants to change from didactic lecture-based courses to active learning ones, the rubrics can be used to measure non-content learning gains that stem from the adoption of such pedagogies. Although the examples provided here for each rubric were situated in chemistry contexts, the rubrics were tested in multiple disciplines and institution types. The rubrics have the potential for wide applicability to assess not only laboratory reports but also homework assignments, quizzes, and exams. Assessing these tasks provides a way for instructors to achieve constructive alignment between their intended outcomes and their assessments, and the rubrics are intended to enhance this alignment to improve student process skills that are valued in the classroom and beyond.

Availability of data and materials

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

Abbreviations

American Association of Colleges and Universities

Critical Thinking Assessment Test

Comprehensive University

Enhancing Learning by Improving Process Skills in STEM

Liberal Education and America’s Promise

Nuclear Magnetic Resonance

Primary Collaborative Team

Peer-led Team Learning

Process Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning

Primarily Undergraduate Institution

Research University

Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics

Valid Assessment of Learning in Undergraduate Education

ABET Engineering Accreditation Commission. (2012). Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs . Retrieved from http://www.abet.org/accreditation/accreditation-criteria/criteria-for-accrediting-engineering-programs-2016-2017/ .

American Chemical Society Committee on Professional Training. (2015). Unergraduate Professional Education in Chemistry: ACS Guidelines and Evaluation Procedures for Bachelor's Degree Programs . Retrieved from https://www.acs.org/content/dam/acsorg/about/governance/committees/training/2015-acs-guidelines-for-bachelors-degree-programs.pdf

Association of American Colleges and Universities. (2019). VALUE Rubric Development Project. Retrieved from https://www.aacu.org/value/rubrics .

Bailin, S. (2002). Critical Thinking and Science Education. Science and Education, 11 , 361–375.

Article   Google Scholar  

Biggs, J. (1996). Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. Higher Education, 32 (3), 347–364.

Biggs, J. (2003). Aligning teaching and assessing to course objectives. Teaching and learning in higher education: New trends and innovations, 2 , 13–17.

Google Scholar  

Biggs, J. (2014). Constructive alignment in university teaching. HERDSA Review of higher education, 1 (1), 5–22.

Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and Classroom Learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5 (1), 7–74.

Bodner, G. M. (1986). Constructivism: A theory of knowledge. Journal of Chemical Education, 63 (10), 873–878.

Brewer, C. A., & Smith, D. (2011). Vision and change in undergraduate biology education: a call to action. American Association for the Advancement of Science . DC : Washington .

Brookhart, S. M., & Chen, F. (2014). The quality and effectiveness of descriptive rubrics. Educational Review , 1–26.

Butler, D. L., & Winne, P. H. (1995). Feedback and Self-Regulated Learning: A Theoretical Synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 65 (3), 245–281.

Cole, R., Lantz, J., & Ruder, S. (2016). Enhancing Learning by Improving Process Skills in STEM. Retrieved from http://www.elipss.com .

Cole, R., Lantz, J., & Ruder, S. (2019a). PO: The Process. In S. R. Simonson (Ed.), POGIL: An Introduction to Process Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning for Those Who Wish to Empower Learners (pp. 42–68). Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.

Cole, R., Reynders, G., Ruder, S., Stanford, C., & Lantz, J. (2019b). Constructive Alignment Beyond Content: Assessing Professional Skills in Student Group Interactions and Written Work. In M. Schultz, S. Schmid, & G. A. Lawrie (Eds.), Research and Practice in Chemistry Education: Advances from the 25 th IUPAC International Conference on Chemistry Education 2018 (pp. 203–222). Singapore: Springer.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Danczak, S., Thompson, C., & Overton, T. (2017). ‘What does the term Critical Thinking mean to you?’A qualitative analysis of chemistry undergraduate, teaching staff and employers' views of critical thinking. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 18 , 420–434.

Daniel, K. L., Bucklin, C. J., Leone, E. A., & Idema, J. (2018). Towards a Definition of Representational Competence. In Towards a Framework for Representational Competence in Science Education (pp. 3–11). Switzerland: Springer.

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

Deloitte Access Economics. (2014). Australia's STEM Workforce: a survey of employers. Retrieved from https://www2.deloitte.com/au/en/pages/economics/articles/australias-stem-workforce-survey.html .

Driscoll, M. P. (2005). Psychology of learning for instruction . Boston, MA: Pearson Education.

Ennis, R. H. (1990). The extent to which critical thinking is subject-specific: Further clarification. Educational researcher, 19 (4), 13–16.

Facione, P. A. (1984). Toward a theory of critical thinking. Liberal Education, 70 (3), 253–261.

Facione, P. A. (1990a). The California Critical Thinking Skills Test--College Level . In Technical Report #1 . Experimental Validation and Content : Validity .

Facione, P. A. (1990b). The California critical thinking skills test—college level . In Technical Report #2 . Factors Predictive of CT : Skills .

Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111 (23), 8410–8415.

Gafney, L., & Varma-Nelson, P. (2008). Peer-led team learning: evaluation, dissemination, and institutionalization of a college level initiative (Vol. 16): Springer Science & Business Media, Netherlands.

Glassner, A., & Schwarz, B. B. (2007). What stands and develops between creative and critical thinking? Argumentation? Thinking Skills and Creativity, 2 (1), 10–18.

Gosser, D. K., Cracolice, M. S., Kampmeier, J. A., Roth, V., Strozak, V. S., & Varma-Nelson, P. (2001). Peer-led team learning: A guidebook: Prentice Hall Upper Saddle River, NJ .

Gray, K., & Koncz, A. (2018). The key attributes employers seek on students' resumes. Retrieved from http://www.naceweb.org/about-us/press/2017/the-key-attributes-employers-seek-on-students-resumes/ .

Hanson, D. M. (2008). A cognitive model for learning chemistry and solving problems: implications for curriculum design and classroom instruction. In R. S. Moog & J. N. Spencer (Eds.), Process-Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning (pp. 15–19). Washington, DC: American Chemical Society.

Hattie, J., & Gan, M. (2011). Instruction based on feedback. Handbook of research on learning and instruction , 249-271.

Huitt, W. (1998). Critical thinking: an overview. In Educational psychology interactive Retrieved from http://www.edpsycinteractive.org/topics/cogsys/critthnk.html .

Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Psychological Testing. (2014). Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing : American Educational Research Association.

Jonsson, A., & Svingby, G. (2007). The use of scoring rubrics: Reliability, validity and educational consequences. Educational Research Review, 2 (2), 130–144.

Kumi, B. C., Olimpo, J. T., Bartlett, F., & Dixon, B. L. (2013). Evaluating the effectiveness of organic chemistry textbooks in promoting representational fluency and understanding of 2D-3D diagrammatic relationships. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 14 , 177–187.

Lai, E. R. (2011). Critical thinking: a literature review. Pearson's Research Reports, 6 , 40–41.

Lewis, A., & Smith, D. (1993). Defining higher order thinking. Theory into Practice, 32 , 131–137.

Miri, B., David, B., & Uri, Z. (2007). Purposely teaching for the promotion of higher-order thinking skills: a case of critical thinking. Research in Science Education, 37 , 353–369.

Moog, R. S., & Spencer, J. N. (Eds.). (2008). Process oriented guided inquiry learning (POGIL) . Washington, DC: American Chemical Society.

Moskal, B. M., & Leydens, J. A. (2000). Scoring rubric development: validity and reliability. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 7 , 1–11.

Nakhleh, M. B. (1992). Why some students don't learn chemistry: Chemical misconceptions. Journal of Chemical Education, 69 (3), 191.

National Research Council. (2011). Assessing 21st Century Skills: Summary of a Workshop . Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

National Research Council. (2012). Education for Life and Work: Developing Transferable Knowledge and Skills in the 21st Century . Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Nguyen, D. H., Gire, E., & Rebello, N. S. (2010). Facilitating Strategies for Solving Work-Energy Problems in Graphical and Equational Representations. 2010 Physics Education Research Conference, 1289 , 241–244.

Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31 (2), 199–218.

Panadero, E., & Jonsson, A. (2013). The use of scoring rubrics for formative assessment purposes revisited: a review. Educational Research Review, 9 , 129–144.

Pearl, A. O., Rayner, G., Larson, I., & Orlando, L. (2019). Thinking about critical thinking: An industry perspective. Industry & Higher Education, 33 (2), 116–126.

Ramsden, P. (1997). The context of learning in academic departments. The experience of learning, 2 , 198–216.

Rau, M. A., Kennedy, K., Oxtoby, L., Bollom, M., & Moore, J. W. (2017). Unpacking “Active Learning”: A Combination of Flipped Classroom and Collaboration Support Is More Effective but Collaboration Support Alone Is Not. Journal of Chemical Education, 94 (10), 1406–1414.

Reynders, G., Suh, E., Cole, R. S., & Sansom, R. L. (2019). Developing student process skills in a general chemistry laboratory. Journal of Chemical Education , 96 (10), 2109–2119.

Saxton, E., Belanger, S., & Becker, W. (2012). The Critical Thinking Analytic Rubric (CTAR): Investigating intra-rater and inter-rater reliability of a scoring mechanism for critical thinking performance assessments. Assessing Writing, 17 , 251–270.

Schmidt, H. G., De Volder, M. L., De Grave, W. S., Moust, J. H. C., & Patel, V. L. (1989). Explanatory Models in the Processing of Science Text: The Role of Prior Knowledge Activation Through Small-Group Discussion. J. Educ. Psychol., 81 , 610–619.

Simonson, S. R. (Ed.). (2019). POGIL: An Introduction to Process Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning for Those Who Wish to Empower Learners . Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing, LLC.

Singer, S. R., Nielsen, N. R., & Schweingruber, H. A. (Eds.). (2012). Discipline-Based education research: understanding and improving learning in undergraduate science and engineering . Washington D.C.: The National Academies Press.

Smit, R., & Birri, T. (2014). Assuring the quality of standards-oriented classroom assessment with rubrics for complex competencies. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 43 , 5–13.

Stein, B., & Haynes, A. (2011). Engaging Faculty in the Assessment and Improvement of Students' Critical Thinking Using the Critical Thinking Assessment Test. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 43 , 44–49.

Swanson, H. L., Oconnor, J. E., & Cooney, J. B. (1990). An Information-Processing Analysis of Expert and Novice Teachers Problem-Solving. American Educational Research Journal, 27 (3), 533–556.

The Royal Society. (2014). Vision for science and mathematics education: The Royal Society Science Policy Centre . London: England.

Watson, G., & Glaser, E. M. (1964). Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal Manual . New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace, and World.

Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41 (2), 64–70.

Zohar, A., Weinberger, Y., & Tamir, P. (1994). The Effect of the Biology Critical Thinking Project on the Development of Critical Thinking. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31 , 183–196.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank members of our Primary Collaboration Team and Implementation Cohorts for collecting and sharing data. We also thank all the students who have allowed us to examine their work and provided feedback.

Supporting information

• Product rubric survey

• Initial implementation survey

• Continuing implementation survey

This work was supported in part by the National Science Foundation under collaborative grants #1524399, #1524936, and #1524965. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Chemistry, University of Iowa, W331 Chemistry Building, Iowa City, Iowa, 52242, USA

Gil Reynders & Renée S. Cole

Department of Chemistry, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia, 23284, USA

Gil Reynders & Suzanne M. Ruder

Department of Chemistry, Drew University, Madison, New Jersey, 07940, USA

Juliette Lantz

Department of Chemistry, Ball State University, Muncie, Indiana, 47306, USA

Courtney L. Stanford

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

RC, JL, and SR performed an initial literature review that was expanded by GR. All authors designed the survey instruments. GR collected and analyzed the survey and interview data with guidance from RC. GR revised the rubrics with extensive input from all other authors. All authors contributed to reliability measurements. GR drafted all manuscript sections. RC provided extensive comments during manuscript revisions; JL, SR, and CS also offered comments. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Renée S. Cole .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Supplementary information

Additional file 1..

Supporting Information

Rights and permissions

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Reynders, G., Lantz, J., Ruder, S.M. et al. Rubrics to assess critical thinking and information processing in undergraduate STEM courses. IJ STEM Ed 7 , 9 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00208-5

Download citation

Received : 01 October 2019

Accepted : 20 February 2020

Published : 09 March 2020

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00208-5

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Constructive alignment
• Self-regulated learning
• Process skills
• Professional skills
• Critical thinking
• Information processing

The Importance of Critical Thinking for Effective Survey Design

By Simon Crawford-Welch, PhD, RRP, Founder & Editor, The Critical Thought Lab

We all know that data is a cornerstone of decision-making. Surveys, as a primary tool for gathering data, must be meticulously crafted to ensure accuracy, relevance, and utility. Critical thinking plays an indispensable role in this process, influencing the quality of information collected and, consequently, the insights drawn from it.

Critical thinking in survey design begins with clearly defining the objectives. What decisions will the survey inform? What specific information is needed to meet these objectives? These foundational questions set the stage for a survey that is purpose-driven and results-oriented. Without a sharply defined purpose, surveys risk collecting data that is either irrelevant or too vague to be actionable.

Once the objectives are established, critical thinking dictates a careful consideration of the target audience. Who are the respondents, and what are their characteristics? Understanding the audience is crucial, as it informs the language, tone, and context of the questions. It also ensures that the survey reaches the appropriate demographic, yielding results that are representative of the group being studied.

The construction of the questions is where critical thinking is most visibly applied. Each question must be scrutinized for bias, leading language, and ambiguity. The goal is to craft questions that are neutral, clear, and concise. Critical thinkers will also evaluate the question format, deciding between open-ended questions, which can provide depth and nuance, and closed-ended questions, which are easier to analyze quantitatively.

Furthermore, the sequence and flow of questions warrant careful planning. The order can significantly impact a respondent’s answers due to factors like priming and fatigue. A well-structured survey guides respondents naturally from one question to the next without leading or influencing their responses unduly.

Critical thinking also extends to the piloting phase of the survey. Before a full rollout, a critically designed survey is tested on a small, representative sample. This process uncovers any issues with question clarity, sequencing, or technical problems with the survey delivery platform. The feedback gathered is then used to refine the survey, ensuring that the final version will generate the highest quality data possible.

Once the data is collected, critical thinking continues to play a role in the analysis phase. Interpretation of survey results must be conducted with an awareness of the survey’s limitations, including the potential for non-response bias or misinterpretation of the questions by respondents. The savvy analyst uses critical thinking to differentiate between correlation and causation, to understand the nuances behind the data, and to draw conclusions that are substantiated by the evidence.

The bottom line? – Critical thinking is the thread that runs through every step of survey design. It ensures that the surveys conducted are not only methodically sound but also genuinely informative and valuable. Data-driven strategies dictate the trajectory of businesses, so a survey designed without critical thinking is a missed opportunity at best, and at worst, a liability. Businesses that internalize and apply critical thinking to their survey design processes position themselves to gain deep, actionable insights that can drive growth and innovation.

Simon Crawford-Welch, PhD

The Critical Thought Lab

www.thecriticalthoughtlab.com

[email protected]

Mobius Vendor Partners 3925 River Crossing Parkway, Suite 60 Indianapolis, IN 46240

Phone: (317) 816-6000.

• Why You Need a Voice of the Customer Program April 4, 2024
• Bias and Error in Survey Design April 4, 2024

Copyright All Rights Reserved © 2024 - Privacy Policy - Diversity Policy

We're not around right now. But you can send us an email and we'll get back to you, asap.

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

Writing Survey Questions

Perhaps the most important part of the survey process is the creation of questions that accurately measure the opinions, experiences and behaviors of the public. Accurate random sampling will be wasted if the information gathered is built on a shaky foundation of ambiguous or biased questions. Creating good measures involves both writing good questions and organizing them to form the questionnaire.

Questionnaire design is a multistage process that requires attention to many details at once. Designing the questionnaire is complicated because surveys can ask about topics in varying degrees of detail, questions can be asked in different ways, and questions asked earlier in a survey may influence how people respond to later questions. Researchers are also often interested in measuring change over time and therefore must be attentive to how opinions or behaviors have been measured in prior surveys.

Surveyors may conduct pilot tests or focus groups in the early stages of questionnaire development in order to better understand how people think about an issue or comprehend a question. Pretesting a survey is an essential step in the questionnaire design process to evaluate how people respond to the overall questionnaire and specific questions, especially when questions are being introduced for the first time.

For many years, surveyors approached questionnaire design as an art, but substantial research over the past forty years has demonstrated that there is a lot of science involved in crafting a good survey questionnaire. Here, we discuss the pitfalls and best practices of designing questionnaires.

Question development

There are several steps involved in developing a survey questionnaire. The first is identifying what topics will be covered in the survey. For Pew Research Center surveys, this involves thinking about what is happening in our nation and the world and what will be relevant to the public, policymakers and the media. We also track opinion on a variety of issues over time so we often ensure that we update these trends on a regular basis to better understand whether people’s opinions are changing.

At Pew Research Center, questionnaire development is a collaborative and iterative process where staff meet to discuss drafts of the questionnaire several times over the course of its development. We frequently test new survey questions ahead of time through qualitative research methods such as  focus groups , cognitive interviews, pretesting (often using an  online, opt-in sample ), or a combination of these approaches. Researchers use insights from this testing to refine questions before they are asked in a production survey, such as on the ATP.

Measuring change over time

Many surveyors want to track changes over time in people’s attitudes, opinions and behaviors. To measure change, questions are asked at two or more points in time. A cross-sectional design surveys different people in the same population at multiple points in time. A panel, such as the ATP, surveys the same people over time. However, it is common for the set of people in survey panels to change over time as new panelists are added and some prior panelists drop out. Many of the questions in Pew Research Center surveys have been asked in prior polls. Asking the same questions at different points in time allows us to report on changes in the overall views of the general public (or a subset of the public, such as registered voters, men or Black Americans), or what we call “trending the data”.

When measuring change over time, it is important to use the same question wording and to be sensitive to where the question is asked in the questionnaire to maintain a similar context as when the question was asked previously (see  question wording  and  question order  for further information). All of our survey reports include a topline questionnaire that provides the exact question wording and sequencing, along with results from the current survey and previous surveys in which we asked the question.

The Center’s transition from conducting U.S. surveys by live telephone interviewing to an online panel (around 2014 to 2020) complicated some opinion trends, but not others. Opinion trends that ask about sensitive topics (e.g., personal finances or attending religious services ) or that elicited volunteered answers (e.g., “neither” or “don’t know”) over the phone tended to show larger differences than other trends when shifting from phone polls to the online ATP. The Center adopted several strategies for coping with changes to data trends that may be related to this change in methodology. If there is evidence suggesting that a change in a trend stems from switching from phone to online measurement, Center reports flag that possibility for readers to try to head off confusion or erroneous conclusions.

Open- and closed-ended questions

One of the most significant decisions that can affect how people answer questions is whether the question is posed as an open-ended question, where respondents provide a response in their own words, or a closed-ended question, where they are asked to choose from a list of answer choices.

For example, in a poll conducted after the 2008 presidential election, people responded very differently to two versions of the question: “What one issue mattered most to you in deciding how you voted for president?” One was closed-ended and the other open-ended. In the closed-ended version, respondents were provided five options and could volunteer an option not on the list.

When explicitly offered the economy as a response, more than half of respondents (58%) chose this answer; only 35% of those who responded to the open-ended version volunteered the economy. Moreover, among those asked the closed-ended version, fewer than one-in-ten (8%) provided a response other than the five they were read. By contrast, fully 43% of those asked the open-ended version provided a response not listed in the closed-ended version of the question. All of the other issues were chosen at least slightly more often when explicitly offered in the closed-ended version than in the open-ended version. (Also see  “High Marks for the Campaign, a High Bar for Obama”  for more information.)

Researchers will sometimes conduct a pilot study using open-ended questions to discover which answers are most common. They will then develop closed-ended questions based off that pilot study that include the most common responses as answer choices. In this way, the questions may better reflect what the public is thinking, how they view a particular issue, or bring certain issues to light that the researchers may not have been aware of.

When asking closed-ended questions, the choice of options provided, how each option is described, the number of response options offered, and the order in which options are read can all influence how people respond. One example of the impact of how categories are defined can be found in a Pew Research Center poll conducted in January 2002. When half of the sample was asked whether it was “more important for President Bush to focus on domestic policy or foreign policy,” 52% chose domestic policy while only 34% said foreign policy. When the category “foreign policy” was narrowed to a specific aspect – “the war on terrorism” – far more people chose it; only 33% chose domestic policy while 52% chose the war on terrorism.

In most circumstances, the number of answer choices should be kept to a relatively small number – just four or perhaps five at most – especially in telephone surveys. Psychological research indicates that people have a hard time keeping more than this number of choices in mind at one time. When the question is asking about an objective fact and/or demographics, such as the religious affiliation of the respondent, more categories can be used. In fact, they are encouraged to ensure inclusivity. For example, Pew Research Center’s standard religion questions include more than 12 different categories, beginning with the most common affiliations (Protestant and Catholic). Most respondents have no trouble with this question because they can expect to see their religious group within that list in a self-administered survey.

In addition to the number and choice of response options offered, the order of answer categories can influence how people respond to closed-ended questions. Research suggests that in telephone surveys respondents more frequently choose items heard later in a list (a “recency effect”), and in self-administered surveys, they tend to choose items at the top of the list (a “primacy” effect).

Because of concerns about the effects of category order on responses to closed-ended questions, many sets of response options in Pew Research Center’s surveys are programmed to be randomized to ensure that the options are not asked in the same order for each respondent. Rotating or randomizing means that questions or items in a list are not asked in the same order to each respondent. Answers to questions are sometimes affected by questions that precede them. By presenting questions in a different order to each respondent, we ensure that each question gets asked in the same context as every other question the same number of times (e.g., first, last or any position in between). This does not eliminate the potential impact of previous questions on the current question, but it does ensure that this bias is spread randomly across all of the questions or items in the list. For instance, in the example discussed above about what issue mattered most in people’s vote, the order of the five issues in the closed-ended version of the question was randomized so that no one issue appeared early or late in the list for all respondents. Randomization of response items does not eliminate order effects, but it does ensure that this type of bias is spread randomly.

Questions with ordinal response categories – those with an underlying order (e.g., excellent, good, only fair, poor OR very favorable, mostly favorable, mostly unfavorable, very unfavorable) – are generally not randomized because the order of the categories conveys important information to help respondents answer the question. Generally, these types of scales should be presented in order so respondents can easily place their responses along the continuum, but the order can be reversed for some respondents. For example, in one of Pew Research Center’s questions about abortion, half of the sample is asked whether abortion should be “legal in all cases, legal in most cases, illegal in most cases, illegal in all cases,” while the other half of the sample is asked the same question with the response categories read in reverse order, starting with “illegal in all cases.” Again, reversing the order does not eliminate the recency effect but distributes it randomly across the population.

Question wording

The choice of words and phrases in a question is critical in expressing the meaning and intent of the question to the respondent and ensuring that all respondents interpret the question the same way. Even small wording differences can substantially affect the answers people provide.

[View more Methods 101 Videos ]

An example of a wording difference that had a significant impact on responses comes from a January 2003 Pew Research Center survey. When people were asked whether they would “favor or oppose taking military action in Iraq to end Saddam Hussein’s rule,” 68% said they favored military action while 25% said they opposed military action. However, when asked whether they would “favor or oppose taking military action in Iraq to end Saddam Hussein’s rule  even if it meant that U.S. forces might suffer thousands of casualties, ” responses were dramatically different; only 43% said they favored military action, while 48% said they opposed it. The introduction of U.S. casualties altered the context of the question and influenced whether people favored or opposed military action in Iraq.

There has been a substantial amount of research to gauge the impact of different ways of asking questions and how to minimize differences in the way respondents interpret what is being asked. The issues related to question wording are more numerous than can be treated adequately in this short space, but below are a few of the important things to consider:

First, it is important to ask questions that are clear and specific and that each respondent will be able to answer. If a question is open-ended, it should be evident to respondents that they can answer in their own words and what type of response they should provide (an issue or problem, a month, number of days, etc.). Closed-ended questions should include all reasonable responses (i.e., the list of options is exhaustive) and the response categories should not overlap (i.e., response options should be mutually exclusive). Further, it is important to discern when it is best to use forced-choice close-ended questions (often denoted with a radio button in online surveys) versus “select-all-that-apply” lists (or check-all boxes). A 2019 Center study found that forced-choice questions tend to yield more accurate responses, especially for sensitive questions.  Based on that research, the Center generally avoids using select-all-that-apply questions.

It is also important to ask only one question at a time. Questions that ask respondents to evaluate more than one concept (known as double-barreled questions) – such as “How much confidence do you have in President Obama to handle domestic and foreign policy?” – are difficult for respondents to answer and often lead to responses that are difficult to interpret. In this example, it would be more effective to ask two separate questions, one about domestic policy and another about foreign policy.

In general, questions that use simple and concrete language are more easily understood by respondents. It is especially important to consider the education level of the survey population when thinking about how easy it will be for respondents to interpret and answer a question. Double negatives (e.g., do you favor or oppose  not  allowing gays and lesbians to legally marry) or unfamiliar abbreviations or jargon (e.g., ANWR instead of Arctic National Wildlife Refuge) can result in respondent confusion and should be avoided.

Similarly, it is important to consider whether certain words may be viewed as biased or potentially offensive to some respondents, as well as the emotional reaction that some words may provoke. For example, in a 2005 Pew Research Center survey, 51% of respondents said they favored “making it legal for doctors to give terminally ill patients the means to end their lives,” but only 44% said they favored “making it legal for doctors to assist terminally ill patients in committing suicide.” Although both versions of the question are asking about the same thing, the reaction of respondents was different. In another example, respondents have reacted differently to questions using the word “welfare” as opposed to the more generic “assistance to the poor.” Several experiments have shown that there is much greater public support for expanding “assistance to the poor” than for expanding “welfare.”

We often write two versions of a question and ask half of the survey sample one version of the question and the other half the second version. Thus, we say we have two  forms  of the questionnaire. Respondents are assigned randomly to receive either form, so we can assume that the two groups of respondents are essentially identical. On questions where two versions are used, significant differences in the answers between the two forms tell us that the difference is a result of the way we worded the two versions.

One of the most common formats used in survey questions is the “agree-disagree” format. In this type of question, respondents are asked whether they agree or disagree with a particular statement. Research has shown that, compared with the better educated and better informed, less educated and less informed respondents have a greater tendency to agree with such statements. This is sometimes called an “acquiescence bias” (since some kinds of respondents are more likely to acquiesce to the assertion than are others). This behavior is even more pronounced when there’s an interviewer present, rather than when the survey is self-administered. A better practice is to offer respondents a choice between alternative statements. A Pew Research Center experiment with one of its routinely asked values questions illustrates the difference that question format can make. Not only does the forced choice format yield a very different result overall from the agree-disagree format, but the pattern of answers between respondents with more or less formal education also tends to be very different.

One other challenge in developing questionnaires is what is called “social desirability bias.” People have a natural tendency to want to be accepted and liked, and this may lead people to provide inaccurate answers to questions that deal with sensitive subjects. Research has shown that respondents understate alcohol and drug use, tax evasion and racial bias. They also may overstate church attendance, charitable contributions and the likelihood that they will vote in an election. Researchers attempt to account for this potential bias in crafting questions about these topics. For instance, when Pew Research Center surveys ask about past voting behavior, it is important to note that circumstances may have prevented the respondent from voting: “In the 2012 presidential election between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, did things come up that kept you from voting, or did you happen to vote?” The choice of response options can also make it easier for people to be honest. For example, a question about church attendance might include three of six response options that indicate infrequent attendance. Research has also shown that social desirability bias can be greater when an interviewer is present (e.g., telephone and face-to-face surveys) than when respondents complete the survey themselves (e.g., paper and web surveys).

Lastly, because slight modifications in question wording can affect responses, identical question wording should be used when the intention is to compare results to those from earlier surveys. Similarly, because question wording and responses can vary based on the mode used to survey respondents, researchers should carefully evaluate the likely effects on trend measurements if a different survey mode will be used to assess change in opinion over time.

Question order

Once the survey questions are developed, particular attention should be paid to how they are ordered in the questionnaire. Surveyors must be attentive to how questions early in a questionnaire may have unintended effects on how respondents answer subsequent questions. Researchers have demonstrated that the order in which questions are asked can influence how people respond; earlier questions can unintentionally provide context for the questions that follow (these effects are called “order effects”).

One kind of order effect can be seen in responses to open-ended questions. Pew Research Center surveys generally ask open-ended questions about national problems, opinions about leaders and similar topics near the beginning of the questionnaire. If closed-ended questions that relate to the topic are placed before the open-ended question, respondents are much more likely to mention concepts or considerations raised in those earlier questions when responding to the open-ended question.

For closed-ended opinion questions, there are two main types of order effects: contrast effects ( where the order results in greater differences in responses), and assimilation effects (where responses are more similar as a result of their order).

An example of a contrast effect can be seen in a Pew Research Center poll conducted in October 2003, a dozen years before same-sex marriage was legalized in the U.S. That poll found that people were more likely to favor allowing gays and lesbians to enter into legal agreements that give them the same rights as married couples when this question was asked after one about whether they favored or opposed allowing gays and lesbians to marry (45% favored legal agreements when asked after the marriage question, but 37% favored legal agreements without the immediate preceding context of a question about same-sex marriage). Responses to the question about same-sex marriage, meanwhile, were not significantly affected by its placement before or after the legal agreements question.

Another experiment embedded in a December 2008 Pew Research Center poll also resulted in a contrast effect. When people were asked “All in all, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the way things are going in this country today?” immediately after having been asked “Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president?”; 88% said they were dissatisfied, compared with only 78% without the context of the prior question.

Responses to presidential approval remained relatively unchanged whether national satisfaction was asked before or after it. A similar finding occurred in December 2004 when both satisfaction and presidential approval were much higher (57% were dissatisfied when Bush approval was asked first vs. 51% when general satisfaction was asked first).

Several studies also have shown that asking a more specific question before a more general question (e.g., asking about happiness with one’s marriage before asking about one’s overall happiness) can result in a contrast effect. Although some exceptions have been found, people tend to avoid redundancy by excluding the more specific question from the general rating.

Assimilation effects occur when responses to two questions are more consistent or closer together because of their placement in the questionnaire. We found an example of an assimilation effect in a Pew Research Center poll conducted in November 2008 when we asked whether Republican leaders should work with Obama or stand up to him on important issues and whether Democratic leaders should work with Republican leaders or stand up to them on important issues. People were more likely to say that Republican leaders should work with Obama when the question was preceded by the one asking what Democratic leaders should do in working with Republican leaders (81% vs. 66%). However, when people were first asked about Republican leaders working with Obama, fewer said that Democratic leaders should work with Republican leaders (71% vs. 82%).

The order questions are asked is of particular importance when tracking trends over time. As a result, care should be taken to ensure that the context is similar each time a question is asked. Modifying the context of the question could call into question any observed changes over time (see  measuring change over time  for more information).

A questionnaire, like a conversation, should be grouped by topic and unfold in a logical order. It is often helpful to begin the survey with simple questions that respondents will find interesting and engaging. Throughout the survey, an effort should be made to keep the survey interesting and not overburden respondents with several difficult questions right after one another. Demographic questions such as income, education or age should not be asked near the beginning of a survey unless they are needed to determine eligibility for the survey or for routing respondents through particular sections of the questionnaire. Even then, it is best to precede such items with more interesting and engaging questions. One virtue of survey panels like the ATP is that demographic questions usually only need to be asked once a year, not in each survey.

U.S. Surveys

Other research methods, sign up for our weekly newsletter.

Fresh data delivered Saturday mornings

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Age & Generations
• Coronavirus (COVID-19)
• Economy & Work
• Family & Relationships
• Gender & LGBTQ
• Immigration & Migration
• International Affairs
• Internet & Technology
• Methodological Research
• News Habits & Media
• Non-U.S. Governments
• Other Topics
• Politics & Policy
• Race & Ethnicity
• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

Copyright 2024 Pew Research Center

Terms & Conditions

Privacy Policy

Cookie Settings

Reprints, Permissions & Use Policy

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

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

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Iran J Nurs Midwifery Res
• v.17(6); Sep-Oct 2012

Survey of critical thinking and clinical decision making in nursing student of Kerman University

Esmat noohi.

Faculty of Razi School of Nursing and Midwifery, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Iran

Maryam Karimi-Noghondar

1 Faculty of Islamic Azad University Unit of Mashad, Iran

Aliakbar Haghdoost

2 Epidemiology, Faculty of Health School, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Iran

The ability to think critically is an essential element in nursing education and more specifically in nurses’ clinical decision making (CDM).

Critical thinking (CT) and CDM ability as well as their relationship were examined among nursing students of Kerman University.

Settings and Design:

Study was designed in four towns: Kerman, Bam, Jiroft, and Zarand, settled in Kerman province.

Materials and Methods:

This research was a cross-sectional descriptive correlation study. 300 nursing students with different level of education were asked to fill two questionnaires including: (1) California Critical Thinking Skills Test (CCTST) and (2) Lauri and Salantera (2002) CDM instrument. Statistical Analysis Used: Data were analyzed with SPSS12 and descriptive and inferential statistics.

Nursing students yielded a low score (mean = 5/40 from 20) of CT and a mild score (mean = 12.8 from 20) of CDM. We found positively correlation between male and CT and CDM score with mean score of the nursing student. Also CDM score in male was more than female but not significant, and Jirofts CDM nursing student was significantly better than other city.

Conclusions:

Although students that answers evaluation question in CCTST better can gave better CDM score but there isn’t relationship between CT and CDM of nursing student. The finding showed that mean score of nursing student CT was low. Reason can be either due to the defects of nursing education program, teaching, and learning strategies.

I NTRODUCTION

Nursing, an essential professional practice discipline, must adapt to meet increasingly complex needs of patients and fill expanding roles in the health care delivery. Nursing has evolved from an occupation to a profession, with skills based on well-developed knowledge. Nurses today have greater autonomy and a growing demand to expand their ability in order to make an effective decision considering client’s care needs.[ 1 ] Decisions made by nurses often involve complex problems concerning the physical and psychosocial well-being of client and interaction with other disciplines. As a client’s status changes, the nurse must recognize, interpret, and integrate new information and make decision about the course of action to follow. Clinical decision-making requires the early development of an hypothetical diagnosis, followed by future data collection aimed at supporting or disproving the diagnosis.[ 2 , 3 ] Meeting clients’ outcomes thus need a complex decision making goes hand with critical thinking (CT).[ 1 , 4 ] The ability to think critically is an essential element of higher education, and more specifically, nursing education.[ 2 , 5 ] CT is defined by Watson and Glaser (1964) as a composite of attitudes, knowledge, and skill. This composite included: (1) an attitude of inquiry that involves an ability to recognize the existence of problems and an acceptance of the general need for evidence in support of what is asserted to be true; (2) knowledge of the nature of valid inferences, abstractions, and generalization in which the weight or accuracy of different kind of evidence are logically determined; and (3) skill in employing and applying the above attitudes and knowledge.[ 6 ]

CT is an orientation of the mind including both cognitive and affective domains of reasoning and highly influence on individual’s abilities to question the assumptions. It is a developed skill of looking for alternative solution of the problems and adopting a questioning approach.[ 7 ]

In 1965, American Nurses Association (ANA) proposed that the baccalaureate degree should be the professional degree required for entry into nursing practice as a registered nurse. The ANA stated that the baccalaureate nursing curriculum should be designed in a way that improves the nursing students’ CT ability and the synthesis of learning. They need CT to provide effective care while coping with the expansion in role associated with the complexities of current health-care system. CT in nursing education is an essential component of professional accountability and quality nursing care. Nursing students are expected to be able to think critically in order to process complex data and to make intelligent decisions concerning the planning, manage - CT.[ 8 ]

Based on the literature review, numerous factors influence the nursing students’ clinical decision making (CDM) process.[ 9 , 10 ] These factors included individual variables, such as experience and knowledge creative thinking ability, education, and self-concept,[ 11 ] as well as environmental and situational stressors.[ 12 ] These factors may serve to enhance or impede CDM. It may be different among the students in different cultural context as well as different organizational and educational context. This study thus aimed to examine the CT’ as well as the CDM’ ability of the nursing student in South-East of Iran. It also aimed to determine the variables affects these abilities.

M ATERIALS AND M ETHODS

In order to collect data, an approval was taken from the head of the faculties of nursing prior to the collection of data. The study was carried out based on a descriptive comparative design at four faculties of nursing.

At first, a questionnaire was designed in order to obtain background information which was assumed to have influence on participants’ CT and CDM. It was developed based on the experiences of a pretest among students and included questions about gender, age, level of education, and academic performance (measured by grade point).

CT skills were measured with the translated California Critical Thinking Skills Test (CCTST). The scale was translated from English into Farsi by Khodamoradi et al . (2005) and Khalili et al . (2003).[ 9 , 12 ] It consist of 34 multiple choice items and measures CT skills in three subscales: inference, evaluation, and analysis, with 1 correct response per question. Scores are obtained by summing the number of correct item responses. The total scale ranges from 0 to 34 points, with subscale scores ranging from 0 to 9 for analysis, 0 to 14 for evaluation, and 0 to 11 for inference.[ 13 ]

To examine the participants’ ability of CDM, translated Sirkka Lauri and Sanna Salanterδ 2002[ 14 ] questionnaire was used. The scale consists of 24 items. The instrument is a structured questionnaire with a five-point scale: never, rarely, sometimes, often, and almost always. The items were scored from 1 to 5. Half of the items were designed to measure analytical step-by-step and analytical information-processing decision making. Another half were designed to measure intuitive-processing decision making. These were labeled as items describing intuition decision making. However, every item measured analytical, analytical-intuitive, or intuitive decision making, depending on the nurses’ answers. The items were scored from 1 to 5 so that the lowest scores measured analytical step-by-step decision making and the highest scores intuitive decision making.[ 14 ]

Khalili et al . (2003)[ 12 ] and Khodamoradi et al . (2005)[ 9 ] checked the reliability and validity of translated CCTST. Respectively Khalili reliability total score of the test was r = 0.62 and sub-tests ( r = 0.66) evaluation, ( r = 0.77) inferred, ( r = 0.66) inductive reasoning, ( r = 0.73), and deductive reasoning ( r = 0.74), Khodamoradi said order r = 0.86.

For translation of Lauri and Salantera (2002)[ 14 ] questionnaire from English into Farsi, the standard forward-backward procedure was applied. Translation of the items and the response categories independently performed by two professional translators and then temporary versions were provided. Afterwards they were back translated into English and after a careful cultural adaptation the final versions were provided. Translated questionnaire went through pilot-testing students ( n = 30). Suggestions by nursing students were combined into the final questionnaires versions. The scale have originally been developed and tested in cultural contexts which are different from the research contexts, so the validity and reliability of scale rechecked.

To check the validity of test content, we used the viewpoints of Professors of Educational Psychology and Medical Education in three domains including relevance, clarity, and simplicity. Finding showed validity of test was desirable. Reliability of the tools was measured on students ( n = 30) by internal reliability of subscales and external reliability. The correlation between test-retest’ result was 0.90 with Kappa coefficient equal to 0.83. The reliability and validity of scale was thus acceptable.

During spring 2008, the participants at four faculties of nursing were invited to participate. The participation was voluntarily and they were briefed for the purpose of study and procedure in their own language, both verbally and with written information. In order to secure confidentiality, there was no personal information on the questionnaires.

300 sets of questionnaires were distributed with a drop out of 10. In all collected data, 98% of all questions were answered. Statistical Package for Social Scientists (SPSS14) was used to analysis the data including descriptive (percentages, mean score) and inferential statistics (i.e., ANOVA: t -test independent sampling _assuming nonequal variances; and Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficient). Comparisons were considered significant at the P < 0.05.

The findings indicated that the mean age of participants was 21.75 and majority was female (70%). Participants’ mean grade of their academic performance was 16.75 (from 20). Of the participants, 34% were in second semester, 32.3% in fourth semester, and 33% in final years. The mean score of CT ability of participants was low (mean = 5.4) and mean score of CDM was medium (12.28 from 20). In both the scales, the lowest mean score (mean score = 2.98 of 20) was belonged to the items that measured the participants’ ability to analyze the patients’ as well as their own professional’s problems. In CCTST, male participants (mean score = 170.75) scored significantly higher than female (mean score = 143.26). Among all the participants those who were studying in Jiroft College of Nursing had higher mean score in CDM ability. According to the Pearson correlation, there was a positive correlation between academic performance of the participants and their mean score of CT [ Table 1 ]. CT (mean score 9/193, SD 2/788) with sub-scales: evaluation (mean score 4/1, SD 1/745), analysis (mean score 2/28, SD1/484), inference (mean score 2/299, SD 1/593), and CDM (mean score 82/95, SD 13/41). No relation was found between the CT and CDM scores of the participants.

Mean score and standard deviation of critical thinking and clinical decision making with demographic variables

D ISCUSSION

The purpose of this study was to examine the nursing students’ CT and CDM ability as well as the variables influence on these two. The participants yielded a low mean score of CT. This finding is consistent with Salehi et al . (2007 ),[ 15 ] Islami (2003),[ 16 ] and Babamohammadi (2001)[ 17 ] where they found a low mean score of CT among nurses and nursing students around country. This could be related to the participants’ educational background or even their cultural and organizational context. Salehi et al . (2007) claimed that our country’s educational system is based on memorizing the facts and does not encourage the CT skills. They continue that after getting graduated, the occupational environment, also, does not support the development of these skills.[ 15 ] Limited teaching strategies and the learning milieu may be compounding issues in relation to the students’ lack of confidence with CT when attempting to solve problems or questions through self-directed learning.[ 17 – 19 ] The challenge to nursing education is to provide the resources, content, curricular strategies, and opportunities to describe, develop, and practice CT.[ 20 ]

No relationship was found between the mean scores of CT and CDM. The finding is consistent with several studies in which CT skills were found to be unrelated to clinical decision-making skills.[ 10 , 15 , 21 , 22 ] Unlike, other studies found such a correlation between the two skills.[ 2 , 8 , 10 , 20 , 23 ] According to Duchscher (1999), unable to find a correlation between CDM and CT abilities results from the absence of suitable tools to measure them, rather than a true lack of correlation. He goes on that clear defining of the CDM, CT and evaluation of the validity and practicality of the tool needs further studies.[ 24 ] However, the magnitude of the observed correlation raises serious questions regarding the value of teaching CT in the nurses’ school curriculum.[ 8 ]

In this study, we found that there is significant correlation between sex and CT and male have better CT ability rather than female. In any study don not attention to this factor because most of the subject was female. According to the results, academic performance positively affects CT ability of the participants. This reflects the other studies’ finding that CT ability is related to academic performance, measured by grade point average, in Nursing.[ 15 , 18 , 19 , 21 ]

The results indicated male students’ higher score of CT than that of female. This is in contrast with the Facione’ (1998) report that female scores were higher than male scores in terms of the CT skill of analysis. The possible explanation of the finding is that self-esteem is lower overall for females than males in college.[ 13 ] Undergraduate male students tend to show significantly higher self-esteem than females.[ 25 ] Since self-esteem positively correlated with CT ability,[ 11 ] it can be concluded that male students with higher self-esteem have higher score of CT than female students.

Also Jiroft nursing student had better score in CDM rather than other city. Jiroft students who were studying there reported that they are well educated in practice. They claimed that they have authority and responsibility enough to decide in clinical settings. Autonomy and responsibility are required for independent learning and improvement of CT ability among students.[ 26 , 27 ]

The challenge to nursing education is to provide the resources, content, curricular strategies, and opportunities to describe, develop, and practice CT. Authors use strategies such as asking questions, working in small groups, role playing, discussion and debate, using case studies, daily notes, simulations, problem solving, concept of mental maps, the learning cycle, computer programs, and recommend rethinking learning. In asking questions, working in small groups is recognized by most scholars. Further research is required to determine whether course work unique to baccalaureate programs actually result in either improved CT skill or improved CDM skills.

A CKNOWLEDGMENT

Researchers deem it necessary to express their thanks to the sincerely cooperation of Kerman University and Nursing and Midwifery school managers and dear student, accomplishing this research was impossible without their cooperation.

Source of Support: Support from Kerman University of Medical Sciences in research

Conflict of Interest: The authors report no conflicts of interest. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of this article.

R EFERENCES

The State of Critical Thinking 2018

November 2018, table of contents.

Executive Summary Introduction and Background Methodology and Design Major Findings Conclusion   

Executive Summary

Critical thinking has always been an asset. But in today’s increasingly digital and globalized world, robust forms of thinking have become a necessity.  With more and more information at our fingertips, we have to be far more discerning about our choices and judgments. Just consider that in October 2018 alone, Twitter took down dozens of accounts that falsely posed as lawmakers. (1) But despite the need for more critical thinking, our institutions have not done nearly enough to give students richer thinking tools. In too many schools, critical thinking is not taught to young people. At workplaces, employers don’t do enough to prioritize richer forms of reasoning. This happens despite the fact that strong reasoning skills have become increasingly key to navigating everyday life, and a growing body of research shows that thinking critically runs in lockstep with life outcomes. Researcher Heather Butler recently conducted a study that found “critical thinkers experience fewer bad things in life.” (2)

According to Butler, good critical thinkers are far less likely to foreclose on a home or carry large credit card balances, while those without strong critical thinking skills are more likely to have an extramarital affair and drink while driving. (3) What’s more, there’s plenty of evidence that our democracy is fraying because of a lack of reflective thought. Politicians around the world are taking advantage of new technologies to push a political agenda that divides nations instead of uniting them, and there have been sharp upticks in reports of everything from racism to fascism. (4) The Reboot Foundation is dedicated to promoting richer forms of thought and to better understanding the state of critical thinking today. With that in mind, the foundation recently commissioned a survey, which will be conducted each year in an attempt to better understand shifts in the public’s views on critical thinking and what it means for the future of society. The Foundation surveyed more than 1,000 people using an online platform, and we weighted the results along demographic lines.

Our data uncovers a number of key findings.

While the public believes that critical thinking is crucial, most people believe that schools do not do enough to prepare young people to think more effectively. Across just about every demographic variable, people support more critical thinking, and nearly all respondents (95 percent) say critical thinking skills are necessary in today’s world. Still, people worry that our schools do not teach robust forms of thinking, and about 80 percent of respondents say that young people lack the ability to engage in critical thinking. Only 29 percent of respondents say that they definitively studied critical thinking in school themselves. There’s a lack of clarity about when, where, and even how critical thinking should be taught. About 48 percent of parents surveyed say that they (the parents) should be responsible for teaching critical thinking. Another 41 percent believe that educators should be responsible for teaching young people about how to think critically. And still another 22 percent believe that children themselves should be responsible.

While it’s encouraging that many feel critical thinking is a shared responsibility, this lack of consensus helps explain why people often don’t acquire better thinking skills: the teaching of the skill seems to simply fall through societal cracks.

While parents say that they know how to teach their kids critical thinking, they don’t generally practice these skills with them. In our survey, 72 percent of parents say that they know how to help their kids gain critical thinking skills, and 96 percent say that critical thinking is an important skill to teach to their children. 

But upon closer examination, we found that, on the whole, parents often fall short of teaching their children basic critical thinking skills. For instance, only 20 percent of parents frequently or daily ask their children to take an opposing view. Only a third of parents have their children regularly discuss issues without a right or wrong answer. 

Members of the public say they practice critical thinking, but their behaviors often suggest otherwise.The vast majority of respondents report that they have solid critical thinking skills, and about 67 percent of respondents say their reasoning skills have improved over time. But it seems that there’s a reality gap, and people are simply overstating their reasoning skills. Many respondents report engaging in practices that don’t show much critical thinking. For instance, we found that 47 percent of them don’t typically plan where they will obtain information while doing research. And around 27 percent use only one source of information while making a decision. The lack of critical thinking skills is particularly apparent online. For example, we found that over one-third of respondents consider Wikipedia, a crowd-sourced website, to be the equivalent of a thoroughly vetted encyclopedia. What’s more, people rely on Wikipedia almost as much as they rely on government websites for factual research, according to our study. Many do not do enough to question the accuracy of social media. People believe the accuracy of more than a third of what they read on Twitter and Facebook, for instance. Respondents are also far more likely to engage with informal, non-vetted sources for information, and just under 40 percent say they regularly read blogs instead of institutional publications like newspapers. The public says they engage opposing views, but they rarely do. Nearly 87 percent of respondents say that considering an opposing view is an important and useful exercise. But few engage in the practice, and less than a quarter of respondents actually seek out views that challenge their own. For instance, 24 percent of respondents say they avoid people with opposing views. Another 25 percent rarely or never seek out people who have different views than theirs. In other words, many people claim they solicit the views of others. But, in practice, they don’t do nearly enough to “stress test” their opinions, despite the wealth of evidence showing that engaging in opposing views is crucial to richer forms of critical thinking. (5)

What is critical thinking? We define critical thinking broadly, and we believe it is a type of reflective thought that requires reasoning, logic and analysis to make choices and understand problems. Key elements of critical thinking include seeking out opposing viewpoints, using evidence, and engaging in debate.

Introduction and Background

Critical thinking is not new. Nor are claims about its importance. The philosopher Socrates is credited with saying, “The unexamined life is not worth living.” For Socrates and many other ancient philosophers, reflective thinking was the ultimate human pursuit, the most important endeavor of any meaningful life.

In some ways, things have not changed at all since the time of Socrates. The unexamined life is still not worth living. But at the same time, critical thinking has become far more consequential —  and far more urgent. Today, reasoning is at the center of a 21st century society, the engine of the modern world. Technology is driving much of the need for deeper critical thinking skills. It is the primary force behind our changing economy, in which richer forms of reasoning have become some of the best predictors of economic success. Technology is also driving shifts in our social and political worlds, from the debate over alleged “fake news” to the algorithms that track our every move online. While the Internet has provided many benefits, it has made it harder to figure out fact from fiction. In more traditional forms of media, such as newspapers, there have long been clear demarcations that separate opinion pieces from reported articles. Online, however thoroughly-reported news items, op-eds, and totally unverified information are often promoted in similar ways without much distinction among them. Social media makes this problem far worse. It is now fairly easy to push out maliciously false information online, and many sites and bots aim to spread information with questionable sources. Recently, Facebook removed almost 600 pages that continually posted misleading information. (6)   One of those pages had more than 100,000 followers. (7)

Social media also pushes people to live in an echo chamber. According to Harvard University law professor Cass Sunstein, sites like Twitter and Facebook encourage people to engage only with claims that align with their own views, fostering a type of societal myopia. “I wouldn’t say that we are now more isolated from diversity; there’s a lot of diversity out there, in terms of how isolated people are from diversity,” Sunstein once explained. “But many people do like to isolate themselves, and that’s a big problem.”

At the same time, technology has eroded critical thinking. Our devices are making us less able to reflect and rationalize. Patricia Greenfield, a psychology professor and director of the University of California, Los Angeles Children’s Media Center, has found that as our reliance on technology has grown, our critical thinking skills have declined. We read less and consume more visual media, which does not allow for the analysis and reflection required of critical thinking. (9) As if that weren’t enough, the democratization of the media in recent decades has put more and more responsibility on individuals to ferret out truth from fiction. While institutions have taken some steps to limit falsehoods, individuals increasingly must take steps to avoid becoming prey to dishonest information. In this sense, the recent crisis over so-called “fake news” is really a crisis of our own making. Jim VandeHei, co-founder and CEO of the news site Axios, recently wrote, for example, that “each of us is very much to blame” for the phenomenon of fake news. He implored news consumers to think critically online. “Quit sharing stories without even reading them. Spend a few minutes to verify the trustworthiness of what you read,” he wrote. (10) But, too often, people aren’t provided enough training in robust critical thinking to be able to do that. Our schools, in particular, fall short of empowering students with better reasoning skills. This is particularly evident online. One recent Stanford University study revealed that 93 percent of college students did not know that a lobbyist website was one-sided. Fewer than 20 percent of high-schoolers were aware that just one online photo does not prove something took place. (11)

A large chunk of the public is also unskilled in using social media, often passing along “information” they’ve found online without doing their homework — that is, checking the original sources. One recent study, conducted by Columbia University, revealed that close to 60 percent of people share news-related pieces on Twitter that they have not clicked on to read at length. In other words, the headline alone was enough to confirm its legitimacy, then pass it along. (12) Problems of critical thinking are not new, of course. Long before social media, philosophers argued for better ways to challenge the unjustifiably self-assured. The most notable is the Socratic method, a still-popular instructional technique. A recent summary of the method makes its application still highly relevant: “We can consider alternative interpretations of the data and information. We can analyze key concepts and ideas. We can question assumptions being made.” (13) Ancient philosophers, then, offer both a warning and a solution. More exactly, they remind us that we need to do more to question our  assumptions and to consider alternative interpretations. Data must be more at the center of our reasoning, and no doubt, the stakes are higher than ever. To inelegantly paraphrase Socrates, an unexamined society will not survive.

Methodology and Design

As part of our research, we surveyed more than 1,100 adults using Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (MTurk) platform from September 19, 2018, to September 25, 2018. A crowdsourcing tool, Mechanical Turk has increasingly been used for surveys and other experiments, and generally researchers praise the use of the platform. “Mturk is a fast and cost-effective way to collect nonprobability samples that are more diverse than those typically used by psychologists,” noted one recent research paper. (14) We used Mturk because of its speed and convenience. The platform also allowed us to include some items on the survey that were experimental in nature, like the “heat map” question related to search results. Mturk-based surveys have limitations, to be sure. Like many online surveys, they provide convenience samples, and people using the Mturk site are younger and whiter than the population at large. (15) To make our findings generalizable, we weighed our sample data with survey weights generated by doing iterative post-stratification on our data so that the marginal sample distributions on gender, income, and age match the corresponding marginal population distributions as reported by the American Community Survey for the year 2017. (16) For the survey questions regarding critical thinking in daily life, we relied on items from the Youth Life Skills Survey. We first uncovered the series of survey items in “A Study of Critical Thinking Skills in International Baccalaureate Middle Years Programme.” (17)  The items were developed by Claudia Mincemoyer, Daniel Perkins, and Catherine Munyua of Penn State. (18) The data on parents came from a subsection of the survey that only asked questions of adults who have children. To examine demographic data, we conducted crosstabs across age, income, and gender. 

Two experts in survey design and implementation provided technical advice. They are Joe McFall of The State University of New York, Fredonia and Srikant Vadali of St. Anselm College. They are not responsible for any of the interpretations of the data contained in this document For the full data results, a copy of the survey instrument or any other survey-related questions, please email Reboot Foundation advisor Ulrich Boser. He can be reached at [email protected] .

Major Findings

The public thinks critical thinking is crucial but believes young people lack such skills. In the study, nearly all respondents (more than 95 percent) say critical thinking skills are necessary in today’s world, and nearly the same percentage believe we should think more critically in our everyday lives. This opinion crossed demographic lines – men and women, rich and poor, old and young. They all agreed that critical thinking is important, and we should do more of it.

But respondents are deeply concerned that schools do not teach critical thinking. Only half of survey respondents say their experience in school gave them strong critical thinking skills. Men are 8 percentage points more likely than women to believe that their schools gave them strong critical thinking skills (50 percent for men vs. 42 percent for women). In addition, more than 80 percent of respondents believe that critical thinking skills are lacking in today’s youth, and in the survey, people point to a range of reasons for the lack of critical thinking. Some 27 percent of respondents believe that modern technology inhibits critical thinking; interestingly, women are 12 percent more likely than men to think modern technology is at fault. Another 30 percent believe that society devalues critical thinking skills. Notably, 26 percent of respondents say that critical thinking skills are lacking because of a flawed educational system. Young people are more likely to feel this way than those in older demographics, and in the 18-to-40-year-old category, 41 percent of respondents think schools are to blame. In contrast, just 28 percent of people in the 61-to-81-year-old group believe that schools are culpable. Not surprisingly, older respondents are more likely to blame technology for a lack of critical thinking. Those in the 18-to-40 age range are less critical of modern tools, with only 21 percent saying they are the cause of poor thinking. In contrast, 33 percent of 41-to-60-year-olds blame modern technology on today’s lack of critical thinking skills. There’s a gender gap as well, and women are 12 percent more likely than men to think modern technology is at fault for the crisis in critical thinking. Whatever the demographic differences, though, these findings suggest that there is a growing awareness that the modern world has deeply complicated critical thinking. Across lines of age, gender, and income, people believe that critical thinking is more important than ever. This is good news. After all, when people are aware of a problem, they’re more willing to address it. There’s a lack of clarity about when and where critical thinking should be taught. Despite the public’s enthusiasm for critical thinking skills, respondents are split over what age is appropriate for developing such skills. In our survey, 20 percent say critical thinking skills develop best in early childhood, or ages 5 and under. Another 35 percent say critical thinking is best developed during ages 6 to 12, and another 27 percent think ages 13 to 18 are best. About 13 percent say any age is good for developing critical thinking skills. There are differences along demographics lines. Women are more likely than men to favor teaching critical thinking skills during the early years. For example,  24 percent of our survey’s female respondents believe in teaching critical thinking skills to children 5 and under, whereas just 17 percent of male respondents  share that belief. There are also differences among income groups. Higher-income respondents are more likely to believe that parents should teach critical thinking during the early years. For instance, 29 percent of people in the $100,000-and-above category believe that critical thinking should be taught to children younger than 6 years of age. But just over 15 percent of those making less than $50,000 per year think that critical thinking should be taught to children younger than 6 years of age.

There is also a lack of clarity about who should be responsible for teaching critical thinking. About 74 percent of the parents surveyed say educators should be at least partially responsible for teaching young people how to think critically. Another 89 percent say they  — the parents — should be responsible. Perhaps most surprising, 22 percent of respondents believe that children themselves should be responsible for learning how to think critically. The respondents believed this idea despite the fact that most experts argue that parents, educators, and others can help improve critical thinking among young people. (19) When it comes to teaching critical thinking, the public believes that schools should play an important role. About 92 percent of respondents say that K-12 schools should require courses that develop those skills. Another 90 percent of respondents think critical thinking courses should be required in colleges and universities. 

While it is encouraging that many Americans believe that critical thinking is a shared responsibility, the lack of consensus over what inhibits it as well as how and when to teach it helps explain why people often don’t acquire better thinking skills. It is a problem of too many cooks in the critical thinking kitchen: with everyone in charge, no one is in charge.

Parents also do not typically help their children develop other important critical thinking skills. For instance, only a third of parents have their children regularly discuss issues without a right or wrong answer, despite evidence supporting the practice. (20)   What’s more, only 26 percent of parents frequently help their children evaluate evidence, which is a key skill when it comes to better reasoning.

When it comes to parents and critical thinking, there are important differences along gender lines. For instance, women report doing more critical thinking skill development with their children than men do. For instance, women are about 6 percentage points more likely than men to report that they help children evaluate evidence and arguments every day (12 percent for women, 4 percent for men).

This gender split can likely be attributed to the fact that, historically, women have been the primary caregivers of children and are, on average, at home more often. While there is room for improvement for all parents in teaching critical thinking skills, it seems that male parents in particular have the most ground to make up.

While a majority of respondents say that their critical thinking skills have improved over the years, they often don’t engage in robust critical thinking practices. When it comes to critical thinking, there’s a large gap between what people believe and how they behave.   

For instance, 67 percent of our survey respondents say they have improved their reasoning skills since graduating high school. But many respondents also report making use of specific practices that reveal weak critical thinking.

We discovered, for example, that almost 50 percent of people do not typically plan where they will obtain information before engaging in research. Our survey also reveals that around one-third of respondents will use only one source of information when making a decision. 

Again, demographics make a difference. Older people, for instance, are more likely to use more than one source of information before making a decision. Case in point: people older than 60 are 19 percentage points more likely to always use more than one source than people younger than 40 (51 percent for the older group vs. 32 for the younger group). The lack of highly developed critical thinking skills is particularly apparent when people are online. For example, we found that over one-third of people consider Wikipedia, a crowd-sourced website, to be the equivalent of a thoroughly vetted encyclopedia. Income and age have a bearing on the perception of Wikipedia as a modern day encyclopedia. Fifty percent of respondents making $50,000 or less annually say that Wikipedia is a modern version of an encyclopedia. In contrast, just 16 percent of people making $100,000 or more share that belief. Similarly, 48 percent of those 18 to 40 years old think that Wikipedia is a modern day encyclopedia. In contrast, just 25 percent of those in the 41-to-60-year age range think the technology as a robust as an encyclopedia. Social media practices also suggest a lack of critical thinking. For instance, we found that more than 40 percent of people’s online reading is made up of blogs and other informal news sources. The other 60 percent consists of material from institutional sources, like a newspaper or traditional media outlet. Not too astonishing, most younger people are more likely to read blogs. Respondents 18 to 40 years of age, for example, report that about 41 percent of what they read online tend to be blog items, whereas people in the 61-to-81-year range report their blog intake at an average of 11 percentage points less. Our results also showed that people simply don’t look at enough sources while doing online research. According to our survey, only 33 percent of respondents examine more than 5 results during an Internet search. This means that two-thirds of people rely on very limited number of sources while doing online research. 

How Young Is Too Young? At What Age Can Children Start to Engage in Critical Thinking? At first glance it may appear that young children do not have the capacity to think critically. After all, most 3-year-olds struggle to even tie their shoes. But there’s growing evidence showing that very young children have rich thinking skills. One study released this year found that preschoolers can engage in causal reasoning. (21)  Research also shows that children as young as 3 start to realize that some beliefs don’t necessarily jibe with reality. (22) Another study found that between the ages of 3 and 5, children begin to understand that what another person says is not necessarily “true” but is often more a reflection of his or her beliefs. For instance, most young children know that a statement like “the best dessert in the whole world is ice cream” is a belief, not a fact. Recent evidence suggests that different teaching methods can promote more critical thinking in young children, especially when the strategies take advantage of changes in brain development. For instance, prior to age 10, a child’s emotional intelligence takes precedence over the intellectual. So teachers and parents should allow a child to explain how she came to a conclusion without insisting she use facts to support it. This helps build self-esteem and teaches the child, at an early age, that no one person, agency or institution holds the key to the “truth,” according to researchers like Sebastian Dieguez at the University of Fribourg. During later stages, ranging from pre-adolescence to the mid-teens, teaching critical thinking is a bit trickier. Children’s brains are constantly in flux, both physically and in the ways they receive information: in class, from friends, and on social media. At these stages, research says that it is important to equip children with the skills necessary to navigate this constant, often muddied, river of information. 

Giving young people effective thinking strategies can help. For example, one useful metaphor is telling children that possessing knowledge is like being in the driver’s seat of your own car. You, no one else, is in control. Research has also shown that giving young people thorough instruction in better thinking can yield very positive results; it makes for better students and higher grades. (23)

While the public claims that they engage opposing views, they don’t actually engage other views in practice. Nearly 87 percent of respondents say that considering an opposing view is an important and useful exercise.

This is an encouraging finding, given the large body of evidence that shows that considering opposing views improves problem-solving. For instance, Scott Page at the University of Michigan has studied diversity of opinion and concluded that exposure to others’ perspectives leads to better outcomes. In fact, he found that diversity is more important than ability when it comes to problem-solving. (24) But when asked to detail how they engage in such practices in their daily lives, only 25 percent are willing to regularly have debates with people who disagree with them. A surprising 24 percent of respondents say they regularly avoid talking to people with opposing views. In other words, people might say that they want to engage other views in theory, but they rarely do so in practice. Research helps explain this gap. Decades’ worth of studies show that people prefer to socialize with those who have similar backgrounds and beliefs. The scientific term is “homophily,” or, as one study puts it, the principle that “contact between similar people occurs at a higher rate than among dissimilar people.” (25) 

Because of these homophilic tendencies, many people are uncomfortable engaging with individuals whose views differ significantly from their own. They live in something of a bubble, where they continually reinforce their own beliefs, including incorrect information about people unlike themselves, without being challenged.

The results of homophily are clear in our politics. One recent study found that half of the Republicans and Democrats surveyed found talking politics with their rivals “stressful and frustrating.” (26) And even more (65 percent Republican, 63 percent Democratic) said that, when speaking with their counterparts, they discover they have less in common politically than previously thought. In our study, men in particular are unwilling to engage in critical discussions. They are roughly 20 percentage points more likely than women to avoid people with whom they disagree (33 percent vs. 13 percent). Along income lines, the difference is comparable: respondents in the lowest income bracket are at least 20 percentage points more likely than those in the highest income bracket to do the same (66 percent vs. 54 percent). In the end, our data suggests the public overestimates its willingness to engage views that are different than its own, a crucial part of being a good critical thinker. Without these critical thinking skills, we risk becoming bad choosers. When we don’t consider the available evidence, when we settle for what is ideologically comfortable, we make incomplete decisions and we risk polarization. 

Where do you click?  An experimental approach to measuring critical thinking online.

As part of our research into critical thinking, we relied on a more experimental approach to measuring how people engage with online sources, and we created a simulation of a real-life scenario to see what links people might click on while doing online research.  Specifically, we asked respondents: “Imagine you are helping a child with a school research project about the U.S. Capitol. You have just conducted an online search through a search provider. Where would you click next?”  We used technology to measure people’s clicks similar to a “heat map,” and as shown in the image below, we found that people are almost just as likely to click on Wikipedia as they are to click on the government’s actual website.  On the positive side, respondents avoided the Capitol’s Twitter social media handle, which appears to provide the least relevant as well as least accurate set of results. (Note that the color red in the image below indicates more clicks. Green indicates fewer clicks.)

But without robust approaches to thinking, we risk deepening our own biases. We risk becoming susceptible to “fake news,” conspiracy theories and phishing scams. We risk increasing polarization, partisanship and infighting among the biggest challenges we face as a nation.

(1)* Sheera Frenkel, “Facebook Tackles Rising Threat: Americans Aping Russian Schemes to Deceive,” New York Times, October 11, 2018.

(2)* Heather A. Butler, Christopher Pentoney., Mabelle P. Bong, “Why Do Smart People Do Foolish Things?” Scientific American, Springer Nature America, Inc., October 3, 2017, https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-do-smart-people-do-foolish-things/

(3)* Heather Butler, “Predicting real-world outcomes: Critical thinking ability is a better predictor of life decisions than intelligence,” ScienceDirect, Thinking Skills and Creativity. Volume 25, September 2017, https://www.sciencedirect.com.

(4)* Yuva Noah Harari, “Why Technology Favors Tyranny,” The Atlantic, Oct. 2018, https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/10/yuval-noah-harari-technology-tyranny/568330/ (5)* Lu Hong and Scott E. Page “Groups of diverse problem-solvers can outperform groups of high-ability problem-solvers,” PNAS, 101, 46 (2004): 16385–16389, https://sites.lsa.umich.edu.

(6)* Sheera Frenkel, “Facebook Tackles Rising Threat: Americans Aping Russian Schemes to Deceive,” New York Times, October 11, 2019 (8)* S Cass Sunstein, “Danger in the Internet Echo Chamber,” Harvard Law Today, March 24, 2017, https://today.law.harvard.edu .

(9)* PM Greenfield “Technology and informal education: what is taught, what is learned,” Science, 323 (5910), (2009): 69-71, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov .

(10)* Jim VandeHei, “4 ways to fix ‘fake news,” Axios Media Inc., October 21 2018, https://www.axios.com .

(11)* Wineburg, Sam and McGrew, Sarah and Breakstone, Joel and Ortega, Teresa. (2016). “Evaluating Information: The Cornerstone of Civic Online Reasoning. Stanford Digital Repository,”  http://purl.stanford.edu/fv751yt5934

(12)* Maksym Gabielkov et al., “Social Clicks: What and Who Gets Read on Twitter?” ACM SIGMETRICS / IFIP Performance 2016, (2016), Antibes Juan-les-Pins, France, (2016), https://hal.inria.fr https://hal.inria.fr/hal-01281190

(13)* Richard Paul and Linda Elder, “Socratic Thinking,” The Foundation for Critical Thinking, (1997),  http://www.criticalthinking.org .

(14)* Jesse Chandler and Danielle Shapiro “Conducting Clinical Research Using Crowdsourced Convenience Samples,” Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 12, (2016): 53-81.   https://www.annualreviews.org . (15)* Ibid., 53-81. (16)* United States Census Bureau, Surveys and Programs, “American Community Survey (ACS),” United States Census Bureau, https://www.census.gov .

(17)* Julie Wade, Natalie Wolanin, and Trisha McGaughey, “A Study of Critical Thinking Skills in the  International Baccalaureate Middle Years Programme,” International Baccalaureate, (2015), https://www.ibo.org .

(18)* Human Service Research, “Youthful Life Skills Evaluation,” Human Service Research Inc.,  http://www.humanserviceresearch.com .

(19)* Abrami, Philip C., Robert M. Bernard, Evgueni Borokhovski, Anne Wade, Michael A. Surkes, Rana Tamim,  and Dai Zhang. “Instructional Interventions Affecting Critical Thinking Skills and  Dispositions: A Stage 1 Meta-Analysis.” Review of Educational Research 78, no. 4 (December 2008): 1102– 34. doi:10.3102/0034654308326084.1102–34. doi:10.3102/0034654308326084. doi:10.3102/0034654308326084.

(20)* Schommer, Marlene. (1990). Effects of Beliefs About the Nature of Knowledge on Comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology. 82. 498-. 10.1037/0022-0663.82.3.498. (21)* Mariel K. Goddu & Alison Gopnik, “Young Children rationally use evidence to select causally relevant variables for intervention”, (University of California, Berkeley, 2018). (22)* Kuhn, Deanna. “A Developmental Model of Critical Thinking.” Educational Researcher 28, no. 2 (1999): 16-46. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1177186 .

(23)* John Perry, David Lundie & Gill Golder “Metacognition in schools: what does the literature suggest about the effectiveness of teaching metacognition in schools?” Educational Review, (2018), DOI: 10.1080/00131911.2018.1441127. (24)* Lu Hong and Scott E. Page “Groups of diverse problem-solvers can outperform groups of high-ability problem-solvers,” PNAS, 101, 46 (2004): 16385–16389, https://sites.lsa.umich.edu .

(25)* Miller McPherson, Lynn Smith-Lovin, and James M Cook, “Birds of a Feather: Homophily in Social Networks,” Annual Reviews of Sociology, 27 (2001): 415–44, http://aris.ss.uci.edu .

(26)* Pew Research Center, U.S. Politics “Partisanship and Political Animosity in 2016,” Pew Research Center, June 22, 2016, http://www.people-press.org

Privacy Overview