how does critical thinking help us rate online sources

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

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

What Is Critical Thinking? | Definition & Examples

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

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

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

Critical thinking skills help you to:

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

Table of contents

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

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

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

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

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

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

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

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

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

Academic examples

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

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

Nonacademic examples

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

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

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

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

When encountering information, ask:

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

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

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

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

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

 Plagiarism

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

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

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

Try for free

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

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

Critical thinking skills include the ability to:

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

Ask questions such as:

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

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

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

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

Being information literate means that you:

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

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

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

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

Cite this Scribbr article

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

Ryan, E. (2023, May 31). What Is Critical Thinking? | Definition & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved April 3, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/working-with-sources/critical-thinking/

Is this article helpful?

Eoghan Ryan

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

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

How to Approach Critical Thinking in This Misinformation Era

Is there any way we can know what's true and what's false.

Posted August 12, 2021 | Reviewed by Vanessa Lancaster

• Critical thinking is a discipline of thought and communication that boils down to one word: Truth.
• Four classic and time-honored strategies for engaging in critical thinking include asking who is making a statement and exploring biases.
• Reading a book that involves new ideas and concepts can help the brain develop new neural pathways and alternative modes of thinking.

One of the most important disciplines we can practice is the discipline of Critical Thinking. It involves holding a kind of magnifying glass up to our thoughts and the information and data constantly swirling around us.

What’s true and what isn’t? It’s the job of critical thinking to find out.

We are all constantly making decisions. Some of those decisions are trivial and unimportant (Should I wear the blue or yellow shirt today?). But other decisions can affect our very lives and the lives of those around us. We want those decisions to be based on truth so that they have good outcomes. Critical thinking can help make that possible.

Where do we start?

Here are seven questions, thoughts, and strategies to have available at all times to help with our different decision-making processes:

• Who is saying it? Who is it that is proclaiming the idea or thought in question? Are they dependable and truthful? Do you trust what this person says?
• How do they know what it is they are saying? Are they open about how they know what it is they're sharing? Do you trust their route to knowledge? Is it credible and reliable?
• What’s in it for them? Do they have an obvious incentive to promote the idea they’re sharing? Is there a conflict of interest?
• Explore your own biases. Our own personal biases may dispose us to (falsely) accept or reject the idea being presented. A good way to assess our own personal biases is to look at two or three close friends. What are their attitudes toward such things as race, politics , religion, money, family, or personal life values? Our own values or biases may likely be very similar to theirs.
• Remember, the whole point of critical thinking is about finding the truth. Don’t allow yourself to be distracted from seeking and valuing the truth in all areas of your life.
• Read a book about some subject you’re not interested in. This may sound like a strange idea, but in fact, it is beneficial. Read a book involving new ideas and concepts can help your brain develop new neural pathways and alternative modes of thinking. Reading a book filled with unfamiliar material can be like giving your brain a “re-set.”

Almost ten years ago, I undertook just such an experience. I chose a book about the Panama Canal, a topic I had zero interest in. The title was The Path Between the Seas .

I knew it was by an excellent writer (David McCullough), but it was about a subject I was not in the least attracted to.

The book was enthralling! I had never imagined what huge, consequential problems the building of the Panama Canal presented! There were multiple crises involving leadership , manpower, disease, technology, weather, administration, bizarre personalities, feuds, government bureaucracies, and constantly inadequate funding. How could they ever hope to achieve their impossible goal? It was truly a page-turner and is one of my all-time favorite books I always recommend to friends.

And it helped freshen my mind for the critical thinking that is always essential.

The Serenity Prayer

The serenity prayer might seem like a surprising suggestion to aid critical thinking, but I believe it is one of the most important.

Here’s why:

In situations where good critical thinking is essential, we become tangled up emotionally. We may feel that we ought to act decisively, but we don’t know if it will do any good, and there are often complicated constraints against any actions we might take. Then we find ourselves confused, not knowing what to do.

It is in this kind of situation that the Serenity Prayer is so clarifying. Simply stated, the prayer is this:

Lord, help me accept the things I cannot change, give me the courage to change the things I can change, and give me the wisdom to know the difference.

Instead of getting emotionally bogged down in determining what we can or should change, the Serenity Prayer removes ambiguity and brings clarity.

So, critical thinking is an essential life discipline, and these seven strategies can help bring us clarity of thought and understanding.

It's all about truth.

© David Evans

David Evans is an award-winning writer and mediator. He has an Emmy Award (shared) for writing on The Monkees and two Outstanding Case of the Year Awards for The Los Angeles County Court Alternative Dispute Resolution Program.

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

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

• Coronavirus Disease 2019
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

E valuating resources often means piecing together clues

This section teaches you how to identify relevant and credible sources that have most likely turned up when searching the Web and on your results pages of the library catalog and specialized databases. Remember you always want to look for relevant, credible sources that will meet the information needs of your research project.

In order to evaluate a source, you have to read and review the information keeping in mind two very important questions:

• Is this source relevant to my research question?
• Is this a credible source– a source my audience and I should be able to believe

Note: As you read an academic paper you will need to determine relevance before credibility because no matter how credible a source is if it’s not relevant to your research question it’s useless to you for this project. Reading research-centric papers can be challenging. Check out the tips in the video below.

UBC iSchool. (2013). How to read an academic paper . https://youtu.be/SKxm2HF_-k0

Happily, you’ll also get faster the more you do it.

Making Inferences: Good Enough for Your Purpose?

Sources should always be evaluated relative to your purpose-why you’re looking for information. But because there often aren’t clear-cut answers when you evaluate sources, most of the time it is inferences, educated guesses from available clues, that you have to make about whether to use information from particular sources.

Your information needs will dictate:

• What kind of information will help?
• How serious you consider the consequences of making a mistake by using information that turns out to be inaccurate. When the consequences aren’t very serious, it’s easier to decide if a source and its information are good enough for your purpose. Of course, there’s a lot to be said for always having accurate information, regardless.
• How hard you’re willing to work to get the credible, timely information that suits your purpose. (What you’re learning here will make it easier.)

Thus, your standards for relevance and credibility may vary, depending on whether you need, say:

• Information about a personal health problem.
• An image you can use on a poster.
• Evidence to win a bet with a rival in the dorm.
• Dates and times a movie is showing locally.
• A game to have fun with.
• Evidence for your argument in a term paper.

For your research assignments or a health problem, the consequences may be great if you use information that is not relevant or not credible.

Evaluating Sources

There are many approaches to evaluating your web and library resources. One that is quite useful is the SIFT process. 

Critical Thinking in Academic Research Copyright © 2022 by Cindy Gruwell and Robin Ewing is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Tips for Online Students , Tips for Students

Why Is Critical Thinking Important? A Survival Guide

Updated: December 7, 2023

Published: April 2, 2020

Why is critical thinking important? The decisions that you make affect your quality of life. And if you want to ensure that you live your best, most successful and happy life, you’re going to want to make conscious choices. That can be done with a simple thing known as critical thinking. Here’s how to improve your critical thinking skills and make decisions that you won’t regret.

What Is Critical Thinking?

You’ve surely heard of critical thinking, but you might not be entirely sure what it really means, and that’s because there are many definitions. For the most part, however, we think of critical thinking as the process of analyzing facts in order to form a judgment. Basically, it’s thinking about thinking.

How Has The Definition Evolved Over Time?

The first time critical thinking was documented is believed to be in the teachings of Socrates , recorded by Plato. But throughout history, the definition has changed.

Today it is best understood by philosophers and psychologists and it’s believed to be a highly complex concept. Some insightful modern-day critical thinking definitions include :

• “Reasonable, reflective thinking that is focused on deciding what to believe or do.”
• “Deciding what’s true and what you should do.”

The Importance Of Critical Thinking

Why is critical thinking important? Good question! Here are a few undeniable reasons why it’s crucial to have these skills.

1. Critical Thinking Is Universal

Critical thinking is a domain-general thinking skill. What does this mean? It means that no matter what path or profession you pursue, these skills will always be relevant and will always be beneficial to your success. They are not specific to any field.

2. Crucial For The Economy

Our future depends on technology, information, and innovation. Critical thinking is needed for our fast-growing economies, to solve problems as quickly and as effectively as possible.

3. Improves Language & Presentation Skills

In order to best express ourselves, we need to know how to think clearly and systematically — meaning practice critical thinking! Critical thinking also means knowing how to break down texts, and in turn, improve our ability to comprehend.

4. Promotes Creativity

By practicing critical thinking, we are allowing ourselves not only to solve problems but also to come up with new and creative ideas to do so. Critical thinking allows us to analyze these ideas and adjust them accordingly.

5. Important For Self-Reflection

Without critical thinking, how can we really live a meaningful life? We need this skill to self-reflect and justify our ways of life and opinions. Critical thinking provides us with the tools to evaluate ourselves in the way that we need to.

6. The Basis Of Science & Democracy

In order to have a democracy and to prove scientific facts, we need critical thinking in the world. Theories must be backed up with knowledge. In order for a society to effectively function, its citizens need to establish opinions about what’s right and wrong (by using critical thinking!).

Benefits Of Critical Thinking

We know that critical thinking is good for society as a whole, but what are some benefits of critical thinking on an individual level? Why is critical thinking important for us?

1. Key For Career Success

Critical thinking is crucial for many career paths. Not just for scientists, but lawyers , doctors, reporters, engineers , accountants, and analysts (among many others) all have to use critical thinking in their positions. In fact, according to the World Economic Forum, critical thinking is one of the most desirable skills to have in the workforce, as it helps analyze information, think outside the box, solve problems with innovative solutions, and plan systematically.

2. Better Decision Making

There’s no doubt about it — critical thinkers make the best choices. Critical thinking helps us deal with everyday problems as they come our way, and very often this thought process is even done subconsciously. It helps us think independently and trust our gut feeling.

3. Can Make You Happier!

While this often goes unnoticed, being in touch with yourself and having a deep understanding of why you think the way you think can really make you happier. Critical thinking can help you better understand yourself, and in turn, help you avoid any kind of negative or limiting beliefs, and focus more on your strengths. Being able to share your thoughts can increase your quality of life.

4. Form Well-Informed Opinions

There is no shortage of information coming at us from all angles. And that’s exactly why we need to use our critical thinking skills and decide for ourselves what to believe. Critical thinking allows us to ensure that our opinions are based on the facts, and help us sort through all that extra noise.

5. Better Citizens

One of the most inspiring critical thinking quotes is by former US president Thomas Jefferson: “An educated citizenry is a vital requisite for our survival as a free people.” What Jefferson is stressing to us here is that critical thinkers make better citizens, as they are able to see the entire picture without getting sucked into biases and propaganda.

6. Improves Relationships

While you may be convinced that being a critical thinker is bound to cause you problems in relationships, this really couldn’t be less true! Being a critical thinker can allow you to better understand the perspective of others, and can help you become more open-minded towards different views.

7. Promotes Curiosity

Critical thinkers are constantly curious about all kinds of things in life, and tend to have a wide range of interests. Critical thinking means constantly asking questions and wanting to know more, about why, what, who, where, when, and everything else that can help them make sense of a situation or concept, never taking anything at face value.

8. Allows For Creativity

Critical thinkers are also highly creative thinkers, and see themselves as limitless when it comes to possibilities. They are constantly looking to take things further, which is crucial in the workforce.

9. Enhances Problem Solving Skills

Those with critical thinking skills tend to solve problems as part of their natural instinct. Critical thinkers are patient and committed to solving the problem, similar to Albert Einstein, one of the best critical thinking examples, who said “It’s not that I’m so smart; it’s just that I stay with problems longer.” Critical thinkers’ enhanced problem-solving skills makes them better at their jobs and better at solving the world’s biggest problems. Like Einstein, they have the potential to literally change the world.

10. An Activity For The Mind

Just like our muscles, in order for them to be strong, our mind also needs to be exercised and challenged. It’s safe to say that critical thinking is almost like an activity for the mind — and it needs to be practiced. Critical thinking encourages the development of many crucial skills such as logical thinking, decision making, and open-mindness.

11. Creates Independence

When we think critically, we think on our own as we trust ourselves more. Critical thinking is key to creating independence, and encouraging students to make their own decisions and form their own opinions.

12. Crucial Life Skill

Critical thinking is crucial not just for learning, but for life overall! Education isn’t just a way to prepare ourselves for life, but it’s pretty much life itself. Learning is a lifelong process that we go through each and every day.

How to Think Critically

Now that you know the benefits of thinking critically, how do you actually do it?

How To Improve Your Critical Thinking

• Define Your Question: When it comes to critical thinking, it’s important to always keep your goal in mind. Know what you’re trying to achieve, and then figure out how to best get there.
• Gather Reliable Information: Make sure that you’re using sources you can trust — biases aside. That’s how a real critical thinker operates!
• Ask The Right Questions: We all know the importance of questions, but be sure that you’re asking the right questions that are going to get you to your answer.
• Look Short & Long Term: When coming up with solutions, think about both the short- and long-term consequences. Both of them are significant in the equation.
• Explore All Sides: There is never just one simple answer, and nothing is black or white. Explore all options and think outside of the box before you come to any conclusions.

How Is Critical Thinking Developed At School?

Critical thinking is developed in nearly everything we do. However, much of this important skill is encouraged to be practiced at school, and rightfully so! Critical thinking goes beyond just thinking clearly — it’s also about thinking for yourself.

When a teacher asks a question in class, students are given the chance to answer for themselves and think critically about what they learned and what they believe to be accurate. When students work in groups and are forced to engage in discussion, this is also a great chance to expand their thinking and use their critical thinking skills.

How Does Critical Thinking Apply To Your Career?

Once you’ve finished school and entered the workforce, your critical thinking journey only expands and grows from here!

Impress Your Employer

Employers value employees who are critical thinkers, ask questions, offer creative ideas, and are always ready to offer innovation against the competition. No matter what your position or role in a company may be, critical thinking will always give you the power to stand out and make a difference.

Careers That Require Critical Thinking

Some of many examples of careers that require critical thinking include:

• Human resources specialist
• Marketing associate
• Business analyst

Truth be told however, it’s probably harder to come up with a professional field that doesn’t require any critical thinking!

Photo by  Oladimeji Ajegbile  from  Pexels

What is someone with critical thinking skills capable of doing.

Someone with critical thinking skills is able to think rationally and clearly about what they should or not believe. They are capable of engaging in their own thoughts, and doing some reflection in order to come to a well-informed conclusion.

A critical thinker understands the connections between ideas, and is able to construct arguments based on facts, as well as find mistakes in reasoning.

The Process Of Critical Thinking

The process of critical thinking is highly systematic.

What Are Your Goals?

Critical thinking starts by defining your goals, and knowing what you are ultimately trying to achieve.

Once you know what you are trying to conclude, you can foresee your solution to the problem and play it out in your head from all perspectives.

What Does The Future Of Critical Thinking Hold?

The future of critical thinking is the equivalent of the future of jobs. In 2020, critical thinking was ranked as the 2nd top skill (following complex problem solving) by the World Economic Forum .

We are dealing with constant unprecedented changes, and what success is today, might not be considered success tomorrow — making critical thinking a key skill for the future workforce.

Why Is Critical Thinking So Important?

Why is critical thinking important? Critical thinking is more than just important! It’s one of the most crucial cognitive skills one can develop.

By practicing well-thought-out thinking, both your thoughts and decisions can make a positive change in your life, on both a professional and personal level. You can hugely improve your life by working on your critical thinking skills as often as you can.

Related Articles

How it works

For Business

Join Mind Tools

Article • 8 min read

Critical Thinking

Developing the right mindset and skills.

By the Mind Tools Content Team

We make hundreds of decisions every day and, whether we realize it or not, we're all critical thinkers.

We use critical thinking each time we weigh up our options, prioritize our responsibilities, or think about the likely effects of our actions. It's a crucial skill that helps us to cut out misinformation and make wise decisions. The trouble is, we're not always very good at it!

In this article, we'll explore the key skills that you need to develop your critical thinking skills, and how to adopt a critical thinking mindset, so that you can make well-informed decisions.

What Is Critical Thinking?

Critical thinking is the discipline of rigorously and skillfully using information, experience, observation, and reasoning to guide your decisions, actions, and beliefs. You'll need to actively question every step of your thinking process to do it well.

Collecting, analyzing and evaluating information is an important skill in life, and a highly valued asset in the workplace. People who score highly in critical thinking assessments are also rated by their managers as having good problem-solving skills, creativity, strong decision-making skills, and good overall performance. [1]

Key Critical Thinking Skills

Critical thinkers possess a set of key characteristics which help them to question information and their own thinking. Focus on the following areas to develop your critical thinking skills:

Being willing and able to explore alternative approaches and experimental ideas is crucial. Can you think through "what if" scenarios, create plausible options, and test out your theories? If not, you'll tend to write off ideas and options too soon, so you may miss the best answer to your situation.

To nurture your curiosity, stay up to date with facts and trends. You'll overlook important information if you allow yourself to become "blinkered," so always be open to new information.

But don't stop there! Look for opposing views or evidence to challenge your information, and seek clarification when things are unclear. This will help you to reassess your beliefs and make a well-informed decision later. Read our article, Opening Closed Minds , for more ways to stay receptive.

Logical Thinking

You must be skilled at reasoning and extending logic to come up with plausible options or outcomes.

It's also important to emphasize logic over emotion. Emotion can be motivating but it can also lead you to take hasty and unwise action, so control your emotions and be cautious in your judgments. Know when a conclusion is "fact" and when it is not. "Could-be-true" conclusions are based on assumptions and must be tested further. Read our article, Logical Fallacies , for help with this.

Use creative problem solving to balance cold logic. By thinking outside of the box you can identify new possible outcomes by using pieces of information that you already have.

Self-Awareness

Many of the decisions we make in life are subtly informed by our values and beliefs. These influences are called cognitive biases and it can be difficult to identify them in ourselves because they're often subconscious.

Practicing self-awareness will allow you to reflect on the beliefs you have and the choices you make. You'll then be better equipped to challenge your own thinking and make improved, unbiased decisions.

One particularly useful tool for critical thinking is the Ladder of Inference . It allows you to test and validate your thinking process, rather than jumping to poorly supported conclusions.

Developing a Critical Thinking Mindset

Combine the above skills with the right mindset so that you can make better decisions and adopt more effective courses of action. You can develop your critical thinking mindset by following this process:

Gather Information

First, collect data, opinions and facts on the issue that you need to solve. Draw on what you already know, and turn to new sources of information to help inform your understanding. Consider what gaps there are in your knowledge and seek to fill them. And look for information that challenges your assumptions and beliefs.

Be sure to verify the authority and authenticity of your sources. Not everything you read is true! Use this checklist to ensure that your information is valid:

• Are your information sources trustworthy ? (For example, well-respected authors, trusted colleagues or peers, recognized industry publications, websites, blogs, etc.)
• Is the information you have gathered up to date ?
• Has the information received any direct criticism ?
• Does the information have any errors or inaccuracies ?
• Is there any evidence to support or corroborate the information you have gathered?
• Is the information you have gathered subjective or biased in any way? (For example, is it based on opinion, rather than fact? Is any of the information you have gathered designed to promote a particular service or organization?)

If any information appears to be irrelevant or invalid, don't include it in your decision making. But don't omit information just because you disagree with it, or your final decision will be flawed and bias.

Now observe the information you have gathered, and interpret it. What are the key findings and main takeaways? What does the evidence point to? Start to build one or two possible arguments based on what you have found.

You'll need to look for the details within the mass of information, so use your powers of observation to identify any patterns or similarities. You can then analyze and extend these trends to make sensible predictions about the future.

To help you to sift through the multiple ideas and theories, it can be useful to group and order items according to their characteristics. From here, you can compare and contrast the different items. And once you've determined how similar or different things are from one another, Paired Comparison Analysis can help you to analyze them.

The final step involves challenging the information and rationalizing its arguments.

Apply the laws of reason (induction, deduction, analogy) to judge an argument and determine its merits. To do this, it's essential that you can determine the significance and validity of an argument to put it in the correct perspective. Take a look at our article, Rational Thinking , for more information about how to do this.

Once you have considered all of the arguments and options rationally, you can finally make an informed decision.

Afterward, take time to reflect on what you have learned and what you found challenging. Step back from the detail of your decision or problem, and look at the bigger picture. Record what you've learned from your observations and experience.

Critical thinking involves rigorously and skilfully using information, experience, observation, and reasoning to guide your decisions, actions and beliefs. It's a useful skill in the workplace and in life.

You'll need to be curious and creative to explore alternative possibilities, but rational to apply logic, and self-aware to identify when your beliefs could affect your decisions or actions.

You can demonstrate a high level of critical thinking by validating your information, analyzing its meaning, and finally evaluating the argument.

Critical Thinking Infographic

See Critical Thinking represented in our infographic: An Elementary Guide to Critical Thinking .

You've accessed 1 of your 2 free resources.

Get unlimited access

Discover more content

How to Guides

Planning Your Continuing Professional Development

Assess and Address Your CPD Needs

Book Insights

Do More Great Work: Stop the Busywork. Start the Work That Matters.

Michael Bungay Stanier

Add comment

Comments (1)

priyanka ghogare

Get 20% off your first year of Mind Tools

Our on-demand e-learning resources let you learn at your own pace, fitting seamlessly into your busy workday. Join today and save with our limited time offer!

Sign-up to our newsletter

Subscribing to the Mind Tools newsletter will keep you up-to-date with our latest updates and newest resources.

Subscribe now

Business Skills

Personal Development

Leadership and Management

Member Extras

Most Popular

Newest Releases

Pain Points Podcast - Balancing Work And Kids

Pain Points Podcast - Improving Culture

Mind Tools Store

About Mind Tools Content

Discover something new today

Pain points podcast - what is ai.

Exploring Artificial Intelligence

Pain Points Podcast - How Do I Get Organized?

It's Time to Get Yourself Sorted!

How Emotionally Intelligent Are You?

Boosting Your People Skills

Self-Assessment

What's Your Leadership Style?

Learn About the Strengths and Weaknesses of the Way You Like to Lead

Recommended for you

Business Operations and Process Management

Strategy Tools

Customer Service

Business Ethics and Values

Handling Information and Data

Project Management

Knowledge Management

Self-Development and Goal Setting

Time Management

Presentation Skills

Learning Skills

Career Skills

Communication Skills

Negotiation, Persuasion and Influence

Working With Others

Difficult Conversations

Creativity Tools

Self-Management

Work-Life Balance

Stress Management and Wellbeing

Coaching and Mentoring

Change Management

Team Management

Managing Conflict

Delegation and Empowerment

Performance Management

Leadership Skills

Developing Your Team

Talent Management

Problem Solving

Decision Making

Member Podcast

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

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

9.1: Thinking Critically About Sources

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 168284
• Ohio State University Libraries

This section teaches you how to identify relevant and credible sources that have most likely turned up when searching the Web and on your results pages of the library catalog and specialized databases. Remember you always want to look for relevant, credible sources that will meet the information needs of your research project.

In order to evaluate a source, you have to read and review the information keeping in mind two very important questions:

• Is this source relevant to my research question?
• Is this a credible source– a source my audience and I should be able to believe

Note: As you read an academic paper you will need to determine relevance before credibility because no matter how credible a source is if it’s not relevant to your research question it’s useless to you for this project. Reading research-centric papers can be challenging. Check out the tips in the video below.

One or more interactive elements has been excluded from this version of the text. You can view them online here: https://minnstate.pressbooks.pub/ctar/?p=165#oembed-1

UBC iSchool. (2013). How to read an academic paper . https://youtu.be/SKxm2HF_-k0

Happily, you’ll also get faster the more you do it.

Making Inferences: Good Enough for Your Purpose?

Sources should always be evaluated relative to your purpose-why you’re looking for information. But because there often aren’t clear-cut answers when you evaluate sources, most of the time it is inferences, educated guesses from available clues, that you have to make about whether to use information from particular sources.

Your information needs will dictate:

• What kind of information will help?
• How serious you consider the consequences of making a mistake by using information that turns out to be inaccurate. When the consequences aren’t very serious, it’s easier to decide if a source and its information are good enough for your purpose. Of course, there’s a lot to be said for always having accurate information, regardless.
• How hard you’re willing to work to get the credible, timely information that suits your purpose. (What you’re learning here will make it easier.)

Thus, your standards for relevance and credibility may vary, depending on whether you need, say:

• Information about a personal health problem.
• An image you can use on a poster.
• Evidence to win a bet with a rival in the dorm.
• Dates and times a movie is showing locally.
• A game to have fun with.
• Evidence for your argument in a term paper.

For your research assignments or a health problem, the consequences may be great if you use information that is not relevant or not credible.

Evaluating Sources

An interactive H5P element has been excluded from this version of the text. You can view it online here: https://minnstate.pressbooks.pub/ctar/?p=165#h5p-33

There are many approaches to evaluating your web and library resources. One that is quite useful is the SIFT process.

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
• Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection

Taking critical thinking, creativity and grit online

Miguel nussbaum.

1 School of Engineering, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile

Camila Barahona

Fernanda rodriguez, victoria guentulle, felipe lopez, enrique vazquez-uscanga, veronica cabezas.

2 School of Education, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile

Technology has the potential to facilitate the development of higher-order thinking skills in learning. There has been a rush towards online learning by education systems during COVID-19; this can therefore be seen as an opportunity to develop students’ higher-order thinking skills. In this short report we show how critical thinking and creativity can be developed in an online context, as well as highlighting the importance of grit. We also suggest the importance of heuristic evaluation in the design of online systems to support twenty-first century learning.

Introduction

This paper is in response to the article “Designing for 21st century learning online: a heuristic method to enable educator learning support roles” (Nacu et al. 2018 ). In this paper, the authors outline a framework for heuristic evaluation when designing online experiences to support twenty-first century learning.

Twenty-first century skills can be key to success in a modern knowledge society. Among these skills, critical thinking is important not only at work, where problem solving is essential, but also in any social setting where adequate decision making is required (Dwyer and Walsh 2020 ). Additionally, creativity helps ensure that the outcomes of critical thinking can be both culturally ingenious as well as treasured (Yeh et al. 2019b ). This is achieved by embracing cognitive abilities in order to create new combinations of ideas (Davis 1969 ).

Technology has been shown to facilitate the development of higher-order thinking skills in learning (Engerman et al. 2018 ). However, in general, schools have failed to take advantage of this by incorporating adequate use of technology into their practices (Olszewski and Crompton 2020 ). Therefore, the rush towards online learning by education systems during COVID-19 can also be seen as an opportunity to develop students’ higher-order thinking skills. One potential drawback with online learning is the distance it creates between peers, thus hindering student engagement and the development of higher-order thinking skills (Dwyer and Walsh 2020 ). We show how this barrier can be overcome when developing critical thinking and creativity in an online context.

Critical thinking

Critical thinking includes the ability to identify the main elements and assumptions of an argument and the relationships between them, as well as drawing conclusions based on the information that is available, evaluating evidence, and self-correcting, among others. It is seen as a self-regulated process that comes from developing skills such as interpretation, analysis, evaluation and explanation; going beyond technical skills. It can therefore be considered a metacognitive process (Saxton et al. 2012 ; Facione 1990 ).

By taking learning online, both self-study and teacher-led sessions can be enhanced through a problem-based learning strategy. In the first stage, students build on a question or topic posed by the teacher, e.g. a mathematical problem or an essay writing assignment. In the second stage, students peer-review their classmates’ responses or essays using a rubric provided by the teacher. Students break down their classmates’ responses and see how they relate to the objective of the activity. They then compare this analysis with the rubric in order to provide feedback. In a third stage, the students develop a new response based on their initial response, the experience of giving feedback, and the feedback they received. This process develops self-evaluation as the students compare their own response with their classmates’ and discover any gaps in their knowledge. It can also develop metacognition as they integrate various sources of knowledge (initial response, feedback received and the experience of giving feedback) when developing a new response. In the final stage, the teacher discusses the different responses with the class. The teacher then compares the students’ work with the expected response and provides a general summary, transferring the responses to different domains.

While Stages 1 through 3 are asynchronous and computer-aided, stage 4 can be synchronous and supported by the use of a web-based video conferencing tool. Active student participation and teacher mediation are both key since interactive and instant feedback has been shown to improve critical thinking (Chang et al. 2020 ).

In addition to the problem-based strategy presented here, other active learning strategies can also be used to develop critical thinking, e.g. structured questioning, role playing, and cooperative learning (Cruz and Dominguez 2020 ). How these might be implemented online is still open to discussion, though heuristic evaluations may be a good alternative given the possibilities presented by online learning as a resource provider, learning broker and learning promoter (Nacu et al. 2018 ).

Creativity is an essential element of the problem-solving process. Creative people often find ways of addressing a problem that others cannot see, while also having the ability to overcome barriers where others may otherwise give up (Kaufman 2016 ). There are different techniques for developing creativity. In-depth learning is facilitated when students represent concepts based on their own personal perceptions (Liu et al. 2018 ). In this sense, analogy can be a powerful tool for boosting creativity. Analogical transfer includes the idea of making analogies by analyzing objects, ideas or concepts across domains, i.e. information is transferred from the known (the original domain) to the unknown (the new domain) by searching for similarities (Shen and Lai 2014 ).

We propose an analogical transfer strategy. In the first stage, the teacher identifies a concept with examples from different domains. This might include showing a video that not only introduces the concept but also provides a context that is both familiar and relatable for the students. In the second stage, students reflect on situations from their own lives where they can apply the concept that is being studied. Here, the use of open-ended questions allows the students’ creativity to be explored in greater depth, while adapting to their different backgrounds and levels of prior knowledge. In the third stage, which is mediated by the teacher, the students discuss their responses from stage 2. The teacher should focus on original responses from different domains, or responses where it is not clear whether the solution is correct.

Stages 1 and 2 can be conducted asynchronously and scaffolded using technology through the inclusion of multimedia and student guides. However, stage 3 should be synchronous and supported by the use of a web-based video conferencing tool. In this way, technology facilitates the development of creativity by facilitating the discovery process, the collection of ideas, and the integration of knowledge (Yang et al. 2018 ). Mediation in stage 3 is therefore key (Giacumo and Savenye 2020 ). Effective teacher-student dialogue can improve the teacher-student relationship and enhance the creative process. Heuristic evaluation can therefore help us understand this relationship by looking at these interactions on the online platform (Nacu et al. 2018 ).

As with any learning process, critical thinking and creativity require students to be both present and focused, which in turn requires grit (Yeh et al. 2019a ). In other words, the way in which students approach their schooling is just as important as what and how we teach them (Tissenbaum 2020 ). Grit should therefore not only be considered an essential element of academic achievement but also as a mental process that activates and/or directs people’s behavior and actions (Datu et al. 2018 , Lan and Moscardino 2019 ). This is particularly relevant in a COVID-19 context, where the pandemic is affecting the wellbeing and mental health of many students, families & communities (OECD 2020 ).

In order to achieve effective student engagement, the objective must be attainable, interesting and accessible (i.e. in their zone of proximal development). The means used to complete the task must be attractive and feel more like a reward than an assignment. Finally, the teacher should work on the students’ persistence, not just in order to complete the task but as an essential quality for everyday life (Barnes 2019 ).

Teacher grit may also be key. As Haderer ( 2020 ) suggests “Why do some teachers stay when others run from the challenges?” In this sense, reflection has been shown to be relevant for teacher efficacy and grit (Haderer 2020 ). Heuristic evaluation methods may therefore allow the educator to understand the learning system as a whole (Nacu et al. 2018 ).

Ending remarks

As indicated in (Nacu et al. 2018 ) we are “faced with the need to create youth-centered spaces that also provide adult facilitation of learning”. Heuristic evaluation can therefore help connect online platforms with students, teachers and twenty-first century skills needs.

Acknowledgements

The research results informed in this report were supported by ANID/FONDECYT 1180024.

Biographies

is full professor for Computer Science at the School of Engineering of the Universidad Católica de Chile. He was member of the board of the Chilean Agency for the Quality of Education in Chile, and is Co-editor of Computers & Education.

is a teacher who is doing a PhD at the School of Engineering of the Universidad Católica de Chile.

is an engineer who is doing a PhD at the School of Engineering of the Universidad Católica de Chile.

is an Assistant Professor at the School of Education, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, and associate researcher at Millennium Nucleus of Social Development. She is co-founder of Teach for all in Chile (Enseña Chile), and an NGO in Chile to foster high school students to choose the education career (Elige Educar).

Compliance with ethical standards

The different research projects underlying this report received approval from the University’s ethics committee. The participation was voluntary and the students signed an informed consent form.

Publisher's Note

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

Contributor Information

Miguel Nussbaum, Email: lc.cup.gni@nm .

Camila Barahona, Email: lc.cu@oharabec .

Fernanda Rodriguez, Email: lc.cu@3irdorfm .

Victoria Guentulle, Email: lc.cu@utneugav .

Felipe Lopez, Email: lc.cu@1zepolif .

Enrique Vazquez-Uscanga, Email: lc.cu@zeuqzavae .

Veronica Cabezas, Email: [email protected] .

• Barnes A. Perseverance in mathematical reasoning: The role of children’s conative focus in the productive interplay between cognition and affect. Research in Mathematics Education. 2019; 21 (3):271–294. doi: 10.1080/14794802.2019.1590229. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chang CY, Kao CH, Hwang GJ, Lin FH. From experiencing to critical thinking: A contextual game-based learning approach to improving nursing students’ performance in electrocardiogram training. Educational Technology Research and Development. 2020; 68 (3):1225–1245. doi: 10.1007/s11423-019-09723-x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cruz, G., & Dominguez, C. (2020, April). Engaging students, teachers, and professionals with 21st century skills: the ‘Critical Thinking Day’ proposal as an integrated model for engineering educational activities. In 2020 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON) (pp. 1969–1974). IEEE.
• Datu JAD, Yuen M, Chen G. The triarchic model of grit is linked to academic success and well-being among Filipino high school students. School Psychology Quarterly. 2018; 33 (3):428–438. doi: 10.1037/spq0000234. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Davis GA. Training creativity in adolescence: A discussion of strategy. The Journal of Creative Behavior. 1969; 3 (2):95–104. doi: 10.1002/j.2162-6057.1969.tb00050.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dwyer CP, Walsh A. An exploratory quantitative case study of critical thinking development through adult distance learning. Educational Technology Research and Development. 2020; 68 :17–35. doi: 10.1007/s11423-019-09659-2. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Engerman JA, MacAllan M, Carr-Chellman AA. Games for boys: A qualitative study of experiences with commercial off the shelf gaming. Educational Technology Research and Development. 2018; 66 :313–339. doi: 10.1007/s11423-017-9548-8. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Facione PA. Critical thinking: A statement of expert consensus for purposes of educational assessment and instruction executive summary “the Delphi report” The California Academic Press. 1990; 423 (c):1–19. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2009.07.002. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Giacumo, L. A., & Savenye, W. (2020). Asynchronous discussion forum design to support cognition: Effects of rubrics and instructor prompts on learner’s critical thinking, achievement, and satisfaction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68 (1), 37–66.
• Haderer, A. M. (2020). Exploring the relationship between teacher efficacy and grit. Doctoral dissertation, Shenandoah University.
• Kaufman JC. Creativity 101. 2. New York: Springer; 2016. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lan X, Moscardino U. Direct and interactive effects of perceived teacher-student relationship and grit on student wellbeing among stay-behind early adolescents in urban China. Learning and Individual Differences. 2019; 69 :129–137. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2018.12.003. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Liu K, Tai SD, Liu C. Enhancing language learning through creation: The effect of digital storytelling on student learning motivation and performance in a school English course. Educational Technology Research and Development. 2018; 66 :913–935. doi: 10.1007/s11423-018-9592-z. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nacu D, Martin CK, Pinkard N. Designing for 21st century learning online: A heuristic method to enable educator learning support roles. Educational Technology Research and Development. 2018; 66 (4):1029–1049. doi: 10.1007/s11423-018-9603-0. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Olszewski B, Crompton H. Educational technology conditions to support the development of digital age skills. Computers & Education. 2020; 150 :103849. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103849. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• OECD. (2020). A framework to guide an education response to the COVID-19 Pandemic of 2020. https://read.oecd-ilibrary.org/view/?ref=126_126988-t63lxosohs&title=A-framework-to-guide-an-education-response-to-the-Covid-19-Pandemic-of-2020
• Saxton E, Belanger S, Becker W. The Critical Thinking Analytic Rubric (CTAR): Investigating intra-rater and inter-rater reliability of a scoring mechanism for critical thinking performance assessments. Assessing Writing. 2012; 17 (4):251–270. doi: 10.1016/j.asw.2012.07.002. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shen, T., & Lai, J. (2014). Formation of creative thinking by analogical performance in creative works. The European Journal of Social & Behavioural Sciences , 1159–1167. 10.15405/ejsbs.95.
• Tissenbaum M. I see what you did there! Divergent collaboration and learner transitions from unproductive to productive states in open-ended inquiry. Computers & Education. 2020; 145 :103739. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103739. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yang X, Lin L, Cheng PY, Yang X, Ren Y, Huang YM. Examining creativity through a virtual reality support system. Educational Technology Research and Development. 2018; 66 (5):1231–1254. doi: 10.1007/s11423-018-9604-z. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yeh YC, Chang HL, Chen SY. Mindful learning: A mediator of mastery experience during digital creativity game-based learning among elementary school students. Computers & Education. 2019; 132 :63–75. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2019.01.001. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yeh YC, Rega EM, Chen SY. Enhancing creativity through aesthetics-integrated computer-based training: The effectiveness of a FACE approach and exploration of moderators. Computers & Education. 2019; 139 :48–64. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2019.05.007. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

7 Critical Thinking and Evaluating Information

In this chapter, you will read a chapter on Critical Thinking and Evaluating Information from a module on Effective Learning Strategies, Student Success by Jazzabel Maya at Austin Community College, Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Share Alike

Use warming up, working out, and cooling down strategies to read the chapter. You will participate in a discussion and write a journal after you finish reading.

Remember to write down the strategies you’re using to warm up, work out, and cool down.

LEARNING OBJECTIVES

By the end of this section, you will be able to:

• Define critical thinking
• Describe the role that logic plays in critical thinking
• Describe how both critical and creative thinking skills can be used to problem-solve
• Describe how critical thinking skills can be used to evaluate information
• Apply the CRAAP test to evaluate sources of information
• Identify strategies for developing yourself as a critical thinker

Critical Thinking and Evaluating Information

Critical Thinking

As a college student, you are tasked with engaging and expanding your thinking skills. One of the most important of these skills is critical thinking because it relates to nearly all tasks, situations, topics, careers, environments, challenges, and opportunities. It is a “domain-general” thinking skill, not one that is specific to a particular subject area.

What Is Critical Thinking?

Critical thinking  is clear, reasonable, reflective thinking focused on deciding what to believe or do. It means asking probing questions like “How do we know?” or “Is this true in every case or just in this instance?” It involves being skeptical and challenging assumptions rather than simply memorizing facts or blindly accepting what you hear or read.

Imagine, for example, that you’re reading a history textbook. You wonder who wrote it and why, because you detect certain biases in the writing. You find that the author has a limited scope of research focused only on a particular group within a population. In this case, your critical thinking reveals that there are “other sides to the story.”

Who are critical thinkers, and what characteristics do they have in common? Critical thinkers are usually curious and reflective people. They like to explore and probe new areas and seek knowledge, clarification, and new solutions. They ask pertinent questions, evaluate statements and arguments, and they distinguish between facts and opinion. They are also willing to examine their own beliefs, possessing a manner of humility that allows them to admit lack of knowledge or understanding when needed. They are open to changing their mind. Perhaps most of all, they actively enjoy learning, and seeking new knowledge is a lifelong pursuit. This may well be you!

No matter where you are on the road to being a critical thinker, you can always more fully develop and finely tune your skills. Doing so will help you develop more balanced arguments, express yourself clearly, read critically, and glean important information efficiently. Critical thinking skills will help you in any profession or any circumstance of life, from science to art to business to teaching. With critical thinking, you become a clearer thinker and problem solver.

Critical Thinking and Logic

Critical thinking is fundamentally a process of questioning information and data. You may question the information you read in a textbook, or you may question what a politician or a professor or a classmate says. You can also question a commonly-held belief or a new idea. With critical thinking, anything and everything is subject to question and examination for the purpose of logically constructing reasoned perspectives.

What Is Logic?

The word  logic  comes from the Ancient Greek  logike , referring to the science or art of reasoning. Using logic, a person evaluates arguments and reasoning and strives to distinguish between good and bad reasoning, or between truth and falsehood. Using logic, you can evaluate the ideas and claims of others, make good decisions, and form sound beliefs about the world. [1]

Questions of Logic in Critical Thinking

Let’s use a simple example of applying logic to a critical-thinking situation. In this hypothetical scenario, a man has a Ph.D. in political science, and he works as a professor at a local college. His wife works at the college, too. They have three young children in the local school system, and their family is well known in the community. The man is now running for political office. Are his credentials and experience sufficient for entering public office? Will he be effective in the political office? Some voters might believe that his personal life and current job, on the surface, suggest he will do well in the position, and they will vote for him. In truth, the characteristics described don’t guarantee that the man will do a good job. The information is somewhat irrelevant. What else might you want to know? How about whether the man had already held a political office and done a good job? In this case, we want to think critically about how much information is adequate in order to make a decision based on  logic  instead of  assumptions.

The following questions, presented in Figure 1, below, are ones you may apply to formulating a logical, reasoned perspective in the above scenario or any other situation:

• What’s happening?  Gather the basic information and begin to think of questions.
• Why is it important?  Ask yourself why it’s significant and whether or not you agree.
• What don’t I see?  Is there anything important missing?
• How do I know?  Ask yourself where the information came from and how it was constructed.
• Who is saying it?  What’s the position of the speaker and what is influencing them?
• What else?   What if?  What other ideas exist and are there other possibilities?

Problem-Solving with Critical Thinking

For most people, a typical day is filled with critical thinking and problem-solving challenges. In fact, critical thinking and problem-solving go hand-in-hand. They both refer to using knowledge, facts, and data to solve problems effectively. But with problem-solving, you are specifically identifying, selecting, and defending your solution. Below are some examples of using critical thinking to problem-solve:

• Your roommate was upset and said some unkind words to you, which put a crimp in the relationship. You try to see through the angry behaviors to determine how you might best support the roommate and help bring the relationship back to a comfortable spot.
• Your campus club has been languishing due to lack of participation and funds. The new club president, though, is a marketing major and has identified some strategies to interest students in joining and supporting the club. Implementation is forthcoming.
• Your final art class project challenges you to conceptualize form in new ways. On the last day of class when students present their projects, you describe the techniques you used to fulfill the assignment. You explain why and how you selected that approach.
• Your math teacher sees that the class is not quite grasping a concept. She uses clever questioning to dispel anxiety and guide you to a new understanding of the concept.
• You have a job interview for a position that you feel you are only partially qualified for, although you really want the job and you are excited about the prospects. You analyze how you will explain your skills and experiences in a way to show that you are a good match for the prospective employer.
• You are doing well in college, and most of your college and living expenses are covered. But there are some gaps between what you want and what you feel you can afford. You analyze your income, savings, and budget to better calculate what you will need to stay in college and maintain your desired level of spending.

Problem-Solving Action Checklist

Problem-solving can be an efficient and rewarding process, especially if you are organized and mindful of critical steps and strategies. Remember to assume the attributes of a good critical thinker: if you are curious, reflective, knowledge-seeking, open to change, probing, organized, and ethical, your challenge or problem will be less of a hurdle, and you’ll be in a good position to find intelligent solutions. The steps outlined in this checklist will help you adhere to these qualities in your approach to any problem:

Critical and Creative Thinking

Critical and creative thinking (described in more detail in Chapter 6: Theories of Learning) complement each other when it comes to problem-solving. The following words, by Dr. Andrew Robert Baker, are excerpted from his “Thinking Critically and Creatively” essay. Dr. Baker illuminates some of the many ways that college students will be exposed to critical and creative thinking and how it can enrich their learning experiences.

THINKING CRITICALLY AND CREATIVELY Critical thinking skills are perhaps the most fundamental skills involved in making judgments and solving problems. You use them every day, and you can continue improving them. The ability to think critically about a matter—to analyze a question, situation, or problem down to its most basic parts—is what helps us evaluate the accuracy and truthfulness of statements, claims, and information we read and hear. It is the sharp knife that, when honed, separates fact from fiction, honesty from lies, and the accurate from the misleading. We all use this skill to one degree or another almost every day. For example, we use critical thinking every day as we consider the latest consumer products and why one particular product is the best among its peers. Is it a quality product because a celebrity endorses it? Because a lot of other people may have used it? Because it is made by one company versus another? Or perhaps because it is made in one country or another? These are questions representative of critical thinking. The academic setting demands more of us in terms of critical thinking than everyday life. It demands that we evaluate information and analyze myriad issues. It is the environment where our critical thinking skills can be the difference between success and failure. In this environment we must consider information in an analytical, critical manner. We must ask questions—What is the source of this information? Is this source an expert one and what makes it so? Are there multiple perspectives to consider on an issue? Do multiple sources agree or disagree on an issue? Does quality research substantiate information or opinion? Do I have any personal biases that may affect my consideration of this information? It is only through purposeful, frequent, intentional questioning such as this that we can sharpen our critical thinking skills and improve as students, learners and researchers. While critical thinking analyzes information and roots out the true nature and facets of problems, it is creative thinking that drives progress forward when it comes to solving these problems. Exceptional creative thinkers are people that invent new solutions to existing problems that do not rely on past or current solutions. They are the ones who invent solution C when everyone else is still arguing between A and B. Creative thinking skills involve using strategies to clear the mind so that our thoughts and ideas can transcend the current limitations of a problem and allow us to see beyond barriers that prevent new solutions from being found. Brainstorming is the simplest example of intentional creative thinking that most people have tried at least once. With the quick generation of many ideas at once, we can block-out our brain’s natural tendency to limit our solution-generating abilities so we can access and combine many possible solutions/thoughts and invent new ones. It is sort of like sprinting through a race’s finish line only to find there is new track on the other side and we can keep going, if we choose. As with critical thinking, higher education both demands creative thinking from us and is the perfect place to practice and develop the skill. Everything from word problems in a math class, to opinion or persuasive speeches and papers, call upon our creative thinking skills to generate new solutions and perspectives in response to our professor’s demands. Creative thinking skills ask questions such as—What if? Why not? What else is out there? Can I combine perspectives/solutions? What is something no one else has brought-up? What is being forgotten/ignored? What about ______? It is the opening of doors and options that follows problem-identification. Consider an assignment that required you to compare two different authors on the topic of education and select and defend one as better. Now add to this scenario that your professor clearly prefers one author over the other. While critical thinking can get you as far as identifying the similarities and differences between these authors and evaluating their merits, it is creative thinking that you must use if you wish to challenge your professor’s opinion and invent new perspectives on the authors that have not previously been considered. So, what can we do to develop our critical and creative thinking skills? Although many students may dislike it, group work is an excellent way to develop our thinking skills. Many times I have heard from students their disdain for working in groups based on scheduling, varied levels of commitment to the group or project, and personality conflicts too, of course. True—it’s not always easy, but that is why it is so effective. When we work collaboratively on a project or problem we bring many brains to bear on a subject. These different brains will naturally develop varied ways of solving or explaining problems and examining information. To the observant individual we see that this places us in a constant state of back and forth critical/creative thinking modes. For example, in group work we are simultaneously analyzing information and generating solutions on our own, while challenging other’s analyses/ideas and responding to challenges to our own analyses/ideas. This is part of why students tend to avoid group work—it challenges us as thinkers and forces us to analyze others while defending ourselves, which is not something we are used to or comfortable with as most of our educational experiences involve solo work. Your professors know this—that’s why we assign it—to help you grow as students, learners, and thinkers! —Dr. Andrew Robert Baker,  Foundations of Academic Success: Words of Wisdom

Evaluating Information with Critical Thinking

Evaluating information can be one of the most complex tasks you will be faced with in college. But if you utilize the following four strategies, you will be well on your way to success:

• Read for understanding
• Examine arguments
• Clarify thinking
• Cultivate “habits of mind”

Read for Understanding

When you read, take notes or mark the text to track your thinking about what you are reading. As you make connections and ask questions in response to what you read,  you monitor your comprehension and enhance your long-term understanding of the material. You will want to mark important arguments and key facts. Indicate where you agree and disagree or have further questions. You don’t necessarily need to read every word, but make sure you understand the concepts or the intentions behind what is written. See the chapter on  Active Reading Strategies  for additional tips.

Examine Arguments

When you examine arguments or claims that an author, speaker, or other source is making, your goal is to identify and examine the hard facts. You can use the spectrum of authority strategy for this purpose. The spectrum of authority strategy assists you in identifying the “hot” end of an argument—feelings, beliefs, cultural influences, and societal influences—and the “cold” end of an argument—scientific influences. The most compelling arguments balance elements from both ends of the spectrum. The following video explains this strategy in further detail:

Clarify Thinking

When you use critical thinking to evaluate information, you need to clarify your thinking to yourself and likely to others. Doing this well is mainly a process of asking and answering probing questions, such as the logic questions discussed earlier. Design your questions to fit your needs, but be sure to cover adequate ground. What is the purpose? What question are we trying to answer? What point of view is being expressed? What assumptions are we or others making? What are the facts and data we know, and how do we know them? What are the concepts we’re working with? What are the conclusions, and do they make sense? What are the implications?

Cultivate “Habits of Mind”

“Habits of mind” are the personal commitments, values, and standards you have about the principle of good thinking. Consider your intellectual commitments, values, and standards. Do you approach problems with an open mind, a respect for truth, and an inquiring attitude? Some good habits to have when thinking critically are being receptive to having your opinions changed, having respect for others, being independent and not accepting something is true until you’ve had the time to examine the available evidence, being fair-minded, having respect for a reason, having an inquiring mind, not making assumptions, and always, especially, questioning your own conclusions—in other words, developing an intellectual work ethic. Try to work these qualities into your daily life.

In 2010, a textbook being used in fourth-grade classrooms in Virginia became big news for all the wrong reasons. The book,  Our Virginia  by Joy Masoff, had caught the attention of a parent who was helping her child do her homework, according to  an article in  The Washington Post . Carol Sheriff was a historian for the College of William and Mary and as she worked with her daughter, she began to notice some glaring historical errors, not the least of which was a passage which described how thousands of African Americans fought for the South during the Civil War.

Further investigation into the book revealed that, although the author had written textbooks on a variety of subjects, she was not a trained historian. The research she had done to write  Our Virginia,  and in particular the information she included about Black Confederate soldiers, was done through the Internet and included sources created by groups like the Sons of Confederate Veterans, an organization which promotes views of history that de-emphasize the role of slavery in the Civil War.

How did a book with errors like these come to be used as part of the curriculum and who was at fault? Was it Masoff for using untrustworthy sources for her research? Was it the editors who allowed the book to be published with these errors intact? Was it the school board for approving the book without more closely reviewing its accuracy?

There are a number of issues at play in the case of  Our Virginia , but there’s no question that evaluating sources is an important part of the research process and doesn’t just apply to Internet sources. Using inaccurate, irrelevant, or poorly researched sources can affect the quality of your own work. Being able to understand and apply the concepts that follow is crucial to becoming a more savvy user and creator of information.

When you begin evaluating sources, what should you consider? The  CRAAP test  is a series of common evaluative elements you can use to evaluate the  C urrency,  R elevance,  A uthority,  A ccuracy, and  P urpose of your sources. The CRAAP test was developed by librarians at California State University at Chico and it gives you a good, overall set of elements to look for when evaluating a resource. Let’s consider what each of these evaluative elements means. You can visit the ACC Library’s Web page for a tutorial on  Evaluating Information  using the CRAAP test.

One of the most important and interesting steps to take as you begin researching a subject is selecting the resources that will help you build your thesis and support your assertions. Certain topics require you to pay special attention to how current your resource is—because they are time sensitive, because they have evolved so much over the years, or because new research comes out on the topic so frequently. When evaluating the currency of an article, consider the following:

• When was the item written, and how frequently does the publication come out?
• Is there evidence of newly added or updated information in the item?
• If the information is dated, is it still suitable for your topic?
• How frequently does information change about your topic?

Understanding what resources are most applicable to your subject and why they are applicable can help you focus and refine your thesis. Many topics are broad and searching for information on them produces a wide range of resources. Narrowing your topic and focusing on resources specific to your needs can help reduce the piles of information and help you focus in on what is truly important to read and reference. When determining relevance consider the following:

• Does the item contain information relevant to your argument or thesis?
• Read the article’s introduction, thesis, and conclusion.
• Scan main headings and identify article keywords.
• For book resources, start with the index or table of contents—how wide a scope does the item have? Will you use part or all of this resource?
• Does the information presented support or refute your ideas?
• If the information refutes your ideas, how will this change your argument?
• Does the material provide you with current information?
• What is the material’s intended audience?

Understanding more about your information’s source helps you determine when, how, and where to use that information. Is your author an expert on the subject? Do they have some personal stake in the argument they are making? What is the author or information producer’s background? When determining the authority of your source, consider the following:

• What are the author’s credentials?
• What is the author’s level of education, experience, and/or occupation?
• What qualifies the author to write about this topic?
• What affiliations does the author have? Could these affiliations affect their position?
• What organization or body published the information? Is it authoritative? Does it have an explicit position or bias?

Determining where information comes from, if the evidence supports the information, and if the information has been reviewed or refereed can help you decide how and whether to use a source. When determining the accuracy of a source, consider the following:

• Is the source well-documented? Does it include footnotes, citations, or a bibliography?
• Is information in the source presented as fact, opinion, or propaganda? Are biases clear?
• Can you verify information from the references cited in the source?
• Is the information written clearly and free of typographical and grammatical mistakes? Does the source look to be edited before publication? A clean, well-presented paper does not always indicate accuracy, but usually at least means more eyes have been on the information.

Knowing why the information was created is a key to evaluation. Understanding the reason or purpose of the information, if the information has clear intentions, or if the information is fact, opinion, or propaganda will help you decide how and why to use information:

• Is the author’s purpose to inform, sell, persuade, or entertain?
• Does the source have an obvious bias or prejudice?
• Is the article presented from multiple points of view?
• Does the author omit important facts or data that might disprove their argument?
• Is the author’s language informal, joking, emotional, or impassioned?
• Is the information clearly supported by evidence?

When you feel overwhelmed by the information you are finding, the CRAAP test can help you determine which information is the most useful to your research topic. How you respond to what you find out using the CRAAP test will depend on your topic. Maybe you want to use two overtly biased resources to inform an overview of typical arguments in a particular field. Perhaps your topic is historical and currency means the past hundred years rather than the past one or two years. Use the CRAAP test, be knowledgeable about your topic, and you will be on your way to evaluating information efficiently and well!

Developing Yourself As a Critical Thinker

Critical thinking is a fundamental skill for college students, but it should also be a lifelong pursuit. Below are additional strategies to develop yourself as a critical thinker in college and in everyday life:

• Reflect and practice : Always reflect on what you’ve learned. Is it true all the time? How did you arrive at your conclusions?
• Use wasted time : It’s certainly important to make time for relaxing, but if you find you are indulging in too much of a good thing, think about using your time more constructively. Determine when you do your best thinking and try to learn something new during that part of the day.
• Redefine the way you see things : It can be very uninteresting to always think the same way. Challenge yourself to see familiar things in new ways. Put yourself in someone else’s shoes and consider things from a different angle or perspective.  If you’re trying to solve a problem, list all your concerns: what you need in order to solve it, who can help, what some possible barriers might be, etc. It’s often possible to reframe a problem as an opportunity. Try to find a solution where there seems to be none.
• Analyze the influences on your thinking and in your life : Why do you think or feel the way you do? Analyze your influences. Think about who in your life influences you. Do you feel or react a certain way because of social convention, or because you believe it is what is expected of you? Try to break out of any molds that may be constricting you.
• Express yourself : Critical thinking also involves being able to express yourself clearly. Most important in expressing yourself clearly is stating one point at a time. You might be inclined to argue every thought, but you might have greater impact if you focus just on your main arguments. This will help others to follow your thinking clearly. For more abstract ideas, assume that your audience may not understand. Provide examples, analogies, or metaphors where you can.
• Enhance your wellness : It’s easier to think critically when you take care of your mental and physical health. Try taking activity breaks throughout the day to reach 30 to 60 minutes of physical activity each day. Scheduling physical activity into your day can help lower stress and increase mental alertness. Also,  do your most difficult work when you have the most energy . Think about the time of day you are most effective and have the most energy. Plan to do your most difficult work during these times. And be sure to  reach out for help i f you feel you need assistance with your mental or physical health (see  Maintaining Your Mental and Physical Health  for more information).

Complete Section #2 Below: ACTIVITY: REFLECT ON CRITICAL THINKING

Key takeaways.

• Critical thinking is logical and reflective thinking focused on deciding what to believe or do.
• Critical thinking involves questioning and evaluating information.
• Critical and creative thinking both contribute to our ability to solve problems in a variety of contexts.
• Evaluating information is a complex, but essential, process. You can use the CRAAP test to help determine if sources and information are reliable.
• You can take specific actions to develop and strengthen your critical thinking skills.

Use the warm up, work out, and cool down strategies for a discussion.

Prepare for a discussion by writing down the main ideas and most important supporting points in this chapter. Prepare several of your own responses to the supporting points. These might be examples of how you use critical thinking in your life. What questions might you be prepared to ask your fellow students during this discussion.

After the discussion, reflect on what you’ve learned from the other students.

Use warm up, work out, and cool down strategies for this journal writing activity.

Think about someone you consider to be a critical thinker (friend, professor, historical figure, etc). What qualities does he/she have?

• Review some of the critical thinking strategies discussed on this page. Pick one strategy that makes sense to you. How can you apply this critical thinking technique to your academic work?
• Habits of mind are attitudes and beliefs that influence how you approach the world (i.e., inquiring attitude, open mind, respect for truth, etc). What is one habit of mind you would like to actively develop over the next year? How will you develop a daily practice to cultivate this habit?
• Write your responses in journal form, and submit according to your instructor’s guidelines.

Academic Literacy Copyright © by Lori-Beth Larsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

The Importance of Critical Thinking Skills in Research

Why is Critical Thinking Important: A Disruptive Force

Research anxiety seems to be taking an increasingly dominant role in the world of academic research. The pressure to publish or perish can warp your focus into thinking that the only good research is publishable research!

Today, your role as the researcher appears to take a back seat to the perceived value of the topic and the extent to which the results of the study will be cited around the world. Due to financial pressures and a growing tendency of risk aversion, studies are increasingly going down the path of applied research rather than basic or pure research . The potential for breakthroughs is being deliberately limited to incremental contributions from researchers who are forced to worry more about job security and pleasing their paymasters than about making a significant contribution to their field.

A Slow Decline

So what lead the researchers to their love of science and scientific research in the first place? The answer is critical thinking skills. The more that academic research becomes governed by policies outside of the research process, the less opportunity there will be for researchers to exercise such skills.

True research demands new ideas , perspectives, and arguments based on willingness and confidence to revisit and directly challenge existing schools of thought and established positions on theories and accepted codes of practice. Success comes from a recursive approach to the research question with an iterative refinement based on constant reflection and revision.

The importance of critical thinking skills in research is therefore huge, without which researchers may even lack the confidence to challenge their own assumptions.

A Misunderstood Skill

Critical thinking is widely recognized as a core competency and as a precursor to research. Employers value it as a requirement for every position they post, and every survey of potential employers for graduates in local markets rate the skill as their number one concern.

Related: Do you have questions on research idea or manuscript drafting? Get personalized answers on the FREE Q&A Forum!

When asked to clarify what critical thinking means to them, employers will use such phrases as “the ability to think independently,” or “the ability to think on their feet,” or “to show some initiative and resolve a problem without direct supervision.” These are all valuable skills, but how do you teach them?

For higher education institutions in particular, when you are being assessed against dropout, graduation, and job placement rates, where does a course in critical thinking skills fit into the mix? Student Success courses as a precursor to your first undergraduate course will help students to navigate the campus and whatever online resources are available to them (including the tutoring center), but that doesn’t equate to raising critical thinking competencies.

The Dependent Generation

As education becomes increasingly commoditized and broken-down into components that can be delivered online for maximum productivity and profitability, we run the risk of devaluing academic discourse and independent thought. Larger class sizes preclude substantive debate, and the more that content is broken into sound bites that can be tested in multiple-choice questions, the less requirement there will be for original thought.

Academic journals value citation above all else, and so content is steered towards the type of articles that will achieve high citation volume. As such, students and researchers will perpetuate such misuse by ensuring that their papers include only highly cited works. And the objective of high citation volume is achieved.

We expand the body of knowledge in any field by challenging the status quo. Denying the veracity of commonly accepted “facts” or playing devil’s advocate with established rules supports a necessary insurgency that drives future research. If we do not continue to emphasize the need for critical thinking skills to preserve such rebellion, academic research may begin to slowly fade away.

Rate this article Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Enago Academy's Most Popular Articles

• Reporting Research

Choosing the Right Analytical Approach: Thematic analysis vs. content analysis for data interpretation

In research, choosing the right approach to understand data is crucial for deriving meaningful insights.…

Comparing Cross Sectional and Longitudinal Studies: 5 steps for choosing the right approach

The process of choosing the right research design can put ourselves at the crossroads of…

• Career Corner

Unlocking the Power of Networking in Academic Conferences

Embarking on your first academic conference experience? Fear not, we got you covered! Academic conferences…

Research Recommendations – Guiding policy-makers for evidence-based decision making

Research recommendations play a crucial role in guiding scholars and researchers toward fruitful avenues of…

• AI in Academia

Disclosing the Use of Generative AI: Best practices for authors in manuscript preparation

The rapid proliferation of generative and other AI-based tools in research writing has ignited an…

Intersectionality in Academia: Dealing with diverse perspectives

Meritocracy and Diversity in Science: Increasing inclusivity in STEM education

Avoiding the AI Trap: Pitfalls of relying on ChatGPT for PhD applications

Sign-up to read more

Subscribe for free to get unrestricted access to all our resources on research writing and academic publishing including:

• 2000+ blog articles
• 50+ Webinars
• 10+ Expert podcasts
• 50+ Infographics
• 10+ Checklists
• Research Guides

We hate spam too. We promise to protect your privacy and never spam you.

I am looking for Editing/ Proofreading services for my manuscript Tentative date of next journal submission:

What should universities' stance be on AI tools in research and academic writing?

• 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

Critical Thinking Is About Asking Better Questions

• John Coleman

Six practices to sharpen your inquiry.

Critical thinking is the ability to analyze and effectively break down an issue in order to make a decision or find a solution. At the heart of critical thinking is the ability to formulate deep, different, and effective questions. For effective questioning, start by holding your hypotheses loosely. Be willing to fundamentally reconsider your initial conclusions — and do so without defensiveness. Second, listen more than you talk through active listening. Third, leave your queries open-ended, and avoid yes-or-no questions. Fourth, consider the counterintuitive to avoid falling into groupthink. Fifth, take the time to stew in a problem, rather than making decisions unnecessarily quickly. Last, ask thoughtful, even difficult, follow-ups.

Are you tackling a new and difficult problem at work? Recently promoted and trying to both understand your new role and bring a fresh perspective? Or are you new to the workforce and seeking ways to meaningfully contribute alongside your more experienced colleagues? If so, critical thinking — the ability to analyze and effectively break down an issue in order to make a decision or find a solution — will be core to your success. And at the heart of critical thinking is the ability to formulate deep, different, and effective questions.

• JC John Coleman is the author of the HBR Guide to Crafting Your Purpose . Subscribe to his free newsletter, On Purpose , follow him on Twitter @johnwcoleman, or contact him at johnwilliamcoleman.com.

Partner Center

Evaluating Sources: Critical Thinking Tips

• What info do you NEED?
• Mnemonics to SIFT Information
• Finding the Bias
• Why was it published?
• Who is responsible?
• What do they have to lose?
• Is it Trustworthy?
• Scholarly Journal, Trade Pub. & Popular Magazines
• What does "peer-reviewed" mean?
• Primary, Secondary, Tertiary
• Check Your Unconscious Biases
• Critical Thinking Tips
• Deceptive Advertising
• Hoaxes, Fakes, & Other Tricks
• Fraud or Flawed?
• FREE WEB LITERACY TEXTBOOK
• Why library?
• More about Information Literacy
• News Literacy
• Writing Help
• Browse All Guides

Are you open minded?

The DIFFICULT part of critical thinking is to look at the alternative possibilities with the same open mind you use when you read something that agrees with you.

Films on Demand

Wisc-Online Learning Objects

• Barriers to Critical Thinking: People-Related Obstacles
• Barriers to Critical Thinking: Psychological and Sociological Pitfalls
• Overcoming Barriers to Critical Thinking: Being Human
• Overcoming Barriers to Critical Thinking: People-Related Obstacles

Ask Good Questions - Socratic method

Clarification

What do you mean by                       ?

Could you put that another way?

Could you give me an example?

Could you explain that further?

​ Probe Assumptions

What are you assuming?

What could we assume instead?

You seem to be assuming                         .  Do I understand you correctly?

You seem to be assuming                            .  How would you justify taking this for granted?

Is it always the case?  

Probe Reasons and Evidence ​

How do you know?

Why do you think that is true?

What led you to that belief?

Do you have any evidence for that?

What would convince you otherwise?

Viewpoints or Perspectives ​

Can anyone see this another way?

What would someone who disagrees say?

What is an alternative?

Probe Implications and Consequences

What are the consequences of your assumption?

What else could also happen as a result?  Why?

What effect would that have?

Would that necessarily happen or only probably happen?

Questions About the Question

Why is this question important?

What does this question assume?

Is the question clear?  Do we understand it?

Is this question easy or hard to answer?  Why?

To answer this question, what questions would we have to answer first?

Can we break this question down into parts?

• Strengthen your Mind Six Types of Socratic Questions
• CriticalThinking.Org: Socratic Questioning: Asking Questions That Take Thinking Apart
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method
• https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Socratic_Methods
• Questions for a Socratic Dialogue [PDF]
• The Spirit and Principles of Socratic Questioning
• Socratic Seminars: Building a Culture of Student-Led Discussion
• Socratic Seminar Scoring

TED Talk: Why you think you're right — even if you're wrong

• Why you think you're right — even if you're wrong

Avoid being tricked by Logical Fallacies (Lazy Thinking)

• List of fallacies (Crowdsourced) - Wikipedia
• ARGUMENTATION AND CRITICAL THINKING - Select a Test

An Illustrated Book of Bad Arguments: Logical Falicies

•   Digital Edition: An illustrated book of bad arguments Funny illustrations of serious material.

TED Ed: 5 tips to improve your critical thinking - Samantha Agoos - YouTube

• 5 tips to improve your critical thinking - Samantha Agoos - YouTube

In other words:

Take time to understand what you want. What are you trying to accomplish?  What is your goal?

Gather Information.   Multiple sources, different points of view.  Seek expert advice.

Apply skepticism. The cliches  "If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is" and "There is no such thing as a free lunch" are common sayings because people have really good "2020 hindsight." And don't forget, "you get what you pay for."  

Consider the implications.   Something that sounds good in the short term, may have a bad long-term effect.  Don't ignore the related factors the decision might impact. 

Look at another point of view, even if it makes you uncomfortable.  Get outside your comfort zone. You may learn something useful.

• << Previous: Check Your Unconscious Biases
• Next: Deceptive Advertising >>
• Last Updated: Mar 13, 2024 3:04 PM
• URL: https://library.fvtc.edu/Evaluate

About Us • Contact Us • FVTC Terms of Service • Sitemap FVTC Privacy Statement • FVTC Library Services Accessibility Statement DISCLAIMER: Any commercial mentions on our website are for instructional purposes only. Our guides are not a substitute for professional legal or medical advice. Fox Valley Technical College • Library Services • 1825 N. Bluemound Drive • Room G113 Appleton, WI 54912-2277 • United States • (920) 735-5653 © 2024 • Fox Valley Technical College • All Rights Reserved.

The https://library.fvtc.edu/ pages are hosted by SpringShare. Springshare Privacy Policy.

Chapter 6: Evaluating Sources

Thinking critically about sources.

Evaluating sources often involves piecing together clues.

Source evaluation usually takes place in two stages:

• First you try to determine which sources are credible and relevant to your assignment.
• Later, you try to decide which of those relevant and credible sources contain information that you actually want to quote, paraphrase, or summarize. This requires a closer reading, a finer examination of the source.

This lesson teaches the first kind of evaluation—how to weed out sources that are irrelevant and not credible and how to “weed in” those that are relevant enough and credible enough.

Because there often aren’t clear-cut answers when you evaluate sources, most of the time you have to make inferences–educated guesses from available clues– about whether to use information from the website or other source.

The clues are factors you should consider when trying to decide whether a source is:

• A relevant source of information – Is it truly about your topic and from the right time period?
• A credible source of information – Is there sufficient reason to believe it’s accurate?

Good Enough for Your Purpose?

Not every resource you turn up in your searches will be credible and relevant enough to meet your information needs. So, how will you ferret out the very best to use?

Sources should always be evaluated relative to your purpose–why you’re looking for information.

Your information needs will dictate:

• What kind of information will help.
• How serious you consider the consequences of making a mistake by using information that turns out to be inaccurate. When the consequences aren’t very serious, it’s easier to decide a site and its information are good enough for your purpose. Of course, there’s a lot to be said for always having accurate information, regardless.
• How hard you’re willing to work to get the credible, timely information that suits your purpose. (What you’re learning here will make it easier.)

Thus, your standards for relevance and credibility may vary, depending on whether you need, say:

• Information about a personal health problem
• An image you can use on a poster
• Evidence to win a bet with a rival in the dorm
• Dates and times a movie is showing locally
• A game to have fun with
• Evidence for your argument in a term paper

For your research assignments, the consequences may be great if you use information that is not relevant or not credible.

What Do You Already Know?

You must already be continually evaluating information sources in your personal life. Think for a minute about what information you have acted on today (where to go, what to do, what to eat, whether to read this page, etc.). What helped you decide whether the information was relevant and credible?

Which of the factors below do you consider to be criteria for evaluating sources of information?

• My instructor recommended the source
• Other sources I like are linked to it
• I know who runs the site
• Its information makes sense with what I already know
• I recognize the truth when I see it
• The site fits with how I was raised
• All my friends accept its information / A friend recommended the website
• I’ve used similar sources before / I’ve used the source before and nothing bad happened
• The website is easy to use / It has all the information I need so I don’t have to go to a lot of sites
• What kind of site it is / The website looks professional

You probably chose at least several factors that we would agree with. Take a look at what we recommend on the next page.

Activity: Quick Check

Open activity in a web browser.

• Choosing & Using Sources: A Guide to Academic Research. Authored by : Teaching & Learning, Ohio State University Libraries. Provided by : The Ohio State University. Located at : https://osu.pb.unizin.org/choosingsources/ . License : CC BY: Attribution

Critical Thinking About Sources

• Start Here!
• Research Process
• Information Ethics
• Recognizing Bias
• Reference Resources
• Citation Impact Factor (Faculty)
• Learn about CCOW This link opens in a new window
• Artificial Intelligence (AI)
• Primary & Secondary
• Ask a Librarian

Molloy Librarian

Critical Thinking Skills - Examples

Argumentation and Debate Critical thinking for Reasoned Decision Making by Austin J. Freeley and David L. Steinberg ISBN 0-534-46115-2

Critical thinking:   the ability to analyze, criticize, and advocate ideas; to reason inductively and deductively; and to reach factual or judgmental conclusions based on sound inferences drawn from unambiguous statements of knowledge or belief.    P. 458 Author: Theresa Rienzo, Reference Librarian,James Edward Tobin Library, Molloy 1000 Hempstead Ave. Rockville Centre, NY  11571

The ACRL Standards

• Determine the extent of information needed
• Access the needed information effectively and efficiently
• Evaluate information and its sources critically
• Incorporate selected information into one’s knowledge base
• Use information effectively to accomplish a specific purpose
• Understand the economic, legal, and social issues surrounding the use of information, and access and use information ethically and legally

Critical Thinking Cheatsheet & Skills

• The Ultimate Cheatsheet for Critical Thinking

• Next: Research Process >>
• Last Updated: Feb 26, 2024 12:52 PM
• URL: https://molloy.libguides.com/criticalthinking

Advertisement

Learning critical thinking skills online: can precision teaching help?

• Development Article
• Published: 14 April 2023
• Volume 71 , pages 1275–1296, ( 2023 )

Cite this article

• Angel J. Y. Tan   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-6947-3063 1 ,
• Jean L. Davies 2 ,
• Roderick I. Nicolson 2 &
• Themis Karaminis 2  

3288 Accesses

3 Citations

2 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Critical thinking is identified as a key educational outcome in higher education curricula; however, it is not trivial to support students in building this multifaceted skill. In this study, we evaluated a brief online learning intervention focusing on informal fallacy identification, a hallmark critical-thinking skill. The intervention used a bite-sized video learning approach, which has been shown to promote student engagement. Video-based learning was implemented within a precision teaching (PT) framework, which modulates the exposure of individual learners to the learning material to enable them to build ‘fluency’ in the targeted skills. In one of the learning conditions, PT was applied synergistically with domain-general problem-based training to support generalisation. The intervention consisted of two learning episodes and was administered to three groups (learning conditions) of 19 participants each: a PT fluency-based training group; a PT + group, where PT was combined with problem-based training; and a self-directed learning control group. All three groups showed comparable improvements in fallacy identification on taught (post-episode tests) and unseen materials (post-intervention assessment), with lower-scoring participants showing higher gains than high-scoring participants. The results of the knowledge retention tests a week later were also comparable between groups. Importantly, in the domain-general fallacy-identification assessment (post-intervention), the two PT groups showed higher improvements than the control group. These findings suggest that the integration of bite-sized video learning technologies with PT can improve students’ critical-thinking skills. Furthermore, PT, on its own or combined with problem-based training, can improve their skill to generalise learning to novel contexts. We discuss the educational implications of our findings.

Similar content being viewed by others

Study smart – impact of a learning strategy training on students’ study behavior and academic performance

Felicitas Biwer, Anique de Bruin & Adam Persky

The Value of Using Tests in Education as Tools for Learning—Not Just for Assessment

Dillon H. Murphy, Jeri L. Little & Elizabeth L. Bjork

Guided Discovery—Robert Gagné

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

Critical thinking can be described as the “purposeful, self-regulatory judgement which results in interpretation, analysis, evaluation, and inference, as well as explanations of the considerations on which that judgement is based” (Abrami et al., 2015 , p. 275). This high-level skill enables individuals to think logically, make appropriate decisions, and solve problems effectively (Peter, 2012 ). Critical thinking has been associated with academic achievements, enhanced employability, higher financial status, and better real-life decisions (Butler et al., 2017 ; Facione & Facione, 2001 ; Hart Research Associates, 2015 ). It has also been identified as an important educational goal for higher education (HE), preparing students for the demands of the 21st Century workplace (Hatcher, 2011 ; Joynes et al., 2019 ) and is often included in learning outcomes and assessment standards across disciplines (Forbes, 2018 ).

However, despite the emphasis that HE curricula place on critical thinking, students present difficulties in demonstrating critical-thinking skills (Harrington et al., 2006 ; Kreth et al., 2010 ). From educators’ perspective, formal training in critical thinking instruction is rarely provided (Broadbear, 2003 ; Scriven & Paul, 2007 ), and there is no clear consensus on how critical thinking should be taught (Abrami et al., 2015 ). Some researchers have suggested that critical thinking builds on metacognitive skills, such as differentiating inductive and deductive reasoning, interpreting the validity of arguments, and analysing relevant evidence (Solon, 2007 ). As metacognitive skills are domain-general, these researchers argue that critical thinking should thus be taught across disciplines (Solon, 2007 ). By contrast, other researchers have argued that critical thinking is context-specific (e.g., Baker, 2001 ). These researchers, who challenge the usefulness of standalone and generic critical-thinking courses, advocate that critical thinking should be taught within the domains in which it is used and based on content-focused approaches, such as Infusion courses (Baker, 2001 ; Brunt, 2005 ; McPeck, 1981 ). The debate between domain-general and domain-specific critical thinking pedagogy is longstanding; nevertheless, mastering critical thinking skills should imply that students can apply their critical thinking skills and dispositions regardless of context (Solon, 2007 ).

Apart from the debate in pedagogical approaches, critical thinking education is also challenged by the limited contact time for critical discussion and evaluation of the learning content in conventional teacher-led instructional approaches (Mandernach, 2006 ; Peter, 2012 ). All these challenges apply not only to traditional face-to-face teaching formats but also to online pedagogy of critical thinking. Furthermore, the rapid shift of the HE sector to online teaching during the recent COVID-19 pandemic (WHO, 2020 ) presented educators with additional challenges related to teaching critical thinking. Online learning relies on students feeling comfortable with using and participating in live discussion boards, online debates and focus groups, and this may pose a barrier to student access and engagement in activities relevant to the application of critical thinking skills, especially when students are not familiar with the online learning environments (MacKnight, 2000 ). There is also a scarcity of studies on instructional strategies to promote critical thinking in online environments (Guiller et al., 2008 ; Richardson & Ice, 2010 ).

In this study, we examined the effectiveness of a technology-enhanced learning intervention for critical thinking administered online to HE students during the second round of COVID-19 restrictions in the UK (early 2021). The intervention combined video-based learning with precision teaching, a behaviourally-grounded teaching approach targeted to build so-called fluency on learnt skills. In addition to this, in one of the learning conditions, precision teaching was combined with context-based training to better support the application of learnt knowledge.

• Video-based learning

In the HE sectors, which heavily rely on e-learning, video-based learning has become increasingly popular as a student-centred, inclusive learning approach to support ubiquitous learning. Video-based learning enables students to learn outside of the physical classrooms and at their own pace (Syed et al., 2020 ). It also enables educators to enrich mainstream teaching provision with supplementary material, implement diverse pedagogical strategies (e.g., flipped classroom, blended learning; Yousef et al., 2014 ), and meet students’ individual learning needs and preferences (Carmichael et al., 2018 ). There is ample evidence that video-based learning can enhance students’ engagement (Stockwell et al., 2015 ), academic performance (Salina et al., 2012 ), and motivation (Hill & Nelson, 2011 ). There is also evidence that these benefits are maximised when videos of a shorter duration are used (Guo et al., 2014 ).

Bite-sized or micro-videos are designed to chunk information into manageable and digestible pieces, making the learning content more accessible and improving the engagement of students with it (Koh et al., 2018 ). It has been suggested that bite-sized video learning sessions facilitate active learning (Brame, 2016 ), as students can rewind and review parts of the videos more easily when videos are available in smaller chunks (Carmichael et al., 2018 ). High-speed internet and improved functionality of mobile devices have also helped to integrate bite-sized learning into everyday routines and support autonomy in learning (Khong & Kabilan, 2020 ). However, research on the educational uses of videos has mostly focused on subject-relevant knowledge and practical skills rather than on higher-level skills such as critical thinking (Carmichael et al., 2018 ). The current study addressed this limitation in literature by exploring the effectiveness of bite-sized videos on critical-thinking skill development alongside another instructional approach that has been shown to be effective—precision teaching.

Precision teaching (PT)

PT refers to a framework for the systematic self-monitoring of learning (Lindsley, 1997 ) and the effectiveness of instructional approaches (Kubina & Yurich, 2012 ). PT can also be used to collect students' learning data and tailor instructional methods to the individual student’s performance (Sundhu & Kittles, 2016 ). PT often obtains evidence of learning by measuring fluency, the combination of accuracy and speed in performing a targeted skill (Kubina & Morrison, 2000 , p. 89), which is a prerequisite for more advanced skills (Kubina & Morrison, 2000 ). Within the PT framework, fluency is associated with other learning outcomes, including retention —maintaining good performance after an interval without training, endurance —carrying out a task fluently for long durations, stability —not being affected by distractions, and application —combining basic skills to perform a more complex task (abbreviated as RESA, Binder, 1996 ; Kubina & Yurich, 2012 ; see also Karpicke & Roediger, 2008 for alternative accounts on the positive effects of testing on memory retrieval and retention).

A commonly used fluency-training approach within the PT framework is frequency building (Kubina & Yurich, 2012 ). Frequency building uses timed repetition of tasks coupled with performance feedback provided immediately after timed trials (Lokke et al., 2008 ). This practice is thought to support the acquisition of the targeted skills in a time-efficient manner (Kubina & Yurich, 2012 ).

Research has shown that frequency-building techniques can support the acquisition of academic skills, such as reading, handwriting, and numeracy (e.g. Chiesa & Robertson, 2000 ; Hughes et al., 2007 ). There is less extensive evidence on whether and how frequency-building approaches could support the learning of models of complex thinking (Commons et al., 2015 ), improve fluency in complex concepts, such as logical fallacies (Fox & Ghezzi, 2003 ), and strengthen domain-general cognitive skills (Cuzzocrea et al., 2011 ). These led to a call for research in exploring the extent and the application of frequency-building approaches in enhancing complex, multifaceted skills, such as critical thinking.

One important challenge for frequency-building approaches is that building up fluency in basic skills does not necessarily lead to the automatic transfer of knowledge in applied settings (Kubina & Yurich, 2012 ). Furthermore, the ability to apply critical thinking skills learnt in real-world or subject-specific contexts does not often come intuitively (Paul & Elder, 2009 ). One way to address these challenges is to use frequency building synergistically with instructional approaches that promote the transfer and the application of critical thinking skills across domains. For example, embedding critical thinking training into content-focused courses or instructions (Braun, 2004 ; Gray, 1993 ; Ikuenobe, 2001 ) can facilitate the transfer of critical thinking skills by teaching students 'how to think' rather than 'what to think' (Clement, 1979 ). Similarly, Halpern ( 1998 ) proposed a model for the trans-contextual learning of critical thinking skills, which scaffolds the learner's ability to apply skills in real-world contexts.

Current study

In this study, we evaluated the effectiveness of an online learning intervention that aimed to enhance the critical-thinking skills of university students. The intervention focused on the skill of students to identify a type of reasoning error referred to as informal logical fallacies (Carey, 2000 ). This skill is thought of as a hallmark component of critical thinking (Carey, 2000 ; Ramasamy, 2011 ).

The intervention adopted a bite-sized video-learning approach and used frequency building within a precision-teaching framework. We compared the learning performance of three experimental groups: a PT intervention group, a PT + intervention group, and a self-directed learning control group. The two intervention groups (PT & PT +) received frequency-building practice aimed at increasing the rate of fallacy identification, with the addition of problem-based training in the PT + group. The control group was exposed to the same instructional materials as the intervention groups but was asked to navigate through them in a self-paced way.

We examined students' learning of the taught critical thinking skills, as well as their ability to transfer taught knowledge and skills in novel settings. More specifically, we measured student performance on the testing material in which they received instruction, as well as their performance in unseen examples and domain-general assessments of broader fallacy-identification skills.

Furthermore, we carried out follow-up assessments one week after the intervention. These follow-up tests were included in the research design to specifically address the potential benefits of frequency-building training in knowledge retention, which is a key learning outcome associated with precision teaching—RESA, Binder, 1996 ; Kubina & Yurich, 2012 ; see also Karpicke & Roediger, 2008 ).

With all these measures, we aimed to address the following research questions:

RQ1: What are the educational benefits of frequency-building practice on students’ learning of taught critical thinking materials?

RQ2: What are the educational benefits of frequency-building practice on students’ abilities to apply critical-thinking skills in novel contexts?

RQ3: How does frequency building affect students’ knowledge retention following the intervention?

RQ4: Does the combination of frequency building with problem-based training support further benefits in students’ learning of taught critical thinking materials (RQ1), generalisation in novel contexts (RQ2) or knowledge retention (RQ3)?

Instructional framework for teaching critical thinking skills

Traditionally, critical-thinking training follows either the domain-general or the domain-specific approach (Tiruneh et al., 2018 ). However, here, and in-line with other researchers (e.g., Koslowski, 1996 ; McNeill & Krajcik, 2009 ; Tiruneh et al., 2018 ), we take the view that domain-general and domain-specific expertise do not develop in isolation. Rather, both domain-general and context-specific knowledge is important for the effective acquisition of critical-thinking skills (McNeill & Krajcik, 2009 ). Thus, our instructional framework combines domain-general and domain-specific approaches. Specifically, the introduction to fallacy identification within bite-sized videos and frequency-building practice drew on elements of the domain-general approach; as learners could apply the critical-thinking skills learned across different domains. Whereas, problem-based training drew on elements of the domain-specific approach; as learners could learn how the skills are applied within subject-specific domains.

The domain-general approach is based on the assumption that the identification of informal logical fallacies shares commonalities across disciplines, and proficiency in this skill could transcend across the domain in which training was done. For example, let’s consider a hypothetical Argument 1 “there is no proof that the parapsychology experiments were fraudulent, so I’m sure they weren’t” and another hypothetical Argument 2 “because scientists cannot prove that global warming will occur, it probably won’t”. Although the two arguments differ in terms of context (the first case involves a psychology science, the second case involves nature science), both arguments are fallacious and share commonalities of using the lack of evidence as a proof of correctness (i.e., appeal to ignorance fallacy). In this study, scaffoldings of generic fallacy-identification skills within the bite-sized videos help students develop the skill to identify arguments that are “ psychologically persuasive but logically incorrect” (Copy & Burgess-Jackson, 1996 , p. 97). The exposure to structural features of fallacies and the use of real-world examples within frequency-building practice prompt students to apply generatively what they had learned. This strategy aligns with Engle et al. ( 2003 ) suggestion for intercontextuality as a means of bridging the gap between learning and transfer practices.

In addition, and following the domain-specific view, we also assume that critical-thinking skills may require explicit instruction within subject-specific domains to perform competently. This notion is similar to the Infusion approach, which emphasises how a critical-thinking skill could be applied within a subject-specific context (Abrami et al., 2008 ). In this study, the context-based scaffolding (i.e., problem-based training) within the PT + group prompts students to apply critical-thinking skills in a context-specific situation. While we compare critical-thinking abilities between students in the PT and the PT + groups, we, therefore, investigated if Infusion is necessary to promote the development of critical-thinking skills across domains (RQ4).

Participants

A total of 57 adults (39 females, 17 males, 1 preferring not to say) with a mean age of 24.14 years (SD = 5.62; range 18–47 years old) took part in this study. Participants were recruited through the University’s Research Participation System and departmental social media platforms. All participants were university students, with 37 registered as undergraduate students and 20 as postgraduate students. The study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the Department of Psychology.

The intervention focused on four informal logical fallacies: 'appeal to ignorance', 'bandwagon', 'false cause', and 'hasty generalisation'. These four logical fallacies corresponded to common reasoning errors and were selected after consultation with a subject matter expert (a senior lecturer of a university-level course involving critical thinking) and reviews of relevant textbooks (e.g., Gray, 1991 ; Schick & Vaughn, 2020 ). The four logical fallacies share a similar form, consisting of a premise followed by a conclusion (Fox & Ghezzi, 2003 ; see Table 1 ).

Instructional material

Learning videos.

Two ‘bite-sized’ learning videos, lasting 2:46 and 2:54 min, were created using the video animation software, Powtoon ( https://www.powtoon.com ). Powtoon has been highlighted as user-friendly software for supporting digital-based learning as it is equipped with various functions that can help to improve teacher’s creativity, boost learning motivation, and support the learning needs of students with different abilities (Muhammad Basri et al., 2021 ; Resmol & Leasa, 2022 ; Zamora et al., 2021 ).

Within the two learning videos, the first video (Episode 1: Arguments and Fallacies ) presented learners with the standard form of an argument and introduced the four fallacies. The second video (Episode 2: Examples of Fallacies ) gave examples for each of the four fallacies and explained why the arguments involved were fallacious or problematic.

Learning tasks

Two learning tasks (one for each episode) consisting of 20 multiple-choice items were developed to facilitate knowledge acquisition after the presentation of the learning videos. Items for these tasks were based on material from critical thinking textbooks (Gray, 1991 ; Schick & Vaughn, 2020 ) and were also reviewed by the subject-matter expert. Each item presented participants with a short paragraph that illustrated an example or a definition of a fallacy, followed by a forced-choice question asking participants to identify the relevant fallacy. Participants received programmed feedback (“Correct!” or “Incorrect!”) on the screen after each answer selection.

Problem-based tasks (used in the PT + intervention group only)

Three problem-based tasks were developed to support learning in the PT + intervention group, following each learning episode. The problem-based tasks consisted of open-ended questions, which required participants to analyse, evaluate, and explain flaws in reasoning within a psychological debate or dispute. Each task first presented a debate situation. This was done by showing a newsletter article or a short paragraph which summarised research findings referring to the main claim in dispute, alongside some context about the debate. For example, participants were presented with a paragraph entitled "does social media do more harm than good?" and referring to a recent survey, which found that feelings of loneliness among young workers increased as they reported higher amounts of time spent on social media. Then, participants were invited to identify fallacies in arguments presented by three panel members, who advocated for the disadvantages of social media (open-ended question, "Review the reasoning of each of the panel members A, B, and C and explain what might be problematic with their reasoning if considered to be faulty"). For example, a panel member would suggest that social media is doing more harm than good based on the fact that too much social media use will cause someone to feel lonely ('false cause'), and his friend, George, who uses social media more than 16 h a day has been diagnosed to have depression lately ('hasty generalisation'). Participants were asked to review each argument and explain if a fallacy was involved.

Subsequently, participants were asked to indicate which of the three arguments presented by panel members they would be least likely to support (forced-choice question, “Indicate which one you believe to be the reasoning that you would be least likely to support”). Finally, participants were asked to provide a suggestion for the best course of action or the best counter-argument to resolve the debate (open-ended question, “If you are asked to give an opinion in this debate, what would be your next course of action”). Programmed feedback was provided for each task following participants’ responses to the questions involved. For example, the panel member above argued that there is a cause-and-effect relationship based on the correlation found, and drew about the impacts of social media on all individuals on the basis of evidence concerning only certain people. Hence, the fallacies of false cause and hasty generalisation were committed.

Testing material

Pre- and post-episode tests based on the learning material.

The questions included in the learning tasks of the two episodes were also used in the episode-specific tests of critical thinking. These were administered twice, at the beginning and the end of the episode. The pre- and post-episode tests were administered as time-based assessments (to consider both accuracy and speed in identifying the fallacies). Participants were instructed to answer the questions as accurately and as fast as they could within a minute. No feedback was given in the pre- and post-episode tests.

Pre- and post-intervention assessments on unseen questions

An additional 50 multiple-choice questions were used to assess participants’ skill to recognise fallacies in unseen questions. These were selected from the same bank of questions used for the development of the learning tasks and the pre-and post-episode tests. 25 items were presented as a pre-intervention assessment and the rest as a post-intervention assessment.

Broader abilities in fallacy identification: informal reasoning fallacies identification task (IRFIT; Neuman, 2003 ).

To assess the students' broader abilities in fallacy identification, we used a test based on the Informal Reasoning Fallacies Identification Task (Neuman & Weizman, 2003 ; Weinstock et al., 2004 ). In this study, four informal reasoning tasks, each consisting of two items adapted from Neuman ( 2003 )'s study, were administered to participants. Each reasoning task corresponded to one of the four fallacies and consisted of an argumentative scenario followed by four questions. The scenario was structured in four sentences as follows. The first sentence presented participants with two debaters who were described as either psychology students or philosophers. The second sentence presented the context and the main claim under debate stated in the form of a question. The third and the fourth sentences presented the arguments by the two debaters, a so-called “protagonist” and an “antagonist”. Finally, the specific reasoning of one of the debaters in support of their position was presented with a fallacy involved.

Participants were asked to identify potential flaws in reasoning and identify fallacies. In particular, they responded to the following four questions:

A yes/no fallacy identification question , which examined whether participants conceived an argument as fallacious or problematic (e.g. “Do you think there is a problem in the argument that the antagonist presented in Line 5?”).

A open-ended fallacy explanation question , which assessed participants’ skill to articulate what they perceived to be faulty with the reasoning of an argument (e.g. “If you think that there is a problem in the argument presented by the antagonist, what is the problem?”).

An open-ended response question , which assessed participants’ skill to debate and present a counter-argument (e.g. “What is the best answer the protagonist can use in response to the antagonist’s argument?”).

A forced-choice fallacy classification question , which assessed whether participants perceived the argument to be a quarrel, a formal debate, or a critical discussion (e.g. "In your opinion, what is the main reason for the debate between the two arguers"). Participants responded to this question by selecting one of the three answer choices: (a) They do not like each other and, therefore, each person is attacking the other’s claim-quarrel, (b) Each one of them wants to impress his colleagues and win the debate–formal debate, and (c) They have different opinions on this matter, and they are trying to convince each other-critical discussion.

The design of the study is shown in Fig.  1 . Participants were randomly allocated to three groups: (A) a ‘precision teaching (PT)’ intervention group, (B) a ‘precision teaching plus problem-based training (PT +)’ intervention group, and (C) a ‘self-directed learning’ control group. The three groups were exposed to the same instructional material and testing stimuli; however, this was administered in different ways to implement different learning conditions. In particular, the PT group received frequency-building learning tasks, which aimed at increasing the rate of fallacy identification. The PT + group completed frequency-building learning tasks combined with the addition of problem-based training to facilitate a better application of critical thinking in the PT condition. Finally, the control group completed learning tasks in a self-directed way.

Flowchart of the study

Participants completed the study in three sessions administered online via the Qualtrics platform (Qualtrics, Provo, UT). In the first online session, participants completed the pre-intervention assessment and Episode 1, Arguments and Fallacies . In the second online session, participants completed Episode 2, Examples of Fallacies and the post-intervention assessment. In the last online session, which was administered a week after the completion of Session 2, participants repeated both the post-episode assessments for Episode 1 and Episode 2 as retention assessments.

Each episode started with a time-based pre-episode assessment on fallacy identification. The assessment was followed by the participants watching a learning video, in which the definitions (Episode 1) or examples of fallacies (Episode 2) were explained for approximately three minutes. Participants were asked to watch the video until the end, and the next button to proceed with the next part was only presented at the bottom of the page towards the end of the video presentation. Then, participants completed two blocks of 20 multiple-choice questions, which were administered to the three groups as learning tasks in different forms. The learning tasks allowed participants to familiarise themselves with and consolidate knowledge learnt from the video content. Finally, participants completed the post-episode assessment within a 1 min timeframe.

The three groups were differentiated in the types of learning tasks they completed within the two learning episodes, as detailed in the following section.

Learning tasks in the PT intervention group

Learning tasks in the PT intervention group were guided by a high response-rate requirement implemented in iterations of timed intervals and feedback. Participants were informed that they were going to practice identifying the fallacies within a 1 min timeframe, with the remaining time appearing on the top left corner of the screen. They selected the best answer out of the four choices as fast as they could and received programmed feedback after each response ("Correct!" or "Incorrect!"). After the 1 min interval, participants were shown the number of accurate responses they had provided. Then, participants proceeded to an error-correction procedure, which focused on the questions they had answered incorrectly. During the error correction procedure, participants were instructed to answer these questions again, without any time limit, and were shown the accurate answer if they gave an incorrect response for a second time. After the error correction procedure, participants answered the 20 multiple-choice questions with the same procedure as the first timed interval again. The error-correction procedure and the learning cycle were repeated twice before progressing to complete the post-episode test (see Fig.  2 ).

Screenshots of the learning tasks interface for PT intervention groups— a instruction page; b video presentation page; c block presentation page; d learning tasks page; e error correction procedure page

Learning tasks in the PT + intervention group

Participants who were assigned to the PT + intervention group completed the same learning tasks as the PT group. Additionally, participants in this group completed the corresponding problem-based task following each episode.

Learning tasks in the control group

In this group, learning tasks were completed in a self-directed way, without a high response-rate requirement. Participants were instructed to answer all 20 questions accurately and as fast as they could (but not within timed intervals) and were given feedback on the number of correct responses they achieved. This cycle was repeated twice before progressing to complete the post-episode test. Hence, the main difference between the intervention groups (PT and PT +) and the control group was that participants in the control group did not complete the learning tasks in 1 min timed intervals; rather, they were asked to complete the whole tasks at their own pace. The learning tasks and the number of blocks conducted in each episode remained the same as in the intervention groups.

Content analysis was conducted on participants’ answers to the tasks by two researchers. Using the scoring procedures from Neuman ( 2003 )’s study, 10% of the data was marked by both scorers, and Cohen’s Kappa showed that there was strong agreement between the two scorers (κ = .814; McHugh, 2012 ). The yes/no fallacy identification question (e.g. “Do you think there is a problem in the argument that the antagonist presented in Line 5?”) was scored as 1 for a ‘yes’ answer and 0 for a ‘no’ answer. Both open-ended fallacy explanations (e.g. “If you think that there is a problem in the argument presented by the antagonist, what is the problem?”) and response questions (e.g. “What is the best answer the protagonist can use in response to the antagonist’s argument?”) were marked as 1 when participants took into account to identify and/or explain the informal reasoning fallacy involved in the situation. Participants scored 0.5 when they captured the key elements of why the arguments were fallacious but nonetheless did not provide a complete explanation. Participants scored 0 when either they did not answer the question, did not identify the problem in the situation, or did not take into account the fallacy involved when explaining.

Data analysis

Quantitative data collected from the pre-and post-episode tests and the pre-and post-intervention assessments were analysed to examine the effects of time (within-participants factor) and differences between groups (between-participants factor). When preliminary data checks suggested that the assumptions of normality and homogeneity of variance were met, data were analysed with a 3 (Groups: PT vs. PT + vs. control) × 2 (Time: pre- vs. post-episode/intervention) mixed-design ANOVA. When these assumptions were violated, Wilcoxon Signed Rank non-parametric tests (within-participants) were used to compare differences in a given measure across two time points, and Kruskal Wallis non-parametric tests (between-participants) were used to examine differences in the changes in the measure between groups. If the data were normal but the homogeneity of variance was violated, changes in a measure over time were examined with t-tests, and between-group differences in change over time were examined with a Welsch one-way ANOVA.

In a complementary analysis, we compared changes between participants with relatively low and relatively high performance.

In all analyses, effect sizes were reported using relevant standardised measures (t-tests: Cohen’s d ; Wilcoxon Signed Rank/Kruskal Wallis: r , Welch one-way ANOVA: ω 2 , mixed ANOVA: ηp 2 ). For Cohen’s d and r , a value of .20 was taken to suggest a small effect size, a ± .50 a medium effect size, and ± .80 a large effect size; for ω 2 and ηp 2 the thresholds were .01 (small), .06 (medium) and .13 (large) (Cohen, 1988 ). Effect sizes d greater than .40 were considered educationally relevant (Hattie, 2009 ).

Pre- and post-episode tests on the learning tasks

Figure  3 presents the mean scores of the pre- and post-episode tests for Episode 1 and 2 for the three groups. Shapiro–Wilk tests indicated that the assumption of normality was not met ( p  < 0.05 for Episode 1 pre- and post-episode tests, and Episode 2 pre-episode test), hence, Wilcoxon Signed Rank tests were conducted to examine the changes in performance within each episode. The results showed that participants, on average, scored significantly higher in the post-episode (Episode 1: Mdn  = 10.00; Episode 2: Mdn  = 10.00) compared to the pre-episode tests (Episode 1: Mdn  = 5.00; Episode 2: Mdn  = 5.00) on the learning tasks, for both Episode 1 ( Z  = 6.31, p  < .001, r  = .84) and Episode 2 ( Z  = 5.78, p  < .001, r  = .77).

Mean scores of the pre-and post-episode tests. Scores were calculated out of participants’ accurate responses to 20 questions within a minute. Error bars represent standard errors of the means

Given that the data were not normally distributed, we compared improvements in the three groups using Kruskal Wallis tests for Episode 1 (PT: Mdn difference  = 5.00; PT + : Mdn difference  = 6.00; Control: Mdn difference  = 5.00) and Episode 2 (PT: Mdn difference  = 6.00; PT + : Mdn difference  = 5.00; Control: Mdn difference  = 4.00). These tests suggested that the improvements of the three groups were comparable in both Episode 1 [ H (2) = .17,  p  = .920, r  = .02] and Episode 2 [ H (2) = 1.02,  p  = .601, r  = .13].

Figure  4 shows mean accuracy scores in the pre-and post-intervention for the three groups. Shapiro–Wilk tests indicated that all data were statistically normal (all ps  > .05). However, the preliminary Levene’s test suggested that the assumption of homogeneity of variance was not met for the post-test measures ( p  = .017).

Mean accuracy scores of the pre-and post-intervention assessments. Scores were calculated out of 25 questions. Error bars represent standard errors of the means

Paired sample t-tests were thus conducted to compare performance between pre-and post-intervention assessments in the three groups. These tests suggested significant improvements in all three groups [PT: t (18) = 10.33, p  < .001, d  = 2.37; PT + : t (18) = 7.68, p  < .001, d  = 1.76; Control: t (18) = − 4.12, p  = .001, d  = .95].

To compare participants' improvements between groups, a Welch one-way ANOVA with corrected degrees of freedom was used. The results showed a trend for a difference between the average scores of the three groups, which, however, did not reach levels of statistical significance, F (2, 34.63) = 2.61, p  = .088, ω 2  = .05.

To gain further insight into the non-significant trend of between-group differences, in a complementary analysis, we divided participants into lower- and higher-scorer categories based on their pre-test scores. Participants who scored at the 50th percentile and below were categorised as lower-scorers ( n  = 33), and those who scored above the 50th percentile were categorised as higher-scorers ( n  = 24). Figure  5 shows the mean accuracy scores of low- and high-scoring participants in the pre-and post-test. Shapiro–Wilk tests indicated that the assumption of normality was not met for the pre-and post-test scores (all ps  < .05). Hence, a Wilcoxon Signed Rank non-parametric test was conducted to compare participants' scores between pre-and post-intervention assessments. The results showed that both low- and high-scoring participants achieved significantly higher mean scores at post-intervention compared to pre-intervention (Low-scoring: Z  = 4.79, p  < .001, r  = .83; High-scoring: Z  = 3.68, p  < .001, r  = .75].

Mean accuracy scores for low- and high-scoring participants at pre-and post-intervention assessments. Scores were calculated out of 25 questions. Error bars represent standard errors of the means

With regards to differences in the improvement of low- and high-scoring participants, a Kruskal Wallis test suggested a significant difference, H (1) = 4.48,  p  = .034, r  = .59, with larger improvements for low-scoring ( Mdn difference  = 6.00) than for high-scoring participants ( Mdn difference  = 4.50).

Pre- and post-intervention assessment on broader critical thinking skills (IRFITs)

Figure  6 shows the average scores of the three groups in the IRFIT, the assessment of how well participants applied their critical thinking skills in a broader context of fallacy identification. These data were analysed with parametric statistics; in particular, a 3 × 2 mixed-design ANOVA was conducted, with Group as a between-subjects factor and Time as a within-subjects factor. The analysis showed a significant main effect of Group, F (2, 54) = 6.09, p  = .004, η p 2  = .184 (‘large’ effect), which was further explored with posthoc comparisons. These suggested that the performance scores for the PT ( M  = 11.29) and the PT + intervention groups ( M  = 12.20) were higher than the scores of the control group ( M  = 9.07) (PT vs. Control: p  = .216; PT + vs. Control: p  = .007, PT vs PT + : p  = .127). There was also a significant main effect of Time, F (1, 54) = 9.82, p  < .003, η p 2  = .154, whereby the post-intervention score ( M  = 11.35) was higher than the pre-intervention score ( M  = 10.35), as well as a significant interaction between the two factors, F (2, 54) = 4.14, p  = .021, η p 2  = .133 (see Fig.  6 ), reflecting a significant improvement for the PT ( p  = .001) and PT + ( p  = .046) intervention groups but not the control group.

Mean performance scores of the IRFITs at pre-and post-intervention. Scores were calculated out of four IRFITs at each time point. Error bars represent standard errors of the means

Knowledge retention

Figure  7 shows the average scores of the three groups in the post-episode assessments and the retention tests for Episode 1 and Episode 2. Shapiro–Wilk tests indicated that all data were statistically normal. Levene’s tests also showed that the assumption of homogeneity of variance was met. Thus, the data were analysed with a 3 × 2 mixed-design ANOVA with Group as a between-subject factor, and Time (post-episode assessment vs. retention test) as a within-subject factor. For Episode 1, the results showed no significant main effect of Group, F (2, 48) = .22, p  = .803, η p 2  = .007; Time, F (1, 48) = 3.00, p  = .090, η p 2  = .011; and no interaction, F (2, 48) = 1.35, p  = .269, η p 2  = .009. Similarly, for Episode 2, there was no significant main effect of Group, F (2, 47) = .71, p  = .497, η p 2  = .023; Time, F (1, 47) = 3.26, p  = .077, η p 2  = .015; and no interaction, F (2, 47) = .40, p  = .676, η p 2  = .004.

Mean scores for all three groups at the post-episode assessments and the retention tests of Episode 1 and Episode 2. Scores were calculated out of participants’ accurate responses to 20 questions within a minute. Error bars represent standard errors of the means

In this study, we implemented and evaluated an online learning design aiming to improve critical thinking skills in university students based on a video-based learning approach that used frequency building under precision teaching. We also combined the frequency-building approach with structured problem-based training to further foster the transfer of the taught skills. We compared the learning performance of the three experimental groups, examining students’ performance in the taught materials, in unseen examples, and in more general fallacy-identification problems, as well as in follow-up tests.

With regards to whether PT could improve students’ learning of the taught material (RQ1), our results from the post-episode tests demonstrated that all groups showed significant and comparable improvements in their skill to identify the taught examples of fallacies. Thus, all three types of learning condition, PT-based and not, worked equally well in supporting video-based teaching of fallacy-identification and yielded comparable outcomes, in line with findings from an earlier study by Fox and Ghezzi’s ( 2003 ). Furthermore, taking into account that the broader PT literature tends to focus on simpler and low-level skills, our current findings are important because they suggest that the use of precision teaching can be extended to complex and high-level skills such as critical thinking (Cuzzocrea et al., 2011 ).

With regards to the application of the taught knowledge into unseen examples (RQ2), the analyses of the post-intervention assessments suggested that, again, all learning conditions yielded comparable improvements. Interestingly, these improvements were greater for students who scored at or below the 50th percentile. Although this result could be, partially, attributed to a ceiling effect, it demonstrates the usefulness of technology-enhanced learning designs, in particular, the use of bite-sized videos and frequency-building practice in enhancing the transfer of fallacy-identification skills of all students and especially those who present difficulties in critical thinking.

Turning to the transfer of the taught skills in a domain-general IRFIT task (RQ2), our results showed that, importantly, only the two PT groups showed reliable improvements in performance post-intervention. Thus, frequency building under the precision-teaching framework can foster the application of skills in novel contexts, in line with Kubina and Yurich ( 2012 ), who suggested that frequency building can lead to desirable outcomes of knowledge generalisation. In this study, the two PT groups were given access to practices that helped to build fluency in fallacy-identification skills. The ability to show the generalisation of skills beyond taught materials demonstrated that participants had achieved certain levels of fluency. Significant gains in post-intervention performance on a standardised critical-thinking test also reflect the benefits of frequency-building training and support the notion that skill generalisation is an outcome of fluency-focused training (Binder, 1996 ).

Furthermore, in the knowledge retention tests (RQ3), there were no significant differences between the post-episode assessment scores and the retention test scores, implying that students, regardless of groups, presented non-significant detriments in their fluency even after a week without practice. Earlier research suggested that the frequency-building practice can support the retention of skills for a longer period of time (Binder, 1996 ). It is, therefore, expected that the two PT groups would show better skills retention after an interval of no-practice days. However, the difference between the intervention and the control groups was not significant in our study. To understand this inconsistency between our findings and earlier research, further investigation into how frequency-building procedures impact long-term retention is warranted, possibly by extending the time point of retention tests beyond the one-week interval.

With regards to whether problem-based training can support further benefits in students’ acquisition, generalisation, and retention of critical-thinking skills (RQ4), improvements in the domain-general task learning were comparable in the PT and PT + group, suggesting that problem-based training is, indeed, not necessary for promoting the transfer of taught skills. This finding is in contrast with previous literature positing that rigorous practice for critical thinking is required until students can internalise the concepts learnt and demonstrate critical thinking skills intuitively in their daily lives (Paul & Elder, 2009 ).

In sum, the current study provides a foundation for understanding how the use of video technologies and frequency-building practice can be combined into an effective supplementary teaching tool to promote critical thinking in online settings. The integration of the two approaches is suitable for supporting students of various abilities. Our instruction framework draws on elements from Papert’s constructivism, in which effective learning occurs by building upon individual students’ prior knowledge through active engagement (Papert, 1980 ). In this study, the use of video technologies to present learning information in a “bite-sized” format helps to maximise students’ engagement with the content and offers students the flexibility to pause, rewind, and revisit any part of the video whenever necessary (Salina et al., 2012 ). The inclusion of online frequency-building intervention also improves the quality of the session, as it transforms it from solely a passive video-watching event to an active learning opportunity that helps students monitor their own learning and is necessary for knowledge construction (Gaudin & Chaliès, 2015 ).

This online learning approach addresses challenges in critical thinking instructional designs related to promoting active learning during students’ independent study time (Mandernach, 2006 ). Our study shows that this type of practice, which focuses on building fluency of skills, is flexible enough to be used in teaching complex concepts such as critical thinking and could lead to desirable learning outcomes, specifically, on the application of skills in a novel setting. Moreover, our study demonstrated that the online learning design of frequency-building intervention is accommodative to individual students, offering students the opportunity to practice their individual mistakes following each practice trial. A technology-enhanced model of frequency-building practice like this also allows a systematic presentation of stimuli and effective tracking of student engagement (Beverley et al., 2009 ). Our approach to teaching critical thinking skills is versatile and also applicable to the current landscape in Higher Education which the COVID-19 restrictions have transformed (Pokhrel & Chhetri, 2021 ).

Limitations and directions for further research

Our study is not without limitations. First and in terms of scope, our intervention focused on fallacy identification. However, critical thinking is a multifaceted construct, and future studies should be inclusive of more diverse processes related to the interpretation, analysis, evaluation, and inference, such as argument analysis, evaluation of the credibility of claims or sources, and identification of scientific versus pseudo-scientific procedures (McPeck, 1981 ).

Furthermore, in terms of research methodology, although participants in the three groups were exposed to similar instructional materials and procedures, the time of exposure in the learning task was not controlled. A more nuanced investigation of learning under precision teaching will need to explicitly examine the duration of exposure and usage of the learning materials. This is important as it has been argued that frequency-building procedures can reduce the time needed to master a targeted skill (Lokke et al., 2008 ). Furthermore, in the current study, a short-duration precision-teaching intervention yielded significant improvements in fallacy identification performance in novel problem-solving contexts—albeit a small one.

An additional limitation lies in the use of random group allocation in our experimental design, rather than controlling for the participants’ demographics across experimental groups. In this study, participants were randomly allocated to three groups that were exposed to the same instructional stimuli but differed in the way that the learning tasks were performed. Random allocation has been widely used in educational research to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions and to ensure that any group differences are due to chance (Forsetlund et al., 2007 ). Nevertheless, we acknowledge that there might be individual variations in participants’ educational level, enrolled course, and motivation to learn that we did not account for in this study. One could draw more robust conclusions by assessing how the impact of this intervention depended on these demographics.

Finally, in this study, we did not include instructors in the learning videos. Instead, we used animated videos created using the Powtoon platform. This decision was partly influenced by the time when the research was developed. COVID-19 lockdown restrictions were in place, and all physical engagements were halted during that period, limiting our ability to carry out video recordings with an instructor in place. While various studies have highlighted the benefits of Powtoon-based videos on student engagement and motivation (Muhammad Basri et al., 2021 ; Zamora et al., 2021 ), contrasting evidence suggests that some students find learning videos featuring a presenter to be more engaging (Guo et al., 2014 ; Pi et al., 2017 ). Future studies could examine the impact of the presence of instructors on students’ engagement and critical thinking skill training. An interesting possibility is to consider peers as presenters as evidence suggested that perceived similarity between a peer and the learner could create a favourable learning environment that can benefit learning (Bulte et al., 2007 ; Lockspeiser et al., 2008 ).

The current study demonstrated the potential of an online intervention approach of video-based learning and PT to improve critical-thinking skills of university students. After a brief intervention, which consisted of only two learning episodes, students showed improvements in fallacy identification performance, which transferred into novel problem-solving contexts. These results are important in an era of over specialisation, in which critical thinking is identified as one of the most desired yet most challenging educational outcomes for Higher Education. Given the increased use and acceptance of technology-enhanced approaches as a result of the recent transformation of the Higher Education landscape following the COVID-19 restrictions, the current results provide a new perspective for the combination of video learning and PT practice in an online learning environment. This new perspective regarding our combined approach suggests that technological innovations for critical thinking education are effective and can be easily accommodated to support active learning outside classrooms.

Data availability

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

Abrami, P. C., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Waddington, D. I., Wade, C. A., & Persson, T. (2015). Strategies for teaching students to think critically: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 85 (2), 275–314. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654314551063

Article   Google Scholar  

Abrami, P. C., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Wade, A., Surkes, M., Tamim, R., & Zhang, D. (2008). Instructional interventions affecting critical thinking skills and dispositions: A stage 1 meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 78 (4), 1102–1134. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308326084

Baker, D. C. (2001). Nursing reasoning model. Nurse Educator, 26 (5), 203–204.

Beverley, M., Hughes, J. C., & Hastings, R. P. (2009). What’s the probability of that? Using SAFMEDS to increase undergraduate success with statistical concepts. European Journal of Behaviour Analysis, 10 (2), 235–247. https://doi.org/10.1080/15021149.2009.11434321

Binder, C. (1996). Behavioral fluency: Evolution of a new paradigm. The Behavior Analyst, 19 (2), 163–197.

Brame, C. J. (2016). Effective educational videos: Principles and guidelines for maximising student learning from video content. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 15 (4), es6.

Braun, N. M. (2004). Critical thinking in the business curriculum. Journal of Education for Business, 79 (4), 232–236.

Broadbear, J. T. (2003). Essential elements of lessons designed to promote critical thinking. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 3 (3), 1–8.

Google Scholar  

Brunt, B. A. (2005). Models, measurement, and strategies in developing critical-thinking skills. The Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing, 36 (6), 255–262.

Bulte, C., Betts, A., Garner, K., & Durning, S. (2007). Student teaching: Views of student near peer teachers and learners. Medical Teacher, 29 , 583–590. https://doi.org/10.1080/01421590701583824

Butler, H. A., Pentoney, C., & Bong, M. P. (2017). Predicting real-world outcomes: Critical thinking ability is a better predictor of life decisions than intelligence. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 25 , 38–46.

Carey, S. S. (2000). The uses and abuses of argument: Critical thinking and the fallacies . Mayfield.

Carmichael, M., Reid, A. K., & Karpicke, J. D. (2018). Assessing the impact of educational video on student engagement, critical thinking and learning: The current state of play . Sage Publicaions.

Chiesa, M., & Robertson, A. (2000). Precision teaching and fluency training: Making maths easier for pupils and teachers. Educational Psychology in Practice, 16 (3), 297–310. https://doi.org/10.1080/713666088

Clement, J. (1979). Introduction to research in cognitive process instruction. In J. Lochhead & J. Clement (Eds.), Cognitive process instruction. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Erlbaum.

Commons, M. L., Owens, C. J., & Will, S. M. (2015). Using a computer-based precision teaching program to facilitate learning of complex material: The case of the model of hierarchical complexity. Behavioral Development Bulletin, 20 (2), 207.

Copy, I. M., & Burgess-Jackson, K. (1996). Informal logic . Prentice Hall.

Cuzzocrea, F., Murdaca, A. M., & Oliva, P. (2011). Using precision teaching method to improve foreign language and cognitive skills in university students. International Journal of Digital Literacy and Digital Competence (IJDLDC), 2 (4), 50–60. https://doi.org/10.4018/jdldc.2011100104

Engle, R., & Greeno, J. (2003). Framing interactions to foster productive learning. In K. Beach (Ed.), Sociocultural, semiotic, situative, and activity theoretic alternatives to the transfer metaphor: New understandings of how knowledge generalizes. American Educational Research Association.

Facione, P. A., & Facione, N. C. (2001). Analysing explanations for seemingly irrational choices: Linking argument analysis and cognitive science. International Journal of Applied Philosophy, 15 (2), 267–286.

Forbes, K. (2018). Exploring first year undergraduate students’ conceptualisations of critical thinking skills. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 30 (3), 433–442.

Forsetlund, L., Chalmers, I., & Bjørndal, A. (2007). When was random allocation first used to generate comparison groups in experiments to assess the effects of social interventions? Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 16 (5), 371–384.

Fox, E. J., & Ghezzi, P. M. (2003). Effects of computer-based fluency training on concept formation. Journal of Behavioral Education, 12 (1), 1–21.

Gaudin, C., & Chaliès, S. (2015). Video viewing in teacher education and professional development: A literature review. Educational Research Review, 16 , 41–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2015.06.001

Gray, P. (1993). Engaging students’ intellects: The immersion approach to critical thinking in psychology instruction. Teaching of Psychology, 20 (2), 68–74.

Gray, W. D. (1991). Thinking critically about New Age ideas . Wadsworth Publishing Company.

Guiller, J., Durndell, A., & Ross, A. (2008). Peer interaction and critical thinking: Face-to-face or online discussion? Learning and Instruction, 18 (2), 187–200.

Guo, P. J., Kim, J., & Rubin, R. (2014). How video production affects student engagement: An empirical study of MOOC videos. Proceeding of the first ACM conference on Learning @ scale conference (pp. 41–50). ACM.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

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

Harrington, K., Norton, L., Elander, J., Lusher, J., Aiyegbayo, O., Pitt, E., Robinson, H., & Reddy, P. (2006). Using core assessment criteria to improve essay writing. In C. Bryan & K. Clegg (Eds.), Innovative assessment in higher education (pp. 110–119). Routledge.

Hart Research Associates. (2015). Falling short?: College learning and career success . Association of American Colleges and Universities.

Hatcher, D. L. (2011). Which test? Whose scores? Comparing standardised critical thinking tests. New Directions for Institutional Research, 149 , 29–39. https://doi.org/10.1002/ir.378

Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning . Routledge.

Hill, J. L., & Nelson, A. (2011). New technology, new pedagogy? Employing video podcasts in learning and teaching about exotic ecosystems. Environmental Education Research, 17 (3), 393–408. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2010.545873

Hughes, J. C., Beverley, M., & Whitehead, J. (2007). Using precision teaching to increase the fluency of word reading with problem readers. European Journal of Behavior Analysis, 8 (2), 221–238.

Ikuenobe, P. (2001). Teaching and assessing critical thinking abilities as outcomes in an informal logic course. Teaching in Higher Education, 6 (1), 19–32.

Joynes, C., Rossignoli, S., & FenyiwaAmonoo-Kuofi, E. (2019). 21st Century Skills: Evidence of issues in definition, demand and delivery for development contexts (K4D Helpdesk Report) . Institute of Development Studies.

Karpicke, J. D., & Roediger, H. L., 3rd. (2008). The critical importance of retrieval for learning. Science, 319 (5865), 966–968. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1152408

Khong, H. K., & Kabilan, M. K. (2020). A theoretical model of micro-learning for second language instruction. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 2020 , 1–24.

Koh, N. S., Gottipati, S., & Shankararaman, V. (2018). Effectiveness of bite-sized lecture on student learning outcomes. 4th international conference on higher education advances (HEAd’18) (pp. 515–523). Universitat Politecnica de Valencia.

Koslowski, B. (1996). Theory and evidence: The development of scientific reasoning . MIT Press.

Kreth, M., Crawford, M. A., Taylor, M., & Brockman, E. (2010). Situated assessment: Limitations and promise. Assessing Writing, 15 (1), 40–59.

Kubina, R. M., & Morrison, R. S. (2000). Fluency in education. Behavior and Social Issues, 10 , 83–99.

Kubina, R. M., & Yurich, K. K. (2012). The precision teaching book . Greatness Achieved Publishing Company.

Lindsley, O. R. (1997). Precise instructional design: Guidelines from precision teaching. Instructional Development Paradigms, 1997 , 537–554.

Lockspeiser, T. M., O’Sullivan, P., Teherani, A., & Muller, J. (2008). Understanding the experience of being taught by peers: The value of social and cognitive congruence. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 13 (3), 361–372. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-006-9049-8

Lokke, G. E., Lokke, J. A., & Arntzen, E. (2008). Precision teaching, frequency-building, and ballet dancing. Journal of Precision Teaching and Celeration, 24 , 21–27.

MacKnight, C. B. (2000). Teaching critical thinking through online discussions. Educause Quarterly, 23 (4), 38–41.

Mandernach, B. J. (2006). Thinking critically about critical thinking: Integrating online tools to promote critical thinking. Insight: A Collection of Faculty Scholarship, 1 , 41–50.

McHugh, M. L. (2012). Interrater reliability: The kappa statistic. Biochemia Medica, 22 (3), 276–282.

McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2009). Synergy between teacher practices and curricular scaffolds to support students in using domain-specific and domain general knowledge in writing arguments to explain phenomena. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 18 (3), 416–460. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508400903013488

McPeck, J. (1981). Critical thinking and education . Oxford University Press.

Muhammad Basri, M. B., Sumargono, S., & Fatan, F. (2021). The effect of using the Powtoon application on student learning motivation. Review of International Geographical Education Online, 11 (5), 4019–4024.

Neuman, Y. (2003). Go ahead, prove that God does not exist! On high school students’ ability to deal with fallacious arguments. Learning and Instruction, 13 (4), 367–380.

Neuman, Y., & Weizman, E. (2003). The role of text representation in students’ ability to identify fallacious arguments. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 56 (5), 849–864.

Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms-children, computers, and powerful ideas . Basic Books, Inc.

Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2009). The miniature guide to critical thinking (5th ed.). The Foundation for Critical Thinking.

Peter, E. E. (2012). Critical thinking: Essence for teaching mathematics and mathematics problem-solving skills. African Journal of Mathematics and Computer Science Research, 5 (3), 39–43. https://doi.org/10.5897/AJMCSR11.161

Pi, Z., Hong, J., & Yang, J. (2017). Does instructor’s image size in video lectures affect learning outcomes? Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 33 (4), 347–354.

Pokhrel, S., & Chhetri, R. (2021). A literature review on impact of COVID-19 pandemic on teaching and learning. Higher Education for the Future, 8 (1), 133–141. https://doi.org/10.1177/2347631120983481

Ramasamy, S. (2011). An analysis of informal reasoning fallacy and critical thinking dispositions among malaysian undergraduates.  Online submission . Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED525513.pdf

Resmol, K., & Leasa, M. (2022). The effect of learning cycle 5E+ Powtoon on students’ motivation: The concept of animal metamorphosis. JPBI (Jurnal Pendidikan Biologi Indonesia), 8 (2), 121–128.

Richardson, J., & Ice, P. (2010). Investigating students’ level of critical thinking across instructional strategies in online discussions. Internet and Higher Education, 13 , 52–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.10.009

Salina, L., Ruffinengo, C., Garrino, L., Massariello, P., Charrier, L., Martin, B., Favale, M. S., & Dimonte, V. (2012). Effectiveness of an educational video as an instrument to refresh and reinforce the learning of a nursing technique: A randomised controlled trial. Perspectives on Medical Education, 1 (2), 67–75.

Schick, T., & Vaughn, L. (2020). How to think about weird things: Critical thinking for a new age . McGraw Hill.

Scriven, M., & Paul, R. (2007). Defining critical thinking. The critical thinking community: foundation for critical thinking. CRC.

Solon, T. (2007). Generic critical thinking infusion and course content learning in introductory psychology. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 34 (2), 1–10.

Stockwell, B. R., Stockwell, M. S., Cennamo, M., & Jiang, E. (2015). Blended learning improves science education. Cell, 162 (5), 933–936.

Sundhu, R., & Kittles, M. (2016). Precision teaching: Does training by educational psychologist have an impact? Educational Psychology in Practice, 32 (1), 13–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/02667363.2015.1094651

Syed, A. M., Ahmad, S., Alaraifi, A., & Rafi, W. (2020). Identification of operational risks impeding the implementation of eLearning in higher education system. Education and Information Technologies, 26 (1), 655–671. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10281-6

Tiruneh, D. T., De Cock, M., & Elen, J. (2018). Designing learning environments for critical thinking: Examining effective instructional approaches. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Educucation, 16 , 1065–1089. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-017-9829-z

Weinstock, M., Neuman, Y., & Tabak, I. (2004). Missing the point or missing the norms? Epistemological norms as predictors of students’ ability to identify fallacious arguments. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29 (1), 77–94.

World Health Organization. (2020). WHO director-general’s opening remarks at the media briefing on COVID-19 . WHO.

Yousef, A. M. F., Chatti, M. A., & Schroeder, U. (2014). Video-based learning: A critical analysis of the research published in 2003–2013 and future visions. eLmL 2014, the sixth international conference on mobile, hybrid, and on-line learning (pp. 112–119). IARIA.

Zamora, L. P., Bravo, S. S., & Padilla, A. G. (2021). Production of comics in POWTOON as a teaching-learning strategy in an operations research course. European Journal of Contemporary Education, 10 (1), 137–147.

Download references

The work was supported by the Department of Psychology at Edge Hill University under the Graduate Teaching Assistantships scheme awarded to the first author.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Psychology, Birmingham City University, Birmingham, UK

Angel J. Y. Tan

Department of Psychology, Edge Hill University, Ormskirk, UK

Jean L. Davies, Roderick I. Nicolson & Themis Karaminis

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Angel J. Y. Tan .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

There are no conflicts of interest to report.

Ethical approval

Informed consent was obtained from all participants in the study and all procedures were approved by the Ethics Committee of the Department of Psychology at Edge Hill University.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

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

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Tan, A.J.Y., Davies, J.L., Nicolson, R.I. et al. Learning critical thinking skills online: can precision teaching help?. Education Tech Research Dev 71 , 1275–1296 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-023-10227-y

Download citation

Accepted : 29 March 2023

Published : 14 April 2023

Issue Date : June 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-023-10227-y

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

• Critical thinking
• Precision teaching
• Problem-based learning
• Computer-assisted learning
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research