importance of creative and critical thinking in education

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

Part Two: You are the President and CEO of You

Thinking Critically and Creatively

Dr. andrew robert baker.

Critical and creative thinking skills are perhaps the most fundamental skills involved in making judgments and solving problems. They are some of the most important skills I have ever developed. I use them everyday and continue to work to improve them both.

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 a myriad of 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. Developing my critical thinking skills over a twenty year period as a student in higher education enabled me to complete a quantitative dissertation, including analyzing research and completing statistical analysis, and earning my Ph.D. in 2014.

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!

Foundations of Academic Success: Words of Wisdom Copyright © 2015 by Thomas Priester is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Classroom Q&A

With larry ferlazzo.

In this EdWeek blog, an experiment in knowledge-gathering, Ferlazzo will address readers’ questions on classroom management, ELL instruction, lesson planning, and other issues facing teachers. Send your questions to [email protected]. Read more from this blog.

Integrating Critical Thinking Into the Classroom

• Share article

(This is the second post in a three-part series. You can see Part One here .)

The new question-of-the-week is:

What is critical thinking and how can we integrate it into the classroom?

Part One ‘s guests were Dara Laws Savage, Patrick Brown, Meg Riordan, Ph.D., and Dr. PJ Caposey. Dara, Patrick, and Meg were also guests on my 10-minute BAM! Radio Show . You can also find a list of, and links to, previous shows here.

Today, Dr. Kulvarn Atwal, Elena Quagliarello, Dr. Donna Wilson, and Diane Dahl share their recommendations.

‘Learning Conversations’

Dr. Kulvarn Atwal is currently the executive head teacher of two large primary schools in the London borough of Redbridge. Dr. Atwal is the author of The Thinking School: Developing a Dynamic Learning Community , published by John Catt Educational. Follow him on Twitter @Thinkingschool2 :

In many classrooms I visit, students’ primary focus is on what they are expected to do and how it will be measured. It seems that we are becoming successful at producing students who are able to jump through hoops and pass tests. But are we producing children that are positive about teaching and learning and can think critically and creatively? Consider your classroom environment and the extent to which you employ strategies that develop students’ critical-thinking skills and their self-esteem as learners.

Development of self-esteem

One of the most significant factors that impacts students’ engagement and achievement in learning in your classroom is their self-esteem. In this context, self-esteem can be viewed to be the difference between how they perceive themselves as a learner (perceived self) and what they consider to be the ideal learner (ideal self). This ideal self may reflect the child that is associated or seen to be the smartest in the class. Your aim must be to raise students’ self-esteem. To do this, you have to demonstrate that effort, not ability, leads to success. Your language and interactions in the classroom, therefore, have to be aspirational—that if children persist with something, they will achieve.

Use of evaluative praise

Ensure that when you are praising students, you are making explicit links to a child’s critical thinking and/or development. This will enable them to build their understanding of what factors are supporting them in their learning. For example, often when we give feedback to students, we may simply say, “Well done” or “Good answer.” However, are the students actually aware of what they did well or what was good about their answer? Make sure you make explicit what the student has done well and where that links to prior learning. How do you value students’ critical thinking—do you praise their thinking and demonstrate how it helps them improve their learning?

Learning conversations to encourage deeper thinking

We often feel as teachers that we have to provide feedback to every students’ response, but this can limit children’s thinking. Encourage students in your class to engage in learning conversations with each other. Give as many opportunities as possible to students to build on the responses of others. Facilitate chains of dialogue by inviting students to give feedback to each other. The teacher’s role is, therefore, to facilitate this dialogue and select each individual student to give feedback to others. It may also mean that you do not always need to respond at all to a student’s answer.

Teacher modelling own thinking

We cannot expect students to develop critical-thinking skills if we aren’t modeling those thinking skills for them. Share your creativity, imagination, and thinking skills with the students and you will nurture creative, imaginative critical thinkers. Model the language you want students to learn and think about. Share what you feel about the learning activities your students are participating in as well as the thinking you are engaging in. Your own thinking and learning will add to the discussions in the classroom and encourage students to share their own thinking.

Metacognitive questioning

Consider the extent to which your questioning encourages students to think about their thinking, and therefore, learn about learning! Through asking metacognitive questions, you will enable your students to have a better understanding of the learning process, as well as their own self-reflections as learners. Example questions may include:

• Why did you choose to do it that way?
• When you find something tricky, what helps you?
• How do you know when you have really learned something?

‘Adventures of Discovery’

Elena Quagliarello is the senior editor of education for Scholastic News , a current events magazine for students in grades 3–6. She graduated from Rutgers University, where she studied English and earned her master’s degree in elementary education. She is a certified K–12 teacher and previously taught middle school English/language arts for five years:

Critical thinking blasts through the surface level of a topic. It reaches beyond the who and the what and launches students on a learning journey that ultimately unlocks a deeper level of understanding. Teaching students how to think critically helps them turn information into knowledge and knowledge into wisdom. In the classroom, critical thinking teaches students how to ask and answer the questions needed to read the world. Whether it’s a story, news article, photo, video, advertisement, or another form of media, students can use the following critical-thinking strategies to dig beyond the surface and uncover a wealth of knowledge.

A Layered Learning Approach

Begin by having students read a story, article, or analyze a piece of media. Then have them excavate and explore its various layers of meaning. First, ask students to think about the literal meaning of what they just read. For example, if students read an article about the desegregation of public schools during the 1950s, they should be able to answer questions such as: Who was involved? What happened? Where did it happen? Which details are important? This is the first layer of critical thinking: reading comprehension. Do students understand the passage at its most basic level?

Ask the Tough Questions

The next layer delves deeper and starts to uncover the author’s purpose and craft. Teach students to ask the tough questions: What information is included? What or who is left out? How does word choice influence the reader? What perspective is represented? What values or people are marginalized? These questions force students to critically analyze the choices behind the final product. In today’s age of fast-paced, easily accessible information, it is essential to teach students how to critically examine the information they consume. The goal is to equip students with the mindset to ask these questions on their own.

Strike Gold

The deepest layer of critical thinking comes from having students take a step back to think about the big picture. This level of thinking is no longer focused on the text itself but rather its real-world implications. Students explore questions such as: Why does this matter? What lesson have I learned? How can this lesson be applied to other situations? Students truly engage in critical thinking when they are able to reflect on their thinking and apply their knowledge to a new situation. This step has the power to transform knowledge into wisdom.

Adventures of Discovery

There are vast ways to spark critical thinking in the classroom. Here are a few other ideas:

• Critical Expressionism: In this expanded response to reading from a critical stance, students are encouraged to respond through forms of artistic interpretations, dramatizations, singing, sketching, designing projects, or other multimodal responses. For example, students might read an article and then create a podcast about it or read a story and then act it out.
• Transmediations: This activity requires students to take an article or story and transform it into something new. For example, they might turn a news article into a cartoon or turn a story into a poem. Alternatively, students may rewrite a story by changing some of its elements, such as the setting or time period.
• Words Into Action: In this type of activity, students are encouraged to take action and bring about change. Students might read an article about endangered orangutans and the effects of habitat loss caused by deforestation and be inspired to check the labels on products for palm oil. They might then write a letter asking companies how they make sure the palm oil they use doesn’t hurt rain forests.
• Socratic Seminars: In this student-led discussion strategy, students pose thought-provoking questions to each other about a topic. They listen closely to each other’s comments and think critically about different perspectives.
• Classroom Debates: Aside from sparking a lively conversation, classroom debates naturally embed critical-thinking skills by asking students to formulate and support their own opinions and consider and respond to opposing viewpoints.

Critical thinking has the power to launch students on unforgettable learning experiences while helping them develop new habits of thought, reflection, and inquiry. Developing these skills prepares students to examine issues of power and promote transformative change in the world around them.

‘Quote Analysis’

Dr. Donna Wilson is a psychologist and the author of 20 books, including Developing Growth Mindsets , Teaching Students to Drive Their Brains , and Five Big Ideas for Effective Teaching (2 nd Edition). She is an international speaker who has worked in Asia, the Middle East, Australia, Europe, Jamaica, and throughout the U.S. and Canada. Dr. Wilson can be reached at [email protected] ; visit her website at www.brainsmart.org .

Diane Dahl has been a teacher for 13 years, having taught grades 2-4 throughout her career. Mrs. Dahl currently teaches 3rd and 4th grade GT-ELAR/SS in Lovejoy ISD in Fairview, Texas. Follow her on Twitter at @DahlD, and visit her website at www.fortheloveofteaching.net :

A growing body of research over the past several decades indicates that teaching students how to be better thinkers is a great way to support them to be more successful at school and beyond. In the book, Teaching Students to Drive Their Brains , Dr. Wilson shares research and many motivational strategies, activities, and lesson ideas that assist students to think at higher levels. Five key strategies from the book are as follows:

• Facilitate conversation about why it is important to think critically at school and in other contexts of life. Ideally, every student will have a contribution to make to the discussion over time.
• Begin teaching thinking skills early in the school year and as a daily part of class.
• As this instruction begins, introduce students to the concept of brain plasticity and how their brilliant brains change during thinking and learning. This can be highly motivational for students who do not yet believe they are good thinkers!
• Explicitly teach students how to use the thinking skills.
• Facilitate student understanding of how the thinking skills they are learning relate to their lives at school and in other contexts.

Below are two lessons that support critical thinking, which can be defined as the objective analysis and evaluation of an issue in order to form a judgment.

Mrs. Dahl prepares her 3rd and 4th grade classes for a year of critical thinking using quote analysis .

During Native American studies, her 4 th grade analyzes a Tuscarora quote: “Man has responsibility, not power.” Since students already know how the Native Americans’ land had been stolen, it doesn’t take much for them to make the logical leaps. Critical-thought prompts take their thinking even deeper, especially at the beginning of the year when many need scaffolding. Some prompts include:

• … from the point of view of the Native Americans?
• … from the point of view of the settlers?
• How do you think your life might change over time as a result?
• Can you relate this quote to anything else in history?

Analyzing a topic from occupational points of view is an incredibly powerful critical-thinking tool. After learning about the Mexican-American War, Mrs. Dahl’s students worked in groups to choose an occupation with which to analyze the war. The chosen occupations were: anthropologist, mathematician, historian, archaeologist, cartographer, and economist. Then each individual within each group chose a different critical-thinking skill to focus on. Finally, they worked together to decide how their occupation would view the war using each skill.

For example, here is what each student in the economist group wrote:

• When U.S.A. invaded Mexico for land and won, Mexico ended up losing income from the settlements of Jose de Escandon. The U.S.A. thought that they were gaining possible tradable land, while Mexico thought that they were losing precious land and resources.
• Whenever Texas joined the states, their GDP skyrocketed. Then they went to war and spent money on supplies. When the war was resolving, Texas sold some of their land to New Mexico for $10 million. This allowed Texas to pay off their debt to the U.S., improving their relationship.
• A detail that converged into the Mexican-American War was that Mexico and the U.S. disagreed on the Texas border. With the resulting treaty, Texas ended up gaining more land and economic resources.
• Texas gained land from Mexico since both countries disagreed on borders. Texas sold land to New Mexico, which made Texas more economically structured and allowed them to pay off their debt.

This was the first time that students had ever used the occupations technique. Mrs. Dahl was astonished at how many times the kids used these critical skills in other areas moving forward.

Thanks to Dr. Auwal, Elena, Dr. Wilson, and Diane for their contributions!

Please feel free to leave a comment with your reactions to the topic or directly to anything that has been said in this post.

Consider contributing a question to be answered in a future post. You can send one to me at [email protected] . When you send it in, let me know if I can use your real name if it’s selected or if you’d prefer remaining anonymous and have a pseudonym in mind.

You can also contact me on Twitter at @Larryferlazzo .

Education Week has published a collection of posts from this blog, along with new material, in an e-book form. It’s titled Classroom Management Q&As: Expert Strategies for Teaching .

Just a reminder; you can subscribe and receive updates from this blog via email (The RSS feed for this blog, and for all Ed Week articles, has been changed by the new redesign—new ones won’t be available until February). And if you missed any of the highlights from the first nine years of this blog, you can see a categorized list below.

• This Year’s Most Popular Q&A Posts
• Race & Racism in Schools
• School Closures & the Coronavirus Crisis
• Classroom-Management Advice
• Best Ways to Begin the School Year
• Best Ways to End the School Year
• Student Motivation & Social-Emotional Learning
• Implementing the Common Core
• Facing Gender Challenges in Education
• Teaching Social Studies
• Cooperative & Collaborative Learning
• Using Tech in the Classroom
• Student Voices
• Parent Engagement in Schools
• Teaching English-Language Learners
• Reading Instruction
• Writing Instruction
• Education Policy Issues
• Differentiating Instruction
• Math Instruction
• Science Instruction
• Advice for New Teachers
• Author Interviews
• Entering the Teaching Profession
• The Inclusive Classroom
• Learning & the Brain
• Administrator Leadership
• Teacher Leadership
• Relationships in Schools
• Professional Development
• Instructional Strategies
• Best of Classroom Q&A
• Professional Collaboration
• Classroom Organization
• Mistakes in Education
• Project-Based Learning

I am also creating a Twitter list including all contributors to this column .

The opinions expressed in Classroom Q&A With Larry Ferlazzo are strictly those of the author(s) and do not reflect the opinions or endorsement of Editorial Projects in Education, or any of its publications.

Sign Up for EdWeek Update

Edweek top school jobs.

Sign Up & Sign In

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

Bibliography

Academic tools.

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

Critical Thinking

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

2.1 Dewey’s Three Main Examples

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. Examples and Non-Examples

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8. Critical Thinking Dispositions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

12. Controversies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

• Info about mirror sites

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

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

• Our Mission

Tips for Guiding Students to Think Creatively

These simple creativity challenges can encourage students to have the mindset of an artist, a designer, and a change-maker.

We’re living in an era when the thinking process is becoming increasingly more important in a student’s learning journey: the ability to be reflective, adaptable, flexible, and nimble during times of constant change.

While an answer, statistic, or other random “product” can be found by simply asking the ever-growing breadth of artificial intelligence options, the process of creative and critical thinking cannot.

How might we shift toward a culture of thinking that’s process oriented in our learning spaces? What types of thinking would be most beneficial during a constant state of flux? Here are three ways of thinking that can help prepare students for career, life, and, most important, humanity. 

Thinking like an artist

In a world that’s moving at breakneck speed, thinking like an artist is about slowing down to uncover the nuance, complexity, and emotion of the world around us. Thinking like an artist is about developing the skills for meaningful expression. Adapted from the Columbus Museum of Art’s Making Creativity Visible project, this process focuses on the dispositions inherent in thinking like an artist.

Artists are playful and imaginative, and they experiment with ideas. They generate original ideas and approach the world with an insatiable curiosity. They’re comfortable with ambiguity and persist through failure. They value questioning, collaboration, and reflection. They communicate ideas and celebrate the beauty of thinking in unique and whimsical ways. What if you asked students to think like an artist in your learning space? What would that look, sound, and feel like?

Imagine if you asked students to find an object in the room and to write a series of questions they would like to ask the object. Then have them pick a question and answer it from the object’s perspective. Ask the students to use some simple materials like tape, paper, and scissors to make something connected to the answer they came up with.

This is a quick creativity challenge that can help create the conditions for students to think more like an artist in your space. If we want students to slow down and be more playful with their thinking, we must give them opportunities to exercise these dispositions. 

Thinking like a designer

We currently have a surplus of problems facing our world. Our students see, hear, and/or feel the problems that surround us every day. Imagine if we asked our students to think like a designer in our learning spaces. What if we facilitated learning experiences as an opportunity to identify and solve problems?

Designers find inspiration in the people, questions, and problems of their community. They use this inspiration to generate human-centered ideas. Designers prototype and implement a variety of possible solutions. They reflect and iterate on these solutions until they find one that has a lasting and meaningful impact on those most closely connected to the problem. Inspired from the work of IDEO , a design firm in Palo Alto, California, thinking like a designer can help students see how learning can be a more collective act, as opposed to the more individualistic one common throughout schools today.

How might you create space in your classroom to empower students to think more like a designer? Imagine if you had the students at the beginning of the year write down one worry they had about the upcoming year on a sticky note. Next they each found a partner and shared their worry. You gave them the time to conduct an empathy interview to get a better understanding of the worry. Then, with simple materials like tape, paper, string, scissors, and markers, you tasked them with designing an artifact that would help relieve some of the stress of their classmate’s worry. After students completed their artifact, they took turns sharing the artifact, its meaning, and how it addressed the worry of a classmate.

The purpose of this creativity challenge is to recognize the power in thinking like a designer —finding inspiration in those around us and gathering ideas from deep, meaningful conversation and creating solutions that matter to others.  

Thinking like a change agent

One element we need more of in our schools is meaning. Students know that much of what they’re learning is isolated and devoid of meaning. They know that the majority of what they’re learning is to satisfy state measured assessments. What if we asked students to think more like an agent of change in our learning spaces? What might that look, sound, and feel like?

Pulling from the work of the Columbus Museum of Art and Project Zero’s Cultivating Creative and Civic Capacities project, I and my colleagues have identified some essential dispositions of thinking like a change agent. Change agents must be able to imagine a more beautiful, just, and sustainable world for everyone. They must be able to slow down to investigate the complexity of taking action. They must be able to harness the power of influence to inspire change. Lastly, they must be able to explore the tensions between the individual and the collective society we all live in.

How might you create the conditions in your learning space for students to think like a change agent ? Imagine if you took your students on a noticing stroll around the campus or community. What if you asked them to identify meaningful issues, problems, or questions that they observed along the way, and to investigate some of these noticings to dig deeper into the interconnected nature of the causes and impact and where there might be opportunities for transformation?

Students could then take time to imagine new possibilities. How might your students design possibilities that influence others to take action and enable student experiences to be more beautiful, just, and sustainable?

The purpose of this creativity challenge is to help provide a process for students to find meaning by thinking like a change agent. What if we moved from maintaining the status quo to challenging it?

• Become a Member
• Artificial Intelligence
• Computational Thinking
• Digital Citizenship
• Edtech Selection
• Global Collaborations
• STEAM in Education
• Teacher Preparation
• ISTE Certification
• School Partners
• Career Development
• ISTELive 24
• 2024 ASCD Annual Conference
• Solutions Summit
• Leadership Exchange
• 2024 ASCD Leadership Summit
• Edtech Product Database
• Solutions Network
• Sponsorship & Advertising
• Sponsorship & Advertising
• Learning Library

5 Reasons Why It Is More Important Than Ever to Teach Creativity

• Education Leadership

On the laundry list of skills and content areas teachers have to cover, creativity doesn’t traditionally get top billing. It’s usually lumped together with other soft skills like communication and collaboration: Great to have, though not as important as reading or long division.

But research is showing that creativity isn’t just great to have. It’s an essential human skill — perhaps even an evolutionary imperative in our technology-driven world.

“The pace of cultural change is accelerating more quickly than ever before,” says Liane Gabora , associate professor of psychology and creative studies at the University of British Columbia. “In some biological systems, when the environment is changing quickly, the mutation rate goes up. Similarly, in times of change we need to bump up creativity levels — to generate the innovative ideas that will keep us afloat.”

From standardized tests to one-size-fits-all curriculum, public education often leaves little room for creativity, says EdNews Daily founder Robyn D. Shulman . This puts many schools out of sync with both global demand and societal needs, leaving students poorly prepared for future success.

What can education leaders do about it? For starters, they can make teaching creativity a priority. Here are five reasons to encourage teachers to bring more creativity into the classroom:

1. Creativity motivates kids to learn.

Decades of research link creativity with the intrinsic motivation to learn. When students are focused on a creative goal, they become more absorbed in their learning and more driven to acquire the skills they need to accomplish it.

As proof, education leader Ryan Imbriale cites his young daughter, who loves making TikTok videos showcasing her gymnastics skills. “She spends countless hours on her mat, working over and over again to try to get her gymnastics moves correct so she can share her TikTok video of her success,” says the executive director of innovative learning for Baltimore County Public Schools.

Students are most motivated to learn when certain factors are present: They’re able to tie their learning to their personal interests, they have a sense of autonomy and control over their task, and they feel competent in the work they’re doing. Creative projects can easily meet all three conditions.

2. Creativity lights up the brain.

Teachers who frequently assign classwork involving creativity are more likely to observe higher-order cognitive skills — problem solving, critical thinking, making connections between subjects — in their students. And when teachers combine creativity with transformative technology use, they see even better outcomes.

Creative work helps students connect new information to their prior knowledge, says Wanda Terral, director of technology for Lakeland School System outside of Memphis. That makes the learning stickier.

“Unless there’s a place to ‘stick’ the knowledge to what they already know, it’s hard for students to make it a part of themselves moving forward,” she says. “It comes down to time. There’s not enough time to give them the flexibility to find out where the learning fits in their life and in their brain.”

3. Creativity spurs emotional development.

The creative process involves a lot of trial and error. Productive struggle — a gentler term for failure — builds resilience, teaching students to push through difficulty to reach success. That’s fertile soil for emotional growth.

“Allowing students to experience the journey, regardless of the end result, is important,” says Terral, a presenter at  ISTE Creative Constructor Lab .

Creativity gives students the freedom to explore and learn new things from each other, Imbriale adds. As they overcome challenges and bring their creative ideas to fruition, “students begin to see that they have limitless boundaries,” he says. “That, in turn, creates confidence. It helps with self-esteem and emotional development.”

4. Creativity can ignite those hard-to-reach students.

Many educators have at least one story about a student who was struggling until the teacher assigned a creative project. When academically disinclined students are permitted to unleash their creativity or explore a topic of personal interest, the transformation can be startling.

“Some students don’t do well on tests or don’t do well grade-wise, but they’re super-creative kids,” Terral says. “It may be that the structure of school is not good for them. But put that canvas in front of them or give them tools so they can sculpt, and their creativity just oozes out of them.”

5. Creativity is an essential job skill of the future.

Actually, it’s an essential job skill right now.

According to an Adobe study , 85% of college-educated professionals say creative thinking is critical for problem solving in their careers. And an analysis of LinkedIn data found that creativity is the second most in-demand job skill (after cloud computing), topping the list of soft skills companies need most. As automation continues to swallow up routine jobs, those who rely on soft skills like creativity will see the most growth.

“We can’t exist without the creative thinker. It’s the idea generation and the opportunity to collaborate with others that moves work,” Imbriale says.

“It’s one thing to be able to sit in front of computer screen and program something. But it’s another to have the conversations and engage in learning about what somebody wants out of a program to be written in order to be able to deliver on that. That all comes from a creative mindset.”

Nicole Krueger is a freelance writer and journalist with a passion for finding out what makes learners tick.

• artificial intelligence

  WHAT is Critical Thinking?

Critical = Evaluative

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

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

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

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

Characteristics of Critical Thinkers

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

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

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

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

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

Beneficial Uses of Critical Thinking

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

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

Knowledge + Creative Thinking + Critical Thinking → Productive Thinking   .

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

  WHY should we teach Critical Thinking?

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

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

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

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

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

  Causes and Effects of Motivated Reasoning

What is motivated reasoning.

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

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

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

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

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

WHY do people use motivated reasoning?  —  CAUSES

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

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

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

causes of motivated reasoning, by individuals and groups:

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

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

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

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

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

HOW does motivated reasoning affect critical thinking?  —  EFFECTS

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

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

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

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

by selecting their evidence:

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

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

by adjusting their logic:

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

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

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

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

by adjusting their values:

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

by adjusting their ethics:  

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

Complexity and Confidence

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

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

Reversing the Process  –  doing Conclusion first, then Evaluation

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

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

Personal Change-of-View

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

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

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

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

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

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

Motivated Reasoning can be Intelligent Reasoning

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Avoiding Postmodern Relativism

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

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

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

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

Australian teachers’ adoption of critical and creative thinking as curriculum

• Open access
• Published: 26 April 2024

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Kylie Murphy   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-2813-3687 1 ,
• Steve Murphy   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-6036-7600 1 &
• Nathaniel Swain   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4608-2246 1  

67 Accesses

3 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Critical and creative thinking (CCT) was introduced as a General Capability in the Australian Curriculum in 2010, heralded as a call for more explicit teaching of CCT. This study was an online survey of 259 Australian teachers, exploring how they have adopted CCT as curriculum, including how confident they feel about this area of their teaching and what aspects of Australia’s CCT curriculum they teach and how. Most respondents believed it was important to teach CCT, but only a minority could recall professional learning in this area, and their confidence levels tended to be only moderate. The teachers were asked to provide examples of what they ‘say’ and ‘do’ in their teaching that best reflect their ‘typical’ approaches to teaching CCT. The examples indicated that they typically incorporated CCT into their teaching of other learning areas. However, the examples were mostly focused on only a few of the CCT General Capability sub-elements and were mostly of teachers providing students opportunities to engage in CCT skills, rather than explaining, modelling, scaffolding, or reinforcing the skills. For teachers to teach CCT more confidently and impactfully, improved professional learning and a more conducive CCT curriculum would assist.

Similar content being viewed by others

Conditions for Criticality in Doctoral Education: A Creative Concern

Teaching critical thinking: an operational framework.

Promoting Critical Thinking in Higher Education: My Experiences as the Inaugural Eugene H. Fram Chair in Applied Critical Thinking at Rochester Institute of Technology

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

Critical thinking and creative thinking, respectively, are broad and variably defined constructs. Definitions have been collated and discussed elsewhere (e.g. Ab Kadir, 2018 ; Heard Scoular et al., 2020 ; Ramalingam et al., 2020 ), but common to most notions of creative thinking is that it is exploratory, productive thinking, and common to most notions of critical thinking is that it is evaluative, reasoned thinking. Combined, these two types of thinking can lead to better outcomes than each type of thinking alone. Alghafri and Ismail ( 2014 ) describe critical and creative thinking as being two sides of the same coin, each of little use without the other. Critical thinking can both facilitate and utilise creative thinking, and vice versa. For this reason, the two constructs tend to be bundled together.

There is wide support for promoting critical and creative thinking (CCT) skills to meet individual, societal, and global priorities. CCT skills are argued to be key for individual employability and earning capacity (Foundation for Young Australians, 2016 ) and for the creation of a more just and sustainable world (Vincent-Lancrin et al., 2019 ). They are also prominent in international education movements, including 21st-century skills (Borrowski, 2019 ) and STEM education (Murphy et al., 2019 ). There is now widespread recognition in Australia and abroad that teachers should aim to develop students’ CCT skills (e.g. Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority [ACARA], n.da; Davies & Willing, 2023 ; Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, 2019 ). The importance of developing CCT in teachers themselves is also recognised (Loughland & Bostwick, 2023 ). In addition to CCT skills being worthy learning objectives in their own right, to promote careful and constructive use of knowledge, the cognitive processing that CCT involves can also strengthen the learning of knowledge itself (Australian Education Research Organisation [AERO], 2023a ; Ellerton, 2017 ; Evidence for Learning, 2023 ; Fiorella & Mayer, 2015 ; Kirschner & Hendrick, 2020 ; National Research Council, 2000 ; Rosenshine, 1995 ; Rosenshine, 2012 ; Weinstein et al., 2018 ; Willingham, 2021 ).

CCT is now included in the official curricula of many countries (Taylor et al., 2020 ), but not always as a distinct area. CCT features as a distinct area of curriculum in countries such as Australia (ACARA, n.d.a), Canada (British Columbia Curriculum, n.d.), and Singapore (Ministry of Education, Singapore, n.d.). Where specific teachable skills are articulated in curricula, they include analysing, evaluating, reasoning, drawing conclusions, and connecting, generating, testing, and/or modifying ideas (e.g. see Table  1 , for CCT concepts and skills drawn from the CCT general capability in the Australian Curriculum; ACARA, n.d.a). In cases where CCT does not feature as a distinct area of curriculum, typically CCT skills are embedded within traditional learning domains (e.g. Department for Education, 2014 ; Education Scotland, 2013 ). For example, in the UK’s national curriculum, Citizenship and Design and Technology include skills such as analysing evidence, evaluating viewpoints, presenting reasoned arguments, substantiating conclusions, using imagination, and designing and refining solutions to problems (Department for Education, 2014 ).

These concepts and skills are drawn from Australia’s CCT general capability (ACARA, n.d.a). ‘Ideas’ may refer to concrete or abstract concepts, propositions, tools, methods, products, or outcomes.

In 2010, ACARA introduced the Australian Curriculum, designed to ‘help all young Australians to become successful learners, confident and creative individuals, and active and informed citizens’ (ACARA, 2023a ). Although implementation of this curriculum is the responsibility of Australia’s state and territory authorities and implementation can vary between these jurisdictions, the Australian Curriculum describes to teachers, parents, and students ‘what is to be taught’ (ACARA, 2023a ). For details about the development of the Australian Curriculum, see ACARA ( 2023b ).

The Australian Curriculum includes CCT as one of seven ‘general capabilities’ (ACARA, n.d.a). Like the other six general capabilities (Literacy, Numeracy, Information and Communication Technology, Personal and Social, Ethical Understanding, and Intercultural Understanding), CCT is presented as a distinct area of curriculum (ACARA, 2023c ), but the intention remains that all seven general capabilities be pedagogically embedded by teachers across the disciplinary domains (called the ‘learning areas’ in the Australian Curriculum) of English, Mathematics, Science, Humanities and Social Studies, The Arts, Technologies, Health and Physical Education, and Languages. (For a discussion of pros and cons associated with the general capabilities in the Australian Curriculum, see Gilbert, 2019 ).

Australia’s CCT general capability is complex. It is comprised of ‘elements’ and ‘sub-elements’ with associated content descriptions (i.e. broad learning outcomes) from Level 1 (Foundation) to Level 6 (Years 9–10). Although there have been minor changes to its structure and content since its introduction, the CCT general capability has retained the same four-element structure: inquiring, generating, analysing, and reflecting. The current sub-elements for each of these elements and the associated content descriptions (Version 9; ACARA, n.d.b) are presented in Table  2 . Though not shown in Table  2 , the Australian Curriculum presents a learning continuum for each sub-element, which ‘describes the knowledge, skills, and behaviours that students can reasonably be expected to develop from Foundation to Year 10’ (ACARA, 2023c ).

The introduction of CCT as a general capability in the Australian Curriculum was heralded as an imperative for Australian teachers to teach CCT skills more explicitly (e.g. McIlvenny, 2013 ). ACARA called on Australian teachers to explicitly develop CCT skills (Organising Elements for Critical and Creative Thinking [Version 8.4], ACARA, n.d.a) and to explicitly teach CCT throughout the learning areas (Critical and Creative Thinking in the Learning Areas [Version 8.4], ACARA, n.d.a).

Given the apparent emphasis on the explicit teaching of CCT, it is relevant to define this term. Explicit teaching is typically defined as explaining and modelling the concepts and skills intended to be learned and providing guided practice and feedback (Archer & Hughes, 2011 ; AERO, 2023b ). Explicit teaching of CCT skills in domain-specific ways and across year levels is important because CCT skills are ‘hard won’ over the long term and not readily transferrable between domains (Willingham, 2019 , pp. 13, 14). While an intention of Australia’s CCT general capability was to facilitate explicit teaching of CCT skills at every level of schooling, there is currently little published research on the extent to which Australian teachers are explicitly teaching CCT concepts and skills.

The limited relevant evidence suggests that CCT is poorly or inconsistently understood by teachers both in Australia (Carter & Buchanan, 2022 ; Pithers & Soden, 2000 ) and internationally (Davies & Willing, 2023 ; van der Zanden et al., 2020 ). The limited research on CCT teaching in Australia includes an ACARA-commissioned consultation report about the general capabilities by The University of Queensland’s Institute for Social Science Research (ISSR, 2021 ) and a general capability focused teacher survey by Carter and Buchanan ( 2022 ).

Commissioned by ACARA, the ISSR ( 2021 ) report suggests issues associated with the CCT curriculum. The ISSR surveyed 94 teachers and school leaders, parents, academics, and professional associations. Open-ended comments were submitted by 32 respondents and were primarily negative/constructive. The comments mainly focused on the need for greater clarity of the content (e.g. elements, sub-elements, and learning continua), including the distinction between ‘critical’ and ‘creative’ thinking. For example, a national association submitted that it was ‘still not clear to the teachers we work with how creative and critical thinking are 2 different things in the elements and sub-elements’ (p. 26). Other comments concerned implementation issues, including those around teacher capability and expertise and the methods and practices associated with teaching and assessing CCT.

Carter and Buchanan ( 2022 ) surveyed 185 NSW primary teachers about all the general capabilities in the Australian Curriculum, highlighting concerns with the implementation of this curriculum more broadly. They found that while the teachers viewed all the general capabilities as important, the teachers were not confident in their knowledge of these capabilities. Almost half of the teachers reported that they did not understand the general capabilities, and most reported teaching these capabilities only occasionally or not at all. Of the 37 teachers who were interviewed in the study, only two said they taught general capabilities explicitly and none mentioned teaching CCT (i.e., only other general capabilities were mentioned). The participants in the study explained that a lack of professional learning was an impediment to their understanding of the general capabilities.

Current study

To address the lack of published research on the extent to which Australian teachers are teaching CCT as concepts and skills, the present study was a survey of Australian primary and secondary teachers. The survey was designed to explore to what extent and how Australian teachers have adopted CCT as a general capability curriculum (summarised in Table  2 ) as part of their teaching of other parts of the curriculum. Although we acknowledge other valuable ways of supporting the development of CCT (e.g. Harris et al., 2023 ; Maksić & Jošić, 2021 ), our focus was on the explicit teaching of the CCT concepts and skills identified in the Australian Curriculum’s CCT general capability. Our focus was on whether and how teachers were ‘enacting’ the Australian Curriculum CCT general capability as an ‘intended’ curriculum, but not whether or how they had accessed or worked with that curriculum (for a discussion of the processes that mediate intended and enacted curriculum, see Ross, 2023 ). Finally, our focus was on general capability CCT concepts and skills that can be learned and practised across multiple domains, rather than those specific to any particular domain (e.g. creative writing; Barton et al., 2023 ).

Our research questions were as follows:

How much importance do Australian teachers ascribe to teaching CCT?

What professional learning have they undertaken in this aspect of teaching?

How confident do they feel regarding their teaching of CCT?

What aspects of Australia's CCT general capability do they teach, and how?

What professional learning in CCT teaching do they desire?

Overall methodology

A pragmatic mixed-methods, exploratory survey was conducted. Currently practising Australian primary and secondary teachers were invited to contribute to the online survey, which was open from the beginning of the Australian school summer holiday period in December 2022 until February 2023. An online survey was selected as it was best able to gather the views and practices of a large number of teachers and uncover tendencies and patterns in how they teach CCT in relation to Australia’s CCT general capability curriculum. An online survey was considered suitable as a way to connect with practising teachers, given many teachers use social media for professional networking. The La Trobe University Ethics Project Number is HEC22350.

Questionnaire design

The questionnaire included seven sections, each described below. All but the first section offered respondents the opportunity to provide elaborative or qualifying comments in open text responses. The questionnaire was piloted with three teachers to ensure the questions were clear and to ascertain the time requirement (approximately 10 min).

The first survey section sought demographic information, including respondents’ gender (male, female, non-binary); age (five categories from ‘less than 25 years’ to ‘over 55 years’); years of teaching (undergraduate with permission to teach, postgraduate, less than 2 years, between 2 and 5 years inclusive, more than 5 and up to 10 years, more than 10 years); education sector (Catholic, Government, Independent) and setting (special, education, primary, secondary, alternative); residing state or territory; predominant teaching grade level; and any learning area specialisation(s) if applicable (English, Humanities and Social Sciences, Health and Physical Education, Languages, Mathematics, Science, Technologies, and/or The Arts).

For the subsequent sections, the following definitions of critical thinking and creative thinking were provided to respondents for reference, drawing on the introductory text of the CCT general capability of Versions 8.4 and 9 (ACARA, n.d.a; n.d.b). Footnote 1 Respondents were informed that, for the purposes of the survey, critical thinking meant ‘analysing, evaluating, and using information, ideas, evidence, and logic to draw conclusions and solve problems in reasoned ways’ and creative thinking meant ‘seeing situations in new ways, considering alternative explanations and possibilities, and identifying links between, generating, and applying ideas’.

The second section focused on any preservice or in-service education the respondents had undertaken in how to teach CCT. The categorical options for each question, respectively, were as follows: No, I did not learn about how to teach CCT; I cannot recall whether I learned about CCT teaching; Unsure if it can be classified CCT teaching; and Yes, I did learn about how to teach CCT.

The third section collected general views and practices regarding teaching CCT. Respondents were asked how much they agreed with these statements:

I believe it is important to develop Critical Thinking in my students,

I believe it is important to develop Creative Thinking in my students,

I am confident in my ability to teach Critical Thinking, and

I am confident in my ability to teach Creative Thinking.

For each statement, a 5-point Likert scale applied: 1—strongly disagree, 2—disagree, 3—neutral, 4—agree, and 5—strongly agree.

Respondents were also asked how often they provide opportunities for their students to practise critical thinking and creative thinking, respectively. The options were as follows:

I am unsure that I ever do,

About once a year,

About once a term,

About monthly,

About weekly,

Most lessons, and

Usually every lesson.

The fourth section focused on respondents’ confidence in their understanding of the sub-elements in Australia's CCT general capability, and the fifth section focused on their confidence to explicitly teach these sub-elements. Refer to Table  2 for the sub-elements and descriptors presented in the survey. In both sections, for each sub-element, the scale ranged from ‘1—not confident at all’ to ‘5—extremely confident’. For these sections, the descriptors in the latest version of the Australian Curriculum CCT general capability (i.e. Version 9, not Version 8.4) were used as the basis for seeking the respondents’ self-ratings. We decided to use Version 9 sub-element descriptors for two reasons. First, the differences in wording between the previous Version 8.4 (released in 2018) and Version 9 (released in 2022) are minor, but the text is clearer in Version 9 (ISSR, 2021 ). Second, we believed that our findings and any recommendations based on these findings would have greater utility by focusing on the latest version compared with using the superseded version.

In the sixth section, in relation to teaching critical thinking and creative thinking, respectively, the respondents were asked to provide ‘up to three examples of what you say’ and ‘up to three examples of what you do’ that ‘best reflect your typical approach’. The intention was to invite a range of teaching practices that teachers use to teach CCT.

Section 7 asked the respondents if they would ‘like (more) education or guidance regarding effective ways to teach CCT’: No—I am not interested in learning more about teaching this area of curriculum; Yes—I would like more understanding and guidance regarding this area of curriculum. A description of the kind of professional learning they desired was invited in the associated textbox.

Recruitment

The survey link was promoted via our university social media platforms and respective professional and collegial teacher networks via LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter, and email. Our teacher networks (connected by LinkedIn, Facebook, and Twitter) included teachers in the Government, Catholic, and Independent sectors and in metropolitan and regional areas, mostly in Victoria. Several Facebook groups such as Victorian Teachers Online and QLD Primary Teachers were also asked to promote the link via their pages. In the blurb above the survey link, onward sharing to other potentially interested teachers across Australia (snowballing) was encouraged.

The participant information and consent statement were presented on the first page of the survey. Clicking ‘start’ at the end of this information, to proceed to the survey questions, was considered ‘conduct implying consent’ (National Health and Medical Research Council, Australian Research Council, & Universities Australia, 2023 , p. 16). Respondents had the option to skip any question or exit the survey at any point.

Participants

A total of 259 teachers responded to the survey, 86 of whom responded to the open-ended questions seeking CCT teaching examples. Most (80%) of the respondents were female; most were aged 36–45 (32%) or 46–55 (31%) years, followed by over 55 (18%) or 26–35 (17%); most had been teaching for over 10 years (64%), followed by 5–10 years (21%); and most were teaching in Government schools (71%), with the remaining in Independent (16%) and Catholic (13%) schools. The majority taught in primary (68%) or secondary (28%) settings, and in Victoria (58%), NSW (17%), Queensland (8%), or WA (7%), but all school settings and Australian states and territories were represented. There was an even spread of teachers across all year levels (18–20% in Years 1–2, 3–4, 5–6, and 9–10, respectively) with fewer teaching Foundation and Year 7–8 (12%, respectively). Although 4% selected ‘none of the areas listed’, all Learning Area specialisations were represented, most frequently English (26%), Mathematics (18%), Science (14%), and Humanities (16%). Technologies, HPE, Arts, and Languages were less frequently selected (9%, 5%, 5%, and 2%, respectively).

Data analyses

Descriptive and inferential quantitative analyses were conducted with Microsoft Excel (Version 2302) and IBM SPSS (Version 29). The qualitative coding of respondents’ free-text responses involved a basic non-hermeneutic form of qualitative analysis known as ‘directed content analysis’ (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005 ), assisted by Microsoft Excel (Version 2302) and NVivo (Version 1.7.1).

Each respondent’s CCT teaching examples (typically multiple examples per respondent) were analysed by two members of the research team, achieving consensus through discussion where initial codings differed. For each respondent, their examples were copied to one row in Excel. The remainder of the row was divided into the sub-elements of the Australian Curriculum CCT general capability (Version 9; see Table  2 ). The examples text for each respondent was analysed for full or partial connection with one or more sub-elements. For example, if a concept or skill from a sub-element (even if not the whole sub-element) was addressed in an example, this was reflected by placing an x in the cell representing that sub-element. In addition, we analysed how each identified sub-element was taught. Five ways of teaching were identified: (1) providing opportunity for students to engage in the skill (e.g., by prompting an action or asking a question); (2) modelling the skill; (3) providing scaffolded guidance (e.g., providing steps to follow or a thinking tool); (4) labelling the CCT concept or skill and explaining its meaning or value; and/or (5) providing constructive feedback or positive reinforcement. A single teaching example could be categorised as constituting more than one of these pedagogical practices.

A large majority of respondents believed it was important to develop their students’ critical thinking (65% strongly agreed and 27% agreed) and creative thinking (61% strongly agreed and 30% agreed), respectively. The mean agreement rating for critical thinking was m  = 4.51 (SD = .85) and for creative thinking was m  = 4.45 (SD = .85). No grouping variable was statistically significantly associated with the level of importance that respondents ascribed to teaching CCT.

Congruent with the high levels of perceived importance, most of the teachers also self-reported that they provided regular opportunities for their students to practise CCT. Opportunities for critical thinking were reportedly provided weekly by 34% of the teachers, most lessons by 34%, and usually every lesson by 8%. Similarly, opportunities for creative thinking were provided weekly by 32%, most lessons by 31%, and usually every lesson by 9%. The remaining believed they facilitated CCT less than weekly, with 7 and 8% feeling ‘unsure’ that they ‘ever do’ provide opportunities for critical and creative thinking, respectively.

What professional learning have teachers undertaken in CCT teaching?

A total of 34% of the respondents could recall receiving preservice (9.5%) and/or in-service (29.4%) professional learning in CCT teaching. Recalling participating in any professional learning in CCT was associated with increased confidence levels (see the next section) and was also statistically significantly associated with greater self-reported frequency of providing opportunities for critical thinking ( m  = 5.23, SD = 1.50 versus m  = 4.86, SD = 1.47, p  = .05).

Our content analysis of the respondents’ descriptions of the CCT professional learning that they could recall engaging in revealed some common ideas. In their descriptions of their preservice learning, many teachers reported learning that CCT is important and the end goal of teaching. They also reported that their learning tended to be based on philosophical or theoretical discussions, rather than focused on specific strategies for teaching CCT. Some recalled discussions about teaching CCT through problem-based learning or inquiry. A few respondents reported learning explicit pedagogies in their arts and media disciplines.

The teachers’ descriptions of their in-service learning about CCT sometimes identified the provider of the professional learning and not its content. When details were reported about the content of their learning, mostly respondents recalled learning general strategies or philosophies underpinning CCT teaching, including ways to engage students in thinking, the importance of open-ended tasks or inquiry learning, ‘21st-century skills’, and ‘buzzwords’. Overall, the teachers tended to report that the in-service training they had received was broad or vague; only a few teachers reported learning specific methods or practices for teaching CCT.

How confident do teachers feel regarding their teaching of CCT?

In response to the general statement ‘I am confident in my ability to teach critical thinking’, a modest majority (62.7%) of the teachers agreed: 51.3% agreed and 11.5% strongly agreed. In response to the general statement ‘I am confident in my ability to teach creative thinking’, fewer (57.1%) agreed: 46.1% agreed and 11.0% strongly agreed. Overall, the mean confidence ratings were therefore moderate. For teaching critical thinking, the mean was m  = 3.60 (SD = .89) and for teaching creative thinking, the mean was m  = 3.50 (SD = .94). Recalling any professional learning in CCT was associated with higher confidence regarding teaching both critical thinking ( m  = 3.98, SD = .83 versus m  = 3.42, SD = .86, p  < .001) and creative thinking ( m  = 3.84, SD = .89 versus m  = 3.33, SD = .91, p  < .001). Reporting a STEM specialisation (i.e. science, mathematics , or technology) was associated with greater confidence in teaching creative thinking ( m  = 3.62, SD = .87 versus m  = 3.31, SD = 1.00, p  = .01).

In relation to the specific Australian Curriculum CCT general capability sub-elements, confidence levels tended also to be moderate. As can be seen in Table  3 , the teachers’ self-rated understanding of the sub-element descriptions varied significantly between sub-elements (several statistically significant differences were observed) whereas their levels of confidence in their ability to explicitly teach the sub-elements, while only moderate, were relatively stable across sub-elements.

As shown in Table  3 , the teachers’ confidence in their ability to explicitly teach the sub-elements tended to be lower than their self-rated understanding of the sub-element descriptions, particularly for the Generating sub-elements. The Inquiring sub-element ‘Develop questions’ was an exception to this pattern: The teachers felt more confident in their ability to teach question-development than in their understanding of the sub-element description. They were most confident in their ability to teach the Inquiring sub-elements and one Analyse sub-element: ‘Draw conclusions and provide reasons’. The teachers reported least confidence in their ability to teach the Generating sub-elements. In the textboxes, some teachers commented on perceived challenges in addressing the CCT general capability ‘in practice’.

What aspects of Australia’s CCT general capability do teachers teach, and how?

Across all the ‘say’ and ‘do’ examples of typical CCT teaching shared by the 86 teachers who responded to this part of the survey, every Australian Curriculum CCT sub-element was represented at least partially. The examples shared by the teachers indicated that they incorporate CCT into their teaching of other learning area content, as intended by the Australian Curriculum. As shown in Table  4 , the examples most frequently related to ‘Consider alternatives’, ‘Identify, process, and evaluate information’, and ‘Draw conclusions and provide reasons’. The examples were mostly of the teachers providing opportunities for students to engage in CCT skills (e.g., asking questions or prompting), rather than explicitly labelling, explaining, modelling, scaffolding, or reinforcing CCT skills.

It was rare for a CCT sub-element to be represented fully in the teachers’ examples of their ‘typical approach’ to teaching CCT; instead, the examples tended to focus on very specific CCT skills, that is, components of sub-elements. For example, many teachers shared examples of asking their students to consider an alternative approach (e.g. ‘What is another way you can do that?’), which we coded as ‘Consider alternatives’ even though most of that sub-element description was not addressed in the example. Some teachers asked their students to consider how or where they could seek information, which we coded as ‘Identify, process, and evaluate information’, even though that full sub-element was not addressed, or they asked their students to provide a reason for an answer or view, which we coded as ‘Draw conclusions and provide reasons’, even though that full sub-element was not addressed.

We found that the coding was most difficult for the Generating sub-elements. Most of our inter-coder conferencing was focused on this element because there is some conceptual overlap between the sub-elements within the Generating element (between ‘create possibilities’ and ‘consider alternatives’), and between the Generating sub-elements and other elements (e.g., between ‘put ideas into action’ and ‘evaluate actions and outcomes’).

Table 5 shows some differences in the foci of the shared teaching examples based on setting (primary versus secondary) and specialisation (STEM versus non-STEM). As can be seen in Table  5 , primary teachers were more than twice as likely to provide examples of teaching the skills involved in ‘Developing questions’ whereas secondary teachers were more than twice as likely to do so for skills involved in ‘Create possibilities’, ‘Put ideas into action’, ‘Interpret concepts and problems’, and ‘Transfer knowledge’. STEM teachers were more than twice as likely to address ‘Put ideas into action’, whereas non-STEM teachers were twice as likely to address ‘Interpret concepts and problems’.

What kind(s) of professional learning in CCT teaching do teachers desire?

Most of the respondents (82%) endorsed the statement that they would ‘like (more) education or guidance regarding effective ways to teach CCT’. The textbox elaborations revealed that most respondents would value professional learning focused on implementation of CCT teaching in real-world classrooms while considering the need for curriculum integration and time efficiency. They would value practical examples of explicit CCT teaching, including observations of expert teachers, and high-quality CCT teaching materials they could adapt for use in their classroom. There were also a few responses requesting professional learning on teaching CCT to students with diverse learning needs, including behavioural challenges and low literacy, as well as on the assessment of CCT and on the link between CCT and background knowledge.

This study explored practising Australian teachers’ adoption of CCT as curriculum via a national online survey. Despite Australia’s CCT general capability being in place for over a decade, the findings suggest that ‘typical’ teacher practice in this area does not align strongly with this curriculum. The teachers generally viewed teaching CCT as important, and most reported providing regular opportunities for their students to engage in CCT. However, we found a skewed emphasis on some elements of the CCT general capability curriculum, while other elements were relatively neglected. This may reflect jurisdictional or school-based implementation issues and/or an inappropriate curriculum structure. Further, while teachers reported providing opportunities for their students to exercise CCT skills, there was minimal evidence of CCT being explicitly taught as intended by ACARA. The modest alignment between the intended curriculum and enacted teacher practice is consistent with the participants (a) reporting limited professional learning in this area and (b) rating their understanding and confidence re the CCT general capability as only moderate.

The Australian Curriculum presents the CCT general capability as comprised of four elements and includes learning continua that suggest each element should be addressed at all levels. However, based on the ‘typical’ CCT teaching examples shared in this study, teachers do not appear to be emphasising each element equally. Instead, different patterns in the teachers’ examples were observed based on their setting and nominated specialisation. For example, primary teachers were more likely than secondary teachers to share examples of teaching ‘developing questions’ and ‘metacognition’ but less likely to share examples of most other sub-elements. Similarly, there were differences in the examples provided by STEM specialised teachers compared to other teachers. STEM specialised teachers were more likely to share examples of ‘considering alternatives’, ‘putting ideas into action’ and ‘metacognition’, but less likely to share examples of teaching other skills. The shared examples reflect the practices of only some teachers and should not be considered exhaustive. It is likely that many practices occur that were not captured in the shared examples. However, it is also possible that certain CCT skills may be viewed in certain teaching contexts to be more/less relevant or useful. Future qualitative research with teachers is warranted because, if teachers do hold such views, such insights should not be ignored. It is also possible that teachers in certain contexts may require more guidance in how to pedagogically integrate certain CCT skills. Further research with teachers may inform improved curricular frameworks and/or professional learning offerings.

Our findings suggest that explicit teaching of CCT skills (explaining, modelling, providing guided practice and feedback) is not common. The relative lack of examples of explicit teaching of CCT skills suggests the intentions of the Australian Curriculum CCT general capability are not being realised. According to the Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority (VCAA, n.d.), ‘explicit attention to’ and ‘explicit support to develop’ students’ CCT skills is necessary to build students’ capacity to manage their thinking productively and purposefully. The relative lack of explicit teaching in the teachers' examples warrants attention because explaining and modelling skills and providing scaffolded practice and feedback are effective ways to teach skills (AERO, 2023a ; Archer & Hughes, 2011 ; Berger & Foster, 2020 ; Fisher & Frey, 2021 ), and these methods may currently be underutilised in relation to developing students’ CCT skills.

Merely providing opportunities to engage in CCT skills may develop or consolidate these skills for students who already have the required dispositions and confidence, but it may not address the needs of other students. CCT scaffolding can be provided in several ways and offers a ‘safety net’ for students (Vigors, 2022 , p. 45). In the words of Vigors, ‘modelling our thinking and naming what we are doing through think alouds allows our students to see and hear what effective thinkers do… to demystify the type(s) of thinking being asked of the students’ ( 2022 , p. 45). The power of explicit positive feedback can also be harnessed to strengthen CCT (Scott & Landrum, 2020 ). Professional learning in the explicit teaching of CCT skills was specifically requested by many of the teachers.

While examples of explicit teaching were rare, there were nonetheless many examples shared by the teachers that showcased their significant practical expertise in harnessing opportunities to encourage CCT. This is unsurprising, given most respondents to our survey had at least 10 years of teaching experience and an interest in CCT. There were also some examples of explicit teaching of CCT skills. This means it should not be assumed that Australian teachers do not know what CCT skills are or that they teach CCT skills just by giving students ‘problems they can’t solve’ (Duggan, 2022 ; Sweller, 2022 ). Some teachers may require more support to teach CCT more effectively; however, our findings indicate that many teachers are employing sound CCT teaching practices. Many teaching examples were provided of using questions to prompt CCT in relation to the topic being taught. Strategic questioning is a well-established pedagogy for engagement, consolidation, and extension (Galatis, 2019 ; Hopkins & Craig, 2015 ; Ritchhart & Church, 2020 ; Rosenshine, 2012 , pp. 14–15).

A potential explanation for the poor alignment between the CCT general capability sub-elements and the teachers’ shared examples could be the lack of effective preparation participants reported receiving. Only a minority could recall preservice or in-service professional learning in this area. Professional learning unable to be recalled might be considered ineffective. The professional learning that was recalled tended to be reported to be philosophical rather than pedagogical in focus and was rarely specific to the Australian Curriculum CCT general capability. Unsurprisingly, the teachers’ confidence in their understanding of, and their ability to explicitly teach, the CCT general capability sub-elements tended to be only moderate. Improved professional learning may be needed, either as part of teachers’ initial teacher education or as part of their in-service professional learning. Recalling any CCT professional learning was associated with greater confidence to teach CCT and with providing more frequent opportunities for critical thinking, and many of our respondents called for more guidance in this aspect of their teaching. If teachers are to play a strong role in promoting CCT and the associated benefits to individuals and society, there needs to be investment in equipping them with the conceptual and pedagogical expertise to do so. However, improved professional learning may not be the only area of potential improvement.

It is possible that the current design of Australia’s CCT general capability curriculum may not be practicable. Presently, this curriculum is complicated and is, itself, part of a complex broader curriculum. The CCT general capability is comprised of four elements and ten sub-elements and, at each of the six levels, each sub-element has multiple links to other same-level content descriptions and elaborations in the eight learning areas (e.g. English, Mathematics, Science, etc.). Significant issues with this ‘matrix approach’ to curriculum design have been highlighted by Gilbert ( 2019 ). Moreover, CCT reporting, if mandated at all, is mandated only at the general capability level, not by element or sub-element (e.g. VCAA, 2023 ) and this reporting is not required to be linked to any specific learning area(s). Responsibility for teaching CCT in any one learning area—or at all—is therefore dissipated. Such issues may explain why the general capabilities in the Australian Curriculum, in general, are rarely taught (Carter & Buchanan, 2022 ) and why confidence with the CCT general capability, in the current study, was not high.

The current CCT general capability is likely to be difficult to integrate, in its entirety, into one’s teaching of the wider curriculum simply because it is so complex. It is possible that a simplified CCT general capability, consisting of essential, explicitly teachable CCT concepts and skills, all general enough to be applicable or adaptable across learning areas and accessible to learners of all ages and diverse abilities, might be more readily taught. Simplifying the current CCT general capability structure, by identifying teachable skills that contribute to critical thinking and creative thinking, respectively, such as those shown in Table  1 , might facilitate greater teacher confidence and improved learning and consolidation of those skills for students. CCT concepts and skills self-evidently related to critical thinking and creative thinking, respectively, might be more easily integrated into teachers’ own CCT schemas (Cottingham, 2022 ) and, therefore, into their daily pedagogical practice. Such a curricular re-organisation might also address previously identified weaknesses in the structure and clarity of the current CCT general capability (ISSR, 2021 ).

Limitations

The findings of this study should be interpreted with caution in three respects. First, our sample was not nationally representative. In addition to most of the teachers practising in Victoria, the sample snowballing that was encouraged may have resulted in the recruitment of clusters of teachers with similar views and approaches, further narrowing the representativeness of our sample and reducing the generalisability of our findings. Due to self-selection, our sample almost certainly over-represents teachers with an interest in teaching CCT.

Second, care should be taken when drawing inferences about the teacher-provided examples of ‘typical teaching’ in this study. While it is reasonable to assume that the examples shared by the teachers reflect their front-of-mind, typical CCT teaching practices, the examples do not represent a complete catalogue of every CCT teaching practice they engage in. There may be additional CCT skills, and more explicit teaching of these skills (i.e., explaining, modelling, scaffolding, and reinforcing), beyond what was conveyed in the teachers’ contributed examples.

Finally, this study employed an exploratory survey methodology. While exploratory survey research enables the identification of patterns, including sub-group analyses, future in-depth qualitative research would afford opportunities for clarification and deeper understanding that are not possible in survey research.

Notwithstanding these limitations, the patterns revealed in this study indicate that more research is needed with respect to jurisdiction/school-based implementation and/or improvement of the Australian Curriculum CCT general capability. Our findings also highlight the need for nuanced, evidence-based scholarly discourse about the teaching of CCT in schools. Beyond focusing on whether CCT can/should be taught (e.g. Sweller, 2022 ), our research shows there is a need to focus on the curricular frameworks and resources and professional learning that teachers need to maximise students’ CCT capabilities, including through explicit teaching of CCT concepts and skills.

Many Australian teachers are committed to teaching thinking skills that help their students to critically and creatively utilise and enrich their learning, but many of these teachers do not feel well prepared to implement Australia’s CCT general capability curriculum. The teachers’ CCT teaching examples do not reflect holistic adoption of this curriculum. Based on our findings, we argue that one area deserving of increased attention is CCT-focused teacher education. We believe teacher education has an important role to play in ensuring all teachers are skilled and confident in teaching CCT as part of their regular teaching. Our findings equally raise questions, however, regarding the extent to which the nature of the current CCT general capability is fit for purpose. The complexity of this general capability may be sub-optimal because it does not efficiently facilitate explicit, integrated CCT teaching. Despite this, hearteningly, our research has found that many teachers are incorporating CCT teaching as part of their teaching practice.

Version 8.4: ‘Critical thinking … involves students learning to recognise or develop an argument, use evidence in support of that argument, draw reasoned conclusions, and use information to solve problems’. ‘Creative thinking involves students learning to generate and apply new ideas in specific contexts, seeing existing situations in a new way, identifying alternative explanations, and seeing or making new links that generate a positive outcome’. Version 9: ‘Critical thinking involves students analysing and assessing possibilities against criteria for judgement. They construct and evaluate arguments, and use information, evidence and logic to draw reasoned conclusions and to solve problems’. ‘Creative thinking involves students learning to generate and apply new ideas and see existing situations in new ways. They identify alternative explanations and possibilities and create new links to generate successful outcomes’.

Ab Kadir, A. (2018). An inquiry into critical thinking in the Australian curriculum: Examining its conceptual understandings and the implications of developing critical thinking as a “general capability” on teachers’ practice and knowledge. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 38 (4), 533–549. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2018.1535424

Article   Google Scholar  

ACARA. (2023a). The Australian Curriculum . https://www.acara.edu.au/curriculum

ACARA. (2023b). Development of the Australian Curriculum . https://www.acara.edu.au/curriculum/history-of-the-australian-curriculum/development-of-australian-curriculum

ACARA. (2023c). General capabilities . https://v9.australiancurriculum.edu.au/f-10-curriculum/f-10-curriculum-overview/general-capabilities

ACARA. (n.da). Critical and creative thinking (version 8.4) . Australian Curriculum. https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/f-10-curriculum/general-capabilities/critical-and-creative-thinking/

ACARA. (n.db). Critical and creative thinking (version 9) . Australian Curriculum. https://v9.australiancurriculum.edu.au/f-10-curriculum/general-capabilities/critical-and-creative-thinking

AERO. (2023a). How students learn best. https://www.edresearch.edu.au/resources/how-students-learn-best

AERO. (2023b). Explicit instruction. https://www.edresearch.edu.au/practice-hub/explicit-instruction

Alghafri, A., & Ismail, H. (2014). The effects of integrating creative and critical thinking on school students’ thinking. International Journal of Social Science and Humanity, 4 (6), 518–525. https://doi.org/10.7763/IJSSH.2014.V4.410

Archer, A. L., & Hughes, C. A. (2011). Explicit instruction: Effective and efficient teaching . Guilford Press.

Google Scholar  

Barton, G., Khosronejad, M., Ryan, M., et al. (2023). Teaching creative writing in primary schools: A systematic review of the literature through the lens of reflexivity. Australian Educational Researcher . https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-023-00641-9

Berger, W., & Foster, E. (2020). Beautiful questions in the classroom: Transforming classrooms into cultures of curiosity and inquiry . Corwin Publishers.

Borowski, T. (2019). The battelle for kids P21 framework for 21st century learning . University of Illinois at Chicago.

British Columbia Curriculum. (n.d.) Thinking . https://curriculum.gov.bc.ca/competencies/thinking

Carter, D., & Buchanan, J. (2022). Implementing the general capabilities in New South Wales government primary schools. Curriculum Perspectives, 42 , 145–156. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41297-022-00169-5

Cottingham, S. (2022). Schemas determine what we learn. Evidence for Educators . https://overpractised.wordpress.com/2022/02/26/schemas-determine-what-we-learn/

Davies, M., & Willing, L. (2023). An examination of teachers’ beliefs about critical thinking in New Zealand high schools. Thinking Skills and Creativity . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2023.101280

Department for Education. (2014). National curriculum. United Kingdom Government. https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/national-curriculum

Duggan, S. (2022). ‘ There’s simply nothing there’: 21st century skills an empty slogan, expert says. EducationHQ . https://educationhq.com/news/theres-simply-nothing-there-21st-century-skills-an-empty-slogan-expert-says-129442/

Education Scotland. (2013). Creativity across learning. pp. 3–18. https://education.gov.scot/improvement/Documents/cre39-impactreport.pdf

Ellerton, P. (2017). On critical thinking and collaborative inquiry. Education: Future frontiers . NSW Department of Education. https://education.nsw.gov.au/content/dam/main-education/teaching-and-learning/education-for-a-changing-world/media/documents/Peter-Ellerton_Critical-Thinking

Evidence for Learning. (2023). Metacognition and self-regulation . https://evidenceforlearning.org.au/education-evidence/teaching-learning-toolkit/metacognition-and-self-regulation

Fiorella, L., & Mayer, R. E. (2015). Eight ways to promote generative learning. Educational Psychology Review . https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9348-9

Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2021). Better learning through structured teaching: A framework for the gradual release of responsibility . ASCD.

FYA. (2016). The new basics: Big data reveals the skills young people need for the new work order . AlphaBeta.

Galatis, A. (2019). On teaching critical thinking: Some reflections. Scientific Journal RicercAzione, 11 (2), 31–41. https://doi.org/10.32076/RA11211

Gilbert, R. (2019). General capabilities in the Australian curriculum: Promise, problems and prospects. Curriculum Perspectives, 39 , 169–177. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41297-019-00079-z

Harris, D., Coleman, K., & Cook, P. J. (2023). Radical rubrics: Implementing the critical and creative thinking general capability through an ecological approach. Australian Educational Researcher, 50 , 729–745. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-022-00521-8

Heard J., Scoular, C., Duckworth, D., Ramalingam, D., & Teo, I. (2020). Critical thinking: Skill development framework . Australian Council for Educational Research. https://research.acer.edu.au/ar_misc/41

Hopkins, D., & Craig, W. (2015). Curiosity and powerful learning . McRel International.

Hsieh, H.-F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15 (9), 1277–1288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687

ISSR. (2021). Final report—General capabilities . The University of Queensland

Kirschner, P. A., & Hendrick, C. (2020). How learning happens: Seminal works in educational psychology and what they mean in practice . Taylor & Francis Group.

Book   Google Scholar  

Loughland, T., & Bostwick, K. (2023). A taxonomy of clinical reasoning for pre-service teachers on professional experience. Australian Educational Researcher, 50 , 1497–1512. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-022-00568-7

Maksić, S., & Jošić, S. (2021). Scaffolding the development of creativity from the students’ perspective. Thinking Skills and Creativity . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2021.100835

McIlvenny, L. (2013). Critical and creative thinking in the new Australian curriculum part one. Access, 27 (1), 18–22. https://doi.org/10.3316/informit.182661573259010

Ministry of Education, Singapore. (n.d.). 21st Century Competencies. https://www.moe.gov.sg/education-in-sg/21st-century-competencies

Murphy, S., MacDonald, A., Danaia, L., & Wang, C. (2019). An analysis of Australian STEM education strategies. Policy Futures in Education, 17 (2), 122–139. https://doi.org/10.1177/1478210318774190

National Health and Medical Research Council, Australian Research Council, & Universities Australia. (2023). National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research . Canberra: National Health and Medical Research Council.

National Research Council. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school (Expanded). The National Academies Press.

OECD. (2019). Teaching, assessing and learning creative and critical thinking skills in primary and secondary education . https://www.oecd.org/education/ceri/assessingprogressionincreativeandcriticalthinkingskillsineducation.htm

Pithers, R., & Soden, R. (2000). Critical thinking in education: A review. Educational Research, 42 (3), 237–249. https://doi.org/10.1080/001318800440579

Ramalingam, D., Anderson, P., Duckworth, D., Scoular, C., & Heard, J. (2020). Creative thinking: Skill development framework . Australian Council for Educational Research. https://research.acer.edu.au/ar_misc/40

Ritchhart, R., & Church, M. (2020). The power of making thinking visible: Practices to engage and empower all learners . John Wiley & Sons.

Rosenshine, B. (2012). Principles of instruction: Research-based strategies that all teachers should know. American Educator. https://www.aft.org/sites/default/files/Rosenshine.pdf

Rosenshine, B. (1995). Advances in research on instruction. The Journal of Educational Research, 88 (5), 262–268.

Ross, E. (2023). Teachers’ interpretation of curriculum as a window into ‘curriculum potential.’ The Curriculum Journal . https://doi.org/10.1002/curj.239

Scott, T. M., & Landrum, T. J. (2020). An evidence-based logic for the use of positive reinforcement: Responses to typical criticisms. Beyond Behavior, 29 (2), 69–77. https://doi.org/10.1177/1074295620917153

Sweller, J. (2022). Some critical thoughts about critical and creative thinking . The Centre for Independent Studies. https://www.cis.org.au/publication/some-critical-thoughts-about-critical-and-creative-thinking/

Taylor, R., Fadel, C., Kim, H., & Care, E. (2020). Competencies for the 21st century: Jurisdictional progress . Brookings Institution. https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Competencies-for-the-21st-century-jurisdictional-progress-FINAL-1.pdf

van der Zanden, P. J. A. C., Denessen, E., Cillessen, A. H. N., & Meijer, P. C. (2020). Fostering critical thinking skills in secondary education to prepare students for university: Teacher perceptions and practices. Research in Post-Compulsory Education, 25 (4), 394–419. https://doi.org/10.1080/13596748.2020.1846313

VCAA. (2023). Victorian Curriculum F-10: Revised curriculum planning and reporting guidelines. https://www.vcaa.vic.edu.au/Documents/viccurric/RevisedF-10CurriculumPlanningReportingGuidelines.pdf

VCAA. (n.d.) Critical and creative thinking: Rationale and aims. https://victoriancurriculum.vcaa.vic.edu.au/critical-and-creative-thinking/introduction/rationale-and-aims

Vigors, A. (2022). The thinking classroom: Supporting educators to embed critical and creative thinking . Amba Press.

Vincent-Lancrin, S., et al. (2019). Fostering students’ creativity and critical thinking: What it means in school. OECD Publishing . https://doi.org/10.1787/62212c37-en

Weinstein, Y., Madan, C. R., & Sumeracki, M. A. (2018). Teaching the science of learning. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications . https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-017-0087-y

Willingham, D. (2019). How to teach critical thinking . NSW Department of Education. https://education.nsw.gov.au/teaching-and-learning/education-for-a-changing-world/resource-library/how-to-teach-critical-thinking

Willingham, D. (2021). Why don’t students like school? A cognitive scientist answers questions about how the mind works and what it means for the classroom (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass.

Download references

Open Access funding enabled and organized by CAUL and its Member Institutions. No funding was received for this research. Ethical approval was obtained for this research.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Education, La Trobe University, Victoria, Australia

Kylie Murphy, Steve Murphy & Nathaniel Swain

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kylie Murphy .

Additional information

Publisher's note.

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

Rights and permissions

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Murphy, K., Murphy, S. & Swain, N. Australian teachers’ adoption of critical and creative thinking as curriculum. Aust. Educ. Res. (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-024-00714-3

Download citation

Received : 17 October 2023

Accepted : 14 March 2024

Published : 26 April 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-024-00714-3

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 and creative thinking
• Teacher confidence
• Teacher education
• Primary schooling
• Secondary schooling
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

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

Rahul Education

• 1800 210 1002
• [email protected]
• Alumni Association
• Get Scholarship
• get in touch
• Parents login

THE IMPORTANCE OF CRITICAL THINKING IN EDUCATION

Being a student in 2021 is quite different from being one is 2011. In a span of 10 years, the world of education has witnessed a sea change. As the world keeps facing new challenges, especially due to COVID-19, younger generations, and the education system they are a part of, has also become dynamic. However, there are certain foundations to any education system that has stood the test of time. One key element that has always been stressed upon and practiced by educators in the liberal education spectrum is imparting Critical Thinking skills.

Enhancing a student’s critical thinking skills is particularly essential in a liberal education model, which believes in teaching students how to think and not what to think.

Here are some of the reasons why students need critical thinking skills in today’s age-

Enhancing creativity and curiosity:

A student who is encouraged to be a critical thinker invariably develops a sense of curiosity of happenings around him/her. A strong and genuine sense of curiosity leads to students wanting to analyse and assimilate information and events. In the process, they form their own informed ideas, mostly out-of-the-box ones, that in turn improves their creativity. Creativity is a skill that all critical thinkers will dally with in their professional and personal life. In the process of finding answers in a logical and rational manner, they will usually be able to get their creative juices flowing.

Promoting self-assertion and self-reflection:

Critical thinking is essentially self-disciplined, self-monitored, and self-corrective thinking. When one thinks critically, it is done is a self-directed manner. There is an internalization of the issue at hand and a deep understanding of it in an objective fashion. Critical thinking is at the forefront of learning, as it aids a student reflect and understand their points of views. This skill helps a student figure out how to make sense of the world, based on personal observation and understanding. It makes learners self-assertive and confident as they know that the outcome is the result of a thought process that yields results. Students also gain confidence and the ability to learn from mistakes both of which are crucial in their personal and professional lives.

Boosting career prospects:

Critical thinking is not confined to the classroom. In the aftermath of COVID-19, the new economy places a lot of demand on a flexible workforce and employee’s ability to analyse information from various sources and come up with ingenuous solutions towards the same. An employee with strong critical thinking skills will be valued in a fast-changing workplace.

Nurturing problem-solvers and innovators:

One of the by-products of critical thinking skills is the ability to analyse and look at problems in a creative and constructive method. Critical thinkers are invariably good problem solvers. A good critical thinker will be able to separate facts from opinions and fiction and examine the issue from all angles before making rational decisions towards solving a problem. They will also be able to produce bias free solutions to problems, a fact that is crucial to note in the employment arena. As universal challenges like global warming, pollution, pandemics, continue to plague the world, youngsters of today – who will become the leaders of tomorrow – will be expected to take the mantle of finding effective solutions. Critical thinkers will engineer creative and lasting solutions.

Fostering allied life skills:

Critical thinking fosters allied life skills such as organisational skills, planning, open-mindedness, communication skills among others. Being a life skill by itself, critical thinking enables you to take on challenges in the personal and professional world with ease. It encourages confidence and independence, thereby shaping successful lives. As a critical thinker, one will learn from their mistakes, thereby notching up their productivity in all spheres of life.

As education takes different forms in a world hit by a pandemic, it is extremely crucial for students to possess skills like critical thinking, that will prepare them for tomorrow. After all, children of today are the leaders of tomorrow. Thinking critically boost creativity and enhance the way we use and manage our time and critical thinking not only describes the ability to think in accordance with the rules of logic and probability, but also the ability to apply these skills to real-life problems, which are not content-independent. . Critical thinking can provide you with a more insightful understanding of yourself. It will offer you an opportunity to be objective, less emotional, and more open-minded as you appreciate others’ views and opinions. By thinking ahead, you will gain the confidence to present fresh perspectives and new insights into burden some concerns.

Critical thinking occurs when students are analyzing, evaluating, interpreting, or synthesizing information and applying creative thought to form an argument, solve a problem, or reach a conclusion. The aim of Critical Thinking is to promote independent thinking, personal autonomy and reasoned judgment in thought and action. This involves two related dimensions:

• The ability to reason well and
• The disposition to do so.

Critical thinking involves logic as well as creativity. It may involve inductive and deductive reasoning, analysis and problem-solving as well as creative, innovative and complex approaches to the resolution of issues and challenges. One of the significant aims of education is to produce learners who are well informed, that is to say, learners should understand ideas that are important, useful, beautiful and powerful. Another is to create learners who have the appetite to think analytically and critically, to use what they know to enhance their own lives and also to contribute to their society, culture and civilization. Every pupil should have an effective skill of critical thinking, and they must not accept anything for granted It’s the ability of the child to think about anything and everything. An ability of critical thinking

Critical thinking should be encouraged. Traditional concepts of learning are loosing its charm. Text based passive learning is giving way to active thinking and learning process. The vital goal of education is to promote critical thinking in students, not making them reflect like a parrot. EYFS and KHDA are new terms that aim at improving the quality in education.

It’s really important to instil the ability of critical thinking in children through education. Early Years Foundation Stage is providing better guidance for children at a very tender age, they believe in individual abilities of children. There are Government bodies such as the KHDA in Dubai who takes the responsibility of the growth and quality of private education institutions.

As far as 21st century learning is concerned, critical thinking is an important factor. Spoon-feeding system in education has changed for better. It’s an era of better education.

Dr. Mamta Singh

B.A | B.Ed | M.A | Persuing M.Ed School Principal at Rahul Education, Queen Mary’s High School

WhatsApp us

What Is Creative Thinking And Why It Is Important

When learning is purposeful, creativity blossoms. When creativity blossoms, thinking emanates. When thinking emanates, knowledge is fully lit. When knowledge…

When learning is purposeful, creativity blossoms. When creativity blossoms, thinking emanates. When thinking emanates, knowledge is fully lit. When knowledge is lit, economy flourishes.  – A.P.J. Abdul Kalam

How often do you take time out from your day-to-day pressures and tedious meetings to glance out of the window and dream? How often do you deviate from the mundane routine and let your imagination run wild?

Unless you break free from ‘short-term’ and ‘shortcut,’ your thinking will not deepen. Unless you set your mind free to dream and ideate, your creativity will not blossom.

So to start with, take time out to understand what is creative thinking and why is it important.

What is creative thinking?

Creativity is the ability to generate a thought or an idea that is completely new, appealing, and useful. Creative thinking is a skill that enables you to come up with original and unconventional ideas.

Creative thinking expresses itself in a multitude of ways. A graphic artist creates a brilliant logo. A lawyer discovers an out-of-the-box strategy to defend her client. A photographer captures an extraordinary frame when out in the field. A product designer solves a problem with his innovative product.

Who says creative thinking is limited only to the artists, painters, designers, or writers? Creative skills give an edge to all professionals. It drives innovation and progress in almost every field. The eureka moment of cracking an idea can be experienced by anyone and everyone.

It is clear that exceptionally creative people are found in STEM fields—Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics—as well. Designing an app, assembling a robot, creating an Artificial Intelligence application, and developing an online social network requires high levels of creative thinking.

Types of Creative Thinking

The celebrated author and psychologist Edward de Bono has said that creativity involves breaking out of established patterns in order to look at things in a different way. What are these different ways? Let’s go a little deeper.

Divergent Thinking:  Exploring multiple perspectives with flexibility, fluency, and originality to find a solution for a problem.

Lateral Thinking: Exploring new ideas, thinking outside the box, avoiding clichés

Aesthetic Thinking: Visual or spatial thinking with the use of structure, colors, composition to achieve aesthetic beauty

Systems Thinking: Identifying an interrelation between things and viewing them from a 360-degree perspective

Inspirational Thinking: Lightbulb moments inspired by great personalities or insightful thoughts

Abstract Thinking: Thinking in terms of objects, principles and experiences that may not be physically or materially present

Design Thinking: Applying strategy, problem-solving and decision-making to the process of design

Once you know what is creative thinking, you can stay a step ahead by applying that knowledge to the way you carry out your communications. Research indicates that the companies that believe in fostering creative thinking outperform their competitors in every functional area.

Creativity is one of the most in-demand skills in the world. Have you seen those superhero movies with great VFX technology? The visuals are spectacular. The technology is state-of-the-art. But without a powerful creative concept and storyboard, the entire movie can be a flop show. That’s where creative thinking plays a role.

A person who knows the importance of creative thinking is open-minded in approach. Their assumptions are unbiased, they possess the problem-solving ability, and are impactful verbal and written communicators.  They are able to analyze a brief and distill it to its essence.

Harappa Education’s   Unleashing Creativity course explains how to cultivate a creative mindset. It acquaints you with creative approaches to problem-solving. Through the course, you will also learn how to exercise your creativity in groups.

The importance of creative thinking

It is indispensable.

The world has taken a technological leap. Today, robots click photographs. Yet, some photographs stand out because they reflect the mind and intent of a talented professional.

Jobs in many industries have been replaced by automation. Still, creative thinkers are in high demand because originality is irreplaceable. Creative thinking is indispensable.

It gives you freedom

You must have noticed how a child’s imagination soars boundlessly. Children are naturally creative thinkers because they haven’t been bound by the ways of the world just yet.  Creative thinking thrives when individuals and groups are free of artificially-imposed constraints.

Set your mind free to explore other perspectives, ‘the other side’. Then, deploy your ideas into your endeavors and see the difference. You must have heard how famous filmmakers and music directors go to hill stations or remote places to brainstorm, write and compose. To get work done, many writers prefer the quiet of country-side living to the clutter of cities.

It improves the problem-solving process

Sunil was his boss’s favorite assistant because he was an efficient problem-solver. With his creative thinking skills, he always found a solution to any unforeseen problem.

The importance of creative thinking in problem-solving is crucial. It enables you to face a challenge and think about it from all angles.

It adds to leadership qualities

Throughout history, inspiring leaders from various walks of life have been included in creative thinker examples. They achieve the highest level of excellence on the back of extraordinary ideas that have the potential to change the course of history, art, or a nation.

Take, for instance, Leonardo da Vinci, Michelangelo, Mahatma Gandhi, JRD Tata, Swami Vivekanand, Satyajit Ray. These creative minds have left indelible imprints in their chosen area of work.

It boosts productivity

Steve Jobs is considered one of the striking creative thinker examples. The Apple co-founder had a vision that transformed people’s lives with several mini-revolutions: beginning with the personal computer and then going on to the iPod and, later, the iPhone.

Steven Spielberg’s work heralded a new era in filmmaking. Albert Einstein pushed the boundaries of accepted thinking with his own ideas.  ‘Logic will get you from A to B. Imagination will take you everywhere,’ he said.

A workplace that encourages creativity is a productive workplace. Encouraging creativity leads to more innovative ideas, less fear of failure, and greater emotional investment.

It makes people happier

Giving people a free hand to apply their creative thinking makes them happy. It gives them a sense of being unshackled from barriers.  Such liberation yields more constructive results in the workplace. You must have noticed that you work better in a place where you are appreciated and valued.

Filmmaker Walt Disney chased his dream to make people happy through entertainment.  He came up with a word that typifies his vision: Imagineering, that is imagination plus engineering. For Disney, it was fun to attempt the impossible. Yet another one of the fascinating creative thinker examples!

It leads to personal growth

Those who have bigger dreams and long-term goals should never underestimate the importance of creative thinking. It pushes you out of your comfort zone and transports you into a creative zone.

The more you create, the more you grow in terms of mindset as well as skill sets. Also, when you commit time to pursue your passions, the quality of your life goes up.

All creative thinker examples prove that such ability empowers and elevates your career graph. In the process, you obtain valuable insights about yourself.

You discover your habits, dreams, desires, and impulses. You learn to value yourself and express it in your creative output.

For it to be a high-reward endeavor, build your creative skills systematically. It’s true that some people are born with inherent creative strengths. But it’s also true that creativity can be sown and nurtured with strategy and practice.

How to enhance your creative thinking?

Pay attention to your strengths and try to incorporate more of them in your life

Tap into your inner child and explore the qualities of freshness, purity of thought and spontaneity of expression

Do not restrict yourself to a habitual pattern. Think differently. Take a different route to communicate your thoughts. Never go by stereotypes

Enjoy yourself in natural settings and set your imagination free to explore and experiment

Be curious and inquisitive about your surroundings

Don’t hesitate to take risks to further your abilities

Get rid of the negative attitudes that are blocking your creativity

Indulge in brainstorming to inspire new ideas

Accept that a problem can have multiple solutions and explore every possibility

Harappa’s Unleashing Creativity course equips you with the Design Thinking framework that encourages thinking about the end-user while developing products and services.

Through the course, you will also gain the confidence to find solutions, drive innovation, and use an iterative approach to generate, test and refine new ideas.

Yes, the creative woods are lovely, dark, and deep. So get ready for a long and wonderful journey of many, many miles!

Explore our Harappa Diaries section to know more about topics related to the Think habit such as  What is Critical Thinking ,  Design Thinking  &  What is an Argument .

Explained: Importance of critical thinking, problem-solving skills in curriculum

F uture careers are no longer about domain expertise or technical skills. Rather, critical thinking and problem-solving skills in employees are on the wish list of every big organization today. Even curriculums and pedagogies across the globe and within India are now requiring skilled workers who are able to think critically and are analytical.

The reason for this shift in perspective is very simple.

These skills provide a staunch foundation for comprehensive learning that extends beyond books or the four walls of the classroom. In a nutshell, critical thinking and problem-solving skills are a part of '21st Century Skills' that can help unlock valuable learning for life.

Over the years, the education system has been moving away from the system of rote and other conventional teaching and learning parameters.

They are aligning their curriculums to the changing scenario which is becoming more tech-driven and demands a fusion of critical skills, life skills, values, and domain expertise. There's no set formula for success.

Rather, there's a defined need for humans to be more creative, innovative, adaptive, agile, risk-taking, and have a problem-solving mindset.

In today's scenario, critical thinking and problem-solving skills have become more important because they open the human mind to multiple possibilities, solutions, and a mindset that is interdisciplinary in nature.

Therefore, many schools and educational institutions are deploying AI and immersive learning experiences via gaming, and AR-VR technologies to give a more realistic and hands-on learning experience to their students that hone these abilities and help them overcome any doubt or fear.

ADVANTAGES OF CRITICAL THINKING AND PROBLEM-SOLVING IN CURRICULUM

Ability to relate to the real world:  Instead of theoretical knowledge, critical thinking, and problem-solving skills encourage students to look at their immediate and extended environment through a spirit of questioning, curiosity, and learning. When the curriculum presents students with real-world problems, the learning is immense.

Confidence, agility & collaboration : Critical thinking and problem-solving skills boost self-belief and confidence as students examine, re-examine, and sometimes fail or succeed while attempting to do something.

They are able to understand where they may have gone wrong, attempt new approaches, ask their peers for feedback and even seek their opinion, work together as a team, and learn to face any challenge by responding to it.

Willingness to try new things: When problem-solving skills and critical thinking are encouraged by teachers, they set a robust foundation for young learners to experiment, think out of the box, and be more innovative and creative besides looking for new ways to upskill.

It's important to understand that merely introducing these skills into the curriculum is not enough. Schools and educational institutions must have upskilling workshops and conduct special training for teachers so as to ensure that they are skilled and familiarized with new teaching and learning techniques and new-age concepts that can be used in the classrooms via assignments and projects.

Critical thinking and problem-solving skills are two of the most sought-after skills. Hence, schools should emphasise the upskilling of students as a part of the academic curriculum.

The article is authored by Dr Tassos Anastasiades, Principal- IB, Genesis Global School, Noida. 

Watch Live TV in English

Watch Live TV in Hindi