critical thinking in technology

Distance Learning

Using technology to develop students’ critical thinking skills.

by Jessica Mansbach

What Is Critical Thinking?

Critical thinking is a higher-order cognitive skill that is indispensable to students, readying them to respond to a variety of complex problems that are sure to arise in their personal and professional lives. The cognitive skills at the foundation of critical thinking are analysis, interpretation, evaluation, explanation, inference, and self-regulation.

When students think critically, they actively engage in these processes:

Communication
Problem-solving

To create environments that engage students in these processes, instructors need to ask questions, encourage the expression of diverse opinions, and involve students in a variety of hands-on activities that force them to be involved in their learning.

Types of Critical Thinking Skills

Instructors should select activities based on the level of thinking they want students to do and the learning objectives for the course or assignment. The chart below describes questions to ask in order to show that students can demonstrate different levels of critical thinking.

*Adapted from Brown University’s Harriet W Sheridan Center for Teaching and Learning

Using Online Tools to Teach Critical Thinking Skills

Online instructors can use technology tools to create activities that help students develop both lower-level and higher-level critical thinking skills.

Example: Use Google Doc, a collaboration feature in Canvas, and tell students to keep a journal in which they reflect on what they are learning, describe the progress they are making in the class, and cite course materials that have been most relevant to their progress. Students can share the Google Doc with you, and instructors can comment on their work.
Example: Use the peer review assignment feature in Canvas and manually or automatically form peer review groups. These groups can be anonymous or display students’ names. Tell students to give feedback to two of their peers on the first draft of a research paper. Use the rubric feature in Canvas to create a rubric for students to use. Show students the rubric along with the assignment instructions so that students know what they will be evaluated on and how to evaluate their peers.
Example: Use the discussions feature in Canvas and tell students to have a debate about a video they watched. Pose the debate questions in the discussion forum, and give students instructions to take a side of the debate and cite course readings to support their arguments.
Example: Us e goreact , a tool for creating and commenting on online presentations, and tell students to design a presentation that summarizes and raises questions about a reading. Tell students to comment on the strengths and weaknesses of the author’s argument. Students can post the links to their goreact presentations in a discussion forum or an assignment using the insert link feature in Canvas.
Example: Use goreact, a narrated Powerpoint, or a Google Doc and instruct students to tell a story that informs readers and listeners about how the course content they are learning is useful in their professional lives. In the story, tell students to offer specific examples of readings and class activities that they are finding most relevant to their professional work. Links to the goreact presentation and Google doc can be submitted via a discussion forum or an assignment in Canvas. The Powerpoint file can be submitted via a discussion or submitted in an assignment.

Pulling it All Together

Critical thinking is an invaluable skill that students need to be successful in their professional and personal lives. Instructors can be thoughtful and purposeful about creating learning objectives that promote lower and higher-level critical thinking skills, and about using technology to implement activities that support these learning objectives. Below are some additional resources about critical thinking.

Additional Resources

Carmichael, E., & Farrell, H. (2012). Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Online Resources in Developing Student Critical Thinking: Review of Literature and Case Study of a Critical Thinking Online Site. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice , 9 (1), 4.

Lai, E. R. (2011). Critical thinking: A literature review. Pearson’s Research Reports , 6 , 40-41.

Landers, H (n.d.). Using Peer Teaching In The Classroom. Retrieved electronically from https://tilt.colostate.edu/TipsAndGuides/Tip/180

Lynch, C. L., & Wolcott, S. K. (2001). Helping your students develop critical thinking skills (IDEA Paper# 37. In Manhattan, KS: The IDEA Center.

Mandernach, B. J. (2006). Thinking critically about critical thinking: Integrating online tools to Promote Critical Thinking. Insight: A collection of faculty scholarship , 1 , 41-50.

Yang, Y. T. C., & Wu, W. C. I. (2012). Digital storytelling for enhancing student academic achievement, critical thinking, and learning motivation: A year-long experimental study. Computers & Education , 59 (2), 339-352.

Insight Assessment: Measuring Thinking Worldwide

http://www.insightassessment.com/

Michigan State University’s Office of Faculty & Organizational Development, Critical Thinking: http://fod.msu.edu/oir/critical-thinking

The Critical Thinking Community

http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/defining-critical-thinking/766

Video Strategy: December 2015 Online Learning Webinar

Panopto for Video Recording and Sharing – November 2017 Online Learning Webinar

All You Need is an Oven and a Knife

Behind the Scenes of a DL Video

9 responses to “ Using Technology To Develop Students’ Critical Thinking Skills ”

This is a great site for my students to learn how to develop critical thinking skills, especially in the STEM fields.

Great tools to help all learners at all levels… not everyone learns at the same rate.

Thanks for sharing the article. Is there any way to find tools which help in developing critical thinking skills to students?

Technology needs to be advance to develop the below factors:

Understand the links between ideas. Determine the importance and relevance of arguments and ideas. Recognize, build and appraise arguments.

Excellent share! Can I know few tools which help in developing critical thinking skills to students? Any help will be appreciated. Thanks!

Pingback: EDTC 6431 – Module 4 – Designing Lessons That Use Critical Thinking | Mr.Reed Teaches Math
Pingback: Homepage
Pingback: Magacus | Pearltrees

Brilliant post. Will be sharing this on our Twitter (@refthinking). I would love to chat to you about our tool, the Thinking Kit. It has been specifically designed to help students develop critical thinking skills whilst they also learn about the topics they ‘need’ to.

Does Technology Help Boost Students’ Critical Thinking Skills?

Technology classroom with diverse students using laptops

Does using technology in school actually help improve students’ thinking skills? Or hurt them?

That’s the question the Reboot Foundation, a nonprofit, asked in a new report examining the impact of technology usage. The foundation analyzed international tests, like the Programme for International Student Assessment or PISA, which compares student outcomes in different nations, and the National Assessment of Educational Progress or NAEP, which is given only in the U.S. and considered the “Nation’s Report Card.”

The Reboot Foundation was started—and funded—by Helen Bouygues , whose background is in business, to explore the role of technology in developing critical thinking skills. It was inspired by Bouygues’ own concerns about her daughter’s education.

The report’s findings: When it comes to the PISA, there’s little evidence that technology use has a positive impact on student scores, and some evidence that it could actually drag it down. As for the NAEP? The results varied widely, depending on the grade level, test, and type of technology used. For instance, students who used computers to do research for reading projects tended to score higher on the reading portion of the NAEP. But there wasn’t a lot of positive impact from using a computer for spelling or grammar practice.

And 4th-graders who used tablets in all or almost all of their classes scored 14 points lower on the reading exam than those who reported never using tablets. That’s the equivalent of a year’s worth of learning, according to the report.

However, 4th-graders students who reported using laptops or desktop computers “in some classes” outscored students who said they “never” used these devices in class by 13 points. That’s also the equivalent of a year’s worth of learning. And 4th-grade students who said they used laptops or desktop computers in “more than half” or “all” classes scored 10 points higher than students who said they never used those devices in class.

Spending too much time on computers wasn’t helpful.

“There were ceiling effects of technology, and moderate use of technology appeared to have the best association with testing outcomes,” the report said. “This occurred across a number of grades, subjects, and reported computer activities.”

In fact, there’s a negative correlation between time spent on the computer during the school day and NAEP score on the 4th-grade reading NAEP.

That trend was somewhat present, although less clearly, on the 8th-grade reading NAEP.

“Overall usage of technology is probably not just not great, but actually can lower scores and testing for basic education [subjects like math, reading, science],” said Bouygues. “Even in the middle school, heavy use of technology does lower scores, but if you do have things that are specifically catered to a specific subject, that actually serves a purpose.”

For instance, she said her daughter, a chess enthusiast, has gotten help from digital sources in mastering the game. But asking kids to spend a chunk of every day typing on Microsoft Word, as some classrooms do in France, isn’t going to help teach higher-order thinking skills.

She cautioned though, that the report stops short of making a casual claim and saying that sitting in front of a laptop harms students’ ability to be critical thinkers. The researchers didn’t have the kind of evidence needed to be able to make that leap.

For more research on the impact of technology on student outcomes, take a look at these stories:

Technology in Education: An Overview
Computers + Collaboration = Student Learning, According to New Meta-Analysis
Technology Has No Impact on Teaching and Learning (opinion)

Image: Getty

A version of this news article first appeared in the Digital Education blog.

Sign Up for The Savvy Principal

Reference Manager
Simple TEXT file

People also looked at

Review article, how do technology-enhanced learning tools support critical thinking.

Computer Science Education, Computer Science and Society, Department of Computer Science, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany

This paper reviews existing computer-supported learning systems that have claimed to adopt Socratic methods for enhancing critical thinking. Several notions of Socratic methods are differentiated: the critical thinking framework of Paul and Elder (2006) , the classic Socratic method, the modern Socratic method, and the neo-Socratic group discussion method. Three lessons are highlighted. First, the development of learning systems specifically supporting critical thinking is still lacking Thus, further research in this area is urgent. Second, most developed computer-supported learning systems claim to support Socratic approaches (e.g., Socratic tutoring) which are based on human tutoring strategies and do not show a systematic Socratic method. Third, the classic Socratic method has not been applied in any reviewed learning system.

Introduction

What is critical thinking? The definition of Sumner (1940 , p. 632–633) might be one of the earliest notions of “critical thinking”: [Critical thinking is] “… the examination and test of propositions of any kind which are offered for acceptance, in order to find out whether they correspond to reality or not .” This notion implies active scrutiny of propositions when articulated. Similarly, most definitions share the common requirement on question asking. That is, the critical thinker needs to ask questions in order to test assumptions, to recognize ambiguity, to examine, to interpret, to evaluate, to reason, to reflect, to clarify, to articulate, and to justify positions ( Ennis, 1962 ; Ruggiero, 1975 ; Hallet, 1984 ; Halpern, 1996 ). However, none of these definitions provides a systematic framework for adoption in educational scenarios.

In 2012, Richard Paul published an article criticizing the education of critical thinking at schools as follows: “ The fundamental problems in schooling today at all levels are fragmentation and lower order learning. Both within and between subject areas there is a dearth of connection and depth. Atomized lists dominate curricula, atomized teaching dominates instruction, and atomized recall dominates learning. What is learned are superficial fragments, typically soon forgotten. What is missing is coherence, connection, and depth of understanding… ” ( Paul, 2012 ). Many empirical studies reported a similar situation of critical thinking education at schools. Most teachers and school students do not use deep questions that are supposed to evoke high-order cognitive functions ( Graesser et al., 2010 ; Chafi and Elkhouzai, 2014 ). Thus, students have limited exposure to more beneficial inquiry. Approximately 60% of teachers' questions evoke lower-order cognitive demands, whereas 20% invoke higher-order cognitive demands, leaving 20% that represent procedural day-to-day questions ( Dickman, 2009 ). A recent study conducted with 143 teachers in Germany expressed a similar result that low-order questions are mostly used in classroom teaching ( Le et al., 2018 ).

Critical thinking is the skill that is in high demand in many workplaces nowadays. For global industry groups such as the World Economic Forum, critical thinking has been consistently ranked as one of the top three most important skills from 2015 to 2020 ( WEF, 2016 ). Despite the importance of critical thinking in education, research on technology-enhanced support for developing and enhancing critical thinking is still rare. The goal of this paper is to investigate the research question: How do existing technology-enhanced learning tools help learners develop critical thinking? Answering this question should also shed light on associated pedagogical practices. As a first step, the discussion focuses on the Socratic methods and its relationship with critical thinking.

Methodology

In order to investigate the research question being addressed in this paper, first, it is required to review different approaches to develop critical thinking in order to be able to classify learning tools. Thus, the following sections are devoted to differentiating variants of Socratic approaches to critical thinking.

The Paul-Elder's Socratic Approach to Critical Thinking

One of the pioneers of promoting critical thinking in education is Richard Paul. Paul's definition for critical thinking is as follows: “ Critical thinking is disciplined, self-directed thinking which exemplifies the perfections of thinking appropriate to a particular mode or domain of thought .” Paul suggested the following twelve criteria for perfections of thought: clarity, precision, specificity, accuracy, relevance, consistency, logicalness, depth, completeness, significance, fairness, and adequacy (for purpose). These criteria for perfections of thought can be used to assess the level of critical thinking, and thus, are also referred to as the intellectual standards ( Paul and Elder, 2006 ). In order to achieve the perfections of thought, Paul suggested six categories of questions for critical questioners ( Paul, 1990 , Chapter 19) (see Table 1 ).

Table 1 . Six classes of critical questions proposed by Paul and Elder (2006) .

By applying the six classes of critical questions, the development of social intellectual traits might be expected ( Paul and Elder, 2006 ). The criteria for intellectual standards of critical thinking and the six categories of questions build a framework of critical thinking.

The Classic Socratic Method

The classic Socratic method originated primarily from the early dialogues of Socrates that are documented in Plato's books ( Maxwell, 2014 ). In these dialogues, Socrates used questions to refute existing beliefs of the interlocutor. Such refutation allows the interlocutor to rethink the topic under discussion (e.g., “ What is virtue? ”). The expected result of the classic Socratic method is that the interlocutor can recognize by himself/herself the failure during the process of searching for a correct answer to a discussion question. Another expected effect is that the interlocutor would rethink his/her existing belief more deeply and free himself/herself from holding firmly to his/her wrong belief. This is referred to as the “Socratic effect” by Maxwell and Melete (2014) . Through this effect, new knowledge of the interlocutor may be established.

Boghossian (2012) identified five common steps of the classic Socratic method: (1) Wonder question, (2) Hypothesis, (3) Elenchus (refutation or cross-examination), (4) Acceptance/rejection of the hypothesis, and (5) Action. The first step starts with a wondering question, e.g., “ What is justice? ” (Chapter “The republic,” Plato 1 ). The second step of a Socratic dialogue is the response of the interlocutor who is in charge by presenting a hypothesis, a possible answer or a tentative answer to the question. In this stage, the interlocutor may use his/her knowledge to answer the “wonder” question asked by Socrates. The answer shows the pre-conception of the interlocutor and represents a hypothesis. Socrates would not evaluate the answer given in this stage. The third step of a Socratic dialogue, elenchus or refutation, is the core of Socratic dialogues ( Gulley, 1968 ). The purpose of this step is to ask questions to test the hypothesis given by the interlocutor. The hypothesis could be tested by elenchus (refutation or cross-examination, e.g., fact check, critical questions, counter-arguments, counter-examples, fallacy-check, or check for contradiction, etc.). The purpose of the elenchus (refutation or cross-examination) is to call the hypothesis into question. That is to undermine the interlocutor's belief. The fourth step of a Socratic dialogue is to accept or reject the hypothesis of the interlocutor based on results of rethinking. If a new fact (or counterexample, counter-arguments, fallacy-check, check for contradiction) shows that the hypothesis cannot be true, then the interlocutor should change his/her belief. He/she goes back to the second step and offers another hypothesis. If a new fact (or counter-arguments, fallacy-check, check for contradiction) is rejected by the interlocutor, then both the Socratic questioner and the interlocutor agree that it is neither necessary nor sufficient to undermine the hypothesis. That means that the hypothesis is tentatively accepted. The final step is to act by the interlocutor accordingly, after the cycle of examining facts (or counterexamples, counter-arguments, fallacy-check, check for contradiction) has been finished. That is, one would change his/her pre-conception.

Maxwell and Melete (2014) compared the five steps of the classic Socratic method with the general steps of the scientific approach to investigating a research question. An example from Meno ( Jowett, 2019 ) illustrates the classic Socratic method as follows, sentences in italics are my notes indicating the steps of the classic Socratic method.

The classic Socratic method has been proven useful in teaching and learning ( Lam, 2011 ). However, several researchers argued that the classic Socratic method tends to confuse and to perplex students ( Pekarsky, 1994 ; Tarnopolsky, 2001 ; Weisner and Westerhof-Shultz, 2004 ) and that students may become humiliated and ashamed. Boghossian (2012) represented the opposite point of view by showing different examples: “ The purpose of the Socratic method is not to humiliate, shame, or perplex students, but to help them have beliefs that accord with reality .” For Boghossian, the classic Socratic method has much potential: it can help participants formulate arguments, improve their critical thinking and moral reasoning skills, and learn to distinguish truth from falsity. The perplexed and confused feelings are just the side-effect of the classic Socratic method ( Boghossian, 2010 ). Socratic dialogues, as described above, aim only to free one's wrong belief from holding tightly on to previous convictions, and thus evelop critical thinking.

The Modern Socratic Method

Maxwell (2014) distinguished the modern Socratic method from the classic Socratic method. The modern Socratic method uses questions to lead the interlocutor to acquire knowledge in small steps. This means that the answers of leading questions can be verified and anticipated by the Socratic questioner. This is the main difference between the modern Socratic method and the classic Socratic method such that neither the Socratic questioner nor the interlocutor knows the answer. According to Maxwell, this Socratic method is popular in modern times and thus, referred to as the modern Socratic method. This type of Socratic method is also the root of the dialogues of Socrates. One of the Socrates' dialogues that can illustrate this method is the conversation between Socrates with a slave boy about the geometry experiment found in the dialogues “Meno” (Meno 82b−85d: Socrates and the Slave 2 ). A part of this dialogue is shown in Figure 1 .

Figure 1 . An illustration of modern Socratic dialogues (Meno 82b−85d: Socrates and the Slave, Source: Wikimedia.org ).

The Neo-Socratic Discussion Method

Nelson (1970) developed a Socratic discussion method which is referred to as the neo-Socratic method in literature ( Popp, 2001 ). This method is intended to support a group discussion for six to ten participants. The discussion serves to explain existing but unreflected concepts in daily life (e.g., What is happiness ?) that are fundamental for the discussion. Through a discussion held by the neo-Socratic method, the participants perform argumentation and strive for a result in consensus. Similar to Socratic dialogues that can be found in the books of Plato, the neo-Socratic discussion method applies concrete examples in daily life for self-reflection. Based on self-experience, the participants express their points of view on the discussion question. The central point of this method is the enhancement of self-initiated thinking, the improvement of the ability of logical and objective argumentation, and the promotion of problem-oriented and solution-oriented communication. Heckmann (1981) extended Nelson's neo-Socratic method by explicitly defining the rules for the discussion moderator and for discussion participants. With these rules, Heckmann (1981) wanted to make sure that the abstraction process from examples given by discussion participants is granted. Horster (1994) investigated the theoretical assumptions of the neo-Socratic method, modified the abstraction process proposed by Nelson, and described the neo-Socratic method as Figure 2 illustrates. The steps of this process are elaborated by Horster (1994) . Since this abstraction process of the neo-Socratic method seems to be clearly defined, it could be mapped to a computational model.

Figure 2 . The Socratic group discussion method developed by Nelson (1970) , extended by Heckmann (1981) and Horster (1994) .

The differences between the classic, the modern, and the neo-Socratic discussion methods are summarized in Table 2 .

Table 2 . The differences between the Socratic methods.

Socratic questioning not only involves the use of systematic questioning, but also inductive reasoning ( Carey and Mullan, 2004 ). Inductive reasoning uses specific examples to arrive at a general rule. For example, we can observe from specific examples that a bicycle has two round wheels, a motor bike also has two round wheels, and a car has four round wheels. We would induce a general rule that all vehicles have round wheels.

The foregoing investigation of Socratic Methods is presented as important context for understanding the application of contemporary technology support for critical thinking, for the main reason that most systems have adopted the modern Socratic Method. This discussion now addresses findings associated with this.

For the review of technology-enhanced learning systems for critical thinking, the following inclusion criteria were defined:

1. Scientific articles describing a technology-enhanced learning system must mention “critical thinking” or “Socratic” (including “Socratic dialogue,” “Socratic method,” “Socratic questioning”), and “reasoning”;

2. A system must have educational purposes, e.g., learning, developing/enhancing skills;

3. A system must have been evaluated or technically validated.

In addition to the inclusion criteria, one exclusion criterion is that assessment systems are not considered, because they do not provide didactic/pedagogical strategies to enhance critical thinking skills.

Applying these three inclusion criteria and the exclusion criterion, articles were collected from Google Scholar, DBLP and open access journal databases on the Internet, 14 learning systems for critical thinking were included ( Table 2 ). In the following, each system is briefly summarized and assigned to one of the critical thinking approaches. If the authors of the system claimed that it supports the Socratic method but did not show the systematic Socratic method, we will assign that system to the category “claimed to be Socratic.” If a system is still available online, it is indicated by an Internet URL on a column of the table.

The review starts with the learning systems that adopt the modern Socratic method. The common feature is that the systems control the dialogue, ask questions and the students answer the system's questions in free text. One of the earliest computer systems that adopted the modern Socratic method is SCHOLAR ( Carbonell, 1970 ). In this system, the author modeled the domain geography using a semantic network. The system allows mixed initiative dialogues, i.e., both students and the system can initiate questions. The user interface allows the users to input an answer or a question in free form. The system understands the student's question or answer by matching a pattern with pre-specified keywords. In order to generate texts, the system fills answer and question templates with information from the semantic net. Since the semantic network represents only fact knowledge rather than procedural knowledge, the system is limited to categorize student utterances beyond simply right/wrong. Also adopting the modern Socratic method, Weusijana et al. (2004) developed a questioning strategy for the system SASK. It is a domain-independent architecture for deepening students' reflections on well-defined tasks using Socratic dialogues. In the domain of biomedical engineering, for example, the system adopts the questions used by experts for students such as “ What are you trying to do here? ” or “ What variables are you controlling? ” Person and Graesser (2002) developed an intelligent tutoring system that applies the modern Socratic method to improve students' knowledge in the areas of computer literacy and Newtonian physics using an animated agent that is able to ask a series of deep reasoning questions according to the question taxonomy proposed by Graesser and Person (1994) .

Beside the learning systems that applied the modern Socratic method, several learning systems adopted the neo-Socratic group discussion method. Le and Huse (2016) developed a conversational agent that plays the role of a moderator for a group discussion. The conversational agent leads the discussion participants through the phases of the neo-Socratic group discussion method and encourages participants to strengthen their critical thinking in order to develop arguments for the given discussion topic. The evaluation study of the Socratic conversational agent ( Le and Huse, 2016 ) reported encouraging results that the Socratic group discussion moderated by a conversational agent has the tendency to activate participants' thinking and join the group discussion more actively. For similar purpose, Hoeksema (2004) developed a group discussion environment that is intended to serve virtual Socratic dialogues. The Socratic dialogues using this discussion environment are intended to be held similarly in a usual face-to-face environment. Whereas, this work focused on developing an environment for Socratic group discussions, the Socratic conversational agent of Le and Huse (2016) was used to formalize the neo-Socratic group discussion method to help students develop critical thinking.

While the classic and modern Socratic methods are based on the dialogues of Socrates documented in the books of Plato, the conceptualization of the Socratic method has been developed and modified in different guises.

Edelson (1996) developed a so-called Socratic case-based architecture Crimeanate using thought-provoking questions and cases. Two pedagogical principles underlying this architecture are active learning and learning from cases. These principles are implemented by two system components: a task environment and a storyteller. The learning domain supported by this architecture is biology. Specific subject matter is animal adaptation. A session begins with an invitation to the student to create his or her own animal by taking an existing animal and changing it in some way. Following the choice of an animal, the system engages the student in a series of natural language dialogues in which the student considers the ramifications of the proposed modification of his or her animal. The storyteller recognizes opportunities for learning during the course of interactions of the student with the task environment and presents cases that may help the student to learn from his/her own problem.

Glass (2001) developed CIRCSIM, a dialogue-based intelligent tutoring system that uses questions to lead conversations with student and claimed that the pedagogical strategy is Socratic tutoring. This tutoring strategy is based on a corpus of human tutoring dialogues that contains many instances of students' short answers ( Glass, 2001 ). The notion of Socratic tutoring suggested by Glass is as follows: “ The dialogue is under the tutor's control; the machine asks questions and the student answers with free text in imitation of the Socratic style of human tutoring .”

Similarly, Weusijana et al. (2004 , p. 561) characterized a Socratic tutoring method very informally: “ An educator may know of these issues and choose to tutor their learners socratically; to conversationally engage with learners, often while they work on their learning task, with pertinent and probing questions .” Based on this concept of the Socratic method, the authors developed a web-based system that helps students foster reflection.

Domeshek et al. (2002) conceptualized the Socratic method as follows: “ Socratic instruction is a kind of teaching interaction typically applied in high-level professional education (e.g., law and business) and most often characterized by its external form: the teacher asks a lot of questions, and the student answers.” Based on this notion of the Socratic method, Domeshek et al. (2004) developed ComMentor, an automated Socratic tutoring system, for command skills for high-level professional education such as law and business. This system is claimed to be able to guide the student in a Socratic mode as an expert would: the teacher asks questions and the student answers. The sequence of the questions is intended to help the student reconstruct the logic of expert situation analysis and decision-making. Domeshek et al. (2004) described four characteristics of a typical Socratic session: (1) a thought-provoking problem, (2) a student's attempt to provide solutions, (3) the instructor's repeated exploration and challenging of the student's solutions, and (4) incremental justification, elaboration, refinement, and revision of both the student's understanding of the situation under discussion and their proposed solution.

According to the notions for the Socratic method above that are not based on the analysis of Socrates' dialogues, a teacher should engage students by posing questions. It is controversial whether these notions for the Socratic method can be categorized as the modern Socratic method because the modern Socratic method also applies a sequence of questions for that the Socratic questioner anticipates correct answers. However, since the computer applications that adopt these notions for the Socratic method are based on the analysis of human tutoring dialogues, it is questionable whether these dialogues follow a systematic methodology and whether the methodology of human tutors is really effective.

Several educational applications support tutorial dialogues. Olney et al. (2012) presented a method for generating questions for tutorial dialogue. This involves automatically extracting concept maps from textbooks in the domain of biology. Five question categories were deployed: hint, prompt, forced choice question, contextual verification question, and causal chain questions. Also, with the intention of supporting students using conversational dialogues, Lane and VanLehn (2005) developed PROPL, a tutor, which helps students build a natural-language style pseudo-code solution to a given problem. All these educational applications deployed some kinds of dialogue, however, they neither apply the classic nor modern Socratic method.

There have been several computer-supported learning systems for human reasoning which could be considered a part of the critical thinking process since critical thinking involves the use of inductive reasoning ( Carey and Mullan, 2004 ). For example, the framework of critical thinking proposed by Paul and Elder (2006) includes the class of questions that probe reason and evidence. Le and Wartschinski (2018) proposed a cognitive assistant that holds conversation with students to develop human reasoning skills. This study, with more than 60 test persons, showed significant improvement in reasoning skills. Pursuing the similar aim, an existing serious game, Argotario ( Habernal et al., 2017 ) addressed argumentation and critical thinking skills by identifying fallacies in arguments and intentionally developing fallacious arguments during the process of playing a game. Both the cognitive assistant developed by Le and Wartschinski (2018) and the serious game Argotario proposed a conversational agent as the communication interface with the user. However, the difference between these systems lies in the training tasks. The cognitive assistant developed by Le and Wartschinski (2018) covered several issues that lead to irrational thoughts and decisions: (1) sunk cost fallacy, (2) gambler's fallacy, (3) Bayesian reasoning, (4) belief bias in syllogistic reasoning, (5) regression toward the mean, (6) co-variation detection, and (7) Wason's selection tasks. Training tasks provided by this cognitive assistant were based on psychology literature ( Larrick, 2004 ; Toplak et al., 2014 ). The serious game, Argotario, only addressed the single issue of “fallacy.”

From this review of technology-enhanced learning systems for critical thinking ( Table 3 ), we can learn three lessons. First, the number of developed learning systems for critical thinking is still low. Thus, given the proliferation of misinformation and ‘fake news' on the web, further research in this area is arguably urgent. Second, most of the developed learning systems (e.g., Olney et al., 2012 ) claimed that they support Socratic approaches (e.g., Socratic tutoring), which are based on human tutoring strategies rather than Socrates' strategies. It is controversial whether the human tutoring strategies are pedagogically effective and whether they need to be empirically validated before being integrated into a learning system. Third, the classic Socratic method has not been applied in any reviewed learning system. This absence of the classic Socratic method in learning systems can be explained by which the steps of the classic Socratic method might be very challenging to be mapped to a computational model. Especially the third step, which is the core of the classic Socratic method, would require a computer system to be able to ask a question to test a hypothesis by posing a fact check, a counter argument, counter example, a fallacy check, or a check for contradiction.

Table 3 . A summary of computer-supported educational systems for critical thinking.

Conclusions

This paper has reviewed 14 existing technology-enhanced learning systems for critical thinking. The review shows that almost all existing systems adopted the notion of the modern Socratic method, e.g., the system uses questions to lead the learner to acquire knowledge in small steps and knowledge that is to be acquired can be anticipated by the system. Thus, questions and anticipated knowledge of a learning domain can be modeled computationally. Whereas, the modern Socratic method has been adopted in many systems, the classic Socratic method is rarely deployed in computer-supported learning systems. Perhaps the reason is that steps of the classic Socratic method are challenging to be mapped to a computational model. Another finding is that several dialogue-based learning systems claimed to adopt Socratic questioning method, however, they only support conversation between users and the system in natural language. That is, those systems may enhance critical thinking through questions, but a systematic Socratic approach cannot be identified.

Author Contributions

The author confirms being the sole contributor of this work and has approved it for publication.

Conflict of Interest

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

Acknowledgments

I acknowledge support by the German Research Foundation (DFG) and the Open Access Publication Fund of Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin.

1. ^ Plato: “The republic” available on The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (IEP) https://www.iep.utm.edu/republic/

2. ^ Meno 82b - 85d: Socrates and the Slave https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d3/Meno82b-85d.svg

Boghossian, P. (2010). Socratic Pedagogy, Critical Thinking, and Of-fender Programming. Offender Programs Report .

Google Scholar

Boghossian, P. (2012). Socratic pedagogy: perplexity, humiliation, shame and a broken egg. Edu. Philos. Theor. 44, 710–720. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-5812.2011.00773.x

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Carbonell, J. R. (1970). AI in CAI: artificial intelligence approach to computer assisted instruction. IEEE Transac. Man-Machine Syst. 11, 190–202. doi: 10.1109/TMMS.1970.299942

Carey, T. A., and Mullan, R. J. (2004). What is Socratic questioning? Psychother. Theor. Res. Pract. Train. 41, 217–226. doi: 10.1037/0033-3204.41.3.217

Chafi, M. E., and Elkhouzai, E. (2014). Classroom interaction: investigating the forms and functions of teacher questions in Moroccan primary school. J. Innovat. Appl. Stud. 6, 352–361.

Dickman, N. E. (2009). The challenge of asking engaging questions. Curr. Teach. Learn. 2, 3–16.

Domeshek, E. A., Holman, E., and Luperfoy, S. (2004). “ComMentor: socratic tutoring for high-level command skills,” in Proceedings of Interservice/Industry Training, Simulation, and Education Conference (I/ITSEC) (Orlando, FL).

Domeshek, E. A., Holman, E., and Ross, K. G. (2002). “Automated socratic tutors for high-level command skills,” in Proceedings of the Interservice/Industry Training Simulation and Education Conference (Orlando, FL).

Edelson, D. C. (1996). Learning from cases and questions: the so-cratic case-based teaching architecture. J. Learn. Sci. 5, 370–410. doi: 10.1207/s15327809jls0504_3

Ennis, R. H. (1962). A concept of critical thinking. Harvard Edu. Rev. 32, 81–111.

Glass, M. (2001). Processing language input in the CIRCSIM-tutor intelligent tutoring system. J. Artif. Intellig. Edu. 2001, 210–221.

Graesser, A. C., Ozuru, Y., and Sullins, J. (2010). “What is a good question?” in Threads of Coherence in Research on the Development of Reading Ability , eds M. G. McKeown and L. Kucan (Guilford, NY), 112–141.

Graesser, A. C., and Person, N. K. (1994). Question asking during tutoring. Am. Edu. Res. J. 31, 104–137. doi: 10.3102/00028312031001104

Gulley, N. (1968). The Philosophy of Socrates . London: Macmillan.

Habernal, I., Hannemann, R., Pollak, C., Klamm, C., Pauli, P., and Gurevych, I. (2017). “Argotario: computational argumentation meets serious games,” in Proceedings of the EMNLP System Demonstrations (Copenhagen: Association for Computational Linguistics), 7–12.

Hallet, G. L. (1984). Logic for the Labyrinth: A Guide to Critical Thinking . Washington, DC: University Press of America.

Halpern, D. F. (1996). Thought and Knowledge: An Introduction to Critical Thinking, 3rd edn . Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Heckmann, G. (1981). “Das sokratische Gespräch,” in Erfahrungen in Philosophischen Hochschul-Seminare (Frankfurt).

Hoeksema, K. (2004). “Virtuelle Sokratische Gespräche - Umsetzung einer Idee aus dem Philosophieunterricht,” in Proceedings on Modellierung als Schlüsselkonzept in intelligenten Lehr-/Lernsystemen (Marburg).

Horster, D. (1994). Das Sokratische Gespräch in Theorie und Praxis .

Jowett, B. (2019). A Dialogue of Socrates . Available online at: http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/meno.html (accessed October 4, 2019).

Lam, F. (2011). The Socratic Method as an Approach to Learning and Its Benefits . Dietrich College Honors Theses, Research Showcase @CMU.

Lane, H. C., and VanLehn, K. (2005). Teaching the tacit knowledge of programming to novices with natural language tutoring. J. Comput. Sci. Edu. 15, 183–201. doi: 10.1080/08993400500224286

Larrick, R. P. (2004). “Debiasing,” in Blackwell Handbook of Judgment and Decision Making, Chapter 16 , eds D. J. Koehler and N. Harvey (Oxford: Wiley Online Library), p. 316–338.

Le, N.-T., and Huse, N. (2016). “Evaluation of the formal models for the Socratic method,” in Proceedings of the 13rd International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems (Zagreb: Springer Verlag), 69–78.

Le, N.-T., Shabas, A., and Pinkwart, N. (2018). “A question generation framework for teachers,” in Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (Oxford: Springer Verlag), 182–186.

Le, N.-T., and Wartschinski, L. (2018). A cognitive assistant for improving human reasoning skills. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 117, 45–54. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2018.02.005

Maxwell, M. (2014). Introduction to the Socratic Method and Its Effect on Critical Thinking . Available online at: http://www.socraticmethod.net/

Maxwell, M., and Melete, K. (2014). How to Use the Socratic Method. The Socratic Method Research Portal Dedicated to Advancing the Use of the Socratic Method . Available online at: http://www.socraticmethod.net/

Nelson, L. (1970). “Die sokratische methode,” in Gesammelte Schriften in neun Bänden, Vol. 1 (Hamburg).

Olney, A. M., Graesser, A., and Person, N. K. (2012). Question generation from concept maps. Dialogue Discourse 3, 75–99. doi: 10.5087/dad.2012.204

Paul, R. (1990). “Excerpts from critical thinking: what every person needs to survive in a rap-idly changing world,” in Center for Critical Thinking and Moral Critique , eds R. W. Paul, A. J. A. Binker (Rohnert Park, CL: Sonoma State University Center for Critical Thinking and Moral Critique).

Paul, R. (2012). “The critical connection: higher order thinking that unifies curriculum, instruction, and learning,” in Critical Thinking: What Every Person Needs to Survive in a Rapidly Changing World, Chapter 16, eds J. Willsen, A. J. A. Binker (Oxford: Foundation for Critical Thinking Publisher), 293–296. Available online at: http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/richardpaul-anthology/1139 (accessed May 06, 2019).

Paul, R., and Elder, L. (2006). The Thinker's Guide to the Art of Socratic Questioning. The Foundation for Critical Thinking .

Pekarsky, D. (1994). Socratic teaching: a critical assessment. J. Moral Edu. 23, 119–134. doi: 10.1080/0305724940230202

Person, N. K., and Graesser, A. C. (2002). “Human or computer? AutoTutor in a bystander turing test,” in Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems (Biarritz), 821–830.

Popp, S. (2001). Das sokratische Gespräch - Eine Methode der diskursiven Begriffsklärung .

Ruggiero, V. R. (1975). Beyond Feelings: A Guide to Critical Thinking . Port Washington, NY: Alfred Pub. Co.

Sumner, W. G. (1940). Folkways: A Study of the Sociological Importance of Usages, Manners, Customs, Mores, and Morals . New York, NY: Ginn and Co.

Tarnopolsky, C. (2001). “Socratic elenchus and platonic myth in Plato's Gorgias,” in Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association (San Francisco, CA).

Toplak, M. E., West, R. F., and Stanovich, K. E. (2014). Assessing miserly information processing: an expansion of the cognitive reflection test. Think 20:844729. doi: 10.1080/13546783.2013.844729

WEF (2016). WEF . Available online at: http://reports.weforum.org/future-of-jobs-2016/shareable-infographics (accessed May 6, 2019).

Weisner, J., and Westerhof-Shultz, J. (2004). Breaking the Silence: dialogical learning in the middle grades. Edu. Foundations 18, 33–49.

Weusijana, B. K., Riesbeck, C. K., and Walsh, J. T. (2004). “Fostering re-flection with socratic tutoring software: results of using inquiry teaching strategies with web-based HCI techniques,” in Proceedings of International Conference for the Learning Sciences (ICLS) (New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Keywords: critical thinking, classic Socratic method, modern Socratic method, Socratic group discussion, critical thinking

Citation: Le N-T (2019) How Do Technology-Enhanced Learning Tools Support Critical Thinking? Front. Educ. 4:126. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2019.00126

Received: 07 May 2019; Accepted: 15 October 2019; Published: 06 November 2019.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2019 Le. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Nguyen-Thinh Le, nguyen-thinh.le@hu-berlin.de

New! Member Benefit New! Member Benefit
Featured Analytics Hub
Resources Resources
Member Directory
Networking Communities
Advertise, Exhibit, Sponsor
Find or Post Jobs

Learn and Engage Learn and Engage
Bridge Program

Compare AACSB-Accredited Schools
Explore Programs

Advocacy Advocacy
Featured AACSB Announces 2024 Class of Influential Leaders
Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Belonging
Influential Leaders
Innovations That Inspire
Connect With Us Connect With Us
Accredited School Search
Accreditation
Learning and Events
Advertise, Sponsor, Exhibit
Tips and Advice
Is Business School Right for Me?

Assessing Critical Thinking in the Digital Era

The Importance of Assessment

However, while critical thinking is widely recognized as an essential skill, it can be challenging for higher education institutions to quantify or measure how well students have learned it. Assessment is a vital and dynamic component of teaching knowledge, skills, and competencies. It informs program and institutional improvement, providing invaluable information that administrators, faculty, and staff can use to make data-driven decisions that lead to better student outcomes.

One of the key difficulties in assessing critical thinking is defining what it is and how it should be measured. Critical thinking is a complex skill that involves the ability to analyze and evaluate information, think creatively, and make reasoned judgments, as Richard Paul and Linda Elder outline in their 2019 publication . It is not a single skill that can be easily quantified or measured through traditional assessments. As a result, educators have had to develop more nuanced approaches to evaluating critical thinking skills, such as project-based assessments and open-ended questions that require students to demonstrate their reasoning and problem-solving abilities.

While critical thinking is widely recognized as an essential skill, it can be challenging for higher education institutions to quantify or measure how well students have learned it.

Another challenge in measuring critical thinking is ensuring that assessments are fair and unbiased. Assessments that are overly reliant on multiple-choice questions or rote memorization can unfairly disadvantage students who may excel in other areas of critical thinking.

For these reasons, educators need effective assessment methods that accurately measure critical thinking skills in a variety of contexts. These assessments should use consistent and objective criteria to ensure that all students are given equal opportunities to demonstrate their abilities.

However, building such assessment tools and overcoming the barriers associated with measuring critical thinking places a large and sometimes overwhelming administrative burden on faculty and staff. Unfortunately, there can be a negative impact on student performance when faculty members must allocate more time and resources to handling administrative tasks than to teaching courses and supporting learner success.

A Partnership Between Industry and Academia

The need for critical thinking assessment tools is being addressed through a recent partnership between various higher education institutions and Peregrine Global Services, an education technology company specializing in assessment and instructional solutions. Peregrine recently launched its Critical Thinking Assessment to help colleges and universities evaluate this important skill.

To ensure that the assessment tool would meet the specific needs of the higher education community, the company developed its Peregrine Partner Program, which involved beta testing the tool with programs of varying sizes and types during the fall of 2022 and the spring of 2023. Each educational partner provided valuable feedback on how to present data to help schools make informed decisions, how to remove administrative burdens associated with assessment, and how to foster a culture of quality.

The partnership between Peregrine and the higher education institutions has led to several unforeseen advancements in technology. These include the ability to analyze exam data by course, cohort, or program, as well as the implementation of blind scoring to remove scoring bias. The new tool also adopts an innovative approach to assessing critical thinking and generating the data necessary to analyze exam results. For example, schools will be able to sort and filter data by levels of higher-order thinking.

The Critical Thinking Assessment uses a standardized rubric covering six critical thinking subcriteria and provides institutions with the flexibility to customize the exams to meet their needs. Academic programs can tailor the service to cover specific disciplines and assess varying levels of higher-order thinking. Learners receive scenarios randomly, ensuring a unique testing experience for each student.

The system auto-scores multiple-choice questions, while designated program faculty and assessment administrators use a rubric to manually score open-ended items. The short case studies and scenario questions are written and validated by subject matter experts with practical and teaching experience in each specific discipline.

“The Critical Thinking Assessment helps make assessment a facultywide effort, where everyone has buy-in,” says Melodie Philhours, associate professor of marketing and director of assessment at Arkansas State University’s Neil Griffin College of Business in Jonesboro. “The assessment tool significantly reduces the time and resources required for assessment, allowing faculty to focus on teaching and improving student learning outcomes. One of the most significant benefits has been the removal of the administrative burden related to compiling and entering the data, as the results are readily available after the assessment is fully scored.”

At the Forefront of Disruption

The collaboration between Peregrine and its partner schools will benefit not only the institutions involved, but also the broader field of education. Any time higher education and the technology sector can work together, they will drive innovation and disruption, ultimately leading to better learner outcomes. With the Critical Thinking Assessment tool, Peregrine aims to help higher education institutions assess not just retained knowledge, but also acquired skills and competencies.

In the future, Peregrine plans to incorporate AI into the assessment and build an aggregate pool, so schools can compare their results over periods of time, internally and externally, allowing them to benchmark against schools with similar demographics. Until then, Peregrine is offering the tool to schools as a course-level assessment they can use in their overall assessment portfolio.

The partnership between Peregrine and universities highlights the potential for industry and academia to come together to address the challenges faced by higher education. It demonstrates that when universities are at the forefront of disrupting education in a positive manner, they can move along with technology rather than lag behind it.

critical thinking
partnerships

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

Kate Conway

This chapter examines 21st century learning, including contemporary learning environments and constructivist approaches, with a specific focus on partnering, and how they contribute to developing skills like critical thinking, information literacy, decision making, and problem solving among learners. Insights from academics like Dr. Tony Wagner and Dr. Teresa Amabile are touched on, highlighting their proposed characteristics of successful learners. These characteristics include curiosity and innovation, with a focus on traits like creativity, problem solving, knowledge acquisition, and critical thinking skills. Critical thinking is further defined and broken down into its components, including the Australian Council for Educational Research’s (ACER) critical thinking framework. The intended purpose of such operationalized definitions and frameworks is to empower educators to feel confident in teaching and assessing this competency in their students, especially in a digital age where technology plays a huge role in information gathering and knowledge construction. The role of information communication technology (ICT) and information literacy is defined and examined in the context of critical thinking, and demonstrates that they are interconnected. Finally, educational technology tools and platforms are explored, including their possible applications at the curricular level and suggestions for future improvements are made in the context of the Ontario curriculum.

critical thinking, 21st century learning, information literacy

Introduction

Today’s learners are increasingly familiar with using technology to acquire knowledge and to seek answers. As constructivist pedagogies, like partnering, technology-enhanced active learning (TEAL), and inquiry-based learning, become increasingly prevalent in classrooms, these 21st century learners are taking on the roles of researcher, thinker, and sense-maker, among others (Prensky, 2010). This means that students have the responsibility to ensure that the information they are gathering and applying to learning or action is relevant, accurate, and reliable (Tutor2u, 2021). This necessary shift toward student-centered learning calls on teachers to guide and mentor students in ways that develop the critical thinking skills necessary to be successful learners, with particular focus on informed decision-making.

Dr. Tony Wagner believes that the ability to create new knowledge and solve new problems is the single most important skill that students must master today (Fullan, 2013). In order acquire this skill, modern day education is best conducted in ways that engage and motivate students and foster the development of 21st century competencies, like innovation, critical thinking and problem solving. In order for this to be achieved, one must consider what types of learning environments are conducive to competency development in these categories amongst today’s learners.

This chapter outlines what 21st century learning looks like, what competencies it develops, and how critical thinking, as a concept, has been traditionally difficult to characterize and, therefore, teach to and assess for. Also covered in this chapter will be how researchers and educators approach the definition of critical thinking, including how it overlaps and intertwines with problem solving, decision-making, and information-communication technology (ICT) and, therefore, how technology can play a role in critical thinking development amongst learners.

Background Information

In developing this chapter, a literature review was undertaken to examine how critical thinking plays a role in learners’ educational experience. Through examining existing literature, definitions, and frameworks, it became clear that there are a few elements that are key to understanding critical thinking and decision making through the lens of 21st-century learning.

21st Century Learning

The learning environment.

Educators can create and facilitate learning in effective ways that differ from the traditional lecture, or sage-on-the-stage, approach. Partnering is a 21st century way of working together whereby students explore and discover for themselves the answers to questions, while educators provide just enough guidance to allow that to happen with minimal need for outside assistance (Prensky, 2010). For teachers, this might mean teaching self-monitoring and self-correcting skills to encourage self-sufficient learners. With partnering, the students’ job is to make use of any tools, including technology, available to them to find information, make meaning, and create, while teachers guide with questioning, contextualizing, and providing rigor to ensure quality (Prensky, 2010).

Borne of constructivist leanings, which stipulate that students construct meaning through experience and that meaning is influenced by the interaction of prior knowledge and new events (Arends, 1998), partnering shares traits with more popularized approaches like project-based learning, or inquiry-based learning, while underscoring the reciprocal nature of the student-teacher relationship. This aligns with Tam’s outline of constructivist learning environment characteristics, including that knowledge and authority are shared between teachers and students, the teacher acts as a facilitator, and learning groups are small and heterogenous in nature (Tam, 2000). In partnering, teachers empower students to use any available technology to personalize their learning experience and follow their passions while seeking information, answering questions, sharing ideas, practicing, and creating (Prensky, 2010).

It is clear that technology can be a very supportive tool in a 21st-century learning environment as students use it to engage with their learning experience in the role of researcher. However, it is their other roles – thinker and sense maker – that may go overlooked by the students themselves. Teachers should ensure they inform students that thinking logically and critically is one of their primary roles (Prensky, 2010) and should have structures in place to provide the guidance and feedback necessary to further foster these skills.

21st Century Competencies

Being a learner in the 21st century means a shift from traditional skills associated with being a student, like rote learning and memorization, to skills like innovation and creativity. Dr. Tony Wagner highlights curiosity as being a key characteristic of an innovative learner while Dr. Teresa Amabile highlights that knowledge and problem-solving are important to the creative process (Fullan, 2013). Curiosity begets knowledge acquisition, which enables students to tackle problems that need solved or decisions that need to be made.

This process requires learners to possess certain competencies, which Wagner refers to as the 7 Survival Skills (Asia Society, 2009), including, but not limited to, critical thinking and problem solving as well as accessing and analyzing information. In the technological age we live in, there is boundless information available to those who seek it. For learners, the ability to effectively search for information and identify what is important and parse it out from that which is superfluous is important to the critical thinking and decision-making processes. Wagner (2008) posits that these survival skills are key to successful careers, continuous learning, and active and informed citizenship and, yet, the education community is unsure how to teach or assess them, posing an obvious challenge.

Critical Thinking & Decision Making

This raises the question of how skills like critical thinking and decision-making are defined and why they are so important in contemporary learning environments. It is important that measurable and consistent definitions are generated in order for educators to effectively teach and assess the skills of critical thinking and decision-making.

Definition and Importance of Critical Thinking

Depending on the source, critical thinking has many definitions, each overlapping with some nuanced differences. Heard et al. (2020) curated a collection of critical thinking definitions and formulated this formal definition to guide the development of the Australian Council for Educational Research’s (ACER) critical thinking framework, which will be touched on shortly:

To think critically is to analyze and evaluate information, reasoning and situations, according to appropriate standards such as truth and logic, for the purpose of constructing sound and insightful new knowledge, understandings, hypotheses and beliefs. Critical thinking encompasses the subject’s ability to process and synthesize information in such a way that it enables them to apply it judiciously to tasks for informed decision-making and effective problem-solving. (p.11)

In addition, Robert Ennis’ definition of critical thinking as “reflective thinking focused on deciding on what to believe or do” (Ennis, 1985, p.45 ) suggests that critical thinking does not only influence individual judgment when it comes to what to think, but also what actions to take. By Ennis’ definition, it would seem that decision-making – deciding what action to take – is intertwined with critical thinking. With respect to problem-solving, researchers agree that while it is related to critical thinking, the term problem solving is more often used in relation to well-defined problems with limited solutions, while critical thinking involves open-ended reasoning and ill-defined problems (Heard et al., 2020).

With the aforementioned definitions in mind, Edward Glaser’s summary of critical thinking can serve as a good basis to understanding what critical thinking is in a nutshell. The three characteristics Glaser considers hallmarks of critical thinking ability include: a disposition towards thoughtfully considering the problems and subjects in one’s life experiences and not just in specific contexts or situations, knowledge of the methods of logical inquiry and reasoning, and some skill in applying those methods (Heard et al., 2020).

Teaching and Assessing Critical Thinking

It is clear from these interpretations that critical thinking and decision-making are vital to the success of contemporary learners, both in school and beyond in their personal and professional lives. However, in order to teach and assess critical thinking, an operational definition is required so that assessment tools and intervention techniques can be devised (Heard et al, 2020).

This was the driving force behind the development of the ACER’s critical thinking framework, which is evidence-based and outlines critical thinking processes by strands and aspects, with the intention of providing areas of focus for the teaching and assessing of critical thinking skills. The framework considers critical thinking to be a series of cognitive processes that are goal-oriented and purpose-driven, not just reflective thought (Facione, 1990). These cognitive processes can be broken down into six areas, including interpretation, analysis, evaluation, inference, explanation, and self-regulation, each of which encapsulates a set of subskills. For example, in order for learners to evaluate, they should be able to question the evidence, speculate as to possible alternatives, and draw logical conclusions (Facione, 1990).

For the purposes of the ACER’s critical thinking skills development framework, these cognitive processes were taken into account. In its structure, the critical thinking framework is divided into three strands, further broken down into three aspects each. These aspects encapsulate the knowledge, skills, and understanding that are consistent across definitions of critical thinking (Heard et al, 2020). The three strands are knowledge construction, evaluating reasoning, and decision-making. The aspects of knowledge construction are the identification of gaps in knowledge, discriminating information, and identifying patterns and making connections. The aspects involved in evaluating reasoning include applying logic, identifying assumptions and motivations, and justifying arguments. Finally, the aspects of decision-making are identifying criteria for decision-making, evaluating options, and testing and monitoring implementation (Heard et al, 2020). For reference, the framework is available as a graphical representation in Appendix A.

This framework shares many of the same characteristics of critical thinking that Wagner (2008) discusses when describing the “5 Habits of Mind”. Wagner’s habits of weighing evidence, seeing connections and speculating on possibilities align very closely with the framework’s knowledge construction strand, while Wagner’s habit of being aware of varying viewpoints aligns with the evaluating reasoning strand, and finally, Wagner’s habit of assessing value shares similar aspects to the decision-making strand (Heard et al, 2020; Wagner, 2008). The ACER’s critical thinking framework and Wagner’s “5 Habits of Mind” may be used when considering how to teach and assess critical thinking and decision-making in their classrooms. Wagner (2008) refers to critical thinking as “learning to answer the right questions”, which can be accomplished through an educator’s application of rigor in the classroom when guiding students who are developing critical thinking skills.

This brings us back to the pedagogical approach of partnering when designing the learning environment. To recapitulate, partnering is when students take on the role of researcher, technology user, thinker, and sense maker, while teachers guide, question, provide context, and apply rigor. Educators should make it clear to their students that thinking logically and more critically is one of their primary roles (Prensky, 2010). Learners’ skills of logical and critical thinking can be nurtured and encouraged when educators have a functional definition of critical thinking and clearly articulated subskills that they can draw on when guiding, questioning, and assessing students. The ACER’s framework and Wagner’s “5 Habits of Mind” are two resources that can provide a solid foundation and starting point for teaching and assessing critical thinking.

Applications

Critical thinking includes knowledge construction, which involves identifying gaps in knowledge and discriminating information. In contemporary society, much of our knowledge construction and information acquisition occurs in the digital space. That is why Information-Communications Technology (ICT) has relevant applications in relation to critical thinking and decision-making. Understanding information literacy and the role critical thinking plays in navigating the vast digital world of information is vital. Furthermore, having relevant resources and tools that support the development of critical thinking skills and information literacy can help educators nurture these 21st-century skills amongst learners

Information Communication Technology (ICT)

Typically, when we speak about information literacy, we think of skills that are procedural, like retrieving, managing, referencing, and communicating information (CILIP, 2018), but it is important that individuals apply critical thinking in order to assess the information they are collecting (Paul et al, 2007). Information literacy and critical thinking are interrelated in that information literacy emphasizes the ability to identify and articulate the information needed for a purpose, understanding how to find and identify appropriate information sources, and how to critically assess the information gathered (Grafstein, 2017). Therefore, information-communication technology can play a vital role in developing key 21st-century competencies like knowledge construction and decision making.

As technology has become more versatile and accessible in educational settings, it has become a fixture in many classrooms. In a class following a partnering approach to learning and instruction, students are encouraged to use any technology at their disposal to personalize their learning experience, to aid in seeking information, answering questions, sharing ideas, and creating (Prensky, 2010). Students may use computers, tablets, or personal devices like smartphones to accomplish this.

The ability to put students in the roles of researcher, technology expert, thinker, and sense-maker is largely due to recent changes in the way information can be accessed, thanks to the advent of the internet (Heard et al, 2020). However, with the expansion of technology and the rise of internet use comes challenges. The ease with which users can access information is matched by the ease with which users can manipulate open-access online information sources (Heard et al., 2020). For this reason, the Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals has updated the definition of information literacy to align more closely with critical thinking. They now define information literacy as the “ability to think critically and make balanced judgments about any information we find and use” (CILIP, 2018).

Educational Technology Example

One way that learners may be guided to develop their critical thinking skills in the context of ICT and information literacy, is through the provision of resources that can help broaden their opportunities for constructing knowledge and evaluating information. AllSides for Schools is a web-based platform of resources that provides educators with information and curricular guidance to help guide learners in developing skills like critical thinking (AllSides for Schools, 2022). It originated in 2019 as a nonprofit joint initiative by AllSides and Living Room Conversations to aid educators in addressing digital media literacy and communication skills with their students (AllSides for Schools, 2022). The mission of AllSides for Schools is to teach students how to critically evaluate news, media content, and other information as well as how to use their acquired knowledge to engage in productive dialogue, both in the educational setting and in their communities, professionally and in their personal lives (AllSides for Schools, 2022). To accomplish this mission, the platform has centralized and expanded upon the resources available across AllSides and Living Room Conversations and offers classroom activities and lesson plans (AllSides for Schools, 2022) that educators can draw on when providing guidance, context, and rigor for their learners.

Conclusions and Future Recommendations

As outlined throughout this chapter, contemporary learners require a modernized approach to instruction and learning. It is important that educators understand which skills to foster and help develop. The ability to memorize and regurgitate information is no longer an effective or valuable skill, nor is it a motivating concept for most 21st-century learners. Rather, today’s students thrive best when they are put at the center of their learning experience in the roles of researcher, thinker, and creator. Educators, then, should fill the roles of guide and contextualizer, encouraging students to think logically and critically as one of their primary roles (Prensky, 2010). The goal, as posited by Dr. Wagner and Dr. Amabile is to create innovative, creative, and knowledgable learners with strong critical thinking, problem-solving, and decision-making skills.

In order to nurture these 21st-century competencies, educators must be able to teach and assess them using clearly defined metrics. That is where operationalized definitions like the one created by Glaser or Heard et al (2020) and critical thinking frameworks, like the ACER’s, are essential. They provide a structure from which educators can guide students, offer feedback, and assess progress. Additionally, educators can steer students to seek information using whatever technology is available to them, including web-based educational technology and platforms, like AllSides for Schools, a critical thinking and media literacy online resource designed to aid in the development of knowledge acquisition, information literacy, and critical thinking skills.

Moving forward, curricular documents and assessment tools should be constructed with more constructivist and student-centered approaches in mind. As an example, current elementary curriculum documents and assessment guides from the Ontario Ministry of Education do mention critical thinking, albeit briefly, including a definition and where critical thinking fits in when considering assessment, though in some documents critical thinking only appears in the glossary (Ontario, 2010; Ontario, 2007; Ontario, 2006). Beyond this cursory mention, no concrete means of teaching or assessing critical thinking, especially in a student-centered fashion are brought forth. This is an oversight that should be addressed in future renditions of the Ontario curriculum for the reasons outlined throughout this chapter.

AllSides for Schools. (2022). About All Sides for schools . https://allsidesforschools.org/about/

Arends, R. I. (1998). Resource handbook. Learning to teach (4th ed.). McGraw-Hill.

Asia Society. (2009). 7 Skills students need for their future . [Video]. https://youtu.be/NS2PqTTxFFc

Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals. (2018). CILIP definition of information literacy. https://infolit.org.uk/ILdefinitionCILIP2018.pdf

Ennis, R. (1985). A logical basis for measuring critical thinking skills. Assessing Critical Thinking . https://jgregorymcverry.com/readings/ennis1985assessingcriticalthinking.pdf

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

Fullan, M. (2013). Pedagogy and change: Essence as easy. Stratosphere (pp. 17-32). Pearson.

Grafstein, A. (2017). Information literacy and critical thinking. In D. Sales & M. Pinto (Eds.), Pathways into information literacy and communities of practice (pp. 3–28). https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-100673- 3.00001-0

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

Ontario. (2010). Growing success: Assessment, evaluation and reporting in Ontario’s schools: covering grades 1 to 12 . Ministry of Education. http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/policyfunding/growsuccess.pdf

Ontario. (2006). Language: Ontario curriculum grades 1-8. Ministry of Education. http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/curriculum/elementary/language18currb.pdf

Ontario. (2007). Science and technology: Ontario curriculum grades 1-8. Ministry of Education. http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/curriculum/elementary/scientec18currb.pdf

Paul, R. W., Elder, L., Bartell, T. (1997). A brief history of the idea of critical thinking . https://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/a-brief-history-of-the-idea-of-critical-thinking/408

Prensky, M. (2010). Partnering. Teaching digital natives. Partnering for real learning (pp. 9-29). Corwin Press.

Tam, M. (2000). Constructivism, Instructional Design, and Technology: Implications for Transforming Distance Learning. Educational Technology and Society, 3 (2).

Tutor2u. (2021, March 22). ICT: What is good information? https://www.tutor2u.net/business/reference/ict-what-is-good-information

Wagner, T. (2008). The global achievement gap: Why even our best schools don’t teach the new survival skills our children need, and what we can do about it. Basic Books (pp. 1-41).

Wagner, T. (2008). The global achievement gap . [PowerPoint Slides]. https://asiasociety.org/education/seven-skills-students-need-their-future

Appendix A: ACER Critical thinking skill development framework

ACER critical thinking skill development framework

Share This Book

Thinking critically about critical thinking dispositions in technology education

Published: 05 February 2020
Volume 31 , pages 465–488, ( 2021 )

Cite this article

Willem Rauscher ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5741-160X 1 &
Hendri Badenhorst 1

1424 Accesses

3 Citations

Explore all metrics

While much research has been done on Critical Thinking (CT) skills, the disposition toward CT has not been adequately investigated. The paucity of literature regarding technology teachers’ disposition toward CT is particularly problematic as these teachers have to assist learners with the designing and making of solutions (artefacts) to problems that are often ill structured. Solving these problems is complicated and involves critical thinking. Helping learners to find solutions to these problems, therefore, requires teachers to be willing to think critically and encourage critical thinking in the classroom. Profiling these teachers’ dispositions could reveal their inclination to employ critical thinking, and give an indication of the likelihood that they may foster CT skills and the disposition toward CT in the classroom. In addition, such profiling could provide a descriptive baseline for further investigation into the relationship that seems to exist between CT dispositions and professions. This study, therefore, aimed to investigate technology teachers’ disposition to think critically in terms of their habits of mind. Quantitative research, using an online survey, was employed in this study. A Likert Scale instrument comprising 42 statements, derived from Facione’s (Informal Log 20(1): 61–84, 2000 ) seven habits of mind, was administered to South African technology teachers. The participants had to rate their level of agreement with each statement on a six-point scale. The research findings revealed that this sample had a positive disposition toward CT. The habits of mind that ranked the strongest were CT Self-confidence and Inquisitiveness, while Mature Judgment ranked the weakest (although still in a positive direction). Further research is needed to establish which dispositions should be emphasised in order to address the dispositional needs in technology education.

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

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Strategies for fostering critical thinking dispositions in the technology classroom

Joalise Janse van Rensburg & Willem Rauscher

Critical Thinking in Postgraduate Degree Work at the Israel Technological University, Ecuador

Teaching Critical Thinking– A Task-Based Approach: Work in Progress

American Philosophical Association. (1990). Critical thinking: A statement of expert consensus for purposes of educational assessment and instruction . Recommendations prepared for the committee on pre - college philosophy . California State University, Fullerton. ERIC Doc. No. ED 315-423.

Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., & Sorensen, C. (2010). Introduction to research in education . Belmont: Wadsworth.

Google Scholar

Beyer, B. (1990). What philosophy offers to the teaching of thinking. Educational Leadership, 47 (5), 55–60.

Binkley, M., Erstad, O., Herman, J., Raizen, S., Ripley, M., Miller-Ricci, M., et al. (2012). Defining twenty-first century skills. In P. Griffin, B. McGaw, & E. Care (Eds.), Assessment and teaching of 21st century skills . Dordrecht: Springer.

Department of Basic Education. (2011). National curriculum statement: Curriculum and assessment policy statement (CAPS) . Technology Grades 7–9. Pretoria: Government Printing Works.

Dewey, J. (1910). How we think . Boston: D.C. Heath & Co.

Book Google Scholar

Dwyer, C. P., Hogan, M. J., Harney, O. M., & Kavanagh, C. (2017). Facilitating a student-educator conceptual model of dispositions towards critical thinking through interactive management. Educational Technology Research and Development, 65, 47–73.

Article Google Scholar

Dwyer, C. P., Hogan, M. J., & Stewart, I. (2015). The effects of argument mapping-infused critical thinking instruction on reflective judgement. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 16, 11–26.

Ennis, R. (1996). Critical thinking dispositions: Their nature and assessability. Informal Logic, 18 (2), 165–182.

Ennis, R. (2018). Critical thinking across the curriculum: A vision. Topoi: An International Review of Philosophy, 37 (1), 165–184.

Facione, P. A. (1990). The delphi report: Executive summary; critical thinking: A statement of expert consensus for purposes of educational assessment and instruction . California: California Academic Press.

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

Facione, P. A. (2015). Critical thinking: What it is and why it counts (pp. 1–30). Insight Assessment.

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

Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd ed.). London: Sage Publications Ltd.

Halpern, D. F. (2014). Thought and knowledge: An introduction to critical thinking (5th ed.). New York: Psychology Press.

Jonassen, D. H. (1997). Instructional design models for well-structured and iII-structured problem-solving learning outcomes. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45 (1), 65–94.

Jonsson, A., & Lindén, S. (2009). The quest for the best consumer confidence indicator. European economy - economic papers (Vol. 372). Brussels: European Commission Directorate-General for Economic and Financial Affairs.

Mcbride, R. E., Xiang, P., & Wittenburg, D. (2002). Dispositions toward critical thinking: the preservice teacher’s perspective. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 8 (1), 29–40.

Paul, R. W. (1995). Critical thinking: How to prepare students for a rapidly changing world . Santa Rosa, CA: Foundation for Critical Thinking.

Paul, R. W. (2012). Critical thinking: What every person needs to survive in a rapidly changing world (4th ed.). Tomales, CA: Foundation for Critical Thinking.

Perkins, D., Jay, E., & Tishman, S. (1993). Beyond abilities: A dispositional theory of thinking. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 39 (1), 1–21.

Schooner, P., Nordlöf, C., Klasander, C., & Hallström, J. (2017). Design, system, value: The role of problem-solving and critical thinking capabilities in technology education, as perceived by teachers. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 22, 60–75.

Siegel, H. (1999). What (good) are thinking dispositions? Educational Theory, 49 (2), 207–221.

Trilling, B., & Fadel, C. (2009). 21st century skills: Learning for life in our times . San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Van Niekerk, E., Ankiewicz, P., & De Swart, E. (2010). A process-based assessment framework for technology education: A case study. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 20 (2), 191–215.

Watson, L. (2015). What is inquisitiveness. American Philosophical Quarterly, 52 (3), 273–287.

Wright, K. B. (2005). Researching Internet-based populations: Advantages and disadvantages of online survey research, online questionnaire authoring software packages, and web survey services. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10 (3). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2005.tb00259.x .

Download references

This publication was produced with support from the Teaching and Learning Development Capacity Improvement Programme, a partnership programme between the Department of Higher Education and Training and the European Union. Its contents are the sole responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Department or the European Union.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, Faculty of Education, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa

Willem Rauscher & Hendri Badenhorst

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Willem Rauscher .

Additional information

Publisher's note.

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Rauscher, W., Badenhorst, H. Thinking critically about critical thinking dispositions in technology education. Int J Technol Des Educ 31 , 465–488 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-020-09564-3

Download citation

Accepted : 29 January 2020

Published : 05 February 2020

Issue Date : July 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-020-09564-3

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 thinking
Disposition
Habits of mind
Technology education
Find a journal
Publish with us
Track your research

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

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

What Is Critical Thinking? | Definition & Examples

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

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

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

Critical thinking skills help you to:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scribbr Citation Checker New

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

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

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

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

Academic examples

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

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

Nonacademic examples

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

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

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

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

When encountering information, ask:

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

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

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

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

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

Plagiarism

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

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

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

Try for free

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

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

Critical thinking skills include the ability to:

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

Ask questions such as:

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

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

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

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

Being information literate means that you:

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

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

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

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

Cite this Scribbr article

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

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

Is this article helpful?

Eoghan Ryan

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

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

Thinking Critically with Data: Technology, Curriculum and the Cases

Ieee account.

Change Username/Password
Update Address

Purchase Details

Payment Options
Order History
View Purchased Documents

Profile Information

Communications Preferences
Profession and Education
Technical Interests
US & Canada: +1 800 678 4333
Worldwide: +1 732 981 0060
Contact & Support
About IEEE Xplore
Accessibility
Terms of Use
Nondiscrimination Policy
Privacy & Opting Out of Cookies

A not-for-profit organization, IEEE is the world's largest technical professional organization dedicated to advancing technology for the benefit of humanity. © Copyright 2024 IEEE - All rights reserved. Use of this web site signifies your agreement to the terms and conditions.

Search form

Critical thinking and problem solving with technology.

Brief Summary: Critical thinking and problem solving is a crucial skill in a technical world that can immediately be applied to academics and careers. A highly skilled individual in this competency can choose the appropriate tool to accomplish a task, easily switch between tools, has a basic understanding of different file types, and can troubleshoot technology when it’s not working properly. They can also differentiate between true information and falsified information online and has basic proficiency in data gathering, processing and interpretation.

Learners with proficient skills in critical thinking and problem solving should be able to:

Troubleshoot computers and mobile devices when issues arise, like restarting the device and checking if it requires a software or operating system update
Move across tools to complete a task (for example, adding PowerPoint slides into a note taking app for annotation)
Differentiate between legitimate and falsified information online
Understand basic file types and know when to use them (for example, the difference between .doc and .pdf files)

Market/Employer Trends: Employers indicate value in employee ability to problem solve using technology, particularly related to drawing information from data to identify and solve challenges. Further, knowing how to leverage technology tools to see a problem, break it down into manageable pieces, and work toward solving is of important value. Employers expect new employees to be able to navigate across common toolsets, making decisions to use the right tool for the right task.

Self-Evaluation:

Key questions for reflection:

How comfortable are you when technology doesn’t work the way you expect?
Do you know basic troubleshooting skills to solve tech issues?
Do you know the key indicators of whether information you read online is reliable?

Strong digital skills in this area could appear as:

Updating your computer after encountering a problem and resolving the issue
Discerning legitimate news sources from illegitimate ones to successfully meet goals
Converting a PowerPoint presentation into a PDF for easy access for peers who can’t use PowerPoint
Taking notes on a phone and seamlessly completing them on a computer

Ways to Upskill:

Ready to grow your strength in this competency? Try:

Reviewing University Libraries’ resources on research and information literacy
Read about troubleshooting in college in the Learner Technology Handbook
Registering for ESEPSY 1359: Critical Thinking and Collaboration in Online Learning

Educator Tips to Support Digital Skills:

Create an assignment in Carmen prompting students to find legitimate peer-reviewed research
Provide links to information literacy resources on research-related assignments or projects for student review
Develop assignments that require using more than one tech tool to accomplish a single task

An official website of the United States government

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

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

Publications
Account settings

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

Advanced Search
Journal List

Critical Thinking: A Model of Intelligence for Solving Real-World Problems

Diane f. halpern.

1 Department of Psychology, Claremont McKenna College, Emerita, Altadena, CA 91001, USA

Dana S. Dunn

2 Department of Psychology, Moravian College, Bethlehem, PA 18018, USA; ude.naivarom@nnud

Most theories of intelligence do not directly address the question of whether people with high intelligence can successfully solve real world problems. A high IQ is correlated with many important outcomes (e.g., academic prominence, reduced crime), but it does not protect against cognitive biases, partisan thinking, reactance, or confirmation bias, among others. There are several newer theories that directly address the question about solving real-world problems. Prominent among them is Sternberg’s adaptive intelligence with “adaptation to the environment” as the central premise, a construct that does not exist on standardized IQ tests. Similarly, some scholars argue that standardized tests of intelligence are not measures of rational thought—the sort of skill/ability that would be needed to address complex real-world problems. Other investigators advocate for critical thinking as a model of intelligence specifically designed for addressing real-world problems. Yes, intelligence (i.e., critical thinking) can be enhanced and used for solving a real-world problem such as COVID-19, which we use as an example of contemporary problems that need a new approach.

1. Introduction

The editors of this Special Issue asked authors to respond to a deceptively simple statement: “How Intelligence Can Be a Solution to Consequential World Problems.” This statement holds many complexities, including how intelligence is defined and which theories are designed to address real-world problems.

2. The Problem with Using Standardized IQ Measures for Real-World Problems

For the most part, we identify high intelligence as having a high score on a standardized test of intelligence. Like any test score, IQ can only reflect what is on the given test. Most contemporary standardized measures of intelligence include vocabulary, working memory, spatial skills, analogies, processing speed, and puzzle-like elements (e.g., Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale Fourth Edition; see ( Drozdick et al. 2012 )). Measures of IQ correlate with many important outcomes, including academic performance ( Kretzschmar et al. 2016 ), job-related skills ( Hunter and Schmidt 1996 ), reduced likelihood of criminal behavior ( Burhan et al. 2014 ), and for those with exceptionally high IQs, obtaining a doctorate and publishing scholarly articles ( McCabe et al. 2020 ). Gottfredson ( 1997, p. 81 ) summarized these effects when she said the “predictive validity of g is ubiquitous.” More recent research using longitudinal data, found that general mental abilities and specific abilities are good predictors of several work variables including job prestige, and income ( Lang and Kell 2020 ). Although assessments of IQ are useful in many contexts, having a high IQ does not protect against falling for common cognitive fallacies (e.g., blind spot bias, reactance, anecdotal reasoning), relying on biased and blatantly one-sided information sources, failing to consider information that does not conform to one’s preferred view of reality (confirmation bias), resisting pressure to think and act in a certain way, among others. This point was clearly articulated by Stanovich ( 2009, p. 3 ) when he stated that,” IQ tests measure only a small set of the thinking abilities that people need.”

3. Which Theories of Intelligence Are Relevant to the Question?

Most theories of intelligence do not directly address the question of whether people with high intelligence can successfully solve real world problems. For example, Grossmann et al. ( 2013 ) cite many studies in which IQ scores have not predicted well-being, including life satisfaction and longevity. Using a stratified random sample of Americans, these investigators found that wise reasoning is associated with life satisfaction, and that “there was no association between intelligence and well-being” (p. 944). (critical thinking [CT] is often referred to as “wise reasoning” or “rational thinking,”). Similar results were reported by Wirthwein and Rost ( 2011 ) who compared life satisfaction in several domains for gifted adults and adults of average intelligence. There were no differences in any of the measures of subjective well-being, except for leisure, which was significantly lower for the gifted adults. Additional research in a series of experiments by Stanovich and West ( 2008 ) found that participants with high cognitive ability were as likely as others to endorse positions that are consistent with their biases, and they were equally likely to prefer one-sided arguments over those that provided a balanced argument. There are several newer theories that directly address the question about solving real-world problems. Prominent among them is Sternberg’s adaptive intelligence with “adaptation to the environment” as the central premise, a construct that does not exist on standardized IQ tests (e.g., Sternberg 2019 ). Similarly, Stanovich and West ( 2014 ) argue that standardized tests of intelligence are not measures of rational thought—the sort of skill/ability that would be needed to address complex real-world problems. Halpern and Butler ( 2020 ) advocate for CT as a useful model of intelligence for addressing real-world problems because it was designed for this purpose. Although there is much overlap among these more recent theories, often using different terms for similar concepts, we use Halpern and Butler’s conceptualization to make our point: Yes, intelligence (i.e., CT) can be enhanced and used for solving a real-world problem like COVID-19.

4. Critical Thinking as an Applied Model for Intelligence

One definition of intelligence that directly addresses the question about intelligence and real-world problem solving comes from Nickerson ( 2020, p. 205 ): “the ability to learn, to reason well, to solve novel problems, and to deal effectively with novel problems—often unpredictable—that confront one in daily life.” Using this definition, the question of whether intelligent thinking can solve a world problem like the novel coronavirus is a resounding “yes” because solutions to real-world novel problems are part of his definition. This is a popular idea in the general public. For example, over 1000 business managers and hiring executives said that they want employees who can think critically based on the belief that CT skills will help them solve work-related problems ( Hart Research Associates 2018 ).

We define CT as the use of those cognitive skills or strategies that increase the probability of a desirable outcome. It is used to describe thinking that is purposeful, reasoned, and goal directed--the kind of thinking involved in solving problems, formulating inferences, calculating likelihoods, and making decisions, when the thinker is using skills that are thoughtful and effective for the particular context and type of thinking task. International surveys conducted by the OECD ( 2019, p. 16 ) established “key information-processing competencies” that are “highly transferable, in that they are relevant to many social contexts and work situations; and ‘learnable’ and therefore subject to the influence of policy.” One of these skills is problem solving, which is one subset of CT skills.

The CT model of intelligence is comprised of two components: (1) understanding information at a deep, meaningful level and (2) appropriate use of CT skills. The underlying idea is that CT skills can be identified, taught, and learned, and when they are recognized and applied in novel settings, the individual is demonstrating intelligent thought. CT skills include judging the credibility of an information source, making cost–benefit calculations, recognizing regression to the mean, understanding the limits of extrapolation, muting reactance responses, using analogical reasoning, rating the strength of reasons that support and fail to support a conclusion, and recognizing hindsight bias or confirmation bias, among others. Critical thinkers use these skills appropriately, without prompting, and usually with conscious intent in a variety of settings.

One of the key concepts in this model is that CT skills transfer in appropriate situations. Thus, assessments using situational judgments are needed to assess whether particular skills have transferred to a novel situation where it is appropriate. In an assessment created by the first author ( Halpern 2018 ), short paragraphs provide information about 20 different everyday scenarios (e.g., A speaker at the meeting of your local school board reported that when drug use rises, grades decline; so schools need to enforce a “war on drugs” to improve student grades); participants provide two response formats for every scenario: (a) constructed responses where they respond with short written responses, followed by (b) forced choice responses (e.g., multiple choice, rating or ranking of alternatives) for the same situations.

There is a large and growing empirical literature to support the assertion that CT skills can be learned and will transfer (when taught for transfer). See for example, Holmes et al. ( 2015 ), who wrote in the prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , that there was “significant and sustained improvement in students’ critical thinking behavior” (p. 11,199) for students who received CT instruction. Abrami et al. ( 2015, para. 1 ) concluded from a meta-analysis that “there are effective strategies for teaching CT skills, both generic and content specific, and CT dispositions, at all educational levels and across all disciplinary areas.” Abrami et al. ( 2008, para. 1 ), included 341 effect sizes in a meta-analysis. They wrote: “findings make it clear that improvement in students’ CT skills and dispositions cannot be a matter of implicit expectation.” A strong test of whether CT skills can be used for real-word problems comes from research by Butler et al. ( 2017 ). Community adults and college students (N = 244) completed several scales including an assessment of CT, an intelligence test, and an inventory of real-life events. Both CT scores and intelligence scores predicted individual outcomes on the inventory of real-life events, but CT was a stronger predictor.

Heijltjes et al. ( 2015, p. 487 ) randomly assigned participants to either a CT instruction group or one of six other control conditions. They found that “only participants assigned to CT instruction improved their reasoning skills.” Similarly, when Halpern et al. ( 2012 ) used random assignment of participants to either a learning group where they were taught scientific reasoning skills using a game format or a control condition (which also used computerized learning and was similar in length), participants in the scientific skills learning group showed higher proportional learning gains than students who did not play the game. As the body of additional supportive research is too large to report here, interested readers can find additional lists of CT skills and support for the assertion that these skills can be learned and will transfer in Halpern and Dunn ( Forthcoming ). There is a clear need for more high-quality research on the application and transfer of CT and its relationship to IQ.

5. Pandemics: COVID-19 as a Consequential Real-World Problem

A pandemic occurs when a disease runs rampant over an entire country or even the world. Pandemics have occurred throughout history: At the time of writing this article, COVID-19 is a world-wide pandemic whose actual death rate is unknown but estimated with projections of several million over the course of 2021 and beyond ( Mega 2020 ). Although vaccines are available, it will take some time to inoculate most or much of the world’s population. Since March 2020, national and international health agencies have created a list of actions that can slow and hopefully stop the spread of COVID (e.g., wearing face masks, practicing social distancing, avoiding group gatherings), yet many people in the United States and other countries have resisted their advice.

Could instruction in CT encourage more people to accept and comply with simple life-saving measures? There are many possible reasons to believe that by increasing citizens’ CT abilities, this problematic trend can be reversed for, at least, some unknown percentage of the population. We recognize the long history of social and cognitive research showing that changing attitudes and behaviors is difficult, and it would be unrealistic to expect that individuals with extreme beliefs supported by their social group and consistent with their political ideologies are likely to change. For example, an Iranian cleric and an orthodox rabbi both claimed (separately) that the COVID-19 vaccine can make people gay ( Marr 2021 ). These unfounded opinions are based on deeply held prejudicial beliefs that we expect to be resistant to CT. We are targeting those individuals who beliefs are less extreme and may be based on reasonable reservations, such as concern about the hasty development of the vaccine and the lack of long-term data on its effects. There should be some unknown proportion of individuals who can change their COVID-19-related beliefs and actions with appropriate instruction in CT. CT can be a (partial) antidote for the chaos of the modern world with armies of bots creating content on social media, political and other forces deliberately attempting to confuse issues, and almost all media labeled “fake news” by social influencers (i.e., people with followers that sometimes run to millions on various social media). Here, are some CT skills that could be helpful in getting more people to think more critically about pandemic-related issues.

Reasoning by Analogy and Judging the Credibility of the Source of Information

Early communications about the ability of masks to prevent the spread of COVID from national health agencies were not consistent. In many regions of the world, the benefits of wearing masks incited prolonged and acrimonious debates ( Tang 2020 ). However, after the initial confusion, virtually all of the global and national health organizations (e.g., WHO, National Health Service in the U. K., U. S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) endorse masks as a way to slow the spread of COVID ( Cheng et al. 2020 ; Chu et al. 2020 ). However, as we know, some people do not trust governmental agencies and often cite the conflicting information that was originally given as a reason for not wearing a mask. There are varied reasons for refusing to wear a mask, but the one most often cited is that it is against civil liberties ( Smith 2020 ). Reasoning by analogy is an appropriate CT skill for evaluating this belief (and a key skill in legal thinking). It might be useful to cite some of the many laws that already regulate our behavior such as, requiring health inspections for restaurants, setting speed limits, mandating seat belts when riding in a car, and establishing the age at which someone can consume alcohol. Individuals would be asked to consider how the mandate to wear a mask compares to these and other regulatory laws.

Another reason why some people resist the measures suggested by virtually every health agency concerns questions about whom to believe. Could training in CT change the beliefs and actions of even a small percentage of those opposed to wearing masks? Such training would include considering the following questions with practice across a wide domain of knowledge: (a) Does the source have sufficient expertise? (b) Is the expertise recent and relevant? (c) Is there a potential for gain by the information source, such as financial gain? (d) What would the ideal information source be and how close is the current source to the ideal? (e) Does the information source offer evidence that what they are recommending is likely to be correct? (f) Have you traced URLs to determine if the information in front of you really came from the alleged source?, etc. Of course, not everyone will respond in the same way to each question, so there is little likelihood that we would all think alike, but these questions provide a framework for evaluating credibility. Donovan et al. ( 2015 ) were successful using a similar approach to improve dynamic decision-making by asking participants to reflect on questions that relate to the decision. Imagine the effect of rigorous large-scale education in CT from elementary through secondary schools, as well as at the university-level. As stated above, empirical evidence has shown that people can become better thinkers with appropriate instruction in CT. With training, could we encourage some portion of the population to become more astute at judging the credibility of a source of information? It is an experiment worth trying.

6. Making Cost—Benefit Assessments for Actions That Would Slow the Spread of COVID-19

Historical records show that refusal to wear a mask during a pandemic is not a new reaction. The epidemic of 1918 also included mandates to wear masks, which drew public backlash. Then, as now, many people refused, even when they were told that it was a symbol of “wartime patriotism” because the 1918 pandemic occurred during World War I ( Lovelace 2020 ). CT instruction would include instruction in why and how to compute cost–benefit analyses. Estimates of “lives saved” by wearing a mask can be made meaningful with graphical displays that allow more people to understand large numbers. Gigerenzer ( 2020 ) found that people can understand risk ratios in medicine when the numbers are presented as frequencies instead of probabilities. If this information were used when presenting the likelihood of illness and death from COVID-19, could we increase the numbers of people who understand the severity of this disease? Small scale studies by Gigerenzer have shown that it is possible.

Analyzing Arguments to Determine Degree of Support for a Conclusion

The process of analyzing arguments requires that individuals rate the strength of support for and against a conclusion. By engaging in this practice, they must consider evidence and reasoning that may run counter to a preferred outcome. Kozyreva et al. ( 2020 ) call the deliberate failure to consider both supporting and conflicting data “deliberate ignorance”—avoiding or failing to consider information that could be useful in decision-making because it may collide with an existing belief. When applied to COVID-19, people would have to decide if the evidence for and against wearing a face mask is a reasonable way to stop the spread of this disease, and if they conclude that it is not, what are the costs and benefits of not wearing masks at a time when governmental health organizations are making them mandatory in public spaces? Again, we wonder if rigorous and systematic instruction in argument analysis would result in more positive attitudes and behaviors that relate to wearing a mask or other real-world problems. We believe that it is an experiment worth doing.

7. Conclusions

We believe that teaching CT is a worthwhile approach for educating the general public in order to improve reasoning and motivate actions to address, avert, or ameliorate real-world problems like the COVID-19 pandemic. Evidence suggests that CT can guide intelligent responses to societal and global problems. We are NOT claiming that CT skills will be a universal solution for the many real-world problems that we confront in contemporary society, or that everyone will substitute CT for other decision-making practices, but we do believe that systematic education in CT can help many people become better thinkers, and we believe that this is an important step toward creating a society that values and practices routine CT. The challenges are great, but the tools to tackle them are available, if we are willing to use them.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, D.F.H. and D.S.D.; resources, D.F.H.; data curation, writing—original draft preparation, D.F.H.; writing—review and editing, D.F.H. and D.S.D. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

No IRB Review.

Informed Consent Statement

No Informed Consent.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Abrami Philip C., Bernard Robert M., Borokhovski Evgueni, Wade C. Anne, Surkes Michael A., Tamim Rana, Zhang Dai. Instructional interventions affecting critical thinking skills and dispositions: A Stage 1 meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research. 2008; 78 :1102–34. doi: 10.3102/0034654308326084. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Abrami Philip C., Bernard Robert M., Borokhovski Evgueni, Waddington David I., Wade C. Anne. Strategies for teaching students to think critically: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research. 2015; 85 :275–341. doi: 10.3102/0034654314551063. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Burhan Nik Ahmad Sufian, Kurniawan Yohan, Sidek Abdul Halim, Mohamad Mohd Rosli. Crimes and the Bell curve: Th e role of people with high, average, and low intelligence. Intelligence. 2014; 47 :12–22. doi: 10.1016/j.intell.2014.08.005. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Butler Heather A., Pentoney Christopher, Bong Maebelle P. Predicting real-world outcomes: Critical thinking ability is a better predictor of life decisions than intelligence. Thinking Skills and Creativity. 2017; 25 :38–46. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2017.06.005. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Cheng Vincent Chi-Chung, Wong Shuk-Ching, Chuang Vivien Wai-Man, So Simon Yung-Chun, Chen Jonathan Hon-Kwan, Sridhar Sidharth, To Kelvin Kai-Wwang, Chan Jasper Fuk-Wu, Hung Ivan Fan-Ngai, Ho Pak-Leung, et al. The role of community-wide wearing of face mask for control of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) epidemic due to SARS-CoV-2. Journal of Infectious Disease. 2020; 81 :107–14. doi: 10.1016/j.jinf.2020.04.024. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Chu Derek K., Aki Elie A., Duda Stephanie, Solo Karla, Yaacoub Sally, Schunemann Holger J. Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: A system atic review and meta-analysis. Lancet. 2020; 395 :1973–87. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31142-9. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Donovan Sarah J., Guss C. Dominick, Naslund Dag. Improving dynamic decision-making through training and self-re flection. Judgment and Decision Making. 2015; 10 :284–95. [ Google Scholar ]
Drozdick Lisa Whipple, Wahlstrom Dustin, Zhu Jianjun, Weiss Lawrence G. The Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale—Fourth Edition and the Wechsler Memory Scale—Fourth Edition. In: Flanagan Dawn P., Harrison Patti L., editors. Contemporary Intellectual as Sessment: Theories, Tests, and Issues. The Guilford Press; New York: 2012. pp. 197–223. [ Google Scholar ]
Gigerenzer Gerd. When all is just a click away: Is critical thinking obsolete in the digital age? In: Sternberg Robert J., Halpern Diane F., editors. Critical Thinking IN Psychology. 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press; Cambridge: 2020. pp. 197–223. [ Google Scholar ]
Gottfredson Linda S. Why g matters: The complexity of everyday life. Intelligence. 1997; 24 :79–132. doi: 10.1016/S0160-2896(97)90014-3. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Grossmann Igor, Varnum Michael E. W., Na Jinkyung, Kitayama Shinobu, Nisbett Richard E. A route to well-being: Intelligence ver sus wise reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. 2013; 142 :944–53. doi: 10.1037/a0029560. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Halpern Diane F. Halpern Critical Thinking Assessment. Schuhfried Test Publishers; Modling: 2018. [(accessed on 30 March 2021)]. Available online: www.schuhfried.com [ Google Scholar ]
Halpern Diane F., Butler Heather A. Is critical thinking a better model of intelligence? In: Sternberg Robert J., editor. The nature of Intelligence. 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press; Cambridge: 2020. pp. 183–96. [ Google Scholar ]
Halpern Diane F., Dunn Dana S. Thought and Knowledge: An Introduction to Critical Thinking. 6th ed. Taylor & Francis; New York: Forthcoming. in press. [ Google Scholar ]
Halpern Diane F., Millis Keith, Graesser Arthur, Butler Heather, Forsyth Carol, Cai Zhiqiang. Operation ARA: A computerized learn ing game that teaches critical thinking and scientific reasoning. Thinking Skills and Creativity. 2012; 7 :93–100. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2012.03.006. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Hart Research Associates [(accessed on 30 March 2021)]; Employers Express Confidence in Colleges and Universities: See College as Worth the Investment, New Research Finds. 2018 Aug 29; Available online: https://hartresearch.com/employers-express-confidence-in-colleges-and-universities-see-college-as-worth-the-investment-new-research-finds/
Heijltjes Anita, Gog Tamara van, Lippink Jimmie, Paas Fred. Unraveling the effects of critical thinking instructions, practice, and self-explanation on students’ reasoning performance. Instructional Science. 2015; 43 :487–506. doi: 10.1007/s11251-015-9347-8. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Holmes Natasha G., Wieman Carl E., Bonn DougA. Teaching critical thinking. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2015; 112 :11199–204. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1505329112. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Hunter John E., Schmidt Frank L. Intelligence and job performance: Economic and social implications. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law. 1996; 2 :447–72. doi: 10.1037/1076-8971.2.3-4.447. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Kozyreva Anastasia, Lewandowsky Stephan, Hertwig Ralph. Citizens versus the internet: Confronting digital challenges with cognitive tools. [(accessed on 30 March 2021)]; Psychological Science in the Public Interest. 2020 21 doi: 10.1177/1529100620946707. Available online: https://www.psychologi calscience.org/publications/confronting-digital-challenges-with-cognitive-tools.html [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Kretzschmar Andre, Neubert Jonas C., Wusternberg Sascha, Greiff Samuel. Construct validity of complex problem- solv ing: A comprehensive view on different facts of intelligence and school grades. Intelligence. 2016; 54 :55–69. doi: 10.1016/j.intell.2015.11.004. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Lang Jonas W.B., Kell Harrison J. General mental ability and specific abilities: Their relative importance for extrinsic career success. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2020; 105 :1047–61. doi: 10.1037/apl0000472. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Lovelace Berkeley., Jr. Medical Historians Compare the Coronavirus to the 1918 Flu Pandemic: Both Were Highly Political. [(accessed on 30 March 2021)]; CNBC. 2020 Available online: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/28/comparing-1918-flu-vs-corona virus.html?fbclid=IwAR1RAVRUOIdN9qqvNnMPimf5Q4XfV-pn_qdC3DwcfnPu9kavwumDI2zq9Xs
Marr Rhuaridh. Iranian Cleric Claims COVID-19 Vaccine Can Make People Gay. [(accessed on 30 March 2021)]; Metro Weekly. 2021 Available online: https://www.metroweekly.com/2021/02/iranian-cleric-claims-covid-19-vaccine-can-make-people-gay/
McCabe Kira O., Lubinski David, Benbow Camilla P. Who shines most among the brightest?: A 25-year longitudinal study of elite STEM graduate students. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2020; 119 :390–416. doi: 10.1037/pspp0000239. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Mega Emiliano R. COVID Has Killed more than One Million People. How Many more will Die? [(accessed on 30 March 2021)]; Nature. 2020 Available online: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02762-y [ PubMed ]
Nickerson Raymond S. Developing intelligence through instruction. In: Sternberg Robert J., editor. The Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence. 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press; Cambridge: 2020. pp. 205–37. [ Google Scholar ]
OECD . The Survey of Adult Skills: Reader’s Companion. 3rd ed. OECD Publishing; Paris: 2019. OECD Skills Studies. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Smith Matthew. Why won’t Britons Wear Face Masks? [(accessed on 30 March 2021)]; YouGov. 2020 Available online: https://yougov.co.uk/topics/health/articles-reports/2020/07/15/why-wont-britons-wear-face-masks
Stanovich Keith E. What Intelligence Tests Miss: The Psychology of Rational Thought. Yale University Press; New Haven: 2009. [ Google Scholar ]
Stanovich Keith E., West Richard F. On the failure of cognitive ability to predict my-side bias and one-sided thinking biases. Thinking & Reasoning. 2008; 14 :129–67. doi: 10.1080/13546780701679764. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Stanovich Keith E., West Richard F. What intelligence tests miss. The Psychologist. 2014; 27 :80–83. doi: 10.5840/inquiryctnews201126216. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Sternberg Robert J. A theory of adaptive intelligence and its relation to general intelligence. Journal of Intelligence. 2019; 7 :23. doi: 10.3390/jintelligence7040023. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Tang Julian W. COVID-19: Interpreting scientific evidence—Uncertainty, confusion, and delays. BMC Infectious Diseases. 2020; 20 :653. doi: 10.1186/s12879-020-05387-8. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Wirthwein Linda, Rost Detlef H. Giftedness and subjective well-being: A study with adults. Learning and Individuals Differences. 2011; 21 :182–86. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2011.01.001. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

A Crash Course in Critical Thinking

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

Posted April 8, 2024 | Reviewed by Michelle Quirk

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Coronavirus Disease 2019
Affective Forecasting
Neuroscience

Higher ed has role to play in climate change solutions

Young people, including college and university students, are pelted with bad news about the world they will inherit.

Vitally important fields such as ecology and environmental science paint a picture of the planet’s natural and physical systems under stress, and the negative impacts of climate change are becoming increasingly widespread, frequent, and irrefutable.

Worldwide, the energy sector — particularly the penchant for burning fossil fuels to produce heat and electricity — is the greatest contributor to climate-altering emissions. In the United States, the transportation sector outweighs the energy sector in terms of overall emissions, but not by much. It is no surprise that many young people suffer from climate anxiety and struggle to find hope for the future.

Fortunately, higher education has a crucial role in combating that sense of hopelessness, and not simply because higher education is itself empowering. Crisis often begets opportunity, and higher ed has a generational opportunity to train the individuals who will lead the energy transition and help human society move to a renewable, low-carbon, equitable energy future.

By creating or bolstering interdisciplinary energy education programs, colleges and universities signal their commitment to a new energy future, and — most important — to nurturing the talent and expertise that will get us there.

Three basic curricular ingredients seem necessary.

Science and technology of energy production, conversion and use

Fossil fuels are finite, polluting, and increasingly difficult to extract. Other fuels — sunshine, water, wind, and geothermal heat — are nonpolluting, essentially infinite, and their growth rate outpaces global energy demand. Students need solid grounding in the physical science of energy options to understand the fundamental limits of all energy-conversion approaches while recognizing the potential in new approaches like renewables and efficiency.

Business and economics of energy options, trade-offs and new sources of value

Intermittent renewables are increasingly cost-competitive around the world on their own; well-designed carbon taxes or carbon markets would only make them more so. Business, economic, and regulatory frameworks built around fossil-fueled energy systems, centralized generation and externalized costs have to be updated to suit new distributed energy systems in which far more players, from utilities to individual households and EV owners, have more complex and complementary roles to play.

Critical thinking, back-of-the-envelope and synthesis skills

Graduates entering the energy workforce need to be able to think creatively, critically and on their feet. Those who can synthesize data from different sources, recognize potential leverage points, communicate across expert and lay audiences and find common ground among diverse audiences will find it easier to lead others through the energy transition, whether at the household, factory, municipal, enterprise or regional scale.

Humans will not successfully navigate the energy transition by spreadsheet model, policy template, integrated circuit or CAD drawing alone. Indeed, the energy transition is simultaneously an engineering, economic, scientific, policy, sociological, historical, and ethical problem, and much more. Higher education is uniquely suited to refining that one vital resource — human ingenuity — without which we will undoubtedly fail to negotiate the energy transition and solve climate change.

Many universities are starting to do this work. At the February meeting of the University Energy Institutes Leadership Collaborative in Phoenix, Ariz., directors gathered to discuss energy industry developments and the work being done at institutes and centers on the country. Some institutes are focused on research-to-market. Some grew out of programs built around conventional fossil fuel development, or out of engineering programs. Unfortunately, fewer are focused primarily on renewables or efficiency, or on undergraduate education.

The final session of the meeting asked participants to identify the most important and impactful ways universities can advance the energy transition. The following suggestions emerged:

Help translate and communicate science and technology for various groups.
Be the neutral, third-party convener for important dialogues among diverse stakeholders.
Host living energy laboratories on campus.
Provide expertise for local governments.
Be centers of innovation: fundamental science and translational technology.
Host student-led energy transition events and encourage participation from diverse groups.
Train students for roles in the energy transition.
Catalyze experiential learning for students.

At Western Washington University’s Institute for Energy Studies, the above ingredients are baked into our curriculum. Students choose energy studies because they want to feel empowered to do something about climate change, and the vast majority of our graduates do just that, finding their way into meaningful energy careers. Now, at the start of our second decade, we are looking to refine our model, deepen our connections to the local and regional community, and share the experience we’ve gained with other higher ed institutions looking to build or grow their own energy studies programs.

Most Read Opinion Stories

When it comes to math, maybe the kids aren't the problem
The ‘Great Wealth Transfer’ is a delusion
Rethink sites for light rail stations in South Lake Union
New Seattle police contract must include stronger accountability
Potatoes are not grains. Keep them rooted in the vegetable family

The opinions expressed in reader comments are those of the author only and do not reflect the opinions of The Seattle Times.

IMAGES

Teaching Critical Thinking Skills (and How Technology Can Help
Critical Thinking in Technology
5 Tech Tools to Encourage Critical Thinking
Critical Thinking Definition, Skills, and Examples
6 Main Types of Critical Thinking Skills (With Examples)
Teaching Critical Thinking Skills (and How Technology Can Help

VIDEO

Introduction to Critical Thinking
Thinking Technology Bcc details
Thinking Technology, ( 1) first class in hindi BCC
21st Century Education Example
LDR AGAIN
Foundations of Critical Thinking

COMMENTS

Using Technology To Develop Students' Critical Thinking Skills
Critical thinking is a higher-order cognitive skill that is indispensable to students, readying them to respond to a variety of complex problems that are sure to arise in their personal and professional lives. The cognitive skills at the foundation of critical thinking are analysis, interpretation, evaluation, explanation, inference, and self ...
Does Technology Help Boost Students' Critical Thinking Skills?
The Reboot Foundation was started—and funded—by Helen Bouygues , whose background is in business, to explore the role of technology in developing critical thinking skills. It was inspired by ...
How Do Technology-Enhanced Learning Tools Support Critical Thinking?
Critical thinking is the skill that is in high demand in many workplaces nowadays. For global industry groups such as the World Economic Forum, critical thinking has been consistently ranked as one of the top three most important skills from 2015 to 2020 . Despite the importance of critical thinking in education, research on technology-enhanced ...
Assessing Critical Thinking in the Digital Era
Technology is poised to revolutionize education. Instead of being disrupted by the new tech, schools should participate in its development. ... Critical thinking is a complex skill that involves the ability to analyze and evaluate information, think creatively, and make reasoned judgments, as Richard Paul and Linda Elder outline in their 2019 ...
Using technology to teach critical thinking skills
Fortunately, research has uncovered five ways technology can be used to teach critical thinking skills. 1. Interactive activities can stimulate student interest and improve academic achievement. Education researchers agree that engaging students in interactive, multisensory activities that promote elaboration, questioning, and explanation can ...
Leveraging Technology to Develop Students' Critical Thinking Skills
This article describes the nexus of the Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge (TPACK) framework, principles of the Backward Curriculum Design process, and the Education 1.0, 2.0, & 3.0 communication flows working together to help TK-12 educators leverage technology tools to support the development of students' critical thinking skills.
Critical Thinking & Informed Decision-Making
The goal, as posited by Dr. Wagner and Dr. Amabile is to create innovative, creative, and knowledgable learners with strong critical thinking, problem-solving, and decision-making skills. In order to nurture these 21st-century competencies, educators must be able to teach and assess them using clearly defined metrics.
Taking critical thinking, creativity and grit online
Technology has the potential to facilitate the development of higher-order thinking skills in learning. There has been a rush towards online learning by education systems during COVID-19; this can therefore be seen as an opportunity to develop students' higher-order thinking skills. ... Critical thinking includes the ability to identify the ...
Twisted thinking: Technology, values and critical thinking
critical thinking carve out no space for the critical scrutiny of values. We will argue that we need critical thinking that focuses on values instead of taking them as unexamined starting points. In order to play a crucial role in helping to align values and technology, critical thinking needs to be modified and refocused on values.
Thinking critically about critical thinking dispositions in technology
The development of critical thinking skills is key to unlocking a lifetime of learning (Trilling and Fadel 2009).Critical thinking has, in fact, become an increasingly important feature in the educational policies of many countries (Binkley et al. 2012).In South Africa, the Department of Basic Education has also articulated the need for learners to think critically.
Bridging critical thinking and transformative learning: The role of
In recent decades, approaches to critical thinking have generally taken a practical turn, pivoting away from more abstract accounts - such as emphasizing the logical relations that hold between statements (Ennis, 1964) - and moving toward an emphasis on belief and action.According to the definition that Robert Ennis (2018) has been advocating for the last few decades, critical thinking is ...
Is technology producing a decline in critical thinking and analysis
January 27, 2009. As technology has played a bigger role in our lives, our skills in critical thinking and analysis have declined, while our visual skills have improved, according to research by Patricia Greenfield, UCLA distinguished professor of psychology and director of the Children's Digital Media Center, Los Angeles. Learners have changed ...
What Is Critical Thinking?
Critical thinking is the ability to effectively analyze information and form a judgment. To think critically, you must be aware of your own biases and assumptions when encountering information, and apply consistent standards when evaluating sources. Critical thinking skills help you to: Identify credible sources. Evaluate and respond to arguments.
How Does Technology Affect Critical Thinking?
Impact of Technology on Critical Thinking. You use technology in one form or another every day. As time goes on, it plays a more significant role in our lives and changes the way we consume and process information. Critical thinking is all about analyzing the information in front of you, thinking about it rationally and without bias, and always ...
Enhancing critical thinking skills with AI-assisted technology
This example demonstrates how AI can be used to enhance learners' critical thinking skills . At every point in the activity, learners are asked to question the assumptions behind the chatbot's answer and learn to be more critical of the information that they come across. By putting learners in control of the materials that they are using to ...
Thinking Critically with Data: Technology, Curriculum and the Cases
Digital literacy and critical thinking are core elements of 21st century skills. Higher-order thinking focuses on critical thinking. In the value chain of information age, the process of thinking critically with data is the process of the formation of wisdom. Based on the connotation of critical thinking and combining analysis of the relating curriculum standards, the paper will explore the ...
PDF Teaching Critical Thinking Skills: Literature Review
KEYWORDS: Critical thinking skills, teaching critical thinking, assisting critical thinking, technology to promote critical thinking. INTRODUCTION Although the importance of Critical Thinking (CT) skills in the learning process is agreed upon, there is less agreement about how CT is defined (Alfadhli 2008).
Critical Thinking and Problem Solving with Technology
Brief Summary: Critical thinking and problem solving is a crucial skill in a technical world that can immediately be applied to academics and careers.A highly skilled individual in this competency can choose the appropriate tool to accomplish a task, easily switch between tools, has a basic understanding of different file types, and can troubleshoot technology when it's not working properly.
5 Tech Tools to Encourage Critical Thinking
MindMeister. Mind mapping is a valuable tool to facilitate critical thinking, and technology has made it easier than ever to bring this into your classroom. Use MindMeister, a simple and easy to implement mind mapping tool, to encourage students to think about a topic, lesson, problem or subject from every angle.
Critical theory and the question of technology: The Frankfurt School
To answer this question an account of the theory of technology across critical theory will be provided as a starting point. The second section offers a contemporary assessment of the relevance of the theory of technology in critical theory, taking recent literature on digitization and surveillance capitalism as examples that appear to confirm the prognoses of first-generation critical theory.
(PDF) Critical Thinking and Digital Technologies: Concepts
The ﬁrst part consists of the. conceptual framewor k about, technology use in education, critical thinking, the eﬀect of technology on. critical thinking and new technologies used to develop ...
Critical Thinking: A Model of Intelligence for Solving Real-World
4. Critical Thinking as an Applied Model for Intelligence. One definition of intelligence that directly addresses the question about intelligence and real-world problem solving comes from Nickerson (2020, p. 205): "the ability to learn, to reason well, to solve novel problems, and to deal effectively with novel problems—often unpredictable—that confront one in daily life."
What Are Critical Thinking Skills and Why Are They Important?
According to the University of the People in California, having critical thinking skills is important because they are [ 1 ]: Universal. Crucial for the economy. Essential for improving language and presentation skills. Very helpful in promoting creativity. Important for self-reflection.
Amidst misinformation, critical thinking needs a 21st century upgrade
Amidst misinformation, critical thinking needs a 21st century upgrade. New book argues that scientific reasoning is a necessity for living in a world shaped by science and tech. By Robert Sanders. The three authors: Robert MacCoun of Stanford and John Campbell and Saul Perlmutter of UC Berkeley. Courtesy of Commonwealth Club.
A Crash Course in Critical Thinking
Here is a series of questions you can ask yourself to try to ensure that you are thinking critically. Conspiracy theories. Inability to distinguish facts from falsehoods. Widespread confusion ...
Critical Thinking for Career Resilience in Tech
7. In a world where technology evolves at breakneck speed, staying relevant in your career is a challenge that demands critical thinking and strategic planning. New technology can be a double ...
Critical Thinking, Evidence-Based Practice, and Mental Health
In this chapter I suggest that values, knowledge, and skills related to critical thinking and their overlap with the philosophy and evolving technology of evidence-based practice (EBP) as described in original sources (Sackett et al. 2000; Gray 2001 a; Guyatt and Rennie 2002) should contribute to an informed dialogue regarding controversial issues in the area of mental health and to honoring ...
Higher ed has role to play in climate change solutions
Critical thinking, back-of-the-envelope and synthesis skills. ... Help translate and communicate science and technology for various groups. Be the neutral, third-party convener for important ...
Seminar on Thinking About Complexity in the Context of Global Security
There is a clear need to develop novel mathematical approaches to understanding our increasingly complex social and social-technological systems. For the intelligence professional, this is critical for maintaining strategic advantage. This talk will explore a set of multidisciplinary research efforts aimed at advancing knowledge in this space ...

Distance Learning

What Is Critical Thinking?

Types of Critical Thinking Skills

Using Online Tools to Teach Critical Thinking Skills

Pulling it All Together

Additional Resources

Related Posts

9 responses to “ Using Technology To Develop Students’ Critical Thinking Skills ”

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Does Technology Help Boost Students’ Critical Thinking Skills?

Sign Up for The Savvy Principal

People also looked at

Introduction

Methodology

The Paul-Elder's Socratic Approach to Critical Thinking

The Classic Socratic Method

The Modern Socratic Method

The Neo-Socratic Discussion Method

Conclusions

Author Contributions

Conflict of Interest

Acknowledgments

Assessing Critical Thinking in the Digital Era

The Importance of Assessment

A Partnership Between Industry and Academia

At the Forefront of Disruption

Introduction

Background Information

21st Century Learning

21st Century Competencies

Critical Thinking & Decision Making

Definition and Importance of Critical Thinking

Teaching and Assessing Critical Thinking

Applications

Information Communication Technology (ICT)

Educational Technology Example

Conclusions and Future Recommendations

Appendix A: ACER Critical thinking skill development framework

Share This Book

Thinking critically about critical thinking dispositions in technology education

Cite this article

Access this article

Similar content being viewed by others

Strategies for fostering critical thinking dispositions in the technology classroom

Critical Thinking in Postgraduate Degree Work at the Israel Technological University, Ecuador

Teaching Critical Thinking– A Task-Based Approach: Work in Progress

Author information

Corresponding author

Additional information

Rights and permissions

About this article

Share this article

Have a language expert improve your writing

What Is Critical Thinking? | Definition & Examples

Table of contents

Scribbr Citation Checker New

Academic examples

Nonacademic examples

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

Cite this Scribbr article

Is this article helpful?

Eoghan Ryan

Thinking Critically with Data: Technology, Curriculum and the Cases

Purchase Details

Profile Information

Search form

Self-Evaluation:

Ways to Upskill:

Educator Tips to Support Digital Skills:

Critical Thinking: A Model of Intelligence for Solving Real-World Problems

Dana S. Dunn

1. Introduction

2. The Problem with Using Standardized IQ Measures for Real-World Problems

3. Which Theories of Intelligence Are Relevant to the Question?

4. Critical Thinking as an Applied Model for Intelligence

5. Pandemics: COVID-19 as a Consequential Real-World Problem

Reasoning by Analogy and Judging the Credibility of the Source of Information

6. Making Cost—Benefit Assessments for Actions That Would Slow the Spread of COVID-19

Analyzing Arguments to Determine Degree of Support for a Conclusion

7. Conclusions