critical thinking statistics questions

Connections Between Statistical Thinking and Critical Thinking: A Case Study

Cite this chapter.

• Einav Aizikovitsh-Udi 3 ,
• Sebastian Kuntze 4 &
• David Clarke 5  

2419 Accesses

2 Citations

Dealing with statistical information requires critically reviewing evidence. Critical thinking consists of components like inductive reasoning, and questioning assertions and hypotheses. Even though statistical thinking and critical thinking appear to have strong links from a theoretical point of view, empirical research about the intersections and potential interrelatedness of these aspects of competence is scarce. Responding to this research need, this chapter aims to identify how abilities in both areas may be interdependent. A preliminary and exploratory qualitative study has been undertaken into thinking processes when working on tasks from both areas. This chapter reports a case study from one of the interviews.

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

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Statistical Thinking: No One Left Behind

A Three-Level Model for Critical Thinking: Critical Alertness, Critical Reflection, and Critical Analysis

Statistics students’ identification of inferential model elements within contexts of their own invention.

Aizikovitsh-Udi, E. (2012). Developing critical thinking through probability models, intuitive judgments and decision-making under uncertainty (Doctoral dissertation) . Saarbrucken, Germany: LAP Lambert. ISBN 978-3-8383-7240-2.

Google Scholar  

Aizikovitsh-Udi, E., & Amit, M. (2008). Developing critical thinking in probability lesson. In O. Figueras, J. L. Cortina, S. Alatorre, T. Rojano, & A. Sepúlveda (Eds.), Proceedings of the Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 2, pp. 9–13). Morelia, México: Universidad Michoacana de San Nicolás de Hidalgo.

Chazan, D. (2000). Beyond Formulas in Mathematics and Teaching: Dynamics of the High School Algebra Classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.

Clarke, D. J., Goos, M., & Morony, W. (2007). Problem solving and working mathematically: An Australian perspective. Zentralblatt für Didaktik der Mathematik, 39 , 475–490.

Article   Google Scholar  

Curcio, F. R. (1987). Comprehension of mathematical relationships expressed in graphs. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 18 (5), 382–393.

Ennis, R. H., & Millman, J. (1985). Cornell critical thinking test—Level Z . Pacific Grove, CA: Midwest.

Gal, I. (2004). Statistical literacy, meanings, components, responsibilities. In D. Ben-Zvi & J. Garfield (Eds.), The challenge of developing statistical literacy, reasoning and thinking (pp. 47–78). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Kröpfl, B., Peschek, W., & Schneider, E. (2000). Stochastik in der Schule: Globale Ideen, lokale Bedeutungen, zentrale Tätigkeiten. [Stochastics in school: Global ideas, local significances, central activities]. Mathematica Didactica, 23 (2), 25–57.

Kuntze, S., Engel, J., Martignon, L. & Gundlach, M. (2010). Aspects of statistical literacy between competency measures and indicators for conceptual knowledge—empirical research in the project RIKO-STAT. In C. Reading (Ed.), Data and context in statistics education: Towards an evidence-based society. Proceedings of ICOTS 8 . Voorburg, The Netherlands: International Statistical Institute. Retrieved from www.stat.auckland.ac.nz/~iase/publications.php .

Kuntze, S., Lindmeier, A. & Reiss, K. (2008). “Using models and representations in statistical contexts” as a sub-competency of statistical literacy—results from three empirical studies. Proceedings of the 11th International Congress on Mathematical Education (ICME 11) . Monterrey, Mexico: Universidad Autonoma de Nuevo Leon. Retrieved from http://tsg.icme11.org/document/get/474 .

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

Reading, C. (2002). Profile for statistical understanding. In B. Phillips (Ed.), Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Teaching Statistics . Voorburg, The Netherlands: International Statistical Institute. Retrieved January 28, 2008, from http://www.stat.auckland.ac.nz/~iase/publications/1/1a4_read.pdf .

Royalty, J. (1995). The Generalizability of Critical Thinking: Paranormal Beliefs Versus Statistical Reasoning. The Journal of Genetic Psychologist, 156(4), 477–488.

Wallman, K. (1993). Enhancing statistical literacy: Enriching our society. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 88 (421), 1–8.

Watson, J. M. (1997). Assessing statistical thinking using the media. In I. Gal & J. B. Garfield (Eds.), The assessment challenge in statistics education (pp. 107–121). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Ios Press.

Watson, J., & Callingham, R. (2003). Statistical literacy: A complex hierarchical construct. Statistics Education Research Journal, 2 (2), 3–46.

Watson, J. M., Kelly, B. A., Callingham, R. A., & Shaughnessy, J. M. (2003). The measurement of school students’ understanding of statistical variation. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 34 (1), 1–29.

Wild, C., & Pfannkuch, M. (1999). Statistical thinking in empirical enquiry. International Statistical Review, 3 , 223–266.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Beit Berl College, Kfar Sava, Israel

Einav Aizikovitsh-Udi

Ludwigsburg University of Education, Ludwigsburg, Germany

Sebastian Kuntze

University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia

David Clarke

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Einav Aizikovitsh-Udi .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Faculty of Education, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel

Dani Ben-Zvi

School of Education, University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia

Katie Makar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Aizikovitsh-Udi, E., Kuntze, S., Clarke, D. (2016). Connections Between Statistical Thinking and Critical Thinking: A Case Study. In: Ben-Zvi, D., Makar, K. (eds) The Teaching and Learning of Statistics. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23470-0_8

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23470-0_8

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-319-23469-4

Online ISBN : 978-3-319-23470-0

eBook Packages : Education Education (R0)

Share this chapter

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Critical Thinking Is About Asking Better Questions

by John Coleman

Summary .   

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

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

Partner Center

Critical thinking

200+ critical thinking questions.

“Judge a man by his questions rather than his answers.” – Voltaire As critical thinkers, it’s our job to question everything, instead of just blindly believing what we’re told, but what kinds of questions should we be asking though? What are the “right” questions to ask? In this article I’ve compiled a list of 200+ […]

“Judge a man by his questions rather than his answers.” – Voltaire

As critical thinkers, it’s our job to question everything, instead of just blindly believing what we’re told, but what kinds of questions should we be asking though?

What are the “right” questions to ask?

In this article I’ve compiled a list of 200+ of the very best critical thinking questions for almost any situation.

Critical thinking questions:

• If you’re presented with a claim

If you’re reading a book, listening to a podcast, watching TV or YouTube

If you’re watching an interview.

• In a group or panel discussion
• In an argument or debate

If you’re watching the news

• If you want to spot a lie

If you want to spot a scam

• If you’re presented with statistics
• Critical thinking about your life

Let’s begin:

• Is this an argument, a claim, a belief, an opinion, or a fact?

When you’re presented with information, whether it’s something you’re reading, watching or listening to, ask yourself:

• How do you know it’s a fact?
• What evidence exists to support this “fact”?
• Has this “fact” been proven?
• Do the majority of experts on the subject agree that this is a fact? Is there an expert consensus on this fact? If not, why not?
• Is this an ordinary or extraordinary claim?
• Do the majority of experts agree with this claim? Or is it contentious?
• What is the source of this claim?
• Who is making this claim?
• Is this person an authority or expert?
• How reliable is this source?
• What are the best arguments in support of this claim?
• What do the harshest critics against this position say?
• What arguments do skeptics of this position give?
• Has this claim already been debunked?
• Is this evidence good enough to accept the arguers assertions?
• Would this evidence stand up in court?
• Or is the arguer/author/speaker making assertions without evidence?
• What is the strongest evidence against this claim?
• Is there more confirming or disconfirming evidence?
• Is the expert consensus (if there is one) for or against this claim? Why?
• Do the majority of experts agree or disagree with this claim? Why?
• How can we verify or falsify this claim?
• A statement may be true, but is it relevant? Why?
• To what degree? To what extent?
• Under what conditions?
• In what context or circumstances?
• This claim is 100% true
• This claim is 100% false
• This claim is mostly true, partly false
• This claim is mostly false, partly true
• This claim is half true, half false
• Remember: There are degrees of “rightness” and “wrongness”. Statements are rarely 100% true or 100% false
• What further claims does this claim logically entail?
• Which of my beliefs would I have to change if I were to accept this claim?
• If this is an argument, is it deductive or inductive?
• If an argument is deductive, is it sound, valid, invalid, or unsound?
• If an argument is inductive, is it cogent, strong, weak, or unsound?
• How do you know this?
• How did you determine this?
• What evidence or proof do you have for this claim?
• What is their background?
• What makes them qualified to speak on this subject?
• Are they an expert in the field?
• On what basis is the author or speaker an authority or expert on the subject, or at least credible?
• Are they conservative or liberal?
• Atheist or religious?
• Feminist or MGTOW?
• (No author/speaker is completely neutral, unbiased and objective)
• When was the article, book, podcast, video etc., written or recorded? Is it possibly outdated? Is there a more recent up-to-date version available?
• Why did the author write this article/book?
• Why is the speaker giving this talk? What is their motivation?
• What is the purpose of this information? Why was it created?
• Why did I choose to read/watch/listen to it?
• Who benefits from this information? Why? How?
• Is this information relevant to you? If so, how? Why do you need to know this? How does it affect you personally?
• What are the authors/speakers main arguments and assertions? What is their philosophy? What are their main points?
• Is the author/speaker arguing for anything controversial? If so, there are likely to be good counterarguments on the other side
• Anonymous authorities aka “weasel words” e.g. “experts say…” “scientists say…” “studies show…”
• Deductive or inductive reasoning
• Expert opinion
• Expert consensus
• Randomized controlled trials
• Scientific studies
• Scientific consensus
• Or are they making assertions without evidence?
• What is the strongest evidence in support of these assertions? Is this evidence good enough to accept the authors/speakers conclusions? Would it stand up in court?
• What is the strongest evidence against these assertions?
• What might be another equally valid interpretation of the evidence or study results?
• What conclusions does the author/speaker want you to draw? What do they want you to think/believe/understand/do?
• Is the author/speaker/news station trying to push a narrative? e.g. “Diversity”, “Gender pay gap”, “Immigration”?
• Do you agree with the authors/speakers assertions? Why/why not? Anything you disagree with?
• Do you agree with the authors/speakers philosophy? Why/why not? Anything you disagree with?
• Do you agree with the authors/speakers “facts” and description of “reality”? Why/why not? Anything you disagree with?
• Do you agree with the authors/speakers arguments and rationale? Why/why not? Anything you disagree with?
• Are there any fallacies in the authors/speakers argument or rationale? If so, what?
• Does the author/speaker address counterarguments, disconfirming evidence, objections etc.? If so, how effectively do they rebut these points?
• If the author/speaker provides a “rule”, are there any exceptions to the rule that are not explained or accounted for?
• Do you agree with the authors/speakers conclusions? Why/why not? (You might agree with their arguments and rationale but not with their conclusions) Are they backed up by sufficient evidence? Or is the author/speaker jumping to conclusions too quickly from insufficient evidence?
• Are there any other equally valid conclusions or interpretations that could have been drawn from the evidence, or any other competing theories with better explanations for the evidence? If so, what?
• What is the perspective of the author/speaker? Do they seem like an insider or outsider? Why?
• Whose perspective is this information presented from? America’s or someone else’s? Conservative or liberal? Men or Women? Gen X, Y or Z?
• What perspectives/viewpoints are not represented here? What other perspectives might be equally valid, or worth looking into?
• What would (person) say about it?
• What would (group) say about it?
• Is there better evidence for one perspective/viewpoint than another?
• Is the author/speaker presenting you with both sides of the story – or only one?
• How has the author/speaker framed the information or story?
• Is the author/speaker embellishing or sensationalizing the story for dramatic effect? Do you think the story really took place the way the author/speaker tells it?
• What assumptions is the author/speaker making? What does the author/speaker have to believe is true before the rest of their argument makes sense?
• What are the implications of the authors/speakers argument? If this is true, what else must be true?
• What are the main problems the author/speaker is trying to solve? What solutions do they propose?
• Do you agree with the authors/speakers proposed solutions? Can you think of even better solutions to these problems?
• Has the author/speaker identified the real problem/s, or only a symptom of the problem?
• Is the author/speakers analysis or solution to the problem or situation oversimplified or incomplete? What needs to be unpacked or expanded upon?
• Is the author/speaker engaged in oversimplified black and white thinking as if something “always” or “never” happens, or as if “everyone” or “no one” should think/believe/do something, or as if something was right/wrong, true/false, correct/incorrect, without any grey areas in between?
• Are you engaged in black and white thinking, as if “everything” or “nothing” the author/speaker says is true? Or are you judging the validity of the information line by line, sentence by sentence, claim by claim, realizing that some parts could be true, and other parts false?
• Is the author/speaker emotional reasoning? Is it facts over feelings, or feels over reals?
• How would you describe the author/speakers tone? Dogmatic? Overconfident? Emotive? Pay attention not only to what  is said, but  how it’s said. How does the tone affect your response to the speech/text?
• Is the author/speaker using emotive language/tonality, and/or dramatic images or video, in an attempt to alarm, scare or outrage you?
• Is the author/speaker guilty of magical or superstitious thinking? Is there a lot of talk of “the law of attraction”, “miracles”, “soul mates” etc.?
• Does the author/speaker treat their opponents charitably and fairly? Do they treat the other side as intelligent people with a difference of opinion/perspective? Or do they demonize them as “crazy”, “dangerous”, “evil”, “dumb”, “stupid”, “racist”, “sexist”, “homophobic”, “transphobic” etc.?
• Does the author/speaker seem intellectually honest? Trustworthy? Why/why not?
• Is the author/speaker trying to be objective in their analysis and critique? Perfect objectivity isn’t possible, but are they even trying to be impartial, unbiased and objective?
• Yes: Be careful you’re not automatically believing everything they have to say without evidence, and letting them do your thinking for you
• No: Be careful you’re not automatically dismissing everything they have to say because you don’t like them (Remember: Examine the statement – not the speaker)
• Yes: Beware because you’re more likely to believe it whether it’s true or not
• No: Beware because you’re more likely to dismiss it whether it’s true or not
• The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth
• Half-truths and holding something back
• Straight up lying
• Is the author/speaker misquoting people, or taking quotes out of context?
• Did the person really say …? Is this a real quote/tweet? Or has the person been misquoted or quoted out of context? Is this a fake tweet?
• How are you going to use this information? What are you going to do with it? How are you going to put it into practice? How will it make a difference to your life?
• What is the purpose of this interview? Is it to educate or entertain the audience? Is it to promote a product or service?
• Who is the interviewee? Why is this person being interviewed?
• When did this interview take place? Is this information possibly outdated and no longer relevant?
• Is the interviewer asking the interviewee mostly softball or hardball questions?
• Is the interviewer asking the interviewee a lot of leading, loaded or gotcha questions? Do they seem to be trying to lead or trap the interviewee? e.g. “Yeah, but isn’t it true that…”, “Yeah, but don’t you think…”, “Yeah, but what about…”
• Is the interviewer really listening to the interviewee? Are they making a real effort to try to understand the interviewee and their position, or are they simply trying to promote or condemn it?
• Is the interviewer deliberately trying to make the interviewee look bad? e.g. Are they being overly disagreeable or standoffish? Do they only ask hardball or gotcha questions and then interrupt the interviewee mid-sentence with another difficult question every time the interviewee starts to give a good answer?
• Does the interviewer interrupt or cut off the interviewee if they start talking about anything controversial, or if they start talking about anything that doesn’t align with the narrative of the network e.g. anti-abortion, pro-gun or pro-Trump comments?
• Has the interview been edited to make the interviewee look bad, to paint them in a negative light?
• What additional questions would you ask the interviewee that the interviewer didn’t ask?

If you’re watching a group or panel discussion

If you’re watching a group discussion or debate, especially on a contentious topic e.g. abortion or gun control:

• Who are the panel members? What makes these people authorities or experts on the subject?
• Are both sides of the debate equally represented with intelligent people? Or is one side represented by heavyweights and the other side lightweights?
• Is there an equal distribution of liberal and conservative pundits? Or is it a majority liberal panel with a token conservative? (or vice versa)
• Does the host seem biased towards one side over the other? Is the host picking sides and showing their approval/disapproval of one side?
• Is the audience showing an obvious bias to one side of the debate? Are they only applauding/booing one side of the debate?
• Is the host giving more airtime, credibility and/or respect to one side?
• Is the host trying to make one side look bad, ignorant or stupid?

In an argument or a debate

If you’re in an argument or a debate, or watching one:

• Is this an argument or an assertion? If it’s an argument, is it deductive, inductive or abductive? Is it sound or cogent? Valid or invalid? Strong or weak?
• Are all of the premises true and correct? Do all of the premises necessarily lead to the conclusion? Are there any unjustified leaps of logic?
• Am I clear on how each word is being defined in the argument?
• Is someone attempting to redefine words e.g. “rational”, “reasonable”,   “racist” etc., to support their preferred conclusion?
• Is someone trying to shift the burden of proof? Note: The burden of proof is the obligation to provide evidence to support one’s assertion e.g. “You are guilty” and it is always on the one making the claim – not the other way around
• Has this argument already been debunked?
• Is someone making a PRATT? (Point refuted a thousand times)
• Is this a strawman or steelman argument?
• Is this the best argument in support of …?
• What are the best arguments in support of …?
• What are the best arguments against …?
• What is the strongest evidence in support of …?
• What is the strongest evidence against …?
• Is the preponderance of evidence for or against …? Is there more confirming or disconfirming evidence?
• Is the expert consensus (if there is one) for or against …? Why?
• Do the majority of experts agree or disagree with …? Why?
• Are there any fallacies in this argument or rationale? If so, what? (Fallacies don’t necessarily make an argument invalid but it’s still good to be aware of them)
• Am I 100% certain I understand my opponent’s position? Am I sure? Could I argue my opponent’s position convincingly? Could I steelman it? Could I pass the Ideological Turing Test? If not, you don’t understand it. Don’t argue for or against a position until you fully understand it
• What are the strongest points of my opponent’s argument?
• What are the weakest points of my opponent’s argument?
• What are the weakest points of my argument?
• What is the strongest evidence against my position?
• What are the best arguments against my position?
• How would I attack my argument if I had to?
• What do I like about my opponent’s position, and what do I dislike about mine?
• What aspects of my argument are likely to be unconvincing to those that don’t already agree with me?
• Does my opponent seem intellectually honest? Are they arguing in good faith? Are they willing to follow the evidence where it leads? Are they willing to admit when they’re mistaken or wrong? Am I?
• Does my opponent seem more interested in “winning” the argument or discovering the truth?

Ask the other person:

• How did you determine that?
• How did you come to that conclusion?
• What do you know that I don’t?
• Where am I wrong in my argument or rationale?
• What evidence would it take to change your mind, to convince you otherwise?
• Are these your real reasons for believing X? If all of these reasons were proven wrong, would you still continue to believe X? If yes, let’s not even worry about these reasons because they’re not the real reasons you believe X. What are the real reasons you believe X?
• Why do you think other smart people aren’t convinced by the same arguments and evidence that you are?
• Associated Press News
• The Bureau of Investigative Journalism
• The Economist
• Pro Publica
• What is the bias of this news station? Are they liberal or conservative? You can check the bias of a particular news station here:  Media Bias Fact Check
• Fear mongering
• Gossip/rumors
• Hatchet jobs
• Outrage porn
• Puff pieces
• Is this really the most important “news” of the day? Why is this story being prioritized over everything else that happened today?
• Why do I need to know this? How does it affect me?
• What is the purpose of this news story? Why was it created? What does the news station want you to think/believe/do?
• When was this news story published? Is this information current, or is it outdated and/or no longer relevant?
• Has this story already been debunked?
• Truth or Fiction
• The Washington Post Fact Checker
• Hoax Slayer

Check these websites to see if a claim or story has already been debunked, but don’t rely on any of these websites to do your thinking for you, because they may mislead you with their own political biases

• Has this story or headline been written to educate, entertain or infuriate you?
• Is the headline an accurate summary of the information – or is it just clickbait?
• Do the photos fit the story?
• Has an unflattering photo been deliberately chosen to paint the subject e.g. Trump in a bad light?
• Is it likely that this story has been embellished or sensationalized?
• How has this information been framed or spun?
• Are you being presented with both sides of the story – or only one?
• Whose perspective is this presented from? Conservative or liberal? America’s or someone else’s? Men or Women? What other perspectives might be equally valid, or worth looking into?
• What do the other news stations say? e.g. if you watch CNN or MSNBC, what does CBS or FOX say? (and vice versa)
• Are you being presented with facts or opinions?  If “facts”, on what basis are they “facts”? What evidence exists to support these “facts”?
• Do the media’s “facts” and description of “reality” seem accurate? Why/why not? Anything you disagree with?
• Did someone really say that? Or have they been misquoted or quoted out of context?
• Does the domain look credible?
• Is this satire?

How to spot a liar

• Does it seem like this person is lying or telling the truth? Why? Are they a known liar?
• Is this person motivated to deceive me? Do they stand to gain something by lying to me? What might this person gain by lying to me?
• Dodge the question
• Ignore the question
• Attack you for asking the question, “How could you ask me a question like that!”
• Refuse to answer the question
• Answer a different question
• Turn the question back on you, “I could ask you the same thing!”
• Give short one word answers
• Give vague or ambiguous answers
• Talk around in circles without answering the question
• If you ask the person the same question multiple times using different words, do they give different answers and contradict themselves? Do the details in their story keep changing?
• Uncomfortable
• Does the person speak slower or faster or louder than normal when answering your questions?
• Does the person hesitate, take long pauses, or talk slower than normal when answering your questions? (maybe in an attempt to think on the spot and buy time?)
• Do they avoid eye contact and/or cover their mouth when answering questions?
• Do they start sentences and not finish them, or change topics and start talking about something else mid-sentence?
• Does the tone or volume of their voice change? Does their voice crack and/or go higher than normal? Do they cough repetitively and clear their throat, or stammer or stutter?
• Do they blink rapidly, or not at all, or have a fake or nervous smile?
• Do they roll their lips back or purse them?
• Does their body language seem uncomfortable?
• Do their emotions and facial expressions match their words? When they say they’re “good” or “okay”, do they seem good or okay?
• Does it seem like they’re in a hurry to change the subject?
• This person is telling “The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth”
• This person is telling half-truths and holding something back
• This person is playing dumb and pretending to know less than they do
• This person is straight up lying
• What does your gut/intuition say? Does it seem like they’re lying or telling you the truth? (or both)
• Is a stranger emailing, texting or calling you out of the blue claiming something too good to be true? e.g. you’ve entitled to a large inheritance – and all you need to do is provide bank details, or pay taxes or transfer costs? Or that you’ve won a prize in a competition or lottery you’ve never entered?
• Is someone calling you claiming to be from your bank, gas/electricity provider, phone company etc. and asking you to verify your personal contact details, password, bank details, credit card number etc.? maybe due to “unauthorized” or “suspicious activity” on your account?
• Does a google search on the exact wording of the email, text or ad reveal a scam?
• Does the email contain any grammatical or spelling errors, or overly formal language?
• Does the email ask you to click a link or open an attachment?
• If you’re buying something online is the seller asking you to make payment with an insecure payment option? e.g. direct bank transfer, money order, or a cryptocurrency like Bitcoin?
• In an online dating scenario, is someone professing strong feelings for you after only a few encounters?
• Does the person have a sense of urgency? Are they claiming to need money urgently for a personal or family emergency, medical attention, or to come see you?
• Is someone using pressure tactics, and trying to make you feel guilty or selfish for not buying their product or service, or donating to a charity?
• Is someone trying to manipulate you with sleazy sales/self-help seminar type questions e.g. “Do you want to be rich or poor?” “A winner or a loser?” “A success or a failure?”
• Does it seem too good to be true? Does it seem like a scam? If so, it probably is
• What does your gut/intuition say?

Statistics questions

“There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.” – Benjamin Disraeli

Ask yourself the following questions whenever you’re presented with any statistic:

• Who paid for the study or survey?
• Who conducted the study or survey? Does it come from a credible source?
• Why was the study or survey done? What is the likely agenda?
• When was the study done? Is the information outdated? Is it still relevant? Times change. Public opinion changes
• Who was polled? Conservatives or liberals? Men or women? Asians, Blacks, Hispanics or Whites? What age group? Gen X, Y or Z? How diverse was the group?
• How large was the sample size? How many people were surveyed? Is the sample size large enough? Is it qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods? Was the sample size sufficient?  Was it  representative enough of the wider population? Did the participants come from different cultural and social backgrounds? How generalizable are the findings?
• What are the statistics measuring?
• How long did the information take to gather? Was it a 2 week survey? A 6 month study? A 10 year study?
• What questions were asked?
• How was each question asked? Were the questions leading or loaded or worded in such a way as to encourage a certain answer?
• What is the context of the survey?
• How was the research done? Phone, email, social media, face to face?
• What is the number as a percentage? e.g. 55, 000 Americans is 0.0167% of the population
• Is the percentage statistically insignificant? e.g. 500, 000 Americans might be addicted to Heroin, but as a percentage that’s ‘only’ (any number above one is obviously too high) 0.153% of Americans
• Do the author’s conclusions and the headline logically follow from the data? Or are they reading too much into the data? Find the raw data if you can. Don’t just accept and believe headlines for statistics. Make sure it says what the headline says it says. Statistical headlines are often used to suggest things the data doesn’t actually say
• Is the research confusing causation and correlation? Check out: spurious correlations for a perfect visual example of why correlation does not equal causation
• Has this study been peer reviewed by experts?
• Beware of unsourced statistics

“I can prove anything by statistics except the truth.” – George Canning 

Critical thinking about your life questions

“The unexamined life is not worth living” – Socrates

You can apply critical thinking to the books you read, the podcasts you listen to, the information and “news” presented to you, but ultimately, what better place to apply critical thinking skills than to your own life?

• Which biases and fallacies are you most guilty of?
• Where/when do you most often fail to practice critical thinking?
• What are your sacred cows? What shouldn’t be questioned? What is off limits? God? Jesus? Buddha? Krishna? Muhammad? The Bible? The Bhagavad Gita? The Quran? Your Guru?
• What do you need to start/stop doing?
• What do you need to do more/less of?
• What are your best/worst habits?
• Where do you waste the most time?
• Who/what should you cut out of your life?
• What one thing, if you were to take action on it, would produce the greatest difference in your life?
• A year from now, what will you wish you had started today?

Recommended reading

For additional critical thinking questions check out:

Critical Reading: The Ultimate Guide

The Socratic Method

50 Critical thinking tips

Understanding Statistics: Why Critical Thinking Skills Are Essential for Future Researchers

Imagine this situation: in groups, you are asked to design and set up an electrophysiological brain recording experiment in which your participants should exhibit a specific waveform, gamma patterns. After performing an extensive literature review, you are sure that this waveform is best visible during tasks that require the manipulation of information with working memory. For some reason, though, gamma waves are not visible in your participants’ recordings. What do you do?

Psychology students are used to non-significant results like these – in social sciences, finding valid population-level phenomena is difficult. Yet, they seem to be very aware of the fact that finding a true effect is not only dependent on its existence in reality but also on the methodological steps that the researcher takes during the conduction and the analysis process. If a phenomenon is well established in previous literature, a psychology student is trained to take a critical look into the sample size and study design, and to discuss the changes that could be made in order to yield different results.

This class was however not organized by the Department of Psychology, but by one of the Life Sciences. Despite being equally well trained in their respective field, students from this department tended to blatantly remove non-significant findings from the analysis and present them as clear outliers that were not reflective of the true population. More importantly, no one seemed to question these outlier-removal practices. When the underlying outlier-correction motives were questioned, the explanation was simple: it was a confirmatory analysis in which we had to replicate findings from existing literature. Them knowing exactly what to do in case the p-value failed to reach the traditional threshold of significance, but the lack of knowledge on terms such as p-hacking and cherry-picking, begs the question of where this philosophy stems from.

It could be argued that in this specific setting, the unwillingness to modify one’s own design was due to time constraints – with only five days to set up, conduct, analyze, and present the findings of the experiment in this course, major changes to the design after data collection could have eaten up precious time. However, as the project evaluation was not based on whether one could replicate the findings but instead on the general approach that the team had taken, it seemed that these interdepartmental differences in general statistical philosophy originated from somewhere else.

Could it be that there merely exists a fundamental difference between the focus of a natural scientist compared to a social one? Biological mechanisms (e.g., systemic blood circulation) are well established whereas cognitive processes such as the use of mental imagery during problem-solving tasks are difficult to measure. Although psychologists are trying hard to look for general laws for human behaviour, it is widely accepted that we can only try to predict it by using the knowledge we possess over pathological brains and, ultimately, statistics.

“More aware of the grand-scheme effects of reporting false results, and the costs of conducting research that is fundamentally ungeneralizable, advancements in the field could be brought nearer.”

It is highly unlikely that the natural science students performing questionable outlier correction procedures did them aware of their problematic nature. Indeed, a look into the curriculum of their individual degree programs reveals that this lack of awareness might, in reality, be a lack of knowledge. During the 2021-2022 academic year, the number of study credits from mandatory research design, reasoning, and statistics courses were 33 ECs in the Psychology Department, whereas in Biomedical Sciences and Biology it was only 8 and 12 ECs, respectively. Especially the extensive 9 EC course unique to the psychology program, Scientific and Statistical Reasoning, coordinated by Dr. Roeland Voskens, seems to serve as a great advantage for psychologists graduating from our university. Diving deep into the pitfalls of frequentist statistics and the biased nature of human reasoning, it provides students with extensive skills in interpreting scientific findings and their underlying argumentation. This raises the question as to whether the lack of a similar course in natural science programs results in the unintentional transfer of these faulty lines of reasoning to actual research laboratories.

The replication crisis within the field of psychology has been well established for some time already. Out of necessity, it has cornered psychological researchers and forced them to put their own as well as all the prior literature under careful inspection. As awareness of the crisis has spread, numerous incentives to reproduce classical studies have sprouted. Within medicine, though, the discussion seems to lag behind or actuate change only in its sub-fields such as oncology. In fact, it could be argued that issues with biomedical and pharmacological research have been brought under sufficient scrutiny only in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. As studies on the virus’s nature have a more direct effect on the population’s well-being than research on, say, the effects of listening to classical music before eating, this is certainly understandable. As an example, analyzing 29 subject-to-concern research publications about the diagnosis and treatment of COVID-19, Besançon and colleagues (2021) found six of these papers to have been retracted due to the methodology or the data analysis being wrong. Although not all of these six papers underwent the peer-review process, it is worth noting that even at this level of research, scientists still make errors in choosing the appropriate analysis methods.

Could it be that these mistakes were made due to a general lack of understanding of design and statistical strategies? Perhaps. By increasing the number of mandatory undergraduate as well as graduate-level statistical reasoning courses, future researchers could at least be made aware of the importance of choosing the correct methodological approach. More aware of the grand-scheme effects of reporting false results, and the costs of conducting research that is fundamentally ungeneralizable, advancements in the field could be brought nearer. Another explanation for these mistakes could be that they were done deliberately. Although not a valid method in any shape or form, impeding researchers from making proper inferences from their findings, we know that depending on the sample and research question, different statistical tests may yield very different results in terms of significance. If that were the case with any of these six publications, the responsibility to publish these results as respectable findings has undeniably shifted to the hands of the scientific journal and the surrounding academic machinery.

“It is clear that to counter this issue, a multi-layered approach should be taken.”

Altogether, without including systematic reviews of statistical methodology in the study’s findings and properly investigating potential conflicts of interest between the researcher and the reviewer, a problem of distrust in published results arises. To counter this issue and to detect early flaws, the general principles of open science, pre-registration and open review processes, could be employed. Making the review process more transparent might pose a challenge, though, as the general attitude toward reviewing is not too positive – the process can and should be time-consuming, but unfortunately leads to the reduction of the amount of time academics can spend on conducting and publishing their own research.

It is clear that to counter this issue, a multi-layered approach should be taken. At the lowest levels, it is the institutions’ responsibility to train their future researchers to adopt and favour the open science framework. This can be done by simply including more material about critical and scientific thinking into the curriculum of all fields that have a research component to them. Moreover, the institutions should support the employment of this framework by funding extensive and archived peer-review systems. Instead of treating peer-reviews as a mandatory loss of time, researchers should be encouraged to engage in such projects and to keep track of the process by archiving all information in a systemic manner. This, though, is a slippery slope that could easily lead to an increase in journal subscription fees and article processing charges. At the highest levels, journals and policymakers should admit their accountability in the process and enforce these changes in their organizational system. However, it should be emphasized that an acknowledgment of this major would require a large-scale change in the academic culture, and for the time being, that might be a little too idealistic.

Although merely a practical laboratory course to introduce undergraduate neurobiology students to the world of electrophysiology, this particular session revealed much about the interdepartmental differences in knowledge about good research practices. In subtle ways, p-hacking creeps its way into classrooms, and if we are not careful enough, it attaches itself to future researchers’ coats and travels to actual publishing laboratories.

-Bachelor’s Biology Programme. (2021, October 21). University of Amsterdam. Retrieved 10 February 2022, from https://www.uva.nl/en/shared content/programmas/nl/bachelors/biologie/studieprogramma/studieprogramma.html #Jaar-3

-bachelor’s biomedical sciences programme. (2021, june 30). uva studiegids 2021–2022. retrieved 10 february 2022, from https://www.uva.nl/programmas/bachelors/bio-medischewetenschappen/studieprogramma/studieprogramma.html, -bachelor’s psychology programme. (2021). uva studiegids 2021–2022. retrieved 10 february 2022, from https://studiegids.uva.nl/xmlpages/page/2021-2022-en/search-programme/programme/6563, -besançon, l., peiffer-smadja, n., segalas, c., jiang, h., masuzzo, p., smout, c., billy, e., deforet, m., & leyrat, c. (2021). open science saves lives: lessons from the covid-19 pandemic. bmc medical research methodology, 21(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-021-01304-y, -chopik, w. j., bremner, r. h., defever, a. m., & keller, v. n. (2018). how (and whether) to teach undergraduates about the replication crisis in psychological science. teaching of psychology, 45(2), 158–163. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628318762900.

The Modern Magic Trick of Artificial Intelligence

Shall we do it Again? Wishful Thinking and the Current State of Credibility in Psychology

Author SIOS Editors

SIOS editorial staff.

Comments are closed.

Spiegeloog is the magazine for the Psychology Department, University of Amsterdam

• News & opinion

Privacy Overview

Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.

Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.

7 Practical Solutions That Streamline Statistical Thinking

Thinking about statistics can be challenging for several reasons. Firstly, statistics involves abstract concepts and mathematical formulas that may be unfamiliar or difficult to grasp initially. The field requires logical thinking, problem-solving skills, and the ability to interpret and apply statistical methods correctly.

Additionally, statistics often deals with uncertainty and variability, making it necessary to understand concepts such as sampling error, probability, and hypothesis testing.

Lastly, statistical analysis often involves working with large datasets, complex software tools, and specialized techniques, which can add another layer of complexity. With practice, patience, and guidance, however, the difficulty of thinking about statistics can be gradually overcome, and a deeper understanding can be achieved.

This article gives practical suggestions to make students more comfortable when thinking about or applying statistical concepts and techniques. Beginners should keep these suggestions in mind as they start their journey in statistics and veteran statisticians should revisit them whenever they start to feel overwhelmed with a project. 

1. Understand the purpose of statistics

2. relate statistics to real-life examples ,  ask yourself…, 4. break down complex problems, 5. use visualizations, 6. seek clarity in terminology , different perspectives, peer learning, constructive feedback, reduced isolation, brainstorming and problem-solving, enhanced learning opportunities , quality control, skill development, confidence building, networking opportunities, bring it all together.

Statistics can be confusing if you lose sight of its purpose. Rather than viewing it as a collection of abstract concepts and formulas, approach statistics with a practical mindset. Understand that its purpose is to provide tools for organizing, summarizing, and analyzing data, and to answer questions or solve problems based on evidence.

By focusing on the practical application of statistics and its role in extracting meaningful insights from data, you can overcome the initial intimidation and appreciate its value as a powerful tool for making informed decisions in various fields of study and in everyday life.

When running your analyses, developing your study design, or understanding someone else’s research , be sure to focus on the purpose of the methods used. Are the analyses run meant to summarize the data, find evidence for a relationship, or test a hypothesis? Keep these questions in mind as you look at the results of statistical models. By focusing on the purpose of the analyses you can determine whether or not the statistician achieved their goals. This will prevent you from getting lost in the details, like exact measures, models, or thresholds of significance the researcher selected.

Once you feel comfortable determining if a study achieved its purpose, then you can look closer at the finer details of the statistics. This will help you become more comfortable engaging with reading statistical research, learning new methods or developing your own study design. 

Statistics is most meaningful when you can relate it to real-life situations. Look for examples or case studies that demonstrate how statistical analysis has been applied to solve problems or make decisions in various fields. Understanding the practical applications of statistics helps in contextualizing the concepts and makes them more relatable.

Exploring applications in areas such as healthcare, economics, social sciences, or environmental studies can provide insights into how statistics is used to address real-world challenges. This approach allows you to see the direct impact and relevance of statistical concepts and techniques in various contexts. Additionally, examining practical examples helps to reinforce your understanding by applying statistical principles to concrete situations. Actively seek out and explore case studies and examples that demonstrate the power and practicality of statistics, as it will enhance your comprehension and appreciation of the subject.

3. Emphasize conceptual understanding

Understanding the underlying concepts and principles of statistics is crucial for a strong foundation in the subject. Rather than simply memorizing formulas or procedures, focus on comprehending the logic and intuition behind statistical concepts. Here’s a checklist t

hat you can revisit when thinking about a statistical concept while learning, developing your own projects, or reading statistical research.

• How is this concept related to other concepts that I know?
• How is this concept different from other closely related concepts?
• What is the purpose of this concept? (i.e. what does it measure or test?)
• When should I use this concept in my own projects and when is it not appropriate? 

By doing so, you will develop a deeper understanding of how statistical techniques work and how they can be applied to solve problems in various contexts. 

This approach allows you to adapt and apply statistical techniques to new and unfamiliar situations, as you will have a solid understanding of the underlying principles guiding their use. Moreover, understanding the concepts and principles helps in interpreting and critically evaluating statistical results, enabling you to make informed judgments about the validity and reliability of the analysis.

So, prioritize building a strong conceptual understanding of statistics, as it will serve as a solid foundation for your statistical knowledge and facilitate your ability to apply statistical techniques effectively.

Complex statistical problems can seem overwhelming at first glance. However, breaking them down into smaller, manageable parts can make the process more approachable. Start by identifying the key components and steps involved in solving the problem. This might include defining the research question, selecting appropriate statistical techniques, collecting and organizing data, conducting analyses, and interpreting the results.

By breaking the problem down into these individual components, you can focus on understanding and addressing each one separately, gradually building your understanding of the entire problem.

Once you have a clear understanding of each component, you can start connecting the pieces together to form a more comprehensive picture. This step-by-step approach allows you to manage the complexity of the problem and reduces the feeling of being overwhelmed. Additionally, it helps you identify any areas where you may need to further develop your understanding or seek additional resources or guidance.

Remember that learning statistics is a process, and it’s natural to encounter challenges along the way. By breaking down complex problems into smaller parts and taking them one step at a time, you can build your confidence and gradually develop the skills needed to tackle more intricate statistical problems.

A picture is worth a thousand words, even in statistics. Data visualization plays a vital role in understanding and communicating statistical information effectively. By utilizing graphs, charts, and visual representations, you can transform complex data sets into visual formats that are easier to interpret and comprehend. Visualizing data allows you to identify patterns, distributions, and relationships that may not be immediately apparent in raw data. It helps you to gain insights into trends, variations, and outliers, facilitating a deeper understanding of the underlying patterns and phenomena.

Furthermore, data visualization enhances communication by providing a clear and concise representation of information. Visuals can convey complex statistical concepts and findings in a more accessible and engaging manner, making it easier for others to grasp and interpret the information. Whether it’s presenting research findings, reporting trends in business data, or conveying important insights to a broader audience, data visualization ensures that information is effectively conveyed and understood.

When feeling stuck the best way to start to move forward is to employ a visualization. When designing a study, starting with scatter plots or bar graphs can help you start to think about how your variables relate. Or when reading statistical research, looking at the visualizations first can help you get an idea of the overall argument of the paper, especially when their writing becomes confusing. 

Statistics has its own terminology, and learning the jargon can initially be overwhelming. Take the time to familiarize yourself with statistical terms, definitions, and symbols. If you come across unfamiliar terms or symbols, don’t hesitate to seek clarification.

Reach out to instructors, knowledgeable individuals like statistics tutors , or online communities dedicated to statistics. Asking for explanations can provide valuable insights and help you grasp the meaning and context behind statistical jargon.

Learning statistics is like learning a new language . Beginners are happy just to be able to remember what a handful of words mean. Intermediate learners will have a larger vocabulary and will be able to organize them into words that are very similar and very different from each other. Advanced learners will have a very large vocabulary and have a deep understanding of how words relate and will be able to discuss complex nuances between words. 

Just like with learning a new language, immersion is the best way to learn statistics terminology. Practice with your own projects, talk about your projects with others, read the statistical research of others, and ask questions when something is new or confusing. Remember, learning any new field requires patience and persistence. By actively engaging with statistical terms and seeking clarity, you will gradually become more comfortable with the jargon, enabling you to communicate and understand statistical concepts with greater ease.

7. Collaborate and discuss

Engaging in discussions with peers, instructors, or online communities can greatly enhance your understanding of statistics. Here’s just some of the reasons collaboration makes statistical thinking easier:

When collaborating with others, you get exposed to diverse viewpoints and approaches. This exposure can broaden your understanding of statistical concepts, methods, and applications. Different perspectives can also challenge your assumptions and encourage critical thinking.

Interacting with peers in collaborative settings provides an opportunity to learn from each other’s strengths and experiences. Discussing ideas, solving problems together, and sharing knowledge can accelerate learning and foster a supportive learning environment.

Collaboration enables you to receive constructive feedback on your statistical analyses or research. Feedback from others can help identify mistakes, suggest alternative approaches, and refine your understanding of statistical concepts.

Statistics can sometimes feel overwhelming when tackled alone. Collaboration provides a sense of camaraderie, reducing feelings of isolation, and providing a support system that boosts confidence in tackling complex statistical challenges.

Collaborative settings foster brainstorming sessions where participants collectively explore ideas and solutions. Group problem-solving can lead to innovative approaches and creative solutions to statistical challenges.

Collaborating on research projects, participating in workshops, or attending seminars with others allows you to take advantage of learning opportunities that may not be available otherwise.

In a collaborative setting, others can act as a “check and balance” system, ensuring that statistical analyses and interpretations are rigorously evaluated. This helps minimize errors and ensures the accuracy of results.

Collaborating with individuals who possess different skill sets can help you develop complementary skills. For example, collaborating with a data visualization expert can improve your ability to communicate statistical findings effectively.

Engaging in fruitful collaborations can boost your confidence in tackling complex statistical problems. As you contribute to collaborative projects, you’ll feel more assured in your statistical thinking abilities.

Collaborative endeavors often involve connecting with professionals in related fields. Building a network of colleagues with statistical expertise can lead to future collaborative projects and learning opportunities.

Whether you are learning new statistical methods, developing your own research project, or engaging with established statistical research, collaboration can help immensely. Talking with others forces you to clarify your thoughts and engage with new ways of thinking about statistics. Both will help ground your knowledge and make statistical thinking easier.

The suggestions provided in this article offer valuable insights to make statistical thinking easier and more approachable. Understanding the purpose of statistics and its practical applications helps contextualize concepts and appreciate their value in making informed decisions. Relating statistics to real-life examples enhances comprehension and reinforces the relevance of statistical methods across various fields.

Overall, statistical thinking becomes more manageable and rewarding through consistent practice, patience, and collaboration. As statisticians of all levels practice statistical thinking, embracing these practical suggestions will foster a deeper understanding of statistics and pave the way for successful application in diverse contexts.

So, whether you are a beginner or a seasoned statistician, keeping these suggestions in mind will empower you to navigate the complexities of statistical thinking with confidence and proficiency.

Why Do I Need Statistics?

How to immerse yourself in japanese while learning the language, related articles, how to meaningfully interpret statistical analyses, basic statistics terminology for beginners, unraveling statistical programming: overcoming common struggles in learning..., how to pass college statistics, choosing the right programming language for statistical analyses, addressing common challenges when learning statistics, master the hardest parts of statistics in a....

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

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

What Is Critical Thinking? | Definition & Examples

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

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

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

Critical thinking skills help you to:

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

Table of contents

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

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

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

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

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

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

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

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

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

Academic examples

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

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

Nonacademic examples

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

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

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

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

When encountering information, ask:

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

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

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

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

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

 Plagiarism

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

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 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 September 23, 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, get unlimited documents corrected.

✔ Free APA citation check included ✔ Unlimited document corrections ✔ Specialized in correcting academic texts

• Newsletters
• Account Activating this button will toggle the display of additional content Account Sign out

What Are the Odds?

To learn to think critically, take a statistics class..

Illustration by Mouni Feddag

If there’s one skill almost everyone agrees schools should be teaching, it’s critical thinking, although what, exactly, critical thinking consists of is conveniently left undefined. For the longest time, I preferred to believe that it meant learning to be skeptical about words, specifically the arguments, exhortations, and beguilements foisted upon the public by politicians, advertisers, corporations, and the dodgier elements of the press. As a former English major, I figured I had this one nailed; if there was anything I mastered in college, it’s the ability to find the hidden and sometimes manipulative meanings in language. 

What I, in my complacency, chose to ignore is just how much of the persuasion now aimed at the average citizen comes in the form of numbers, specifically numbers that tell us about the future, about how likely something is to happen (or not happen) based on how much it happened (or didn’t) in the past. These numbers sing to us the siren song of cause and effect, humanity’s favorite tune. Why do we like it so much? Because knowing what causes events and conditions is the first step toward controlling them, and we human beings are all about controlling our environments. That’s how we ended up ruling this planet, and it’s how some of us hope to save it.

Whether vaccines cause autism , whether the complexity of life bespeaks an intelligent designer , whether we should invest in a stock or stop drinking red wine or blame our genes for our depression or use earbuds instead of holding our cellphones up to our heads—all these are questions whose answers rely on understanding statistics and probability. Sometimes it’s easy to deploy numerical common sense. When we’re told a “study shows” something—say, that taking vitamin D provides no health benefits to obese teenagers —a glance at the sample size, in this case, a mere 19 individuals, should give us pause. (Although not as much as it would in a study purporting to show that vitamin D does help obese teens; the argument for taking any supplement bears a greater burden of proof than the argument against it.)

Other situations call for a bit more savvy. How representative is that sample, and how well-designed is the study? When choosing which drug to take for a newly diagnosed chronic condition, do we pick one still under patent because its maker claims it reduces a side effect by 50 percent over the generic? What if it turns out the side effect is incredibly rare, affecting only 2 people in 100,000, and that the much more expensive new drug merely reduced that number to 1?

When numbers get really big, a strange and counterintuitive mathematical leap occurs. Most of us understand that if you flip an ordinary coin hundreds of times, roughly half of the results will be heads and the other half tails. The more flips you accrue, the more evenly the results are distributed between the two. Yet it’s entirely possible for your first 10, or even your first 20, flips to come up all heads. We tend to think that means the 11 th or 21 st flip is more likely to be tails, but there we’re wrong. A flipped coin always has a 50-50 chance of turning up heads no matter how many times in a row it has already turned up heads. The odds on each individual flip aren’t affected by any other flip in the series, yet somehow the whole series will even out if we extend it long enough. In the case of singular, nearly impossible events, our intuitions are equally wrong. The universe is a very, very large sample, and as a result we can count on preposterous things happening on a regular basis. “What are the odds?” we marvel to our friends, little realizing that the odds, though terrible, don’t rule anything out.

As David J. Hand argues in his excellent primer, The Improbability Principle: Why Coincidences, Miracles and Rare Events Occur Every Day , bizarre incidents like a national lottery selecting exactly the same six numbers twice within the course of four days—as once happened in Bulgaria— are inevitable . It’s just that you can’t predict which virtually impossible event will actually happen.

Probability gives us headaches because our minds just aren’t suited to grappling with chance at this level, with unimaginably big numbers or stretches of time. We automatically look for patterns and start speculating about the causes behind them. Ask us what a random distribution looks like (say, the number of cancer cases in the populated areas of a given county), and we’ll picture an even spattering of hits over the designated map, even though chance pretty much guarantees that some cases will end up close to each other. We immediately assume such “ clusters ” indicate that something on the ground must be behind the illnesses, but that’s not necessarily true. Give it enough years (that is, allow enough cancer cases to accumulate), however, and the pattern will either begin to even out across the map or rise to the level of evidence for a lawsuit against the local paint factory.

This is why everyone, even mathphobic humanities majors, needs to take a class in statistics. I wish I had, although thanks to excellent writers like Hand and Jordan Ellenberg , I’ve been doing my best to catch up. We all need to learn why the term statistically significant may very well not mean actually significant—at least not in any way that matters to the making of public policy or to deciding whether to undergo a medical treatment. We all need to understand regression to the mean and how it’s been used by quacks to peddle bogus cures, as well as how selection bias has distorted the results of everything from extrasensory perception experiments to which research gets published in scientific journals and ends up reported on in your daily paper. Statistics and the science of probability represent the ultimate in critical thinking, because they teach us how to criticize the ways we habitually think.

Read more of Slate ’s collection of classes you should take .

What classes did we miss? Send your recommendations of up to 200 words to  [email protected] , and we’ll publish the best.

• Inservice Information Request Form
• Certification Online Course

The State of Critical Thinking Today

• Higher Education
• K-12 Instruction
• Customized Webinars and Online Courses for Faculty
• Business & Professional Groups
• The Center for Critical Thinking Community Online
• Certification in the Paul-Elder Approach to Critical Thinking
• Professional Development Model - College and University
• Professional Development Model for K-12
• Workshop Descriptions
• Online Courses in Critical Thinking
• Critical Thinking Training for Law Enforcement
• Consulting for Leaders and Key Personnel at Your Organization
• Critical Thinking Therapy

Translate this page from English...

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

“Too many facts, too little conceptualizing, too much memorizing, and too little thinking.” ~  Paul Hurd , the Organizer in Developing Blueprints for Institutional Change

Introduction The question at issue in this paper is: What is the current state of critical thinking in higher education?

Sadly, studies of higher education demonstrate three disturbing, but hardly novel, facts:

• Most college faculty at all levels lack a substantive concept of critical thinking.
• Most college faculty don’t realize that they lack a substantive concept of critical thinking, believe that they sufficiently understand it, and assume they are already teaching students it.  
• Lecture, rote memorization, and (largely ineffective) short-term study habits are still the norm in college instruction and learning today.

These three facts, taken together, represent serious obstacles to essential, long-term institutional change, for only when administrative and faculty leaders grasp the nature, implications, and power of a robust concept of critical thinking — as well as gain insight into the negative implications of its absence — are they able to orchestrate effective professional development. When faculty have a vague notion of critical thinking, or reduce it to a single-discipline model (as in teaching critical thinking through a “logic” or a “study skills” paradigm), it impedes their ability to identify ineffective, or develop more effective, teaching practices. It prevents them from making the essential connections (both within subjects and across them), connections that give order and substance to teaching and learning.

This paper highlights the depth of the problem and its solution — a comprehensive, substantive concept of critical thinking fostered across the curriculum. As long as we rest content with a fuzzy concept of critical thinking or an overly narrow one, we will not be able to effectively teach for it. Consequently, students will continue to leave our colleges without the intellectual skills necessary for reasoning through complex issues.

Part One: An Initial Look at the Difference Between a Substantive and Non-Substantive Concept of Critical Thinking

Faculty Lack a Substantive Concept of Critical Thinking

Studies demonstrate that most college faculty lack a substantive concept of critical thinking. Consequently they do not (and cannot) use it as a central organizer in the design of instruction. It does not inform their conception of the student’s role as learner. It does not affect how they conceptualize their own role as instructors. They do not link it to the essential thinking that defines the content they teach. They, therefore, usually teach content separate from the thinking students need to engage in if they are to take ownership of that content. They teach history but not historical thinking. They teach biology, but not biological thinking. They teach math, but not mathematical thinking. They expect students to do analysis, but have no clear idea of how to teach students the elements of that analysis. They want students to use intellectual standards in their thinking, but have no clear conception of what intellectual standards they want their students to use or how to articulate them. They are unable to describe the intellectual traits (dispositions) presupposed for intellectual discipline. They have no clear idea of the relation between critical thinking and creativity, problem-solving, decision-making, or communication. They do not understand the role that thinking plays in understanding content. They are often unaware that didactic teaching is ineffective. They don’t see why students fail to make the basic concepts of the discipline their own. They lack classroom teaching strategies that would enable students to master content and become skilled learners.

Most faculty have these problems, yet with little awareness that they do. The majority of college faculty consider their teaching strategies just fine, no matter what the data reveal. Whatever problems exist in their instruction they see as the fault of students or beyond their control.

Studies Reveal That Critical Thinking Is Rare in the College Classroom Research demonstrates that, contrary to popular faculty belief, critical thinking is not fostered in the typical college classroom. In a meta-analysis of the literature on teaching effectiveness in higher education, Lion Gardiner, in conjunction with ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education (1995) documented the following disturbing patterns: “Faculty aspire to develop students’ thinking skills, but research consistently shows that in practice we tend to aim at facts and concepts in the disciplines, at the lowest cognitive levels, rather than development of intellect or values."

Numerous studies of college classrooms reveal that, rather than actively involving our students in learning, we lecture, even though lectures are not nearly as effective as other means for developing cognitive skills. In addition, students may be attending to lectures only about one-half of their time in class, and retention from lectures is low.

Studies suggest our methods often fail to dislodge students’ misconceptions and ensure learning of complex, abstract concepts. Capacity for problem solving is limited by our use of inappropriately simple practice exercises.

Classroom tests often set the standard for students’ learning. As with instruction, however, we tend to emphasize recall of memorized factual information rather than intellectual challenge. Taken together with our preference for lecturing, our tests may be reinforcing our students’ commonly fact-oriented memory learning, of limited value to either them or society.

Faculty agree almost universally that the development of students’ higher-order intellectual or cognitive abilities is the most important educational task of colleges and universities. These abilities underpin our students’ perceptions of the world and the consequent decisions they make. Specifically, critical thinking – the capacity to evaluate skillfully and fairly the quality of evidence and detect error, hypocrisy, manipulation, dissembling, and bias – is central to both personal success and national needs.

A 1972 study of 40,000 faculty members by the American Council on Education found that 97 percent of the respondents indicated the most important goal of undergraduate education is to foster students’ ability to think critically.

Process-oriented instructional orientations “have long been more successful than conventional instruction in fostering effective movement from concrete to formal reasoning. Such programs emphasize students’ active involvement in learning and cooperative work with other students and de-emphasize lectures . . .”

Gardiner’s summary of the research coincides with the results of a large study (Paul, et. al. 1997) of 38 public colleges and universities and 28 private ones focused on the question: To what extent are faculty teaching for critical thinking?

The study included randomly selected faculty from colleges and universities across California, and encompassed prestigious universities such as Stanford, Cal Tech, USC, UCLA, UC Berkeley, and the California State University System. Faculty answered both closed and open-ended questions in a 40-50 minute interview.

By direct statement or by implication, most faculty claimed that they permeated their instruction with an emphasis on critical thinking and that the students internalized the concepts in their courses as a result. Yet only the rare interviewee mentioned the importance of students thinking clearly, accurately, precisely, relevantly, or logically, etc... Very few mentioned any of the basic skills of thought such as the ability to clarify questions; gather relevant data; reason to logical or valid conclusions; identify key assumptions; trace significant implications, or enter without distortion into alternative points of view. Intellectual traits of mind, such as intellectual humility, intellectual perseverance, intellectual responsibility, etc . . . were rarely mentioned by the interviewees. Consider the following key results from the study:

• Though the overwhelming majority of faculty claimed critical thinking to be a primary objective of their instruction (89%), only a small minority could give a clear explanation of what critical thinking is (19%). Furthermore, according to their answers, only 9% of the respondents were clearly teaching for critical thinking on a typical day in class.
• Though the overwhelming majority (78%) claimed that their students lacked appropriate intellectual standards (to use in assessing their thinking), and 73% considered that students learning to assess their own work was of primary importance, only a very small minority (8%) could enumerate any intellectual criteria or standards they required of students or could give an intelligible explanation of those criteria and standards.
• While 50% of those interviewed said that they explicitly distinguish critical thinking skills from traits, only 8% were able to provide a clear conception of the critical thinking skills they thought were most important for their students to develop. Furthermore, the overwhelming majority (75%) provided either minimal or vague allusion (33%) or no illusion at all (42%) to intellectual traits of mind.
• Although the majority (67%) said that their concept of critical thinking is largely explicit in their thinking, only 19% could elaborate on their concept of thinking.
• Although the vast majority (89%) stated that critical thinking was of primary importance to their instruction, 77% of the respondents had little, limited or no conception of how to reconcile content coverage with the fostering of critical thinking.
• Although the overwhelming majority (81%) felt that their department’s graduates develop a good or high level of critical thinking ability while in their program, only 20% said that their departments had a shared approach to critical thinking, and only 9% were able to clearly articulate how they would assess the extent to which a faculty member was or was not fostering critical thinking. The remaining respondents had a limited conception or no conception at all of how to do this.

A Substantive Conception of Critical Thinking

If we understand critical thinking substantively, we not only explain the idea explicitly to our students, but we use it to give order and meaning to virtually everything we do as teachers and learners. We use it to organize the design of instruction. It informs how we conceptualize our students as learners. It determines how we conceptualize our role as instructors. It enables us to understand and explain the thinking that defines the content we teach.

When we understand critical thinking at a deep level, we realize that we must teach content through thinking, not content, and then thinking. We model the thinking that students need to formulate if they are to take ownership of the content. We teach history as historical thinking. We teach biology as biological thinking. We teach math as mathematical thinking. We expect students to analyze the thinking that is the content, and then to assess the thinking using intellectual standards. We foster the intellectual traits (dispositions) essential to critical thinking. We teach students to use critical thinking concepts as tools in entering into any system of thought, into any subject or discipline. We teach students to construct in their own minds the concepts that define the discipline. We acquire an array of classroom strategies that enable students to master content using their thinking and to become skilled learners.

The concept of critical thinking, rightly understood, ties together much of what we need to understand as teachers and learners. Properly understood, it leads to a framework for institutional change. For a deeper understanding of critical thinking see The Thinker’s Guide Series , the book, Critical Thinking: Tools for Taking Charge of Your Learning and Your Life , and the Foundation For Critical Thinking Library.

To exemplify my point, The Thinker’s Guide Series consists in a diverse set of contextualizations of one and the same substantive concept of critical thinking. If we truly understand critical thinking, for example, we should be able to explain its implications:

• for analyzing and assessing reasoning
• for identifying strengths and weaknesses in thinking
• for identifying obstacles to rational thought
• for dealing with egocentrism and sociocentrism
• for developing strategies that enable one to apply critical thinking to everyday life
• for understanding the stages of one’s development as a thinker
• for understanding the foundations of ethical reasoning
• for detecting bias and propaganda in the national and international news
• for conceptualizing the human mind as an instrument of intellectual work
• for active and cooperative learning
• for the art of asking essential questions
• for scientific thinking
• for close reading and substantive writing
• for grasping the logic of a discipline.

Each contextualization in this list is developed in one or more of the guides in the series. Together they suggest the robustness of a substantive concept of critical thinking. What is Critical Thinking (Stripped to its Essentials)?

The idea of critical thinking, stripped to its essentials, can be expressed in a number of ways. Here’s one:

Critical thinking is the art of thinking about thinking with a view to improving it. Critical thinkers seek to improve thinking, in three interrelated phases. They analyze thinking. They assess thinking. And they up-grade thinking (as a result). Creative thinking is the work of the third phase, that of replacing weak thinking with strong thinking, or strong thinking with stronger thinking. Creative thinking is a natural by-product of critical thinking, precisely because analyzing and assessing thinking enables one to raise it to a higher level. New and better thinking is the by-product of healthy critical thought.

A person is a critical thinker to the extent that he or she regularly improves thinking by studying and “critiquing” it. Critical thinkers carefully study the way humans ground, develop, and apply thought — to see how thinking can be improved.

The basic idea is simple: “Study thinking for strengths and weaknesses. Then make improvements by building on its strengths and targeting its weaknesses.”

    A critical thinker does not say:

“My thinking is just fine. If everyone thought like me, this would be a pretty good world.”

    A critical thinker says:

“My thinking, as that of everyone else, can always be improved. Self-deception and folly exist at every level of human life. It is foolish ever to take thinking for granted. To think well, we must regularly analyze, assess, and reconstruct thinking — ever mindful as to how we can improve it.”

Part Two: A Substantive Concept of Critical Thinking Reveals Common Denominators in all Academic Work

Substantive Critical Thinking Can be Cultivated in Every Academic Setting

By focusing on the rational capacities of students’ minds, by designing instruction so students explicitly grasp the sense, the logicalness, of what they learn, we can make all learning easier for them. Substantive learning multiplies comprehension and insight; lower order rote memorization multiplies misunderstanding and confusion. Though very little present instruction deliberately aims at lower order learning, most results in it. “Good” students have developed techniques for short term rote memorization; “poor” students have none. But few know what it is to think analytically through the content of a subject; few use critical thinking as a tool for acquiring knowledge.(see Nosich)

We often talk of knowledge as though it could be divorced from thinking, as though it could be gathered up by one person and given to another in the form of a collection of sentences to remember. When we talk in this way we forget that knowledge, by its very nature, depends on thought. Knowledge is produced by thought, analyzed by thought, comprehended by thought, organized, evaluated, maintained, and transformed by thought. Knowledge exists, properly speaking, only in minds that have comprehended it and constructed it through thought. And when we say thought we mean critical thought. Knowledge must be distinguished from the memorization of true statements. Students can easily blindly memorize what they do not understand. A book contains knowledge only in a derivative sense, only because minds can thoughtfully read it and, through this analytic process, gain knowledge. We forget this when we design instruction as though recall were equivalent to knowledge.

Every discipline — mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, geography, sociology, anthropology, history, philosophy, and so on — is a mode of thinking. Every discipline can be understood only through thinking. We know mathematics, not when we can recite mathematical formulas, but when we can think mathematically. We know science, not when we can recall sentences from our science textbooks, but when we can think scientifically. We understand sociology only when we can think sociologically, history only when we can think historically, and philosophy only when we can think philosophically. When we teach so that students are not thinking their way through subjects and disciplines, students leave our courses with no more knowledge than they had when they entered them. When we sacrifice thought to gain coverage, we sacrifice knowledge at the same time.

In the typical history class, for example, students are often asked to remember facts about the past. They therefore come to think of history class as a place where you hear names and dates and places; where you try to memorize and state them on tests. They think that when they can successfully do this, they then “know history.”

Alternatively, consider history taught as a mode of thought. Viewed from the paradigm of a critical education, blindly memorized content ceases to be the focal point. Learning to think historically becomes the order of the day. Students learn historical content by thinking historically about historical questions and problems. They learn through their own thinking and classroom discussion that history is not a simple recounting of past events, but also an interpretation of events selected by and written from someone’s point of view. In recognizing that each historian writes from a point of view, students begin to identify and assess points of view leading to various historical interpretations. They recognize, for example, what it is to interpret the American Revolution from a British as well as a colonial perspective. They role-play different historical perspectives and master content through in-depth historical thought. They relate the present to the past. They discuss how their own stored-up interpretations of their own lives’ events shaped their responses to the present and their plans for the future. They come to understand the daily news as a form of historical thought shaped by the profit-making motivations of news collecting agencies. They learn that historical accounts may be distorted, biased, narrow, misleading.

Every Area or Domain of Thought Must Be Thought-Through to Be Learned

The mind that thinks critically is a mind prepared to take ownership of new ideas and modes of thinking. Critical thinking is a system-opening system. It works its way into a system of thought by thinking-through:

• the purpose or goal of the system
• the kinds of questions it answers (or problems it solves)
• the manner in which it collects data and information
• the kinds of inferences it enables
• the key concepts it generates
• the underlying assumptions it rests upon
• the implications embedded in it
• the point of view or way of seeing things it makes possible.

It assesses the system for clarity, accuracy, precision, relevance, depth, breadth, logic, significance, and (where applicable) fairness. There is no system no subject it cannot open.

There is a Necessary Connection Between Critical Thinking and Learning

The skills in up-grading thinking are the same skills as those required in up-grading learning. The art of thinking well illuminates the art of learning well. The art of learning well illuminates the art of thinking well. Both require intellectually skilled metacognition. For example, to be a skilled thinker in the learning process requires that we regularly note the elements of our thinking/learning:

• What is my purpose?
• What question am I trying to answer?
• What data or information do I need?
• What conclusions or inferences can I make (based on this information)?
• If I come to these conclusions, what will the implications and consequences be?
• What is the key concept (theory, principle, axiom) I am working with?
• What assumptions am I making?
• What is my point of view?

There is a Necessary Connection Between Critical Thinking and Skilled Reading and Writing

The reflective mind improves its thinking by reflectively thinking about it. Likewise, it improves its reading by reflectively thinking about how it is reading. It improves its writing by analyzing and assessing each draft it creates. It moves back and forth between thinking and thinking about thinking. It moves forward a bit, then loops back upon itself to check its own operations. It checks its inferences. It makes good its ground. It rises above itself and exercises oversight on itself.

One of the most important abilities that a thinker can have is the ability to monitor and assess his or her own thinking while processing the thinking of others. In reading, the reflective mind monitors how it is reading while it is reading. The foundation for this ability is knowledge of how the mind functions when reading well. For example, if I know that what I am reading is difficult for me to understand, I intentionally slow down. I put the meaning of each passage that I read into my own words. Knowing that one can understand ideas best when they are exemplified, then, when writing, I give my readers examples of what I am saying. As a reader, I look for examples to better understand what a text is saying. Learning how to read closely and write substantively are complex critical thinking abilities. When I can read closely, I can take ownership of important ideas in a text. When I can write substantively, I am able to say something worth saying about something worth saying something about. Many students today cannot.

Critical Thinking: What It Is and Why It Matters

Defining critical thinking dispositions and why they’re crucial..

Posted September 23, 2024 | Reviewed by Devon Frye

• Another way to think about and measure critical thinking is to include aspects of motivational dispositions.
• Dispositions include open-mindedness and a willingness to be reflective when evaluating information.
• People scoring low in critical thinking dispositions tend to “keep it simple” when something is complex.
• Critical thinking dispositions help individuals avoid oversimplification and can facilitate awareness of bias.

Critical thinking springs from the notion of reflective thought proposed by Dewey (1933), who borrowed from the work of philosophers such as William James and Charles Peirce. Reflective thought was defined as the process of suspending judgment, remaining open-minded, maintaining a healthy skepticism, and taking responsibility for one’s own development (Gerber et al., 2005; Stoyanov & Kirshner, 2007).

Kurland (1995) suggested, “Critical thinking is concerned with reason, intellectual honesty, and open-mindedness, as opposed to emotionalism, intellectual laziness, and closed-mindedness. Thus, critical thinking involves… considering all possibilities… being precise; considering a variety of possible viewpoints and explanations; weighing the effects of motives and biases; being concerned more with finding the truth than with being right…being aware of one’s own prejudices and biases” (p. 3). Thus, being able to perspective-take and becoming conscious of one’s own biases are potential benefits of critical thinking capacities.

Reviews of the critical thinking literature (e.g., Bensley, 2023) suggest that the assessment of this construct ought to include aspects of motivational dispositions. Numerous frameworks of critical thinking dispositions have been proposed (e.g., Bensley, 2018; Butler & Halpern, 2019; Dwyer, 2017); some commonly identified dispositions are open-mindedness, intellectual engagement, and a proclivity to take a reflective stance or approach to evaluating information and the views and beliefs of both oneself and others. Demir (2022) posited that critical thinking dispositions reflect persons’ attitudes toward and routine ways of responding to new information and diverging ideas, willingness to engage in nuanced and complex rather than either/or reductionistic thinking, and perseverance in attempts to understand and resolve complex problems.

Other examples of dispositions are inquisitiveness, open-mindedness, tolerance for ambiguity, thinking about thinking, honesty in assessing or evaluating biases, and willingness to reconsider one’s own views and ways of doing things (Facione et al., 2001). Individual personality attributes associated with these proclivities include a need for cognition (a desire for intellectual stimulation), which is positively associated with critical thinking, and the need for closure (a motivated cognitive style in which individuals prefer predictability, firm answers, and rapid decision making ) and anti-intellectualism (a resentment of “the life of the mind” and those who represent it), both negatively associated with critical thinking.

Further, an ideological component that can impede critical thinking is dogmatism . In addition, rigid, dichotomous thinking impedes critical thinking in that it oversimplifies the complexity of social life in a pluralistic society (Bensley, 2023; Cheung et al., 2002; Halpern & Dunn, 2021) and tries to reduce complicated phenomena and resolve complex problems via “either/or” formulations and simplistic solutions.

In other words, folks with low critical thinking dispositions would tend to “keep it simple” when something is really quite complicated, and think it absolute terms and categories rather than seeing “the gray” in between the black and white extremes.

In sum, critical thinking dispositions are vitally important because they may help individuals avoid oversimplifying reality; they also permit perspective-taking and can facilitate their awareness of diversity and systematic biases, such as racial or gender bias . Some research has indicated that critical thinking dispositions uniquely contribute to academic performance beyond general cognition (Ren et al., 2020), and may help to reduce unsubstantiated claims and conspiracy beliefs (Bensley, 2023; Lantian et al., 2021).

But before we can study the potential impact of critical thinking dispositions, it is necessary to have a reliable, valid, and hopefully brief measure for this construct. I will discuss the development and validation of a measure of critical thinking dispositions in another post.

Bensley, D.A. ( 2023.) Critical thinking, intelligence, and unsubstantiated beliefs: An integrative review. Journal of Intelligence, 1 , 207. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence11110207

Bensley, D.A. (2018). Critical thinking in psychology and everyday life: A guide to effective thinking . New York: Worth Publishers.

Butler, H.A., & Halpern, D.F. (2019). Is critical thinking a better model of intelligence? In Robert J. Sternberg (Ed.) The Nature of Intelligence (pp. 183–96). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cheung, C.-K, Rudowicz. E., Kwan, A., & Yue, X.. (2002). Assessing university students’ general and specific criticalthinking. College Student Journal, 36 , 504 – 25.

Demir, E. (2022). An examination of high school students’ critical thinking dispositions and analytical thinking skills. Journal of Pedagogical Research, 6 , 190–200. https://doi.org/10.33902/JPR.202217357

Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process . Lexington: Heath and Company.

Dwyer, C. P. (2017). Critical thinking: Conceptual perspectives and practical guidelines . Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Facione, P., Facione, N,C,, & Giancarlo, C.A.F. (2001(. California Critical Disposition Inventory . Millbrae: California Academic Press.

Gerber, S., Scott, L., Clements, D.H., & Sarama, J. (2005). Instructor influence on reasoned argument in discussion boards. Educational Technology, Research & Development, 53 , 25–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504864

Halpern, D. F., & Dunn, D.S. (2021). Critical thinking: A model of intelligence for solving real-world problems. Journal of Intelligence, 9 , 22. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence9020022

Kurland, D. (1995). I know what it says… What does it mean? Critical skills for critical reading . Belmont: Wadsworth.

Lantian, A., Bagneux, V., Delouvee, S., & Gauvrit, N. (2021). Maybe a free thinker but not a critical one: High conspiracybelief is associated with low critical thinking ability. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 35 , 674 – 84. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3790

Ren, X., Tong, Y., Peng, P. & Wang, T. (2020). Critical thinking predicts academic performance beyond general cognitiveability: Evidence from adults and children. Intelligence, 82 , 101487. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2020.101487

Stoyanov, S., & Kirschner, P. ( 2007). Effect of problem solving support and cognitive styles on idea generation:Implications for technology-enhanced learning. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 40 , 49–63. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2007.10782496

Kyle D. Killian, Ph.D., LMFT is the author of Interracial Couples, Intimacy and Therapy: Crossing Racial Borders.

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

It’s increasingly common for someone to be diagnosed with a condition such as ADHD or autism as an adult. A diagnosis often brings relief, but it can also come with as many questions as answers.

• Emotional Intelligence
• Gaslighting
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

The Best Interview Questions for Assessing Critical Thinking

Employers seek individuals who can analyze complex problems, make informed decisions, and navigate challenges with creativity and logic. Assessing a candidate's critical thinking abilities during the interview process is crucial to ensure they can contribute effectively to your organization's success. This article provides a comprehensive guide to the best interview questions for evaluating critical thinking, what to look for in candidate responses, and tips for effectively assessing this vital skill during hiring.

Critical Thinking Interview Questions

• Can you describe a challenging problem you faced at work and how you approached solving it?
• Tell me about a time when you had to analyze information from multiple sources to make a decision.
• How do you prioritize tasks when you have multiple deadlines to meet?
• Give an example of a situation where you identified a significant error or inefficiency in a process. What did you do about it?
• Describe a time when you had to think outside the box to achieve a goal.
• How do you handle situations where you don't have all the information you need to make a decision?
• Can you provide an example of how you evaluated the pros and cons of different solutions to a problem?
• Tell me about a time when you had to change your approach to a project based on new information or feedback.
• How do you ensure that your decisions are objective and free from personal bias?
• Describe a scenario where you had to persuade others to adopt your viewpoint or solution.

What to Look for in Answers

Problem-Solving Approach : Look for a clear, logical process the candidate used to address the issue. They should demonstrate methodical thinking and the ability to break down complex problems into manageable parts.

Analytical Skills : Candidates should show they can assess information critically, identify key factors, and evaluate different aspects before reaching a conclusion.

Creativity and Innovation : Effective critical thinkers often think outside the box. Look for examples where candidates proposed unique or unconventional solutions.

Decision-Making Ability : Assess how candidates weigh options, consider consequences, and make informed decisions based on available data.

Adaptability : Candidates should demonstrate flexibility in their thinking and the ability to adjust their strategies when faced with new information or changing circumstances.

Communication Skills : Strong critical thinkers can articulate their thought processes clearly and persuasively, making it easy for others to understand their reasoning.

Evidence of Bias Awareness : Look for indications that candidates are aware of their own biases and take steps to ensure their decisions are objective and fair.

Tips for Evaluating Critical Thinking During the Hiring Process

Use Behavioral Questions Behavioral interview questions, which ask candidates to describe past experiences, are effective for uncovering how they've demonstrated critical thinking in real situations. These questions encourage candidates to provide concrete examples that reveal their problem-solving and analytical skills.

Assess Problem-Solving Skills Incorporate problem-solving scenarios or case studies into the interview process. Observe how candidates approach these challenges, the methods they use to analyze information, and the solutions they propose. This hands-on approach provides valuable insights into their critical thinking abilities.

Listen for Logical Reasoning Pay attention to how candidates structure their responses. Effective critical thinkers present their ideas in a logical, coherent manner, showing clear connections between their thoughts and actions. Look for a step-by-step reasoning process in their answers.

Evaluate Their Ability to Reflect Candidates who engage in self-reflection demonstrate a high level of critical thinking. They can assess their own performance, recognize mistakes, and learn from their experiences. Ask follow-up questions to gauge their level of self-awareness and willingness to grow.

Look for Curiosity and Inquisitiveness Individuals with strong critical thinking skills often display a natural curiosity and a desire to understand how things work. Assess their willingness to ask questions, seek out information, and explore different perspectives during the interview.

Involve Multiple Interviewers Having several interviewers assess a candidate can provide a more balanced evaluation of their critical thinking skills. Different perspectives can help identify strengths and weaknesses that a single interviewer might miss.

Provide Time for Thoughtful Responses Allow candidates time to think through their answers rather than expecting immediate responses. This approach encourages more thoughtful, well-considered answers that better showcase their critical thinking capabilities.

Assessing critical thinking during the interview process is essential for identifying candidates who can navigate complex challenges, make informed decisions, and drive your organization forward. By incorporating thoughtfully crafted interview questions, understanding what to look for in responses, and applying effective evaluation techniques, you can accurately gauge a candidate's critical thinking abilities. Investing time in this aspect of the hiring process ensures you select individuals who not only fit the role but also contribute to a culture of innovation and excellence within your team.

Other resources