how is critical thinking related to writing

Writing to Think: Critical Thinking and the Writing Process

“Writing is thinking on paper.” (Zinsser, 1976, p. vii)

Google the term “critical thinking.” How many hits are there? On the day this tutorial was completed, Google found about 65,100,000 results in 0.56 seconds. That’s an impressive number, and it grows more impressively large every day. That’s because the nation’s educators, business leaders, and political representatives worry about the level of critical thinking skills among today’s students and workers.

What is Critical Thinking?

Simply put, critical thinking is sound thinking. Critical thinkers work to delve beneath the surface of sweeping generalizations, biases, clichés, and other quick observations that characterize ineffective thinking. They are willing to consider points of view different from their own, seek and study evidence and examples, root out sloppy and illogical argument, discern fact from opinion, embrace reason over emotion or preference, and change their minds when confronted with compelling reasons to do so. In sum, critical thinkers are flexible thinkers equipped to become active and effective spouses, parents, friends, consumers, employees, citizens, and leaders. Every area of life, in other words, can be positively affected by strong critical thinking.

Released in January 2011, an important study of college students over four years concluded that by graduation “large numbers [of American undergraduates] didn’t learn the critical thinking, complex reasoning and written communication skills that are widely assumed to be at the core of a college education” (Rimer, 2011, para. 1). The University designs curriculum, creates support programs, and hires faculty to help ensure you won’t be one of the students “[showing]no significant gains in . . . ‘higher order’ thinking skills” (Rimer, 2011, para. 4). One way the University works to help you build those skills is through writing projects.

Writing and Critical Thinking

Say the word “writing” and most people think of a completed publication. But say the word “writing” to writers, and they will likely think of the process of composing. Most writers would agree with novelist E. M. Forster, who wrote, “How can I know what I think until I see what I say?” (Forster, 1927, p. 99). Experienced writers know that the act of writing stimulates thinking.

Inexperienced and experienced writers have very different understandings of composition. Novice writers often make the mistake of believing they have to know what they’re going to write before they can begin writing. They often compose a thesis statement before asking questions or conducting research. In the course of their reading, they might even disregard material that counters their pre-formed ideas. This is not writing; it is recording.

In contrast, experienced writers begin with questions and work to discover many different answers before settling on those that are most convincing. They know that the act of putting words on paper or a computer screen helps them invent thought and content. Rather than trying to express what they already think, they express what the act of writing leads them to think as they put down words. More often than not, in other words, experienced writers write their way into ideas, which they then develop, revise, and refine as they go.

What has this notion of writing to do with critical thinking? Everything.

Consider the steps of the writing process: prewriting, outlining, drafting, revising, editing, seeking feedback, and publishing. These steps are not followed in a determined or strict order; instead, the effective writer knows that as they write, it may be necessary to return to an earlier step. In other words, in the process of revision, a writer may realize that the order of ideas is unclear. A new outline may help that writer re-order details. As they write, the writer considers and reconsiders the effectiveness of the work.

The writing process, then, is not just a mirror image of the thinking process: it is the thinking process. Confronted with a topic, an effective critical thinker/writer

asks questions
seeks answers
evaluates evidence
questions assumptions
tests hypotheses
makes inferences
employs logic
draws conclusions
predicts readers’ responses
creates order
drafts content
seeks others’ responses
weighs feedback
criticizes their own work
revises content and structure
seeks clarity and coherence

Example of Composition as Critical Thinking

“Good writing is fueled by unanswerable questions” (Lane, 1993, p. 15).

Imagine that you have been asked to write about a hero or heroine from history. You must explain what challenges that individual faced and how they conquered them. Now imagine that you decide to write about Rosa Parks and her role in the modern Civil Rights movement. Take a moment and survey what you already know. She refused to get up out of her seat on a bus so a White man could sit in it. She was arrested. As a result, Blacks in Montgomery protested, influencing the Montgomery Bus Boycott. Martin Luther King, Jr. took up leadership of the cause, and ultimately a movement was born.

Is that really all there is to Rosa Parks’s story? What questions might a thoughtful writer ask? Here a few:

Why did Rosa Parks refuse to get up on that particular day?
Was hers a spontaneous or planned act of defiance?
Did she work? Where? Doing what?
Had any other Black person refused to get up for a White person?
What happened to that individual or those individuals?
Why hadn’t that person or those persons received the publicity Parks did?
Was Parks active in Civil Rights before that day?
How did she learn about civil disobedience?

Even just these few questions could lead to potentially rich information.

Factual information would not be enough, however, to satisfy an assignment that asks for an interpretation of that information. The writer’s job for the assignment is to convince the reader that Parks was a heroine; in this way the writer must make an argument and support it. The writer must establish standards of heroic behavior. More questions arise:

What is heroic action?
What are the characteristics of someone who is heroic?
What do heroes value and believe?
What are the consequences of a hero’s actions?
Why do they matter?

Now the writer has even more research and more thinking to do.

By the time they have raised questions and answered them, raised more questions and answered them, and so on, they are ready to begin writing. But even then, new ideas will arise in the course of planning and drafting, inevitably leading the writer to more research and thought, to more composition and refinement.

Ultimately, every step of the way over the course of composing a project, the writer is engaged in critical thinking because the effective writer examines the work as they develop it.

Why Writing to Think Matters

Writing practice builds critical thinking, which empowers people to “take charge of [their] own minds” so they “can take charge of [their] own lives . . . and improve them, bringing them under [their] self command and direction” (Foundation for Critical Thinking, 2020, para. 12). Writing is a way of coming to know and understand the self and the changing world, enabling individuals to make decisions that benefit themselves, others, and society at large. Your knowledge alone – of law, medicine, business, or education, for example – will not be enough to meet future challenges. You will be tested by new unexpected circumstances, and when they arise, the open-mindedness, flexibility, reasoning, discipline, and discernment you have learned through writing practice will help you meet those challenges successfully.

Forster, E.M. (1927). Aspects of the novel . Harcourt, Brace & Company.

The Foundation for Critical Thinking. (2020, June 17). Our concept and definition of critical thinking . https://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/our-concept-of-critical-thinking/411

Lane, B. (1993). After the end: Teaching and learning creative revision . Heinemann.

Rimer, S. (2011, January 18). Study: Many college students not learning to think critically . The Hechinger Report. https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article24608056.html

Zinsser, W. (1976). On writing well: The classic guide to writing nonfiction . HarperCollins.

Follow Blog via Email

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive email notifications of new posts.

Email Address

RSS - Posts
RSS - Comments
COLLEGE WRITING
USING SOURCES & APA STYLE
EFFECTIVE WRITING PODCASTS
LEARNING FOR SUCCESS
PLAGIARISM INFORMATION
FACULTY RESOURCES
Student Webinar Calendar
Academic Success Center
Writing Center
About the ASC Tutors
DIVERSITY TRAINING
PG Peer Tutors
PG Student Access

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

College Writing
Using Sources & APA Style
Learning for Success
Effective Writing Podcasts
Plagiarism Information
Faculty Resources
Tutor Training

Twitter feed

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

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

What Is Critical Thinking? | Definition & Examples

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

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

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

Critical thinking skills help you to:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scribbr Citation Checker New

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

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

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

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

Academic examples

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

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

Nonacademic examples

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

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

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

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

When encountering information, ask:

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

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

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

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

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

Plagiarism

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

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

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

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

Critical thinking skills include the ability to:

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

Ask questions such as:

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

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

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

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

Being information literate means that you:

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

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

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

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

Cite this Scribbr article

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

Ryan, E. (2023, May 31). What Is Critical Thinking? | Definition & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved April 2, 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, "i thought ai proofreading was useless but..".

I've been using Scribbr for years now and I know it's a service that won't disappoint. It does a good job spotting mistakes”

The Science of Writing

research-based best practices for writing instruction

The relationship between writing and critical thinking

Writing and critical thinking are two vital skills that are closely related and complement each other. Writing can be considered as a tool that enables one to express their ideas and thoughts, while critical thinking is a mental process that allows one to analyze, evaluate, and interpret information.

Writing and critical thinking are inseparable as one’s writing is a reflection of their thinking process. When we write, we have to organize our thoughts, select relevant information, and convey our ideas in a clear and concise manner. This process requires us to think critically about the topic, analyze the information, and identify the most important points.

Moreover, writing is not only a means of expressing our thoughts but also a way of developing our critical thinking skills. When we write, we have to consider our audience, the purpose of our writing, and the type of writing we are producing. This requires us to think critically about the context and purpose of our writing, which in turn helps us to develop our critical thinking skills.

Writing can help us to identify our own biases and assumptions. When we write, we are forced to confront our own beliefs and opinions, which can lead us to question our own assumptions and biases. This process can help us to develop a more objective and critical perspective, which is an essential component of critical thinking.

In addition to this, writing can also help us to identify gaps in our knowledge and understanding. When we write about a topic, we may realize that we do not have enough information or that our understanding of the topic is incomplete. This can motivate us to do further research, which can help us to develop a deeper and more comprehensive understanding of the topic.

Encouraging critical thinking in students through writing can be an effective way to help them develop their analytical and problem-solving skills. One way to do this is to provide them with writing prompts or assignments that require them to analyze and evaluate information, make connections between different ideas, and draw conclusions based on evidence.

Another approach is to provide feedback on their writing that encourages them to think critically about their arguments, identify weaknesses, and consider alternative perspectives. By emphasizing the importance of critical thinking in writing, teachers can help their students develop a more sophisticated understanding of the world around them and become more effective communicators and problem-solvers.

Pressto’s writing platform can help your students become critical thinkers through writing. Learn more at joinpressto.com

Beyond Words: Unleashing the Power of Multimodality in Writing

In the digital age, writing has transcended the confines of pen and paper, embracing a multitude of communication modes. Multimodality in writing refers to the seamless integration of various media, such as images, audio, video, and interactive elements, to enhance meaning and engage audiences in new and exciting ways. In this blog post, we embark…

Unlocking the Mystery of AI Literacy: A Guide to Understanding AI

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is rapidly becoming a fundamental part of our daily lives, and its impact is only going to grow in the future. You know how you’re always using AI without even realizing it? Like when you ask Siri to play a song or when Instagram suggests posts for you? Well, it’s time to…

How to Embrace Cultural Differences While Teaching Writing

Culture can have a significant impact on writing styles. Writing is a form of communication, and cultural background can shape how we express ourselves and the kind of language we use to communicate. Different cultures may have different preferences for writing styles, such as formal or informal language, and this can influence how a writer…

What’s Next for the Science of Reading: Focus on the Science of Writing

A Look at Reading-Writing Connections There’s an undeniable urgency behind the task of teaching students to read. Such a fundamental — and yet complex — skill that often acts as a gatekeeper to success throughout a lifetime leaves educators with little room for anything but effective, proven, research-based instruction. As schools now face pandemic-induced learning loss and exacerbated…

Understanding the Complex Relationship between Critical Thinking and Science Reasoning among Undergraduate Thesis Writers

Jason e. dowd.

† Department of Biology, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708

Robert J. Thompson, Jr.

‡ Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708

Leslie A. Schiff

§ Department of Microbiology and Immunology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455

Julie A. Reynolds

Associated data.

This study empirically examines the relationship between students’ critical-thinking skills and scientific reasoning as reflected in undergraduate thesis writing in biology. Writing offers a unique window into studying this relationship, and the findings raise potential implications for instruction.

Developing critical-thinking and scientific reasoning skills are core learning objectives of science education, but little empirical evidence exists regarding the interrelationships between these constructs. Writing effectively fosters students’ development of these constructs, and it offers a unique window into studying how they relate. In this study of undergraduate thesis writing in biology at two universities, we examine how scientific reasoning exhibited in writing (assessed using the Biology Thesis Assessment Protocol) relates to general and specific critical-thinking skills (assessed using the California Critical Thinking Skills Test), and we consider implications for instruction. We find that scientific reasoning in writing is strongly related to inference , while other aspects of science reasoning that emerge in writing (epistemological considerations, writing conventions, etc.) are not significantly related to critical-thinking skills. Science reasoning in writing is not merely a proxy for critical thinking. In linking features of students’ writing to their critical-thinking skills, this study 1) provides a bridge to prior work suggesting that engagement in science writing enhances critical thinking and 2) serves as a foundational step for subsequently determining whether instruction focused explicitly on developing critical-thinking skills (particularly inference ) can actually improve students’ scientific reasoning in their writing.

INTRODUCTION

Critical-thinking and scientific reasoning skills are core learning objectives of science education for all students, regardless of whether or not they intend to pursue a career in science or engineering. Consistent with the view of learning as construction of understanding and meaning ( National Research Council, 2000 ), the pedagogical practice of writing has been found to be effective not only in fostering the development of students’ conceptual and procedural knowledge ( Gerdeman et al. , 2007 ) and communication skills ( Clase et al. , 2010 ), but also scientific reasoning ( Reynolds et al. , 2012 ) and critical-thinking skills ( Quitadamo and Kurtz, 2007 ).

Critical thinking and scientific reasoning are similar but different constructs that include various types of higher-order cognitive processes, metacognitive strategies, and dispositions involved in making meaning of information. Critical thinking is generally understood as the broader construct ( Holyoak and Morrison, 2005 ), comprising an array of cognitive processes and dispostions that are drawn upon differentially in everyday life and across domains of inquiry such as the natural sciences, social sciences, and humanities. Scientific reasoning, then, may be interpreted as the subset of critical-thinking skills (cognitive and metacognitive processes and dispositions) that 1) are involved in making meaning of information in scientific domains and 2) support the epistemological commitment to scientific methodology and paradigm(s).

Although there has been an enduring focus in higher education on promoting critical thinking and reasoning as general or “transferable” skills, research evidence provides increasing support for the view that reasoning and critical thinking are also situational or domain specific ( Beyer et al. , 2013 ). Some researchers, such as Lawson (2010) , present frameworks in which science reasoning is characterized explicitly in terms of critical-thinking skills. There are, however, limited coherent frameworks and empirical evidence regarding either the general or domain-specific interrelationships of scientific reasoning, as it is most broadly defined, and critical-thinking skills.

The Vision and Change in Undergraduate Biology Education Initiative provides a framework for thinking about these constructs and their interrelationship in the context of the core competencies and disciplinary practice they describe ( American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2011 ). These learning objectives aim for undergraduates to “understand the process of science, the interdisciplinary nature of the new biology and how science is closely integrated within society; be competent in communication and collaboration; have quantitative competency and a basic ability to interpret data; and have some experience with modeling, simulation and computational and systems level approaches as well as with using large databases” ( Woodin et al. , 2010 , pp. 71–72). This framework makes clear that science reasoning and critical-thinking skills play key roles in major learning outcomes; for example, “understanding the process of science” requires students to engage in (and be metacognitive about) scientific reasoning, and having the “ability to interpret data” requires critical-thinking skills. To help students better achieve these core competencies, we must better understand the interrelationships of their composite parts. Thus, the next step is to determine which specific critical-thinking skills are drawn upon when students engage in science reasoning in general and with regard to the particular scientific domain being studied. Such a determination could be applied to improve science education for both majors and nonmajors through pedagogical approaches that foster critical-thinking skills that are most relevant to science reasoning.

Writing affords one of the most effective means for making thinking visible ( Reynolds et al. , 2012 ) and learning how to “think like” and “write like” disciplinary experts ( Meizlish et al. , 2013 ). As a result, student writing affords the opportunities to both foster and examine the interrelationship of scientific reasoning and critical-thinking skills within and across disciplinary contexts. The purpose of this study was to better understand the relationship between students’ critical-thinking skills and scientific reasoning skills as reflected in the genre of undergraduate thesis writing in biology departments at two research universities, the University of Minnesota and Duke University.

In the following subsections, we discuss in greater detail the constructs of scientific reasoning and critical thinking, as well as the assessment of scientific reasoning in students’ thesis writing. In subsequent sections, we discuss our study design, findings, and the implications for enhancing educational practices.

Critical Thinking

The advances in cognitive science in the 21st century have increased our understanding of the mental processes involved in thinking and reasoning, as well as memory, learning, and problem solving. Critical thinking is understood to include both a cognitive dimension and a disposition dimension (e.g., reflective thinking) and is defined as “purposeful, self-regulatory judgment which results in interpretation, analysis, evaluation, and inference, as well as explanation of the evidential, conceptual, methodological, criteriological, or contextual considerations upon which that judgment is based” ( Facione, 1990, p. 3 ). Although various other definitions of critical thinking have been proposed, researchers have generally coalesced on this consensus: expert view ( Blattner and Frazier, 2002 ; Condon and Kelly-Riley, 2004 ; Bissell and Lemons, 2006 ; Quitadamo and Kurtz, 2007 ) and the corresponding measures of critical-thinking skills ( August, 2016 ; Stephenson and Sadler-McKnight, 2016 ).

Both the cognitive skills and dispositional components of critical thinking have been recognized as important to science education ( Quitadamo and Kurtz, 2007 ). Empirical research demonstrates that specific pedagogical practices in science courses are effective in fostering students’ critical-thinking skills. Quitadamo and Kurtz (2007) found that students who engaged in a laboratory writing component in the context of a general education biology course significantly improved their overall critical-thinking skills (and their analytical and inference skills, in particular), whereas students engaged in a traditional quiz-based laboratory did not improve their critical-thinking skills. In related work, Quitadamo et al. (2008) found that a community-based inquiry experience, involving inquiry, writing, research, and analysis, was associated with improved critical thinking in a biology course for nonmajors, compared with traditionally taught sections. In both studies, students who exhibited stronger presemester critical-thinking skills exhibited stronger gains, suggesting that “students who have not been explicitly taught how to think critically may not reach the same potential as peers who have been taught these skills” ( Quitadamo and Kurtz, 2007 , p. 151).

Recently, Stephenson and Sadler-McKnight (2016) found that first-year general chemistry students who engaged in a science writing heuristic laboratory, which is an inquiry-based, writing-to-learn approach to instruction ( Hand and Keys, 1999 ), had significantly greater gains in total critical-thinking scores than students who received traditional laboratory instruction. Each of the four components—inquiry, writing, collaboration, and reflection—have been linked to critical thinking ( Stephenson and Sadler-McKnight, 2016 ). Like the other studies, this work highlights the value of targeting critical-thinking skills and the effectiveness of an inquiry-based, writing-to-learn approach to enhance critical thinking. Across studies, authors advocate adopting critical thinking as the course framework ( Pukkila, 2004 ) and developing explicit examples of how critical thinking relates to the scientific method ( Miri et al. , 2007 ).

In these examples, the important connection between writing and critical thinking is highlighted by the fact that each intervention involves the incorporation of writing into science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education (either alone or in combination with other pedagogical practices). However, critical-thinking skills are not always the primary learning outcome; in some contexts, scientific reasoning is the primary outcome that is assessed.

Scientific Reasoning

Scientific reasoning is a complex process that is broadly defined as “the skills involved in inquiry, experimentation, evidence evaluation, and inference that are done in the service of conceptual change or scientific understanding” ( Zimmerman, 2007 , p. 172). Scientific reasoning is understood to include both conceptual knowledge and the cognitive processes involved with generation of hypotheses (i.e., inductive processes involved in the generation of hypotheses and the deductive processes used in the testing of hypotheses), experimentation strategies, and evidence evaluation strategies. These dimensions are interrelated, in that “experimentation and inference strategies are selected based on prior conceptual knowledge of the domain” ( Zimmerman, 2000 , p. 139). Furthermore, conceptual and procedural knowledge and cognitive process dimensions can be general and domain specific (or discipline specific).

With regard to conceptual knowledge, attention has been focused on the acquisition of core methodological concepts fundamental to scientists’ causal reasoning and metacognitive distancing (or decontextualized thinking), which is the ability to reason independently of prior knowledge or beliefs ( Greenhoot et al. , 2004 ). The latter involves what Kuhn and Dean (2004) refer to as the coordination of theory and evidence, which requires that one question existing theories (i.e., prior knowledge and beliefs), seek contradictory evidence, eliminate alternative explanations, and revise one’s prior beliefs in the face of contradictory evidence. Kuhn and colleagues (2008) further elaborate that scientific thinking requires “a mature understanding of the epistemological foundations of science, recognizing scientific knowledge as constructed by humans rather than simply discovered in the world,” and “the ability to engage in skilled argumentation in the scientific domain, with an appreciation of argumentation as entailing the coordination of theory and evidence” ( Kuhn et al. , 2008 , p. 435). “This approach to scientific reasoning not only highlights the skills of generating and evaluating evidence-based inferences, but also encompasses epistemological appreciation of the functions of evidence and theory” ( Ding et al. , 2016 , p. 616). Evaluating evidence-based inferences involves epistemic cognition, which Moshman (2015) defines as the subset of metacognition that is concerned with justification, truth, and associated forms of reasoning. Epistemic cognition is both general and domain specific (or discipline specific; Moshman, 2015 ).

There is empirical support for the contributions of both prior knowledge and an understanding of the epistemological foundations of science to scientific reasoning. In a study of undergraduate science students, advanced scientific reasoning was most often accompanied by accurate prior knowledge as well as sophisticated epistemological commitments; additionally, for students who had comparable levels of prior knowledge, skillful reasoning was associated with a strong epistemological commitment to the consistency of theory with evidence ( Zeineddin and Abd-El-Khalick, 2010 ). These findings highlight the importance of the need for instructional activities that intentionally help learners develop sophisticated epistemological commitments focused on the nature of knowledge and the role of evidence in supporting knowledge claims ( Zeineddin and Abd-El-Khalick, 2010 ).

Scientific Reasoning in Students’ Thesis Writing

Pedagogical approaches that incorporate writing have also focused on enhancing scientific reasoning. Many rubrics have been developed to assess aspects of scientific reasoning in written artifacts. For example, Timmerman and colleagues (2011) , in the course of describing their own rubric for assessing scientific reasoning, highlight several examples of scientific reasoning assessment criteria ( Haaga, 1993 ; Tariq et al. , 1998 ; Topping et al. , 2000 ; Kelly and Takao, 2002 ; Halonen et al. , 2003 ; Willison and O’Regan, 2007 ).

At both the University of Minnesota and Duke University, we have focused on the genre of the undergraduate honors thesis as the rhetorical context in which to study and improve students’ scientific reasoning and writing. We view the process of writing an undergraduate honors thesis as a form of professional development in the sciences (i.e., a way of engaging students in the practices of a community of discourse). We have found that structured courses designed to scaffold the thesis-writing process and promote metacognition can improve writing and reasoning skills in biology, chemistry, and economics ( Reynolds and Thompson, 2011 ; Dowd et al. , 2015a , b ). In the context of this prior work, we have defined scientific reasoning in writing as the emergent, underlying construct measured across distinct aspects of students’ written discussion of independent research in their undergraduate theses.

The Biology Thesis Assessment Protocol (BioTAP) was developed at Duke University as a tool for systematically guiding students and faculty through a “draft–feedback–revision” writing process, modeled after professional scientific peer-review processes ( Reynolds et al. , 2009 ). BioTAP includes activities and worksheets that allow students to engage in critical peer review and provides detailed descriptions, presented as rubrics, of the questions (i.e., dimensions, shown in Table 1 ) upon which such review should focus. Nine rubric dimensions focus on communication to the broader scientific community, and four rubric dimensions focus on the accuracy and appropriateness of the research. These rubric dimensions provide criteria by which the thesis is assessed, and therefore allow BioTAP to be used as an assessment tool as well as a teaching resource ( Reynolds et al. , 2009 ). Full details are available at www.science-writing.org/biotap.html .

Theses assessment protocol dimensions

In previous work, we have used BioTAP to quantitatively assess students’ undergraduate honors theses and explore the relationship between thesis-writing courses (or specific interventions within the courses) and the strength of students’ science reasoning in writing across different science disciplines: biology ( Reynolds and Thompson, 2011 ); chemistry ( Dowd et al. , 2015b ); and economics ( Dowd et al. , 2015a ). We have focused exclusively on the nine dimensions related to reasoning and writing (questions 1–9), as the other four dimensions (questions 10–13) require topic-specific expertise and are intended to be used by the student’s thesis supervisor.

Beyond considering individual dimensions, we have investigated whether meaningful constructs underlie students’ thesis scores. We conducted exploratory factor analysis of students’ theses in biology, economics, and chemistry and found one dominant underlying factor in each discipline; we termed the factor “scientific reasoning in writing” ( Dowd et al. , 2015a , b , 2016 ). That is, each of the nine dimensions could be understood as reflecting, in different ways and to different degrees, the construct of scientific reasoning in writing. The findings indicated evidence of both general and discipline-specific components to scientific reasoning in writing that relate to epistemic beliefs and paradigms, in keeping with broader ideas about science reasoning discussed earlier. Specifically, scientific reasoning in writing is more strongly associated with formulating a compelling argument for the significance of the research in the context of current literature in biology, making meaning regarding the implications of the findings in chemistry, and providing an organizational framework for interpreting the thesis in economics. We suggested that instruction, whether occurring in writing studios or in writing courses to facilitate thesis preparation, should attend to both components.

Research Question and Study Design

The genre of thesis writing combines the pedagogies of writing and inquiry found to foster scientific reasoning ( Reynolds et al. , 2012 ) and critical thinking ( Quitadamo and Kurtz, 2007 ; Quitadamo et al. , 2008 ; Stephenson and Sadler-McKnight, 2016 ). However, there is no empirical evidence regarding the general or domain-specific interrelationships of scientific reasoning and critical-thinking skills, particularly in the rhetorical context of the undergraduate thesis. The BioTAP studies discussed earlier indicate that the rubric-based assessment produces evidence of scientific reasoning in the undergraduate thesis, but it was not designed to foster or measure critical thinking. The current study was undertaken to address the research question: How are students’ critical-thinking skills related to scientific reasoning as reflected in the genre of undergraduate thesis writing in biology? Determining these interrelationships could guide efforts to enhance students’ scientific reasoning and writing skills through focusing instruction on specific critical-thinking skills as well as disciplinary conventions.

To address this research question, we focused on undergraduate thesis writers in biology courses at two institutions, Duke University and the University of Minnesota, and examined the extent to which students’ scientific reasoning in writing, assessed in the undergraduate thesis using BioTAP, corresponds to students’ critical-thinking skills, assessed using the California Critical Thinking Skills Test (CCTST; August, 2016 ).

Study Sample

The study sample was composed of students enrolled in courses designed to scaffold the thesis-writing process in the Department of Biology at Duke University and the College of Biological Sciences at the University of Minnesota. Both courses complement students’ individual work with research advisors. The course is required for thesis writers at the University of Minnesota and optional for writers at Duke University. Not all students are required to complete a thesis, though it is required for students to graduate with honors; at the University of Minnesota, such students are enrolled in an honors program within the college. In total, 28 students were enrolled in the course at Duke University and 44 students were enrolled in the course at the University of Minnesota. Of those students, two students did not consent to participate in the study; additionally, five students did not validly complete the CCTST (i.e., attempted fewer than 60% of items or completed the test in less than 15 minutes). Thus, our overall rate of valid participation is 90%, with 27 students from Duke University and 38 students from the University of Minnesota. We found no statistically significant differences in thesis assessment between students with valid CCTST scores and invalid CCTST scores. Therefore, we focus on the 65 students who consented to participate and for whom we have complete and valid data in most of this study. Additionally, in asking students for their consent to participate, we allowed them to choose whether to provide or decline access to academic and demographic background data. Of the 65 students who consented to participate, 52 students granted access to such data. Therefore, for additional analyses involving academic and background data, we focus on the 52 students who consented. We note that the 13 students who participated but declined to share additional data performed slightly lower on the CCTST than the 52 others (perhaps suggesting that they differ by other measures, but we cannot determine this with certainty). Among the 52 students, 60% identified as female and 10% identified as being from underrepresented ethnicities.

In both courses, students completed the CCTST online, either in class or on their own, late in the Spring 2016 semester. This is the same assessment that was used in prior studies of critical thinking ( Quitadamo and Kurtz, 2007 ; Quitadamo et al. , 2008 ; Stephenson and Sadler-McKnight, 2016 ). It is “an objective measure of the core reasoning skills needed for reflective decision making concerning what to believe or what to do” ( Insight Assessment, 2016a ). In the test, students are asked to read and consider information as they answer multiple-choice questions. The questions are intended to be appropriate for all users, so there is no expectation of prior disciplinary knowledge in biology (or any other subject). Although actual test items are protected, sample items are available on the Insight Assessment website ( Insight Assessment, 2016b ). We have included one sample item in the Supplemental Material.

The CCTST is based on a consensus definition of critical thinking, measures cognitive and metacognitive skills associated with critical thinking, and has been evaluated for validity and reliability at the college level ( August, 2016 ; Stephenson and Sadler-McKnight, 2016 ). In addition to providing overall critical-thinking score, the CCTST assesses seven dimensions of critical thinking: analysis, interpretation, inference, evaluation, explanation, induction, and deduction. Scores on each dimension are calculated based on students’ performance on items related to that dimension. Analysis focuses on identifying assumptions, reasons, and claims and examining how they interact to form arguments. Interpretation, related to analysis, focuses on determining the precise meaning and significance of information. Inference focuses on drawing conclusions from reasons and evidence. Evaluation focuses on assessing the credibility of sources of information and claims they make. Explanation, related to evaluation, focuses on describing the evidence, assumptions, or rationale for beliefs and conclusions. Induction focuses on drawing inferences about what is probably true based on evidence. Deduction focuses on drawing conclusions about what must be true when the context completely determines the outcome. These are not independent dimensions; the fact that they are related supports their collective interpretation as critical thinking. Together, the CCTST dimensions provide a basis for evaluating students’ overall strength in using reasoning to form reflective judgments about what to believe or what to do ( August, 2016 ). Each of the seven dimensions and the overall CCTST score are measured on a scale of 0–100, where higher scores indicate superior performance. Scores correspond to superior (86–100), strong (79–85), moderate (70–78), weak (63–69), or not manifested (62 and below) skills.

Scientific Reasoning in Writing

At the end of the semester, students’ final, submitted undergraduate theses were assessed using BioTAP, which consists of nine rubric dimensions that focus on communication to the broader scientific community and four additional dimensions that focus on the exhibition of topic-specific expertise ( Reynolds et al. , 2009 ). These dimensions, framed as questions, are displayed in Table 1 .

Student theses were assessed on questions 1–9 of BioTAP using the same procedures described in previous studies ( Reynolds and Thompson, 2011 ; Dowd et al. , 2015a , b ). In this study, six raters were trained in the valid, reliable use of BioTAP rubrics. Each dimension was rated on a five-point scale: 1 indicates the dimension is missing, incomplete, or below acceptable standards; 3 indicates that the dimension is adequate but not exhibiting mastery; and 5 indicates that the dimension is excellent and exhibits mastery (intermediate ratings of 2 and 4 are appropriate when different parts of the thesis make a single category challenging). After training, two raters independently assessed each thesis and then discussed their independent ratings with one another to form a consensus rating. The consensus score is not an average score, but rather an agreed-upon, discussion-based score. On a five-point scale, raters independently assessed dimensions to be within 1 point of each other 82.4% of the time before discussion and formed consensus ratings 100% of the time after discussion.

In this study, we consider both categorical (mastery/nonmastery, where a score of 5 corresponds to mastery) and numerical treatments of individual BioTAP scores to better relate the manifestation of critical thinking in BioTAP assessment to all of the prior studies. For comprehensive/cumulative measures of BioTAP, we focus on the partial sum of questions 1–5, as these questions relate to higher-order scientific reasoning (whereas questions 6–9 relate to mid- and lower-order writing mechanics [ Reynolds et al. , 2009 ]), and the factor scores (i.e., numerical representations of the extent to which each student exhibits the underlying factor), which are calculated from the factor loadings published by Dowd et al. (2016) . We do not focus on questions 6–9 individually in statistical analyses, because we do not expect critical-thinking skills to relate to mid- and lower-order writing skills.

The final, submitted thesis reflects the student’s writing, the student’s scientific reasoning, the quality of feedback provided to the student by peers and mentors, and the student’s ability to incorporate that feedback into his or her work. Therefore, our assessment is not the same as an assessment of unpolished, unrevised samples of students’ written work. While one might imagine that such an unpolished sample may be more strongly correlated with critical-thinking skills measured by the CCTST, we argue that the complete, submitted thesis, assessed using BioTAP, is ultimately a more appropriate reflection of how students exhibit science reasoning in the scientific community.

Statistical Analyses

We took several steps to analyze the collected data. First, to provide context for subsequent interpretations, we generated descriptive statistics for the CCTST scores of the participants based on the norms for undergraduate CCTST test takers. To determine the strength of relationships among CCTST dimensions (including overall score) and the BioTAP dimensions, partial-sum score (questions 1–5), and factor score, we calculated Pearson’s correlations for each pair of measures. To examine whether falling on one side of the nonmastery/mastery threshold (as opposed to a linear scale of performance) was related to critical thinking, we grouped BioTAP dimensions into categories (mastery/nonmastery) and conducted Student’s t tests to compare the means scores of the two groups on each of the seven dimensions and overall score of the CCTST. Finally, for the strongest relationship that emerged, we included additional academic and background variables as covariates in multiple linear-regression analysis to explore questions about how much observed relationships between critical-thinking skills and science reasoning in writing might be explained by variation in these other factors.

Although BioTAP scores represent discreet, ordinal bins, the five-point scale is intended to capture an underlying continuous construct (from inadequate to exhibiting mastery). It has been argued that five categories is an appropriate cutoff for treating ordinal variables as pseudo-continuous ( Rhemtulla et al. , 2012 )—and therefore using continuous-variable statistical methods (e.g., Pearson’s correlations)—as long as the underlying assumption that ordinal scores are linearly distributed is valid. Although we have no way to statistically test this assumption, we interpret adequate scores to be approximately halfway between inadequate and mastery scores, resulting in a linear scale. In part because this assumption is subject to disagreement, we also consider and interpret a categorical (mastery/nonmastery) treatment of BioTAP variables.

We corrected for multiple comparisons using the Holm-Bonferroni method ( Holm, 1979 ). At the most general level, where we consider the single, comprehensive measures for BioTAP (partial-sum and factor score) and the CCTST (overall score), there is no need to correct for multiple comparisons, because the multiple, individual dimensions are collapsed into single dimensions. When we considered individual CCTST dimensions in relation to comprehensive measures for BioTAP, we accounted for seven comparisons; similarly, when we considered individual dimensions of BioTAP in relation to overall CCTST score, we accounted for five comparisons. When all seven CCTST and five BioTAP dimensions were examined individually and without prior knowledge, we accounted for 35 comparisons; such a rigorous threshold is likely to reject weak and moderate relationships, but it is appropriate if there are no specific pre-existing hypotheses. All p values are presented in tables for complete transparency, and we carefully consider the implications of our interpretation of these data in the Discussion section.

CCTST scores for students in this sample ranged from the 39th to 99th percentile of the general population of undergraduate CCTST test takers (mean percentile = 84.3, median = 85th percentile; Table 2 ); these percentiles reflect overall scores that range from moderate to superior. Scores on individual dimensions and overall scores were sufficiently normal and far enough from the ceiling of the scale to justify subsequent statistical analyses.

Descriptive statistics of CCTST dimensions a

a Scores correspond to superior (86–100), strong (79–85), moderate (70–78), weak (63–69), or not manifested (62 and lower) skills.

The Pearson’s correlations between students’ cumulative scores on BioTAP (the factor score based on loadings published by Dowd et al. , 2016 , and the partial sum of scores on questions 1–5) and students’ overall scores on the CCTST are presented in Table 3 . We found that the partial-sum measure of BioTAP was significantly related to the overall measure of critical thinking ( r = 0.27, p = 0.03), while the BioTAP factor score was marginally related to overall CCTST ( r = 0.24, p = 0.05). When we looked at relationships between comprehensive BioTAP measures and scores for individual dimensions of the CCTST ( Table 3 ), we found significant positive correlations between the both BioTAP partial-sum and factor scores and CCTST inference ( r = 0.45, p < 0.001, and r = 0.41, p < 0.001, respectively). Although some other relationships have p values below 0.05 (e.g., the correlations between BioTAP partial-sum scores and CCTST induction and interpretation scores), they are not significant when we correct for multiple comparisons.

Correlations between dimensions of CCTST and dimensions of BioTAP a

a In each cell, the top number is the correlation, and the bottom, italicized number is the associated p value. Correlations that are statistically significant after correcting for multiple comparisons are shown in bold.

b This is the partial sum of BioTAP scores on questions 1–5.

c This is the factor score calculated from factor loadings published by Dowd et al. (2016) .

When we expanded comparisons to include all 35 potential correlations among individual BioTAP and CCTST dimensions—and, accordingly, corrected for 35 comparisons—we did not find any additional statistically significant relationships. The Pearson’s correlations between students’ scores on each dimension of BioTAP and students’ scores on each dimension of the CCTST range from −0.11 to 0.35 ( Table 3 ); although the relationship between discussion of implications (BioTAP question 5) and inference appears to be relatively large ( r = 0.35), it is not significant ( p = 0.005; the Holm-Bonferroni cutoff is 0.00143). We found no statistically significant relationships between BioTAP questions 6–9 and CCTST dimensions (unpublished data), regardless of whether we correct for multiple comparisons.

The results of Student’s t tests comparing scores on each dimension of the CCTST of students who exhibit mastery with those of students who do not exhibit mastery on each dimension of BioTAP are presented in Table 4 . Focusing first on the overall CCTST scores, we found that the difference between those who exhibit mastery and those who do not in discussing implications of results (BioTAP question 5) is statistically significant ( t = 2.73, p = 0.008, d = 0.71). When we expanded t tests to include all 35 comparisons—and, like above, corrected for 35 comparisons—we found a significant difference in inference scores between students who exhibit mastery on question 5 and students who do not ( t = 3.41, p = 0.0012, d = 0.88), as well as a marginally significant difference in these students’ induction scores ( t = 3.26, p = 0.0018, d = 0.84; the Holm-Bonferroni cutoff is p = 0.00147). Cohen’s d effect sizes, which reveal the strength of the differences for statistically significant relationships, range from 0.71 to 0.88.

The t statistics and effect sizes of differences in dimensions of CCTST across dimensions of BioTAP a

a In each cell, the top number is the t statistic for each comparison, and the middle, italicized number is the associated p value. The bottom number is the effect size. Correlations that are statistically significant after correcting for multiple comparisons are shown in bold.

Finally, we more closely examined the strongest relationship that we observed, which was between the CCTST dimension of inference and the BioTAP partial-sum composite score (shown in Table 3 ), using multiple regression analysis ( Table 5 ). Focusing on the 52 students for whom we have background information, we looked at the simple relationship between BioTAP and inference (model 1), a robust background model including multiple covariates that one might expect to explain some part of the variation in BioTAP (model 2), and a combined model including all variables (model 3). As model 3 shows, the covariates explain very little variation in BioTAP scores, and the relationship between inference and BioTAP persists even in the presence of all of the covariates.

Partial sum (questions 1–5) of BioTAP scores ( n = 52)

** p < 0.01.

*** p < 0.001.

The aim of this study was to examine the extent to which the various components of scientific reasoning—manifested in writing in the genre of undergraduate thesis and assessed using BioTAP—draw on general and specific critical-thinking skills (assessed using CCTST) and to consider the implications for educational practices. Although science reasoning involves critical-thinking skills, it also relates to conceptual knowledge and the epistemological foundations of science disciplines ( Kuhn et al. , 2008 ). Moreover, science reasoning in writing , captured in students’ undergraduate theses, reflects habits, conventions, and the incorporation of feedback that may alter evidence of individuals’ critical-thinking skills. Our findings, however, provide empirical evidence that cumulative measures of science reasoning in writing are nonetheless related to students’ overall critical-thinking skills ( Table 3 ). The particularly significant roles of inference skills ( Table 3 ) and the discussion of implications of results (BioTAP question 5; Table 4 ) provide a basis for more specific ideas about how these constructs relate to one another and what educational interventions may have the most success in fostering these skills.

Our results build on previous findings. The genre of thesis writing combines pedagogies of writing and inquiry found to foster scientific reasoning ( Reynolds et al. , 2012 ) and critical thinking ( Quitadamo and Kurtz, 2007 ; Quitadamo et al. , 2008 ; Stephenson and Sadler-McKnight, 2016 ). Quitadamo and Kurtz (2007) reported that students who engaged in a laboratory writing component in a general education biology course significantly improved their inference and analysis skills, and Quitadamo and colleagues (2008) found that participation in a community-based inquiry biology course (that included a writing component) was associated with significant gains in students’ inference and evaluation skills. The shared focus on inference is noteworthy, because these prior studies actually differ from the current study; the former considered critical-thinking skills as the primary learning outcome of writing-focused interventions, whereas the latter focused on emergent links between two learning outcomes (science reasoning in writing and critical thinking). In other words, inference skills are impacted by writing as well as manifested in writing.

Inference focuses on drawing conclusions from argument and evidence. According to the consensus definition of critical thinking, the specific skill of inference includes several processes: querying evidence, conjecturing alternatives, and drawing conclusions. All of these activities are central to the independent research at the core of writing an undergraduate thesis. Indeed, a critical part of what we call “science reasoning in writing” might be characterized as a measure of students’ ability to infer and make meaning of information and findings. Because the cumulative BioTAP measures distill underlying similarities and, to an extent, suppress unique aspects of individual dimensions, we argue that it is appropriate to relate inference to scientific reasoning in writing . Even when we control for other potentially relevant background characteristics, the relationship is strong ( Table 5 ).

In taking the complementary view and focusing on BioTAP, when we compared students who exhibit mastery with those who do not, we found that the specific dimension of “discussing the implications of results” (question 5) differentiates students’ performance on several critical-thinking skills. To achieve mastery on this dimension, students must make connections between their results and other published studies and discuss the future directions of the research; in short, they must demonstrate an understanding of the bigger picture. The specific relationship between question 5 and inference is the strongest observed among all individual comparisons. Altogether, perhaps more than any other BioTAP dimension, this aspect of students’ writing provides a clear view of the role of students’ critical-thinking skills (particularly inference and, marginally, induction) in science reasoning.

While inference and discussion of implications emerge as particularly strongly related dimensions in this work, we note that the strongest contribution to “science reasoning in writing in biology,” as determined through exploratory factor analysis, is “argument for the significance of research” (BioTAP question 2, not question 5; Dowd et al. , 2016 ). Question 2 is not clearly related to critical-thinking skills. These findings are not contradictory, but rather suggest that the epistemological and disciplinary-specific aspects of science reasoning that emerge in writing through BioTAP are not completely aligned with aspects related to critical thinking. In other words, science reasoning in writing is not simply a proxy for those critical-thinking skills that play a role in science reasoning.

In a similar vein, the content-related, epistemological aspects of science reasoning, as well as the conventions associated with writing the undergraduate thesis (including feedback from peers and revision), may explain the lack of significant relationships between some science reasoning dimensions and some critical-thinking skills that might otherwise seem counterintuitive (e.g., BioTAP question 2, which relates to making an argument, and the critical-thinking skill of argument). It is possible that an individual’s critical-thinking skills may explain some variation in a particular BioTAP dimension, but other aspects of science reasoning and practice exert much stronger influence. Although these relationships do not emerge in our analyses, the lack of significant correlation does not mean that there is definitively no correlation. Correcting for multiple comparisons suppresses type 1 error at the expense of exacerbating type 2 error, which, combined with the limited sample size, constrains statistical power and makes weak relationships more difficult to detect. Ultimately, though, the relationships that do emerge highlight places where individuals’ distinct critical-thinking skills emerge most coherently in thesis assessment, which is why we are particularly interested in unpacking those relationships.

We recognize that, because only honors students submit theses at these institutions, this study sample is composed of a selective subset of the larger population of biology majors. Although this is an inherent limitation of focusing on thesis writing, links between our findings and results of other studies (with different populations) suggest that observed relationships may occur more broadly. The goal of improved science reasoning and critical thinking is shared among all biology majors, particularly those engaged in capstone research experiences. So while the implications of this work most directly apply to honors thesis writers, we provisionally suggest that all students could benefit from further study of them.

There are several important implications of this study for science education practices. Students’ inference skills relate to the understanding and effective application of scientific content. The fact that we find no statistically significant relationships between BioTAP questions 6–9 and CCTST dimensions suggests that such mid- to lower-order elements of BioTAP ( Reynolds et al. , 2009 ), which tend to be more structural in nature, do not focus on aspects of the finished thesis that draw strongly on critical thinking. In keeping with prior analyses ( Reynolds and Thompson, 2011 ; Dowd et al. , 2016 ), these findings further reinforce the notion that disciplinary instructors, who are most capable of teaching and assessing scientific reasoning and perhaps least interested in the more mechanical aspects of writing, may nonetheless be best suited to effectively model and assess students’ writing.

The goal of the thesis writing course at both Duke University and the University of Minnesota is not merely to improve thesis scores but to move students’ writing into the category of mastery across BioTAP dimensions. Recognizing that students with differing critical-thinking skills (particularly inference) are more or less likely to achieve mastery in the undergraduate thesis (particularly in discussing implications [question 5]) is important for developing and testing targeted pedagogical interventions to improve learning outcomes for all students.

The competencies characterized by the Vision and Change in Undergraduate Biology Education Initiative provide a general framework for recognizing that science reasoning and critical-thinking skills play key roles in major learning outcomes of science education. Our findings highlight places where science reasoning–related competencies (like “understanding the process of science”) connect to critical-thinking skills and places where critical thinking–related competencies might be manifested in scientific products (such as the ability to discuss implications in scientific writing). We encourage broader efforts to build empirical connections between competencies and pedagogical practices to further improve science education.

One specific implication of this work for science education is to focus on providing opportunities for students to develop their critical-thinking skills (particularly inference). Of course, as this correlational study is not designed to test causality, we do not claim that enhancing students’ inference skills will improve science reasoning in writing. However, as prior work shows that science writing activities influence students’ inference skills ( Quitadamo and Kurtz, 2007 ; Quitadamo et al. , 2008 ), there is reason to test such a hypothesis. Nevertheless, the focus must extend beyond inference as an isolated skill; rather, it is important to relate inference to the foundations of the scientific method ( Miri et al. , 2007 ) in terms of the epistemological appreciation of the functions and coordination of evidence ( Kuhn and Dean, 2004 ; Zeineddin and Abd-El-Khalick, 2010 ; Ding et al. , 2016 ) and disciplinary paradigms of truth and justification ( Moshman, 2015 ).

Although this study is limited to the domain of biology at two institutions with a relatively small number of students, the findings represent a foundational step in the direction of achieving success with more integrated learning outcomes. Hopefully, it will spur greater interest in empirically grounding discussions of the constructs of scientific reasoning and critical-thinking skills.

This study contributes to the efforts to improve science education, for both majors and nonmajors, through an empirically driven analysis of the relationships between scientific reasoning reflected in the genre of thesis writing and critical-thinking skills. This work is rooted in the usefulness of BioTAP as a method 1) to facilitate communication and learning and 2) to assess disciplinary-specific and general dimensions of science reasoning. The findings support the important role of the critical-thinking skill of inference in scientific reasoning in writing, while also highlighting ways in which other aspects of science reasoning (epistemological considerations, writing conventions, etc.) are not significantly related to critical thinking. Future research into the impact of interventions focused on specific critical-thinking skills (i.e., inference) for improved science reasoning in writing will build on this work and its implications for science education.

Supplementary Material

Acknowledgments.

We acknowledge the contributions of Kelaine Haas and Alexander Motten to the implementation and collection of data. We also thank Mine Çetinkaya-Rundel for her insights regarding our statistical analyses. This research was funded by National Science Foundation award DUE-1525602.

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2011). Vision and change in undergraduate biology education: A call to action . Washington, DC: Retrieved September 26, 2017, from https://visionandchange.org/files/2013/11/aaas-VISchange-web1113.pdf . [ Google Scholar ]
August D. (2016). California Critical Thinking Skills Test user manual and resource guide . San Jose: Insight Assessment/California Academic Press. [ Google Scholar ]
Beyer C. H., Taylor E., Gillmore G. M. (2013). Inside the undergraduate teaching experience: The University of Washington’s growth in faculty teaching study . Albany, NY: SUNY Press. [ Google Scholar ]
Bissell A. N., Lemons P. P. (2006). A new method for assessing critical thinking in the classroom . BioScience , ( 1 ), 66–72. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2006)056[0066:ANMFAC]2.0.CO;2 . [ Google Scholar ]
Blattner N. H., Frazier C. L. (2002). Developing a performance-based assessment of students’ critical thinking skills . Assessing Writing , ( 1 ), 47–64. [ Google Scholar ]
Clase K. L., Gundlach E., Pelaez N. J. (2010). Calibrated peer review for computer-assisted learning of biological research competencies . Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education , ( 5 ), 290–295. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Condon W., Kelly-Riley D. (2004). Assessing and teaching what we value: The relationship between college-level writing and critical thinking abilities . Assessing Writing , ( 1 ), 56–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2004.01.003 . [ Google Scholar ]
Ding L., Wei X., Liu X. (2016). Variations in university students’ scientific reasoning skills across majors, years, and types of institutions . Research in Science Education , ( 5 ), 613–632. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-015-9473-y . [ Google Scholar ]
Dowd J. E., Connolly M. P., Thompson R. J., Jr., Reynolds J. A. (2015a). Improved reasoning in undergraduate writing through structured workshops . Journal of Economic Education , ( 1 ), 14–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220485.2014.978924 . [ Google Scholar ]
Dowd J. E., Roy C. P., Thompson R. J., Jr., Reynolds J. A. (2015b). “On course” for supporting expanded participation and improving scientific reasoning in undergraduate thesis writing . Journal of Chemical Education , ( 1 ), 39–45. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed500298r . [ Google Scholar ]
Dowd J. E., Thompson R. J., Jr., Reynolds J. A. (2016). Quantitative genre analysis of undergraduate theses: Uncovering different ways of writing and thinking in science disciplines . WAC Journal , , 36–51. [ Google Scholar ]
Facione P. A. (1990). Critical thinking: a statement of expert consensus for purposes of educational assessment and instruction. Research findings and recommendations . Newark, DE: American Philosophical Association; Retrieved September 26, 2017, from https://philpapers.org/archive/FACCTA.pdf . [ Google Scholar ]
Gerdeman R. D., Russell A. A., Worden K. J., Gerdeman R. D., Russell A. A., Worden K. J. (2007). Web-based student writing and reviewing in a large biology lecture course . Journal of College Science Teaching , ( 5 ), 46–52. [ Google Scholar ]
Greenhoot A. F., Semb G., Colombo J., Schreiber T. (2004). Prior beliefs and methodological concepts in scientific reasoning . Applied Cognitive Psychology , ( 2 ), 203–221. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.959 . [ Google Scholar ]
Haaga D. A. F. (1993). Peer review of term papers in graduate psychology courses . Teaching of Psychology , ( 1 ), 28–32. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328023top2001_5 . [ Google Scholar ]
Halonen J. S., Bosack T., Clay S., McCarthy M., Dunn D. S., Hill G. W., Whitlock K. (2003). A rubric for learning, teaching, and assessing scientific inquiry in psychology . Teaching of Psychology , ( 3 ), 196–208. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328023TOP3003_01 . [ Google Scholar ]
Hand B., Keys C. W. (1999). Inquiry investigation . Science Teacher , ( 4 ), 27–29. [ Google Scholar ]
Holm S. (1979). A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure . Scandinavian Journal of Statistics , ( 2 ), 65–70. [ Google Scholar ]
Holyoak K. J., Morrison R. G. (2005). The Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning . New York: Cambridge University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
Insight Assessment. (2016a). California Critical Thinking Skills Test (CCTST) Retrieved September 26, 2017, from www.insightassessment.com/Products/Products-Summary/Critical-Thinking-Skills-Tests/California-Critical-Thinking-Skills-Test-CCTST .
Insight Assessment. (2016b). Sample thinking skills questions. Retrieved September 26, 2017, from www.insightassessment.com/Resources/Teaching-Training-and-Learning-Tools/node_1487 .
Kelly G. J., Takao A. (2002). Epistemic levels in argument: An analysis of university oceanography students’ use of evidence in writing . Science Education , ( 3 ), 314–342. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10024 . [ Google Scholar ]
Kuhn D., Dean D., Jr. (2004). Connecting scientific reasoning and causal inference . Journal of Cognition and Development , ( 2 ), 261–288. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327647jcd0502_5 . [ Google Scholar ]
Kuhn D., Iordanou K., Pease M., Wirkala C. (2008). Beyond control of variables: What needs to develop to achieve skilled scientific thinking? . Cognitive Development , ( 4 ), 435–451. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogdev.2008.09.006 . [ Google Scholar ]
Lawson A. E. (2010). Basic inferences of scientific reasoning, argumentation, and discovery . Science Education , ( 2 ), 336–364. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20357 . [ Google Scholar ]
Meizlish D., LaVaque-Manty D., Silver N., Kaplan M. (2013). Think like/write like: Metacognitive strategies to foster students’ development as disciplinary thinkers and writers . In Thompson R. J. (Ed.), Changing the conversation about higher education (pp. 53–73). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. [ Google Scholar ]
Miri B., David B.-C., Uri Z. (2007). Purposely teaching for the promotion of higher-order thinking skills: A case of critical thinking . Research in Science Education , ( 4 ), 353–369. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-006-9029-2 . [ Google Scholar ]
Moshman D. (2015). Epistemic cognition and development: The psychology of justification and truth . New York: Psychology Press. [ Google Scholar ]
National Research Council. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school . Expanded ed. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. [ Google Scholar ]
Pukkila P. J. (2004). Introducing student inquiry in large introductory genetics classes . Genetics , ( 1 ), 11–18. https://doi.org/10.1534/genetics.166.1.11 . [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Quitadamo I. J., Faiola C. L., Johnson J. E., Kurtz M. J. (2008). Community-based inquiry improves critical thinking in general education biology . CBE—Life Sciences Education , ( 3 ), 327–337. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.07-11-0097 . [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Quitadamo I. J., Kurtz M. J. (2007). Learning to improve: Using writing to increase critical thinking performance in general education biology . CBE—Life Sciences Education , ( 2 ), 140–154. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.06-11-0203 . [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Reynolds J. A., Smith R., Moskovitz C., Sayle A. (2009). BioTAP: A systematic approach to teaching scientific writing and evaluating undergraduate theses . BioScience , ( 10 ), 896–903. https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2009.59.10.11 . [ Google Scholar ]
Reynolds J. A., Thaiss C., Katkin W., Thompson R. J. (2012). Writing-to-learn in undergraduate science education: A community-based, conceptually driven approach . CBE—Life Sciences Education , ( 1 ), 17–25. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.11-08-0064 . [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Reynolds J. A., Thompson R. J. (2011). Want to improve undergraduate thesis writing? Engage students and their faculty readers in scientific peer review . CBE—Life Sciences Education , ( 2 ), 209–215. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.10-10-0127 . [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Rhemtulla M., Brosseau-Liard P. E., Savalei V. (2012). When can categorical variables be treated as continuous? A comparison of robust continuous and categorical SEM estimation methods under suboptimal conditions . Psychological Methods , ( 3 ), 354–373. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029315 . [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Stephenson N. S., Sadler-McKnight N. P. (2016). Developing critical thinking skills using the science writing heuristic in the chemistry laboratory . Chemistry Education Research and Practice , ( 1 ), 72–79. https://doi.org/10.1039/C5RP00102A . [ Google Scholar ]
Tariq V. N., Stefani L. A. J., Butcher A. C., Heylings D. J. A. (1998). Developing a new approach to the assessment of project work . Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education , ( 3 ), 221–240. https://doi.org/10.1080/0260293980230301 . [ Google Scholar ]
Timmerman B. E. C., Strickland D. C., Johnson R. L., Payne J. R. (2011). Development of a “universal” rubric for assessing undergraduates’ scientific reasoning skills using scientific writing . Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education , ( 5 ), 509–547. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930903540991 . [ Google Scholar ]
Topping K. J., Smith E. F., Swanson I., Elliot A. (2000). Formative peer assessment of academic writing between postgraduate students . Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education , ( 2 ), 149–169. https://doi.org/10.1080/713611428 . [ Google Scholar ]
Willison J., O’Regan K. (2007). Commonly known, commonly not known, totally unknown: A framework for students becoming researchers . Higher Education Research and Development , ( 4 ), 393–409. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360701658609 . [ Google Scholar ]
Woodin T., Carter V. C., Fletcher L. (2010). Vision and Change in Biology Undergraduate Education: A Call for Action—Initial responses . CBE—Life Sciences Education , ( 2 ), 71–73. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.10-03-0044 . [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Zeineddin A., Abd-El-Khalick F. (2010). Scientific reasoning and epistemological commitments: Coordination of theory and evidence among college science students . Journal of Research in Science Teaching , ( 9 ), 1064–1093. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20368 . [ Google Scholar ]
Zimmerman C. (2000). The development of scientific reasoning skills . Developmental Review , ( 1 ), 99–149. https://doi.org/10.1006/drev.1999.0497 . [ Google Scholar ]
Zimmerman C. (2007). The development of scientific thinking skills in elementary and middle school . Developmental Review , ( 2 ), 172–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2006.12.001 . [ Google Scholar ]

Academic Writing: Critical Thinking & Writing

Academic Writing
Planning your writing
Structuring your assignment
Critical Thinking & Writing
Building an argument
Reflective Writing
Summarising, paraphrasing and quoting

Critical Thinking

One of the most important features of studying at university is the expectation that you will engage in thinking critically about your subject area.

Critical thinking involves asking meaningful questions concerning the information, ideas, beliefs, and arguments that you will encounter. It requires you to approach your studies with a curious, open mind, discard preconceptions, and interrogate received knowledge and established practices.

Critical thinking is key to successfully expressing your individuality as an independent learner and thinker in an academic context. It is also a valuable life skill.

Critical thinking enables you to:

Evaluate information, its validity and significance in a particular context.
Analyse and interpret evidence and data in response to a line of enquiry.
Weigh-up alternative explanations and arguments.
Develop your own evidence-based and well-reasoned arguments.
Develop well-informed viewpoints.
Formulate your own independent, justifiable ideas.
Actively engage with the wider scholarship of your academic community.

Writing Critically

Being able to demonstrate and communicate critical thinking in your written assignments through critical writing is key to achieving academic success.

Critical writing can be distinguished from descriptive writing which is concerned with conveying information rather than interrogating information. Understanding the difference between these two styles of academic writing and when to use them is important.

The balance between descriptive writing and critical writing will vary depending on the nature of the assignment and the level of your studies. Some level of descriptive writing is generally necessary to support critical writing. More sophisticated criticality is generally required at higher levels of study with less descriptive content. You will continue to develop your critical writing skills as you progress through your course.

Descriptive Writing and Critical Writing

Descriptive Writing
Critical Writing
Examples of Critical Writing

Descriptive writing demonstrates the knowledge you have of a subject, and your knowledge of what other people say about that subject. Descriptive writing often responds to questions framed as ‘what’ , ‘where’ , ‘who’ and ‘when’ .

Descriptive writing might include the following:

Description of what something is or what it is about (an account, facts, observable features, details): a topic, problem, situation, or context of the subject under discussion.
Description of where it takes place (setting and context), who is involved and when it occurs.
Re-statement or summary of what others say about the topic.
Background facts and information for a discussion.

Description usually comes before critical content so that the reader can understand the topic you are critically engaging with.

Critical writing requires you to apply interpretation, analysis, and evaluation to the descriptions you have provided. Critical writing often responds to questions framed as ‘how’ or ‘why’ . Often, critical writing will require you to build an argument which is supported by evidence.

Some indicators of critical writing are:

Investigation of positive and negative perspectives on ideas
Supporting ideas and arguments with evidence, which might include authoritative sources, data, statistics, research, theories, and quotations
Balanced, unbiased appraisal of arguments and counterarguments/alternative viewpoints
Honest recognition of the limitations of an argument and supporting evidence
Plausible, rational, convincing, and well-reasoned conclusions

Critical writing might include the following:

Applying an idea or theory to different situations or relate theory to practice. Does the idea work/not work in practice? Is there a factor that makes it work/not work? For example: 'Smith's (2008) theory on teamwork is effective in the workplace because it allows a diverse group of people with different skills to work effectively'.
Justifying why a process or policy exists. For example: 'It was necessary for the nurse to check the patient's handover notes because...'
Proposing an alternative approach to view and act on situations. For example: 'By adopting a Freirian approach, we could view the student as a collaborator in our teaching and learning'. Or: 'If we had followed the NMC guidelines we could have made the patient feel calm and relaxed during the consultation'.
Discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of an idea/theory/policy. Why does this idea/theory/policy work? Or why does this idea not work? For example: 'Although Smith's (2008) theory on teamwork is useful for large teams, there are challenges in applying this theory to teams who work remotely'.
Discussion of how the idea links to other ideas in the field (synthesis). For example: 'the user experience of parks can be greatly enhanced by examining Donnelly's (2009) customer service model used in retail’.
Discussion of how the idea compares and contrasts with other ideas/theories. For example: ‘The approach advocated by the NMC differs in comparison because of factor A and factor C’.
Discussion of the ‘’up-to-datedness” and relevance of an idea/theory/policy (its currency). For example: 'although this approach was successful in supporting the local community, Smith's model does not accommodate the needs of a modern global economy'.
Evaluating an idea/theory/policy by providing evidence-informed judgment. For example: 'Therefore, May's delivery model should be discontinued as it has created significant issues for both customers and staff (Ransom, 2018)'.
Creating new perspectives or arguments based on knowledge. For example: 'to create strong and efficient buildings, we will look to the designs provided by nature. The designs of the Sydney Opera House are based on the segments of an orange (Cook, 2019)'.

Essential Links

➔ A-Z of eResources

➔ Frequently Asked Questions

➔Discover the Library

➔Referencing Help

➔ Print & Copy Services

➔ Service Updates

Library & Learning Services, University of Suffolk, Library Building, Long Street, Ipswich, IP4 1QJ

✉ Email Us: [email protected]

✆ Call Us: +44 (0)1473 3 38700

Module 1: Success Skills

Critical thinking, introduction, learning objectives.

define critical thinking
identify the role that logic plays in critical thinking
apply critical thinking skills to problem-solving scenarios
apply critical thinking skills to evaluation of information

Woman lying on her back outdoors, in a reflective posture

Consider these thoughts about the critical thinking process, and how it applies not just to our school lives but also our personal and professional lives.

“Thinking Critically and Creatively”

Critical thinking skills are perhaps the most fundamental skills involved in making judgments and solving problems. You use them every day, and you can continue improving them.

The ability to think critically about a matter—to analyze a question, situation, or problem down to its most basic parts—is what helps us evaluate the accuracy and truthfulness of statements, claims, and information we read and hear. It is the sharp knife that, when honed, separates fact from fiction, honesty from lies, and the accurate from the misleading. We all use this skill to one degree or another almost every day. For example, we use critical thinking every day as we consider the latest consumer products and why one particular product is the best among its peers. Is it a quality product because a celebrity endorses it? Because a lot of other people may have used it? Because it is made by one company versus another? Or perhaps because it is made in one country or another? These are questions representative of critical thinking.

The academic setting demands more of us in terms of critical thinking than everyday life. It demands that we evaluate information and analyze myriad issues. It is the environment where our critical thinking skills can be the difference between success and failure. In this environment we must consider information in an analytical, critical manner. We must ask questions—What is the source of this information? Is this source an expert one and what makes it so? Are there multiple perspectives to consider on an issue? Do multiple sources agree or disagree on an issue? Does quality research substantiate information or opinion? Do I have any personal biases that may affect my consideration of this information?

It is only through purposeful, frequent, intentional questioning such as this that we can sharpen our critical thinking skills and improve as students, learners and researchers.

—Dr. Andrew Robert Baker, Foundations of Academic Success: Words of Wisdom

Defining Critical Thinking

Thinking comes naturally. You don’t have to make it happen—it just does. But you can make it happen in different ways. For example, you can think positively or negatively. You can think with “heart” and you can think with rational judgment. You can also think strategically and analytically, and mathematically and scientifically. These are a few of multiple ways in which the mind can process thought.

What are some forms of thinking you use? When do you use them, and why?

As a college student, you are tasked with engaging and expanding your thinking skills. One of the most important of these skills is critical thinking. Critical thinking is important because it relates to nearly all tasks, situations, topics, careers, environments, challenges, and opportunities. It’s not restricted to a particular subject area.

Handwritten poster. Guidelines for Critical Thinking when…talking/ reading/ blogging/ writing/ living. 4: justify your answers with text evidence (…because…) and examples from your life/world; agree and disagree with others and authors; ask questions of others and authors; complete sentences, correct punctuation/ capitols. 3: agree and disagree with others and authors; justify your opinions, tell why you agree and disagree; speak and write in complete sentences. 2: answers questions but not justify them; agree and disagree but you can’t tell why; incomplete sentences, incorrect punctuation. 1: does not contribute to the conversation; does not share your thinking; does not agree or disagree with others. Justify: to defend your thinking by showing and telling with examples and evidence.

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

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

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

This may well be you!

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

Critical Thinking in Action

The following video, from Lawrence Bland, presents the major concepts and benefits of critical thinking.

Critical Thinking and Logic

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

Logic’s Relationship to Critical Thinking

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

Questions of Logic in Critical Thinking

Let’s use a simple example of applying logic to a critical-thinking situation. In this hypothetical scenario, a man has a PhD in political science, and he works as a professor at a local college. His wife works at the college, too. They have three young children in the local school system, and their family is well known in the community.

The man is now running for political office. Are his credentials and experience sufficient for entering public office? Will he be effective in the political office? Some voters might believe that his personal life and current job, on the surface, suggest he will do well in the position, and they will vote for him.

In truth, the characteristics described don’t guarantee that the man will do a good job. The information is somewhat irrelevant. What else might you want to know? How about whether the man had already held a political office and done a good job? In this case, we want to ask, How much information is adequate in order to make a decision based on logic instead of assumptions?

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

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

Infographic titled "Questions a Critical Thinker Asks." From the top, text reads: What's Happening? Gather the basic information and begin to think of questions (image of two stick figures talking to each other). Why is it Important? Ask yourself why it's significant and whether or not you agree. (Image of bearded stick figure sitting on a rock.) What Don't I See? Is there anything important missing? (Image of stick figure wearing a blindfold, whistling, walking away from a sign labeled Answers.) How Do I Know? Ask yourself where the information came from and how it was constructed. (Image of stick figure in a lab coat, glasses, holding a beaker.) Who is Saying It? What's the position of the speaker and what is influencing them? (Image of stick figure reading a newspaper.) What Else? What If? What other ideas exist and are there other possibilities? (Stick figure version of Albert Einstein with a thought bubble saying "If only time were relative...".

Problem-Solving With Critical Thinking

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

Your roommate was upset and said some unkind words to you, which put a crimp in your relationship. You try to see through the angry behaviors to determine how you might best support your roommate and help bring your relationship back to a comfortable spot.

Young man in black jacket looking deep in thought, in foreground of busy street scene

Your final art class project challenges you to conceptualize form in new ways. On the last day of class when students present their projects, you describe the techniques you used to fulfill the assignment. You explain why and how you selected that approach.
Your math teacher sees that the class is not quite grasping a concept. She uses clever questioning to dispel anxiety and guide you to new understanding of the concept.
You have a job interview for a position that you feel you are only partially qualified for, although you really want the job and you are excited about the prospects. You analyze how you will explain your skills and experiences in a way to show that you are a good match for the prospective employer.
You are doing well in college, and most of your college and living expenses are covered. But there are some gaps between what you want and what you feel you can afford. You analyze your income, savings, and budget to better calculate what you will need to stay in college and maintain your desired level of spending.

Problem-Solving Action Checklist

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

Evaluating Information With Critical Thinking

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

Read for understanding by using text coding
Examine arguments
Clarify thinking

Photo of a group of students standing around a poster on the wall, where they're adding post-it notes with handwriting on them

1. Read for Understanding Using Text Coding

When you read and take notes, use the text coding strategy . Text coding is a way of tracking your thinking while reading. It entails marking the text and recording what you are thinking either in the margins or perhaps on Post-it notes. As you make connections and ask questions in response to what you read, you monitor your comprehension and enhance your long-term understanding of the material.

With text coding, mark important arguments and key facts. Indicate where you agree and disagree or have further questions. You don’t necessarily need to read every word, but make sure you understand the concepts or the intentions behind what is written. Feel free to develop your own shorthand style when reading or taking notes. The following are a few options to consider using while coding text.

See more text coding from PBWorks and Collaborative for Teaching and Learning .

2. Examine Arguments

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

3. Clarify Thinking

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

4. Cultivate “Habits of Mind”

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

"logic." Wordnik . n.d. Web. 16 Feb 2016 . ↵
"Student Success-Thinking Critically In Class and Online." Critical Thinking Gateway . St Petersburg College, n.d. Web. 16 Feb 2016. ↵
Outcome: Critical Thinking. Provided by : Lumen Learning. License : CC BY: Attribution
Self Check: Critical Thinking. Provided by : Lumen Learning. License : CC BY: Attribution
Foundations of Academic Success. Authored by : Thomas C. Priester, editor. Provided by : Open SUNY Textbooks. Located at : http://textbooks.opensuny.org/foundations-of-academic-success/ . License : CC BY-NC-SA: Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike
Image of woman thinking. Authored by : Moyan Brenn. Located at : https://flic.kr/p/8YV4K5 . License : CC BY: Attribution
Critical Thinking. Provided by : Critical and Creative Thinking Program. Located at : http://cct.wikispaces.umb.edu/Critical+Thinking . License : CC BY: Attribution
Critical Thinking Skills. Authored by : Linda Bruce. Provided by : Lumen Learning. Project : https://courses.lumenlearning.com/lumencollegesuccess/chapter/critical-thinking-skills/. License : CC BY: Attribution
Image of critical thinking poster. Authored by : Melissa Robison. Located at : https://flic.kr/p/bwAzyD . License : CC BY: Attribution
Thinking Critically. Authored by : UBC Learning Commons. Provided by : The University of British Columbia, Vancouver Campus. Located at : http://www.oercommons.org/courses/learning-toolkit-critical-thinking/view . License : CC BY: Attribution
Critical Thinking 101: Spectrum of Authority. Authored by : UBC Leap. Located at : https://youtu.be/9G5xooMN2_c . License : CC BY: Attribution
Image of students putting post-its on wall. Authored by : Hector Alejandro. Located at : https://flic.kr/p/7b2Ax2 . License : CC BY: Attribution
Image of man thinking. Authored by : Chad Santos. Located at : https://flic.kr/p/phLKY . License : CC BY: Attribution
Critical Thinking.wmv. Authored by : Lawrence Bland. Located at : https://youtu.be/WiSklIGUblo . License : All Rights Reserved . License Terms : Standard YouTube License

Library Guides

Critical thinking and writing: critical writing.

Critical Thinking
Problem Solving
Critical Reading
Critical Writing
Presenting your Sources

Common feedback from lecturers is that students' writing is too descriptive, not showing enough criticality: "too descriptive", "not supported by enough evidence", "unbalanced", "not enough critical analysis". This guide provides the foundations of critical writing along with some useful techniques to assist you in strengthening this skill.

Key features of critical writing

Key features in critical writing include:

Presenting strong supporting evidence and a clear argument that leads to a reasonable conclusion.
Presenting a balanced argument that indicates an unbiased view by evaluating both the evidence that supports your argument as well as the counter-arguments that may show an alternative perspective on the subject.
Refusing to simply accept and agree with other writers - you should show criticality towards other's works and evaluate their arguments, questioning if their supporting evidence holds up, if they show any biases, whether they have considered alternative perspectives, and how their arguments fit into the wider dialogue/debate taking place in their field.
Recognizing the limitations of your evidence, argument and conclusion and therefore indicating where further research is needed.

Structuring Your Writing to Express Criticality

In order to be considered critical, academic writing must go beyond being merely descriptive. Whilst you may have some descriptive writing in your assignments to clarify terms or provide background information, it is important for the majority of your assignment to provide analysis and evaluation.

Description :

Define clearly what you are talking about, introduce a topic.

Analysis literally means to break down an issue into small components to better understand the structure of the problem. However, there is much more to analysis: you may at times need to examine and explain how parts fit into a whole; give reasons; compare and contrast different elements; show your understanding of relationships. Analysis is to much extent context and subject specific.

Here are some possible analytical questions:

What are the constituent elements of something?
How do the elements interact?
What can be grouped together? What does grouping reveal?
How does this compare and contrast with something else?
What are the causes (factors) of something?
What are the implications of something?
How is this influenced by different external areas, such as the economy, society etc (e.g. SWOT, PESTEL analysis)?
Does it happen all the time? When? Where?
What other factors play a role? What is absent/missing?
What other perspectives should we consider?
What if? What are the alternatives?
With analysis you challenge the “received knowledge” and your own your assumptions.

Analysis is different within different disciplines:

Data analysis (filter, cluster…)
Compound analysis (chemistry)
Financial statements analysis
Market analysis (SWOT analysis)
Program analysis (computer science) - the process of automatically analysing the behaviour of computer programs
Policy Analysis (public policy) – The use of statistical data to predict the effects of policy decisions made by governments and agencies
Content analysis (linguistics, literature)
Psychoanalysis – study of the unconscious mind.

Evaluation :

Identify strengths and weaknesses.
Assess the evidence, methodology, argument etc. presented in a source.
Judge the success or failure of something, its implications and/or value.
Draw conclusions from your material, make judgments about it, and relate it to the question asked.
Express "mini-arguments" on the issues your raise and analyse throughout your work. (See box Your Argument.)
Express an overarching argument on the topic of your research. (See Your Argument .)

Tip: Try to include a bit of description, analysis and evaluation in every paragraph. Writing strong paragraphs can help, as it reminds you to conclude each paragraph drawing a conclusion. However, you may also intersperse the analysis with evaluation, within the development of the paragraph.

Your Argument

What is an argument?

Essentially, the aim of an essay (and other forms of academic writing, including dissertations) is to present and defend, with reasons and evidence, an argument relating to a given topic. In the academic context argument means something specific. It is the main claim/view/position/conclusion on a matter, which can be the answer to the essay (or research) question . The development of an argument is closely related to criticality , as in your academic writing you are not supposed to merely describe things; you also need to analyse and draw conclusions.

Tips on devising an argument

Try to think of a clear statement. It may be as simple as trying to prove that a statement in the essay title is right or wrong.
Identify rigorous evidence and logical reasons to back up your argument.
Consider different perspectives and viewpoints, but show why your argument prevails.
Structure your writing in light of your argument: the argument will shape the whole text, which will present a logical and well-structured account of background information, evidence, reasons and discussion to support your argument.
Link and signpost to your argument throughout your work.

Argument or arguments?

Both! Ideally, in your essay you will have an overarching argument (claim) and several mini-arguments, which make points and take positions on the issues you discuss within the paragraphs.

ACADEMIC ARGUMENTATION This help-sheet highlights the differences between everyday and academic argumentation
Argument A useful guide developed by The Writing Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Useful resources

Learning Development, University of Plymouth (2010). Critical Thinking. University of Plymouth . Available from https://www.plymouth.ac.uk/uploads/production/document/path/1/1710/Critical_Thinking.pdf [Accessed 16 January 2020].

Student Learning Development, University of Leicester (no date). Questions to ask about your level of critical writing. University of Leicester . Available from https://www2.le.ac.uk/offices/ld/resources/writing/questions-to-ask/questions-to-ask-about-your-level-of-critical-writing [Accessed 16 January 2020].

Workshop recording

Critical thinking and writing online workshop Recording of a 45-minute online workshop on critical thinking and writing, delivered by one of our Learning Advisers, Dr Laura Niada.

Workshop Slides

Critical Thinking and Writing
<< Previous: Critical Reading
Next: Presenting your Sources >>
Last Updated: May 5, 2023 10:54 AM
URL: https://libguides.westminster.ac.uk/critical-thinking-and-writing

CONNECT WITH US

Subject Guides

Being critical: a practical guide

Critical writing
Being critical
Critical thinking
Evaluating information
Reading academic articles
Critical reading

This guide contains key resources to introduce you to the features of critical writing.

For more in-depth advice and guidance on critical writing , visit our specialist academic writing guides:

What is critical writing?

Academic writing requires criticality; it's not enough to just describe or summarise evidence, you also need to analyse and evaluate information and use it to build your own arguments. This is where you show your own thoughts based on the evidence available, so critical writing is really important for higher grades.

Explore the key features of critical writing and see it in practice in some examples:

Introduction to critical writing [Google Slides]

While we need criticality in our writing, it's definitely possible to go further than needed. We’re aiming for that Goldilocks ‘just right’ point between not critical enough and too critical. Find out more:

Forthcoming training sessions

Forthcoming sessions on :

CITY College

Please ensure you sign up at least one working day before the start of the session to be sure of receiving joining instructions.

If you're based at CITY College you can book onto the following sessions by sending an email with the session details to your Academic Liaison Librarian:

[email protected]

There's more training events at:

Quoting, paraphrasing and synthesising

Quoting, paraphrasing and synthesising are different ways that you can use evidence from sources in your writing. As you move from one method to the next, you integrate the evidence further into your argument, showing increasing critical analysis.

Here's a quick introduction to the three methods and how to use them:

Quoting, paraphrasing and synthesising: an introduction [YouTube video] | Quoting, paraphrasing and synthesising [Google Doc]

Want to know more? Check out these resources for more examples of paraphrasing and using notes to synthesise information:

Using evidence to build critical arguments

Academic writing integrates evidence from sources to create your own critical arguments.

We're not looking for a list of summaries of individual sources; ideally, the important evidence should be integrated into a cohesive whole. What does the evidence mean altogether? Of course, a critical argument also needs some critical analysis of this evidence. What does it all mean in terms of your argument?

These resources will help you explore ways to integrate evidence and build critical arguments:

Building a critical argument [YouTube] | Building a critical argument [Google Doc]

<< Previous: Critical reading
Last Updated: Mar 25, 2024 5:46 PM
URL: https://subjectguides.york.ac.uk/critical

7 Tips for Integrating Critical Thinking into your Writing

"shouldn't you be writing".

Posted June 21, 2019

The stress and tedium that can be associated with writing is a common subject of social media posting by academics, albeit often in a humorous manner. But, think about non-academics, whose main outcome measure of success isn’t based on writing. I wonder how they feel about writing. Though such social media posts may be shared for the purpose of light-hearted humour, there may well be some truth to them. I think it’s fair to suggest that many do not find academic or technical writing to be an easy or enjoyable task. What often increases the workload of this kind of writing is the need for an integration of critical thinking. Of course, some individuals are better at this integration than others and so, it’s useful to discuss how it can be improved. Thus, below are seven tips for helping you integrate critical thinking into your writing.

1. Know the nature of an argument.

Any piece of text that contains words like because , but , however , therefore , thus , yet , etc., is an argument. An argument isn’t just a heated debate, it’s an activity of reason aimed at increasing (or decreasing) the acceptability of some claim or point of view, through presenting reasons and/or objections that either support or refute the claim. You will have to address both, if not multiple, sides of the story—think of it as playing devil’s advocate . Treating your writing in this regard will ease the process and facilitate the application of the rest of these tips.

2. Do your research...properly.

You weren’t born knowledgeable; so, what you know must have been learned from somewhere else. Sometimes, knowledge can be gained from family, friends or life experiences; but, they have no place in academic or technical writing. As a result, you must search for credible information pertinent to the topic. Of course, everyone is biased; so you will already have a point of a view on a topic before you even start researching it. This is natural; however, don’t feed into this confirmation bias by corrupting your research strategy. That is, search for sources that both justify what you believe about the topic as well as sources that refute your perspective. Consider both (or, if more than two, multiple) sides of the story and be honest with yourself about which pieces of information: come from the most credible sources; are most relevant to the specificity of not only the topic, but the central claim itself; are the most logical; and are the most successful at avoiding bias . The sources you should be using are peer-reviewed academic journals—many of which are freely available through Google Scholar . Furthermore, give credit where credit is due—reference the research appropriately in your writing. I often explain to students new to academic referencing that it’s a great opportunity to show off the fact that they did their research and applied critical evaluation. The more references you have, the more evidence you have for having done your research!

3. Develop an organised structure.

Not a single word should be written before you have an organised structure for the piece outlined (I highly recommend argument mapping , which is a means of visually representing the structure of an argument and is supported by research as having positive effects on critical thinking [Butchart et al., 2009; Dwyer, 2011; Dwyer, Hogan & Stewart, 2012; van Gelder, Bisset & Cumming, 2004]). Organisation is an important disposition towards critical thinking and being this way inclined will allow you to adapt and cope with the potential ‘surprises’ that may be encountered during the writing process. Introduction , Body and Conclusion— the old stalwarts of any well-organised manuscript are obvious fixtures (see my next post for what goes into each); but, make sure that all of your reasons and objections are also appropriately organised, discussed and laid out within these sections (see Tip 7 for more on structuring reasons and objections).

4. "Quality, not quantity."

Don’t get me wrong, quantity is important. If you don’t present enough information, your argument won’t be convincing and may affect its impact…and if you’re a student, your grade as well. However, the quality of what you present is as much, if not more, important. To address this in your writing, consider the amount of information that is required to be discussed.

Outside of the Introduction and the Conclusion , good arguments generally contain 3 to 5 core reasons to support a claim. Each of those 3 to 5 core reasons requires justification as well; and, so, each needs another 3 to 5 reasons for support. That is, 3 to 5 reasons for 3 to 5 core reasons (don’t forget to include potential objections as well); thus, generally between 12 and 20 points require discussion. Consider this range as your anchor. With that, however, this anchor might require adaptation, depending on word count. For example, in a dissertation or thesis, this range may not be enough and thus, could be applied to each chapter. In cases of very limited word counts, perhaps only 9 points might be more feasible? Furthermore, ask yourself whether you have 12 to 20 points? If not, do more research. If you still haven't achieved the anchor, that’s fine—just make a greater effort to critically evaluate the points you do have (i.e. fewer points will afford you more than enough space for quality evaluation). Personally, I would much rather see 10 points discussed and evaluated well than 25 points merely presented.

5. "Avoid glorious bullsh*t."

I recall a story one of my high school English teachers relayed to my class about her first college assignment. She had come out of high school having aced her Advanced Placement English exam and expected her college marks to reflect her glowing track record. A big red "F" stained the front page of her first English paper, next to the feedback that I now relay to you—a void glorious bullsh*t. It’s a memorable line that reflects the need to omit "waffle" from one's writing. Every paragraph, every sentence, every word has a purpose—if what you write doesn’t have a purpose (other than adding words to your piece), remove it.

The message is similar to concepts like " Keep It Simple, Stupid" (KISS) or Occam’s Razor (a philosophical principle consistent with the fundaments of critical thinking), which roughly translates from Latin as ‘More things should not be used than are necessary’ . Simply, all of these recommendations suggest that less is more , which it truly is in many cases. So, in practice, remove unnecessary and ambiguous words. For example, unless you’re writing a literary piece, adverbs are often a good place to start cutting .

6. Write as if your granny was reading.

If you’re writing about a specialist topic, it’s likely that the language used to convey meaning will be somewhat complex, particularly to someone who's not an expert in that topic area. Similar to the case of the last tip, just because it’s wordy or reads complex doesn’t make it good writing. Being able to simplify a complex concept so that others can understand it is a much better example of good writing. This is of particular importance to students as well. For example, educators wouldn't have set a particular assignment if they didn't know the topic well—they don't want their students to teach them the material, they want them to explain it in their own words for the purpose of assessing their understanding of it. The student’s ability to paraphrase complex information into something accessible to novices is a primary indicator of learning, not repeating something complex, word-for-word from a few different texts. Write as if your granny was reading because if she can understand it, that means you understand it—as will others.

7. Ensure that you have analysed , evaluated and inferred .

Critical thinking refers to purposeful, self-regulatory, reflective judgment, consisting of a number of sub-skills (i.e. analysis, evaluation and inference), that increase the chances of producing a logical solution to a problem or a valid conclusion to an argument (Dwyer, 2017; Dwyer, Hogan & Stewart, 2014). In order to integrate critical thinking into your writing, its core skills need to be applied. Thus, perhaps the most important tip for integrating critical thinking into your writing is ensuring that you have appropriately analysed , evaluated and inferred .

Analysis is used to detect, examine and identify the propositions within an argument, their sources (e.g. research, common beliefs, personal experience) and the role they play (e.g. the main conclusion, the premises and reasons provided to support the conclusion, objections to the conclusion), as well as the inferential relationships among propositions. When it comes to analysing the basis for a person’s belief, we can extract the structure of their argument for analysis (from dialogue and text) by looking for arguments that support or refute the belief; and by looking for arguments that support or object to the previous level of arguments and so on. As a result, what we see is a hierarchical structure (see Tip 3), in which we can analyse each individual proposition by identifying what types of arguments others are using when trying to persuade us to share their point of view.

Evaluation is used to assess previously analysed propositions and claims with respect to their credibility (i.e. of a proposition’s source), relevance (i.e. of a proposition to the claim and other propositions), logical strength (i.e. in terms of the relationships among propositions) and the potential for omissions, bias and imbalance in the argument. Evaluation helps us establish the truth of a claim and when we do this, we can arrive at some conclusions about the overall strengths and weaknesses of arguments. So, if it’s not credible, relevant, logical and unbiased, you should consider excluding it or discussing its weaknesses as an objection.

Inference refers to the gathering of credible, relevant and logical evidence based on the previous analysis and evaluation of available information, for the purpose of drawing a reasonable conclusion. This may imply accepting a conclusion pointed to by an author in light of the evidence they present or proposing an alternative, equally logical, conclusion based on the available evidence. The ability to infer, or generate a conclusion, can be completed by both formal and informal logic strategies in order to derive intermediate conclusions as well as central claims. After inferring a conclusion, we must re-evaluate our resulting argument. When applying the skill of inference, we progress in a somewhat cyclical manner—from inference back to evaluation and again to inference until we are confident in our overall conclusion. An important by-product of this cycle is that our thinking becomes more complex, more organized and more logical.

Butchart, S., Bigelow, J., Oppy, G., Korb, K., & Gold, I. (2009). Improving critical thinking using web-based argument mapping exercises with automated feedback. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 25, 2, 268-291.

Dwyer, C.P. (2011). The evaluation of argument mapping as a learning tool. Doctoral Thesis. National University of Ireland, Galway.

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

Dwyer, C.P., Hogan, M.J., & Stewart, I. (2012). An evaluation of argument mapping as a method of enhancing critical thinking performance in e-learning environments. Metacognition and Learning, 7, 219-244.

Dwyer, C.P., Hogan, M.J. & Stewart, I. (2014). An integrated critical thinking framework for the 21st century. Thinking Skills & Creativity, 12, 43-52.

van Gelder, T.J., Bissett, M., & Cumming, G. (2004). Enhancing expertise in informal reasoning. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology 58, 142-52.

Christopher Dwyer, Ph.D., is a lecturer at the Technological University of the Shannon in Athlone, Ireland.

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

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

Coronavirus Disease 2019
Affective Forecasting
Neuroscience

Library Catalogue

Critical thinking for critical writing

On this page, non-critical vs. critical reading, modes of critical analysis, steps to writing critically, implications for writing.

Critical writing depends on critical thinking. Your writing will involve reflection on written texts: that is, critical reading.

Your critical reading of a text and thinking about a text enables you to use it to make your own arguments. As a critical thinker and writer, you make judgments and interpretations of the ideas, arguments, and claims of others presented in the texts you read.

The key is this: don’t read looking only or primarily for information . Instead, read to determine ways of thinking about the subject matter.

Non-critical reading is focused on learning the information provided by a source. In this mode, a reader focuses on understanding the information, ideas, and opinions stated within the text.

Sometimes non-critical reading is a part of our day-to-day lives. For example, we may consult a weather report to help us decide whether or not we need to pack an umbrella when we leave the house. Often, we don't need to be critical readers to get the information we need about the weather. However, if the weather report states that it will be a "sunny, cloudless day" and we can see that it is pouring outside our window, we will likely bring our critical reading abilities back into play!

How to read critically

1. Determine the central claims or purpose of the text (its thesis). A critical reading attempts to identify and assess how these central claims are developed and argued.

2. Begin to make some judgments about context .

What audience is the text written for?
Who is it in dialogue with?
In what historical context is it written?

3. Distinguish the kinds of reasoning the text employs.

What concepts are defined and used?
Does the text appeal to a theory or theories?
Is any specific methodology laid out?
If there is an appeal to a particular concept, theory, or method, how is that concept, theory, or method then used to organize and interpret the data?
How has the author analyzed (broken down) the material?

4. Examine the evidence (the supporting facts, examples, etc.) the text employs. Supporting evidence is indispensable to an argument, so consider the kinds of evidence used: Statistical? Literary? Historical? From what sources is the evidence taken? Are these sources primary or secondary?

5. Critical reading may involve evaluation . Your reading of a text is already critical if it accounts for and makes a series of judgments about how a text is argued. Some assignments may also require you to assess the strengths and weaknesses of an argument.

Why to read critically

Critical reading is an important step for many academic assignments. Critically engaging with the work of others is often a first step in developing our own arguments, interpretations, and analysis.

Critical reading often involves re-reading a text multiple times, putting our focus on different aspects of the text. The first time we read a text, we may be focused on getting an overall sense of the information the author is presenting - in other words, simply understanding what they are trying to say. On subsequent readings, however, we can focus on how the author presents that information, the kinds of evidence they provide to support their arguments (and how convincing we find that evidence), the connection between their evidence and their conclusions, etc. etc.

Example: A non-critical thinker/reader might read a history book to learn the facts of the situation or to discover an accepted interpretation of those events.

A critical thinker/reader might read the same work to appreciate how a particular perspective on the events and a particular selection of facts can lead to a particular understanding. A critical thinker/reader will likely also think about the perspectives of that event that are NOT being considered or presented in the text.

What a text says – restatement . Talks about the same topic as the original text. What a text does – description . Focuses on aspects of the discussion itself. What a text means – interpretation . Analyzes the text and asserts a meaning for the text as a whole.

TIP: An interpretation includes references to the content (the specific actions referred to), the language (the specific terms used), and the structure (such as the relationship between characters).

1. Take a critical stance: recognize that every text, author, and argument comes from a perspective and is subject to interpretation and analysis.

2. Pay close attention : read texts not just for what they say but also for how they say it . Notice examples, evidence, word choice, structure, etc. Consider the "fit" between the information a text provides and the way it provides that information.

3. Think big picture : read texts in their context. This can sometimes also involve doing some research about your sources to learn more about the author, the time in which the text was written, the sources that funded the research, etc.

4. Bring yourself in : critical writing also involves developing your own understandings, interpretations, analysis, and arguments in response to the texts you are reading. Sometimes this is accomplished by considering the connections/points of divergence between several texts you are reading. It can also involve bringing in your own perspectives and experiences to support or challenge evidence, examples, and/or conclusions.

Writing critically involves:

Providing appropriate and sufficient arguments and examples
Choosing terms that are precise, appropriate, and persuasive
Making clear the transitions from one thought to another to ensure the overall logic of the presentation
Editing for content, structure, and language

An increased awareness of the impact of choices of content, language, and structure can help you as a writer to develop habits of rewriting and revision.

Reference: this resource was adapted from Dan Kurland's Critical Reading, at its Core, Plain and Simple

- News, tips, inspiration you can trust to thrive in today’s digital age.

Search form

style="display:block" data-ad-client="ca-pub-5962919948289066" data-ad-slot="7796372393" data-ad-format="auto" data-full-width-responsive="true">

The Importance of Critical Thinking in Writing (and How to Apply It)

Woman_Using_laptop_writing_importance_of_Critical_Thinking_When_Writing - Illustration

Developing unique ideas for writing and writing a story worth reading can be challenging. Even when the ideas for writing are already in your head, writing requires research, organization, and a great deal of creativity. But, you already knew that, right?

What many people don’t know or don't realize, however, is that all those processes for effective writing depend on how well you’ve developed your critical thinking skills.

According to the Texas A&M University Writing Center, critical thinking is "the ability to view any object of study from multiple perspectives, to recognize the cultural, ideological, and cognitive frames (or schemata) we bring to understanding."

You can learn everything about story structure and all the rules that come with it such as formatting, language and grammar rules , but applying your ideas effectively in an actual piece of writing requires critical thinking.

Critical thinking is what glues all of the writing processes together and defines your writing style .

Critical Thinking Informs All Good Writing

The best writers are those who think critically and may have even undergone some form of critical thinking training . The value of critical thinking is clear thought-processing, which results in well-developed plots and writings. When you need to write a story that reads well and avoids plot holes and inconsistencies , honing your critical thinking is necessary.

You can perform the research necessary for a story and plan to finish with a strong conclusion. But, when you don’t apply critical thinking in your story, your ideas risk coming across as ambiguous or not well thought out. This is because you can’t really plan out your arguments or provide the story’s premises effectively without critical thinking.

Critical thinking in writing is related to research in the way you deliberately search, analyze and evaluate ideas that you'll put on paper. However, critical thinking discriminates information and ideas to ensure you pick and use only the most appropriate, concise words and paragraphs that deliver messages powerfully and with great impact on readers.

Reserchers have also come to understand that critical thinking is in itself a habit and a skill, something which you can practice, polish, and develop.

Hone Your Critical Thinking Skills

To consciously direct and hone your critical thinking skills, you’ll need to answer some basic questions before writing your story:

How good is my argument or story idea?
Is my argument or idea defensible and valid?
Am I using a rational, reasonable position on the idea or issue?
What should I use to best present this idea and deal with its complexity?
Should I go deep into the topic or only touch upon the key issues lightly?
Should I address any other points of view, and which ones?
What are my goals with the story?
What sources of information should I consult?
What's the best way to present the information?

When asking (and answering) these questions, your analytical skills and quality of answers will depend greatly on the clarity of your thoughts, sources, and intentions. Once that's done sufficiently, you can apply it all to your writing.

8 Ways to Apply Critical Thinking in Your Writing

To make sure you write your story based on sound critical thinking, use these handy tips:

1. Research by questioning everything

Not all of the sources you will be using for your story, research, and critical analysis will be accurate or even relevant. Thinking critically means that you should question all your sources and be careful about the acquisition of data you’ll use in your story.

To write critically, you must examine every little piece of information before using it; validate and parse as part of your research . Basically, you need a rather active, critical and detailed approach throughout the accumulation of information.

2. Scrutinize your method of gathering information

Before you use any of the evidence or information you have found during the research for your story , look at the method for its gathering.

Think of sources you plan to use and places where you can find them. But, most importantly, think of the sources’ credibility and whether or not you can ascertain this.

Only use information that is reliable in your stories.

3. Stay true to the evidence

Before you jump into any conclusions, examine the evidence and the unbiased direction it is pointing towards.

Carefully examining the evidence for your ideas will help you find information that is valid, and any other information you might have missed out on an argument of big importance.

To avoid turning your story into a poorly written one, stay true to the evidence you’ve collected. Also consider the evidence itself in detail.

Is the evidence too broad? Does it have too many details? Are there any other explanations you can provide for it? Do you have enough evidence to support your arguments? Use only the most appropriate and accurate evidence.

4. Eliminate truisms and tautologies

Truism is a truth that is self-evident, while tautology is a statement that repeats the same thing. Both create redundancy that in most cases, doesn’t add directly to your story.

Even though truism and tautology used masterfully could give a story a certain artistic quality, you should generally try to avoid them in your writing.

Critically look for statements in your writing that repeat themselves or are self-evident. These are unnecessary features of your writing that should be removed to improve precision and clarity in your story.

5. Avoid oversimplification

There is a fine line between improving clarity and oversimplification. Try to achieve the former, while eradicating the latter as much as possible.

We are talking about using short, concise, easy to understand and simple explanations, and avoiding dumbed down explanations that insult the intelligence of the reader and demonstrate a lack of breadth and depth.

That certainly calls for high critical thinking and judgment when writing or crafting a story.

6. Plan ahead

When selecting a topic for your story, brainstorm ideas for it beforehand. Make sure the topic you chose is right for the specific purpose. Think of your objectives and goals, and also what you represent.

By brainstorming and planning ahead, you’ll be better equipped to write a story that is concise, relevant, and properly organized.

One grand factor of planning is organization. To plan ahead and do it well, you need to prioritize and reorganize your concepts, ideas, and arguments well.

In other words, you need a chronology of ideas and arguments. Use careful discretion and judgment to create a plan that makes sense and demonstrates your critical thinking abilities.

7. Define your approaches

In writing, you need arguments and ideas. But, you cannot just toss them around anyhow and expect them to make sense.

Instead, you’ll not only need good organization and planning skills, but also a strategy or an approach for presenting them in the most effective way possible.

As soon as you have all the evidence and material ready for use in your story, analyze the strengths and weaknesses of your sources and the arguments they raise. This will help you define the best possible approach for using the evidence and material in your story.

While you take care of this part, remember that each and every argument and evidence used in your story should be as reasonable as it is valid.

8. Break down your arguments

To better present the relationships between arguments in your story, and to find the best writing approach, break down arguments into smaller, easy to understand parts. For this purpose, you can use priority ranking, comparison and contrast, cause and effect, making inferences, and drawing conclusions.

Cons of Not Using Critical Thinking in Your Writing

If you are thinking applying critical thinking in writing is too much of a hassle, then understand that not incorporating critical thinking leads to poor writing.

And it’s easy to detect the effects of not using critical thinking in writing. Some of the obvious signs of not applying critical thinking is a piece of writing include:

Relationships between concepts aren’t clearly described, but only summarized or alluded to.
The arguments or thesis are repetitive and don’t relate to the rest of the story.
Poor or no order whatsoever in the presentation of arguments, summaries, and evidence.
No chronology or sequel in sentences, arguments, and or paragraphs.
Weak summaries or summaries with no order.
Relationships between arguments aren’t fully developed.
Heavy use of truisms, tautologies, and or abstractions.

If you want to write powerfully and ensure your stories (be they blogs, essays, or reports) yield results and impact readers , you have to improve clarity and add informational value. The only way to do this is by employing critical thinking in your writing.

Critical thinking is an essential skill and practice not just for good writing, but also for effective storytelling within your writings.

Alexandra Reay is a journalist, writer, and editor. She is also a professional content writer who enjoys researching and writing on the topics of self-improvement, technology innovations, and global education development. Follow her on Twitter .

Share this article

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER

Get our best content, news, tips, and inspiration in your inbox free.

Join Over 20,000 Subscribers!

Get our best content, tips, and inspiration free in your inbox. Subscribe ››

style="display:inline-block;width:336px;height:280px" data-ad-client="ca-pub-5962919948289066" data-ad-slot="7803129367">

Most read this week

Got a story or tip for us?

Here's how to submit it →

style="display:block" data-ad-client="ca-pub-5962919948289066" data-ad-slot="9650515266" data-ad-format="auto" data-full-width-responsive="true">

How the Universe Evolved: The Planet Hunters Exploring the Universe

Good Business Starts with a Good Workplace Environment: How to Create It

Common Diesel Engine Problems and Solutions to Fix Them

Common Diesel Engine Problems You May Encounter (and Solutions to Fix Them)

Why Product Packaging Design Is So Important for eCommerce Success

Many eCommerce businesses forget about the customer once they checkout. User experience doesn’t stop after checkout. Product packaging is a crucial post-checkout touchpoint for success.

5 Best Outdoor Activities for the Weekend to Get in Shape

Load 5 more stories ▽

Contributors blogs

Blog here »

The Importance of Ethics While Implementing Digitalization

A Beginner's Guide to Taking Perfect Website Screenshots

friends-eating-out-food-brings-people-together

How Food Brings Us Closer Together

The Amazing Benefits of Spinach (And Warnings, too)

7 Simple Tips to Add More Vitamins and Minerals to Your Diet

7 Simple Tips to Add Vitamins and Minerals to Your Diet

What Google's Recent Change in “NoFollow” Links Means

The Advantages of Technical Support Solutions in Business

Like this content subscribe for updates.

Introduction

Chapter outline.

The ways in which you approach and discuss debatable topics incorporate critical thinking, critical reading, and critical writing. The reasoning strategies discussed in this chapter reflect the patterns people use to think critically and the structures with which writers and speakers commonly build their arguments. These strategies are also the ones you will use in most of your college writing projects, including your assignments for Position Argument: Practicing the Art of Rhetoric and Argumentative Research: Enhancing the Art of Rhetoric with Evidence . Each strategy is a building block of logic; that is, each is built on a pattern of thought, which you use out of the classroom as well. For instance, you might approach a text or real-life situation in some of the following ways:

Explain it in terms of something unrelated but more familiar.
Compare or contrast it with other texts or situations.
Group it in a category with similar texts or situations.
Consider it as a problem that needs to be solved.
Examine the reasons something happens or what happens as a result.
Explain what the text or situation means to you.

These thought patterns exemplify active critical thinking, which translates into critical writing. In other words, writing patterns reflect thinking patterns. By applying these reasoning patterns appropriately and effectively, you will be able to incorporate the evidence you need to support a thesis and persuade readers of the validity of your argument. Remember, too, that these are skills, and like other skills, the more you practice, the better you will get at using them effectively. (You can read more about argument and logic in Rhetorical Analysis: Interpreting the Art of Rhetoric .)

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This book may not be used in the training of large language models or otherwise be ingested into large language models or generative AI offerings without OpenStax's permission.

Want to cite, share, or modify this book? This book uses the Creative Commons Attribution License and you must attribute OpenStax.

Access for free at https://openstax.org/books/writing-guide/pages/1-unit-introduction

Authors: Michelle Bachelor Robinson, Maria Jerskey, featuring Toby Fulwiler
Publisher/website: OpenStax
Book title: Writing Guide with Handbook
Publication date: Dec 21, 2021
Location: Houston, Texas
Book URL: https://openstax.org/books/writing-guide/pages/1-unit-introduction
Section URL: https://openstax.org/books/writing-guide/pages/11-introduction

© Dec 19, 2023 OpenStax. Textbook content produced by OpenStax is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License . The OpenStax name, OpenStax logo, OpenStax book covers, OpenStax CNX name, and OpenStax CNX logo are not subject to the Creative Commons license and may not be reproduced without the prior and express written consent of Rice University.

Thinking through Writing

Before you purchase audiobooks and ebooks.

Please note that audiobooks and ebooks purchased from this site must be accessed on the Princeton University Press app. After you make your purchase, you will receive an email with instructions on how to download the app. Learn more about audio and ebooks .

Support your local independent bookstore.

United States
United Kingdom

Thinking through Writing: A Guide to Becoming a Better Writer and Thinker

John Kaag and Jonathan van Belle

A concise and practical manual on developing reading, writing, and critical thinking skills in tandem

Skills for Scholars

Request Exam Copy
Download Cover

For college students learning how to write on scholarly subjects, writing and critical thinking go hand in hand. And yet most books on these topics are categorized separately: writing guides and critical thinking handbooks. This book is different, offering a manual for developing reading, writing, and thinking skills in tandem. With short, practical chapters, Thinking through Writing helps readers learn to think critically about themselves and the world at large, read carefully and get the necessary literary support, write clearly and persuasively, stay on point, and finish their work as cleanly and compellingly as possible. Drawing on years of teaching critical thinking and writing, including almost a decade of teaching Harvard’s freshman expository writing course, the authors invite readers to consider the intimate relationship between thinking and the creative, critical, self-actualizing act of writing. • Interviews with some of the most interesting and brilliant writers working today • Advice on how to structure an argument, write for an audience, work through writer’s block and anxiety, and much more • Tips on how to make your writing unique and personal • Exercises and templates to help novice writers reach their full potential in practice

“One of the great strengths of the book is its knowledgeable-but-cheeky tone. It lends the authors enormous credibility when offering advice and solace and will help keep student readers on their toes rather than checking out of reading a dry textbook.” —Lisa Horton, University of Minnesota Duluth

“With a unique, lively, and contemporary approach, the authors of Thinking Through Writin g meet students where they are at both intellectually and personally, addressing them as partners and allies in the writing process.”—Douglas Dowland, Ohio Northern University

Stay connected for new books and special offers. Subscribe to receive a welcome discount for your next order.

ebook & Audiobook Cart

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

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

Writing and Critical Thinking Through Literature (Ringo and Kashyap)

Last updated
Save as PDF
Page ID 40355

Heather Ringo & Athena Kashyap
City College of San Francisco via ASCCC Open Educational Resources Initiative

This text offers instruction in analytical, critical, and argumentative writing, critical thinking, research strategies, information literacy, and proper documentation through the study of literary works from major genres, while developing students’ close reading skills and promoting an appreciation of the aesthetic qualities of literature.

Thumbnail: Old book bindings at the Merton College library. (CC BY-SA 3.0; Tom Murphy VII via Wikipedia ).

Critical thinking definition

Critical thinking, as described by Oxford Languages, is the objective analysis and evaluation of an issue in order to form a judgement.

Active and skillful approach, evaluation, assessment, synthesis, and/or evaluation of information obtained from, or made by, observation, knowledge, reflection, acumen or conversation, as a guide to belief and action, requires the critical thinking process, which is why it's often used in education and academics.

Some even may view it as a backbone of modern thought.

However, it's a skill, and skills must be trained and encouraged to be used at its full potential.

People turn up to various approaches in improving their critical thinking, like:

Developing technical and problem-solving skills
Engaging in more active listening
Actively questioning their assumptions and beliefs
Seeking out more diversity of thought
Opening up their curiosity in an intellectual way etc.

Is critical thinking useful in writing?

Critical thinking can help in planning your paper and making it more concise, but it's not obvious at first. We carefully pinpointed some the questions you should ask yourself when boosting critical thinking in writing:

What information should be included?
Which information resources should the author look to?
What degree of technical knowledge should the report assume its audience has?
What is the most effective way to show information?
How should the report be organized?
How should it be designed?
What tone and level of language difficulty should the document have?

Usage of critical thinking comes down not only to the outline of your paper, it also begs the question: How can we use critical thinking solving problems in our writing's topic?

Let's say, you have a Powerpoint on how critical thinking can reduce poverty in the United States. You'll primarily have to define critical thinking for the viewers, as well as use a lot of critical thinking questions and synonyms to get them to be familiar with your methods and start the thinking process behind it.

Are there any services that can help me use more critical thinking?

We understand that it's difficult to learn how to use critical thinking more effectively in just one article, but our service is here to help.

We are a team specializing in writing essays and other assignments for college students and all other types of customers who need a helping hand in its making. We cover a great range of topics, offer perfect quality work, always deliver on time and aim to leave our customers completely satisfied with what they ordered.

The ordering process is fully online, and it goes as follows:

Select the topic and the deadline of your essay.
Provide us with any details, requirements, statements that should be emphasized or particular parts of the essay writing process you struggle with.
Leave the email address, where your completed order will be sent to.
Select your prefered payment type, sit back and relax!

With lots of experience on the market, professionally degreed essay writers , online 24/7 customer support and incredibly low prices, you won't find a service offering a better deal than ours.

NAEYC Login
Member Profile
Hello Community
Accreditation Portal
Online Learning
Online Store

Popular Searches: DAP ; Coping with COVID-19 ; E-books ; Anti-Bias Education ; Online Store

Message in a Backpack™. Asking Questions to Stretch Your Child’s Thinking

When you ask your children questions—especially big, open-ended ones—you support their language development and critical thinking. Instead of asking questions with a one-word answer (“Who is your friend?”) or only one right answer (“What color is the crayon?”), try to open the door to conversations in a new way. During family routines like mealtimes or bathtime, while reading bedtime stories together or taking walks, or when you ask your child about their day at preschool, use the following strategies to encourage them to talk about themselves, their ideas, and their reflections.

1. Ask open-ended questions to spark conversations. Pose questions that will encourage your child to analyze, evaluate, and create, such as

What was the best (hardest, funniest, saddest) thing about your day at preschool?
What book did your teacher read today? Tell me the story.
If you had written the story, how would you have changed it?
If you were cooking for our family, what would you make for breakfast (lunch, dinner)? Why?

(See “Sample Open-Ended Questions” below for more examples.)

2. Allow plenty of wait time. Children need time to process what you’re saying, think about it, and then answer. Give them at least a few seconds to respond, and vary the time according to their needs. You know your child best! If the question is one they don’t yet have the vocabulary to answer, modify it. During bathtime, for example, if your child doesn’t answer when you ask where they think it would be most fun to take a bath, ask if they would rather take a bath at home or at Grandma’s house and why. As your child grows and develops, their vocabulary will expand.

3. Listen to your child’s responses. Use active listening strategies: make eye contact, encourage your child to share their ideas, and restate or summarize what they say. For example, “You’ve told me that you love all of the books your teacher reads about animals. Let’s go to the library and see if we can find some other books about animals to read at home. Which animals would you like to start with?”

4. Ask another question or make a comment after your child answers. This further extends your conversation. If you aren’t sure how to respond, you can almost always say, “What else can we add to that?” or “Tell me more about that.” For example, “You told me yesterday that your favorite song in preschool is ‘Wheels on the Bus.’ Let’s make up a song to that tune to sing at breakfast that starts with, “One food on the table is toast, toast, toast . . .”

5. Have fun together! Don’t be afraid to use some big, juicy words to expand your child’s vocabulary. You’ll be amazed how they add these words to their conversations, once introduced. For example, “You have told me so much about the rock collection in preschool. Maybe you will be a geologist when you grow up.” Or “Let’s listen to that song you told me about when an orchestra performs it, rather than just a small band.”

Download the PDF for this Message in a Backpack™ here!

Sample Open-Ended Questions

Questions to ask about your child’s day:

Did something happen today that made you feel proud? Tell me about it.
What book did your teacher read today? Tell me the story.
What foods did you see at preschool today that were new or different? Tell me about them.

Questions to ask during mealtimes:

What are some words we could use to describe the chicken (rice, vegetables) we’re eating? Let’s think of words that describe how it smells (tastes, sounds like when we chew).
How could we make a menu to show what we’re going to have for dinner tomorrow?

Questions to ask before a bedtime story:

What do you think the story will be about? (Look at the front and back covers.)
Do you think this will be a story that really happened (nonfiction) or a pretend story? Why?
What does the illustration (picture) on the front (back) cover make you think of? How does it make you feel? Why?

Questions to ask after reading a bedtime story:

What did you think about the story? Did you like it? Why?
What was your favorite part? Why?
Can you think of a different ending? Tell me about it.
What would you like to tell the author (illustrator) about the book?

To read more, check out Big Questions for Young Minds , by Janis Strasser and Lisa Mufson Bresson, published by NAEYC. Visit NAEYC.org/resources/pubs/books/big-questions-young-minds .

Janis Strasser is professor emerita from William Paterson University. She has been a kindergarten/preschool teacher, Head Start education coordinator, and consultant, and she has written many articles for Young Children and Teaching Young Children . For the past several years, Dr. Strasser has been working with preschool teachers on the island of Anguilla during the winter months.

Vol. 17, No. 3

Print this article

ENGL 2A: Critical Thinking and Writing (McIsaac)

Hello From Your Librarian
Library Resources
Using Databases
Citation Help
Workshop 04.09.24

Chat with a Librarian

24/7 research help is available, workshop goals.

Next: Hello From Your Librarian >>
Last Updated: Apr 2, 2024 10:13 AM
URL: https://libguides.scu.edu/McIsaac

COMMENTS

Writing to Think: Critical Thinking and the Writing Process
Writing practice builds critical thinking, which empowers people to "take charge of [their] own minds" so they "can take charge of [their] own lives . . . and improve them, bringing them under [their] self command and direction" (Foundation for Critical Thinking, 2020, para. 12). Writing is a way of coming to know and understand the ...
What Is Critical Thinking?
Critical thinking is the ability to effectively analyze information and form a judgment. To think critically, you must be aware of your own biases and assumptions when encountering information, and apply consistent standards when evaluating sources. Critical thinking skills help you to: Identify credible sources. Evaluate and respond to arguments.
The relationship between writing and critical thinking
Writing and critical thinking are two vital skills that are closely related and complement each other. Writing can be considered as a tool that enables one to express their ideas and thoughts, while critical thinking is a mental process that allows one to analyze, evaluate, and interpret information. Writing and critical thinking are inseparable as...
Understanding the Complex Relationship between Critical Thinking and
In a similar vein, the content-related, epistemological aspects of science reasoning, as well as the conventions associated with writing the undergraduate thesis (including feedback from peers and revision), may explain the lack of significant relationships between some science reasoning dimensions and some critical-thinking skills that might ...
Introduction: Critical Thinking, Reading, & Writing
Critical thinkers will identify, analyze, and solve problems systematically rather than by intuition or instinct. Someone with critical thinking skills can: Understand the links between ideas. Determine the importance and relevance of arguments and ideas. Recognize, build, and appraise arguments. Identify inconsistencies and errors in reasoning.
Critical Thinking & Writing
Critical writing requires you to apply interpretation, analysis, and evaluation to the descriptions you have provided. Critical writing often responds to questions framed as 'how' or 'why'.Often, critical writing will require you to build an argument which is supported by evidence.. Some indicators of critical writing are:. Investigation of positive and negative perspectives on ideas
Critical Thinking
Critical thinking is fundamentally a process of questioning information and data. You may question the information you read in a textbook, or you may question what a politician or a professor or a classmate says. You can also question a commonly-held belief or a new idea. With critical thinking, anything and everything is subject to question ...
Critical Thinking and Writing: Critical Writing
Key features of critical writing. Key features in critical writing include: Presenting strong supporting evidence and a clear argument that leads to a reasonable conclusion. Presenting a balanced argument that indicates an unbiased view by evaluating both the evidence that supports your argument as well as the counter-arguments that may show an ...
Critical writing
Quoting, paraphrasing and synthesising. Using evidence to build critical arguments. This guide contains key resources to introduce you to the features of critical writing. For more in-depth advice and guidance on critical writing, visit our specialist academic writing guides: Academic writing: Criticality in academic writing.
3.1: Critical Thinking in College Writing
If critical thinking begins with a personal view of the text, academic writing helps you broaden that view by going beyond the personal to a more universal point of view. In other words, academic writing often has its roots in one's private opinion or perspective about another writer's ideas but ultimately goes beyond this opinion to the ...
16.5 Writing Process: Thinking Critically About Text
Develop a writing project focused on textual analysis. Complete the stages of the writing process, including generating ideas, drafting, reviewing, revising, rewriting, and editing. Integrate the writer's ideas with ideas of others. Collaborate in the peer review process. When analyzing a text, writers usually focus on the content of the text ...
7 Tips for Integrating Critical Thinking into your Writing
4. "Quality, not quantity." Don't get me wrong, quantity is important. If you don't present enough information, your argument won't be convincing and may affect its impact…and if you're ...
(PDF) Exploring the Connection between Critical Thinking Skills and
Not many realize that writing and thinking are interrelated in many ways. The teaching of critical thinking skills can be embedded in the teaching of writing in the classroom. This study explores ...
The Link between Critical Reading, Thinking and Writing
Being critical is indeed a key skill you will need for your assessments, whether this be an essay, exam or oral presentation. But thinking critically is only the second step in a three-step process. This 'critical process' normally begins with critical reading and ends with critical writing (in the case of an essay); critical thinking comes ...
Writing as critical thinking.
Writing is similar to critical thinking in that it requires the integration and execution of various skills, including argument, organization, and planning, as well as a working comprehension of grammar and punctuation rules. Some authors even claim that writing is a form of problem solving (Flower, 1998; see also Hayes, 2006; Hayes & Flower ...
Critical thinking for critical writing
1. Take a critical stance: recognize that every text, author, and argument comes from a perspective and is subject to interpretation and analysis. 2. Pay close attention: read texts not just for what they say but also for how they say it. Notice examples, evidence, word choice, structure, etc. Consider the "fit" between the information a text ...
Crafting Compelling Argumentative Writing for Undergraduates: Exploring
Argumentative writing is a fundamental aspect of undergraduate students' academic and scientific writing related to critical thinking and problem-solving skills. However, previous studies have shown that students face various difficulties with argumentative writing, such as unclear and illogical ideas, less-structured arguments, and ...
The Importance of Critical Thinking in Writing (and How to Apply It)
Critical thinking in writing is related to research in the way you deliberately search, analyze and evaluate ideas that you'll put on paper. However, critical thinking discriminates information and ideas to ensure you pick and use only the most appropriate, concise words and paragraphs that deliver messages powerfully and with great impact on ...
Ch. 11 Introduction
The ways in which you approach and discuss debatable topics incorporate critical thinking, critical reading, and critical writing. The reasoning strategies discussed in this chapter reflect the patterns people use to think critically and the structures with which writers and speakers commonly build their arguments.
Thinking through Writing
For college students learning how to write on scholarly subjects, writing and critical thinking go hand in hand. And yet most books on these topics are categorized separately: writing guides and critical thinking handbooks. This book is different, offering a manual for developing reading, writing, and thinking skills in tandem.
Writing and Critical Thinking Through ...
Heather Ringo & Athena Kashyap. City College of San Francisco via ASCCC Open Educational Resources Initiative. This text offers instruction in analytical, critical, and argumentative writing, critical thinking, research strategies, information literacy, and proper documentation through the study of literary works from major genres, while ...
The Writing Rope: the Strands that Are Woven into Skilled Writing
This strand draws significantly on critical thinking and executive function skills, as well as the ability to develop background knowledge about a writing topic. It also requires an awareness of the writing process (i.e., organizing, drafting, writing, revising).Students engage in critical thinking as they think about what they want to communicate through their writing.
Bridging critical thinking and transformative learning: The role of
Although there are numerous transformative aspects of university education, the authors give particular emphasis to critical thinking. They write: 'the primary goal of training in critical thinking is an epistemic transformation that is not merely the acquisition of new knowledge, but the adoption of a new and better way of reasoning' (Paul ...
Improve Writing with Logical Reasoning Tips
If you feel that your writing lacks logical reasoning for critical thinking, here are some steps you can take to improve: 1. Develop a clear thesis statement 2. Gather and evaluate evidence 3.
Library Resources
Tags: Critical thinking and writing, CTW, CTW2, english. 500 El Camino Real, Santa Clara, CA 95053 (408) 554-4000. Contact Us Maps & Directions People Directory. Emergency Info Careers Logins. Follow us on Facebook Follow us on Twitter Join us on LinkedIn Follow us on Pinterest Follow us on Instagram.
Using Critical Thinking in Essays and other Assignments
Critical thinking, as described by Oxford Languages, is the objective analysis and evaluation of an issue in order to form a judgement. Active and skillful approach, evaluation, assessment, synthesis, and/or evaluation of information obtained from, or made by, observation, knowledge, reflection, acumen or conversation, as a guide to belief and ...
Message in a Backpack™. Asking Questions to Stretch Your Child's Thinking
Let's make up a song to that tune to sing at breakfast that starts with, "One food on the table is toast, toast, toast . . .". 5. Have fun together! Don't be afraid to use some big, juicy words to expand your child's vocabulary. You'll be amazed how they add these words to their conversations, once introduced.
Home
Tags: Critical thinking and writing, CTW, CTW2, english. 500 El Camino Real, Santa Clara, CA 95053 (408) 554-4000. Contact Us Maps & Directions People Directory. Emergency Info Careers Logins. Follow us on Facebook Follow us on Twitter Join us on LinkedIn Follow us on Pinterest Follow us on Instagram.

Writing to Think: Critical Thinking and the Writing Process

What is Critical Thinking?

Writing and Critical Thinking

Example of Composition as Critical Thinking

Why Writing to Think Matters

Share this:

Follow Blog via Email

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Twitter feed

Have a language expert improve your writing

What Is Critical Thinking? | Definition & Examples

Table of contents

Scribbr Citation Checker New

Academic examples

Nonacademic examples

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

Cite this Scribbr article

Is this article helpful?

Eoghan Ryan

The relationship between writing and critical thinking

Similar Posts

Beyond Words: Unleashing the Power of Multimodality in Writing

Unlocking the Mystery of AI Literacy: A Guide to Understanding AI

How to Embrace Cultural Differences While Teaching Writing

What’s Next for the Science of Reading: Focus on the Science of Writing

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Understanding the Complex Relationship between Critical Thinking and Science Reasoning among Undergraduate Thesis Writers

Robert J. Thompson, Jr.

Leslie A. Schiff

Julie A. Reynolds

INTRODUCTION

Critical Thinking

Scientific Reasoning

Scientific Reasoning in Students’ Thesis Writing

Research Question and Study Design

Study Sample

Scientific Reasoning in Writing

Statistical Analyses

Supplementary Material

Academic Writing: Critical Thinking & Writing

Critical Thinking

Writing Critically

Descriptive Writing and Critical Writing

Further Reading

Essential Links

Module 1: Success Skills

“Thinking Critically and Creatively”

Defining Critical Thinking

Critical Thinking in Action

Critical Thinking and Logic

Logic’s Relationship to Critical Thinking

Questions of Logic in Critical Thinking

Problem-Solving With Critical Thinking

Problem-Solving Action Checklist

Evaluating Information With Critical Thinking

1. Read for Understanding Using Text Coding

2. Examine Arguments

3. Clarify Thinking

4. Cultivate “Habits of Mind”

Library Guides

Key features of critical writing

Structuring Your Writing to Express Criticality

Your Argument

Useful resources

Workshop recording

Workshop Slides

CONNECT WITH US

Being critical: a practical guide

What is critical writing?

Forthcoming training sessions

Quoting, paraphrasing and synthesising

Using evidence to build critical arguments

7 Tips for Integrating Critical Thinking into your Writing

Critical thinking for critical writing

How to read critically

Why to read critically

Search form

The Importance of Critical Thinking in Writing (and How to Apply It)

Critical Thinking Informs All Good Writing

Hone Your Critical Thinking Skills