critical thinking basic questions & answers reflection

Defining Critical Thinking

• A Brief History of the Idea of Critical Thinking
• Critical Thinking: Basic Questions & Answers
• Our Conception of Critical Thinking
• Sumner’s Definition of Critical Thinking
• Research in Critical Thinking
• Critical Societies: Thoughts from the Past

Translate this page from English...

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

For full copies of this and many other critical thinking articles, books, videos, and more, join us at the Center for Critical Thinking Community Online - the world's leading online community dedicated to critical thinking!   Also featuring interactive learning activities, study groups, and even a social media component, this learning platform will change your conception of intellectual development.

1 Introduction to Critical Thinking

I. what is c ritical t hinking [1].

Critical thinking is the ability to think clearly and rationally about what to do or what to believe.  It includes the ability to engage in reflective and independent thinking. Someone with critical thinking skills is able to do the following:

• Understand the logical connections between ideas.
• Identify, construct, and evaluate arguments.
• Detect inconsistencies and common mistakes in reasoning.
• Solve problems systematically.
• Identify the relevance and importance of ideas.
• Reflect on the justification of one’s own beliefs and values.

Critical thinking is not simply a matter of accumulating information. A person with a good memory and who knows a lot of facts is not necessarily good at critical thinking. Critical thinkers are able to deduce consequences from what they know, make use of information to solve problems, and to seek relevant sources of information to inform themselves.

Critical thinking should not be confused with being argumentative or being critical of other people. Although critical thinking skills can be used in exposing fallacies and bad reasoning, critical thinking can also play an important role in cooperative reasoning and constructive tasks. Critical thinking can help us acquire knowledge, improve our theories, and strengthen arguments. We can also use critical thinking to enhance work processes and improve social institutions.

Some people believe that critical thinking hinders creativity because critical thinking requires following the rules of logic and rationality, whereas creativity might require breaking those rules. This is a misconception. Critical thinking is quite compatible with thinking “out-of-the-box,” challenging consensus views, and pursuing less popular approaches. If anything, critical thinking is an essential part of creativity because we need critical thinking to evaluate and improve our creative ideas.

II. The I mportance of C ritical T hinking

Critical thinking is a domain-general thinking skill. The ability to think clearly and rationally is important whatever we choose to do. If you work in education, research, finance, management or the legal profession, then critical thinking is obviously important. But critical thinking skills are not restricted to a particular subject area. Being able to think well and solve problems systematically is an asset for any career.

Critical thinking is very important in the new knowledge economy.  The global knowledge economy is driven by information and technology. One has to be able to deal with changes quickly and effectively. The new economy places increasing demands on flexible intellectual skills, and the ability to analyze information and integrate diverse sources of knowledge in solving problems. Good critical thinking promotes such thinking skills, and is very important in the fast-changing workplace.

Critical thinking enhances language and presentation skills. Thinking clearly and systematically can improve the way we express our ideas. In learning how to analyze the logical structure of texts, critical thinking also improves comprehension abilities.

Critical thinking promotes creativity. To come up with a creative solution to a problem involves not just having new ideas. It must also be the case that the new ideas being generated are useful and relevant to the task at hand. Critical thinking plays a crucial role in evaluating new ideas, selecting the best ones and modifying them if necessary.

Critical thinking is crucial for self-reflection. In order to live a meaningful life and to structure our lives accordingly, we need to justify and reflect on our values and decisions. Critical thinking provides the tools for this process of self-evaluation.

Good critical thinking is the foundation of science and democracy. Science requires the critical use of reason in experimentation and theory confirmation. The proper functioning of a liberal democracy requires citizens who can think critically about social issues to inform their judgments about proper governance and to overcome biases and prejudice.

Critical thinking is a   metacognitive skill . What this means is that it is a higher-level cognitive skill that involves thinking about thinking. We have to be aware of the good principles of reasoning, and be reflective about our own reasoning. In addition, we often need to make a conscious effort to improve ourselves, avoid biases, and maintain objectivity. This is notoriously hard to do. We are all able to think but to think well often requires a long period of training. The mastery of critical thinking is similar to the mastery of many other skills. There are three important components: theory, practice, and attitude.

III. Improv ing O ur T hinking S kills

If we want to think correctly, we need to follow the correct rules of reasoning. Knowledge of theory includes knowledge of these rules. These are the basic principles of critical thinking, such as the laws of logic, and the methods of scientific reasoning, etc.

Also, it would be useful to know something about what not to do if we want to reason correctly. This means we should have some basic knowledge of the mistakes that people make. First, this requires some knowledge of typical fallacies. Second, psychologists have discovered persistent biases and limitations in human reasoning. An awareness of these empirical findings will alert us to potential problems.

However, merely knowing the principles that distinguish good and bad reasoning is not enough. We might study in the classroom about how to swim, and learn about the basic theory, such as the fact that one should not breathe underwater. But unless we can apply such theoretical knowledge through constant practice, we might not actually be able to swim.

Similarly, to be good at critical thinking skills it is necessary to internalize the theoretical principles so that we can actually apply them in daily life. There are at least two ways to do this. One is to perform lots of quality exercises. These exercises don’t just include practicing in the classroom or receiving tutorials; they also include engaging in discussions and debates with other people in our daily lives, where the principles of critical thinking can be applied. The second method is to think more deeply about the principles that we have acquired. In the human mind, memory and understanding are acquired through making connections between ideas.

Good critical thinking skills require more than just knowledge and practice. Persistent practice can bring about improvements only if one has the right kind of motivation and attitude. The following attitudes are not uncommon, but they are obstacles to critical thinking:

• I prefer being given the correct answers rather than figuring them out myself.
• I don’t like to think a lot about my decisions as I rely only on gut feelings.
• I don’t usually review the mistakes I have made.
• I don’t like to be criticized.

To improve our thinking we have to recognize the importance of reflecting on the reasons for belief and action. We should also be willing to engage in debate, break old habits, and deal with linguistic complexities and abstract concepts.

The  California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory  is a psychological test that is used to measure whether people are disposed to think critically. It measures the seven different thinking habits listed below, and it is useful to ask ourselves to what extent they describe the way we think:

• Truth-Seeking—Do you try to understand how things really are? Are you interested in finding out the truth?
• Open-Mindedness—How receptive are you to new ideas, even when you do not intuitively agree with them? Do you give new concepts a fair hearing?
• Analyticity—Do you try to understand the reasons behind things? Do you act impulsively or do you evaluate the pros and cons of your decisions?
• Systematicity—Are you systematic in your thinking? Do you break down a complex problem into parts?
• Confidence in Reasoning—Do you always defer to other people? How confident are you in your own judgment? Do you have reasons for your confidence? Do you have a way to evaluate your own thinking?
• Inquisitiveness—Are you curious about unfamiliar topics and resolving complicated problems? Will you chase down an answer until you find it?
• Maturity of Judgment—Do you jump to conclusions? Do you try to see things from different perspectives? Do you take other people’s experiences into account?

Finally, as mentioned earlier, psychologists have discovered over the years that human reasoning can be easily affected by a variety of cognitive biases. For example, people tend to be over-confident of their abilities and focus too much on evidence that supports their pre-existing opinions. We should be alert to these biases in our attitudes towards our own thinking.

IV. Defining Critical Thinking

There are many different definitions of critical thinking. Here we list some of the well-known ones. You might notice that they all emphasize the importance of clarity and rationality. Here we will look at some well-known definitions in chronological order.

1) Many people trace the importance of critical thinking in education to the early twentieth-century American philosopher John Dewey. But Dewey did not make very extensive use of the term “critical thinking.” Instead, in his book  How We Think (1910), he argued for the importance of what he called “reflective thinking”:

…[when] the ground or basis for a belief is deliberately sought and its adequacy to support the belief examined. This process is called reflective thought; it alone is truly educative in value…

Active, persistent and careful consideration of any belief or supposed form of knowledge in light of the grounds that support it, and the further conclusions to which it tends, constitutes reflective thought.

There is however one passage from How We Think where Dewey explicitly uses the term “critical thinking”:

The essence of critical thinking is suspended judgment; and the essence of this suspense is inquiry to determine the nature of the problem before proceeding to attempts at its solution. This, more than any other thing, transforms mere inference into tested inference, suggested conclusions into proof.

2) The  Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal  (1980) is a well-known psychological test of critical thinking ability. The authors of this test define critical thinking as:

…a composite of attitudes, knowledge and skills. This composite includes: (1) attitudes of inquiry that involve an ability to recognize the existence of problems and an acceptance of the general need for evidence in support of what is asserted to be true; (2) knowledge of the nature of valid inferences, abstractions, and generalizations in which the weight or accuracy of different kinds of evidence are logically determined; and (3) skills in employing and applying the above attitudes and knowledge.

3) A very well-known and influential definition of critical thinking comes from philosopher and professor Robert Ennis in his work “A Taxonomy of Critical Thinking Dispositions and Abilities” (1987):

Critical thinking is reasonable reflective thinking that is focused on deciding what to believe or do.

4) The following definition comes from a statement written in 1987 by the philosophers Michael Scriven and Richard Paul for the  National Council for Excellence in Critical Thinking (link), an organization promoting critical thinking in the US:

Critical thinking is the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action. In its exemplary form, it is based on universal intellectual values that transcend subject matter divisions: clarity, accuracy, precision, consistency, relevance, sound evidence, good reasons, depth, breadth, and fairness. It entails the examination of those structures or elements of thought implicit in all reasoning: purpose, problem, or question-at-issue, assumptions, concepts, empirical grounding; reasoning leading to conclusions, implications and consequences, objections from alternative viewpoints, and frame of reference.

The following excerpt from Peter A. Facione’s “Critical Thinking: A Statement of Expert Consensus for Purposes of Educational Assessment and Instruction” (1990) is quoted from a report written for the American Philosophical Association:

We understand critical thinking to be purposeful, self-regulatory judgment which results in interpretation, analysis, evaluation, and inference, as well as explanation of the evidential, conceptual, methodological, criteriological, or contextual considerations upon which that judgment is based. CT is essential as a tool of inquiry. As such, CT is a liberating force in education and a powerful resource in one’s personal and civic life. While not synonymous with good thinking, CT is a pervasive and self-rectifying human phenomenon. The ideal critical thinker is habitually inquisitive, well-informed, trustful of reason, open-minded, flexible, fairminded in evaluation, honest in facing personal biases, prudent in making judgments, willing to reconsider, clear about issues, orderly in complex matters, diligent in seeking relevant information, reasonable in the selection of criteria, focused in inquiry, and persistent in seeking results which are as precise as the subject and the circumstances of inquiry permit. Thus, educating good critical thinkers means working toward this ideal. It combines developing CT skills with nurturing those dispositions which consistently yield useful insights and which are the basis of a rational and democratic society.

V. Two F eatures of C ritical T hinking

A. how not what .

Critical thinking is concerned not with what you believe, but rather how or why you believe it. Most classes, such as those on biology or chemistry, teach you what to believe about a subject matter. In contrast, critical thinking is not particularly interested in what the world is, in fact, like. Rather, critical thinking will teach you how to form beliefs and how to think. It is interested in the type of reasoning you use when you form your beliefs, and concerns itself with whether you have good reasons to believe what you believe. Therefore, this class isn’t a class on the psychology of reasoning, which brings us to the second important feature of critical thinking.

B. Ought N ot Is ( or Normative N ot Descriptive )

There is a difference between normative and descriptive theories. Descriptive theories, such as those provided by physics, provide a picture of how the world factually behaves and operates. In contrast, normative theories, such as those provided by ethics or political philosophy, provide a picture of how the world should be. Rather than ask question such as why something is the way it is, normative theories ask how something should be. In this course, we will be interested in normative theories that govern our thinking and reasoning. Therefore, we will not be interested in how we actually reason, but rather focus on how we ought to reason.

In the introduction to this course we considered a selection task with cards that must be flipped in order to check the validity of a rule. We noted that many people fail to identify all the cards required to check the rule. This is how people do in fact reason (descriptive). We then noted that you must flip over two cards. This is how people ought to reason (normative).

• Section I-IV are taken from http://philosophy.hku.hk/think/ and are in use under the creative commons license. Some modifications have been made to the original content. ↵

Critical Thinking Copyright © 2019 by Brian Kim is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

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

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.

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?

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.

• 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

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

All of our Thinker's Guides are now published by Rowman and Littlefield Publishers. In this section, you find samples sections from each guide. For the full guides, visit Rowman and Littlefield, (rowman.com)

• The Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking Concepts & Tools
• The Thinker's Guide to Analytic Thinking
• The Thinker's Guide to the Human Mind
• The Thinker's Guide for Students on How to Study & Learn a Discipline
• The Thinker's Guide to Ethical Reasoning
• Student Guide to Historical Thinking
• The Aspiring Thinker's Guide to Critical Thinking
• How to Read a Paragraph: The Art of Close Reading
• How to Write a Paragraph: The Art of Substantive Writing
• A Glossary of Critical Thinking Terms and Concepts
• The Art of Asking Essential Questions
• The Nature and Functions of Critical & Creative Thinking
• The Thinker's Guide to Scientific Thinking
• Fact over Fake: A Critical Thinker's Guide to Media Bias and Political Propaganda
• The Thinker's Guide to Fallacies: The Art of Mental Trickery
• The Thinker's Guide to Clinical Reasoning
• The Thinker's Guide to Engineering Reasoning
• The Thinker's Guide to Intellectual Standards
• Mass Media and Critical Thinking: Reasoning for a Second-Hand World
• Critical Thinking and Emotional Intelligence
• Critical Thinking and Command of Language
• A "Third Wave" Manifesto: Keynotes of the Sonoma Conference
• Thinking Critically About Identities
• Richard Paul's Contributions to the Field of Critical Thinking Studies and to the Establishment of First Principles in Critical Thinking
• Richard Paul and the Philosophical Foundations of Critical Thinking
• Truth-seeking Versus Confirmation Bias: How Richard Paul's Conception of Critical Thinking Cultivates Authentic Research and Fairminded Thinking
• Portaging Richard Paul's Model to Professional Practice: Ideas that Integrate
• Richard Paul's Approach to Critical Thinking: Comprehensiveness, Systematicity, and Practicality
• From Argument and Philosophy to Critical Thinking Across the Curriculum
• Reflections on the Nature of Critical Thinking, Its History, Politics, and Barriers, and on Its Status across the College & University Curriculum Part I
• Reflections on the Nature of Critical Thinking, Its History, Politics, and Barriers, and on Its Status across the College & University Curriculum Part II
• Defining Critical Thinking
• Critical Societies: Thoughts from the Past
• Sumner's Definition of Critical Thinking
• Our Concept and Definition of Critical Thinking
• Critical Thinking: Basic Questions & Answers
• A Brief History of the Idea of Critical Thinking
• International Critical Thinking Manifesto
• Distinguishing Between Inert Information, Activated Ignorance, Activated Knowledge
• Critical Thinking: Identifying the Targets
• Critical Thinking Development: A Stage Theory
• The Elements of Reasoning and the Intellectual Standards
• Becoming a Critic Of Your Thinking
• Bertrand Russell on Critical Thinking
• Valuable Intellectual Traits
• Universal Intellectual Standards
• Critical Thinking in the Engineering Enterprise: Novices Typically Don't Even Know What Questions to Ask
• Critical Thinking Movement: 3 Waves
• Critical Thinking and Nursing
• Radio Show and Podcast: Critical Thinking for Everyone!
• Strategy List: 35 Dimensions of Critical Thought
• Newton, Darwin, & Einstein
• The Critical Mind is A Questioning Mind: Learning How to Ask Powerful, Probing Questions
• Three Categories of Questions: Crucial Distinctions
• Complex Interdisciplinary Questions Exemplified: Ecological Sustainability
• Ethical Reasoning Essential to Education
• Engineering Reasoning
• Accelerating Change
• Natural Egocentric Dispositions
• Critical Thinking in Everyday Life: 9 Strategies
• Developing as Rational Persons: Viewing Our Development in Stages
• How to Study and Learn (Part One)
• How to Study and Learn (Part Two)
• How to Study and Learn (Part Three)
• How to Study and Learn (Part Four)
• The Art of Close Reading (Part One)
• The Art of Close Reading (Part Two)
• The Art of Close Reading (Part Three)
• Looking To The Future With a Critical Eye: A Message for High School Graduates
• Reading Backwards: Classic Books Online
• Liberating the Mind: Overcoming Sociocentric Thought and Egocentric Tendencies
• 30 Days to Better Thinking and Better Living through Critical Thinking - One-Week Sample
• 1 Table of Contents
• 2 Garbage and Powerful Ideas
• 3 Elements and Standards
• 4 Questions
• 5 Socratic Questioning
• 6 Designing Structures
• 7 Content as Thinking
• 8 Affective Dimension of Thinking....Ego and Non
• 9 Where Do We Stand
• Card 1 - Teach for Depth of Understanding
• Card 2 - The Elements of Thought
• Card 3 - Questions for Socratic Dialogue
• Card 4 - Intellectual Standards
• Card 5 - Dimensions of Critical Thought
• Card 6 - Intellectual Virtues
• Poster 1 - Analysis of Thought
• Poster 2 - Intellectual Standards
• Poster 3 - Elements of Thought
• Poster 4 - Elements, Standards, and Traits
• Poster 5 - Parts of Thinking
• Chapter 1 - The Critical Thinking Movement in Historical Perspective
• Chapter 2 - Critical thinking Basic Questions and Answers
• Chapter 3 - The Logic of Creative and Critical Thinking
• Chapter 4 - Critical Thinking in North America
• Chapter 5 - Background Logic, Critical Thinking, and Irrational Language Games
• Chapter 6 - A Model for the National Assessment of Higher Order Thinking
• Chapter 7 - Using Intellectual Standards to Assess Student Reasoning
• Chapter 8 - Why Students - and Teachers - Don't Reason Well
• Chapter 9 - Critical Thinking Fundamentals to Education for a Free Society
• Chapter 10 - Critical Thinking and the Critical Person
• Chapter 11 - Critical Thinking and the Nature of Prejudice
• Chapter 12 - Ethics Without Indoctrination
• Chapter 13 - Critical Thinking, Moral Integrity, and Citizenship Teaching for the Intellectual Virtues
• Chapter 14 - Dialogical Thinking Critical Thinking Thought Essential to the Acquisition of Rational Knowledge and Passions
• Chapter 15 - Power, Vested Interest, and Prejudice On the Need for Critical Thinking in the Ethics of Social and Economic Development
• Chapter 16 - The Critical Connection Higher Order Thinking that Unifies Curriculum, Instruction, and Learning
• Chapter 17 - Dialogical and Dialectical Thinking
• Chapter 18 - The Art of Redesigning Instruction
• Chapter 19 - Using Critical Thinking to Identify National Bias in the News
• Chapter 20 - Socratic Questioning
• Chapter 21 - Strategies Thirty-Five Dimensions of Critical Thinking
• Chapter 22 - Critical Thinking in the Elementary Classroom
• Chapter 23 - Critical Thinking in Elementary Social Studies
• Chapter 24 - Critical Thinking in Elementary Language Arts
• Chapter 25 - Critical Thinking in Elementary Science
• Chapter 26 - Teaching Critical Thinking in the Strong Sense A Focus on Self-Deception, World Views, and a Dialectical Mode of Analysis
• Chapter 27 - Critical Thinking Staff Development The Lesson Plan Remodeling Approach
• Chapter 28 - The Greensboro Plan A Sample Staff Development Plan
• Chapter 29 - Critical Thinking and Learning Centers
• Chapter 30 - McPeck's Mistakes Why Critical Thinking Applies Across Disciplines and Domains
• Chapter 31 - Bloom's Taxonomy and Critical Thinking Instruction Recall is Not Knowledge
• Chapter 32 - Critical and Cultural Literacy Where E.D. Hirsch Goes Wrong
• Chapter 33 - Critical Thinking and General Semantics On the Primacy of Natural Languages
• Chapter 34 - Philosophy and Cognitive Psychology Contrasting Assumptions
• Chapter 35 - The Contribution of Philosophy to Thinking
• Chapter 36 - Critical Thinking and Social Studies
• Chapter 37 - Critical Thinking and Language Arts
• Chapter 38 - Critical Thinking and Science
• Chapter 39 - Critical Thinking, Human Development, and Rational Productivity
• Chapter 40 - What Critical Thinking Means to Me The Views of Teachers
• Chapter 41 - Glossary An Educators Guide to Critical Thinking Terms and Concepts
• Arabic - The Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking Concepts & Tools
• Bulgarian - The Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking Concepts & Tools
• French - Asking Questions
• French - Elements of Thought
• French - How Skilled Is Your Thinking
• French - Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking Concepts & Tools
• French - Scientific Thinking
• French - Stages of Development
• French - Strategic Thinking
• French - Thinker's Guide to Engineering Reasoning
• French - Tools for Taking Charge
• French - Universal Intellectual Standards
• German - Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking Concepts & Tools
• Persian - Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking Concepts & Tools
• Spanish - Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking Concepts & Tools
• Spanish - Thinker's Guide to Analytic Thinking
• Spanish - Thinker's Guide to Asking Essential Questions
• Spanish - Thinker's Guide to How to Read a Paragraph
• Spanish - Thinker's Guide to How to Write a Paragraph
• Spanish - Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking for Children
• Spanish - Thinker's Guide to How to Study and Learn a Discipline
• Thai - Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking Concepts & Tools
• Thai - The Aspiring Thinker's Guide to Critical Thinking
• Turkish - Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking Concepts & Tools
• Turkish - Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking for Children
• Turkish - Thinker's Guide on How to Detect Media Bias and Propaganda
• Korean - How to Read a Paragraph
• Korean - How to Write a Paragraph
• Korean - Thinker's Guide to Analytic Thinking
• Persian - The Thinker's Guide to Clinical Reasoning

• Rasmussen University
• Transferable Skills
• Critical Thinking
• Steps 1 & 2: Reflection and Analysis

Critical Thinking: Steps 1 & 2: Reflection and Analysis

• Step 3: Acquisition of Information
• Step 4: Creativity
• Step 5: Structuring Arguments
• Step 6: Decision Making
• Steps 7 & 8: Commitment and Debate
• In the Classroom
• In the Workplace

Identify, Reflect, and Analyze

• Step 1: Reflect
• Step 2: Analyze

Step 1: Reflecting on the Issue, Problem, or Task

Reflection is an important early step in critical thinking. There are various kinds of reflection that promote deeper levels of critical thinking (click on the table to view larger):

Brockbank, A., & McGill, I. (2007).  Facilitating Reflective Learning in Higher Education . Maidenhead, England: McGraw-Hill Education.

Ask yourself questions to identify the nature and essence of the issue, problem, or task. Why are you examining this subject? Why is it important that you solve this problem? 

Reflective Thinking

Game:   There is 1 random word below.  Use it as inspiration to think of something it would be interesting if we never had in this world.

Challenge:   For extra challenge, reply to someone else’s suggestion and predict how life would be different if it never was.  Try and think big.  Think about profound and extreme ways in which the world may be different.

Strategy: We often think about how life would be better if only we had X (X being something we would quite like).  It can be a fun way to pass the time but it tends to involve adding something new to our lives.  Let's go the other way around and subtract something instead.  But instead of something desirable it will be something that we take for granted, something simple.  Then trying to predict how it would have a profound effect changing the world around us becomes an act in following a chain reaction of influences.  Creativity often involves having keen insights into how everything influences and affects everything around it in often unobvious ways.  This little game is a good way to practice that thinking.

• << Previous: Steps to Critical Thinking
• Next: Step 3: Acquisition of Information >>
• Last Updated: Apr 2, 2024 9:12 AM
• URL: https://guides.rasmussen.edu/criticalthinking

• 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.

1: Basic Concepts of Critical Thinking

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 94992

• Jason Southworth & Chris Swoyer
• Fort Hays State & University University of Oklahoma
• 1.1: Basic Concepts
• 1.2: A Role for Reason
• 1.3: Improving Reasoning
• 1.4: Chapter Exercises

• Search Search Search …
• Search Search …

How to answer critical thinking questions

Whether you are studying and preparing to take the LSAT or looking to engage in more meaningful workplace discussions, you need to know how to properly answer critical thinking questions. Luckily, there are some key facets to critical thinking that can guide you along the way.

Thinking critically requires one to proceed beyond mere information recall. When asked to answer questions critically, one should engage their reasoning, evaluation, articulation, and questioning skills. You must closely examine the question in order to arrive at your justified answer. 

In this guide, we’ll be sharing some tips to help you answer critical thinking questions adequately. Read along as we discuss the ways to answer by asking useful questions, relying on logic, anticipating specific problems and solutions, and clearly communicating your thoughts. Let’s get into it!

Table of Contents

We’ll be discussing the following 6 methods of answering critical thinking questions in order to give you a framework to start with:

Ask the Important Questions

Consider all possible solutions, articulate yourself clearly, examine and reflect, research and inform yourself, organize your thoughts.

Sometimes, answering a question effectively requires you to ask some questions yourself. When it comes to thinking critically in your response, you may need to investigate by asking for context clues or clearing up any ambiguous aspects of the question.

When you follow-up a question with your own questions, you are engaging in truth-seeking behavior, which is a key element of critical thinking .

Examples of questions you can ask to arrive at a critical answer include:

• Why is this question or problem important?
• How would I solve this problem?
• What would be the consequences if I solved the problem X way?
• How would someone with a different opinion or set of values answer this question?
• Why do I agree or disagree?
• Can you provide me with an example?
• Who is this question geared towards?
• Who will be affected by the solution to this question/problem? 

Another thing that sets critical thinkers apart from traditional thinkers is the ability to anticipate multiple different outcomes.

Don’t merely stop at your first answer to the problem you’re being asked about. Take things a step further by drafting several different solutions. Follow step-by-step routes in your mind to try and anticipate how these solutions would play out in reality.

Would there be negative consequences to these solutions? Would there be positive consequences to these solutions? What are they? This can help you to narrow down your ideas and provide the best possible solution.

Critical thinking requires you to communicate your thoughts effectively, in addition to arriving at those thoughts in the first place.

Whether you are answering a critical thinking question verbally in a debate, or writing your thoughts down on a paper exam, you should learn how to justify your answer.

For each point or claim that you make, you should have a valid justification or explanation. Let’s say, for example, that you are asked a question about how to distribute a low amount of resources to a large community.

If you claim that they should be distributed evenly among households, you should consider how that route would affect larger households vs. smaller ones.

Your answer can explore the advantages and disadvantages of your method, landing on an explanation of how it would best serve the community.

When presented with a critical thinking question, it’s not enough to just read the question once and arrive at the first answer that pops into your mind. You should examine the question closely by reading it several times, carefully.

Each time you read the question, check to see if there are meanings or intentions in the question that you didn’t notice before. You can also take this time of reflection to discover ways in which your own assumptions or biases may be negatively influencing your answer.

You can take notes on these things and reflect on them before providing your answer to the question.

Only after examining and reflecting can you get to the precise heart of the question at hand. Then, you can pair it with an equally precise answer.

Critical thinkers also rely on research and newfound knowledge to inform their answers to questions. This involves taking the time to learn about topics that you’re questioned about if you are unfamiliar with them.

For example, if you are asked a question about the economy of a country that you are unfamiliar with, you should research before answering.

Read up on recent economic reports for that country, using credible sources. Make sure that you fully understand every word in the question by pulling out a dictionary.

From there, you can make your answer more accurate and logical overall.

Lastly, a good critical thinker should be able to organize the opinions and thoughts in their answers. Write out a draft of your answer before arriving at your final solution.

Read the answer back to yourself and see if your message is coming across clearly based on the grammar and syntax you’ve used.

If you need to break the answer down into parts and rearrange them to improve it, do so. An organized answer will be easier to understand and may make the difference between a good idea getting lost in the weeds or being championed.

Final Thoughts – 6 Critical Thinking Answer Tips

If you’ve been wanting to learn how to better answer critical thinking questions, then hopefully our guide has given you some inspiration. Some of the key aspects of critical thinking involve one’s ability to ask pertinent questions, examine and reflect on one’s thoughts, set aside biases, make judgments, and clearly communicate.

Make sure to refer to our critical thinking answer tips the next time you are faced with a tough question. Remember, sometimes, a critical answer relies on you taking extra time to research, re-read, re-write, and clarify your own thoughts.

https://louisville.edu/ideastoaction/about/criticalthinking/what

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

https://www.utc.edu/academic-affairs/walker-center-for-teaching-and-learning/faculty-programs/faculty-fellow-programs/faculty-fellow-program-development/basic-elements-of-critical-thinking

You may also like

How to Use Artificial Intelligence in the Critical Thinking Process: Enhancing Human Decision-Making

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is revolutionizing the way critical thinking is approached in various sectors. By integrating AI into the critical thinking process, […]

Critical Thinking and Time-Management (How to get the most important things done)

Critical thinking and time management go together. Time management is really just a problem that needs to be solved, and that problem […]

How to Teach Critical Thinking in the Digital Age: Effective Strategies and Techniques

In today’s rapidly evolving digital landscape, the ability to think critically has become increasingly important for individuals of all ages. As technology […]

Critical thinking and conflict resolution

Introduction Have you ever wondered how critical thinking can help in terms of conflict resolution? Critical thinking is a powerful tool, but […]

240 Philosophical Questions for Deep Critical Thinking & Debate

Philosophical questions are an effective tool to stimulate and develop critical thought. They examine profound matters like free will and human nature; the source and value of happiness; morality and ethics; love, logic, and knowledge; religion, death, and the meaning of life.

Although such questions can open a “rabbit hole” that leads to endless and seemingly unanswerable questions, a list of philosophical questions to ask about life—like the ones provided below—can be used as a springboard for critical thinking.  

Such questions help us evaluate arguments, explore foreign ideas, identify potential biases, and think critically about our own beliefs and presuppositions.

We are preparing our our children to enter a society full of questions … and questionable ideas.

Consequently, it is our responsibility to train them to think critically and, above all, seek truth when asking the deep questions that arise in their own hearts. 

First, let’s take a closer look at what a philosophy question is. Then I’ll provide some examples to help encourage deep thinking. 

What is a Philosophical Question OR TOPIC?

A philosophical question is open-ended. Since philosophy itself means “love of wisdom,” it logically follows that a philosophical question is one that pursues a deep understanding of the subject examined.

The answer to this type of question isn’t necessarily an easy one—nor is it always black or white. It requires thoughtful reflection.

The deeper the reasoning behind the answer the better.  

Bear in mind there’s no such thing as a dumb philosophical question . However, don’t be surprised if the way questions are answered borders on the brink of absurdity at times.

But the goal is to inspire thought .

So … even if your students gives nonsensical responses, if they’re willing to explain how they came to their answer, count it as a win. 

(Even giving an incomplete answer is better than not pondering the question at all.)

A good example of a philosophical question is one of the three overarching “pillars” of philosophy.

The 3 Basic But Big Questions of Philosophy Deal with Existence

The fundamental questions of philosophy deal with existence and fall into three main categories::

• Where did we come from?
• Why are we here and how should we live?
• Is there hope for our future and life after death?

How we answer those questions determines what we will value and how we will behave. 

With that in mind, it’s clear just how important it is to train our children to ask meaningful questions and seek truthful answers. 

The study of philosophy can help us do that.

PDF Download of 240 Philosophical Questions

GET ALL 240 QUESTIONS IN AN INSTANT-DOWNLOAD EBOOK!

Includes strategies for using philosophical questions as debate topics.

It is natural to be inquisitive. Let’s steward our students’ curious natures well!

I’ve gathered 240 philosophy questions to help you (and your students) think through tough philosophical topics together. 

It’s tempting to look at these questions as a mere academic exercise. 

But philosophical ideas have shaped human history from ancient times until today — for better or for worse .

Look at them, instead, as a means of preparing your students to face (and combat) the deceptive ideas they will soon encounter. 

Questions of Free Will and Human Nature

Are we really free?

The question of free will versus determinism has been debated by great thinkers for centuries.

Some contend that we have complete freedom of choice.

Others believe that humans have no free will and cannot be held morally responsible for their actions (determinism).They argue that the choices we make stem exclusively from the nature we are born with and all the influences that surround us.

The Bible teaches that we have free will, and we’re responsible for our actions. As Deuteronomy 30:19 explains:

“… I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live …”

Here are some questions about will and humanity:

• Are humans innately good or evil?
• Can humans change their behavior if given enough time?
• Do humans need God to exist?
• What happens when we die?
• Does consciousness continue after physical death?
• Why does suffering happen?
• Should we try to prevent bad events from happening? If so, then how would we go about doing that?
• What makes human life so valuable?
• What makes us human?
• Why does it matter if we’re alive?
• Is there anything wrong with being selfish?
• Do humans need other people in order to live?
• Can animals feel pain? If so, why don’t they try to avoid hurting each other?
• Are children born good or evil?
• Is it okay to lie to protect yourself?
• What is beauty?
• Do all people deserve respect?
• Did you exist before you were born?
• Where do emotions come from?
• Can we choose our emotions or do they just happen?
• At what age are children held accountable for their actions? How do you determine that?
• Where does self-worth come from?
• How do you determine one’s self-worth?
• Is one human life worth more than another?
• Is ignorance really bliss?
• What is the goal of humanity?
• Can predestination and free will coexist?

Philosophical Questions About Happiness

The philosopher Aristotle held the view that, “Happiness is the meaning and the purpose of life, the whole aim and end of human existence.”

Yet the very definition of happiness is as diverse as the people who seek it. Some seek it in relationships, others in work, hobbies, or pleasure. 

One school of thought says finding happiness requires a life in which every aspect contributes toward personal fulfillment. 

Another believes that happiness is “happenstance”—an emotion based on positive circumstances. 

What do you think?

Here are some questions to ponder about happiness:

• What does it mean to be happy?
• Can I be happy when faced with suffering?
• Is happiness universal or a matter of perspective?
• How much should we care about making ourselves happy?
• Is it possible to feel happy and sad at the same time?
• Is it really necessary to pursue happiness?
• Are we happier now as a society than in times past? Why or why not?
• Does anyone else’s happiness affect my own?
• If someone has less material wealth than me, does this automatically make him unhappy? 
• What brings true happiness?
• Can happiness be measured or quantified, like money and power?
• Are certain types of experiences inherently “happier” than others?
• Is it always best to seek out pleasure over avoiding pain?
• Is happiness just the product of chemical reactions in the brain?

Questions Regarding Morals and Ethics

Questions of morals and ethics are important to explore if you wish to develop critical thinking skills. 

Morality and ethics both relate to the distinction between good and bad or right and wrong. However, morality is usually thought of as personal and normative, while ethics is the standards of good and bad distinguished by a particular community or social setting. 

Because the seriousness of the two topics can elicit emotional responses, if we’re not careful, debates on ethics and morality can get heated quickly.

A good moral or ethical argument takes the whole picture into account. 

For instance, how would you answer the question, “ Is killing always wrong? ”

Our first instinct may be a resounding Yes!

But looking at the big picture, we might ask: What if it occurs in self-defense? What about soldiers? Are they held to the same ethical standard civilians are?

These are the types of philosophical questions we encounter in this category.

Here are some additional examples:

• Is morality relative or absolute?
• Where do morals come from?
• Is it possible to make moral judgments without religion?
• Is killing justified under certain conditions?
• What makes something immoral?
• How do you define “good” and “evil”?
• Why do most people think that lying is bad?
• Should all actions have equal consequences?
• Does every human life count equally?
• Is it ever justified to hurt others?
• Is it fair to punish criminals with death?
• Does morality come from within or outside ourselves?
• Is stealing ever permissible? 
• Is it ever permissible to deceive others?
• Should we judge acts based on their outcomes alone?
• Should we always follow the rules even if doing so causes harm?
• Is slavery ever ethically defensible?
• Is dishonesty always wrong?
• Would you kill one person in order to save 1,000?
• Are lies permissible if they protect someone’s feelings?
• What defines a person?
• Are we obligated to help others?
• Is it wrong to kill animals?
• Are humans replaceable?
• What is virtue?

Love is an abstract concept defined in a number of different ways. It’s described as:

• a state of mind
• a relationship
• or a desire.

You’ll find a biblical definition of love in 1 Corinthians 13:4-8:

“Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never ends.…”

Here’s a collection of philosophical questions about love:

• Which is more important: love or money? Why?
• Is there such thing as true love? If yes, where does it come from? 
• Do all human beings want to be loved?
• Can anyone ever really understand another’s feelings?
• Are children born with an innate love for their parents? 
• Are some relationships better than others?
• Can life without love exist?
• What makes someone fall in love?
• Why do people get married?
• Is there a difference between love and lust?
• Is marriage necessary?
• Does love last forever?
• Is it okay to love yourself?
• Is love natural or a choice to be made?
• Where do we find love?

Hard Questions Concerning Death

Have you heard the cliché: “The only certainty in life is death and taxes”?

Death truly is a certainty of life. 

While some people choose to face the reality of death head-on, others pretend like it doesn’t exist. 

Perhaps it’s the finality of death that sparks fear. 

Regardless of how we feel, our time on earth will end at some point in the future. 

How should that impact how we live today?

Discussing death can be healthy when done in the right manner. 

Here are some questions about death we can use to explore the topic, provoke thought, and potentially positively affect how we live:

• Why do people fear death?
• Can we know for certain if there is life after death?
• How would you like to be remembered after you die?
• What happens to the body after you die?
• Does “good death” exist?
• What would happen if we lived forever?
• Should we try to prolong our lives at any cost?
• Could immortality be possible?
• Is euthanasia wrong in all circumstances?
• Is death actually the beginning?
• Why is it acceptable to kill insects?
• Should terminally ill patients be able to choose death?

Questions with Respect to Universal Human Rights 

Universal human rights are those rights which apply equally to everyone regardless of race, religion, gender, or creed. 

They include freedom of speech , equality before law , right to justice , and more. 

The philosophy behind human rights is based upon the idea that humans deserve respect and dignity, and—ultimately—the right to life.

They’re largely considered universal because they are natural, belonging to all members of humanity simply by virtue of being human.

Some philosophers argue that such rights can’t be taken away, while others claim they are conditional.  

Here are a few questions to help us think critically about human rights:

• What makes something a human right?
• Do you believe human rights even exist?
• Are human rights actually universal?
• Are humans rights and entitlement the same thing? 
• Can torture be justified?
• Is liberty a human right?
• Is personal autonomy a right?
• Do governments have the authority to regulate what people do?
• Does democracy guarantee individual liberty?
• How much control should individuals have over their own bodies?
• If someone commits murder, do they still have the right to life?
• Who has the ultimate responsibility for protecting human rights?
• Has modern technology made us more or less humane?
• Is education a human right for all people?
• Is war ever justifiable?
• Is due process a universal right no matter the crime?
• Is capital punishment ever appropriate?
• Are there any downsides to universal human rights?
• Is free speech a universal right?

Philosophical Questions About Politics, Government, and Society

This category contains some of the hardest philosophical questions out there. Most of us have strong beliefs about politics, government, and society that make it hard to form an unbiased opinion. 

Besides political topics, questions in this category also address social issues , social construct , culture , power , and influence .

We can go so far as to question who gets what— when, where, and how.

If you wish to argue successfully—no matter what side of an issue you align with—it is paramount to understand the opposing viewpoint. 

Let’s look at a few questions:

• What makes a country democratic?
• What responsibilities does a government have to its constituents?
• Do democracies always make better decisions than dictatorships?
• What constitutes good governance?
• Is rebellion against government ever justified?
• Is socialism fair? What is “fair”?
• If you rob from the rich and give to the poor, is it wrong?
• Are laws always good?
• Is taxation justified?
• What is the ideal government? Why?
• Should the will of the people always be followed?
• What role do political parties play?
• Who defines corruption?
• How do I know whether my views are correct?
• Is voting compulsory?
• Is there such a thing as too much freedom?
• Is bribery always bad?
• Are police officers obligated to protect criminals?
• Should citizens obey unjust laws?
• Who decides which laws apply to whom?
• Where do we draw the line between criminal behavior and civil disobedience?
• Does the state have the moral duty to provide healthcare for its citizens?
• Is wealth redistribution morally correct?
• Should college be free for all? What about grade school or high school?
• Are freedom and liberty the same thing?
• What makes someone free?
• What makes a crime a crime?
• Is it right to govern the number of children families can have to control the world’s population?

Deep Questions to Make You Think 

Deep philosophical questions are designed to help you think critically and reflect on the subject at hand. 

They are meant to challenge your beliefs so that you may stand more firmly in them , knowing why you believe what you do. 

Here are some examples:

• What is reality?
• What are the limits of science?
• Where did all matter come from?
• Can I trust my senses?
• Is there an innnate moral code?
• Does time exist objectively?
• Who created God?
• Is there a soul?
• Are perceptions real?
• Is “fair” the same for everyone? Who determines whether or not something is “fair”?
• What is time?
• What makes you … you?
• What is truth?
• Is truth reality?
• What gives life meaning?
• What determines success vs. failure?
• Why do bad things happen to good people?
• How do I know what’s true?
• Should we judge others by their actions?
• What’s the purpose of life?
• Where do ideas come from?
• What is justice?
• What is evil?
• What makes someone “good” or “bad”?
• Can something be true without evidence?
• Is fate real?
• At what point does consciousness begin?
• Can time be altered?
• Is there a cause for every effect?

Easy and Funny Questions for Conversation Starters

Not all philosophy discussion topics have to be as serious as “What is the meaning of life?” 

Learning should be fun and engaging, so don’t shy away from humor when asking deep questions or coming up with unorthodox answers. 

Sometimes the most amusing questions lead to the most profound realizations.

Here’s a list of somewhat random philosophical questions to start fun conversations with kids, teens, and older students:

• Is time travel possible? Why or why not?
• Do memories still exist if you forget them?
• Are animals freer than man?
• Are twins unique?
• Are animals like people?
• Do trees feel pain?
• How do you know you’re not dreaming right now?
• Are insects conscious of life?
• What makes something humorous to some and not to others?
• If you save time on something, what happens to that time?
• Why do we talk to ourselves?
• If you try to fail and do, did you actually succeed?
• Can 2+2 ever be something other than 4?

For more ways to engage students in the study of philosophy, try these fun and creative philosophy activities .

Epistemology Questions

Epistemology is concerned with knowledge. It asks questions like::

• How does knowledge work?
• Why do we need it?
• What kind of things count as knowledge?

Epistemologists study these kinds of questions because they’re interested in understanding how humans acquire knowledge. 

They also investigate how to differentiate between opinion and justified belief .

As such, epistemological questions analyze which types of evidence can be trusted as reliable sources of information and why. 

Needless to say, this category can contain some pretty interesting philosophical questions:

• How do we determine if something is certain?
• How do you know if you know something?
• Does anyone ever truly learn anything?
• Who decides what counts as true knowledge?
• Who determines the difference between fact and fiction?
• What is the relationship between facts and opinions?
• What is the source of human knowledge?
• What is knowledge?
• What is the nature of certainty?
• What is the basis of our confidence in claims made by other people?
• What is the role of reason in determining what’s true?
• What is the relation between logic and reasoning?
• What is the connection between language and thought?
• What is the distinction between perception and imagination?
• What is intuition?
• What is the function of intuition?
• What are thoughts?
• What is the purpose of thinking?
• If two people understand things differently, who is right?
• If we had 1000 years to learn, could we know everything?
• Is there an end of knowledge?
• Is everything subjective?

Logic and the Universe

The historical discipline of logic largely began with Thales , known as the “Father of Western Philosophy.” 

Before this point in history, questions of existence were largely “explained” with Greek mythology. 

As it stands today, logic can be described as the discipline of distinguishing good vs bad reasoning.   

But who defines “good” and “bad”?

It’s important to note that even the best logical conclusions can be false.

Logic doesn’t equal truth.

( Investigate the difference between logical thinking and critical thinking here if you’re interested).

You’ll notice many questions in this category address our origins and creation: 

• Can order come from chaos?
• Can something be created from nothing?
• Where did matter come from?
• Is everything relative?
• Is there only one universe? How do we know?
• Is there such thing as absolute truth?
• Are there different levels of existence?
• Do we live forever?
• Was the Big Bang a real event?
• Is space finite?
• Is time eternal?
• Is logic a created concept?
• What time is it really?
• Is the mind the same as the brain?
• What are numbers? 
• Does the universe end?
• Is there such a thing as perfection?
• Does sound exist without hearing?
• Are people in a different timezone in the past (or future)?
• Where does fear come from?
• Does pain exist in itself or just our perception of it?
• What is hope?
• Could there be a parallel universe?

Philosophical Questions About Religion 

Maybe some of the toughest questions are those of religion. Religion for many is the driving force in their lives (and for good reason). 

Religious views affect how we raise our children, interact with others, make decisions, and so much more. 

As such, questioning religious principles can be tricky. Some parents go so far as to encourage their kids to not question at all. 

Others choose a different route, knowing their children will soon enter a world that will challenge them to question what they believe.

Encouraging teens to question their beliefs—in a structured setting with the Word of God in hand—can prepare them to “make a defense” to those who ask about the hope that is within them (1 Peter 3:15). 

Here are some questions about religion:

• Does God exist?
• Does God’s existence depend on our belief in him?
• Can love exist without God?
• What constitutes religion?
• Are miracles real?
• Is religion compatible with science?
• Why does faith matter?
• Who decides which religions are right?
• What makes a person a Christian?
• Should I follow my beliefs blindly?
• Is God a created being?
• Can morality exist without religion?
• Is there a higher power?

Unanswerable Philosophical Questions

Let’s talk about some of the challenges that arise when we delve into the world of ideas.

Since philosophical thought lives largely in grey territory, it deals with questions that can’t be answered with the usual “yes or no,” “this or that” definitive response. 

And as our children search for answers to these philosophical questions, they will encounter deceptive lies disguised as logic. 

Many college professors of philosophy today will tell you that life’s biggest questions remain unanswered.

Yet those who possess a biblical worldview have a much different perspective. 

Even in a lost, confusing world, the Bible is a compass that always points true North. It declares truth in matters the world deems unanswerable.

That’s why it is so important to teach our children how to think and how to reason from a biblical perspective.

Philosophy and Critical Thinking Go Hand in Hand

Critical thinking involves asking questions, analyzing arguments, evaluating evidence, and making decisions based on those evaluations. 

It requires us to use logic, reasoning skills, critical analysis, and judgment.

Sound familiar?

Critical thinking is an essential skill that allows us to make decisions and solve problems effectively. 

And while it may not seem so at first glance, it is a skill that enables us to defend our beliefs effectively when challenged.

That’s why we focus so heavily on critical thinking from a biblical worldview in the resources we offer at Homeschool Adventure . 

If you’re looking for a way to help your students develop critical thinking from a biblical worldview as they explore the history of ideas, check out Philosophy Adventure :

will your children recognize truth?

Philosophy Adventure  teaches students 6th-12th grade how to  write   skillfully ,  think   critically , and  speak   clearly  as they explore the  history of ideas .

It was written to bring history alive! Instead of memorizing facts, students “travel back in time” to walk alongside ancient philosophers.

All the while, they will be challenged to examine what they believe about the world around them, and  why they believe it .

By the end of the year, students will have written their very own book of philosophy!

Tips for Using These Questions as Philosophical Debate Topics

Philosophical questions about life are naturally thought provoking.

When used properly, even controversial philosophy topics can be effective springboards for critical thinking—a skill that will benefit your teen for life!

Questions can spark wonderful, stimulating debate among older students, especially those in upper middle through high school. 

And philosophical debates can be fun but also challenging, providing the perfect opportunity to practice critical thinking. 

If you’ve never tried debating in your homeschool, you can use some of these philosophical questions to start. 

A quick note:

Not all questions are practical for satisfying philosophical discussions.  

The purpose of debate in the homeschool setting is to practice and improve critical thinking, active listening, argument formation, and even teamwork. 

Its purpose is not to waste time on frivolous arguing. 

Those of us who believe that the Bible is the Word of God know that absolute truth exists. Consequently, questions to which Scripture provides clear answers may not be the best choice for learning how to debate .

Likewise, you may want to avoid questions whose answers would have to be based solely on speculation—with no practical way to confirm facts or conclusions. 

However, keeping all of that in mind, it can be immensely productive for older, more mature students to try to debate a stance they personally disagree with.

Doing so can help them better understand their opponent … and equip them to effectively counter opposing views they may face in “real life.”

Only you know whether your students are ready for such a task, so use discernment. 

Since the list of questions we provided is pretty extensive, here’s an abbreviated list of questions that would make great philosophical debate topics :

• Does anyone else’s happiness affect my own?
• Is socialism fair? What is “fair’?

 How to Debate Philosophy

When you debate a philosophical question, follow the same general outline as any other debate process. 

An at-home, sibling-to-sibling or parent-child debate may proceed as follows:

• Assign the debate topic, first and second positions (for or against the question), and allow time for students to brainstorm ideas.
• Encourage students to organize their ideas into simple arguments or points.
• Practice structuring those ideas into a speech with an introduction, rebuttal (for those arguing in the second position), points to make, and a conclusion. 
• Designate a neutral third party to declare a “winner.”
• Start the debate.

Depending on your schedule, this entire process can be done in a single day—or stretched over the course of a week (or even a month). 

How to Handle Different Age Groups

Simply adjust how deeply you go into each step, depending on the ages of your students.

For younger middle school students, consider keeping the debate more like a simple discussion and less of an emphasis on structure and speeches. 

However, you may want to encourage high school students to organize well-developed arguments and rebuttals.

Philosophical questions about life are naturally thought-provoking.

We actually have even more thought-provoking questions here .

When used properly, even controversial philosophy topics can be effective springboards for critical thinking — a skill that will benefit your teen for life!

About The Author

Jordan Mitchell

• Deakin University
• Learning and Teaching

Critical reflection for assessments and practice

• Reflective practice

Critical reflection for assessments and practice: Reflective practice

• Critical reflection
• How to reflect
• Critical reflection writing
• Recount and reflect

What is reflective practice?

"In general, reflective practice is understood as the process of learning through and from experience towards gaining new insights of self and/or practice. This often involves examining assumptions of everyday practice."

Linda Finlay - Reflecting on 'Reflective practice' (2008)

Reflection is critical to being a conscious, effective practitioner in any discipline. The important thing to keep in mind is that reflecting by itself is not reflective practice. Practice is tied into active, impactful change that emerges from deep reflective learning . 

Thinking and doing

Reflective practice is the act of thinking about your experiences in order to learn from them to shape what you do in the future. It therefore includes all aspects of your practice (e.g. relationships, interactions, learning, assessments, behaviours, and environments). It also includes examining how your practice is influenced by your own world views and gaining insights and other perspectives to inform future decision making.

Why reflect?

Reflective practice benefits you on both professional and personal levels. Using critical reflection as a tool can give you insight and positively impact your study, your wellbeing and your worklife.  Click the plus icons (+)  to view some benefits of reflective practice.     

When to critically reflect?

Critical reflection connects to past, current and future action. Click on each of the flip cards to learn the time-related actions you need to do as part of reflective practice.

Reflective practice and critical reflection

Reflective practice is part of your mindset and everyday doing for both uni and the workplace. The process also relies on using critical reflection as a tool to analyse your reflections and which allows you to evaluate, inform and continually change your practice.

Explore the infographic below for a visual depiction of the reflective practice and critical reflection relationship. 

• Reflective practice infographic

Critical reflection and areas of your practice

Reflective practice relies on your ability to be open to change and to consider relevant evidence that can challenge or inform decision making. Critical reflection is what allows you to deeply understand your study or work practice and then to take actions to improve it.    

You should critically reflect on all aspects of your practice including:

Reflective practice and you

How would you define reflective practice for yourself? There's no right or wrong answer to this question because it's so contextual. The way you enact reflective practice is tied to you and how you think, feel and do. We know that writing down or verbalising your thinking can help you better understand what something means to you. With that in mind...

Take a few moments to think about how you define reflective practice. You can then  record yourself using the interactive audio activity below and download the soundbyte. Any recording you make is only available to you.  Keep this definition in mind as you move through this critical reflection guide.

• << Previous: Homepage
• Next: Critical reflection >>
• Last Updated: Mar 15, 2024 4:53 PM
• URL: https://deakin.libguides.com/critical-reflection-guide

A Step-by-Step Guide to Critical Reflection

Introduction

Critical reflection is the process of analyzing and evaluating an experience in order to gain a deeper understanding of oneself and the situation. It involves taking a step back, examining the experience from different perspectives, and considering the different factors that influenced the outcome. Critical reflection helps us to learn from our experiences and make better choices in the future.

The importance of critical reflection cannot be overstated. It is a vital tool for personal and professional development, and it is essential for anyone who wants to grow and improve. This guide will provide a step-by-step process for practicing critical reflection, as well as tips and strategies for making the most of the process.

If you’re ready to start your journey of self-improvement and growth, this guide is for you. By following the steps outlined here and investing time and effort into the process of critical reflection, you can gain a deeper understanding of yourself, your experiences, and the world around you. So let’s get started!

What is Critical Reflection?

Critical reflection is a process of analyzing and evaluating a particular experience, situation, or problem in a thoughtful and structured way. It involves identifying your own assumptions and biases, as well as considering alternative perspectives and potential areas for improvement.

Definition of Critical Reflection

Simply put, critical reflection is a process of thinking deeply and critically about a particular experience or issue in order to gain insight and improve future outcomes. It is a self-directed and ongoing process that encourages individuals to evaluate their own actions, beliefs, and assumptions in a non-judgmental way.

Characteristics of Critical Reflection

Critical reflection is characterized by several important qualities, including:

• Critical thinking: It involves analyzing and evaluating information in a thoughtful and objective manner.
• Self-awareness: It requires individuals to be aware of their own assumptions and biases, as well as the impact of their actions on others.
• Open-mindedness: It encourages individuals to consider alternative perspectives and ideas, rather than relying solely on their own experiences and beliefs.
• Reflection: It involves taking the time to reflect on a particular experience or issue in order to gain insight and improve performance.

Process of Critical Reflection

Critical reflection is a process that involves several steps to analyze an experience or problem. Below is a step-by-step guide for critical reflection:

Identify the problem or experience to reflect on: The first step in critical reflection is to identify a particular experience or problem to reflect on. This could be a work-related issue, a personal experience, or a situation that occurred in your community.

Describe the experience in detail: Once you have identified the experience or problem to reflect on, the next step is to describe it in detail. This involves identifying the key players, events, and outcomes. Write down your thoughts, feelings, and reactions to the experience.

Analyze the experience: In this step, you need to analyze the experience by reflecting on the following questions: What happened? Why did it happen? What did you think and feel about it? What were the consequences of your actions? What were the consequences of others’ actions? Use critical thinking skills to examine the experience from multiple perspectives.

Evaluate your own role and actions: After analyzing the experience, evaluate your own role and actions. Ask yourself: What did I do well? What actions could I have done differently? What are the implications of my actions for myself and others? This step requires you to be honest and self-reflective.

Identify alternative actions: After evaluating your own role and actions, think about alternative actions that you could have taken. Ask yourself: What could I have done differently? How would that have changed the outcome? What did I learn from this experience?

Conclusion - What did you learn?: The final step in critical reflection is to draw conclusions from your reflection. Identify what you learned from the experience and how you can apply this learning in the future. This step is essential for personal growth and development.

Remember that critical reflection is not a one-time event. It is an ongoing process that requires regular practice. By engaging in critical reflection, you can develop improved communication, problem-solving, and decision-making skills.

Benefits of Critical Reflection

Critical reflection provides numerous benefits for personal and professional development. Here are some of the most common advantages of the process:

Personal growth and development : Critical reflection enables individuals to learn from their experiences and mistakes. This learning process fosters personal growth and development, as individuals are encouraged to examine their values, beliefs, and assumptions.

Improved decision-making skills : Critical reflection helps individuals make more informed and deliberate decisions. By analyzing their experiences and evaluating different courses of action, individuals are better equipped to make decisions that align with their goals and values.

Improved problem solving skills : Critical reflection also enhances problem-solving skills. By systematically examining a problem or experience, individuals can identify the underlying issues and develop more effective solutions.

Improved communication skills : Critical reflection requires individuals to articulate their thoughts and feelings clearly and concisely. This ability to communicate effectively can benefit individuals in a range of contexts, from personal relationships to professional settings.

Overall, critical reflection is a powerful tool for personal and professional development. The benefits of critical reflection extend beyond the individual, as they also enhance the quality of work and relationships with others.

Tips for Effective Critical Reflection

Here are some tips to help you engage in effective critical reflection:

Be Open-minded

Approach the reflection process with an open mind. Be receptive to new ideas and perspectives, and be willing to challenge your own assumptions or beliefs. This will help you gain a deeper understanding of the experience and identify alternative ways of thinking and behaving.

Use a Structured Process

Use a structured process or template to guide your reflection. This can help ensure that you cover all the necessary steps and stay focused on the key issues. It can also make the process more efficient and effective.

Be Honest with Yourself

Be honest and objective when reflecting on your experience. Don’t shy away from acknowledging your own mistakes or limitations, as this can help you grow and improve. However, be sure to also recognize your strengths and accomplishments, as this can help build confidence and motivation.

Practice Regularly

Make reflection a regular habit. Don’t wait for a major crisis or challenge to start reflecting on your experiences. Instead, try to incorporate reflection into your daily routine. This can help you identify patterns or trends over time and make continuous improvements.

By following these tips, you can enhance the effectiveness and impact of your critical reflection process.

In conclusion, critical reflection is an essential part of personal growth and development. Through the process of critical reflection, we can identify areas for improvement, evaluate our own actions and decisions, and come up with alternative solutions to challenging situations.

We hope that this step-by-step guide has provided you with a helpful roadmap for engaging in critical reflection. Remember to be open-minded, use a structured process, and be honest with yourself. By practicing critical reflection regularly, you can improve your decision-making and problem-solving skills, as well as your communication with others.

If you want to learn more about critical reflection, there are many additional resources available. We encourage you to continue to explore this topic and to incorporate critical reflection into your daily life.

Are You a Stoic Thinker?

Redefining your life's purpose through introspection, critical reflection for grad students seeking a career change, why is critical reflection so important ask yourself these questions, exclusive insights from experts on the power of critical reflection, creating anticipation in critical reflection: how to build momentum for change.

Top 20 Critical Thinking Interview Questions & Answers

Master your responses to Critical Thinking related interview questions with our example questions and answers. Boost your chances of landing the job by learning how to effectively communicate your Critical Thinking capabilities.

Critical thinking is a skill highly sought after in today’s complex and fast-paced world. It’s not merely about thinking clearly or rationally; it’s about analyzing and evaluating information to guide action, making it pivotal across all professions and industries. Whether you are applying for a role that explicitly lists critical thinking as a job requirement or you’re looking to enhance your problem-solving prowess in your current position, demonstrating strong critical thinking skills can set you apart from the competition.

This article aims to illuminate the significance of critical thinking in the professional realm by delving into interview questions designed to test this indispensable skill. We’ll provide insights into what employers are looking for when they assess critical thinking abilities and offer strategies for crafting responses that showcase your analytical acumen.

Common Critical Thinking Interview Questions

1. how would you differentiate between a problem that requires critical thinking and one that does not.

Navigating ambiguous situations and analyzing information objectively are key components of effective critical thinking. This skill is crucial for solving complex problems where standard protocols may not apply, and outcomes are unpredictable. Conversely, routine problems often have established methods and clear-cut solutions that don’t demand extensive analysis or creative thought. The question aims to assess a candidate’s ability to recognize when a nuanced approach is necessary versus when efficiency can be prioritized by following standard procedures. It also evaluates a candidate’s judgment in identifying the scale and impact of a problem, which is crucial for resource management and prioritization within a role.

When responding, a candidate should outline their thought process for assessing problems, highlighting their ability to identify key factors such as the complexity of the issue, potential risks, and the level of uncertainty involved. An effective response would include examples demonstrating how they have distinguished between routine and complex problems in past experiences, along with the strategies they employed to address each effectively. This showcases their problem-solving abilities and their understanding of when to leverage critical thinking skills.

Example: “ Differentiating between a problem that requires critical thinking and one that does not hinges on the analysis of several dimensions of the problem at hand. For instance, a problem that is routine, well-defined, and has a clear set of procedures or historical precedents for its resolution typically may not necessitate critical thinking. In contrast, a problem that is complex, ambiguous, involves multiple stakeholders with conflicting interests, or has significant consequences depending on the outcome, demands a critical thinking approach.

In practice, I assess the need for critical thinking by evaluating the problem’s novelty, the scope of impact, the level of uncertainty, and the interdependencies among variables. For example, when faced with a new market trend that could potentially disrupt our business model, I recognized this as a critical thinking scenario due to its complexity and high stakes. I systematically gathered and analyzed data, questioned assumptions, and explored alternative solutions. This involved not just an analytical breakdown of the problem but also creative synthesis to develop innovative strategies, demonstrating the application of critical thinking to navigate through the intricacies of the issue effectively.”

2. Describe an instance when your initial hypothesis about a complex issue was incorrect.

When it comes to critical thinking, the ability to form hypotheses and adjust them when presented with new information or evidence is fundamental. This question delves into a candidate’s flexibility of thought, their willingness to admit and learn from mistakes, and their capacity to approach problems from multiple angles. A well-rounded candidate will not only recognize when they are wrong but will also see it as an opportunity for growth rather than a setback. It’s a test of humility and intellectual integrity, key traits for roles demanding analytical prowess and decision-making.

In your response, recount a specific situation where you had to pivot from your original assumption. Briefly outline the context and the stakes involved. Then, focus on the process you underwent to re-evaluate the situation: the additional information you considered, the way you integrated new data, and how you ultimately arrived at a different conclusion. Emphasize your thought process and the lessons learned, ensuring you highlight your adaptability and continuous improvement mindset.

Example: “ In analyzing a complex issue within a project, my initial hypothesis was that the bottleneck was caused by an inefficiency in the operational workflow. Upon deeper analysis, however, I discovered that the issue was not the workflow itself but rather a mismatch in team skill sets and resource allocation. By incorporating data analytics and soliciting cross-departmental feedback, I realized that the workflow was designed optimally but was being executed by team members who were not best suited for their roles.

To address this, I facilitated a realignment of tasks to match individual strengths and brought in additional training for areas where the team was lacking expertise. This pivot not only resolved the bottleneck but also improved overall team performance and morale. The experience underscored the importance of a data-driven approach and the value of looking beyond surface-level symptoms to underlying causes. It also reinforced the necessity of maintaining a flexible mindset and being willing to challenge my own assumptions in the face of new evidence.”

3. What strategies do you employ to identify biases in your decision-making process?

Awareness of personal biases is a critical component of effective critical thinking. Recognizing and mitigating these biases ensures that decisions are based on objective analysis rather than subjective preference. This question aims to assess whether a candidate is self-aware and actively engaged in personal development, as well as their ability to maintain objectivity in professional scenarios. It also speaks to a candidate’s commitment to fairness and their potential for leadership, where unbiased decision-making is essential for team cohesion and trust.

When responding, candidates should articulate the specific techniques they use to keep their biases in check. This might include seeking diverse perspectives, consulting with colleagues, relying on data and evidence, or engaging in reflective practices such as journaling or meditation. Candidates should provide concrete examples of when they’ve identified a bias in their thinking and how they adjusted their approach to ensure a more balanced outcome. Demonstrating a proactive approach to personal growth and a dedication to fair decision-making will signal to interviewers a candidate’s suitability for roles requiring sound judgment.

Example: “ To identify biases in my decision-making process, I employ a combination of reflective practices and evidence-based evaluation. I actively engage in self-reflection to question my initial assumptions and consider the origins of my perspectives. This often involves journaling, which helps to externalize and critically assess my thought patterns. Additionally, I prioritize the collection and analysis of data to inform my decisions, ensuring that they are rooted in objective evidence rather than subjective intuition.

When I detect a potential bias, I seek out diverse viewpoints to challenge my preconceptions. This involves consulting with colleagues who may have different experiences or expertise, which provides a broader perspective and mitigates the risk of echo chambers. In a recent project, I recognized a confirmation bias in my analysis, where I was favoring information that supported my initial hypothesis. By acknowledging this, I revisited the data and actively searched for disconfirming evidence, which led to a more nuanced understanding and ultimately a more robust decision-making process. This approach not only enhances the quality of my decisions but also fosters a culture of critical thinking and continuous improvement.”

4. In what ways have you used critical thinking to improve a process at your previous job?

Dissecting a process, analyzing its components with a sharp eye, and envisioning a more efficient or effective method are all aspects of critical thinking that drive process improvement and innovation. This ability to objectively evaluate and enhance systems is not just about fixing what’s broken, but also about preempting potential issues and maximizing productivity. By asking this question, interviewers are looking for evidence of a candidate’s analytical skills and their initiative to bring about positive change within an organization.

When responding to this question, provide a concrete example of a time you identified a problem or area for improvement. Break down the steps you took to analyze the situation, emphasizing how you gathered data, considered various solutions, and weighed the pros and cons. Then, explain the action you took, the implementation of the new process, and most importantly, the outcome. Illustrate how your critical thinking led to tangible benefits for the company, such as time savings, cost reductions, increased revenue, or improved employee satisfaction.

Example: “ In a previous role, I identified a bottleneck in our project reporting process, which was causing delays in decision-making. I initiated a thorough analysis of the existing workflow and discovered that the report consolidation was the primary issue, as it relied on manual data entry from multiple departments. To tackle this, I conducted a root cause analysis to understand the underlying issues and engaged with stakeholders to gather insights and validate findings.

Armed with this information, I proposed and implemented an automated data aggregation tool that interfaced with our existing systems. This solution not only streamlined the data collection process but also reduced the potential for human error. By critically evaluating the process and considering the technological resources available, I was able to re-engineer the workflow, resulting in a 30% reduction in the time taken to generate reports. This improvement led to faster strategic decisions and a significant increase in overall team productivity.”

5. Can you provide an example of how you’ve dissected a multifaceted argument to assess its validity?

Breaking down complex issues into their component parts to understand the underlying logic and reasoning is a hallmark of effective critical thinking. This skill is particularly valuable as it allows for a nuanced approach to problem-solving, where the thinker can identify biases, logical fallacies, and the strength of the evidence presented. Employers seek individuals who can navigate through layers of information, differentiate between correlation and causation, and make informed decisions based on a sound analysis of available data. This question aims to reveal whether the candidate has a systematic approach to addressing intricate arguments and can remain objective while evaluating differing viewpoints.

When responding to this question, begin by outlining a specific scenario where you were faced with a challenging argument or problem. Walk the interviewer through your process step-by-step, explaining how you identified key issues, researched relevant information, and applied logical reasoning to each part. Highlight how you remained impartial, even if the argument related to a topic you felt strongly about, and conclude by sharing the outcome of your analysis. This approach not only demonstrates your critical thinking abilities but also shows that you can communicate complex ideas clearly and effectively.

Example: “ In one instance, I was presented with an argument that a particular business strategy would significantly increase market share. The argument was supported by a variety of data points and expert opinions. To assess its validity, I first deconstructed the argument into its core components: the underlying assumptions, the evidence provided, and the logical connections between the two.

I then conducted an independent evaluation of the evidence, scrutinizing the methodology behind the data collection and the credibility of the sources. Simultaneously, I challenged the assumptions by considering alternative scenarios and seeking out information that could either confirm or refute them. Throughout this process, I maintained an objective stance, ensuring that my personal biases did not color the analysis.

The outcome of this rigorous examination was a nuanced understanding of the strategy’s potential. I concluded that while the strategy had merit, it also carried risks that were not initially apparent. This comprehensive analysis allowed for a more informed decision-making process that considered both the strengths and weaknesses of the proposed strategy.”

6. Outline the steps you take when confronted with conflicting data points.

When presented with conflicting data, the ability to discern, analyze, and integrate information is paramount. This question not only assesses a candidate’s analytical skills but also evaluates their approach to uncertainty and complexity. It inspects the candidate’s methodology for handling information that doesn’t readily align, testing their intellectual rigor and commitment to evidence-based decision-making.

To respond, outline a systematic approach: begin by verifying the sources of the data for credibility. Next, cross-examine the information for errors or biases. If the data remains conflicting, consider alternative perspectives or additional research to provide context. Explain how you would weigh the evidence, perhaps employing specific analytical tools or consulting with knowledgeable colleagues. Conclude by describing how you would form a reasoned conclusion or make a recommendation, emphasizing your flexibility and openness to changing your stance as new information arises.

Example: “ When confronted with conflicting data points, my initial step is to authenticate the sources, ensuring their reliability and validity. I scrutinize the methodologies used to gather the data, looking for potential errors or methodological inconsistencies that could explain the discrepancies. If the sources and methods are sound, I proceed to examine the data for any inherent biases or contextual factors that might influence the results.

Following this critical evaluation, I explore additional research or data that could provide further insight, often utilizing statistical analysis or predictive modeling to discern patterns or anomalies. This process may also involve seeking expertise from colleagues who can offer alternative perspectives or specialized knowledge. Throughout this investigative phase, I maintain a balanced approach, considering all evidence on its merit.

Ultimately, I synthesize the findings, weighing the evidence carefully. My recommendation or conclusion is based on the most comprehensive and robust understanding of the data, with an acknowledgment of any remaining uncertainties. I remain adaptable, ready to adjust my position in light of new evidence or insights that may emerge.”

7. When evaluating evidence, how do you determine its relevance and reliability?

Analyzing information and making informed decisions hinge on determining the relevance and reliability of evidence. The question delves into the candidate’s thought process and methodology for discerning the quality and applicability of information. It also reveals their capacity for skepticism and due diligence, as well as their understanding of the sources and contexts that may affect the integrity of evidence. Employers ask this to ensure the potential employee can effectively sift through data, recognize biases, and draw conclusions that are not only logical but also empirically sound.

When responding to this question, a candidate should outline a systematic approach, starting with the assessment of the source’s credibility, including its origin, authorship, and purpose. They should then discuss the process of cross-referencing the information with other reliable sources and the importance of considering the context in which the evidence was produced. Demonstrating an awareness of one’s own cognitive biases and the potential for these to influence decision-making is also valuable. Lastly, articulating a clear, practical example of how they have applied these principles in a previous situation can help to solidify their response.

Example: “ In evaluating evidence, the first step is to scrutinize the source’s credibility. This includes examining the author’s qualifications, the publication’s reputation, and the methodology used to gather the information. I then assess the purpose of the evidence, looking for any signs of bias or intent to persuade rather than inform. To establish reliability, I cross-reference the evidence with other sources, ensuring they are independent and authoritative. This triangulation helps to confirm the consistency and validity of the information.

Context is paramount; understanding the circumstances under which the evidence was produced allows for a more nuanced interpretation. For instance, in a previous situation where I had to evaluate data from a study, I considered the sample size, the controls in place, and the study’s funding sources. Moreover, I remain vigilant about my cognitive biases, actively seeking disconfirming evidence to challenge my initial conclusions. This disciplined approach ensures that my decisions are based on robust and objective assessments of the evidence at hand.”

8. Share an experience where you had to make a decision without all the desired information.

Acting with confidence even when not all the facts are present is a common requirement in fast-paced environments where waiting for perfect information could lead to missed opportunities or compounded issues. The question aims to assess a candidate’s risk assessment capabilities, their comfort with ambiguity, and their problem-solving skills. It evaluates whether the candidate can pull from their knowledge, past experiences, and available resources to make an informed decision that could potentially affect the outcome of a project or the direction of a company.

When responding to this question, candidates should focus on a specific example that showcases their thought process during an uncertain situation. They should detail the steps they took to gather as much information as possible, weigh the potential risks and benefits, consider the impact of their decision, and explain how they arrived at their conclusion. It’s also beneficial to reflect on the outcome of the decision and what they learned from the experience, demonstrating an ability to learn and adapt from less-than-ideal situations.

Example: “ In a project where time-sensitive decisions were crucial, I encountered a situation where critical data was incomplete due to unforeseen circumstances. Understanding the urgency, I initiated a rapid but thorough risk assessment to evaluate potential impacts of various decision scenarios. I leveraged historical data, parallel case studies, and consulted with subject matter experts to fill in informational gaps to the greatest extent possible.

After synthesizing this information, I employed a decision matrix to prioritize options based on the project’s strategic objectives and stakeholder interests. I chose a course of action that balanced risk with potential reward, ensuring that the most critical project deliverables remained on track. The decision was successful, resulting in minimal disruption to the project timeline and budget. This experience reinforced the importance of a structured approach to decision-making under uncertainty and the value of drawing on diverse information sources to inform such decisions.”

9. Detail a situation in which your critical analysis led to a significant change in strategy or direction.

Strategic planning and problem-solving are areas where critical thinking is indispensable. When interviewers pose this question, they’re looking for evidence of your ability to dissect complex issues, consider diverse perspectives, and foresee potential outcomes. The ability to pivot and adapt strategies based on new information reflects an agile mindset, which is highly valued in dynamic business environments. It reveals your capacity to influence meaningful change and demonstrates foresight, adaptability, and the courage to challenge the status quo when necessary.

When responding, outline a specific scenario succinctly, emphasizing the complexity of the situation and the critical thinking processes you employed. Discuss the rationale behind your analysis, the different options you considered, and why you advocated for a particular change in strategy or direction. Highlight the impact of your decision—how it benefited the organization, improved efficiency, increased revenue, or mitigated risks. Your response should convey confidence in your judgment, an analytical approach to problem-solving, and a proactive stance in driving innovation or improvement.

Example: “ In a project where the initial strategy was to expand market share through aggressive pricing, I conducted a critical analysis of market trends, consumer behavior, and competitive responses. My analysis revealed that such a pricing strategy would trigger a price war with competitors that our company was not financially positioned to sustain. Instead, I proposed a value-added approach, focusing on differentiating our products through enhanced features and customer service rather than competing solely on price.

I presented a comprehensive business case to the leadership team, outlining the potential long-term consequences of the original strategy, including market erosion and reduced profitability. I contrasted this with the projected outcomes of the value-added strategy, which included increased customer loyalty, brand strength, and sustainable profit margins. The leadership adopted my recommendation, leading to a 15% increase in customer retention and a 10% rise in profit margins within the following fiscal year, validating the shift in strategy and demonstrating the importance of thorough critical analysis in strategic decision-making.”

10. How do you handle situations where team members resist your critical evaluations?

Providing feedback that may not be readily accepted, especially when it challenges established ideas or practices within a team, involves effective critical thinking. The ability to navigate resistance is a testament to one’s diplomatic skills and emotional intelligence. It reflects an understanding that critique is not a personal attack but a necessary part of growth and innovation. Employers value candidates who can diplomatically deliver critical evaluations and facilitate a constructive dialogue that leads to improved performance and collaboration, rather than discord and division.

When responding to this question, it’s important to emphasize your approach to communication and conflict resolution. Detail specific strategies you employ to ensure that your evaluations are objective, evidence-based, and presented in a way that underscores their intention to improve the team’s output. Highlight your ability to listen to and address concerns, foster an open environment for discussion, and ultimately guide the team towards a consensus or compromise that upholds the project’s best interests.

Example: “ In situations where team members resist critical evaluations, my approach is to first ensure that the feedback is grounded in objective data and aligns with predefined goals or standards. I present my evaluations with clarity, focusing on the issue at hand rather than personal attributes, to minimize defensiveness. When resistance occurs, I actively listen to the team members’ perspectives, acknowledging their viewpoints and concerns. This demonstrates respect for their expertise and fosters an environment of mutual trust.

I then facilitate a constructive dialogue, guiding the team towards understanding the evaluation’s rationale and the potential benefits of addressing the identified issues. By encouraging an open exchange of ideas, I often find that resistance gives way to collaborative problem-solving. If a consensus is not immediately reached, I propose incremental steps to test the recommended changes, allowing the team to see empirical results. This method not only validates the evaluation’s findings but also empowers the team to be part of the solution, ensuring that the critical evaluation serves as a catalyst for positive change rather than a point of contention.”

11. What is your approach to prioritizing issues requiring immediate critical thought over routine tasks?

Distinguishing between tasks that need immediate attention and those that follow a routine is often a critical component of professional critical thinking. Employers are looking for candidates who can swiftly analyze situations, recognize the urgency and potential impact of each task, and act accordingly to ensure efficiency and effectiveness. The ability to prioritize reflects a person’s judgment, time management skills, and ultimately their capability to contribute to the organization’s success without becoming overwhelmed or sacrificing quality.

When responding to this question, you should demonstrate your decision-making process by providing a clear and structured approach. Outline how you assess the importance of tasks, perhaps by considering factors such as deadlines, potential outcomes, and resources required. You could also mention any tools or techniques you use to stay organized, such as to-do lists or project management software. Giving concrete examples from past experiences where you successfully prioritized critical issues will illustrate your methodology in action and reassure the interviewer of your proficiency in this area.

Example: “ When faced with multiple tasks, my approach to prioritization begins with a swift evaluation of each issue’s potential impact and urgency. I consider the consequences of delayed action, weighing the risks against the benefits of immediate attention. Critical issues that could escalate into larger problems or have a significant negative impact on the project or organization take precedence. For instance, if a critical issue has the potential to disrupt service delivery or cause financial loss, it becomes the top priority.

I utilize a combination of Eisenhower’s Matrix for categorizing tasks by urgency and importance, and project management tools for tracking progress and deadlines. This method allows me to maintain a clear overview of the landscape of responsibilities and make informed decisions quickly. In practice, this approach has enabled me to effectively intervene in situations that required immediate critical thought, such as resolving a bottleneck in a project that threatened to derail the timeline, while ensuring that routine tasks are rescheduled appropriately and do not fall by the wayside.”

12. Could you give an example of a time when you had to challenge conventional wisdom using critical thinking?

The ability to step outside the norm, question the status quo, and innovate is a key aspect of critical thinking. This question aims to unearth a candidate’s ability to recognize when a widely accepted approach is flawed or inadequate and their courage and skill in devising and implementing a more effective alternative. It reveals their capability to not only recognize when a widely accepted approach is flawed or inadequate but also their courage and skill in devising and implementing a more effective alternative.

To respond effectively, choose a specific instance where you identified a problem that others had accepted as unsolvable or ignored due to traditional thinking. Explain your thought process in evaluating the situation, how you identified a novel approach, and the steps you took to challenge the prevailing wisdom. Highlight the outcome, what you learned, and how it demonstrates your critical thinking prowess. Be sure to convey confidence in your decision-making process while also acknowledging the risk and resistance that often accompanies going against the grain.

Example: “ In a project where the prevailing approach was to incrementally improve an existing product, I noticed that our incremental changes were no longer yielding significant benefits to the customer. Conventional wisdom suggested we continue with minor improvements, but my analysis of customer feedback and market trends indicated a plateau in satisfaction and a shift in consumer needs.

Using critical thinking, I dissected the core functions of our product, reevaluated our assumptions, and proposed a radical redesign that aligned more closely with emerging user preferences. I presented a data-driven case to stakeholders, illustrating the long-term benefits and potential market capture that a bold move could offer. Despite initial resistance, the evidence was compelling, and we pivoted to the new strategy.

The redesigned product not only reinvigorated the brand but also captured a new customer segment, leading to a substantial increase in market share. This experience underscored the importance of questioning the status quo and reinforced my belief in the power of critical thinking to drive innovation and strategic redirection.”

13. How do you maintain objectivity when critically assessing emotionally charged issues?

Detaching oneself from personal biases and emotional influences to arrive at logical, fair conclusions is a demand of critical thinking, especially in emotionally charged situations. Employers ask this question to discern whether a candidate possesses the self-awareness and strategies necessary to navigate emotionally-laden terrain without compromising their decision-making process. It’s a subtle test of a candidate’s professionalism and their capacity to handle workplace conflicts or sensitive projects with a level head.

When responding, illustrate with examples where you’ve successfully maintained impartiality during heated discussions or decisions. Emphasize techniques you use, such as stepping back to analyze the facts, seeking diverse perspectives, or employing established frameworks to guide your thought process. Your answer should reassure the interviewer that you can uphold the integrity of your role, even when emotions run high.

Example: “ Maintaining objectivity in emotionally charged situations hinges on a disciplined adherence to evidence and a structured analytical framework. For instance, during a contentious project debate, I anchor my assessment in data-driven criteria, ensuring that decisions are rooted in quantifiable metrics rather than subjective sentiments. This approach not only clarifies the decision-making process but also provides a common language for all stakeholders, facilitating a more rational discourse.

Additionally, I actively seek out diverse perspectives to challenge my own biases and broaden my understanding of the issue at hand. By engaging with viewpoints that differ from my own, I can construct a more comprehensive analysis that transcends personal emotions. This method was particularly effective when navigating a high-stakes negotiation, where synthesizing the various interests led to a consensus that balanced emotional concerns with strategic objectives. Employing these techniques consistently has proven to be instrumental in upholding impartiality and ensuring that critical thinking prevails in emotionally intense scenarios.”

14. What techniques do you use to foster critical thinking skills within a team environment?

Cultivating an environment where team members are encouraged to think deeply and challenge assumptions is a reflection of critical thinking in a team setting. When interviewers pose this question, they are looking for insight into how you foster intellectual growth and collaborative problem-solving. It reveals your leadership style and your ability to facilitate intellectual growth and collaborative problem-solving. The question also serves to understand if you can balance the need for diverse perspectives while steering the team towards cohesive, well-reasoned outcomes.

When responding, you should outline specific strategies you’ve employed to encourage critical thinking. This could include fostering open discussions, posing challenging problems for the team to solve, encouraging team members to question the status quo, and facilitating debates. Highlight examples from your experience where these techniques have led to innovative solutions or improved decision-making. Mention how you ensure all voices are heard and how you guide discussions to remain constructive and focused on the end goal.

Example: “ To cultivate critical thinking within a team, I implement a structured approach to problem-solving that encourages divergent thinking followed by convergent analysis. Initially, I facilitate brainstorming sessions that promote the free flow of ideas without immediate judgment, allowing team members to explore various perspectives and challenge preconceived notions. This openness fosters an environment where creativity is valued, and unconventional ideas can surface.

Once a broad range of ideas is on the table, I guide the team through a critical evaluation process. This involves systematically assessing the feasibility, potential impact, and risks associated with each idea. I encourage team members to ask probing questions and consider the implications of each approach. By employing techniques such as the Six Thinking Hats or SWOT analysis, I ensure that the team examines issues from multiple angles, leading to more robust and well-rounded solutions. Moreover, I make a conscious effort to create an inclusive atmosphere where every member feels empowered to contribute, ensuring a diversity of thought and preventing groupthink. Through these methods, we’ve consistently achieved innovative outcomes and enhanced our collective decision-making capabilities.”

15. Illustrate how you balance quick decision-making with thorough critical analysis under pressure.

Thinking on one’s feet while ensuring that decisions are well-considered and not rash is a crucial aspect of critical thinking, especially in roles where the stakes are high and the cost of a mistake is significant. Employers ask this question to assess a candidate’s ability to think on their feet while also ensuring that their decisions are well-considered and not rash. It’s crucial in roles where the stakes are high and the cost of a mistake is significant. The interviewer is looking for a glimpse into your decision-making process, particularly how you weigh the urgency of a situation against the need for comprehensive analysis.

To respond, describe a scenario where you were faced with a time-sensitive decision. Walk through your thought process, highlighting how you identified the key issues, evaluated the information at hand, and prioritized actions while maintaining a commitment to making a sound, well-reasoned choice. Focus on demonstrating your ability to discern which decisions require immediate action and which can benefit from more extensive analysis. It’s important to convey that you can strike a balance between speed and precision, leveraging your critical thinking skills to deliver optimal outcomes efficiently.

Example: “ In a situation where rapid decision-making was crucial, I employed a tiered approach to critical analysis. Initially, I identified the core issue that demanded immediate attention, separating it from less urgent factors. I then quickly gathered the most relevant data, applying heuristic techniques to assess the situation’s urgency and potential impact. This allowed me to prioritize actions that would mitigate immediate risks or capitalize on fleeting opportunities.

Simultaneously, I maintained an awareness of the broader context, ensuring that my swift decisions aligned with long-term objectives and values. By leveraging a combination of deductive reasoning to address the immediate issue and inductive reasoning to consider the potential implications, I was able to make a well-reasoned decision that was both timely and thoughtful. This method has consistently proven effective in balancing the need for expediency with the commitment to thorough analysis, ensuring that the decisions I make under pressure are both strategic and sound.”

16. Have you ever encountered a groupthink scenario and how did you apply critical thinking to address it?

Recognizing the signs of groupthink—such as a homogenization of ideas, pressure to conform, and an illusion of unanimity—and challenging the status quo to ensure diverse perspectives are considered is important for preventing suboptimal outcomes. Employers value candidates who can maintain objectivity, apply analytical skills to evaluate different opinions, and foster a culture of open dialogue, even when it’s uncomfortable or goes against the grain. This question assesses a candidate’s ability to maintain objectivity, apply analytical skills to evaluate different opinions, and foster a culture of open dialogue, even when it’s uncomfortable or goes against the grain.

When responding, it’s important to provide a specific example that illustrates your awareness of a groupthink situation. Detail how you identified the issue, the steps you took to encourage alternative viewpoints, and the outcome of your intervention. Emphasize your communication skills, your respect for diverse opinions, and your commitment to making decisions based on evidence and sound reasoning. It’s also beneficial to reflect on what you learned from the experience and how it has influenced your approach to teamwork and problem-solving in subsequent situations.

Example: “ Yes, I encountered a groupthink scenario during a project where the team was prematurely converging on a solution without thoroughly vetting alternatives. Recognizing the signs of groupthink, such as the lack of debate and the quick dismissal of outside opinions, I intervened by orchestrating a structured brainstorming session. I introduced a “devil’s advocate” approach, assigning team members to purposely challenge the prevailing assumptions and propose contrarian viewpoints.

This strategy fostered a more open dialogue and encouraged critical evaluation of the proposed solution. By systematically dissecting each argument and examining the evidence, the team was able to identify potential flaws and biases in our initial approach. The outcome was a more robust and innovative solution that had the benefit of diverse perspectives. The experience reinforced the importance of vigilance against groupthink and has since shaped my commitment to fostering an environment where critical thinking and dissenting opinions are valued in the decision-making process.”

17. Describe a complex project where your critical thinking uncovered an overlooked solution.

Evaluating sources, such as data, facts, observable phenomena, and research findings, is part of the critical thinking process. In the context of a job interview, this question serves to evaluate not only a candidate’s problem-solving capabilities but also their initiative and innovation. It reveals how a candidate approaches a problem, breaks it down into components, and systematically tackles it. It’s about assessing the candidate’s ability to not just think, but to think outside the box and recognize patterns that are not immediately obvious, which can lead to innovative solutions that others might miss.

When responding to this question, you should outline the context of the project briefly, highlighting its complexity. Proceed to explain the thought process you employed, detailing how you identified the problem, the various solutions you considered, and why they were dismissed or pursued. Emphasize the critical thinking techniques you used, such as questioning assumptions, analyzing potential outcomes, and synthesizing information from various sources. Conclude with the impact of your solution, such as cost savings, time efficiency, or improved outcomes. Demonstrating a structured approach to problem-solving will show employers that you possess the analytical skills necessary to tackle complex projects effectively.

Example: “ In a recent complex project, the primary challenge was optimizing the resource allocation process to reduce waste and increase efficiency. The existing system was sophisticated but had a persistent issue with over-provisioning, leading to significant financial drain. Upon a deep dive into the data and processes, I employed root cause analysis and discovered that the algorithm driving the allocation was based on outdated assumptions about usage patterns.

By questioning these assumptions and conducting a series of predictive analyses, I proposed a dynamic allocation model that adjusted resources in real-time based on current demand rather than historical trends. I also integrated a feedback loop that allowed the system to learn and adapt over time. This solution required a nuanced understanding of both the technical aspects and the behavioral patterns of system users. The implementation of this model led to a 20% reduction in resource waste within the first quarter, validating the effectiveness of the critical thinking process in uncovering this overlooked solution.”

18. What methods do you utilize to ensure your conclusions are sound when dealing with abstract concepts?

Dissecting and navigating theoretical or complex ideas ensures that a candidate’s thought process is logical, thorough, and evidence-based. The question seeks to explore a candidate’s ability to handle abstract concepts that are not easily quantifiable or observable. It is a test of not just intelligence but of a systematic and disciplined approach to problem-solving that can greatly affect the outcomes of projects and tasks. The interviewer is looking for a glimpse into the candidate’s intellectual rigor and how they handle ambiguity and uncertainty.

When responding, it is vital to discuss a structured approach to critical thinking. One could highlight the importance of questioning assumptions, seeking out a variety of sources for information, and applying logical reasoning. Emphasize the use of specific strategies such as breaking down complex problems into smaller, more manageable parts, employing analogies to better understand unfamiliar concepts, or using decision-making frameworks like the Cynefin framework to categorize problems and respond appropriately. Sharing examples from past experiences where these methods were applied to reach a well-reasoned conclusion can illustrate your proficiency in critical thinking.

Example: “ To ensure my conclusions are sound when dealing with abstract concepts, I systematically employ a combination of deductive and inductive reasoning, while rigorously questioning underlying assumptions. I begin by dissecting the abstract concept into its fundamental elements, which allows me to analyze the problem more effectively. This process of decomposition helps to identify any logical inconsistencies and to understand the relationships between the various components of the concept.

I also draw upon diverse informational sources to inform my understanding, ensuring that my perspective is not limited by a single viewpoint. By integrating these perspectives, I can construct a more comprehensive understanding of the abstract concept. Additionally, I use analogies to create parallels with more familiar concepts, which aids in grasping the essence of the abstract idea and in communicating my reasoning to others. When synthesizing my conclusion, I apply decision-making frameworks like the Cynefin framework, which assists in categorizing the problem and determining the most suitable approach for resolution. This structured methodology ensures that my conclusions are not only logical but also pragmatic, taking into account the complexity and context of the situation at hand.”

19. How do you integrate critical thinking into your everyday work routines?

Anticipating challenges and mitigating them before they impact the workflow is a key aspect of critical thinking. Employers want to know that a candidate can not only solve problems when they arise but also anticipate challenges and mitigate them before they impact the workflow. They are looking for evidence of a proactive mindset that employs logic, creativity, and strategic planning as part of the daily work routine rather than reactive thinking that only addresses issues as they come up.

When responding, candidates should describe specific strategies they use to apply critical thinking in their work. This might involve breaking down complex projects into manageable parts, asking probing questions to fully understand a situation, employing data-driven decision-making, or conducting regular reviews of processes to identify potential improvements. Sharing concrete examples of past situations where critical thinking led to successful outcomes can also demonstrate the candidate’s ability to effectively integrate this skill into their work habits.

Example: “ In my daily work, I routinely employ a methodical approach to problem-solving that hinges on breaking down complex issues into their fundamental components. This dissection allows for a clearer understanding of the underlying factors and variables at play. By doing so, I can systematically evaluate each element, considering both short-term and long-term implications, which is critical for informed decision-making.

I also maintain a disciplined practice of asking probing questions, not only to clarify the specifics of a challenge but also to uncover any hidden assumptions or biases that might skew my analysis. This practice is complemented by a commitment to data-driven decisions, ensuring that my conclusions are grounded in empirical evidence rather than conjecture. To ensure continuous improvement, I conduct regular process reviews, identifying areas for refinement or innovation, thereby fostering a dynamic and responsive work environment that leverages critical thinking to overcome obstacles and enhance productivity.”

20. Reflect on a time when your critical thinking abilities significantly impacted the outcome of a project.

Determining if a candidate can discern complex situations and act in a manner that leads to effective and innovative solutions is a crucial part of the interview process. Employers ask this question to determine if a candidate can not only discern complex situations but also act in a manner that leads to effective and innovative solutions. They are looking for evidence of a methodical approach to tackling challenges and the ability to anticipate potential pitfalls. This question also serves to highlight the candidate’s capacity for reflection and learning from past experiences, which is essential for continuous improvement and adaptability in a dynamic work environment.

When responding to this question, it’s crucial to outline a specific situation that showcases your critical thinking process. Begin by setting the scene and describing the challenge or project at hand. Then, explain the steps you took to analyze the situation, including any data gathering, research, or consultation with experts. Highlight how you weighed different options, considered the consequences, and came to a reasoned decision. Conclude with the outcome, focusing on the positive impact of your critical thinking skills on the project’s success, and if applicable, what you learned from the experience that has influenced your approach to future challenges.

Example: “ In a recent project, we faced a critical decision point when unexpected data discrepancies threatened to derail our progress. The initial analysis suggested a significant flaw in our methodology, which could have led to a complete overhaul of the project. Instead of hastily jumping to conclusions, I initiated a systematic review of our data collection and analysis processes. By breaking down each step, I identified a subtle but consistent error in the way certain data points were being recorded, which skewed our results.

After pinpointing the issue, I proposed a recalibration of our data input protocols and a reanalysis of our dataset. This approach required additional time and resources, but it was a more measured response than starting from scratch. The recalibration not only corrected the discrepancies but also improved the overall robustness of our data. As a result, we not only met our project milestones but also enhanced the credibility of our findings. This experience reinforced the value of methodical problem-solving and has honed my ability to navigate complex challenges by focusing on evidence and systematic evaluation.”

Top 20 Restaurant Management Interview Questions & Answers

Top 20 typography interview questions & answers, you may also be interested in..., top 20 self starter interview questions & answers, top 20 succession planning interview questions & answers, top 20 public finance interview questions & answers, top 20 data strategy interview questions & answers.

• Table of Contents
• New in this Archive
• Chronological
• Editorial Information
• About the SEP
• Editorial Board
• How to Cite the SEP
• Special Characters
• Support the SEP
• PDFs for SEP Friends
• Make a Donation
• SEPIA for Libraries
• Entry Contents

Bibliography

Academic tools.

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

Critical Thinking

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

2.1 Dewey’s Three Main Examples

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. Examples and Non-Examples

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8. Critical Thinking Dispositions

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

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

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

Critical thinking dispositions can usefully be divided into initiating dispositions (those that contribute causally to starting to think critically about an issue) and internal dispositions (those that contribute causally to doing a good job of thinking critically once one has started) (Facione 1990a: 25). The two categories are not mutually exclusive. For example, open-mindedness, in the sense of willingness to consider alternative points of view to one’s own, is both an initiating and an internal disposition.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

12. Controversies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Abrami, Philip C., Robert M. Bernard, Eugene Borokhovski, David I. Waddington, C. Anne Wade, and Tonje Person, 2015, “Strategies for Teaching Students to Think Critically: A Meta-analysis”, Review of Educational Research , 85(2): 275–314. doi:10.3102/0034654314551063
• Aikin, Wilford M., 1942, The Story of the Eight-year Study, with Conclusions and Recommendations , Volume I of Adventure in American Education , New York and London: Harper & Brothers. [ Aikin 1942 available online ]
• Alston, Kal, 1995, “Begging the Question: Is Critical Thinking Biased?”, Educational Theory , 45(2): 225–233. doi:10.1111/j.1741-5446.1995.00225.x
• –––, 2001, “Re/Thinking Critical Thinking: The Seductions of Everyday Life”, Studies in Philosophy and Education , 20(1): 27–40. doi:10.1023/A:1005247128053
• American Educational Research Association, 2014, Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing / American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, National Council on Measurement in Education , Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
• Anderson, Lorin W., David R. Krathwohl, Peter W. Airiasian, Kathleen A. Cruikshank, Richard E. Mayer, Paul R. Pintrich, James Raths, and Merlin C. Wittrock, 2001, A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives , New York: Longman, complete edition.
• Bailin, Sharon, 1987, “Critical and Creative Thinking”, Informal Logic , 9(1): 23–30. [ Bailin 1987 available online ]
• –––, 1988, Achieving Extraordinary Ends: An Essay on Creativity , Dordrecht: Kluwer. doi:10.1007/978-94-009-2780-3
• –––, 1995, “Is Critical Thinking Biased? Clarifications and Implications”, Educational Theory , 45(2): 191–197. doi:10.1111/j.1741-5446.1995.00191.x
• Bailin, Sharon and Mark Battersby, 2009, “Inquiry: A Dialectical Approach to Teaching Critical Thinking”, in Juho Ritola (ed.), Argument Cultures: Proceedings of OSSA 09 , CD-ROM (pp. 1–10), Windsor, ON: OSSA. [ Bailin & Battersby 2009 available online ]
• –––, 2016, “Fostering the Virtues of Inquiry”, Topoi , 35(2): 367–374. doi:10.1007/s11245-015-9307-6
• Bailin, Sharon, Roland Case, Jerrold R. Coombs, and Leroi B. Daniels, 1999a, “Common Misconceptions of Critical Thinking”, Journal of Curriculum Studies , 31(3): 269–283. doi:10.1080/002202799183124
• –––, 1999b, “Conceptualizing Critical Thinking”, Journal of Curriculum Studies , 31(3): 285–302. doi:10.1080/002202799183133
• Berman, Alan M., Seth J. Schwartz, William M. Kurtines, and Steven L. Berman, 2001, “The Process of Exploration in Identity Formation: The Role of Style and Competence”, Journal of Adolescence , 24(4): 513–528. doi:10.1006/jado.2001.0386
• Black, Beth (ed.), 2012, An A to Z of Critical Thinking , London: Continuum International Publishing Group.
• Bloom, Benjamin Samuel, Max D. Engelhart, Edward J. Furst, Walter H. Hill, and David R. Krathwohl, 1956, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Handbook I: Cognitive Domain , New York: David McKay.
• Casserly, Megan, 2012, “The 10 Skills That Will Get You Hired in 2013”, Forbes , Dec. 10, 2012. Available at https://www.forbes.com/sites/meghancasserly/2012/12/10/the-10-skills-that-will-get-you-a-job-in-2013/#79e7ff4e633d ; accessed 2017 11 06.
• Center for Assessment & Improvement of Learning, 2017, Critical Thinking Assessment Test , Cookeville, TN: Tennessee Technological University.
• Cohen, Jacob, 1988, Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences , Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2nd edition.
• College Board, 1983, Academic Preparation for College. What Students Need to Know and Be Able to Do , New York: College Entrance Examination Board, ERIC document ED232517.
• Commission on the Relation of School and College of the Progressive Education Association, 1943, Thirty Schools Tell Their Story , Volume V of Adventure in American Education , New York and London: Harper & Brothers.
• Council for Aid to Education, 2017, CLA+ Student Guide . Available at http://cae.org/images/uploads/pdf/CLA_Student_Guide_Institution.pdf ; accessed 2017 09 26.
• Dalgleish, Adam, Patrick Girard, and Maree Davies, 2017, “Critical Thinking, Bias and Feminist Philosophy: Building a Better Framework through Collaboration”, Informal Logic , 37(4): 351–369. [ Dalgleish et al. available online ]
• Dewey, John, 1910, How We Think , Boston: D.C. Heath. [ Dewey 1910 available online ]
• –––, 1916, Democracy and Education: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Education , New York: Macmillan.
• –––, 1933, How We Think: A Restatement of the Relation of Reflective Thinking to the Educative Process , Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath.
• –––, 1936, “The Theory of the Chicago Experiment”, Appendix II of Mayhew & Edwards 1936: 463–477.
• –––, 1938, Logic: The Theory of Inquiry , New York: Henry Holt and Company.
• Dominguez, Caroline (coord.), 2018a, A European Collection of the Critical Thinking Skills and Dispositions Needed in Different Professional Fields for the 21st Century , Vila Real, Portugal: UTAD. Available at http://bit.ly/CRITHINKEDUO1 ; accessed 2018 04 09.
• ––– (coord.), 2018b, A European Review on Critical Thinking Educational Practices in Higher Education Institutions , Vila Real: UTAD. Available at http://bit.ly/CRITHINKEDUO2 ; accessed 2018 04 14.
• Dumke, Glenn S., 1980, Chancellor’s Executive Order 338 , Long Beach, CA: California State University, Chancellor’s Office. Available at https://www.calstate.edu/eo/EO-338.pdf ; accessed 2017 11 16.
• Ennis, Robert H., 1958, “An Appraisal of the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal”, The Journal of Educational Research , 52(4): 155–158. doi:10.1080/00220671.1958.10882558
• –––, 1962, “A Concept of Critical Thinking: A Proposed Basis for Research on the Teaching and Evaluation of Critical Thinking Ability”, Harvard Educational Review , 32(1): 81–111.
• –––, 1981a, “A Conception of Deductive Logical Competence”, Teaching Philosophy , 4(3/4): 337–385. doi:10.5840/teachphil198143/429
• –––, 1981b, “Eight Fallacies in Bloom’s Taxonomy”, in C. J. B. Macmillan (ed.), Philosophy of Education 1980: Proceedings of the Thirty-seventh Annual Meeting of the Philosophy of Education Society , Bloomington, IL: Philosophy of Education Society, pp. 269–273.
• –––, 1984, “Problems in Testing Informal Logic, Critical Thinking, Reasoning Ability”. Informal Logic , 6(1): 3–9. [ Ennis 1984 available online ]
• –––, 1987, “A Taxonomy of Critical Thinking Dispositions and Abilities”, in Joan Boykoff Baron and Robert J. Sternberg (eds.), Teaching Thinking Skills: Theory and Practice , New York: W. H. Freeman, pp. 9–26.
• –––, 1989, “Critical Thinking and Subject Specificity: Clarification and Needed Research”, Educational Researcher , 18(3): 4–10. doi:10.3102/0013189X018003004
• –––, 1991, “Critical Thinking: A Streamlined Conception”, Teaching Philosophy , 14(1): 5–24. doi:10.5840/teachphil19911412
• –––, 1996, “Critical Thinking Dispositions: Their Nature and Assessability”, Informal Logic , 18(2–3): 165–182. [ Ennis 1996 available online ]
• –––, 1998, “Is Critical Thinking Culturally Biased?”, Teaching Philosophy , 21(1): 15–33. doi:10.5840/teachphil19982113
• –––, 2011, “Critical Thinking: Reflection and Perspective Part I”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking across the Disciplines , 26(1): 4–18. doi:10.5840/inquiryctnews20112613
• –––, 2013, “Critical Thinking across the Curriculum: The Wisdom CTAC Program”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking across the Disciplines , 28(2): 25–45. doi:10.5840/inquiryct20132828
• –––, 2016, “Definition: A Three-Dimensional Analysis with Bearing on Key Concepts”, in Patrick Bondy and Laura Benacquista (eds.), Argumentation, Objectivity, and Bias: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA), 18–21 May 2016 , Windsor, ON: OSSA, pp. 1–19. Available at http://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive/OSSA11/papersandcommentaries/105 ; accessed 2017 12 02.
• –––, 2018, “Critical Thinking Across the Curriculum: A Vision”, Topoi , 37(1): 165–184. doi:10.1007/s11245-016-9401-4
• Ennis, Robert H., and Jason Millman, 1971, Manual for Cornell Critical Thinking Test, Level X, and Cornell Critical Thinking Test, Level Z , Urbana, IL: Critical Thinking Project, University of Illinois.
• Ennis, Robert H., Jason Millman, and Thomas Norbert Tomko, 1985, Cornell Critical Thinking Tests Level X & Level Z: Manual , Pacific Grove, CA: Midwest Publication, 3rd edition.
• –––, 2005, Cornell Critical Thinking Tests Level X & Level Z: Manual , Seaside, CA: Critical Thinking Company, 5th edition.
• Ennis, Robert H. and Eric Weir, 1985, The Ennis-Weir Critical Thinking Essay Test: Test, Manual, Criteria, Scoring Sheet: An Instrument for Teaching and Testing , Pacific Grove, CA: Midwest Publications.
• Facione, Peter A., 1990a, Critical Thinking: A Statement of Expert Consensus for Purposes of Educational Assessment and Instruction , Research Findings and Recommendations Prepared for the Committee on Pre-College Philosophy of the American Philosophical Association, ERIC Document ED315423.
• –––, 1990b, California Critical Thinking Skills Test, CCTST – Form A , Millbrae, CA: The California Academic Press.
• –––, 1990c, The California Critical Thinking Skills Test--College Level. Technical Report #3. Gender, Ethnicity, Major, CT Self-Esteem, and the CCTST , ERIC Document ED326584.
• –––, 1992, California Critical Thinking Skills Test: CCTST – Form B, Millbrae, CA: The California Academic Press.
• –––, 2000, “The Disposition Toward Critical Thinking: Its Character, Measurement, and Relationship to Critical Thinking Skill”, Informal Logic , 20(1): 61–84. [ Facione 2000 available online ]
• Facione, Peter A. and Noreen C. Facione, 1992, CCTDI: A Disposition Inventory , Millbrae, CA: The California Academic Press.
• Facione, Peter A., Noreen C. Facione, and Carol Ann F. Giancarlo, 2001, California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory: CCTDI: Inventory Manual , Millbrae, CA: The California Academic Press.
• Facione, Peter A., Carol A. Sánchez, and Noreen C. Facione, 1994, Are College Students Disposed to Think? , Millbrae, CA: The California Academic Press. ERIC Document ED368311.
• Fisher, Alec, and Michael Scriven, 1997, Critical Thinking: Its Definition and Assessment , Norwich: Centre for Research in Critical Thinking, University of East Anglia.
• Freire, Paulo, 1968 [1970], Pedagogia do Oprimido . Translated as Pedagogy of the Oppressed , Myra Bergman Ramos (trans.), New York: Continuum, 1970.
• Glaser, Edward Maynard, 1941, An Experiment in the Development of Critical Thinking , New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University.
• Halpern, Diane F., 1998, “Teaching Critical Thinking for Transfer Across Domains: Disposition, Skills, Structure Training, and Metacognitive Monitoring”, American Psychologist , 53(4): 449–455. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.53.4.449
• –––, 2016, Manual: Halpern Critical Thinking Assessment , Mödling, Austria: Schuhfried. Available at https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzUoP_pmwy1gdEpCR05PeW9qUzA/view ; accessed 2017 12 01.
• Hamby, Benjamin, 2014, The Virtues of Critical Thinkers , Doctoral dissertation, Philosophy, McMaster University. [ Hamby 2014 available online ]
• –––, 2015, “Willingness to Inquire: The Cardinal Critical Thinking Virtue”, in Martin Davies and Ronald Barnett (eds.), The Palgrave Handbook of Critical Thinking in Higher Education , New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 77–87.
• Haynes, Ada, Elizabeth Lisic, Kevin Harris, Katie Leming, Kyle Shanks, and Barry Stein, 2015, “Using the Critical Thinking Assessment Test (CAT) as a Model for Designing Within-Course Assessments: Changing How Faculty Assess Student Learning”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines , 30(3): 38–48. doi:10.5840/inquiryct201530316
• Hitchcock, David, 2017, “Critical Thinking as an Educational Ideal”, in his On Reasoning and Argument: Essays in Informal Logic and on Critical Thinking , Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 477–497. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-53562-3_30
• hooks, bell, 1994, Teaching to Transgress: Education as the Practice of Freedom , New York and London: Routledge.
• –––, 2010, Teaching Critical Thinking: Practical Wisdom , New York and London: Routledge.
• Johnson, Ralph H., 1992, “The Problem of Defining Critical Thinking”, in Stephen P, Norris (ed.), The Generalizability of Critical Thinking , New York: Teachers College Press, pp. 38–53.
• Kahane, Howard, 1971, Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric: The Use of Reason in Everyday Life , Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
• Kahneman, Daniel, 2011, Thinking, Fast and Slow , New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
• Kenyon, Tim, and Guillaume Beaulac, 2014, “Critical Thinking Education and Debasing”, Informal Logic , 34(4): 341–363. [ Kenyon & Beaulac 2014 available online ]
• Krathwohl, David R., Benjamin S. Bloom, and Bertram B. Masia, 1964, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook II: Affective Domain , New York: David McKay.
• Kuhn, Deanna, 1991, The Skills of Argument , New York: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511571350
• Lipman, Matthew, 1987, “Critical Thinking–What Can It Be?”, Analytic Teaching , 8(1): 5–12. [ Lipman 1987 available online ]
• Loftus, Elizabeth F., 2017, “Eavesdropping on Memory”, Annual Review of Psychology , 68: 1–18. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-010416-044138
• Martin, Jane Roland, 1992, “Critical Thinking for a Humane World”, in Stephen P. Norris (ed.), The Generalizability of Critical Thinking , New York: Teachers College Press, pp. 163–180.
• Mayhew, Katherine Camp, and Anna Camp Edwards, 1936, The Dewey School: The Laboratory School of the University of Chicago, 1896–1903 , New York: Appleton-Century. [ Mayhew & Edwards 1936 available online ]
• McPeck, John E., 1981, Critical Thinking and Education , New York: St. Martin’s Press.
• Nickerson, Raymond S., 1998, “Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises”, Review of General Psychology , 2(2): 175–220. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175
• Nieto, Ana Maria, and Jorge Valenzuela, 2012, “A Study of the Internal Structure of Critical Thinking Dispositions”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking across the Disciplines , 27(1): 31–38. doi:10.5840/inquiryct20122713
• Norris, Stephen P., 1985, “Controlling for Background Beliefs When Developing Multiple-choice Critical Thinking Tests”, Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice , 7(3): 5–11. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3992.1988.tb00437.x
• Norris, Stephen P. and Robert H. Ennis, 1989, Evaluating Critical Thinking (The Practitioners’ Guide to Teaching Thinking Series), Pacific Grove, CA: Midwest Publications.
• Norris, Stephen P. and Ruth Elizabeth King, 1983, Test on Appraising Observations , St. John’s, NL: Institute for Educational Research and Development, Memorial University of Newfoundland.
• –––, 1984, The Design of a Critical Thinking Test on Appraising Observations , St. John’s, NL: Institute for Educational Research and Development, Memorial University of Newfoundland. ERIC Document ED260083.
• –––, 1985, Test on Appraising Observations: Manual , St. John’s, NL: Institute for Educational Research and Development, Memorial University of Newfoundland.
• –––, 1990a, Test on Appraising Observations , St. John’s, NL: Institute for Educational Research and Development, Memorial University of Newfoundland, 2nd edition.
• –––, 1990b, Test on Appraising Observations: Manual , St. John’s, NL: Institute for Educational Research and Development, Memorial University of Newfoundland, 2nd edition.
• Obama, Barack, 2014, State of the Union Address , January 28, 2014. [ Obama 2014 available online ]
• OCR [Oxford, Cambridge and RSA Examinations], 2011, AS/A Level GCE: Critical Thinking – H052, H452 , Cambridge: OCR. Information available at http://www.ocr.org.uk/qualifications/as-a-level-gce-critical-thinking-h052-h452/ ; accessed 2017 10 12.
• OECD [Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development] Centre for Educational Research and Innovation, 2018, Fostering and Assessing Students’ Creative and Critical Thinking Skills in Higher Education , Paris: OECD. Available at http://www.oecd.org/education/ceri/Fostering-and-assessing-students-creative-and-critical-thinking-skills-in-higher-education.pdf ; accessed 2018 04 22.
• Ontario Ministry of Education, 2013, The Ontario Curriculum Grades 9 to 12: Social Sciences and Humanities . Available at http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/curriculum/secondary/ssciences9to122013.pdf ; accessed 2017 11 16.
• Passmore, John Arthur, 1980, The Philosophy of Teaching , London: Duckworth.
• Paul, Richard W., 1981, “Teaching Critical Thinking in the ‘Strong’ Sense: A Focus on Self-Deception, World Views, and a Dialectical Mode of Analysis”, Informal Logic , 4(2): 2–7. [ Paul 1981 available online ]
• –––, 1984, “Critical Thinking: Fundamental to Education for a Free Society”, Educational Leadership , 42(1): 4–14.
• –––, 1985, “McPeck’s Mistakes”, Informal Logic , 7(1): 35–43. [ Paul 1985 available online ]
• Paul, Richard W. and Linda Elder, 2006, The Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking: Concepts and Tools , Dillon Beach, CA: Foundation for Critical Thinking, 4th edition.
• Payette, Patricia, and Edna Ross, 2016, “Making a Campus-Wide Commitment to Critical Thinking: Insights and Promising Practices Utilizing the Paul-Elder Approach at the University of Louisville”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines , 31(1): 98–110. doi:10.5840/inquiryct20163118
• Possin, Kevin, 2008, “A Field Guide to Critical-Thinking Assessment”, Teaching Philosophy , 31(3): 201–228. doi:10.5840/teachphil200831324
• –––, 2013a, “Some Problems with the Halpern Critical Thinking Assessment (HCTA) Test”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking across the Disciplines , 28(3): 4–12. doi:10.5840/inquiryct201328313
• –––, 2013b, “A Serious Flaw in the Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA) Test”, Informal Logic , 33(3): 390–405. [ Possin 2013b available online ]
• –––, 2014, “Critique of the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal Test: The More You Know, the Lower Your Score”, Informal Logic , 34(4): 393–416. [ Possin 2014 available online ]
• Rawls, John, 1971, A Theory of Justice , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, 1762, Émile , Amsterdam: Jean Néaulme.
• Scheffler, Israel, 1960, The Language of Education , Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
• Scriven, Michael, and Richard W. Paul, 1987, Defining Critical Thinking , Draft statement written for the National Council for Excellence in Critical Thinking Instruction. Available at http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/defining-critical-thinking/766 ; accessed 2017 11 29.
• Sheffield, Clarence Burton Jr., 2018, “Promoting Critical Thinking in Higher Education: My Experiences as the Inaugural Eugene H. Fram Chair in Applied Critical Thinking at Rochester Institute of Technology”, Topoi , 37(1): 155–163. doi:10.1007/s11245-016-9392-1
• Siegel, Harvey, 1985, “McPeck, Informal Logic and the Nature of Critical Thinking”, in David Nyberg (ed.), Philosophy of Education 1985: Proceedings of the Forty-First Annual Meeting of the Philosophy of Education Society , Normal, IL: Philosophy of Education Society, pp. 61–72.
• –––, 1988, Educating Reason: Rationality, Critical Thinking, and Education , New York: Routledge.
• –––, 1999, “What (Good) Are Thinking Dispositions?”, Educational Theory , 49(2): 207–221. doi:10.1111/j.1741-5446.1999.00207.x
• Simpson, Elizabeth, 1966–67, “The Classification of Educational Objectives: Psychomotor Domain”, Illinois Teacher of Home Economics , 10(4): 110–144, ERIC document ED0103613. [ Simpson 1966–67 available online ]
• Skolverket, 2011, Curriculum for the Compulsory School, Preschool Class and the Recreation Centre , Stockholm: Ordförrådet AB. Available at http://malmo.se/download/18.29c3b78a132728ecb52800034181/pdf2687.pdf ; accessed 2017 11 16.
• Smith, B. Othanel, 1953, “The Improvement of Critical Thinking”, Progressive Education , 30(5): 129–134.
• Smith, Eugene Randolph, Ralph Winfred Tyler, and the Evaluation Staff, 1942, Appraising and Recording Student Progress , Volume III of Adventure in American Education , New York and London: Harper & Brothers.
• Splitter, Laurance J., 1987, “Educational Reform through Philosophy for Children”, Thinking: The Journal of Philosophy for Children , 7(2): 32–39. doi:10.5840/thinking1987729
• Stanovich Keith E., and Paula J. Stanovich, 2010, “A Framework for Critical Thinking, Rational Thinking, and Intelligence”, in David D. Preiss and Robert J. Sternberg (eds), Innovations in Educational Psychology: Perspectives on Learning, Teaching and Human Development , New York: Springer Publishing, pp 195–237.
• Stanovich Keith E., Richard F. West, and Maggie E. Toplak, 2011, “Intelligence and Rationality”, in Robert J. Sternberg and Scott Barry Kaufman (eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 3rd edition, pp. 784–826. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511977244.040
• Tankersley, Karen, 2005, Literacy Strategies for Grades 4–12: Reinforcing the Threads of Reading , Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
• Thayer-Bacon, Barbara J., 1992, “Is Modern Critical Thinking Theory Sexist?”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines , 10(1): 3–7. doi:10.5840/inquiryctnews199210123
• –––, 1993, “Caring and Its Relationship to Critical Thinking”, Educational Theory , 43(3): 323–340. doi:10.1111/j.1741-5446.1993.00323.x
• –––, 1995a, “Constructive Thinking: Personal Voice”, Journal of Thought , 30(1): 55–70.
• –––, 1995b, “Doubting and Believing: Both are Important for Critical Thinking”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking across the Disciplines , 15(2): 59–66. doi:10.5840/inquiryctnews199515226
• –––, 2000, Transforming Critical Thinking: Thinking Constructively , New York: Teachers College Press.
• Toulmin, Stephen Edelston, 1958, The Uses of Argument , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Turri, John, Mark Alfano, and John Greco, 2017, “Virtue Epistemology”, in Edward N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2017 Edition). URL = < https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2017/entries/epistemology-virtue/ >
• Warren, Karen J. 1988. “Critical Thinking and Feminism”, Informal Logic , 10(1): 31–44. [ Warren 1988 available online ]
• Watson, Goodwin, and Edward M. Glaser, 1980a, Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal, Form A , San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
• –––, 1980b, Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal: Forms A and B; Manual , San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation,
• –––, 1994, Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal, Form B , San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
• Weinstein, Mark, 1990, “Towards a Research Agenda for Informal Logic and Critical Thinking”, Informal Logic , 12(3): 121–143. [ Weinstein 1990 available online ]
• –––, 2013, Logic, Truth and Inquiry , London: College Publications.
• Zagzebski, Linda Trinkaus, 1996, Virtues of the Mind: An Inquiry into the Nature of Virtue and the Ethical Foundations of Knowledge , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139174763

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

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

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

Copyright © 2018 by David Hitchcock < hitchckd @ mcmaster . ca >

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

• Info about mirror sites

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is copyright © 2016 by The Metaphysics Research Lab , Center for the Study of Language and Information (CSLI), Stanford University

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054