what is critical thinking interpretation

• Monash Online

Student Academic Success

• 1:1 Consultation 1:1 Consultation
• Study better Study better
• Build digital capabilities Build digital capabilities
• Understand assessments Understand assessments
• Excel at writing Excel at writing
• Enhance your thinking Enhance your thinking
• Present confidently Present confidently
• Collaborate with others Collaborate with others
• Improve your academic English Improve your academic English
• Maintain academic integrity Maintain academic integrity
• Advance your graduate studies Advance your graduate studies
• O-week workshops O-week workshops
• Let's Talk Assessments Let's Talk Assessments
• Set up for academic success Set up for academic success
• Writing classes Writing classes
• End of semester End of semester
• PhD writing workshops and courses PhD writing workshops and courses
• First Year Undergraduate Success First Year Undergraduate Success
• Graduate coursework success Graduate coursework success
• Academic Language Skills Analysis Academic Language Skills Analysis
• Mathematics skills analysis Mathematics skills analysis
• Orientation Orientation
• SAS cafe SAS cafe
• SAS pop up SAS pop up
• Written Feedback Written Feedback
• About us About us
• Skip to content
• Skip to navigation

What is critical thinking?

Critical thinking is a kind of thinking in which you question , analyse , interpret ,  evaluate and make a judgement about what you read, hear, say, or write. The term critical comes from the Greek word kritikos meaning “able to judge or discern”. Good critical thinking is about making reliable judgements based on reliable information.

Applying critical thinking does not mean being negative or focusing on faults. It means being able to clarify your thinking so that you can break down a problem or a piece of information, interpret it and use that interpretation to arrive at an informed decision or judgement (for example designing a bridge, responding to an opinion piece or understanding a political motivation).

People who apply critical thinking consistently are said to have a critical thinking mindset, but no one is born this way. These are attributes which are learnt and improved through practice and application.

In the academic context, critical thinking is most commonly associated with arguments. You might be asked to think critically about other people's arguments or create your own. To become a better critical thinker, you therefore need to learn how to:

• clarify your thinking purpose and context
• question your sources of information
• identify arguments
• analyse sources and arguments
• evaluate the arguments of others and
• create or synthesise your own arguments.

As the image illustrates, critical thinking skills and attributes are interconnected and need to work together for your critical thinking to be effective.

Six key steps to developing your critical thinking skills and mindset View

Examples of critical thinking skills, mindsets and practices

Below are four examples of critical thinking skills, mindsets and practices. This is by no means an exhaustive list of all critical thinking skills because the skills you use will depend on your specific context.

Questioning skills

How do i apply questioning skills.

• I question the relevance and reliability of what I hear, read or see.
• I question the authority and purpose of what I hear, read or see.

How do I apply a questioning mindset?

• I am inquisitive and curious.
• I always seek the truth, rather than accepting things without questioning.

What does good questioning look like in practice?

• A student reads an academic paper and decides it is suitable to include in their essay as it was published recently by an expert in that specific field and the author’s findings were generated by the most reliable method.
• A person reads a newspaper article editorial and realises the author is not an expert in the field and the arguments they present are intended to persuade the reader to vote for (or against) a certain political party.
• A dietitian advises their patient against the advice the patient has read on the internet stating the benefits of hot chocolate as the dietitian recognises that the research was conducted by a confectionery manufacturer.

Analytical skills

How do i apply analytical skills.

• I carefully examine ideas and information.
• I systematically consider all aspects of a problem and look at each element in its wider context.

How do I apply an analytical mindset?

• I make connections between ideas.

What does analysis look like in practice?

• A student breaks down a film into its scenes and compares the choices the director has made with a variety of established film making theories and social science literature to discuss how the film makes a social commentary on a contemporary issue.
• A person watches a news editorial and compares each claim the journalist makes with evidence generated by not-for-profit organisations, which clearly state their agenda to provide accurate data on climate change.
• An epidemiologist collects all the survey data on behaviours during a pandemic and compares each behaviour pattern with the spread of the disease in different areas.

Evaluation skills

How do i apply evaluation skills.

• I recognise (and avoid) flaws of reasoning.
• I consider what is implied in what I see, hear and read.

How do I apply an evaluation mindset?

• I compare different viewpoints and arguments, and point out their strengths and weaknesses.

What does evaluation look like in practice?

• A student writing a persuasive essay checks they have presented the opposing side of their argument and finds well reasoned evidence to change their point of view and rewrite their essay.
• When listening to a radio commentator’s response to gender diversity in the workplace a person realises the commentator criticises the advocate of the policy and never addresses their argument.
• A psychology researcher collects data from hundreds of participants to prove their hypothesis about the correlation between gun violence and video games, but upon processing their data finds their hypothesis was rejected. The researcher then discloses that their hypothesis was not supported by the data in a respected academic journal.

Synthesis skills

How do i apply synthesis skills.

• I use logic and reason to formulate my conclusions and arguments.
• I use strong evidence, based on analysis and evaluation, to support my conclusions.

How do I apply a synthesis mindset?

• I consider the bigger picture or context, and use strong evidence and reason to formulate my conclusions, decisions, judgements and arguments.

What does synthesis look like in practice?

• A student conducts a literature review comparing the arguments for and against assisted death in terminally ill patients. They develop the argument that policy at a federal level is required, and logically connect their argument to several recent academic papers and reliable government reports.
• A parent chooses to vaccinate their child against COVID-19 after reading about the benefits and risks in a piece written by a well respected immunologist in The Conversation, and after discussing the decision with their general practitioner.
• A mechanical engineer challenges their supervisor’s approach to the design of a medical device by providing a summary of the experimental data they have collected.

Taking it further

Clarify your purpose and context.

Clarifying your purpose and context will help you focus your thinking and avoid information overload and distractions.

Question your sources

Learn how to select sources of information that are the most credible, accurate and relevant for your thinking tasks.

Identify arguments

The ability to identify arguments will help you recognise the main points made in your sources.

Analyse sources and arguments

To demonstrate your critical thinking, you need to be able to carefully examine sources, arguments, theories and processes, and explain how they work.

Evaluate the arguments of others

As a critical thinker, you need to be able to evaluate arguments, as well as the claims, evidence and reasoning that comprise them.

Create your own argument

Learn how to bring together evidence, reasoning and claims, and create your own argument.

Your feedback matters

We want to hear from you! Let us know what you found most useful or share your suggestions for improving this resource.

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

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

What Is Critical Thinking? | Definition & Examples

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

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

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

Critical thinking skills help you to:

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

Table of contents

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

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

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

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

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

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

Don't submit your assignments before you do this

The academic proofreading tool has been trained on 1000s of academic texts. Making it the most accurate and reliable proofreading tool for students. Free citation check included.

Try for free

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

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

Academic examples

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

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

Nonacademic examples

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

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

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

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

When encountering information, ask:

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

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

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

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

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

 Plagiarism

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

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

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

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

Critical thinking skills include the ability to:

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

Ask questions such as:

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

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

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

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

Being information literate means that you:

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

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

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

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

Cite this Scribbr article

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

Ryan, E. (2023, May 31). What Is Critical Thinking? | Definition & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved July 22, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/working-with-sources/critical-thinking/

Is this article helpful?

Eoghan Ryan

Other students also liked, student guide: information literacy | meaning & examples, what are credible sources & how to spot them | examples, applying the craap test & evaluating sources, "i thought ai proofreading was useless but..".

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

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

Bibliography

Academic tools.

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

Critical Thinking

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

2.1 Dewey’s Three Main Examples

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. Examples and Non-Examples

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8. Critical Thinking Dispositions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

12. Controversies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

• Info about mirror sites

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

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

• LEARNING SKILLS
• Study Skills
• Critical Thinking

Search SkillsYouNeed:

Learning Skills:

• A - Z List of Learning Skills
• What is Learning?
• Learning Approaches
• Learning Styles
• 8 Types of Learning Styles
• Understanding Your Preferences to Aid Learning
• Lifelong Learning
• Decisions to Make Before Applying to University
• Top Tips for Surviving Student Life
• Living Online: Education and Learning
• 8 Ways to Embrace Technology-Based Learning Approaches

Critical Thinking Skills

• Critical Thinking and Fake News
• Understanding and Addressing Conspiracy Theories
• Critical Analysis
• Top Tips for Study
• Staying Motivated When Studying
• Student Budgeting and Economic Skills
• Getting Organised for Study
• Finding Time to Study
• Sources of Information
• Assessing Internet Information
• Using Apps to Support Study
• What is Theory?
• Styles of Writing
• Effective Reading
• Critical Reading
• Note-Taking from Reading
• Note-Taking for Verbal Exchanges
• Planning an Essay
• How to Write an Essay
• The Do’s and Don’ts of Essay Writing
• How to Write a Report
• Academic Referencing
• Assignment Finishing Touches
• Reflecting on Marked Work
• 6 Skills You Learn in School That You Use in Real Life
• Top 10 Tips on How to Study While Working
• Exam Skills
• Writing a Dissertation or Thesis
• Research Methods
• Teaching, Coaching, Mentoring and Counselling
• Employability Skills for Graduates

Subscribe to our FREE newsletter and start improving your life in just 5 minutes a day.

You'll get our 5 free 'One Minute Life Skills' and our weekly newsletter.

We'll never share your email address and you can unsubscribe at any time.

What is Critical Thinking?

Critical thinking is the ability to think clearly and rationally, understanding the logical connection between ideas.  Critical thinking has been the subject of much debate and thought since the time of early Greek philosophers such as Plato and Socrates and has continued to be a subject of discussion into the modern age, for example the ability to recognise fake news .

Critical thinking might be described as the ability to engage in reflective and independent thinking.

In essence, critical thinking requires you to use your ability to reason. It is about being an active learner rather than a passive recipient of information.

Critical thinkers rigorously question ideas and assumptions rather than accepting them at face value. They will always seek to determine whether the ideas, arguments and findings represent the entire picture and are open to finding that they do not.

Critical thinkers will identify, analyse and solve problems systematically rather than by intuition or instinct.

Someone with critical thinking skills can:

Understand the links between ideas.

Determine the importance and relevance of arguments and ideas.

Recognise, build and appraise arguments.

Identify inconsistencies and errors in reasoning.

Approach problems in a consistent and systematic way.

Reflect on the justification of their own assumptions, beliefs and values.

Critical thinking is thinking about things in certain ways so as to arrive at the best possible solution in the circumstances that the thinker is aware of. In more everyday language, it is a way of thinking about whatever is presently occupying your mind so that you come to the best possible conclusion.

Critical Thinking is:

A way of thinking about particular things at a particular time; it is not the accumulation of facts and knowledge or something that you can learn once and then use in that form forever, such as the nine times table you learn and use in school.

The Skills We Need for Critical Thinking

The skills that we need in order to be able to think critically are varied and include observation, analysis, interpretation, reflection, evaluation, inference, explanation, problem solving, and decision making.

Specifically we need to be able to:

Think about a topic or issue in an objective and critical way.

Identify the different arguments there are in relation to a particular issue.

Evaluate a point of view to determine how strong or valid it is.

Recognise any weaknesses or negative points that there are in the evidence or argument.

Notice what implications there might be behind a statement or argument.

Provide structured reasoning and support for an argument that we wish to make.

The Critical Thinking Process

You should be aware that none of us think critically all the time.

Sometimes we think in almost any way but critically, for example when our self-control is affected by anger, grief or joy or when we are feeling just plain ‘bloody minded’.

On the other hand, the good news is that, since our critical thinking ability varies according to our current mindset, most of the time we can learn to improve our critical thinking ability by developing certain routine activities and applying them to all problems that present themselves.

Once you understand the theory of critical thinking, improving your critical thinking skills takes persistence and practice.

Try this simple exercise to help you to start thinking critically.

Think of something that someone has recently told you. Then ask yourself the following questions:

Who said it?

Someone you know? Someone in a position of authority or power? Does it matter who told you this?

What did they say?

Did they give facts or opinions? Did they provide all the facts? Did they leave anything out?

Where did they say it?

Was it in public or in private? Did other people have a chance to respond an provide an alternative account?

When did they say it?

Was it before, during or after an important event? Is timing important?

Why did they say it?

Did they explain the reasoning behind their opinion? Were they trying to make someone look good or bad?

How did they say it?

Were they happy or sad, angry or indifferent? Did they write it or say it? Could you understand what was said?

What are you Aiming to Achieve?

One of the most important aspects of critical thinking is to decide what you are aiming to achieve and then make a decision based on a range of possibilities.

Once you have clarified that aim for yourself you should use it as the starting point in all future situations requiring thought and, possibly, further decision making. Where needed, make your workmates, family or those around you aware of your intention to pursue this goal. You must then discipline yourself to keep on track until changing circumstances mean you have to revisit the start of the decision making process.

However, there are things that get in the way of simple decision making. We all carry with us a range of likes and dislikes, learnt behaviours and personal preferences developed throughout our lives; they are the hallmarks of being human. A major contribution to ensuring we think critically is to be aware of these personal characteristics, preferences and biases and make allowance for them when considering possible next steps, whether they are at the pre-action consideration stage or as part of a rethink caused by unexpected or unforeseen impediments to continued progress.

The more clearly we are aware of ourselves, our strengths and weaknesses, the more likely our critical thinking will be productive.

The Benefit of Foresight

Perhaps the most important element of thinking critically is foresight.

Almost all decisions we make and implement don’t prove disastrous if we find reasons to abandon them. However, our decision making will be infinitely better and more likely to lead to success if, when we reach a tentative conclusion, we pause and consider the impact on the people and activities around us.

The elements needing consideration are generally numerous and varied. In many cases, consideration of one element from a different perspective will reveal potential dangers in pursuing our decision.

For instance, moving a business activity to a new location may improve potential output considerably but it may also lead to the loss of skilled workers if the distance moved is too great. Which of these is the more important consideration? Is there some way of lessening the conflict?

These are the sort of problems that may arise from incomplete critical thinking, a demonstration perhaps of the critical importance of good critical thinking.

Further Reading from Skills You Need

The Skills You Need Guide for Students

Develop the skills you need to make the most of your time as a student.

Our eBooks are ideal for students at all stages of education, school, college and university. They are full of easy-to-follow practical information that will help you to learn more effectively and get better grades.

In Summary:

Critical thinking is aimed at achieving the best possible outcomes in any situation. In order to achieve this it must involve gathering and evaluating information from as many different sources possible.

Critical thinking requires a clear, often uncomfortable, assessment of your personal strengths, weaknesses and preferences and their possible impact on decisions you may make.

Critical thinking requires the development and use of foresight as far as this is possible. As Doris Day sang, “the future’s not ours to see”.

Implementing the decisions made arising from critical thinking must take into account an assessment of possible outcomes and ways of avoiding potentially negative outcomes, or at least lessening their impact.

• Critical thinking involves reviewing the results of the application of decisions made and implementing change where possible.

It might be thought that we are overextending our demands on critical thinking in expecting that it can help to construct focused meaning rather than examining the information given and the knowledge we have acquired to see if we can, if necessary, construct a meaning that will be acceptable and useful.

After all, almost no information we have available to us, either externally or internally, carries any guarantee of its life or appropriateness.  Neat step-by-step instructions may provide some sort of trellis on which our basic understanding of critical thinking can blossom but it doesn’t and cannot provide any assurance of certainty, utility or longevity.

Continue to: Critical Thinking and Fake News Critical Reading

See also: Analytical Skills Understanding and Addressing Conspiracy Theories Introduction to Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP)

Translate this page from English...

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

Defining Critical Thinking

• History & Society
• Science & Tech
• Biographies
• Animals & Nature
• Geography & Travel
• Arts & Culture
• Games & Quizzes
• On This Day
• One Good Fact
• New Articles
• Lifestyles & Social Issues
• Philosophy & Religion
• Politics, Law & Government
• World History
• Health & Medicine
• Browse Biographies
• Birds, Reptiles & Other Vertebrates
• Bugs, Mollusks & Other Invertebrates
• Environment
• Fossils & Geologic Time
• Entertainment & Pop Culture
• Sports & Recreation
• Visual Arts
• Demystified
• Image Galleries
• Infographics
• Top Questions
• Britannica Kids
• Saving Earth
• Space Next 50
• Student Center
• What was education like in ancient Athens?
• How does social class affect education attainment?
• When did education become compulsory?
• What are alternative forms of education?
• Do school vouchers offer students access to better education?

critical thinking

Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.

• Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy - Critical Thinking
• Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy - Critical Thinking
• Monash University - Student Academic Success - What is critical thinking?
• Oklahoma State University Pressbooks - Critical Thinking - Introduction to Critical Thinking
• University of Louisville - Critical Thinking

critical thinking , in educational theory, mode of cognition using deliberative reasoning and impartial scrutiny of information to arrive at a possible solution to a problem. From the perspective of educators, critical thinking encompasses both a set of logical skills that can be taught and a disposition toward reflective open inquiry that can be cultivated . The term critical thinking was coined by American philosopher and educator John Dewey in the book How We Think (1910) and was adopted by the progressive education movement as a core instructional goal that offered a dynamic modern alternative to traditional educational methods such as rote memorization.

Critical thinking is characterized by a broad set of related skills usually including the abilities to

• break down a problem into its constituent parts to reveal its underlying logic and assumptions
• recognize and account for one’s own biases in judgment and experience
• collect and assess relevant evidence from either personal observations and experimentation or by gathering external information
• adjust and reevaluate one’s own thinking in response to what one has learned
• form a reasoned assessment in order to propose a solution to a problem or a more accurate understanding of the topic at hand

Theorists have noted that such skills are only valuable insofar as a person is inclined to use them. Consequently, they emphasize that certain habits of mind are necessary components of critical thinking. This disposition may include curiosity, open-mindedness, self-awareness, empathy , and persistence.

Although there is a generally accepted set of qualities that are associated with critical thinking, scholarly writing about the term has highlighted disagreements over its exact definition and whether and how it differs from related concepts such as problem solving . In addition, some theorists have insisted that critical thinking be regarded and valued as a process and not as a goal-oriented skill set to be used to solve problems. Critical-thinking theory has also been accused of reflecting patriarchal assumptions about knowledge and ways of knowing that are inherently biased against women.

Dewey, who also used the term reflective thinking , connected critical thinking to a tradition of rational inquiry associated with modern science. From the turn of the 20th century, he and others working in the overlapping fields of psychology , philosophy , and educational theory sought to rigorously apply the scientific method to understand and define the process of thinking. They conceived critical thinking to be related to the scientific method but more open, flexible, and self-correcting; instead of a recipe or a series of steps, critical thinking would be a wider set of skills, patterns, and strategies that allow someone to reason through an intellectual topic, constantly reassessing assumptions and potential explanations in order to arrive at a sound judgment and understanding.

In the progressive education movement in the United States , critical thinking was seen as a crucial component of raising citizens in a democratic society. Instead of imparting a particular series of lessons or teaching only canonical subject matter, theorists thought that teachers should train students in how to think. As critical thinkers, such students would be equipped to be productive and engaged citizens who could cooperate and rationally overcome differences inherent in a pluralistic society.

Beginning in the 1970s and ’80s, critical thinking as a key outcome of school and university curriculum leapt to the forefront of U.S. education policy. In an atmosphere of renewed Cold War competition and amid reports of declining U.S. test scores, there were growing fears that the quality of education in the United States was falling and that students were unprepared. In response, a concerted effort was made to systematically define curriculum goals and implement standardized testing regimens , and critical-thinking skills were frequently included as a crucially important outcome of a successful education. A notable event in this movement was the release of the 1980 report of the Rockefeller Commission on the Humanities that called for the U.S. Department of Education to include critical thinking on its list of “basic skills.” Three years later the California State University system implemented a policy that required every undergraduate student to complete a course in critical thinking.

Critical thinking continued to be put forward as a central goal of education in the early 21st century. Its ubiquity in the language of education policy and in such guidelines as the Common Core State Standards in the United States generated some criticism that the concept itself was both overused and ill-defined. In addition, an argument was made by teachers, theorists, and others that educators were not being adequately trained to teach critical thinking.

Have a thesis expert improve your writing

Check your thesis for plagiarism in 10 minutes, generate your apa citations for free.

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

What Is Critical Thinking? | Definition & Examples

Published on 25 September 2022 by Eoghan Ryan .

Critical thinking is the ability to effectively analyse information and form a judgement.

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

Critical thinking skills help you to:

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

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Be assured that you'll submit flawless writing. Upload your document to correct all your mistakes.

Table of contents

Why is critical thinking important, critical thinking examples, how to think critically, frequently asked questions.

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

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

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

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

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

The only proofreading tool specialized in correcting academic writing

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

Correct my document today

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

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

Academic examples

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

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

Nonacademic examples

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

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

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

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

When encountering information, ask:

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

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

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

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

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

Critical thinking skills include the ability to:

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

Ask questions such as:

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

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

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

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

Being information literate means that you:

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

Cite this Scribbr article

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

Ryan, E. (2022, September 25). What Is Critical Thinking? | Definition & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved 22 July 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/working-sources/critical-thinking-meaning/

Is this article helpful?

Eoghan Ryan

Other students also liked, how to paraphrase | step-by-step guide & examples, tertiary sources explained | quick guide & examples, how to quote | citing quotes in harvard & apa.

• Programs & Services
• Delphi Center

Ideas to Action (i2a)

• What is Critical Thinking?

The ability to think critically calls for a higher-order thinking than simply the ability to recall information.

Definitions of critical thinking, its elements, and its associated activities fill the educational literature of the past forty years. Critical thinking has been described as an ability to question; to acknowledge and test previously held assumptions; to recognize ambiguity; to examine, interpret, evaluate, reason, and reflect; to make informed judgments and decisions; and to clarify, articulate, and justify positions (Hullfish & Smith, 1961; Ennis, 1962; Ruggiero, 1975; Scriven, 1976; Hallet, 1984; Kitchener, 1986; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991; Mines et al., 1990; Halpern, 1996; Paul & Elder, 2001; Petress, 2004; Holyoak & Morrison, 2005; among others).

After a careful review of the mountainous body of literature defining critical thinking and its elements, UofL has chosen to adopt the language of Michael Scriven and Richard Paul (2003) as a comprehensive, concise operating definition:

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.

Paul and Scriven go on to suggest that critical thinking 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, implication and consequences, objections from alternative viewpoints, and frame of reference. Critical thinking - in being responsive to variable subject matter, issues, and purposes - is incorporated in a family of interwoven modes of thinking, among them: scientific thinking, mathematical thinking, historical thinking, anthropological thinking, economic thinking, moral thinking, and philosophical thinking."

This conceptualization of critical thinking has been refined and developed further by Richard Paul and Linder Elder into the Paul-Elder framework of critical thinking. Currently, this approach is one of the most widely published and cited frameworks in the critical thinking literature. According to the Paul-Elder framework, critical thinking is the:

• Analysis of thinking by focusing on the parts or structures of thinking ("the Elements of Thought")
• Evaluation of thinking by focusing on the quality ("the Universal Intellectual Standards")
• Improvement of thinking by using what you have learned ("the Intellectual Traits")

Selection of a Critical Thinking Framework

The University of Louisville chose the Paul-Elder model of Critical Thinking as the approach to guide our efforts in developing and enhancing our critical thinking curriculum. The Paul-Elder framework was selected based on criteria adapted from the characteristics of a good model of critical thinking developed at Surry Community College. The Paul-Elder critical thinking framework is comprehensive, uses discipline-neutral terminology, is applicable to all disciplines, defines specific cognitive skills including metacognition, and offers high quality resources.

Why the selection of a single critical thinking framework?

The use of a single critical thinking framework is an important aspect of institution-wide critical thinking initiatives (Paul and Nosich, 1993; Paul, 2004). According to this view, critical thinking instruction should not be relegated to one or two disciplines or departments with discipline specific language and conceptualizations. Rather, critical thinking instruction should be explicitly infused in all courses so that critical thinking skills can be developed and reinforced in student learning across the curriculum. The use of a common approach with a common language allows for a central organizer and for the development of critical thinking skill sets in all courses.

• SACS & QEP
• Planning and Implementation
• Why Focus on Critical Thinking?
• Paul-Elder Critical Thinking Framework
• Culminating Undergraduate Experience
• Community Engagement
• Frequently Asked Questions
• What is i2a?

Copyright © 2012 - University of Louisville , Delphi Center

The Peak Performance Center

The pursuit of performance excellence, critical thinking.

Critical thinking refers to the process of actively analyzing, assessing, synthesizing, evaluating and reflecting on information gathered from observation, experience, or communication. It is thinking in a clear, logical, reasoned, and reflective manner to solve problems or make decisions. Basically, critical thinking is taking a hard look at something to understand what it really means.

Critical Thinkers

Critical thinkers do not simply accept all ideas, theories, and conclusions as facts. They have a mindset of questioning ideas and conclusions. They make reasoned judgments that are logical and well thought out by assessing the evidence that supports a specific theory or conclusion.

When presented with a new piece of new information, critical thinkers may ask questions such as;

“What information supports that?”

“How was this information obtained?”

“Who obtained the information?”

“How do we know the information is valid?”

“Why is it that way?”

“What makes it do that?”

“How do we know that?”

“Are there other possibilities?”

Combination of Analytical and Creative Thinking

Many people perceive critical thinking just as analytical thinking. However, critical thinking incorporates both analytical thinking and creative thinking. Critical thinking does involve breaking down information into parts and analyzing the parts in a logical, step-by-step manner. However, it also involves challenging consensus to formulate new creative ideas and generate innovative solutions. It is critical thinking that helps to evaluate and improve your creative ideas.

Elements of Critical Thinking

Critical thinking involves:

• Gathering relevant information
• Evaluating information
• Asking questions
• Assessing bias or unsubstantiated assumptions
• Making inferences from the information and filling in gaps
• Using abstract ideas to interpret information
• Formulating ideas
• Weighing opinions
• Reaching well-reasoned conclusions
• Considering alternative possibilities
• Testing conclusions
• Verifying if evidence/argument support the conclusions

Developing Critical Thinking Skills

Critical thinking is considered a higher order thinking skills, such as analysis, synthesis, deduction, inference, reason, and evaluation. In order to demonstrate critical thinking, you would need to develop skills in;

Interpreting : understanding the significance or meaning of information

Analyzing : breaking information down into its parts

Connecting : making connections between related items or pieces of information.

Integrating : connecting and combining information to better understand the relationship between the information.

Evaluating : judging the value, credibility, or strength of something

Reasoning : creating an argument through logical steps

Deducing : forming a logical opinion about something based on the information or evidence that is available

Inferring : figuring something out through reasoning based on assumptions and ideas

Generating : producing new information, ideas, products, or ways of viewing things.

Blooms Taxonomy

Bloom’s Taxonomy Revised

Mind Mapping

Chunking Information

Brainstorming

Copyright © 2024 | WordPress Theme by MH Themes

Critical Thinking in Reading and Composition

Glossary of Grammatical and Rhetorical Terms

gawrav/Getty Images

• An Introduction to Punctuation
• Ph.D., Rhetoric and English, University of Georgia
• M.A., Modern English and American Literature, University of Leicester
• B.A., English, State University of New York

Critical thinking is the process of independently analyzing, synthesizing, and evaluating information as a guide to behavior and beliefs.

The American Philosophical Association has defined critical thinking as "the process of purposeful, self-regulatory judgment. The process gives reasoned consideration to evidence , contexts , conceptualizations, methods, and criteria" (1990). Critical thinking is sometimes broadly defined as "thinking about thinking."

Critical thinking skills include the ability to interpret, verify, and reason, all of which involve applying the principles of logic . The process of using critical thinking to guide writing is called critical writing .

Observations

• " Critical Thinking is essential as a tool of inquiry. As such, Critical Thinking is a liberating force in education and a powerful resource in one’s personal and civic life. While not synonymous with good thinking, Critical Thinking is a pervasive and self-rectifying human phenomenon. The ideal critical thinker is habitually inquisitive, well-informed, trustful of reason, open-minded, flexible, fair-minded in evaluation, honest in facing personal biases, prudent in making judgments, willing to reconsider, clear about issues, orderly in complex matters, diligent in seeking relevant information, reasonable in the selection of criteria, focused in inquiry, and persistent in seeking results which are as precise as the subject and the circumstances of inquiry permit." (American Philosophical Association, "Consensus Statement Regarding Critical Thinking," 1990)
• Thought and Language "In order to understand reasoning [...], it is necessary to pay careful attention to the relationship between thought and language . The relationship seems to be straightforward: thought is expressed in and through language. But this claim, while true, is an oversimplification. People often fail to say what they mean. Everyone has had the experience of having their \ misunderstood by others. And we all use words not merely to express our thoughts but also to shape them. Developing our critical thinking skills, therefore, requires an understanding of the ways in which words can (and often fail to) express our thoughts." (William Hughes and Jonathan Lavery, Critical Thinking: An Introduction to the Basic Skills , 4th ed. Broadview, 2004)
• Dispositions That Foster or Impede Critical thinking "Dispositions that foster critical thinking include [a] facility in perceiving irony , ambiguity , and multiplicity of meanings or points of view; the development of open-mindedness, autonomous thought, and reciprocity (Piaget's term for the ability to empathize with other individuals, social groups, nationalities, ideologies, etc.). Dispositions that act as impediments to critical thinking include defense mechanisms (such as absolutism or primary certitude, denial, projection), culturally conditioned assumptions, authoritarianism, egocentrism, and ethnocentrism, rationalization, compartmentalization, stereotyping and prejudice." (Donald Lazere, "Invention, Critical Thinking, and the Analysis of Political Rhetoric." Perspectives on Rhetorical Invention , ed. by Janet M. Atwill and Janice M. Lauer. University of Tennessee Press, 2002)
• Critical Thinking and Composing - "[T]he most intensive and demanding tool for eliciting sustained critical thought is a well-designed writing assignment on a subject matter problem. The underlying premise is that writing is closely linked with thinking and that in presenting students with significant problems to write about—and in creating an environment that demands their best writing—we can promote their general cognitive and intellectual growth. When we make students struggle with their writing, we are making them struggle with thought itself. Emphasizing writing and critical thinking , therefore, generally increases the academic rigor of a course. Often the struggle of writing, linked as it is to the struggle of thinking and to the growth of a person's intellectual powers, awakens students to the real nature of learning." (John C. Bean,  Engaging Ideas: The Professor's Guide to Integrating Writing, Critical Thinking, and Active Learning in the Classroom , 2nd ed. Wiley, 2011) - "Finding a fresh approach to a writing assignment means that you must see the subject without the blinders of preconception. When people expect to see a thing in a certain way, it usually appears that way, whether or not that is its true image. Similarly, thinking based on prefabricated ideas produces writing that says nothing new, that offers nothing important to the reader. As a writer, you have a responsibility to go beyond the expected views and present your subject so that the reader sees it with fresh eyes. . . . [C]ritical thinking is a fairly systematic method of defining a problem and synthesizing knowledge about it, thereby creating the perspective you need to develop new ideas. . . . " Classical rhetoricians used a series of three questions to help focus an argument . Today these questions can still help writers understand the topic about which they are writing. An sit? (Is the problem a fact?); Quid sit (What is the definition of the problem?); and Quale sit? (What kind of problem is it?). By asking these questions, writers see their subject from many new angles before they begin to narrow the focus to one particular aspect." (Kristin R. Woolever, About Writing: A Rhetoric for Advanced Writers . Wadsworth, 1991)

Logical Fallacies

Ad Misericordiam

Appeal to Authority

Appeal to Force

Appeal to Humor

Appeal to Ignorance

Appeal to the People

Begging the Question

Circular Argument

Complex Question

Contradictory Premises

Dicto Simpliciter , Equivocation

False Analogy

False Dilemma

Gambler's Fallacy

Hasty Generalization

Name-Calling

Non Sequitur

Poisoning the Well

Red Herring

Slippery Slope

Stacking the Deck

• Critical Thinking Definition, Skills, and Examples
• Definition and Examples of Evaluation Essays
• Higher-Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) in Education
• What Does Argumentation Mean?
• Basic Writing
• What Does Critical Reading Really Mean?
• 12 Online Classes to Build Intellectual Character
• 6 Skills Students Need to Succeed in Social Studies Classes
• How to Practice Critical Thinking in 4 Steps
• Duality of Patterning in Language
• What Is a Critique in Composition?
• Benjamin Bloom: Critical Thinking and Critical Thinking Models
• What Is Contrastive Rhetoric?
• Collaborative Writing
• What Is an Annotation in Reading, Research, and Linguistics?
• Definition and Examples of Science Writing

JavaScript seems to be disabled in your browser. For the best experience on our site, be sure to turn on Javascript in your browser.

• Order Tracking
• Create an Account

200+ Award-Winning Educational Textbooks, Activity Books, & Printable eBooks!

• Compare Products

Reading, Writing, Math, Science, Social Studies

• Search by Book Series
• Algebra I & II  Gr. 7-12+
• Algebra Magic Tricks  Gr. 2-12+
• Algebra Word Problems  Gr. 7-12+
• Balance Benders  Gr. 2-12+
• Balance Math & More!  Gr. 2-12+
• Basics of Critical Thinking  Gr. 4-7
• Brain Stretchers  Gr. 5-12+
• Building Thinking Skills  Gr. Toddler-12+
• Building Writing Skills  Gr. 3-7
• Bundles - Critical Thinking  Gr. PreK-9
• Bundles - Language Arts  Gr. K-8
• Bundles - Mathematics  Gr. PreK-9
• Bundles - Multi-Subject Curriculum  Gr. PreK-12+
• Bundles - Test Prep  Gr. Toddler-12+
• Can You Find Me?  Gr. PreK-1
• Complete the Picture Math  Gr. 1-3
• Cornell Critical Thinking Tests  Gr. 5-12+
• Cranium Crackers  Gr. 3-12+
• Creative Problem Solving  Gr. PreK-2
• Critical Thinking Activities to Improve Writing  Gr. 4-12+
• Critical Thinking Coloring  Gr. PreK-2
• Critical Thinking Detective  Gr. 3-12+
• Critical Thinking Tests  Gr. PreK-6
• Critical Thinking for Reading Comprehension  Gr. 1-5
• Critical Thinking in United States History  Gr. 6-12+
• CrossNumber Math Puzzles  Gr. 4-10
• Crypt-O-Words  Gr. 2-7
• Crypto Mind Benders  Gr. 3-12+
• Daily Mind Builders  Gr. 5-12+
• Dare to Compare Math  Gr. 2-7
• Developing Critical Thinking through Science  Gr. 1-8
• Dr. DooRiddles  Gr. PreK-12+
• Dr. Funster's  Gr. 2-12+
• Editor in Chief  Gr. 2-12+
• Fun-Time Phonics!  Gr. PreK-2
• Half 'n Half Animals  Gr. K-4
• Hands-On Thinking Skills  Gr. K-1
• Inference Jones  Gr. 1-6
• James Madison  Gr. 10-12+
• Jumbles  Gr. 3-5
• Language Mechanic  Gr. 4-7
• Language Smarts  Gr. 1-4
• Mastering Logic & Math Problem Solving  Gr. 6-9
• Math Analogies  Gr. K-9
• Math Detective  Gr. 3-8
• Math Games  Gr. 3-8
• Math Mind Benders  Gr. 5-12+
• Math Ties  Gr. 4-8
• Math Word Problems  Gr. 4-10
• Mathematical Reasoning  Gr. Toddler-11
• Middle School Science  Gr. 6-8
• Mind Benders  Gr. PreK-12+
• Mind Building Math  Gr. K-1
• Mind Building Reading  Gr. K-1
• Novel Thinking  Gr. 3-6
• OLSAT® Test Prep  Gr. PreK-K
• Organizing Thinking  Gr. 2-8
• Pattern Explorer  Gr. 3-9
• Practical Critical Thinking  Gr. 8-12+
• Punctuation Puzzler  Gr. 3-8
• Reading Detective  Gr. 3-12+
• Red Herring Mysteries  Gr. 4-12+
• Red Herrings Science Mysteries  Gr. 4-9
• Science Detective  Gr. 3-6
• Science Mind Benders  Gr. PreK-3
• Science Vocabulary Crossword Puzzles  Gr. 4-6
• Sciencewise  Gr. 4-12+
• Scratch Your Brain  Gr. 2-12+
• Sentence Diagramming  Gr. 3-12+
• Smarty Pants Puzzles  Gr. 3-12+
• Snailopolis  Gr. K-4
• Something's Fishy at Lake Iwannafisha  Gr. 5-9
• Teaching Technology  Gr. 3-12+
• Tell Me a Story  Gr. PreK-1
• Think Analogies  Gr. 3-12+
• Think and Write  Gr. 3-8
• Think-A-Grams  Gr. 4-12+
• Thinking About Time  Gr. 3-6
• Thinking Connections  Gr. 4-12+
• Thinking Directionally  Gr. 2-6
• Thinking Skills & Key Concepts  Gr. PreK-2
• Thinking Skills for Tests  Gr. PreK-5
• U.S. History Detective  Gr. 8-12+
• Understanding Fractions  Gr. 2-6
• Visual Perceptual Skill Building  Gr. PreK-3
• Vocabulary Riddles  Gr. 4-8
• Vocabulary Smarts  Gr. 2-5
• Vocabulary Virtuoso  Gr. 2-12+
• What Would You Do?  Gr. 2-12+
• Who Is This Kid? Colleges Want to Know!  Gr. 9-12+
• Word Explorer  Gr. 6-8
• Word Roots  Gr. 3-12+
• World History Detective  Gr. 6-12+
• Writing Detective  Gr. 3-6
• You Decide!  Gr. 6-12+

• Special of the Month
• Sign Up for our Best Offers
• Bundles = Greatest Savings!
• Sign Up for Free Puzzles
• Sign Up for Free Activities
• Toddler (Ages 0-3)
• PreK (Ages 3-5)
• Kindergarten (Ages 5-6)
• 1st Grade (Ages 6-7)
• 2nd Grade (Ages 7-8)
• 3rd Grade (Ages 8-9)
• 4th Grade (Ages 9-10)
• 5th Grade (Ages 10-11)
• 6th Grade (Ages 11-12)
• 7th Grade (Ages 12-13)
• 8th Grade (Ages 13-14)
• 9th Grade (Ages 14-15)
• 10th Grade (Ages 15-16)
• 11th Grade (Ages 16-17)
• 12th Grade (Ages 17-18)
• 12th+ Grade (Ages 18+)
• Test Prep Directory
• Test Prep Bundles
• Test Prep Guides
• Preschool Academics
• Store Locator
• Submit Feedback/Request
• Sales Alerts Sign-Up
• Technical Support
• Mission & History
• Articles & Advice
• Testimonials
• Our Guarantee
• New Products
• Free Activities
• Libros en Español

What is Critical Thinking?

Critical Thinking Definition

September 2, 2005, by The Critical Thinking Co. Staff

The Critical Thinking Co.™ "Critical thinking is the identification and evaluation of evidence to guide decision making. A critical thinker uses broad in-depth analysis of evidence to make decisions and communicate their beliefs clearly and accurately."

Other Definitions of Critical Thinking: Robert H. Ennis , Author of The Cornell Critical Thinking Tests "Critical thinking is reasonable, reflective thinking that is focused on deciding what to believe and do."

A SUPER-STREAMLINED CONCEPTION OF CRITICAL THINKING Robert H. Ennis, 6/20/02

Assuming that critical thinking is reasonable reflective thinking focused on deciding what to believe or do, a critical thinker:

1. Is open-minded and mindful of alternatives 2. Tries to be well-informed 3. Judges well the credibility of sources 4. Identifies conclusions, reasons, and assumptions 5. Judges well the quality of an argument, including the acceptability of its reasons, assumptions, and evidence 6. Can well develop and defend a reasonable position 7. Asks appropriate clarifying questions 8. Formulates plausible hypotheses; plans experiments well 9. Defines terms in a way appropriate for the context 10. Draws conclusions when warranted, but with caution 11. Integrates all items in this list when deciding what to believe or do

Critical Thinkers are disposed to:

1. Care that their beliefs be true, and that their decisions be justified; that is, care to "get it right" to the extent possible. This includes the dispositions to

a. Seek alternative hypotheses, explanations, conclusions, plans, sources, etc., and be open to them b. Endorse a position to the extent that, but only to the extent that, it is justified by the information that is available c. Be well informed d. Consider seriously other points of view than their own

2. Care to present a position honestly and clearly, theirs as well as others'. This includes the dispositions to

a. Be clear about the intended meaning of what is said, written, or otherwise communicated, seeking as much precision as the situation requires b. Determine, and maintain focus on, the conclusion or question c. Seek and offer reasons d. Take into account the total situation e. Be reflectively aware of their own basic beliefs

3. Care about the dignity and worth of every person (a correlative disposition). This includes the dispositions to

a. Discover and listen to others' view and reasons b. Avoid intimidating or confusing others with their critical thinking prowess, taking into account others' feelings and level of understanding c. Be concerned about others' welfare

Critical Thinking Abilities:

Ideal critical thinkers have the ability to (The first three items involve elementary clarification.)

1. Focus on a question

a. Identify or formulate a question b. Identify or formulate criteria for judging possible answers c. Keep the situation in mind

2. Analyze arguments

a. Identify conclusions b. Identify stated reasons c. Identify unstated reasons d. Identify and handle irrelevance e. See the structure of an argument f. Summarize

3. Ask and answer questions of clarification and/or challenge, such as,

a. Why? b. What is your main point? c. What do you mean by…? d. What would be an example? e. What would not be an example (though close to being one)? f. How does that apply to this case (describe a case, which might well appear to be a counter example)? g. What difference does it make? h. What are the facts? i. Is this what you are saying: ____________? j. Would you say some more about that?

(The next two involve the basis for the decision.)

4. Judge the credibility of a source. Major criteria (but not necessary conditions):

a. Expertise b. Lack of conflict of interest c. Agreement among sources d. Reputation e. Use of established procedures f. Known risk to reputation g. Ability to give reasons h. Careful habits

5. Observe, and judge observation reports. Major criteria (but not necessary conditions, except for the first):

a. Minimal inferring involved b. Short time interval between observation and report c. Report by the observer, rather than someone else (that is, the report is not hearsay) d. Provision of records. e. Corroboration f. Possibility of corroboration g. Good access h. Competent employment of technology, if technology is useful i. Satisfaction by observer (and reporter, if a different person) of the credibility criteria in Ability # 4 above.

(The next three involve inference.)

6. Deduce, and judge deduction

a. Class logic b. Conditional logic c. Interpretation of logical terminology in statements, including (1) Negation and double negation (2) Necessary and sufficient condition language (3) Such words as "only", "if and only if", "or", "some", "unless", "not both".

7. Induce, and judge induction

a. To generalizations. Broad considerations: (1) Typicality of data, including sampling where appropriate (2) Breadth of coverage (3) Acceptability of evidence b. To explanatory conclusions (including hypotheses) (1) Major types of explanatory conclusions and hypotheses: (a) Causal claims (b) Claims about the beliefs and attitudes of people (c) Interpretation of authors’ intended meanings (d) Historical claims that certain things happened (including criminal accusations) (e) Reported definitions (f) Claims that some proposition is an unstated reason that the person actually used (2) Characteristic investigative activities (a) Designing experiments, including planning to control variables (b) Seeking evidence and counter-evidence (c) Seeking other possible explanations (3) Criteria, the first five being essential, the sixth being desirable (a) The proposed conclusion would explain the evidence (b) The proposed conclusion is consistent with all known facts (c) Competitive alternative explanations are inconsistent with facts (d) The evidence on which the hypothesis depends is acceptable. (e) A legitimate effort should have been made to uncover counter-evidence (f) The proposed conclusion seems plausible

8. Make and judge value judgments: Important factors:

a. Background facts b. Consequences of accepting or rejecting the judgment c. Prima facie application of acceptable principles d. Alternatives e. Balancing, weighing, deciding

(The next two abilities involve advanced clarification.)

9. Define terms and judge definitions. Three dimensions are form, strategy, and content.

a. Form. Some useful forms are: (1) Synonym (2) Classification (3) Range (4) Equivalent expression (5) Operational (6) Example and non-example b. Definitional strategy (1) Acts (a) Report a meaning (b) Stipulate a meaning (c) Express a position on an issue (including "programmatic" and "persuasive" definitions) (2) Identifying and handling equivocation c. Content of the definition

10. Attribute unstated assumptions (an ability that belongs under both clarification and, in a way, inference)

(The next two abilities involve supposition and integration.)

11. Consider and reason from premises, reasons, assumptions, positions, and other propositions with which they disagree or about which they are in doubt -- without letting the disagreement or doubt interfere with their thinking ("suppositional thinking")

12. Integrate the other abilities and dispositions in making and defending a decision

(The first twelve abilities are constitutive abilities. The next three are auxiliary critical thinking abilities: Having them, though very helpful in various ways, is not constitutive of being a critical thinker.)

13. Proceed in an orderly manner appropriate to the situation. For example:

a. Follow problem solving steps b. Monitor one's own thinking (that is, engage in metacognition) c. Employ a reasonable critical thinking checklist

14. Be sensitive to the feelings, level of knowledge, and degree of sophistication of others

15. Employ appropriate rhetorical strategies in discussion and presentation (orally and in writing), including employing and reacting to "fallacy" labels in an appropriate manner.

Examples of fallacy labels are "circularity," "bandwagon," "post hoc," "equivocation," "non sequitur," and "straw person."

Dewey, John Critical thinking is "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 1933: 118)."

Glaser (1) an attitude of being disposed to consider in a thoughtful way the problems and subjects that come within the range of one's experiences, (2) knowledge of the methods of logical inquiry and reasoning, and (3) some skill in applying those methods. Critical thinking calls for a persistent effort to examine any belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the evidence that supports it and the further conclusions to which it tends. (Glaser 1941, pp. 5-6).

Abilities include: "(a) to recognize problems, (b) to find workable means for meeting those problems, (c) to gather and marshal pertinent information, (d) to recognize unstated assumptions and values, (e) to comprehend and use language with accuracy, clarity and discrimination, (f) to interpret data, (g) to appraise evidence and evaluate statements, (h) to recognize the existence of logical relationships between propositions, (i) to draw warranted conclusions and generalizations, (j) to put to test the generalizations and conclusions at which one arrives, (k) to reconstruct one's patterns of beliefs on the basis of wider experience; and (l) to render accurate judgments about specific things and qualities in everyday life." (p.6)

MCC General Education Initiatives "Critical thinking includes the ability to respond to material by distinguishing between facts and opinions or personal feelings, judgments and inferences, inductive and deductive arguments, and the objective and subjective. It also includes the ability to generate questions, construct, and recognize the structure of arguments, and adequately support arguments; define, analyze, and devise solutions for problems and issues; sort, organize, classify, correlate, and analyze materials and data; integrate information and see relationships; evaluate information, materials, and data by drawing inferences, arriving at reasonable and informed conclusions, applying understanding and knowledge to new and different problems, developing rational and reasonable interpretations, suspending beliefs and remaining open to new information, methods, cultural systems, values and beliefs and by assimilating information."

Nickerson, Perkins and Smith (1985) "The ability to judge the plausibility of specific assertions, to weigh evidence, to assess the logical soundness of inferences, to construct counter-arguments and alternative hypotheses."

Moore and Parker , Critical Thinking Critical Thinking is "the careful, deliberate determination of whether we should accept, reject, or suspend judgment about a claim, and the degree of confidence with which we accept or reject it."

Delphi Report "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, fair-minded in evaluation, honest in facing personal biases, prudent in making judgments, willing to reconsider, clear about issues, orderly in complex matters, diligent in seeking relevant information, reasonable in the selection of criteria, focused in inquiry, and persistent in seeking results which are as precise as the subject and the circumstances of inquiry permit. Thus, educating good critical thinkers means working toward this ideal. It combines developing CT skills with nurturing those dispositions which consistently yield useful insights and which are the basis of a rational and democratic society."

A little reformatting helps make this definition more comprehensible:

We understand critical thinking to be purposeful, self-regulatory judgment which results in

• interpretation

as well as explanation of the

• methodological
• criteriological

considerations upon which that judgment is based.

Francis Bacon (1605) "For myself, I found that I was fitted for nothing so well as for the study of Truth; as having a mind nimble and versatile enough to catch the resemblances of things … and at the same time steady enough to fix and distinguish their subtler differences; as being gifted by nature with desire to seek, patience to doubt, fondness to meditate, slowness to assert, readiness to consider, carefulness to dispose and set in order; and as being a man that neither affects what is new nor admires what is old, and that hates every kind of imposture."

A shorter version is "the art of being right."

Or, more prosaically: critical thinking is "the skillful application of a repertoire of validated general techniques for deciding the level of confidence you should have in a proposition in the light of the available evidence."

HELPFUL REFERENCE: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-informal/

• Get started with computers
• Learn Microsoft Office
• Apply for a job
• Improve my work skills
• Design nice-looking docs
• Getting Started
• Smartphones & Tablets
• Typing Tutorial
• Online Learning
• Basic Internet Skills
• Online Safety
• Social Media
• Zoom Basics
• Google Docs
• Google Sheets
• Career Planning
• Resume Writing
• Cover Letters
• Job Search and Networking
• Business Communication
• Entrepreneurship 101
• Careers without College
• Job Hunt for Today
• 3D Printing
• Freelancing 101
• Personal Finance
• Sharing Economy
• Decision-Making
• Graphic Design
• Photography
• Image Editing
• Learning WordPress
• Language Learning
• Critical Thinking
• For Educators
• Translations
• Staff Picks
• English expand_more expand_less

Critical Thinking and Decision-Making  - What is Critical Thinking?

Critical thinking and decision-making  -, what is critical thinking, critical thinking and decision-making what is critical thinking.

Critical Thinking and Decision-Making: What is Critical Thinking?

Lesson 1: what is critical thinking, what is critical thinking.

Critical thinking is a term that gets thrown around a lot. You've probably heard it used often throughout the years whether it was in school, at work, or in everyday conversation. But when you stop to think about it, what exactly is critical thinking and how do you do it ?

Watch the video below to learn more about critical thinking.

Simply put, critical thinking is the act of deliberately analyzing information so that you can make better judgements and decisions . It involves using things like logic, reasoning, and creativity, to draw conclusions and generally understand things better.

This may sound like a pretty broad definition, and that's because critical thinking is a broad skill that can be applied to so many different situations. You can use it to prepare for a job interview, manage your time better, make decisions about purchasing things, and so much more.

The process

As humans, we are constantly thinking . It's something we can't turn off. But not all of it is critical thinking. No one thinks critically 100% of the time... that would be pretty exhausting! Instead, it's an intentional process , something that we consciously use when we're presented with difficult problems or important decisions.

Improving your critical thinking

In order to become a better critical thinker, it's important to ask questions when you're presented with a problem or decision, before jumping to any conclusions. You can start with simple ones like What do I currently know? and How do I know this? These can help to give you a better idea of what you're working with and, in some cases, simplify more complex issues.  

Real-world applications

Let's take a look at how we can use critical thinking to evaluate online information . Say a friend of yours posts a news article on social media and you're drawn to its headline. If you were to use your everyday automatic thinking, you might accept it as fact and move on. But if you were thinking critically, you would first analyze the available information and ask some questions :

• What's the source of this article?
• Is the headline potentially misleading?
• What are my friend's general beliefs?
• Do their beliefs inform why they might have shared this?

After analyzing all of this information, you can draw a conclusion about whether or not you think the article is trustworthy.

Critical thinking has a wide range of real-world applications . It can help you to make better decisions, become more hireable, and generally better understand the world around you.

/en/problem-solving-and-decision-making/why-is-it-so-hard-to-make-decisions/content/

Instantly enhance your writing in real-time while you type. With LanguageTool

Get started for free

What Is Critical Thinking? | Meaning & Examples

Critical thinking is the process of analyzing information logically and overcoming assumptions, biases, and logical fallacies. Developing critical thinking skills allows us to evaluate information as objectively as possible and reach well-founded conclusions.

Critical thinking example

Thinking critically is a crucial part of academic success, professional development, civic engagement, and personal decision-making.

Table of contents

What is critical thinking, why is critical thinking important, critical thinking strategies.

Critical thinking is the process of evaluating information and arguments in a disciplined and systematic way. It involves questioning assumptions, assessing evidence, and using logical reasoning to form well-reasoned judgments.

Key critical thinking skills:

• Avoiding unfounded assumptions
• Identifying and countering biases
• Recognizing and refuting logical fallacies

These practices enable us to make informed decisions, analyze evidence objectively, consider multiple perspectives, reflect on our own biases, and seek reliable sources.

Critical thinking is enhanced by the deliberate study of biases, logical fallacies, and the different forms of reasoning:

• Deductive reasoning: Drawing specific conclusions from general premises
• Inductive reasoning: Generalizing from specific observations
• Analogical reasoning: Drawing parallels between similar situations
• Abductive reasoning: Inferring the most likely explanation from incomplete evidence

When assessing sources, critical thinking requires evaluating several factors:

• Credibility: Check the author’s qualifications and the publication’s reputation.
• Evidence: Verify that the information is supported by data and references.
• Bias: Identify any potential biases or conflicts of interest.
• Currency: Ensure the information is up-to-date and relevant.
• Purpose: Understand the motivation behind the source and whether it aims to inform, persuade, or sell.

Critical thinking is crucial to decision-making and problem-solving in many domains of life. Social media disinformation and irresponsible uses of AI make it more important than ever to be able to distinguish between credible information and misleading or false content.

Developing critical thinking skills is an essential part of fostering independent thinking, allowing us to:

• Make informed decisions
• Solve complex problems
• Evaluate the logic of arguments

In the process of developing these skills, we become less susceptible to biases, fallacies, and propaganda.

Examples of critical thinking

Critical thinking is an essential part of consuming any form of media, including news, marketing, entertainment, and social media. Media platforms are commonly used to promote biased or manipulative messages, often in a subtle way.

Critical thinking in media example

A news segment claims eating chocolate daily improves cognitive function. After reading more about the research, you find the study had a small sample size and was funded by a chocolate company, indicating bias. This leads you to conclude the claim is unreliable.

Critical thinking is fundamental in logic, math, law, science, and other academic and professional domains. The scientific method is a quintessential example of systematized critical thinking.

Critical thinking in science example

• Formulate a hypothesis.
• Design experiments.
• Analyze data.
• Draw conclusions.
• Revise the hypothesis if necessary.

Academic research requires advanced critical thinking skills.

Critical thinking academic example

• Evaluating the methodology of each study to determine their reliability and validity
• Checking for potential biases, such as funding sources or conflicts of interest
• Comparing the sample sizes and demographics of the studies to understand the context of their findings
• Synthesizing the results, highlighting common trends and discrepancies, and considering the limitations of each study

Critical thinking enhances informed decision-making by equipping us to recognize biases, identify logical fallacies, evaluate evidence, consider alternative perspectives, and learn to identify credible sources.

Key strategies:

• Recognize biases.
• Identify logical fallacies.
• Evaluate sources and evidence.
• Consider alternative perspectives.

Recommended articles

Do you want to improve your business emails, learn the difference between commonly confused words, or strengthen your understanding of English grammar? Check out the articles below!

Unleash the Professional Writer in You With LanguageTool

Go well beyond grammar and spell checking. Impress with clear, precise, and stylistically flawless writing instead.

Works on All Your Favorite Services

• Thunderbird
• Google Docs
• Microsoft Word
• Open Office
• Libre Office

We Value Your Feedback

We’ve made a mistake, forgotten about an important detail, or haven’t managed to get the point across? Let’s help each other to perfect our writing.

• Schools & departments

Critical thinking

Advice and resources to help you develop your critical voice.

Developing critical thinking skills is essential to your success at University and beyond.  We all need to be critical thinkers to help us navigate our way through an information-rich world. 

Whatever your discipline, you will engage with a wide variety of sources of information and evidence.  You will develop the skills to make judgements about this evidence to form your own views and to present your views clearly.

One of the most common types of feedback received by students is that their work is ‘too descriptive’.  This usually means that they have just stated what others have said and have not reflected critically on the material.  They have not evaluated the evidence and constructed an argument.

What is critical thinking?

Critical thinking is the art of making clear, reasoned judgements based on interpreting, understanding, applying and synthesising evidence gathered from observation, reading and experimentation. Burns, T., & Sinfield, S. (2016)  Essential Study Skills: The Complete Guide to Success at University (4th ed.) London: SAGE, p94.

Being critical does not just mean finding fault.  It means assessing evidence from a variety of sources and making reasoned conclusions.  As a result of your analysis you may decide that a particular piece of evidence is not robust, or that you disagree with the conclusion, but you should be able to state why you have come to this view and incorporate this into a bigger picture of the literature.

Being critical goes beyond describing what you have heard in lectures or what you have read.  It involves synthesising, analysing and evaluating what you have learned to develop your own argument or position.

Critical thinking is important in all subjects and disciplines – in science and engineering, as well as the arts and humanities.  The types of evidence used to develop arguments may be very different but the processes and techniques are similar.  Critical thinking is required for both undergraduate and postgraduate levels of study.

What, where, when, who, why, how?

Purposeful reading can help with critical thinking because it encourages you to read actively rather than passively.  When you read, ask yourself questions about what you are reading and make notes to record your views.  Ask questions like:

• What is the main point of this paper/ article/ paragraph/ report/ blog?
• Who wrote it?
• Why was it written?
• When was it written?
• Has the context changed since it was written?
• Is the evidence presented robust?
• How did the authors come to their conclusions?
• Do you agree with the conclusions?
• What does this add to our knowledge?
• Why is it useful?

Our web page covering Reading at university includes a handout to help you develop your own critical reading form and a suggested reading notes record sheet.  These resources will help you record your thoughts after you read, which will help you to construct your argument. 

Reading at university

Developing an argument

Being a university student is about learning how to think, not what to think.  Critical thinking shapes your own values and attitudes through a process of deliberating, debating and persuasion.   Through developing your critical thinking you can move on from simply disagreeing to constructively assessing alternatives by building on doubts.

There are several key stages involved in developing your ideas and constructing an argument.  You might like to use a form to help you think about the features of critical thinking and to break down the stages of developing your argument.

Features of critical thinking (pdf)

Features of critical thinking (Word rtf)

Our webpage on Academic writing includes a useful handout ‘Building an argument as you go’.

Academic writing

You should also consider the language you will use to introduce a range of viewpoints and to evaluate the various sources of evidence.  This will help your reader to follow your argument.  To get you started, the University of Manchester's Academic Phrasebank has a useful section on Being Critical. 

Academic Phrasebank

Developing your critical thinking

Set yourself some tasks to help develop your critical thinking skills.  Discuss material presented in lectures or from resource lists with your peers.  Set up a critical reading group or use an online discussion forum.  Think about a point you would like to make during discussions in tutorials and be prepared to back up your argument with evidence.

For more suggestions:

Developing your critical thinking - ideas (pdf)

Developing your critical thinking - ideas (Word rtf)

Published guides

For further advice and more detailed resources please see the Critical Thinking section of our list of published Study skills guides.

Study skills guides  

This article was published on 2024-02-26

What Critical Thinking Is—And 7 Ways to Improve Yours

Making a hire. Debugging a website glitch. Deciding how to tell your boss they have a stain on their shirt.

All of these tasks, and more, require critical thinking skills. And whether you think you have them or not, they’re critical (see what we did there?) for your career—here’s why.

What is critical thinking and why is it so important?

Critical thinking “requires us to give a second thought to our own interpretations” as we’re making a decision or trying to understand a given situation, Constance Dierickx , a clinical psychologist and decision-making coach for CEOs and executives, told The Muse.

There are three steps to critical thinking, according to Lily Drabkin, a graduate student specializing in organizational psychology who facilitates a class called “Developing Critical Thinkers” at Columbia University:

• Becoming aware of our assumptions : This is the process of tuning into what we’re believing or thinking, otherwise known as metacognition.
• Researching our assumptions: This is the process of checking our assumptions using a wide range of sources. “Generally, it can be helpful to involve other people who can help us see ourselves in our actions from unfamiliar perspectives,” Drabkin said.
• Testing our analysis: This step involves putting our research into action to see if it’s accurate, as well as being open to our initial assumptions being wrong and ready to change our perspective.

Critical thinking is beneficial for building relationships, starting or pivoting your career, or even just doing your everyday job. It’s also a highly-sought-after skill in job seekers. “You want someone who has good critical thinking skills because they're not going to be an attention sponge,” Muse career coach Yolanda Owens said. “They're going to be able to figure things out and…be more resourceful.”

Here are two other ways it’s helpful to be good at critical thinking:

Critical thinking leads to better decision-making

Owens pointed out that good critical thinkers always seek to understand the “why.” “When they can do that, they're better problem solvers,” she said. “It really helps people analyze situations and viewpoints.”

Critical thinking can also prevent you from having knee-jerk reactions that backfire in the long run, Dierickx said. “Decisions based on critical thinking are more likely to be ones that we feel confident about,” Drabkin added.

Critical thinking makes you look smart

Dierickx said when we use critical thinking, we have more proof to back up our statements or decisions, making it easier to influence and earn the respect of others.

“You build up a reputation as somebody who's a reliable thinker,” Dierickx said. “It makes you stand out because in most organizations, a lot of people say the same things.”

7 ways to improve your critical thinking skills

The following habits are worth incorporating into your daily routine—that is, if you want to impress your colleagues and avoid falling into a spiral of poor choices.

1. Ask questions

Good critical thinkers, Owens said, aren’t afraid to ask others when they’re unsure about something. This allows them to have as much information in front of them as possible before making a decision. It also ensures they’re never so confident in their assumptions that they ignore better options.

2. Practice reflection

Dierickx advised baking time for reflection into your day, particularly after an emotional situation is resolved or a big project is completed. Consider:

• What was the context?
• What was I thinking and feeling in the moment?
• What were other people thinking and feeling in the moment?
• What could I have done differently knowing what I know now?

It can be helpful, too, to loop in someone you trust or admire for feedback on how you handled it and what they would have done differently.

3. Be open to change

Owens and Dierickx agreed that people who are open minded have more success when it comes to critical thinking. “My biggest pet peeve is when people say, ‘Well, we've always done it that way.’ Don't become that person,” Owens said. “There's always an alternate way to do something, and understanding that your way is not always the only way or the right way to do something.”

Dierickx advised being “willing to let go of what you believed was true yesterday in the face of new evidence.”

“We need to be certain and uncertain,” she added. “You can't be so certain that you never question. That's not critical thinking. That's blind ignorance.”

4. Build a diverse network

You’ll never learn to think critically if you’re only faced with perspectives that mimic your own. So make the effort to surround yourself with people of different backgrounds, expertise, interests, and viewpoints and actively seek out their advice, feedback, and ideas on a regular basis.

“Learning from peers is one of the most important ways that adults learn something, which is great actually for critical thinking, because critical thinking skills are often learned in conversation,” Drabkin said.

“Even if there might be somebody whose views you disagree with, it's still helpful to hear them out,” she added.

5. Get good at active listening

When you’ve developed a diverse network of friends, colleagues, and mentors, it’s important that you’re really engaged with what they’re saying to you so you can leverage those insights for your own critical thinking.

Here’s our guide to becoming an active listener , or someone who listens with intent and strategy (and most definitely doesn’t scroll on their phone while chatting with others).

6. Read and study widely

Just as it’s important to interact with different types of people to get better at critical thinking, Dierickx said, it’s also important to take in new information outside your profession or area of expertise.

She suggested setting aside time in your schedule to read scholarly articles or books on topics you’re not as familiar with or even ideas you disagree with.

Similarly, she said, it can be helpful to take on new hobbies or study up on activities that are unfamiliar.

7. Take on stretch assignments

Critical thinking can come into play when you put yourself outside your comfort zone, and there’s no better way to do that than to tackle something new and different in your job.

That isn’t to say that you should raise your hand to lead an important project without understanding what it requires or flagging to your boss where your knowledge gaps are. But you should be open to being the dumbest person in the room or having your skill set and confidence questioned by other people and new ideas.

How to show off your critical thinking skills in the job search

Employers value critical thinkers because they’re often autonomous, innovative, and enjoyable to work with, so it’s key to incorporate examples of your critical thinking in action at several points in your job search process.

In a resume or cover letter

Job search wisdom states your resume bullets and cover letter should focus on your accomplishments instead of your duties. Owens added this is a great way to imply you’re a good critical thinker on paper.

She suggested including not just ways that you moved the needle or added value but “how you made those types of decisions, or what it was that influenced you to do things the way that you've done them.”

In a job interview

Critical thinking skills are frequently assessed by employers through behavioral questions , skills tests, and case studies. Owens said when approaching any job assessment, think out loud—“not just necessarily telling them your answer, but helping them understand how you got to the answer.”

And don’t be afraid to ask follow-up questions before providing a response. “Ask for some context as to why they're asking you that question so you can understand the type of example you need to give them in order to frame your answers,” Owens said. “And that's all part of critical thinking—knowing what questions to ask or knowing that you have to ask a question in order to be able to come up with a solution.”

Drabkin noted that part of critical thinking is seeing beyond what’s in front of you. In an interview, this could mean looking for and pointing out gaps in a job or team where you could be a unique asset. “Finding that and demonstrating that will show your interviewer and show the company that you have these critical thinking skills because you're able to analyze the role in a way that maybe they haven't,” she said.

3 Core Critical Thinking Skills Every Thinker Should Have

Critically thinking about critical thinking skills..

Posted March 13, 2020 | Reviewed by Ekua Hagan

• Why Education Is Important
• Take our ADHD Test
• Find a Child Therapist

I recently received an email from an educator friend, asking me to briefly describe the skills necessary for critical thinking. They were happy to fill in the blanks themselves from outside reading but wanted to know what specific skills they should focus on teaching their students. I took this as a good opportunity to dedicate a post here to such discussion, in order to provide my friend and any other interested parties with an overview.

To understand critical thinking skills and how they factor into critical thinking, one first needs a definition of the latter. Critical thinking (CT) is a metacognitive process, consisting of a number of skills and dispositions, that when used through self-regulatory reflective judgment, increases the chances of producing a logical conclusion to an argument or solution to a problem (Dwyer, 2017; Dwyer, Hogan & Stewart, 2014). On the surface, this definition clarifies two issues. First, critical thinking is metacognitive—simply, it requires the individual to think about thinking; second, its main components are reflective judgment, dispositions, and skills.

Below the surface, this description requires clarification; hence the impetus for this entry—what is meant by reflective judgment, disposition towards CT, and CT skills? Reflective judgment (i.e. an individuals' understanding of the nature, limits, and certainty of knowing and how this can affect their judgments [King & Kitchener, 1994]) and disposition towards CT (i.e. an inclination, tendency or willingness to perform a given thinking skill [Dwyer, 2017; Facione, Facione & Giancarlo, 1997; Ku, 2009; Norris, 1992; Siegel, 1999; Valenzuela, Nieto & Saiz, 2011]) have both already been covered in my posts; so, consistent with the aim of this piece, let’s discuss CT skills.

CT skills allow individuals to transcend lower-order, memorization-based learning strategies to gain a more complex understanding of the information or problems they encounter (Halpern, 2014). Though debate is ongoing over the definition of CT, one list stands out as a reasonable consensus conceptualization of CT skills. In 1988, a committee of 46 experts in the field of CT gathered to discuss CT conceptualisations, resulting in the Delphi Report; within which was overwhelmingly agreement (i.e. 95% consensus) that analysis , evaluation and inference were the core skills necessary for CT (Facione, 1990). Indeed, over 30 years later, these three CT skills remain the most commonly cited.

1. Analysis

Analysis is a core CT skill used to identify and examine the structure of an argument, the propositions within an argument and the role they play (e.g. the main conclusion, the premises and reasons provided to support the conclusion, objections to the conclusion and inferential relationships among propositions), as well as the sources of the propositions (e.g. personal experience, common belief, and research).

When it comes to analysing the basis for a standpoint, the structure of the argument can be extracted for subsequent evaluation (e.g. from dialogue and text). This can be accomplished through looking for propositions that either support or refute the central claim or other reasons and objections. Through analysis, the argument’s hierarchical structure begins to appear. Notably, argument mapping can aid the visual representation of this hierarchical structure and is supported by research as having positive effects on critical thinking (Butchart et al., 2009; Dwyer, 2011; Dwyer, Hogan & Stewart, 2012; van Gelder, Bisset & Cumming, 2004).

2. Evaluation

Evaluation is a core CT skill that is used in the assessment of propositions and claims (identified through the previous analysis ) with respect to their credibility; relevance; balance, bias (and potential omissions); as well as the logical strength amongst propositions (i.e. the strength of the inferential relationships). Such assessment allows for informed judgment regarding the overall strength or weakness of an argument (Dwyer, 2017; Facione, 1990). If an argument (or its propositions) is not credible, relevant, logical, and unbiased, you should consider excluding it or discussing its weaknesses as an objection.

Evaluating the credibility of claims and arguments involves progressing beyond merely identifying the source of propositions in an argument, to actually examining the "trustworthiness" of those identified sources (e.g. personal experiences, common beliefs/opinions, expert/authority opinion and scientific evidence). This is particularly important because some sources are more credible than others. Evaluation also implies deep consideration of the relevance of claims within an argument, which is accomplished by assessing the contextual relevance of claims and premises—that is, the pertinence or applicability of one proposition to another.

With respect to balance, bias (and potential omissions), it's important to consider the "slant" of an argument—if it seems imbalanced in favour of one line of thinking, then it’s quite possible that the argument has omitted key, opposing points that should also be considered. Imbalance may also imply some level of bias in the argument—another factor that should also be assessed.

However, just because an argument is balanced does not mean that it isn’t biased. It may very well be the case that the "opposing views" presented have been "cherry-picked" because they are easily disputed (akin to building a strawman ); thus, making supporting reasons appear stronger than they may actually be—and this is just one example of how a balanced argument may, in fact, be biased. The take-home message regarding balance, bias, and potential omissions should be that, in any argument, you should construct an understanding of the author or speaker’s motivations and consider how these might influence the structure and contents of the argument.

Finally, evaluating the logical strength of an argument is accomplished through monitoring both the logical relationships amongst propositions and the claims they infer. Assessment of logical strength can actually be aided through subsequent inference, as a means of double-checking the logical strength. For example, this can be checked by asking whether or not a particular proposition can actually be inferred based on the propositions that precede it. A useful means of developing this sub-skill is through practicing syllogistic reasoning .

3. Inference

Similar to other educational concepts like synthesis (e.g., see Bloom et al., 1956; Dwyer, 2011; 2017), the final core CT skill, inference , involves the “gathering” of credible, relevant and logical evidence based on the previous analysis and evaluation, for the purpose of drawing a reasonable conclusion (Dwyer, 2017; Facione, 1990). Drawing a conclusion always implies some act of synthesis (i.e. the ability to put parts of information together to form a new whole; see Dwyer, 2011). However, inference is a unique form of synthesis in that it involves the formulation of a set of conclusions derived from a series of arguments or a body of evidence. This inference may imply accepting a conclusion pointed to by an author in light of the evidence they present, or "conjecturing an alternative," equally logical, conclusion or argument based on the available evidence (Facione, 1990). The ability to infer a conclusion in this manner can be completed through formal logic strategies, informal logic strategies (or both) in order to derive intermediate conclusions, as well as central claims.

Another important aspect of inference involves the querying of available evidence, for example, by recognising the need for additional information, gathering it and judging the plausibility of utilising such information for the purpose of drawing a conclusion. Notably, in the context of querying evidence and conjecturing alternative conclusions, inference overlaps with evaluation to a certain degree in that both skills are used to judge the relevance and acceptability of a claim or argument. Furthermore, after inferring a conclusion, the resulting argument should be re-evaluated to ensure that it is reasonable to draw the conclusion that was derived.

Overall, the application of critical thinking skills is a process—one must analyse, evaluate and then infer; and this process can be repeated to ensure that a reasonable conclusion has been drawn. In an effort to simplify the description of this process, for the past few years, I’ve used the analogy of picking apples for baking . We begin by picking apples from a tree. Consider the tree as an analogy, in its own right, for an argument, which is often hierarchically structured like a tree-diagram. By picking apples, I mean identifying propositions and the role they play (i.e. analysis). Once we pick an apple, we evaluate it—we make sure it isn’t rotten (i.e. lacks credibility, is biased) and is suitable for baking (i.e. relevant and logically strong). Finally, we infer— we gather the apples in a basket and bring them home and group them together based on some rationale for construction— maybe four for a pie, three for a crumble and another four for a tart. By the end of the process, we have baked some apple-based goods, or developed a conclusion, solution or decision through critical thinking.

Of course, there is more to critical thinking than the application of skills—a critical thinker must also have the disposition to think critically and engage reflective judgment. However, without the appropriate skills—analysis, evaluation, and inference, it is not likely that CT will be applied. For example, though one might be willing to use CT skills and engage reflective judgment, they may not know how to do so. Conversely, though one might be aware of which CT skills to use in a given context and may have the capacity to perform well when using these skills, they may not be disposed to use them (Valenzuela, Nieto & Saiz, 2011). Though the core CT skills of analysis, evaluation, and inference are not the only important aspects of CT, they are essential for its application.

Bloom, B.S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook 1: Cognitive domain. New York: McKay.

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

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

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

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

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

Facione, P.A. (1990). The Delphi report: Committee on pre-college philosophy. Millbrae, CA: California Academic Press.

Facione, P.A., Facione, N.C., & Giancarlo, C.A. (1997). Setting expectations for student learning: New directions for higher education. Millbrae: California Academic Press.

Halpern, D.F. (2014). Thought & knowledge: An introduction to critical thinking (5th Ed.). UK: Psychology Press.

King, P. M., & Kitchener, K. S. (1994). Developing reflective judgment: Understanding and promoting intellectual growth and critical thinking in adolescents and adults. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Ku, K.Y.L. (2009). Assessing students’ critical thinking performance: Urging for measurements using multi-response format. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 4, 1, 70- 76.

Norris, S. P. (Ed.). (1992). The generalizability of critical thinking: Multiple perspectives on an educational ideal. New York: Teachers College Press.

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

Valenzuela, J., Nieto, A.M., & Saiz, C. (2011). Critical thinking motivational scale: A contribution to the study of relationship between critical thinking and motivation. Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 9, 2, 823-848.

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

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

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

Sticking up for yourself is no easy task. But there are concrete skills you can use to hone your assertiveness and advocate for yourself.

• Emotional Intelligence
• Gaslighting
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

Critical thinking definition

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is critical thinking useful in writing?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Analysis of the contribution of critical thinking and psychological well-being to academic performance.

• 1 Faculty of Human Sciences, Universidad Icesi, Cali, Colombia
• 2 Department of Basic Psychology, Psychobiology and Methodology of Behavioral Sciences, University of Salamanca, Salamanca, Spain
• 3 Psychology Research Centre (CIPsi/UM), Department of Basic Psychology, School of Psychology, University of Minho, Braga, Portugal

This study examines the influence of critical thinking and psychological well-being on the academic performance of first-year college students. It emphasizes the importance of a model of psychological well-being focused on self-acceptance, environmental mastery and purpose in life, along with a critical thinking approach oriented to problem solving and decision making. A total of 128 first-year psychology students from a Spanish public university participated, assessed by means of Ryff’s psychological well-being scale (PWBS) and the PENCRISAL critical thinking test, complemented with grades obtained in a critical thinking course. The results show positive correlations between psychological well-being, critical thinking and academic performance, with a stronger relationship between critical thinking and academic performance. However, psychological well-being also plays a significant role in academic performance. The findings highlight the need for holistic pedagogical approaches that combine cognitive skills and personal development to enhance first-year students’ learning.

1 Introduction

In the context of the increasing demands of contemporary societies, in this study we address how critical thinking (CT) and psychological well-being (PWB) influence academic performance within the university setting. Upon entering university, first-year students are faced with the challenge of adapting to new academic dynamics and demands, which they must balance with the pursuit of personal satisfaction ( Acee et al., 2012 ; Casanova et al., 2018 ). The adaptation process, which involves the achievement of academic goals and the projection of long-term life objectives, is fundamental to academic performance, considered a key indicator of successful adaptation and a reflection of the competencies required in the professional environment ( Alonso-Borrego and Romero-Medina, 2016 ; Frick and Maihaus, 2016 ).

The goal of this research is to show the link between CT, which is characterized by analyzing and evaluating information, making evidence-based inferences, and reflecting on one’s own thought process for decision making and problem solving ( Bailin et al., 1999 ; Ennis, 2015 ; Jahn and Kenner, 2018 ; Saiz, 2020 ; Halpern and Dunn, 2023 ), and the PWB, which focuses on personal development ( Ryff, 1989 , 2013 ; Ryff and Keyes, 1995 ); and analyze how both contribute to academic performance. Despite the complexity of the factors that can influence academic performance, in this study we want to combine cognitive and socio-affective variables to better understand these dynamics. Based on The Ryff Psychological Well-Being Scale (PWBS), we examine how well-being, especially through self-acceptance, environmental mastery, and purpose in life impacts academic performance. As a starting point we recognize that CT may have an even greater effect on academic performance. This holistic approach seeks to contribute to the debate on the competencies needed for the 21st century through the relevance of CT and PWB in university education and their role in the formation of individuals capable of coping with contemporary demands.

1.1 Contextualization and characterization of academic performance

In the university context, academic performance is influenced by a series of factors ranging from pedagogical practices and student satisfaction with them to more personal and intrinsic elements. These include the student’s motivation and emotional state, academic background, IQ, personality traits and level of psychological maturity. This multi-layered approach focuses the complexity underlying academic performance and emphasizes the interaction between the educational environment and the individual qualities of each student.

A study by Oliván Blázquez et al. (2019) highlights the flipped classroom (FC) method in comparison to traditional lecture-based learning (LB) and shows that FC not only improves students’ grades, but also maintains their satisfaction with learning without increasing their perceived workload. Although FC was initially perceived as more difficult, this did not have a negative impact on satisfaction or long-term learning, underscoring the importance of student perceptions and involvement in the learning process. These results support the introduction of FC in higher education and point to the need for continuous adjustments based on student feedback to maximize academic performance and develop critical and practical skills.

Beyond educational practices, Gilar-Corbi et al. (2020) investigated how motivational and emotional factors and prior academic performance influence college students’ success. The study used the Motivated Strategies Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) and the Trait Meta-Mood Scale (TMMS) to measure motivational learning strategies and emotional intelligence. The findings show that scores obtained in the diagnostic tests have a strong influence on academic performance, while emotional attention has a minor influence. The study points out that prior performance, together with self-efficacy and appropriate emotional regulation, plays a crucial role in predicting academic success. Thus, the authors suggest that interventions focused on improving self-efficacy and emotional intelligence may be key to optimizing students’ academic outcomes.

In the same context, this time with more variables, Morales-Vives et al. (2020) investigate the influence of intelligence, psychological maturity and personality traits on the academic performance of adolescents, and find that these factors combined explain about 30% of their variability. Intelligence, especially in reasoning and numerical aptitude, emerges as the most significant predictor, while psychological maturity, reflected in work orientation, and traits such as conscientiousness and openness to experience, have an indirect influence. These findings show that, although intelligence plays a decisive role, maturity and personality are in a lesser proportion.

These conclusions and the recommendations derived from them resemble recent advances in academic research. One example is the work of Mammadov (2022) , which draws attention to cognitive ability as the main predictor of academic performance, but also points to the relevance of conscientiousness, a personality trait associated with self-discipline and organization, which explains a significant part of the variability in academic performance. Mammadov also suggests that the influence of personality on performance varies by educational level, showing the dynamics between a student’s personality and his or her educational context. These findings demonstrate the need for educational strategies that promote both cognitive development and the reinforcement of positive personality traits.

Recent research on academic performance shows two consensuses. First, there is a growing understanding of the influence of the interaction between intrinsic and extrinsic factors, including pedagogical methods and motivational, emotional and cognitive elements, in improving the performance and satisfaction of students in higher education. The studies reviewed highlight the relevance of cognitive ability and personality traits such as consciousness, and promote a holistic educational approach that integrates the development of cognitive and personality dimensions. Second, academic achievement is recognized as a multidimensional construct, objectively assessed through quantitative indicators such as grade point average (GPA) and standardized assessment scores. These reflect the attainment of educational objectives and the accumulation of knowledge and skills over time.

1.2 Contextualization and characterization of critical thinking

Halpern (1998 ) argues that intrinsic effort and a willingness to analyze and solve complex problems are key competencies for learning and adapting to a constantly changing environment. According to Halpern (1998) CT transcends the mere acquisition of analytical skills and requires the development of an active predisposition to question assumptions, consider diverse perspectives, and persist in cognitive effort. This disposition is by no means innate, but can be cultivated through a pedagogy that explicitly integrates the teaching of critical skills such as logical analysis, argument evaluation, and information synthesis, and that emphasizes problem structuring to facilitate skill transfer and metacognitive self-regulation. Halpern proposes an educational framework that promotes the acquisition of these skills and encourages reflection on the thinking process so that students are able to apply CT effectively in diverse contexts and continuously improve. This methodical and structured approach characterizes CT as a set of advanced cognitive skills and an exercise of conscious judgment that is essential for informed, evidence-based decision making, which integrates non-cognitive elements ( Halpern and Dunn, 2023 ).

Throughout the development of the discourse on CT, various theories and their empirical foundations have evolved into meaningful educational practices, recognized in diverse academic settings. Meta-analyses, particularly those by Abrami et al. (2008 , 2015) have contributed significantly to the understanding of effective teaching of CT and have emphasized the need for specific and tailored teaching strategies that incorporate clear CT objectives into educational programs. These studies demonstrate that CT, defined as a process of intentional, self-regulated judgment that includes interpretation, analysis, evaluation, and inference, is increasingly recognized as essential in the knowledge era. Abrami et al. (2008) note that critical skills and dispositions are developed through explicit pedagogical interventions, as opposed to spontaneous acquisition, which challenges traditional pedagogical paradigms and fosters a shift towards intentional educational practices, placing students at the center of learning.

In addition, a more detailed analysis by Abrami et al. (2015) identifies that strategies that encourage interactive dialogue, confrontation with real problems, and individual tutorials are particularly effective. This suggests that active and meaningful learning outperforms traditional methods in the development of critical skills. This approach not only enhances students’ analytical and synthesis skills, but also facilitates the transfer of knowledge to new contexts, a key skill for the 21st century. The research reinforces the view that CT is a cross-cutting competency, crucial for navigating the complexity of contemporary challenges, and argues for an education that integrates these skills into all areas of learning.

Despite in-depth analyses of the need for CT, the growing discrepancy between rapid progress, the availability of information and the ability to critically analyze it poses a major challenge. Dwyer et al. (2014) point out that the exponential increase in global information has outpaced the ability of traditional education systems to teach effective CT skills, creating a gap that may inadequately prepare students for the challenges of today’s world. The authors argue that the ability to critically evaluate, synthesize, and apply knowledge is crucial for academic success and survival in the 21st century. This approach highlights how CT, by fostering analytical and reflective skills, transcends academia to positively impact individual and collective well-being, and argues for educational strategies that bridge the gap between information acquisition and critical analytical skills.

Recent research on this topic points to the indisputable relevance of CT as an essential component of academic performance and points to its role as a key predictor of success in educational processes. Rivas et al. (2023) show that CT transcends conventional cognitive skills. This is because CT is characterized as a rigorous practice that fosters in-depth analysis, critical evaluation and synthesis of information oriented to decision making and problem solving, fundamental skills to understand and apply knowledge in complex contexts. Research shows that CT skills not only maintain a positive correlation with academic performance, but can be significantly improved through targeted educational programs. For this reason, the authors advocate their integration into curricula and educational assessment systems to prepare students for the challenges of the 21st century, especially when phenomena such as artificial intelligence acquire greater prominence in social and professional dynamics ( Saiz and Rivas, 2023 ).

The literature on CT identifies two fundamental consensuses: first, it defines it as an intentional and deep process, oriented to problem solving and decision making, based on meticulous analysis that goes beyond logical reasoning to include a critical evaluation of the basis for judgments. In addition, it involves detailed scrutiny and integration of new information in changing contexts, as well as metacognition, i.e., conscious self-regulation of thinking that facilitates adaptation and continuous improvement of cognitive strategies in accordance with the major demands and obstacles of our first half century ( Dwyer, 2023 ). In its practical application, CT enables daily challenges to be met through informed judgments and a willingness to question and adjust perspectives in response to new information. Characterized by curiosity and adaptability, CT is essential for making responsible decisions and achieving successful outcomes, underscoring its practical value in both personal and professional settings.

Second, CT, beyond its theoretical value, can be conceived as a key theory of action for academic performance and PWB ( Saiz, 2020 ; Saiz and Rivas, 2023 ), by enhancing in individuals the ability to face and solve problems in an effective and grounded manner. CT involves crucial skills such as analysis, evaluation and synthesis, indispensable for acquiring and retaining knowledge, and also for applying it in new contexts, which improves academic performance and has, in principle, positive effects on quality of life. Thus, CT emerges as an academic competence and an essential tool for everyday life ( Dumitru and Halpern, 2023 ; Guamanga et al., 2023 ). Therefore, to synthesize theoretical paths with a practical function, we understand that “to think critically is to arrive at the best explanation of a fact, phenomenon or problem in order to know how to solve it effectively” ( Saiz, 2024 , p. 19).

1.3 Contextualization and characterization of psychological well-being

The task of relating concepts that are difficult to operationalize, such as well-being, is a major challenge; but it is necessary to approach it, more within a framework of CT understood as a means to achieve broad objectives than as an end in itself. Thinking critically transcends the mere application of skills or the accumulation of goal-oriented knowledge. In fact, it requires a detailed examination of the effect that such management has on the environment and how the satisfaction derived from reaching certain achievements is related to subjective aspects.

CT by its very deliberative and goal-oriented nature goes beyond the search for how to reach effective solutions and addresses a wider range of human and social consequences resulting from these actions ( Facione, 1990 ; Elder, 1997 ; Jahn, 2019 ). The idea is to involve non-cognitive aspects that occupy a central place in academia, and that are crucial in the interaction between specific knowledge and skills, elements widely explored in the discourse of CT. In this sense, PWB has been selected as the focus of study, recognizing it as a desirable attribute in educational processes. The challenges this poses are not lost sight of, especially when it comes to quantifying transient, subjective and normatively mediated judgments about what states or conditions are considered good, healthy or desirable in the complexity of human experience, as detailed by Flanagan et al. (2023) .

Ryff (1989 , 2013) , Ryff and Keyes (1995) contribution to the conceptual understanding and dissemination of PWB is notorious and highly valued in different fields of knowledge ( Van Dierendonck and Lam, 2023 ). The imprint of his research has been marked by criticism of a reductionist conception of PWB that simplifies well-being to the presence of positive affective states ( Ryff, 1989 ). Consequently, Ryff defends a much more complex multidimensional concept that seeks to attune the attainment of goals with the development of potentialities. Ryff’s thesis is that PWB is a multidimensional construct that transcends happiness or mere life satisfaction ( Ryff and Keyes, 1995 ).

Carol Ryff’s theory of PWB, based on humanistic, clinical and developmental psychology, as well as Aristotelian eudaimonia, focuses on self-actualization, the search for meaning and purpose in life as the core of well-being. As detailed in the text Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-being ( Ryff, 1989 ) the model consists of six dimensions that converge in personal development: autonomy, environmental mastery, personal growth, positive relations with others, purpose in life, and self-acceptance.

The first dimension, self-acceptance, implies a positive attitude towards oneself and an acceptance of all aspects of one’s identity, including both positive and negative qualities. As for positive relationships with others, Ryff states that these are interpersonal relationships characterized by warmth, trust and genuine concern for the well-being of others; this dimension is dominated by the value of empathy in human well-being. Autonomy is defined by an individual’s capacity to maintain independence and resist social pressures in order to regulate their behavior according to internal personal norms. This dimension emphasizes self-determination as a compass for the pursuit of well-being. On the other hand, environmental mastery emphasizes the ability to effectively manage and control the external environment, which implies a feeling of competence and control over personal and professional life. Finally, purpose in life and personal growth refer to the possession of goals, direction and a sense of development and fulfillment of one’s potential. These dimensions reflect the search for meaning and continuous personal evolution as fundamental components of PWB.

Ryff’s PWBS has established itself as a key instrument in positive psychology. Research after 1989 ( Ryff and Keyes, 1995 ; Ryff, 2013 ) has explored the variability of these dimensions with age and across genders. These studies showed the influence of sociodemographic factors on well-being, so the model has been extended to consider the development of PWB across the lifespan and determined by more contextual factors such as health. The approach enriches the understanding of PWB and denotes the practical relevance of the construct in fields such as mental health and social policy. Ryff’s work has inspired other researchers to discuss and extend its principles ( Van Dierendonck and Lam, 2023 ). For example, Huppert (2009) complements Ryff’s dimensions by emphasizing the management of negative emotions and resilience as key components of sustainable well-being; Huppert aligns this view with the World Health Organization (WHO) definition of health and adds a dynamic dimension on overcoming adversity. This theoretical and practical deepening demonstrates the robustness and adaptability of Ryff’s model. The synthesis of these contributions confirms the value and applicability of Ryff’s PWBS; they reveal how the eudaemonic model not only reinforces an academic discourse, but also guides practices that promote well-being in different contexts and consolidates itself as a vital field in human development.

However, due to the same complexity and extension of the PWB construct, Ryff’s PWBS has different observations that question its theoretical and statistical foundations. On the first aspect, the work of Disabato et al. (2016) , by examining the distinction between hedonic and eudaimonic well-being, problematizes the theoretical basis of this dichotomy. Through an analysis incorporating data from 7,617 individuals from 109 countries, the authors find that there is no clear distinction between hedonic well-being experiences, focused on pleasure, and eudaimonic ones, related to personal fulfillment. The results indicate a high correlation between the two types of well-being ( r  = 0.96). This suggests that people do not significantly differentiate between pleasure seeking and self-fulfillment in their perception of well-being. This implies that the hedonic-eudaimonic dichotomy may not hold empirically and, therefore, a unified model of well-being that reflects the current behavioral dynamics should be sought.

From a statistical perspective, Ryff and Keyes (1995) analyses show that the PWBS, composed of 18 items, meets psychometric criteria and shows strong internal and moderate correlations among different scales. Correlations between dimensions range from low to modest (0.13 to 0.46), suggesting that each dimension addresses unique aspects of well-being. From the theoretical model, this diversity underscores that, although interrelated, the dimensions represent unique aspects of psychological well-being. In terms of specific results, studies indicate that with age the dimensions of environmental mastery and autonomy increase, while purpose in life and personal growth tend to decrease, with no significant changes in self-acceptance and positive relationships with others. Women outperform men on positive relationships with others and personal growth, suggesting that changes in these dimensions reflect evolving priorities and perceptions of personal development across the life span ( Ryff and Keyes, 1995 ).

On the number of dimensions of PWBS, Blasco-Belled and Alsinet (2022) note that the six-dimensional theoretical model has generated debate even among experts in the field. Some suggest that a four-dimensional model-environmental mastery, personal growth, purpose in life, and self-acceptance-might represent a second-order PWB factor, indicating a possible conceptual overlap between Ryff’s original dimensions; others exclude positive relationships with others and autonomy from the model. The study of Ryff’s PWBS by network analysis conducted by Blasco-Belled and Alsinet (2022) shows four different dimensions, in one of these, the most important node of the network, self-acceptance, purpose in life and environmental mastery are grouped, with special emphasis on self-acceptance because of its centrality in the network at the item level.

In the Spanish-speaking context, Nogueira et al. (2023) identified three main factors: autonomy, positive relationships with others, and competence. This suggests that PWBS may vary according to cultural and contextual factors. Furthermore, although it is not a study analyzing the dimensions of Ryff’s PWBS, the study by Páez-Gallego et al. (2020) applied the PWBS to Spanish adolescent students and found a strong positive correlation with the use of adaptive decision-making strategies. Specifically, the findings show that the adaptive approach is significantly associated with improvements in self-acceptance, environmental mastery, and purpose in life. In contrast, maladaptive strategies characterized by impulsivity and avoidance are associated with lower PWB. From this we infer that fostering effective decision-making skills is important for well-being and, in particular, we identify from empirical studies the dimensions of PWBS that correlate with post decisional skills.

Taken together, these findings suggest that Ryff’s PWBS, although pioneering and widely used, could benefit from revision to more accurately reflect the structure of PWB and its application in diverse cultural and educational contexts. The convergence of evidence from factorial and network analysis perspectives points to the need for a more integrated and adaptive model capable of capturing the complexity and dynamics of the underlying constructs. This underscores the continuing interest in PWB in research and practice. It is also an indication of the ongoing scholarly debate about its conceptualization and measurement. The recurrence of dimensions such as self-acceptance, environmental mastery, and purpose in life across analyses suggests a common core of PWB. This raises the question of whether these dimensions can be conceptually aligned with academic achievement and CT. In addition, questioning the boundaries between hedonic and eudaimonic raises the issue of whether a broader construct is needed to analyze well-being in educational settings. In this context, we start from the premise that self-acceptance, environmental mastery, and purpose in life are sufficient to explore college students’ PWB. These dimensions reflect students’ ability to recognize their strengths and weaknesses, set goals, and navigate effectively in their educational environment, aspects that could be considered part of the dispositional component necessary for the development of higher-level competencies such as those of the CT.

The research brings to empirical analysis the complex interplay between CT, PWB, and academic performance in the university context. We seek to answer how CT skills and PWB influence college students’ academic performance; and, how CT practices can be aligned with PWB to improve academic performance. We propose that the study variables converge in both a theoretical and an empirical model. The argumentative strategy consists of analyzing the direct impact of CT on academic performance, assessing whether PWB correlates with better academic outcomes, examining in detail the predictive factor of the relationship between CT and PWB on academic performance, and finally, according to the data obtained, proposing some dialogic bridges between cognitive and non-cognitive aspects of CT.

2 Methodology

2.1 participants.

The study involved 128 first-year psychology students from a Spanish public university. The vast majority were women (83.1%), with only 16.9% men, which is usual in social sciences and humanities degrees. Age ranged from 18 to 33 years, with a mean of 19.28 (SD = 1.73). The sample was essentially composed of students who had completed secondary education (75.3% of the students were 19 years old). Between the ages of the students according to sex — females ( M  = 19.09, SD = 0.814) and males ( M  = 20.20, SD = 3.78) — there were no statistical differences, but the age of the males was not only higher, but also more dispersed.

2.2 Instruments

The instruments applied were Ryff’s PWBS in its Spanish adaptation ( Díaz et al., 2006 ) and the PENCRISAL critical thinking test ( Saiz and Rivas, 2008 ; Rivas and Saiz, 2012 ). For academic performance, the academic records of the students participating in the critical thinking course in the first year of the psychology graduation were collected. The grades have an ascending interval from 1 to 10.

Ryff’s PWBS as mentioned in the previous discussion has different models. This instrument aims to measure psychological well-being, focusing on students’ own evaluations of their situations and perceived success in various aspects of life and personal development. It explores well-being through six main dimensions, self-acceptance (α: 0.83), positive relationships with others (α: 0.81), environmental mastery (α: 0.71), autonomy (α: 0.73), purpose in life (α: 0.83) and personal growth (α: 0.68). The questionnaire consists of 39 items, presented in a Likert scale format ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree) ( Díaz et al., 2006 ).

Consistent with the complexity of the scale and some data in common with other studies, we have chosen to consider only self-acceptance, environmental mastery and purpose in life. In support of this methodological decision, we have performed with our sample an exploratory factor analysis (principal components method) to see if these three dimensions converge in the same factor. The data confirm this convergence and show that this single factor has an eigenvalue of 2.43 and explains a very high value of the variance of its results (81.1%).

In the case of the PENCRISAL, the full version was applied, and the score was taken for each of the five dimensions and the total score. The PENCRISAL was applied to measure CT skills. This test consists of 35 problem situations that participants answer in an open-response format. The test is organized into five key areas: deductive reasoning, inductive reasoning, practical reasoning, decision making and problem solving.

The deductive and inductive component tests different forms of reasoning, such as propositional, categorical, causal, analogical and hypothetical. Decision-making measures the ability to make probabilistic judgments and to effectively use heuristics to identify potential biases. The problem-solving section poses participants with general and specific problems that require appropriate solution strategies. These sections are intended to encourage the application of strategies necessary for effective problem planning. The open-ended question format encourages participants to justify their answers, which are evaluated using a scoring system that rates the quality of their responses on a scale of 0 to 2. Responses are converted into numerical scores using item-specific criteria. These are used to describe and identify the thinking mechanisms underlying each response. A score of 0 indicates that the answer is incorrect, 1 indicates that the answer is correct but no or inadequate justification is provided, and 2 indicates that the answer is correct and adequate justification is provided. The PENCRISAL yields an overall score of the CT ranging between 0 and 70 and between 0 and 14 for each dimension. Reliability assessments show satisfactory accuracy, with a minimum Cronbach’s Alpha of 0.632 and a test–retest reliability of 0.786 ( Rivas and Saiz, 2012 ). The test is administered online through the SelectSurvey.NET V5 platform.

2.3 Procedures

Students gave their free and informed consent to participate in the study. The PWBS was carried out at the beginning of the semester of the CT course. The PENCRISAL test was taken at the beginning and at the end of the academic period. Only the results of students who completed both instruments are considered. Academic performance is represented by the grade obtained by students at the end of the course. Statistical analyses were performed with IBM/SPSS version 29.0. After performing the descriptive statistics, we proceeded to a correlation analysis and, finally, we evaluated the impact of the PWBS and the CT on the variance of academic performance by performing a regression analysis.

Table 1 presents the descriptive data of the students’ scores on the two instruments applied, and the measure of academic performance. In addition to the minimum and maximum values, the mean, standard deviation and indicators of skewness and kurtosis of the distribution of the results are presented.

Table 1 . Descriptive statistics for the measures used ( n  = 128).

Observing the results, we can see a distribution with a slight tendency towards values above the mean (m = 79.80) for the PWBS, which is reflected in a negative skewness (−0.437). With respect to the five dimensions of CT, it can be stated globally that the mean value of DR, IR and PS is moving away from the maximum value observed and towards the minimum value, which represents a positive symmetry. The opposite situation occurs with the RP dimension. Regarding the TCT, the data show a tendency to scores around the mean (m = 37.21), as can be deduced from the residual values of skewness and kurtosis. Regarding the AP, the data suggest a balanced distribution of academic scores around an intermediate value between 3.66 and 9.01 as scores at the lower and upper extremes (m = 6.10), with very low skewness and kurtosis.

In general, the results show good variability or dispersion, since the mean of each variable is located in the center of the data interval, which is desirable in research to adequately represent the population studied. Skewness and kurtosis indices close to zero for academic achievement are especially indicative of a normal or Gaussian distribution of values. The slightly higher kurtosis in the IR dimension of CT (2.248) is still acceptable.

Table 2 shows the correlations between the variables in this study. Since these were interval metric variables, Pearson’s product x moment method was used to calculate the correlations. For statistical significance, the two-tailed test was used and p  < 0.05 was set as the limit of significance.

Table 2 . Correlations between study variables.

According to the data, the highest correlation is found between TCT and AP, with the lowest correlation being between CT and PWBS measurement (no correlation). At an intermediate level is the correlation between PWBS and AP. Likewise, all the dimensions of the CT correlate with the AP with values between 0.183 (PS) and 0.337 (PR). As can be seen, there are variations in the correlations among the five dimensions of the CT, but all have high correlations with the total score (between 0.502 and 0.668). In this sense, only the TCT score is used for the regression statistical analysis.

In summary, the data suggest that there is a significant and positive relationship between PWBS and AP, as well as an even stronger and more significant relationship between TCT and AP. There is no evidence of a significant relationship between PWBS and TCT. To further explore the relationships between cognitive and noncognitive variables in AP, we turned to a regression analysis. We opted for a linear regression with PWBS and TCT as predictors and AP as the criterion or dependent variable. Table 3 presents the regression values obtained.

Table 3 . Impact of psychological well-being and critical thinking on academic performance.

The regression model was found to be statistically significant, with an F -value (2, 88) = 18.571, p  < 0.001. This indicates that, collectively, PWBS and TCT provide significant prediction of AP. The coefficient of determination (R 2 adj.) is 0.285, which means that approximately 30% of the variability in AP can be explained by the independent variables in the model. As can be seen from the t -values and significance, both variables have a significant impact on AP, although TCT has a greater impact.

In a complementary manner, with the objective of enriching the analysis of the influence of the CT on the PA, we have included additional measures to the grade obtained by the students in the course (NCT), such as the selectivity grade with which they entered the university (NEBAU), the average grade of the transcript (NMEXP), that is, the grades of the other courses that the students must take, and the pretest results obtained with the PENCRISAL (PCT). The data obtained are recorded in Table 4 .

Table 4 . Correlations between study variables and complementary measures.

Table 4 shows that the relationship between PWBS and NMEXP has a Pearson correlation of 0.075, with a p -value of 0.372. This low correlation indicates that the connection is minimal. In contrast, the relationship between TCT and NMEXP shows a stronger correlation of 0.464**, suggesting a moderate positive association. The significance of this correlation, less than 0.001, indicates a statistically significant relationship, which implies that this result is not likely to be a coincidence. A similar case occurs with the relationship between NEBAU and NMEXP.

Given this context, if we perform a multiple linear regression analysis with NMEXP as the dependent variable and PWBS and TCT as independent variables, we would expect TCT to have a more significant impact on NMEXP. This projection is based on the statistically significant correlation of these variables. On the other hand, NEBAU has a slightly lower correlation with NMEXP compared to TCT (0.455 vs. 0.464), but the difference is very small, indicating that both have similar impact capacity for NMEXP in terms of linear correlation.

Confirmation of these hypotheses by appropriate regression analysis will provide a more detailed and accurate understanding of how PWBS and TCT individually contribute to the prediction of NMEXP, considering the influence of interrelated variables. However, in performing this procedure, a reduction in sample size to only 64 cases were observed. This increases the risk of failing to detect significant differences or could lead to unstable effect estimates.

4 Discussion and conclusions

The CT seeks to understand and effectively solve problems, through a correct approach, the generation of solution alternatives filtered by the mechanism of explanation and the selection of a solution, all with the aim of achieving a desired change. The PENCRISAL test is based on this defining framework of the CT ( Saiz and Rivas, 2008 ; Rivas and Saiz, 2012 ). Therefore, if we start from this concept and look at the data, we can conclude that the CT is a good predictor of academic performance.

Table 2 shows a positive and moderate correlation (0.514) between the CT and academic performance, suggesting that an increase in the CT is associated with an improvement in academic performance. Meanwhile, Table 3 shows — with a B coefficient of 0.074 and a Beta of 0.473 — that CT has a stronger relationship with academic performance compared to PWBS. This means that for every unit increase in CT, academic performance increases on average 0.074 units, and this effect is considerably significant in the model. The robust correlation and the impact indicated as a dependent variable highlight that the CT is a determinant competence of academic performance and is suggested as a relevant diagnostic and formative tool in the educational field. Although it is not the only factor that influences academic performance, the CT is presented as a significant predictor and one that can be worked on or trained in the classroom.

Declaratively, the current study coincides with other results obtained and recorded in Rivas et al. (2023) . On that occasion, the authors found that CT is a predictor of academic performance and that the benefits of instruction can be sustained over time. The study showed a correlation between CT and academic performance of 0.32. The main difference between these two studies concerns the objectives. The previous study did not attend to the explicit discussion of how CT could influence well-being, or vice versa. The current work recovers this line and incorporates non-cognitive variables in the analysis framework to account for well-being, under the assumption that this construct should have a significant impact on academic performance.

More generally, if we consider that, although the construct intelligence is not the same as CT, they do have several points of convergence ( Butler et al., 2017 ), then we can establish a dialogue with other studies on the factors that influence academic performance. Intelligence represents the intrinsic capacity to learn, understand, reason, and meet challenges through problem solving to adapt to the environment ( Sternberg, 1985 ). This cognitive potentiality manifests itself in various ways, being the CT one of its most relevant expressions, particularly in situations that demand deep analysis, evaluation, and decisions based on logical reasoning ( Saiz, 2024 ). The CT, therefore, acts as an essential tool that intelligence employs to effectively navigate through complex and challenging real-world situations ( Halpern and Butler, 2018 ).

In this conceptual line, the current results partially coincide with studies that have shown that the best predictors of academic performance are cognitive components, such as measures of general intelligence, analogical reasoning, fluid intelligence, logical, verbal and quantitative reasoning ( Morales-Vives et al., 2020 ; Mammadov, 2022 ); as well as scores on the diagnostic and university entrance test ( Gilar-Corbi et al., 2020 ).

In our study the other factor of analysis was the PWB. Although due to its non-cognitive nature it would be per se at a disadvantage compared to cognitive factors, the data also show that its inclusion in educational research, especially to account for academic performance, is significant. In Table 2 , the analysis of the correlation between PWBS and academic performance reveals a positive relationship with a correlation coefficient of 0.336. Although the correlation is moderate and not as strong as that observed between CT and academic performance, it is still significant and should not be ignored in the pursuit of improving students’ academic performance. Table 3 shows that PWBS has a positive and significant influence on the dependent variable. The standardized coefficient (Beta) of 0.271 indicates that there is a positive relationship between PWBS and academic achievement. The unstandardized coefficient (B) shows that, holding all other variables constant, for each unit increase in PWBS, academic performance increases on average 0.022 units. This relationship, supported by a low standard error of 0.007, points to a moderate but significant contribution of PWBS compared to other variables.

These findings show that the integration of some aspects of PWBS could be an effective strategy to improve academic performance, evidencing a beneficial and significant relationship between both aspects. PWB can influence academic performance through non-cognitive conditions or factors involved in learning, such as motivation, academic satisfaction, effective coping with stress or anxiety, and the acceptance and management of limitations related to the process of appropriation and adaptation to one’s own identity.

However, it is important to emphasize that the PWB is a construct that requires careful theoretical and empirical review in the educational context, as the Ryff scale has open debates and the lack of uniqueness of criteria on the number of dimensions influences these results. To cite just one case, we have used three dimensions out of six, with statistical and literature support, but the data may be different with a different selection approach. This finding highlights the importance of students’ PWB as part of a comprehensive educational strategy, but also shows that the direct impact of PWB on academic performance may be less pronounced than the impact of cognitive skills, and that due to its very multidimensional and complex nature, it is not easy to converge in an instructional design. Despite this, higher education institutions can take care of the institutional and relational climate so that students feel good and take advantage of the formative and educational opportunities of the academic environment. In the case of CT, there are concrete and validated training strategies that make it possible to improve skills such as argumentation, explanation, problem solving and decision making ( Guamanga et al., 2023 ; Saiz, 2024 ). On the PWB side, the same cannot be said due to the lack of empirical support; however, some studies have proposed a path that incorporates socio-emotional competences in the training of CT, a proposal characterized by the cognitive-emotional methodology, with interesting results that still need to be explored and debated ( Hanna, 2013 ).

Table 2 shows low and non-significant correlations between PWBS and the different forms of reasoning (deductive, inductive and practical), as well as with decision making and problem solving. For example, the correlation between PWBS and deductive reasoning is −0.082, which is not only low, but also lacks statistical significance. Additionally, the correlation between PWBS and decision making is −0.132, which is also a low correlation and not significant. Although there is a positive correlation between PWBS and problem solving (0.040), it is very low and not statistically significant, so there is not enough evidence to claim a positive relationship between these variables. This reinforces the idea that there is not a direct and significant relationship between how a student feels psychologically and CT skills or, nuanced is not supported by the data from this sample. It is possible that there are unexamined mediating factors that influence these relationships or that the relationship exists in a different context or with different measures.

The results of the present study do not coincide with other research that has shown positive relationships between decision-making and PWBS, especially with self-acceptance, environmental mastery, and purpose in life. The study by Páez-Gallego et al. (2020) addresses this issue by exploring how the PWBS of adolescents in Madrid, Spain, is linked to their decision-making methods. The research concludes that there is a positive correlation between the use of adaptive decision-making strategies and PWBS. Adolescents who opt for a rational and systematic evaluation of available options report higher levels of well-being. Specifically, adaptive decision-making style correlates significantly with overall well-being (0.544) and with aspects such as self-acceptance (0.485), positive relationships with others (0.242), environmental mastery (0.472), autonomy (0.359), purpose in life (0.473), and personal growth (0.346). In contrast, those who resort to maladaptive strategies, marked by impulsivity or avoidance, show reduced PWBS (−0.458).

The discrepancy in results with this study could be due to the difference between the instruments used to assess decision making. While Páez-Gallego et al. (2020) used the Flinders Adolescent Decision Making Questionnaire (FADMQ), which focuses on personal perceptions and experiences of decision making, our study uses the PENCRISAL, which although not limited to decision making, does include this ability as an essential component of the CT. The latter measures the ability to identify, analyze and solve everyday problems through items that simulate real situations, assessing the ability to choose the best solution or action strategy. Because the PENCRISAL responses are open-ended, it allows for a detailed assessment of how participants describe or explain their decisions. Ultimately, the fundamental difference between these two measures is that one is a self-report of perceptions and experiences, while the other is a set of problems to be solved correctly; in other words, one collects impressions of decision making and the other collects realized decision making. Therefore, although both studies applied Ryff’s PWBS, the differences between instruments and approach to decision making explain the variations in the results. This divergence evidences the relevance of considering the context and the specific instrument when interpreting the relationship between the PWBS and decision making.

Despite these findings, the need to further explore these interactions persists, especially given that the three selected dimensions-self-acceptance, environmental mastery, and life purpose-theoretically align with CT approaches focused on explanation and the development of post decisional skills, such as decision making and problem solving ( Guamanga et al., 2023 ). A CT approach that emphasizes the development of these skills must consider effects that transcend immediate or tangible outcomes. Therefore, it is crucial to understand how the concept of PWB, as examined above, relates to CT. Specifically, it must be determined whether some of these dimensions align directly to foster effective CT, or whether they instead lean more towards a conception of well-being in a more general sense, which could include hedonic aspects.

The emphasis on CT oriented to decision making and problem solving through the analysis of explanations and causalities should be evaluated for its pragmatic effects on PWB. At first glance this idea seems to confront parallel concepts paradoxically united by the same diachronic nature. In the case of the CT, this nature explains the high demands placed on it. For example, it is not enough to say that it contributes to tangible improvements in academic performance, but its usefulness is expected to transcend beyond academia and materialize in skills of interest to organizations in all sectors of the economy ( Casner-Lotto and Barrington, 2006 ; Atanasiu, 2021 ). However, their practical impact still presents serious challenges, especially when students, as active subjects of learning, face limitations in anticipating the usefulness and applicability of these critical skills for the future. This is partly explained by the fact that the educational system prioritizes academic performance over the comprehensive development required later in the professional sphere ( Saiz, 2020 ). Which means that the CT can be interpreted as an unfulfilled or partial promise. It is certainly a reading that omits the particular contexts, interests, motivations and concerns of students while they are part of these instructional programs and then the same factors analyzed by a student who knows that he or she must make the transition to the professional field.

A similar case happens with PWB as a diachronic phenomenon. An instant in time is not enough to understand and analyze students’ PWB. It is necessary to focus on how it changes and evolves through different stages, including through feelings of achievement or frustration in the academic process. Thus, it is recognized that PWB is not static and, therefore, evolves through lived experiences, among them, those comprising the applicability of a series of learned skills. This implies that as diachronic phenomena they can evolve and influence each other over time. This approach requires longitudinal studies to follow the evolution of the impact of curricular interventions aimed at strengthening cognitive skills such as those of the CT, in order to understand how these may influence the PWB in the long term.

The limitations of this study, beyond having a small sample that prevents the generalization of the results or having examined only certain dimensions of the PWBS, added to the theoretical impossibility of performing regression analyses with other performance measures, lie in the diachronic nature of the constructs studied. This characteristic makes it difficult, as has been argued, to give a definitive answer on the relationship.

Within the framework of the PWBS triad model we are analyzing, it is possible to theoretically group several key concepts. The development of the CT involves a process of self-acceptance, which is crucial given our inherent tendency for error. This process allows us, through a reflective evaluation of our past and present, to recognize and accept beliefs that we have discarded as erroneous. This self-acceptance facilitates deeper introspection, allowing us to see these errors as essential learning opportunities in our lives. On the other hand, any model that emphasizes post-decisional skills must also consider the non-linear complexity of our reality, and provide solid criteria for problem solving and decision making to master our environment more effectively. This is what allows us to adapt better, both biologically and socially. Finally, this approach to TC inevitably values purpose in life by seeking to ensure that it is in part determined by integrating the best tools of science, philosophy and education for a more effective life orientation, grounded in the principles of rationality. The importance of setting clear goals, recognizing that their achievement requires effort, discipline and determination, is essential to being an effective critical thinker.

Therefore, although each dimension proposed by Ryff’s PWBS possesses a conceptual richness that requires empirical validation, the dimensions selected for this study are aligned with a model of CT focused on problem solving and real-world decision making. Although we aspired to discover stronger links between PWB and CT, and to deepen their interrelationship, the theoretical parallelism analyzed is also reflected in the empirical results. Moreover, PWB as an operational concept, due to its complexity and multidimensionality, is subject to continuous revisions or possible unifications into a broader notion of well-being.

In future research on this topic, it is essential to include a broader set of variables predictive of academic performance. This includes, but is not limited to, students’ selectivity record and cumulative grades in other subjects. In addition, a more solid and theoretically robust concept of well-being must be adopted, one that fits contemporary educational and professional demands. This concept must transcend the simple distinction between eudaemonic and hedonic well-being, and address its diachronic nature. It is important to explore how these dimensions of well-being are interrelated, either as cause or effect; and to examine whether CT fosters a virtuous circle with well-being.

Data availability statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material; further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Ethics statement

Written informed consent was obtained from the individual(s) for the publication of any potentially identifiable images or data included in this article.

Author contributions

MG: Writing – original draft, Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – review & editing. CS: Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Validation, Writing – original draft. SR: Data curation, Investigation, Supervision, Validation, Writing – review & editing. LA: Formal analysis, Methodology, Validation, Writing – review & editing.

The author(s) declare that financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. This study was funded by the Universidad de Salamanca, Spain.

Conflict of interest

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

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Abrami, P. C., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Waddington, D. I., Wade, C. A., and Persson, T. (2015). Strategies for teaching students to think critically. Rev. Educ. Res. 85, 275–314. doi: 10.3102/0034654314551063

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Abrami, P. C., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Wade, A., Surkes, M. A., Tamim, R., et al. (2008). Instructional interventions affecting critical thinking skills and dispositions: a stage 1 Meta-analysis. Rev. Educ. Res. 78, 1102–1134. doi: 10.3102/0034654308326084

Acee, T. W., Cho, Y. J., Kim, J.-I., and Weinstein, C. E. (2012). Relationships among properties of college students’ self-set academic goals and academic achievement. Educ. Psychol. 32, 681–698. doi: 10.1080/01443410.2012.712795

Alonso-Borrego, C., and Romero-Medina, A. (2016). Wage expectations for higher education students in Spain. Labour 30, 1–17. doi: 10.1111/labr.12072

Atanasiu, R. (2021). Critical thinking for managers: structured decision-making and persuasion in business. Management for professionals . Cham: Springer International Publishing.

Google Scholar

Bailin, S., Case, R., Coombs, J. R., and Daniels, L. B. (1999). Conceptualizing critical thinking. J. Curric. Stud. 31, 285–302. doi: 10.1080/002202799183133

Blasco-Belled, A., and Alsinet, C. (2022). The architecture of psychological well-being: a network analysis study of the Ryff psychological well-being scale. Scand. J. Psychol. 63, 199–207. doi: 10.1111/sjop.12795

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Butler, H. A., Pentoney, C., and Bong, M. P. (2017). Predicting real-world outcomes: critical thinking ability is a better predictor of life decisions than intelligence. Think. Skills Creat. 25, 38–46. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2017.06.005

Casanova, J. R., Cervero, A., Núñez, J. C., Almeida, L. S., and Bernardo, A. (2018). Factors that determine the persistence and dropout of university students. Psicothema 30, 408–414. doi: 10.7334/psicothema2018.155

Casner-Lotto, J., and Barrington, L. (2006). Are they really ready to work? Employers’ perspectives on the basic knowledge and applied skills of new entrants to the 21st century U.S. Workforce . United States: Conference Board: Partnership for 21st Century Skills: Corporate Voices for Working Families: Society for Human Resource Management.

Díaz, D., Rodríguez-Carvajal, R., Blanco, A., Moreno-Jiménez, B., Gallardo, I., Valle, C., et al. (2006). Spanish adaptation of the psychological well-being scales (PWBS). Psicothema 18, 572–577

PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar

Disabato, D. J., Goodman, F. R., Kashdan, T. B., Short, J. L., and Jarden, A. (2016). Different types of well-being? A cross-cultural examination of hedonic and Eudaimonic well-being. Psychol. Assess. 28, 471–482. doi: 10.1037/pas0000209

Dumitru, D., and Halpern, D. F. (2023). Critical thinking: creating job-proof skills for the future of work. J. Intelligence 11:194. doi: 10.3390/jintelligence11100194

Dwyer, C. P. (2023). An evaluative review of barriers to critical thinking in educational and real-world settings. J. Intelligence 11:105. doi: 10.3390/jintelligence11060105

Dwyer, C. P., Michael, J. H., and Ian, S. (2014). “An Integrated Critical Thinking Framework for the 21st Century.” Thinking Skills and Creativity 12, 43–52. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2013.12.004

Elder, L. (1997). Critical thinking: the key to emotional intelligence. J. Dev. Educ. Available at: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:140360538

Ennis, R. H. (2015). “Critical thinking: a streamlined conception” in The Palgrave handbook of critical thinking in higher education . eds. M. Davies and R. Barnett (New York: Palgrave Macmillan US), 31–47.

Facione, P. A. (1990). Critical thinking: A statement of expert consensus for purposes of educational assessment and instruction. ‘The Delphi Report.’ : The California Academic Press Available at: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED315423.pdf .

Flanagan, O., LeDoux, J. E., Bingle, B., Haybron, D. M., Mesquita, B., Moody-Adams, M., et al. (2023). Against Happiness . New York: Columbia University Press.

Frick, B., and Maihaus, M. (2016). The structure and determinants of expected and actual starting salaries of higher education students in Germany: identical or different? Educ. Econ. 24, 374–392. doi: 10.1080/09645292.2015.1110115

Gilar-Corbi, R., Pozo-Rico, T., Castejón, J.-L., Sánchez, T., Sandoval-Palis, I., and Vidal, J. (2020). Academic achievement and failure in university studies: motivational and emotional factors. Sustainability 12:9798. doi: 10.3390/su12239798

Guamanga, M. H., González, F. A., Saiz, C., and Rivas, S. F. (2023). Critical thinking: the ARDESOS-DIAPROVE program in dialogue with the inference to the best and only explanation. J. Intelligence 11:226. doi: 10.3390/jintelligence11120226

Halpern, D. F. (1998). Teaching critical thinking for transfer across domains: disposition, skills, structure training, and metacognitive monitoring. Am. Psychol. 53, 449–455. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.53.4.449

Halpern, D. F., and Butler, H. A. (2018). “Is critical thinking a better model of intelligence?” in The nature of human intelligence . ed. R. J. Sternberg (New York, NY, US: Cambridge University Press), 183–196.

Halpern, D. F., and Dunn, D. S. (2023). Thought and knowledge: an introduction to critical thinking . 6th Edn. New York: Routledge.

Hanna, E. P. (2013). A cognitive emotional methodology for critical thinking. Adv. Appl. Sociol. 3, 20–25. doi: 10.4236/aasoci.2013.31003

Huppert, F. A. (2009). Psychological Well‐being: Evidence Regarding its Causes and Consequences. Appl. Psychol.: Health and Well-Being 1, 137–64. doi: 10.1111/j.1758-0854.2009.01008.x

Jahn, D. (2019). “Verantwortung für das eigene Denken und Handeln übernehmen: Impulse zur Förderung von kritischem Denken in der Lehre” in Kritische Hochschullehre . eds. D. Jahn, A. Kenner, D. Kergel, and B. Heidkamp-Kergel (Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden), 19–46.

Jahn, D., and Kenner, A. (2018). “Critical thinking in higher education: how to Foster it using digital media” in The digital turn in higher education . eds. D. Kergel, B. Heidkamp, P. K. Telléus, T. Rachwal, and S. Nowakowski (Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden), 81–109.

Mammadov, S. (2022). Big five personality traits and academic performance: a Meta-analysis. J. Pers. 90, 222–255. doi: 10.1111/jopy.12663

Morales-Vives, F., Camps, E., and Dueñas, J. M. (2020). Predicting academic achievement in adolescents: the role of maturity, intelligence and personality. Psicothema 32, 84–91. doi: 10.7334/psicothema2019.262

Nogueira, C., Risoto, M. A., and Meier, L. K. (2023). Evaluación de La Escala de Bienestar Psicológico de Ryff Para Estudiantes Universitarios. Revista Iberoamericana de Diagnóstico y Evaluación – e Avaliação Psicológica 70, 161–174. doi: 10.21865/RIDEP70.4.12

Oliván Blázquez, B., Masluk, B., Gascon, S., Fueyo Díaz, R., Aguilar-Latorre, A., Artola Magallón, I., et al. (2019). The use of flipped classroom as an active learning approach improves academic performance in social work: a randomized trial in a university. PLoS One 14, 1–15. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0214623

Páez-Gallego, J., Gallardo-López, J. A., López-Noguero, F., and Rodrigo-Moriche, M. P. (2020). Analysis of the relationship between psychological well-being and decision making in adolescent students. Front. Psychol. 11:1195. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01195

Rivas, S. F., and Saiz, C. (2012). Validación y Propiedades Psicométricas de La Prueba de Pensamiento Crítico PENCRISAL. Revista Electrónica de Metodología Aplicada 17, 18–34.

Rivas, S. F., Saiz, C., and Almeida, L. S. (2023). The role of critical thinking in predicting and improving academic performance. Sustainability 15:1527. doi: 10.3390/su15021527

Ryff, C. D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-being. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 57, 1069–1081. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.57.6.1069

Ryff, C. D. (2013). Psychological well-being revisited: advances in the science and practice of Eudaimonia. Psychother. Psychosom. 83, 10–28. doi: 10.1159/000353263

Ryff, C. D., and Keyes, C. L. M. (1995). The structure of psychological well-being revisited. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 69, 719–727. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.69.4.719

Saiz, C. (2020). Pensamiento crítico y eficacia . 2nd Edn. Madrid: Ediciones Pirámide.

Saiz, C. (2024). “Pensamiento crítico y cambio” in Psicología . 2nd ed (Madrid: Ediciones Pirámide).

Saiz, C., and Rivas, S. F. (2008). Evaluación En Pensamiento Crítico: Una Propuesta Para Diferenciar Formas de Pensar. Ergo, Nueva Época 22, 25–66.

Saiz, C., and Rivas, S. F. (2023). Critical thinking, formation, and change. J. Intelligence 11:219. doi: 10.3390/jintelligence11120219

Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Beyond IQ: a Triarchic theory of human intelligence . New York, NY, US: Cambridge University Press.

Van Dierendonck, D., and Lam, H. (2023). Interventions to enhance eudaemonic psychological well-being: a meta-analytic review with Ryff’s scales of psychological well-being. Appl. Psychol. Health Well Being 15, 594–610. doi: 10.1111/aphw.12398

Keywords: critical thinking, psychological well-being, academic performance, higher education, assessment

Citation: Guamanga MH, Saiz C, Rivas SF and Almeida LS (2024) Analysis of the contribution of critical thinking and psychological well-being to academic performance. Front. Educ . 9:1423441. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2024.1423441

Received: 25 April 2024; Accepted: 28 June 2024; Published: 16 July 2024.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2024 Guamanga, Saiz, Rivas and Almeida. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Carlos Saiz, [email protected]

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

More From Forbes

5 Interview Questions That Gauge Critical Thinking Skills

• Share to Facebook
• Share to Twitter
• Share to Linkedin

As a job candidate, you're likely to encounter interview questions designed to assess your critical thinking skills. Employers highly value these skills because they demonstrate your ability to analyze information, solve problems creatively, and make sound decisions. In a world filled with AI, an overabundance of data, increasingly rapid decision-making, and greater autonomy with remote work, critical thinking skills are atop employers' lists of desired candidate traits.

Questions That Assess Critical Thinking Skills

Every company will put their own spin of critical thinking interview questions, but here are five of the most common questions that you should be ready to answer:

• Tell me about a time you had to solve a complex problem at work. What was your approach?
• What do you think are the three biggest challenges facing our industry right now? How would you address them?
• Describe a time when you had to make an important decision with limited information or time. How did you handle it?
• Tell me about a time your initial approach to solving a problem didn't work. How did you pivot?
• If you were in charge of our company, what's one major change you would make and why?

The good news with these five questions is that if you construct good answers for each of them, you'll be well-positioned to handle any other variations you come across.

Best High-Yield Savings Accounts Of 2024

Best 5% interest savings accounts of 2024, key points, words and themes to included in your response.

When you're answering critical thinking interview questions, it's vital for you to demonstrate how you analyze situations, assess and solve challenges, and reflect and learn from your experiences. And that's where the SHER Method can be especially helpful.

The SHER Method is a structured approach to answering interview questions that stands for Situation, Hurdle, Endgame, and Reflection. When using this method, you start by briefly describing the Situation or context of the experience you're sharing. Next, you explain the Hurdle or challenge you faced. Then, you detail the Endgame, which includes the actions you took to address the challenge and the results you achieved. Finally, you conclude with a Reflection, sharing what you learned from the experience and how it has influenced your subsequent professional conduct.

The SHER Method is particularly powerful for demonstrating critical thinking skills because it guides candidates to systematically analyze a situation, identify challenges, explain their problem-solving process, and reflect on outcomes and lessons learned. It showcases your ability to think critically and learn from experiences in a structured and compelling way. And that's really the foundation of critical thinking skills.

When answering critical thinking interview questions, keep these points in mind:

• Use specific examples from your experience
• Clearly explain your thought process and reasoning
• Demonstrate a systematic approach to problem-solving
• Show that you consider multiple perspectives
• Emphasize data-driven decision making
• Highlight your ability to adapt and learn from experiences
• Be prepared to discuss both successes and failures
• Show how you've applied lessons learned to future situations

Specific Answers To Critical Thinking Interview Questions

Let's look at some specific answers to some of the aforementioned questions that assess critical thinking skills.

Question 1: Tell me about a time you had to solve a complex problem at work. What was your approach?

Why is this an important question that is often included in interviews? It's because there is no shortage of complex problems that need solving, and when a company is making a big hire, it hopes the candidate has some good solutions.

In your answer, describe the complex problem you faced, explain the main challenges you encountered, detail the steps you took to solve the problem, and share what you learned from the experience.

Here's an example answer: "In my previous role as a project manager, we were tasked with implementing a new software system that would integrate multiple departments. The primary challenge was significant resistance to change from each department. I started by mapping out all the current processes and identifying areas of overlap. Then, I conducted interviews with key stakeholders from each department to understand their specific needs and concerns. Using this information, I created a phased implementation plan that addressed each department's unique requirements while still achieving our overall integration goals. This experience taught me the importance of stakeholder engagement in managing complex changes. I've since incorporated regular cross-departmental meetings into all my projects to ensure alignment and address concerns proactively."

Question 2: What do you think are the three biggest challenges facing our industry right now? How would you address them?

Why is this an important question that is often included in interviews? Simply put, it evaluates your strategic thinking and industry knowledge. If you're interviewing somewhere that prioritizes industry veterans, this question is quite common.

In your response, acknowledge the current state of the industry, identify three specific challenges, propose solutions for each challenge, and conclude with a forward-looking statement.

Here's an example answer: "The [specific] industry is currently facing significant disruption due to technological advancements, changing consumer behaviors, and regulatory pressures. The three biggest challenges I see are: 1) Adapting to rapidly evolving technology, 2) Meeting increasing customer demands for personalization, and 3) Navigating complex regulatory environments. To address these challenges, I would: 1) Implement a continuous learning program to keep our team updated on the latest technologies, 2) Invest in data analytics to better understand and predict customer preferences, and 3) Establish a dedicated regulatory compliance team to ensure we stay ahead of legal requirements. These challenges also present opportunities for companies that can adapt quickly. By addressing them proactively, we can position ourselves as industry leaders."

Question 3: Describe a time when you had to make an important decision with limited information or time. How did you handle it?

This question assesses your decision-making skills under pressure, which are relevant to lots of companies these days. In your answer, set the scene, explain the constraints you faced, detail your decision-making process, and share the outcome and lessons learned.

For example: "During a critical product launch, we discovered a potential safety issue just 24 hours before the scheduled release. We had limited time to gather information and make a decision, and any delay would result in significant financial losses. I quickly assembled a cross-functional team including engineering, legal, and marketing. We conducted a rapid risk assessment, weighing the potential safety concerns against the impact of delaying the launch. Based on our analysis, we decided to postpone the launch by one week to thoroughly address the safety issue. This decision ultimately saved us from potential legal issues and reputational damage. It reinforced for me the importance of prioritizing safety and quality over short-term gains, and the value of having a diverse team for rapid problem-solving."

Demonstrate Critical Thinking Skills Through Your Answers

Remember that when companies ask about critical thinking skills, they're not just looking for the correct answer but for insight into how you think and approach challenges. By demonstrating your ability to analyze situations, overcome obstacles, implement solutions, and learn from outcomes, you'll position yourself as someone who exercises critical thinking skills all day, every day.

• Editorial Standards
• Reprints & Permissions

Join The Conversation

One Community. Many Voices. Create a free account to share your thoughts. 

Forbes Community Guidelines

Our community is about connecting people through open and thoughtful conversations. We want our readers to share their views and exchange ideas and facts in a safe space.

In order to do so, please follow the posting rules in our site's  Terms of Service.   We've summarized some of those key rules below. Simply put, keep it civil.

Your post will be rejected if we notice that it seems to contain:

• False or intentionally out-of-context or misleading information
• Insults, profanity, incoherent, obscene or inflammatory language or threats of any kind
• Attacks on the identity of other commenters or the article's author
• Content that otherwise violates our site's  terms.

User accounts will be blocked if we notice or believe that users are engaged in:

• Continuous attempts to re-post comments that have been previously moderated/rejected
• Racist, sexist, homophobic or other discriminatory comments
• Attempts or tactics that put the site security at risk
• Actions that otherwise violate our site's  terms.

So, how can you be a power user?

• Stay on topic and share your insights
• Feel free to be clear and thoughtful to get your point across
• ‘Like’ or ‘Dislike’ to show your point of view.
• Protect your community.
• Use the report tool to alert us when someone breaks the rules.

Thanks for reading our community guidelines. Please read the full list of posting rules found in our site's  Terms of Service.

What went wrong? How did Secret Service allow shooter to get so close to Trump?

Investigations into the sniper shooting that injured Donald Trump and killed a local firefighter must focus on whether several key Secret Service protocols were violated, current and former law enforcement officials said Sunday.

Chief among them: Why wasn't a building well within 1,000 yards of the former president locked down enough to prevent the shooter from nearly assassinating the presumptive GOP presidential nominee?

In an exclusive interview, former Secret Service Director Julia Pierson told USA TODAY that maintaining such a sniper security perimeter is part of the agency's responsibility for safeguarding "protectees" like Trump from harm. Yet the man identified as the sniper, 20-year-old Thomas Matthew Crooks , fired off numerous rounds from a building top about 150 yards from Trump's lectern at Saturday's rally in Butler, Pennsylvania.

“I think 1,000 yards is the sniper capability that we have a concern about for the President. So anything that's within that range, that is a professional, makable shot... and you want to know about it,” Pierson said.

“When you think about it, it's a football field and a half … and that is a makeable shot by an individual.  And obviously an inch would have made a difference in this case and Trump wouldn't be with us,” said Pierson, who spent three decades with the Secret Service, much of that on presidential protective operations, before becoming director in 2013.

Crooks managed to fire off numerous rounds , injuring two other people in the crowd, before being killed by a Secret Service counter-sniper sharpshooter from another nearby roof. On Sunday evening, the FBI clarified that Crooks had used an "AR-style 556 rifle ."  

Rep. Ruben Gallego, a former Marine and Arizona Democrat, said that those "responsible for the planning, approving and executing of this clearly insufficient security plan need to testify before Congress and be held accountable."

"There should never have been a clear line of sight on the former president. My Marine Corps training taught me that,” said Gallego, an Iraq veteran who is running for Senate in Arizona.

President Joe Biden also weighed in, directing Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle to review all security measures for the Republican National Convention, which begins Monday in Milwaukee. He said he had ordered an independent review of the security measures taken at the Trump rally to "assess exactly what happened."

First assassination attempt against a former or current President in 43 years

The shooting marks the first assassination attempt against a former or current U.S. president since President Ronald Reagan was injured in a March 1981 shooting at a Washington, D.C. hotel. Before that, in 1975 a member of the Manson Family cult tried to shoot President Gerald Ford at close range in Sacramento, California but failed to chamber a round into the gun.

The Secret Service has confirmed that it is investigating how a gunman armed with an AR-style rifle was able to get close enough to shoot and injure Trump in what appears to be an epic failure of one the agency's primary duties of protecting VIPs. The FBI, state police and the U.S. Congress also will be seeking to answer the many swirling questions.

Some of those questions: How did Donald Trump’s would-be assassin gain a high-ground vantage point to fire off a potentially fatal head shot against the former president? Why didn’t Secret Service counter-sniper teams neutralize Crooks before he got off so many rounds from his high-powered rifle, killing one Trump rally-goer and injuring two others?

Also, if Crooks had been flagged by local authorities for acting suspiciously as some media have reported, why was he then able to climb atop a nearby building with a rifle, firing a shot that grazed Trump's ear? And why did Secret Service agents allow Trump to stand back up defiantly and do three fist-pumps when it wasn't clear that the threat had been fully neutralized?

Could this have been stopped before it started?

John Miller, a former senior FBI and New York Police Department official, said on CNN that Crooks had been observed acting suspiciously near the magnetometers, or metal detectors stationed outside the event by local law enforcement agencies.

Those officials then shared those concerns with the Secret Service and other authorities “and people had his description and were looking around for him,” said Miller, who’s currently a CNN analyst.

At some point, Miller said, Crooks “left the magnetometer area. And then at some point, people start to point out there's a guy who's climbing on that roof, and he has a rifle and police are putting that over the radio.”

According to some video and media reports, the Secret Service counter-sniper on a nearby rooftop was aiming at the shooter, perhaps before he took some or all of his shots.

“The counter sniper appears to be looking through his scope as if he's scanning for something. … And then, when the shots are fired, takes out the shooter from his position almost immediately,” said Miller, the NYPD’s deputy commissioner of Intelligence & Counterterrorism until 2022. “So we have to fill in those gaps. What happened during those seconds? What were the communications? What did he see through the scope, and did he act at his first opportunity? And we'll learn that later.”

Miller said the counter-sniper succeeded in eliminating the threat quickly. “That part worked,” he said. But, he added, “What about the front end? Could this have been stopped with faster or more clear communications or a more intense search?”

Investigations have already begun

It’s possible and even likely that the Secret Service security plan for the rally, in conjunction with local and state authorities, took into consideration the building from which Crooks allegedly sprayed bullets. It could have been locked down from the inside, prompting Crooks to have to climb to the roof from the outside as part of the security plan put in place by authorities before the rally.

But the entire sequence of events will be investigated to find out what went so wrong that Crooks was able to gain access to the roof of the building, including whether he might have surveilled the site ahead of time to find the best way up, according to current and former law enforcement officials.

William Pickle, a former special agent in charge of the Secret Service's Vice Presidential Protective Division who oversaw Vice President Al Gore’s detail, said there are provisions in any Secret Service security survey that nearby buildings are accounted for. The Secret Service regularly secures public areas such as parade routes peppered with large buildings, and advance teams interview building owners and business managers to determine who has access to the building and at what times to determine if agents need to stand watch.

“We know who’s there, why they’re there, we have control over those buildings,” Pickle said. “It seems like somewhere in this security survey, someone dropped the ball on those particular buildings.”

Though Pickle said the counter-sniper that took out the shooter did an “outstanding” job, he questioned if the Secret Service had posted additional counter-sniper teams to sufficiently cover the entire event perimeter. “A gunshot knows no boundaries except by the velocity and distance a bullet can travel,” Pickle said. “This was a relatively easy shot, and Donald Trump may have been the luckiest man in the world yesterday. He survived by about half an inch."

Secret Service spokesman Anthony Guglielmi told USA TODAY on Sunday that he was traveling to Milwaukee, the site of the upcoming Republican National Convention, and would not be in a position to talk until later in the day. At 2 p.m., he said he was still "unable to respond" to claims that the Secret Service made mistakes in allowing the shooter to gain such a close vantage point.

Three hours later, another senior Secret Service official also declined to comment on whether the agency failed in its mission to protect Trump at the Saturday rally.

“Any questions regarding yesterday’s event can be directed to our public affairs office out of DC,” said Audrey Gibson-Cicchino, the agency’s coordinator for the upcoming Republican National Convention in Milwaukee. Speaking at a news conference there, she said she could only discuss convention security measures.

In a news conference early Sunday morning, the FBI special agent in charge of the Pittsburgh field office, Kevin Rojek, had confirmed that the FBI is leading the investigation into the shooting and that it “is our assessment at this time” that law enforcement did not know the shooter was on the roof until he began firing.

“It is surprising,” Rojek said when asked about the gunman’s close vicinity to the rally. He said that proximity is among the details that will be a focus of the investigation. Rojek added: “The Secret Service really needs to answer that question. They conduct the initial site survey.”

At the midnight news conference, State Police Lt. Col. George Bivens had deferred questions about whether there was anything about the venue that made it particularly difficult to secure by the Secret Service, which did not have representatives at the televised briefing.

Bivens also said he would not speculate on “how close a call” it was for Trump.

But Bivens confirmed that law enforcement is following up on a “number of suspicious occurrences” including accounts from witnesses who said they tried to flag police about the activity of a person outside the rally moments before the shooting.

Calls for answers from both sides of the aisle

Sen. James Comer, a Kentucky Republican who chairs the House Oversight committee, was one of several lawmakers who called for an immediate investigation into potential lapses by the Secret Service.

Comer said in a statement that he has already contacted the Service Service for a briefing and he called on Cheatle – the director – to testify about what went wrong. His committee will send a formal invitation soon, Comer said.

"Political violence in all forms is unamerican and unacceptable," Comer said in his statement. "There are many questions and Americans demand answers."

Pennsylvania Sen. John Fetterman, a Democrat, also called morning for an urgent investigation to explain what happened. Several hours later, however, Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, also a Democrat, sidestepped a question at his own news conference about potential Secret Service failures in preventing the shooter from climbing atop the building.

"I'm not getting into ... any questions regarding the ongoing investigation," Shapiro said. "I trust that the FBI and the Pennsylvania State Police will keep you posted throughout the day and in the days ahead as to their investigations."

Contributing: Melissa Brown, a state political reporter at The Tennessean in Nashville, Tennessee.

McGill Alert / Alerte de McGill

Gradual reopening continues on downtown campus. See Campus Public Safety website for details.

La réouverture graduelle du campus du centre-ville se poursuit. Complément d'information : Direction de la protection et de la prévention .

Main navigation

• Our Articles
• Dr. Joe's Books
• Media and Press
• Our History
• Public Lectures
• Past Newsletters
• Photo Gallery: The McGill OSS Separates 25 Years of Separating Sense from Nonsense

Subscribe to the OSS Weekly Newsletter!

Will graphology become extinct.

• Add to calendar
• Tweet Widget

Can a pseudoscience ever truly disappear? Over the course of human history, we have made many attempts at explaining the world around us, and while some of these guesses were eventually confirmed through rigorous scientific experimentation, many of our hypotheses were shown to be wrong, yet some survived. They became belief systems with a patina of scientific credibility applied on top. It still surprises me that astrology, a clear pseudoscience which has been firmly supplanted by both astronomy and human psychology, remains popular today.

Even the pseudosciences that were debunked out of existence can rise from the grave decades later to haunt a new generation that is naïve to it. But what if this fake science relies on something we do less and less? Graphology is a discipline, said to be scientific, which analyzes someone’s handwriting to make predictions about their personality. Do you put little hooks at the ends of your S’s? Some graphologists will conclude you have a tendency to steal things. Beyond personality divination, graphology has been used to help people find a compatible mate, diagnose an illness, or inform an employer if an applicant is the right fit for the job.

Even though we handwrite less and type more, graphology has not died. It seems to be doing what it has always done: migrated.

Pardon my French writing

Handwriting analysis goes back centuries and is part of a larger group of divination tools we might rightly look at with puzzlement today. You may be familiar with the reading of tea leaves, but have you ever heard of omphalomancy? It’s the mistaken belief that the size and shape of the belly button can explain behaviour. There’s also metoposcopy or reading the wrinkles on someone’s forehead to predict their personality, as well as onychomancy, where fingernails are covered in oil to see how each part reflects the light and to divine someone’s future. At this point, tying someone’s handwriting to their personality seems downright plausible by comparison. After all, both are governed by the brain.

While there was interest in the telltale signs of handwriting in our early history, it wasn’t until 1622 that we saw  the first manual on the subject , written by Camillo Baldi and published in Bologna. But the name “graphology” wouldn’t come about until 1871, from the pen of Jean-Hippolyte Michon, a Frenchman who gave up the priesthood to become a scientist and archaeologist. Michon believed in a one-to-one relationship between a specific feature of someone’s handwriting and a personality trait. In his book  Système de graphologie , he writes that it is our soul that directly writes and speaks. What is our soul saying? According to Michon, if you forget to cross a small T, it is a very significant omission: “it gives us,” he  writes in French , “the absence of will.” Basically, you are weak. King Louis XVI is given as an example. If you cross your T so strongly that you leave the pen to drip at the end, creating a club, warning: you are expressing an inner violence.

Michon’s pupil, Jules Crépieux-Jamin, broke away from his mentor. To him, you couldn’t simply state that a writing feature like the cross on a T always carried the same meaning. You had to take a holistic perspective and use your instinct. Already, we are witnessing a schism within graphology which would only worsen as the decades flew by. Germany was the next hotbed of handwriting analysis, and from there it took over Europe. At some point in the early 20th century, graphology crossed the pond and arrived in America. And when continental graphologists were fleeing the Nazis, they brought their discipline  over to the United Kingdom .

Employers started secretly relying on graphologists to evaluate the handwriting of potential employees. In the United States, this practice dates back to  as early as 1965 . This has been  argued  as unfair, potentially discriminatory, and as a violation of a job applicant’s right to privacy. Candidates would be asked to fill out an application by hand and this document would be submitted to a so-called expert, who was paid (sometimes handsomely) to report back on the applicant’s personality. As employee turnover rates accelerated in the second half of the 20th century, employers saw graphology as a way to help them choose employees who would stay longer, and it was later influenced by the trendiness of New Age practices which were full of divinatory tools like it. In the U.S., it also became a way to go around the Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988, which prohibited private employers from putting their job applicants through a lie detector test. Fine, said many corporations. We’ll ask a graphologist instead: how honest is our candidate based on their handwriting?

At the extreme end of graphology, we see graphotherapists who claim that you can change your personality by changing your handwriting. This belief does away with the scientific roleplay and exposes the foundation of the practice: sympathetic magic. One of humanity’s really old ideas is that like begets like: if you keep a phallic object or the statue of a pregnant woman in your house, it will make you more fertile, for example. Astrology relies a lot on sympathetic magic. Because the planet Mars appears red, it reminds us of blood, and thus violence; therefore, we call the planet “Mars” after the Roman god of war and claim that its presence in the sky at the time of our birth holds significance.

Through sympathetic magic, causes and effects become interchangeable: the way in which you write the letter T is a consequence of your violent impulses, but if you change how you write, the arrow of causation will be reversed. You will be cured of your inner violence. This is magical thinking, pure and simple.

Graphology has undergone the pressure-cooker test of science and failed it miserably, but its adherents always have an out.

Special pleading 

In  2009 , graphology was compared to the Big Five Questionnaire, which evaluates people on the Big Five personality traits: openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism. Not only were the two graphologists really bad at inferring these five personality traits, they frequently disagreed with each other. This can be explained in part by the fact that the French schism in graphology has widened, with multiple schools teaching their own interpretations of what crossing your T’s and dotting your I’s really means.

Two decades earlier, a  meta-analysis  of 17 graphology studies was published. In total, the studies had included 63 graphologists and 51 non-graphologists acting as controls, with both groups having looked at a sum of 1,223 handwritten texts. The overall result was bleak: graphologists did no better than non-graphologists. In fact, when the non-graphologists were psychologists, they did  better  on average than handwriting experts.

To be sure, some studies are in the graphologists’ favour, but what we see is typical of pseudosciences: small, deeply flawed studies show promise, while larger, more rigorous experiments yield negative results. So how do graphologists respond to this? Given that their reputation is at stake, they turn to special pleading, much like psychics do. A set of two studies  published in 1986  provides a clear example.

Since graphology was more widespread in Israel than any other personality test and was commonly used by employers, Israeli researchers decided to put it to the test. They gave five graphologists (three of whom were quite famous) handwritten scripts in Hebrew from 40 adult men. The graphologists were asked to predict what the men did for a living. No graphologist was able to predict a single writer’s profession to a significant degree.

When these so-called experts were told how poorly they had performed, some resorted to special pleading: we can infer personality, they argued, and professional  tendencies , but just because you have a particular job, it doesn’t mean you are well suited for it. The problem? Those 40 men had been well chosen: they had worked their entire career in one profession and for at least a decade, had said to be greatly satisfied in their career choice, and were considered success stories by their colleagues and clients. Oops.

When the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association  wrote  about the concerning use of graphologists by the city of Chilliwack, which in the 1980s had spent 11,700$ on their services, they reported that one graphologist had admitted after the fact that it was more of an art form than a science. The Civil Liberties Association was biting in its report: “We hope that they are equally candid with their prospective clients.” Indeed, this hot-and-cold attitude toward science is something we also see with astrology: its fans are quick to be mesmerized by the mathematical-looking star charts, but when pushed they are equally quick to say  they know astrology is not scientific . It is merely “useful.”

Yet despite these refutations, some will continue to claim that graphology works, and there are good reasons for that.

Graphology Is a Gemini Sun with Pisces Rising

I had to fold a lot of sheets of paper and seal a lot of envelopes, but it was worth it.

Standing in front of a room full of students, I told them that the director of our Office dabbled in astrology and that it really worked. Once we were done distributing their personal horoscope in a sealed envelope adorned with their astrological sign, they opened it up and read it. By show of hands, they pretty much all agreed that it was a good fit.

Then I asked them to read their neighbour’s.

That’s the moment that made it worth the effort. They had all received the exact same horoscope.

Many skeptics and teachers have done this trick to demonstrate the Forer effect. It’s when you read a vague statement but believe that it holds special meaning  for you.  This is facilitated by the use of Barnum statements, named after P.T. Barnum, the showman who is often said to have observed that “there’s a sucker born every minute.” What’s a Barnum statement? “Disciplined and self-controlled on the outside, you tend to be worrisome and insecure on the inside.” Most people will identify with this. And, yes, you have correctly realized that these sorts of, “You are this, but also that,” are the bread and butter of newspaper horoscopes.

Graphology works in the same way. You can pick up from a vague report what really fits you and forget the rest because it’s usually ambiguous enough. “Your A’s tell me you are quite generous, but the way in which you write your G’s tell me you can be a bit stingy at times.” Aren’t we all?

This is related to the practice of cold reading which psychics use: make vague enough pronouncements until you get a hit. If you want to bring up a dead relative, ask about a “J” or “M” name, as these are very common in English. But there’s also hot reading, where the practitioner knows information about their client. This happens a lot in graphology and is often encouraged by its members. They will say that simply asking someone to transcribe a piece of writing will not work; they need an original text that comes from them, often full of biographical information. With no graphology training, I too can infer clues about a writer based on their writing style, grammatical errors, country-specific spellings, and details about their personal lives. The content does the talking, not the letters. That is probably why psychologists do better than graphologists when analyzing original texts penned by anonymous authors.

As for the basic plausibility of graphology—that “handwriting is brainwriting,” as many of its practitioners put it—there is no more reason to think that your personality expresses itself clearly in the style of your letters than to think that your gait is influenced by your personality in obvious ways. As the late professor of psychology and vocal critic of graphology Barry Beyerstein  once put it , is walking brainstepping? “Vomiting has an associated center in the brain too,” he wrote. “Does that justify using individual regurgitation styles to assess someone’s intimate make-up?”

Plus, we learn handwriting in school: that training will have a bigger impact on how we shape our letters than our personality.

There are a few legitimate uses of handwriting analysis. In neurology, it can be used to detect certain forms of motor impairments, and good forensic document examiners can say if two different texts came from the same writer but they can’t make proclamations about that person’s honesty based on how they draw their A’s.

Yet, even graphology can’t do much with a keyboard. As we move away from the pen, will this pseudoscientific practice simply disappear or will it convince young people to pick up an antiquated writing instrument to reveal a side of themselves hidden by modern technology? It already migrated from Italy to France to Germany and, from there, to the rest of the Western world. Now, it seems to be having a moment in South Asia.

On YouTube, the majority of recently uploaded videos on the topic seem to come from India, where graphology is  promoted  as a potential business that can make you rich. One guy also offers to tell you how to choose the  “right and lucky”  wristwatch to bring about success.

All you need is to follow his instructions to the letter.

Take-home message: - Graphology is a pseudoscientific discipline that claims to infer personality traits (and more) from how someone shapes their letters when writing by hand - In rigorous scientific studies, graphologists do very poorly at inferring personality, often disagree with each other on interpretation, and do no better than non-experts - Graphology often appears to work due to the vague statements made by its practitioners, which work like horoscopes or psychic readings

@CrackedScience

What to read next

How do scientists study the effects of diets 19 jul 2024.

Rasputin, Phrenology, and Dark Allegations: The Madness of Access Consciousness 12 Jul 2024

There Are Safe Sunscreens But No Safe Tans 2 Jul 2024

The Story Linking Nutrition and Health has Unexpected Twists 28 Jun 2024

A Taste of Bitter Melon 28 Jun 2024

The Blood Microbiome Is Probably Not Real 28 Jun 2024

Department and University Information

Office for science and society.