philosophy degrade students power of analysis and critical thinking

Last updated 27/06/24: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings .

Login Alert

• > Journals
• > Journal of the American Philosophical Association
• > FirstView
• > Does Studying Philosophy Make People Better Thinkers?

Article contents

Does studying philosophy make people better thinkers, standardized test scores, research on philosophy for children, research on critical thinking, are students of philosophy more intellectually virtuous, comparing philosophers with non-philosophers, comparing philosophy 101 students with us adults, testing for change over time, implications and conclusion.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 March 2024

Philosophers often claim that doing philosophy makes people better thinkers. But what evidence is there for this empirical claim? This paper reviews extant evidence and presents some novel findings. We discuss standardized testing scores, review research on Philosophy for Children and critical thinking skills among college students, and present new empirical findings. On average, philosophers are better at logical reasoning, more reflective, and more open-minded than non-philosophers. However, there is an absence of evidence for the claim that studying philosophy led to these differences. We present some preliminary and suggestive evidence that although some of these differences may be attributable to philosophical training, others appear to be selection effects. The key takeaway is that more data are needed. We conclude by urging philosophers and interdisciplinary collaborators to gather more data to test the claim that studying philosophy makes people better thinkers.

Many philosophers think that, in addition to any intrinsic value that philosophy may have, the discipline is also instrumentally valuable insofar as it makes people better thinkers. Philosophers often claim that doing philosophy encourages people to question ideas or assumptions that others take for granted, to reflect more deeply, and to reason more carefully. Studying philosophy is also said to help people recognize more acutely the limits of their own understanding, opening their minds and awakening them from dogmatic slumbers. To illustrate, the website of the American Philosophical Association (APA 2017 ) states that:

The study of philosophy enhances, in a way no other activity does, one's problem-solving capacities. It helps students to analyze concepts, definitions, arguments, and problems. It contributes to students’ capacity to organize ideas and issues, to deal with questions of value, and to extract what is essential from masses of information. It helps students distinguish fine differences between views and discover common ground between opposing positions.

In short, it is often claimed that the study of philosophy is distinctively well-suited to cultivating intellectual virtue.

We find this idea interesting in its own right. But there are also pragmatic reasons to investigate whether or not it is true. If we had compelling evidence that philosophy is instrumentally valuable in this way, this might encourage students to enroll in philosophy courses and encourage academic administrators to devote funds to philosophy programs. So, have these claims been empirically tested?

In recent years, numerous studies have empirically assessed philosophers and students of philosophy, often comparing them with non-philosophers (Kilov and Hendy Reference Kilov and Hendy 2022 ; Livengood et al. Reference Livengood, Sytsma, Feltz, Scheines and Machery 2010 ; Schwitzgebel and Cushman Reference Schwitzgebel and Cushman 2012 ; Yaden and Anderson Reference Yaden and Anderson 2021 ). This article follows in that tradition. We review evidence from past research and also present some new findings of our own. Our aim is not to advance a specific view about what it means to produce better thinkers, but to determine what we can infer from existing studies using widely accepted measures. For this reason, we will not offer a precise definition of ‘better thinker’, but will remain open to diverse conceptions. There are numerous intellectual skills or virtues that might be cultivated by studying philosophy, such as critical thinking, logical reasoning, open-mindedness, or intellectual humility. By remaining open in this way, we can review a broader range of existing research and data and assess evidence relevant to various possible conceptions.

As shall become clear, evidence in favor of the view that studying philosophy improves thinking is weak, mixed, and ultimately inconclusive. There is a fundamental problem with much of the extant data—namely, they cannot differentiate between treatment effects and selection effects. A ‘treatment effect’ is a difference in outcomes that results from an external intervention. In this case, the ‘treatment’ is philosophy education. Hence, a treatment effect would simply mean that studying philosophy does make people better thinkers. By contrast, a ‘selection effect’ is a difference in outcomes that results from the way in which people's choices place them into different groups. In this case, people usually decide for themselves whether to study philosophy, and people who choose this are likely different from those who do not. Hence, simply comparing philosophers and non-philosophers might reveal differences. But it would not reveal whether such differences result from studying philosophy. Some of the evidence reviewed here will be able to differentiate at least partially between selection and treatment effects. However, much of it cannot. Hence, a key takeaway is that in order to answer this article's titular question, we need more data that enable tests for treatment effects specifically.

We will begin by reviewing existing evidence, including the oft-discussed topic of standardized testing scores (which we argue is very poor evidence indeed), studies on pre-college philosophy programs, and studies on critical thinking skills among college students. We then present some new empirical findings of our own. We first compare the intellectual traits of philosophers and non-philosophers at various levels of education. Then, we compare students at the beginning of a Philosophy 101 course with the general population, and examine some longitudinal data (i.e., data collected across multiple points in time). Throughout, we discuss the results of statistical tests in colloquial terms. However, detailed results from these analyses, along with the data, and R scripts used to run the analyses, are available online: https://osf.io/mbvpr/ . Finally, we conclude the article with a call for philosophers to begin working with others to collect more, and more illuminating, data.

Since the 1980s (Hoekema Reference Hoekema 1986 ), philosophers have observed that students who major in philosophy tend to score remarkably well on post-college standardized tests such as the Graduate Record Examination (GRE), Law School Admission Test (LSAT), and Graduate Management Admission Test (GMAT). Naturally, the rankings change somewhat from year to year, but it is common for philosophy to be one of the top-ranked majors, especially on the LSAT (APA 2019 ) and verbal reasoning portion of the GRE (APA 2014 ). These kinds of statistics are flattering and widely advertised by philosophy departments in the hopes of attracting greater enrollment. But are they compelling evidence for the claim that studying philosophy makes people better thinkers?

The obvious limitation of this form of evidence is that it does not differentiate between selection and treatment effects. That is, students who majored in philosophy may have high test scores because studying philosophy improved their thinking. But it is equally possible that people likely to get good test scores are more interested in philosophy to begin with. For example, people who are already academically talented or resourced (e.g., for reasons related to sociodemographics) may be disproportionately interested in studying philosophy or likely to stick with it. Perhaps the most likely explanation is that both selection and treatment effects are present. But we simply do not know how much of these differences in test scores can be attributed to treatment versus selection effects.

One way to address this issue would be to look at test scores for people who are interested in studying philosophy but have not yet taken any philosophy classes. That is, in addition to post-college tests like the GRE, one could look at pre-college tests such as the SAT and ACT (Metcalf Reference Metcalf 2021 ). If intended philosophy majors already score remarkably well on tests, then this would suggest that the high scores on post-college tests reflect a selection effect. However, if intended philosophy majors do not score especially well on the SAT and ACT, then this might be at least some evidence for a treatment effect.

Using data from the National Center for Education Statistics and the company that administers the ACT, we examined SAT scores from 2017 to 2021 and the ACT scores from 2013 to 2021. (For figures, see https://osf.io/dw3me .) Unfortunately, the testing companies do not treat philosophy as a distinct major but instead group philosophy with religious studies and theology. (We return to this problem below.) Intended philosophy and religious studies majors rank 10th out of 38 on the SAT and 9th out of 20 on the ACT. Considering specifically the reading and writing portion of the SAT, intended philosophy and religious studies majors rank 7th out of 38. In other words, even before going to college, these students are in the top half of the distribution.

Nonetheless, Thomas Metcalf ( Reference Metcalf 2021 ) has argued that philosophy majors’ post-college test scores are even better than one would predict based on these pre-college scores. His idea is that if philosophy students move up in the rankings (i.e., if their average percentile on post-college tests is higher than their average percentile on pre-college tests), then this improvement in relative position could be attributed to studying philosophy. Indeed, he finds that the average post-college percentile tends to be higher than the average pre-college percentile.

We argue that standardized test scores are not a good form of evidence because average scores on pre- and post-college tests do not enable meaningful comparisons. First, one problem is that philosophy is grouped with religious studies and theology for the SAT and ACT, but not for the GRE, LSAT, etc. This means that part of the first group is not in the second group. We do not know what proportion of that pre-college group is constituted by students intending to study religion and theology. It could be a small fraction, or it could be nearly the entire group.

Second, between the time when students take the pre-college tests and the time they start college, some students are likely to change their minds and pursue other fields of study. What proportion of the intended major group actually does major in philosophy? Again, we do not know.

Third, there are changes that occur during the college years. Because pre-college philosophy programs are so rare (at least in places like the United States), it is common for undergraduates to decide to major in philosophy only after taking their first philosophy class in college. Many students who major in philosophy do so after transferring from community colleges and so never take the SAT or ACT in the first place. We do not know what fraction of the post-college group falls into this category. Similarly, we do not know what fraction of the students who enter college with plans to study philosophy end up dropping the major sometime later.

Fourth and finally, only some college students decide to pursue further education and hence take post-college standardized tests. The subset that chooses to do this probably varies from discipline to discipline. This matters because the only way to compare pre- and post-college test scores is with a relative ranking (i.e., percentile). To illustrate why this is a problem, suppose that only the brightest and best philosophy majors take post-college standardized tests, whereas many of the more middling students from other disciplines do so. If that were the case, then the philosophy majors would place particularly well in the post-college ranking. But, again, that would be a selection effect.

In short, although people who study philosophy score very well on standardized tests, we do not know whether studying philosophy had any effect on this outcome. Even if there were no treatment effects whatsoever, changes in the composition of the groups being compared could easily explain differences in scores on pre- and post-college tests. Thus, standardized testing statistics do not provide evidence for the claim that studying philosophy makes people better thinkers.

In any case, there seems to be growing dissatisfaction with standardized testing at all levels of education in the United States. According to recent estimates, about 80 percent of colleges and universities in the United States either do not require or do not consider test scores for admission (FairTest 2022 ). As admissions committees and universities move away from considering and collecting these scores, we should perhaps also take this opportunity to look elsewhere when considering whether philosophy produces better thinkers.

Although most philosophy education takes place at the college level, some takes place in primary schools. These kinds of programs tend to be far more studied than their collegiate counterparts. The most well-studied program is Philosophy for Children (P4C). Early meta-analyses of studies on the impact of P4C found that the program led to small to medium-sized improvements in students’ academic abilities (García-Moriyón, Rebollo, and Colom Reference García-Moriyón, Rebollo and Colom 2005 ; Trickey and Topping Reference Trickey and Topping 2004 ). Those (older) studies tended to have quite small sample sizes. But one study, including over 2,000 primary school students in the United Kingdom, also found small but positive impacts on reading, mathematical, and reasoning abilities (Gorard, Siddiqui, and See Reference Gorard, Siddiqui and See 2015 ). However, the statistical analyses used in that study were harshly criticized (Inglis Reference Inglis 2015 ; Thornton Reference Thornton 2015 ), and a larger, more rigorous study intended to replicate those findings found no significant effects (Lord et al. Reference Lord, Dirie, Kettlewell and Styles 2021 ). Hence, although P4C is a comparatively well-studied program, it remains unclear whether it improves children's academic abilities.

Both the standardized testing scores and the metrics employed in prior P4C research are focused on general academic ability. Yet, is it really plausible that studying philosophy—or any particular subject, for that matter—increases a person's general academic ability or overall intelligence? If we are going to find effects of a philosophical education, we might do better to focus on specific intellectual skills or virtues. For example, at the beginning of this article, we articulated what we take to be relatively common claims about how philosophy opens one's mind, prompts one to think more clearly and more deeply, and so on. Hence, we might do better by focusing on outcomes like critical thinking and logical reasoning or open-mindedness and intellectual humility.

One way in which studying philosophy might make people better thinkers is by improving their critical thinking skills. Many universities have implemented critical thinking courses, both within philosophy departments and without, as part of their general education curricula. But do philosophy courses typically improve students’ critical thinking? And if so, how do those improvements compare with the improvements students could expect from taking other kinds of courses? According to the most recent and comprehensive meta-analysis (Huber and Kuncel Reference Huber and Kuncel 2016 ), students across majors show small to moderate increases in critical thinking skills while in college. Is there any evidence, then, that philosophy courses are special in this regard?

Empirical research on this question stretches back several decades. Some studies have found evidence that students in philosophy courses show greater improvements in critical thinking skills than do students in non-philosophy courses (Ross and Semb Reference Ross and Semb 1981 ). However, other studies have not shown this (Annis and Annis Reference Annis and Annis 1979 ). For example, one comparatively recent study (Burke et al. Reference Burke, Sears, Kraus and Roberts-Cady 2014 ) found evidence of a selection effect (i.e., students in a philosophy class showed better critical thinking skills than psychology students on both pre- and post-tests), but no evidence of a treatment effect (i.e., neither the philosophy nor psychology students showed significant increases over the course of a semester). Because of these inconsistencies, it is valuable to look across many studies of college students’ critical thinking skills.

A meta-analysis of fifty-two studies specifically investigated whether students in philosophy courses show greater gains in critical thinking than students in non-philosophy courses (Ortiz Reference Ortiz 2007 ). The results did not support that conclusion. However, the meta-analysis did find that a specific technique called ‘argument mapping’ (Harrell Reference Harrell 2004 ) leads to substantially greater increases in critical thinking skills. Argument mapping is a technique for visualizing arguments by drawing hierarchical diagrams that illustrate the logical relations among propositions.

Since this meta-analysis was conducted, a number of further studies have tested for effects of training in argument mapping. One study compared students in a philosophy course that focused on argument mapping with control students who had expressed interest in the course but who were not able to enroll (Cullen et al. Reference Cullen, Fan, van der Brugge and Elga 2018 ). The results indicated that over the course of a semester the students who learned argument mapping showed substantially greater improvement in their performance on logical reasoning puzzles. Independent judges also rated the students’ final papers for clarity, structure, and understanding of relevant arguments. Students in the argument mapping course received significantly higher scores. However, another study yielded less positive results (Dwyer, Hogan, and Stewart Reference Dwyer, Hogan and Stewart 2015 ). It found that university students with poor critical thinking skills at the start of a critical thinking course appeared to benefit from training in argument mapping. Yet, students who began the course with strong critical thinking skills actually showed declines over the course of the semester. Hence, the technique may be useful for helping students who are struggling with critical thinking, but it may also hold back students who are not.

There are at least two other reasons for tempered enthusiasm about argument mapping. First, argument mapping instruction usually involves having students work in groups. Other research has found that people reason better in groups (Dutilh Novaes Reference Dutilh Novaes 2020 ; Moshman and Geil Reference Moshman and Geil 1998 ). Hence, it may be that observed benefits of argument mapping instruction come not from learning to map arguments, but from reasoning with other people. Second, given that studies failing to find effects of this technique are less likely to be published, the published evidence regarding argument mapping instruction may be skewed.

In sum, extant research does not show that philosophy courses are better suited to fostering critical thinking skills than other kinds of courses. However, it does point to a way in which philosophy courses might be made more effective in this regard—at least for some students. More studies are needed to confirm when and why argument mapping is beneficial.

If we focus on whether studying philosophy cultivates specific intellectual skills or virtues then, apart from critical thinking skills, which should we focus on? Which skills or virtues is a philosophical education most likely to cultivate?

Doing philosophy often involves offering, dissecting, and reformulating arguments, and may therefore strengthen a person's ability to reason logically. Because logical reasoning tends to be slow and methodical, doing philosophy may also cultivate reflectiveness. When considering a question, some people tend to simply endorse the first idea that comes to mind, whereas others are inclined to stop and reflect on the question further. It seems plausible that studying philosophy might incline people toward the latter response. Through this process of reasoning and reflection, it is common to discover that one knows far less than one thought and that reasonable people hold many different views on fundamental questions. Thus, studying philosophy might foster the virtues of intellectual humility (i.e., an acute awareness of the limits of one's understanding; Whitcomb et al. Reference Whitcomb, Battaly, Baehr and Howard-Snyder 2017 ) and/or open-mindedness (i.e., a willingness to take new or unfamiliar ideas seriously; Montmarquet Reference Montmarquet 1992 ).

In this section, we present empirical evidence that, on average, philosophers are more skilled at logical reasoning, more reflective, and more open-minded than non-philosophers. We also present some preliminary evidence about whether this is pure selection or whether there might also be a treatment effect.

Nick Byrd ( Reference Byrd 2022 ) recently conducted a study that found that certain intellectual traits correlate with the philosophical views that people hold. Because his data are publicly available ( https://osf.io/a98ck/ ), we were also able to reanalyze them in order to investigate questions that he did not. Specifically, we tested whether people who have studied philosophy score differently on his measures than people who have not studied philosophy.

The participants in this study were recruited through ads on blogs such as Leiter Reports and Daily Nous and separately through an online research platform. The complete sample included 705 adults. However, we were unable to classify 27 of these as either having or not having studied philosophy. Accordingly, in these analyses, we examine the remaining N  = 678 participants. Ages ranged from 19 to and 78 years ( M  = 36.73, SD  = 11.03), 158 (23%) identified as female, 512 (76%) as male, 8 (1%) as other or declined to state; 64 (9%) identified as Asian, 16 (2%) as Black or African American, 526 (78%) as White, 29 (4%) as other, 41 (6%) as mixed race or ethnicity. Participants were asked whether they had or were a candidate for a PhD in philosophy. To this, 279 participants responded with ‘Yes’. The other 399 were then asked to indicate the highest level of education that they had received and their primary subject of study. Of these, n  = 187 indicated that they had studied philosophy.

The study included a 7-question logical reasoning measure, a multiple choice test asking participants what could be inferred from pairs of premises. To illustrate: ‘All laloobays are rich. Sandy is a laloobay. If these two statements are true, can we conclude from them that Sandy is rich?’; ‘In a box, some red things are square, and some square things are large. What can we conclude?’

The survey also included the Cognitive Reflection Test (CRT; Frederick Reference Frederick 2005 ), which includes three questions designed to lure people into giving an intuitive (non-reflective) but incorrect answer. For example, one question is, ‘If it takes 5 machines 5 minutes to make 5 widgets, how long would it take for 100 machines to make 100 widgets?’ For many people, ‘100 minutes’ initially jumps out as the obvious answer. However, a moment of reflection will reveal that the correct answer is ‘5 minutes’. Along with the three questions from the original CRT, the reflectiveness measure in this study included fourteen additional questions of a similar form, each with a text-entry answer format. This measure can be scored in two ways: by summing the number of correct answers or by summing the number of ‘lured’ answers. The resulting scores are very highly correlated because when people do not give the correct answers, they usually give the lured answers. But this is not always the case. Hence, we examined both the number of correct or reflective answers and the number of lured or intuitive answers.

Finally, the study included the Actively Open-Minded Thinking Scale (Baron Reference Baron 2019 ). Unlike the previous measures, which are tests, this last measure is a self-report measure of open-mindedness. It asks participants how strongly they agree or disagree with ten statements such as, ‘People should revise their beliefs in response to new information or evidence’. Participants responded on Likert scales ranging from ‘Completely disagree’ to ‘Completely agree’. We took the average of the ten items.

Figure 1 shows the mean scores for each measure, grouped by education level and philosophical training. The results are striking. For people with doctorate or professional degrees (i.e., PhDs, MDs, and JDs), there are no differences between those who have studied philosophy and those who have not. In other words, philosophy PhDs do not seem to be any more reflective, skilled in logical reasoning, or open-minded than physicians, lawyers, and the like. Both groups basically max out the scales. However, at lower levels of educational attainment, people who have studied philosophy tend to score substantially higher than those who have not. Replicating a finding from previous research (Livengood et al. Reference Livengood, Sytsma, Feltz, Scheines and Machery 2010 ), we found that philosophers scored significantly higher on reflectiveness than non-philosophers at every level of education apart from doctorate/professional. (The pattern of results for correct versus lured answers was identical, only inverted.) This same basic pattern of results emerged for logical reasoning. However, for open-mindedness, the differences are statistically significant only for those with bachelor's and master's degrees. All the statistically significant differences between philosophers and non-philosophers would, by standard conventions, be considered ‘large’ or ‘very large’.

Figure 1. Logical reasoning ability, reflectiveness, and open-minded thinking, grouped by philosophical training . Points and vertical lines indicate means and 95 percent confidence intervals.

Overall, higher levels of education generally come with more logical reasoning ability, reflectiveness, and open-mindedness. Curiously, however, for people who have not studied philosophy, those holding a bachelor's degree were significantly less open-minded than those who have not completed a college degree. (There may be a similar difference in logical reasoning ability. But in these data the difference was not statistically significant.) We are unsure what to make of this. One possibility is that upon receiving a college degree, the non-philosophers tended to become more dogmatic because—seeing that they are now ‘ educated’ —they need revise their beliefs no longer. Another possibility is that this difference arises from the fact that the group indicating ‘some college’ education encompasses both people who dropped out of college and people who are currently in college. There may be a mind-opening effect of the college context that wears off after one graduates.

Although these data are revealing, they share the same basic limitation as the standardized testing statistics. That is, they cannot differentiate between selection and treatment effects. It can be easy, when looking at an image like Figure 1 , to forget that the variable on the y -axis is itself a potential and indeed likely cause of the variable on the x -axis. In this case, a person who is more logical, reflective, and open-minded is likely to pursue additional education and perhaps philosophical education specifically. Hence, although we see striking differences between groups, we do not know how many of these differences result from studying philosophy.

One strategy for addressing the question of treatment versus selection effects would involve assessing students as they start their first philosophy course. If students at the beginning of their philosophical education are no different from their peers, or from the population at large, then the differences we have observed between philosophers and non-philosophers might be due to a treatment effect. On the other hand, if those students already score substantially higher than others, then the differences we have observed are likely due primarily, if not entirely, to selection effects.

To address this question, we administered a survey with measures of several intellectual virtues to students during the first week of a Philosophy 101 class at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Given the paucity of pre-college philosophy education in North Carolina, it is safe to assume that most if not all of these students had no prior experience with philosophy. We received N  = 157 complete responses. Ages ranged from 18 to 24 years ( M  = 19.5, SD  = 1.15); 82 (52%) of these students identified as men, 63 (40%) as women, and 12 (8%) declined to state a gender; 33 (21%) identified as Asian, 9 (6%) as Black or African American, 6 (4%) as Hispanic or Latinx, 85 (54%) as White, 8 (5%) as mixed, 3 (2%) as other, and 13 (8%) declined to state.

The survey included four common, psychometrically validated measures. ( Table 1 presents the full text of all questions from these measures.) One was the CRT-2 (Thomson and Oppenheimer Reference Thomson and Oppenheimer 2016 ), a four-item variation on the original CRT that was designed to be less mathematical and less familiar to participants who may have previously seen the original questions. The other measures were self-reports. These included the General Intellectual Humility Scale (Leary et al. Reference Leary, Diebels, Davisson, Jongman-Sereno, Isherwood, Raimi, Deffler and Hoyle 2017 ), Open-Minded Cognition Scale (Price et al. Reference Price, Ottati, Wilson and Kim 2015 ), and Situated Wise Reasoning Scale (SWIS; Brienza et al. Reference Brienza, Kung, Santos, Ramona Bobocel and Grossmann 2018 ).

Table 1. Measures and items from Philosophy 101 study

Note . GIHS indicates the General Intellectual Humility Scale. OMCS indicates the Open-Minded Cognition Scale. CRT-2 indicates the Cognitive Reflection Test – 2. SWIS indicates the Situated Wise Reasoning Scale (items 1-4 are Others’ Perspectives; 5-8 are Multiple Outcomes; 9-12 are Intellectual Humility; 13-17 are Search for Compromise; 18-21 are Outside Vantage Point).

The SWIS differs from the other self-reports in that it does not ask respondents about what they are like in general . Instead, it asks respondents to think about, and mentally relive, the last time they had an interpersonal conflict and then answer twenty-one questions about that specific occasion. ‘Situated’ measures like this are thought to be less subject to certain kinds of self-report biases (Kahneman et al. Reference Kahneman, Krueger, Schkade, Schwarz and Stone 2004 ), such as ‘social desirability bias’ (where people tend to answer in ways that they think will make them look good). Each SWIS item is introduced with the following prompt: ‘While this situation was unfolding, I did the following . . .’. Respondents then respond to each statement as a description of their behavior on that specific occasion. The twenty-one items are divided into five subscales: Other's Perspective is about the degree to which respondents attempted to understand the point of view of their interlocutors; Multiple Outcomes is about the degree to which they considered the various ways in which the situation could play out; Intellectual Humility is about the degree to which they recognized that they might not have all the relevant information and their interlocutors might have known things that they did not; Search for Compromise is about the degree to which they searched for a mutually beneficial resolution; and Outside Vantage Point is about the degree to which they tried to understand how an impartial third party might interpret the situation.

Because these are widely used measures, we were able to find a large amount of publicly available data from studies that have used them (data sources are documented online: https://osf.io/mbvpr/ ). Hence, in addition to the student data we collected, we have 9,014 observations from adults across the United States. Some of these people may have studied philosophy themselves, but this is likely only a small minority. Figure 2 shows the average score for each measure, grouped by educational attainment, with Week 1 Philosophy 101 students on the right-hand side.

Figure 2. Intellectual virtues across levels of educational attainment, and comparison with Philosophy 101 students. Panel A presents the results for the General Intellectual Humility Scale, Open-Minded Cognition Scale, and the Cognitive Reflection Test – 2. Panel B presents the results for the subscales of the Situated Wise Reasoning Scale. Points and vertical lines indicate means and 95 percent confidence intervals. The y -axis has been standardized for ease of comparisons across measures.

We found no statistically significant differences on the General Intellectual Humility Scale or Open-Minded Cognition Scale. That is, there appears to be no association between educational attainment and either of these intellectual virtues. Crucially, the Week 1 Philosophy 101 students did not differ from the other groups. Hence, differences in these traits between philosophers and non-philosophers found in Figure 1 above may result from studying philosophy as opposed to preexisting differences between those interested in philosophy and those not interested in it.

By contrast, we observed striking differences for reflectiveness. More education tends to come with more correct answers and fewer lured answers on the reflection test. Nevertheless, during their first week, Philosophy 101 students gave significantly more correct answers than all other groups—including those with graduate and professional degrees—and fewer lured answers than people with some college education or less. Although the mean number of lured answers was lower for the Week 1 Philosophy 101 students than for all other groups, the difference was not statistically significant when comparing them to people with bachelor's degrees or graduate/professional degrees. In other words, the Week 1 Philosophy 101 students give more correct answers than all other groups but only give fewer lured answers than people with comparable levels of education. It is not entirely clear what to make of this difference. One possibility is that ancillary cognitive abilities (e.g., intelligence or numeracy) play more of a role in determining the number of correct answers than they do in determining the number of lured answers. If so, this would imply that some part of the difference we observe between Philosophy 101 students and US adults is attributable to differences in such abilities.

It is conceivable that these differences in reflectiveness are due to a priming effect—that is, being in a philosophy classroom cues students to be more reflective than they otherwise would be. Although we cannot rule out this possibility, it does not strike us as especially plausible given that these students took the reflection test during the very first week of the class, before they had spent much time doing philosophy in that room. Moreover, a recent meta-analysis found that contextual priming effects tend to be very small (Dai et al. Reference Dai, Yang, White, Palmer, Sanders, McDonald, Leung and Albarracín 2023 ). Hence, the large difference we observed is likely not explained by contextual priming.

Considering the SWIS, we found somewhat different results for each of the five subscales. For the Others’ Perspectives and Outside Vantage Point subscales, the Week 1 Philosophy 101 students did not differ significantly from any of the other groups, indicating that, compared with US adults in general, philosophy students are no more likely to try to see things from another's point of view or to imagine what an impartial third party might think about their situation. For Multiple Outcomes and Search for Compromise, the Week 1 Philosophy 101 students scored higher than some of the other groups, but not all of them. Specifically, for Multiple Outcomes, there appear to be declines from the ‘some college’ group to the group with graduate and professional degrees. The Week 1 Philosophy 101 students scored significantly higher than the people with graduate and professional degrees, and marginally significantly higher than those with bachelor's and high school diplomas or less, but did not score differently from those with ‘some college’. This suggests that philosophy students may be somewhat more likely than others to try to consider many different possibilities for how an interpersonal situation could play out. But they did not differ from the most comparable group, namely, those with some college education. Finally, we found clear evidence of a selection effect when considering the Intellectual Humility subscale. The Week 1 Philosophy 101 students scored significantly higher than all other groups. These differences would be considered ‘small’, but it is striking how the Week 1 Philosophy 101 group stands out from all the rest, which do not differ from each other.

This last finding appears to be inconsistent with our findings on the General Intellectual Humility Scale, which revealed no differences between Week 1 Philosophy 101 students and US adults. Because the SWIS is less affected by social desirability bias (Brienza et al. Reference Brienza, Kung, Santos, Ramona Bobocel and Grossmann 2018 ), one interpretation of this inconsistency is that although philosophy students do not aspire to intellectual humility any more than others (hence there is no difference on the more abstract measure), they do display it more often (hence there is a difference on the situated measure). Another interpretation could be that these two measures, though they both purport to assess the same thing, are actually tapping into slightly different psychological phenomena. If so, then it will be important for future studies to attend to the questions of which phenomenon is of most interest and how that phenomenon is most effectively measured.

Overall, these results provide preliminary, suggestive evidence that some, but not all, of the observed differences between philosophers and non-philosophers may result purely from selection effects. For reflectiveness specifically, we suspect that the observed difference between philosophers and non-philosophers is probably due primarily or entirely to selection effects. However, for open-mindedness, our findings suggest that the previously observed difference between philosophers and non-philosophers might not be due solely to selection effects. Similarly, for intellectual humility, we found evidence of a selection effect using a ‘situated’ measure, but not with a more general measure. Hence, it is possible that studying philosophy has some effect on intellectual virtues like these. Of course, this is merely evidence of the possibility of a treatment effect, not direct evidence of such an effect.

The empirical results that we have presented thus far have all involved between-person comparisons. That is, we have compared people who have studied philosophy with people who have not, and we have compared students at the start of their first philosophy class with US adults at various levels of education. However, a more compelling sort of evidence would monitor people over time to observe the effects of philosophical education as they unfold.

In a recent paper, Kerem Oktar and colleagues ( Reference Oktar, Lerner, Malaviya and Lombrozo 2023 ) attempted to do just this. They had students in an introductory ethics course ( n  = 137) and a control group of psychology students ( n  = 62) report their views on twelve controversial ethical questions at the start and end of a semester. This sort of study design is sometimes referred to as ‘quasi-experimental’, in that it is controlled but not randomized. In this sort of study, baseline differences between groups are indicative of selection effects. However, if one group shows changes over time that the other group does not, then this growth might be explained by the differences in coursework. This kind of study design does not rule out selection effects entirely because it is possible that students’ trajectories were shaped by preexisting influences. But it does rule out the most obvious kind of selection effect—namely, that the groups already differ at the start.

In this study, the mean age for the sample was 19.73 ( SD  = 1.4). Of these, 98 (49%) participants identified as male, 94 (47%) as female, and 7 (4%) declined to state. The twelve controversial ethical questions included ones such as whether it is morally permissible to eat meat, restrict immigration, or have an abortion. Besides indicating their views on each question, participants also answered a pair of questions about how they arrived at their views: ‘Is your judgment based on intuition/emotion?’ and ‘Is your judgment based on deliberation/analysis?’ (Response scales ranged from ‘Not at all’ to ‘Entirely’.)

The results indicated that the philosophy students significantly changed their views on these ethical questions and more so than the psychology students. Additionally, the researchers found that the philosophy students, but not the psychology students, showed a reduced tendency to base their ethical views on intuition and emotion versus deliberation and analysis. Among philosophy students specifically, the degree to which students reduced their reliance on intuition and emotion predicted the degree to which they changed their ethical beliefs.

When it comes to moral beliefs—unlike, for example, beliefs about how chemicals interact under various conditions—people tend to dig in their heels and dogmatically maintain preexisting views (Haidt Reference Haidt 2001 ; Heinzelmann, Höltgen, and Tran Reference Heinzelmann, Höltgen and Tran 2021 ; Skitka Reference Skitka 2010 ). Yet, these results suggest that philosophy courses can influence the way people think about controversial ethical questions. The results also suggest that the mechanism behind these changes is a reduced tendency to trust one's gut instead of carefully considering reasons and arguments. The evidence discussed in the previous sections suggests that philosophers are distinctive in this regard. Although we found that introductory philosophy students are already especially reflective and less intuitive in their thinking than others, this study provides some initial evidence that philosophical training might amplify this tendency.

In addition to students’ views on specific ethical questions, Oktar and colleagues ( Reference Oktar, Lerner, Malaviya and Lombrozo 2023 ) assessed several intellectual traits. The measures included five self-report scales: the Actively Open-Minded Thinking about Evidence Scale (AOT-E; Pennycook et al. Reference Pennycook, Cheyne, Koehler and Fugelsang 2020 ), which asks participants for their agreement with eight statements such as, ‘Beliefs should always be revised in response to new information or evidence’. The researchers also included abridged versions of the Moralized Rationality Scale (example item: ‘It is morally wrong to trust your intuitions without rationally examining them’), the Importance of Rationality Scale (example item: ‘It is important to me personally to examine traditionally held beliefs using logic and evidence’; Ståhl, Zaal, and Skitka Reference Ståhl, Zaal and Skitka 2016 ), and the Unified Scale to Assess Individual Differences in Intuition and Deliberation (example items: ‘When I make a decision, it is more important for me to feel the decision is right than to have a rational reason for it’ and ‘I study every problem until I understand the underlying logic’; Pachur and Spaar Reference Pachur and Spaar 2015 ). Additional details regarding these measures can be found in Oktar et al. ( Reference Oktar, Lerner, Malaviya and Lombrozo 2023 ).

The researchers did not report the results for the trait measures. However, because the data are publicly available ( https://osf.io/y5tdu/ ), we analyzed them to investigate whether the students showed changes in these traits and whether such changes differed between the philosophy and psychology students. Figure 3 shows the average scores for both groups of students at the start and at the end of the semester.

Figure 3. Longitudinal changes in intellectual traits for students taking introductory courses in philosophy and psychology. Points and vertical lines indicate means and 95 percent confidence intervals. The y -axis has been standardized for ease of comparisons across measures.

For Moralization of Rationality and Preference for Deliberation, the philosophy students increased over the course of the semester, while the psychology students did not. For Preference for Intuition, the philosophy students increased, while the psychology students decreased. Hence, for these three outcomes, we do actually have some evidence of treatment effects. However, considering Open-Mindedness about Evidence and Importance of Rationality, there were no statistically significant differences between groups and no changes over time for either group.

Overall, the results of this study offer some preliminary evidence that philosophy courses can change the way students think. Although we found no evidence of an effect on open-mindedness, we did find evidence that philosophy courses might increase the tendency to deliberate, which is plausibly a desirable change—especially when paired with a balanced reliance on intuition and emotion. A greater tendency to be moralistic about rationality is less obviously valuable. Indeed, this question has long been debated (Clifford Reference Clifford 1879 ; James Reference James 1896 ). But perhaps most important, this study shows what can be done when philosophers and psychologists collaborate. Future studies could follow a similar model, assessing other outcomes and examining a wider range of philosophy courses.

We have covered a lot of ground in this article. To review, we have seen very clear evidence that people who have studied philosophy tend to have remarkably strong academic abilities in general and strong verbal and logical reasoning skills in particular. They also tend to be highly reflective and open-minded compared with people who have not studied philosophy. We have also seen clear evidence that at least some of these differences result from selection effects—that is, preexisting differences between those who choose to study philosophy and those who do not. For example, students at the very beginning of their philosophical education (during the first week of Philosophy 101) are already far more reflective than most people. Of course, the presence of strong selection effects does not rule out the presence of treatment effects. After all, one could think of a philosophical education as amplifying a strength, cultivating potentials that are revealed by preexisting interests and inclinations.

When we turn to treatment effects, however, the evidence is far less clear. Some studies find that philosophy education improves reading, writing, and mathematical abilities in young children, whereas others find no such effects. Additionally, although college students tend to improve in their critical thinking skills over time, there is no clear evidence that philosophy courses are especially effective at teaching critical thinking. That said, a specific technique called ‘argument mapping’, which is sometimes taught in philosophy courses, does hold promise for teaching critical thinking. Finally, although there is only a very limited amount of longitudinal data, we have seen that, relative to their peers, philosophy students show greater changes in their thinking about the specific topics covered in philosophy courses and in certain general attitudes (e.g., the degree to which they moralize rationality). However, we do not have clear evidence that students in these classes become, for instance, more open-minded or intellectually humble. Naturally, this lack of evidence does not demonstrate the absence of any such effects. Rather, it shows that more data are needed.

In some ways, our findings fit a larger pattern in education research, stretching back many decades, which is that learning often does not ‘transfer’ (Barnett and Ceci Reference Barnett and Ceci 2002 ; Cormier and Hagman Reference Cormier and Hagman 1987 ). That is, people often do not generalize the ideas, techniques, or skills that they learn in one area or context and apply them in other areas or contexts. Teaching people to solve math problems makes them better at solving math problems, and teaching them historical facts makes them better at recalling historical facts. But one should not assume that when people learn math or history, they will improve in their more general analytic reasoning skills or abilities to remember. The learning tends not to ‘transfer’ in that way. Similarly, teaching students to wrestle with philosophical problems could simply make them better at wrestling with philosophical problems and not improve their domain-general abilities in logical reasoning, critical thinking, and so on.

Philosophy instructors would do well to consider the insights coming out of research on how to facilitate the transfer of learning (Fiorella and Mayer Reference Fiorella and Mayer 2016 ; van Peppen et al. Reference Peppen, van Gog, Verkoeijen and Alexander 2022 )—for example, by prompting students to interpret and actively apply course content to questions from other domains or from their own lives. Nonetheless, there are some possible reasons for thinking that philosophical learning might be more transferable than some other kinds of learning.

Whereas some disciplines are characterized by a particular body of knowledge, philosophy is characterized by a distinctive kind of activity . Philosophy is often understood as a particular way of thinking about abstract questions, a style of thinking that is characterized by critical scrutiny but also by openness to unusual ideas (Edmonds and Warburton Reference Edmonds and Warburton 2010 ; Priest Reference Priest 2006 ). This style of thinking could plausibly be applied to a wide range of topics beyond those that would normally be considered ‘philosophical questions’. Indeed, for nearly any X there can be a philosophy of X . For example, there can be the philosophy of food, philosophy of dating, philosophy of most anything that one might do in ordinary life. Hence, the skills acquired from philosophical education may be more transferable to ordinary life than the skills acquired from mathematical education, for example. This distinctly philosophical way of thinking may, to some degree, be captured by measures like the CRT and the Actively Open-Minded Thinking Scale. But such measures were certainly not designed to assess this philosophical style of thinking. Perhaps, in future work, researchers might create measures designed specifically for this purpose though this would undoubtedly be a very difficult task and one plagued by a specter of parochialism. Although philosophers may value the distinctly philosophical way of thinking, others may not.

We conclude that we do not have strong evidence one way or the other about whether studying philosophy makes people better thinkers. The primary takeaway from our review of empirical evidence, therefore, is that there simply is not enough of it. If we want better evidence, it seems likely that we will need to gather it ourselves. Of course, many philosophers lack the requisite training in empirical and statistical methods. In such cases, we urge them to connect with collaborators in other disciplines (such as psychology) to design rigorous studies testing for effects of philosophical training. Naturally, the ideal would be a randomized controlled trial (RCT). Random assignment to groups rules out selection effects, and this means that any differences subsequently observed between groups can be attributed to the treatment. For a variety of reasons, however, RCTs are often not feasible in educational contexts. Hence, quasi-experiments like the study by Oktar and colleagues are a valuable alternative. A philosopher might, for example, administer pre- and post-tests, at the start and end of a semester or academic year and compare their own students with students not enrolled in any philosophy classes.

Future research may find stronger and clearer evidence that studying philosophy makes people better thinkers. But if we find that a philosophical education has no such effects, what implications would this have? First, we do not think that the value of philosophy can be understood in purely instrumental terms, and such findings would in no way undermine the claim that philosophy is intrinsically valuable. Second, we would consider such a finding cause for greater reflection on our teaching. Courses might be designed with greater emphasis on intellectual virtue (e.g., Battaly Reference Battaly 2006 ; Lamb et al. Reference Lamb, Dykhuis, Mendonça and Jayawickreme 2022 ). And empirical research on what does and does not influence intellectual virtues would be invaluable for informing such efforts. In any case, we will not know how philosophy affects its students until we go out and look.

No CrossRef data available.

View all Google Scholar citations for this article.

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle .

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

• MICHAEL PRINZING (a1) and MICHAEL VAZQUEZ (a2)
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/apa.2023.30

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox .

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive .

Reply to: Submit a response

- No HTML tags allowed - Web page URLs will display as text only - Lines and paragraphs break automatically - Attachments, images or tables are not permitted

Your details

Your email address will be used in order to notify you when your comment has been reviewed by the moderator and in case the author(s) of the article or the moderator need to contact you directly.

You have entered the maximum number of contributors

Conflicting interests.

Please list any fees and grants from, employment by, consultancy for, shared ownership in or any close relationship with, at any time over the preceding 36 months, any organisation whose interests may be affected by the publication of the response. Please also list any non-financial associations or interests (personal, professional, political, institutional, religious or other) that a reasonable reader would want to know about in relation to the submitted work. This pertains to all the authors of the piece, their spouses or partners.

Robert E. Levasseur, PhD

Blog Categories

• Collaborative Meeting Management
• Decision Making
• Doctoral Study
• High Performance Team Building
• Hiking and Nature
• Leadership and Change
• Lifelong Learning

Recent Posts

• Step 3. Transitioning from Group to Team
• Step 2. Creating Psychological Safety
• Step 1. Balancing the Team
• The Perfect Team Model
• Tips on Building a Perfect Team

Critical Thinking at the Doctoral Level

What does it mean to exercise critical thinking? Does it mean to be negative and adversarial? Does it mean to provide constructive criticism? Or does it mean something totally different? To explore the nature of critical thinking, we begin by examining the concept of left and right brain thinking.

Left and Right Brain Thinking

Brain research suggests that the left and right sides of the brain have distinct and complementary functions. Simply put, the left brain is the seat of logic and, hence, analytical thinking, and the right brain is the seat of intuition and, hence, system thinking.

So, is critical thinking left-brained, analytical thinking, or is it right-brained, system thinking?

Lower vs. Higher-order Thinking

differentiate the work of students from scholars, academics use a framework called Bloom’s Taxonomy. According to Benjamin Bloom, there are multiple levels of thinking.

They follow a hierarchy from the lowest to the highest order or level:

Comprehension

Application

New doctoral students tend to focus on the lower level skills since the educational system at the levels below the doctorate tend to emphasize their use.

As a doctoral student, however, your work must reflect all levels of thinking, particularly the higher-order thinking skills of analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. In addition, your work should incorporate a whole-brain approach that uses right-brained, systemic thinking to support left-brained, analytical thinking, and vice-versa.

Speaking Truth to Power: Teaching Critical Thinking in the Critical Theory Tradition

Cite this chapter.

• Stephen Brookfield  

4978 Accesses

4 Citations

How critical thinking is conceptualized frames how it is taught. Prominent traditions in the critical thinking discourse are analytic philosophy and logic, natural science, pragmatism, psychoanalysis and psychotherapy, and critical theory. If your intellectual reference point is the hypothetico-deductive method, then the kinds of student behaviors you regard as examples of critical thinking will be very different from a colleague who views it as the analysis of language games. However, whatever discipline one teaches in—from statistics to theology, physics to romance languages—there is a common intellectual project regarding critical thinking across the disciplines. The point of getting students to think critically is to get them to recognize, and question, the assumptions that determine how knowledge in that discipline is recognized as legitimate. Sometimes the emphasis is on ferreting out the assumptions behind the arguments of experts in the field, sometimes on students themselves making clear the assumptions they operate under. But no matter what the discipline, all areas of academic study are constructed on assumptions regarding what scholars in those disciplines regard as legitimate knowledge.

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

Access this chapter

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

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Unable to display preview.  Download preview PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

The Teaching of Critical Thinking

Critical Theory and Education

Critical Thinking Across the Curriculum: A Vision

Alfred, M. V. 2010. “Challenging Racism through Post-Colonial Discourse: A Critical Approach to Adult Education Pedagogy.” In The Handbook of Race and Adult Education: A Resource for Dialogue on Racism , edited by J. Johnson-Bailey, V. Sheared, S. A. J. Colin Jr. III, E. Peterson, and S. D. Brookfield. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 201–216.

Google Scholar  

Bassham, G., Irwin, W., Nardone, H., and Wallace, J. 2007. Critical Thinking: A Student’s Introduction . New York: McGraw-Hill.

Bronner, S. E. 2011. Critical Theory: A Very Short Introduction . New York: Oxford University Press.

Book   Google Scholar  

Bronner, S. E., and Kellner, D. M. 1989. Critical Theory and Society: A Reader . New York: Routledge

Brookfield, S. 2004. The Power of Critical Theory: Liberating Adult Learning and Teaching . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Brookfield, S. 2012. Teaching for Critical Thinking: Tools and Techniques to Help Students Question Their Assumptions . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Clark, C. M. 2006. “Adult Education and Disability Studies, an Interdisciplinary Relationship: Research Implications for Adult Education.” Adult Education Quarterly 56 (4): 308–322.

Article   Google Scholar  

Closson, R. B. 2010. “Critical Race Theory and Adult Education.” Adult Education Quarterly 60 (3): 261–283.

Colin, S. A. J. 2010. “White Racist Ideology and the Myth of a Postracial Society.” In White Privilege and Racism: Perceptions and Actions , edited by C. L. Lund and S. A. J. Colin III. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Diestler, S. 2009. Becoming a Critical Thinker: A User-Friendly Manual . Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice-Hall.

Eagleton, T. 2007. Ideology: An Introduction . London: Verso.

European-American Collaborative Challenging Whiteness (ECCW). 2009. “Challenging Racism in Self and Others: Transformative Learning as a Living Practice.” In Transformative Learning in Practice: Insights from Community, Workplace, and Higher Education , edited by J. Mezirow and E. Taylor. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 262–274.

Fromm, E. 1956. The Sane Society . London: Routledge, Kegan & Paul.

Grace, A. P., and Hill, R. J. 2004. “Positioning Queer in Adult Education: Intervening in Politics and Praxis in North America.” Studies in the Education of Adults 36 (2): 167–189.

Habermas, J. 1987. The Theory of Communicative Action: Volume Two, Lifeworld and System—a Critique of Functionalist Reason . Boston: Beacon.

Hart, M. 2005. “Class and Gender.” In Class Concerns: Adult Education and Social Class , edited by T. Nesbit. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Hill, R. J. 2004. “Activism as Practice: Some Queer Considerations.” In Promoting Critical Practice in Adult Education , edited by R. St. Clair and J. Sandlin. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 85–94.

Hill, R. J. 2006. Challenging Homophobia and Heterosexism: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer Issues in Organizational Settings . Vol. 112. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass

Hill, R. J., and Grace, A. P. 2010. Adult and Higher Education in Queer Contexts: Power, Politics and Pedagogy . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass

Horkheimer, M., and Adorno, T. 1972. Dialectic of Enlightenment . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Horsman, J. 2013. Learning and Violence. http://www.learningandviolence.net /helpothr/drawing.pdf

King, K. P., and Biro, S. C. 2006. “A Transformative Learning Perspective of Continuing Sexual Identity Development at the Workplace.” In Challenging Homophobia and Heterosexism: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer Issues in Organizational Settings , edited by R. J. Hill. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 17–27.

Manicom, L., and Walters, S. 2012. Feminist Popular Education in Transnational Debates . New York: Palgrave

Marcuse, H. 1964. One Dimensional Man . Boston: Beacon.

McLean, M. A. 2012. “Getting to Know You: The Prospect of Challenging Ableism through Adult Learning.” In Challenging Ableism, Understanding Disability, Including Adults with Disabilities in Workplaces and Learning Spaces , edited by T.S. Rocco. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 13–22.

Mills, C. W. 1959. The Sociological Imagination . New York: Oxford University Press.

Mills, C. W. 1962. The Marxists . New York: Dell.

Mojab, S. 2005. “Class and Race.” In Class Concerns: Adult Education and Social Class , edited by T. Nesbit. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Mojab, S. 2010. Women, War, Violence and Learning . New York, London: Routledge

O’Neill, E., and O’Sullivan, E. 2002. “Transforming the Ecology of Violence: Ecology, War, Patriarchy and the Institutionalization of Violence.” In Expanding the Boundaries of Transformative Learning: Essays on Theory and Praxis , edited by E. O’Sullivan, A. Morrell and M. A. O’Connor. New York: Palgrave 173–183.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Orwell, G. 1946. “Politics and the English Language.” Horizon 76 (April): 252–264.

Ostovary, F., and Dapprich, J. 2012. “Challenges and Opportunities of Operation Enduring Freedom/Operation Iraqi Freedom Veterans with Disabilities Transitioning into Learning and Workplace Environments.” In Challenging Ableism, Understanding Disability, Including Adults with Disabilities in Workplaces and Learning Spaces , edited by T. S. Rocco. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 63–74.

Paxton, D. 2010. “Transforming White Consciousness.” In The Handbook of Race and Adult Education: A Resource for Dialogue on Racism , edited by V. Sheared, J. Johnson-Bailey, S. A. J. Colin Jr. III., E. Peterson, and S. D. Brookfield. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 119–132.

Rocco, T. S. 2011. “Editor’s Notes.” In Challenging Ableism, Understanding Disability, Including Adults with Disabilities in Workplaces and Learning Spaces , edited by T. S. Rocco. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Rocco, T. S., and Delgado, A. 2011. “Shifting Lenses: A Critical Examination of Disability in Adult Education.” In Challenging Ableism, Understanding Disability, Including Adults with Disabilities in Workplaces and Learning Spaces , edited by T. S. Rocco. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 132.

Ross-Gordon, J. M. 2002. “Sociocultural Learning amongst Adults with Disabilities.” In Learning and Sociocultural Contexts: Implications for Adult, Community, and Workplace Education , edited by M.V. Alfred. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 96.

Sedgewick, E. K. 2008. Epistemology of the Closet . 2nd ed. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Shaloub-Kervorkian, N. 2010. “The Gendered Nature of Education under Siege: A Palestinian Feminist Perspective.” In Women, War, Violence and Learning , edited by S. Mojab. New York: Routledge.

Shor, I. 1996. When Students Have Power: Negotiating Authority in a Critical Pedagogy . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Shore, S. 2010. “Whiteness at Work in Vocational Training in Australia.” In White Privilege and Racism: Perceptions and Actions , edited by C. L. Lund and S. A. J. Colin. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 125.

Download references

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Editor information

Copyright information.

© 2015 Martin Davies and Ronald Barnett

About this chapter

Brookfield, S. (2015). Speaking Truth to Power: Teaching Critical Thinking in the Critical Theory Tradition. In: Davies, M., Barnett, R. (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Critical Thinking in Higher Education. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137378057_31

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137378057_31

Publisher Name : Palgrave Macmillan, New York

Print ISBN : 978-1-349-47812-5

Online ISBN : 978-1-137-37805-7

eBook Packages : Palgrave Education Collection Education (R0)

Share this chapter

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Philosophy Behind Critical Thinking: A Concise Overview

The philosophy behind critical thinking delves into the deeper understanding of what it means to think critically and to develop the ability to reason, analyze, and evaluate information in a structured and systematic manner. Critical thinking has intricate connections with philosophy, mainly because it originated from ancient philosophical teachings. At its core, the concept of critical thinking is rooted in the Socratic method of questioning, which emphasizes the importance of inquiry and rational thinking as a means to achieve knowledge.

Understanding critical thinking necessitates exploring the various philosophical groundings, which delves into epistemology, the branch of philosophy that deals with knowledge, truth, and belief. Epistemological theories help elucidate different approaches to critical thinking, such as the psychological approach, focusing on cognitive processes, and the cultural and social context approach, emphasizing the importance of context in shaping critical thought. In the realm of education, the role of critical thinking cannot be understated, as it is a vital component of teaching and learning, shaping the way individuals process and interpret information and develop intellectually.

Key Takeaways

Understanding critical thinking.

Definition and Process

Critical thinking is the ability to think clearly and rationally about what to do or what to believe. It involves engaging in reflective and independent thinking . To understand the logical connections between ideas, one needs to identify, construct, and evaluate arguments.

Logic, Reason, Rationality

Strategies and patterns, justification and argumentation.

Justification and argumentation play a crucial role in critical thinking. Justification refers to providing reasons or evidence in support of a claim, while argumentation involves constructing and evaluating arguments . Both justification and argumentation require logical reasoning, analysis of evidence, and clear communication of ideas.

Clarity and Reflection

In conclusion, understanding critical thinking involves exploring its definition, process, and key components, such as logic, reason, rationality, strategies, patterns, justification, argumentation, clarity, and reflection. By cultivating a strong foundation in these areas, individuals can develop their ability to think critically and make well-informed decisions in various aspects of life.

Psychological Approach to Critical Thinking

Cognition and Pattern Recognition

Bias and judgments, problem-solving and decision-making.

In conclusion, the psychological approach to critical thinking focuses on fostering cognitive skills, identifying and minimizing biases, and developing strong problem-solving and decision-making abilities. By enhancing these aspects, individuals can become more effective critical thinkers and make well-informed decisions throughout their lives.

Philosophical Groundings

Roots of critical thought, major philosophers and approaches, informal logic and its importance.

Informal logic plays a crucial role in critical thinking as it concerns the principles and methods used to analyze everyday arguments and reasoning beyond the scope of formal logic. It complements formal logic, which deals strictly with logical systems and symbols. Informal logic helps individuals assess the validity, soundness, and context of arguments encountered in daily life. By honing their skills in informal logic, individuals can become better critical thinkers and more adept at navigating complex situations and decision-making processes.

Critical Thinking in Cultural and Social Context

Race and gender perspectives.

Critical thinking is a universal skill that transcends cultural and social boundaries. However, it is essential to consider the impact of race and gender on the development and exercise of critical thinking skills. People from marginalized groups may experience unique challenges and perspectives that influence their critical thinking abilities. For example, in a cross-cultural study examining critical thinking among nurse scholars in Thailand and the United States, distinctive perspectives on critical thinking were observed due to cultural differences. Understanding the intersections of race, gender, and critical thinking can help create more inclusive education and workplace environments that foster critical thinking for everyone.

Critical Thinking in a Democratic Society

Culture, society, and critical thinking.

Cultural backgrounds and societal norms can significantly impact how individuals approach critical thinking. Different cultures may emphasize various ways of thinking, problem-solving, and expressing ideas. As a result, critical thinking can manifest differently across cultures, often influenced by aspects such as language, traditions, and values. A study discussing critical thinking in its historical and social contexts highlights the importance of considering cultural influences when evaluating and teaching critical thinking.

Role of Critical Thinking in Education

Aims of education, skills development.

Critical thinking involves a variety of skills and abilities that are essential for students’ personal and professional success. These include problem-solving, decision making, logical reasoning, and effective communication, among others. By teaching these skills in the classroom, educators enable learners to confront complex issues and dilemmas with confidence and clarity, fostering their cognitive, social, and emotional growth.

Standardized Tests vs. Critical Thought

While standardized tests have dominated the contemporary education system, there is growing concern regarding their effectiveness in promoting critical thinking. Some argue that standardized tests prioritize the acquisition of specific knowledge over the development of essential skills and abilities, leading to an education that is more focused on rote memorization than meaningful learning.

Importance of Open-Mindedness and Skepticism

Being skeptical vs. being cynical.

A critical thinker should strive to be skeptical rather than cynical. Approaching situations with skepticism allows for the exploration of different viewpoints and the willingness to change one’s mind based on new evidence, while cynicism can lead to the dismissal of valid arguments due to preconceived negative beliefs.

Traits of an Open-Minded Thinker

Open-mindedness is an essential trait for critical thinkers. Some key characteristics of an open-minded thinker include:

Role of Curiosity and Empathy in Critical Thinking

Empathy, on the other hand, permits critical thinkers to comprehend and appreciate different perspectives by placing themselves in others’ shoes. An empathetic approach contributes to open-mindedness and cultivates a sense of humility, recognizing that individuals may hold contrasting opinions based on personal experiences or beliefs. The combination of curiosity and empathy enhances critical thinking by promoting a more inclusive and nuanced understanding of complex issues and scenarios.

You may also like

Solving life’s different challenges with the 9 mental models, critical thinking skills in the workplace, critical thinking and modern media: methods for finding the truth, what are the top 20 best critical thinking books, download this free ebook.

Pardon Our Interruption

As you were browsing something about your browser made us think you were a bot. There are a few reasons this might happen:

• You've disabled JavaScript in your web browser.
• You're a power user moving through this website with super-human speed.
• You've disabled cookies in your web browser.
• A third-party browser plugin, such as Ghostery or NoScript, is preventing JavaScript from running. Additional information is available in this support article .

To regain access, please make sure that cookies and JavaScript are enabled before reloading the page.

• 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

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.