research on critical and creative thinking models

• Productivity
• Thoughtful learning

Critical thinking models: definition, benefits, and skills

In the age of memes and misinformation, critical thinking is a must. It's a crucial skill to differentiate between what may be true or false and develop (and explain) reasons for your beliefs.

The hardest part of critical thinking is knowing when to do it. Most of the time, it's easier to accept things as fact rather than to dig deeper to reach a conscious conclusion. This happens for various reasons. The most common being the ease of following the crowd and the fact it would be rather cumbersome to think critically about every single thing in the world!

How then do we know what to think critically about? How do we get the right answers, and how do we know they're correct? This is where a critical thinking model comes in. In this article, we’ll share three critical thinking models, essential critical reasoning skills, and why improving your critical thinking process is a good idea.

What Is Critical Thinking?

"Critical thinking is reasonable and reflective thinking focused on deciding what to believe or do.” This is how renowned professor and author Robert Hugh Ennis defines it. Put another way, the definition of critical thinking is careful consideration and analysis of information to reach a rational conclusion or decision. We practice critical thinking to inform—and own—our beliefs and actions and ensure they truly align with our values and intentions.

That said, critical thinking is not our natural way of thinking . Most of us are never aware of our brain's metacognitive actions, conceptualizations, or synthesis. Instead, we rely on habits, patterns, and competencies from past experiences to understand and interact with the world. While this may save us time and effort, it doesn’t always provide the best results—and often results in fallacies.

What Are Critical Thinking Models?

A critical thinking model provides the structure for practicing this type of thinking. It helps us notice our own thinking biases and allows us to try viewing the world objectively all while providing guidelines for asking the right questions, reaching logical conclusions, and explaining how we did it.

3 Critical Thinking Models That Are Useful in Everyday Life

There are thousands of critical thinking models for almost any subject or discipline. Let’s take a look at three models of critical thinking we find useful in everyday life.

Proximate vs. Root Cause

The proximate vs. root cause critical thinking model encourages people to discover the primary cause of an event. A proximate cause is closest to the observed result or immediately responsible for it. In contrast, the root cause is the actual cause of the result. Both are causes of the event, but the root cause is the main cause, while the proximate cause is the immediate next cause.

This mental model forces you to look beyond obvious reasons to determine the core reason for impact. It helps with innovative problem-solving, so instead of relying on “Band-Aid solutions” or improving currently-existing solutions, you uncover the root of the matter and create something altogether new.

Example: You've gained a lot of weight since March 2021. Upon investigation, you may draw the following inferences:

• Proximate cause: You burn fewer calories than you consume (moving less and eating more due to boredom or food accessibility), thus the weight gain.
• Root cause: Your habits changed because of the lifestyle change from working at the office to working from home.

When you know the root cause of an issue, you can begin to deal with it to reduce the odds of recurrence. In this case, change your habits to fit the work-from-home lifestyle better. The proximate vs. root cause model improves your critical thinking ability and helps formulate a proper understanding of issues before working on them.

Cognitive Bias

Cognitive bias is a tendency to think in ways that can lead to deviations from rationality and objectivity. We all have cognitive biases. This error in thinking happens because of our tendency to process and interpret information swiftly, which can affect our decision-making and the eventual outcome of a situation.

Example: A soccer player scores a goal. In his mind, that means he's a great player. But if he had missed, he would reason that it was because the grass was wet. In self-serving bias, the tendency is to claim more responsibility for successes than failures. In other words: if there's a success, it's because I did something right. If there's a failure, it's something else's fault, not mine.

When you only pay attention or engage with news sources, stories, and conversations that confirm your worldview, you limit yourself from other perspectives and opinions that may be good for you without realizing it. Being aware of your own cognitive bias allows you to create some distance between how you expect the world to be and become more open to how it actually is on any given day.

The human brain is a powerful machine, but it has its limitations. One of them is neglecting facts and evidence to make sense of the world quickly and easily. This habit of mind may allow us to make faster decisions, but it doesn't serve us optimally. When unchecked, cognitive biases hinder fair-mindedness, inclusion, and impartiality.

Hanlon's Razor

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence."

Hanlon's Razor promotes good thinking and teaches us not to assume the worst intentions about people's actions without investigation. It helps regulate our emotions and improve relationships and decision-making. It also helps us develop empathy by giving others the benefit of the doubt and not assuming negative intent with evidence.

Example: You get to work earlier than usual on a Monday morning and notice your things scattered around. This must mean someone used your office! You immediately think a certain coworker did this to annoy you. But when you pause and consider, you realize that a coworker may have used your office during the weekend because it was vacant and they forgot their keys at home.

The stories we tell ourselves about why things happen the way they do are rarely true. It's worth spending some time to objectively view situations and choose a positive narrative that leads to better outcomes in our mental and emotional health and relationships.

Be the first to try it out!

We're developing ABLE, a powerful tool for building your personal knowledge, capturing information from the web, conducting research, taking notes, and writing content.

Critical Thinking Skills and Their Benefits

Critical thinking skills are useful for everyone. They help us think coherently and make advancements with our personal and professional goals. Some of the benefits you can gain from critical thinking are:

• Greater reflective thinking and self-awareness
• Ability to audit new information
• Better interpersonal relationships
• More creative thinking and problem-solving skills
• Expanded open-mindedness
• Improved communication and presentation skills
• Freedom from past experiences and attachments

To gain these types of benefits, it’s important to practice the critical thinking skills listed below.

1. Observation

Observation is the foundation for critical thinking. It’s the ability to notice and predict opportunities, problems, and solutions. Taking the time to observe helps you process information better. Positive habits like meditating, journaling, and active listening will help you improve your observation skills.

2. Analysis

After observing, it's time to analyze the information. Analyzing helps you gain a clearer grasp of the situation at hand. Ask questions that help you get a clearer picture of the subject and get to the root cause or reason. For example, if you’re analyzing a controversial tweet you read, you may ask questions such as:

• Who wrote this?
• What is it about?
• When was it written?
• Why did they write it? Do they have a hidden agenda?
• How sound is the premise?
• What if this tweet was altered to send a misleading message?

These questions help you break your subject into rational bits and consider the relationship between each one and the whole.

3. Inference

Inference is the ability to draw conclusions from the information you've analyzed and other relevant data. It's a higher-level critical thinking skill that helps you reach careful decisions rather than hastily drawn (and likely biased) conclusions.

4. Communication

Once you have a solid foundation for your beliefs, communicating your theory is the next essential part of critical thinking. Share your point of view and get feedback from others to know if it holds up. You can improve your communication skills by participating in thematic forum discussions and sharing your research and insights with others in your community, both online and offline.

5. Problem-solving

Problem-solving is one of the main reasons for critical thinking. The end goal of critical thinking is using your new conclusion to close gaps and solve problems. You start by identifying your viewpoint, analyzing relevant information, and deciding on the right solution for a particular scenario. You can improve your problem-solving skills by self-learning the subject at hand and considering hidden, alternative outcomes.

Tap Into the Power of Critical Thinking

Becoming a critical thinker is challenging but oh-so worth it. It leads to continuous growth in all areas of your life: better relationships, confidence, and problem-solving skills. Critical thinking helps us overcome familiar patterns and ways of thinking, opening us to new perspectives.

To improve your critical thinking, spend time honing the five crucial critical thinking skills: observation, analysis, inference, communication, and problem-solving. Have fun with the process as you pay more attention to your beliefs and experiences and other people's perspectives and experiences as well.

You can use critical thinking models to guide your critical thinking journey, prompting you to realize when to pause and ask questions and when to accept the answers you have and move on. For example, in today’s age of misinformation, you may learn that it’s almost always counterproductive to engage with news and information from unknown sources.

Critical thinking is needed to remove scales from our eyes and improve our knowledge and experience of the world, but it’s also important to know when to turn our attention to focus on a new subject and move on.

Improve your critical thinking with ABLE

Ask better questions and get better answers with ABLEs integrated web search, annotation and note-taking features. Check how ABLE helps you to improve your critical thinking.

We hope you have enjoyed reading this article. Feel free to share, recommend and connect on Twitter: https://twitter.com/meet_able 🙏

Straight from the ABLE team: how we work and what we build. Thoughts, learnings, notes, experiences and what really matters.

Read more posts by this author

follow me :

Simplifying complexity: How to conquer clarity and brevity

How to organize information: the best methods for lifelong learning.

What is abstract thinking? 10 activities to improve your abstract thinking skills

5 examples of cognitive learning theory (and how you can use them)

0 results found.

• Aegis Alpha SA
• We build in public

Building with passion in

Advertisement

Radical rubrics: implementing the critical and creative thinking general capability through an ecological approach

• Open access
• Published: 20 April 2022
• Volume 50 , pages 729–745, ( 2023 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Dan Harris   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1138-8229 1 ,
• Kathryn Coleman   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-9885-9299 1 &
• Peter J. Cook   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-2942-1568 1  

5871 Accesses

2 Citations

12 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

This article details how and why we have developed a flexible and responsive process-based rubric exemplar for teaching, learning, and assessing critical and creative thinking. We hope to contribute to global discussions of and efforts toward instrumentalising the challenge of assessing, but not standardising, creativity in compulsory education. Here, we respond to the key ideas of the four interrelated elements in the critical and creative thinking general capability in the Australian Curriculum learning continuum: inquiring; generating ideas, possibilities, actions; reflecting on thinking processes; and analysing, synthesising and evaluating reasoning and procedures. The rubrics, radical because they privilege process over outcome, have been designed to be used alongside the current NAPLAN tests in Years 5, 7 and 9 to build an Australian-based national creativity measure. We do so to argue the need for local and global measures of creativity in education as the first round of testing and results of the PISA Assessment of Creative Thinking approach and to contribute to the recognition of creative thinking (and doing) as a core twenty-first century literacy alongside literacy and numeracy.

Similar content being viewed by others

Reimagining Creativity: Critically, Ethically, and Practically

Creativity in 21st-century education

Lynn D. Newton & Douglas P. Newton

Supporting Creative Teaching and Learning in the Classroom: Myths, Models, and Measures

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

This paper promotes the inclusion of critical and creative thinking in Initial Teacher Education (ITE)—and in turn, school-based education—through the development and use of process-based creative inquiry (PBCI) rubrics. We propose that creative inquiry rubrics are radical in their attention to teaching, learning and assessing processes over outcomes. We advocate for a process orientation as an antidote to the continuing standardisation of creativity measures, most recently seen in the incoming PISA creative thinking test (OECD, 2019 ). Within such a creative ecological approach (Harris, 2016a ), the use of PBCI rubrics is underpinned by curriculum as praxis (Grundy, 1987 ), where the practice of becoming a teacher is intertwined with the pre-service teachers' experience of being creative and critical thinking learners. We are also drawing on Freirean praxis pedagogy beliefs ( 1972 ), where reflection and immersion in the field connect theoretical underpinnings explored in initial teacher education courses with their practical implementation during professional experiences. The radical rubric approach aims to provide pre-service teachers with meaningful, authentic experiences in transforming creative and critical education so that they are equipped to design and develop meaningful, authentic critical and creative learning experiences in their future schools and classrooms. ITE programs are encouraged to integrate critical and creative inquiry activities into their cornerstone and capstone units with these radical rubrics to prepare graduates to contribute to the education sector's broader creative ecology. This approach is timely as we transition from pandemic pedagogies to endemic practices.

Positioning critical and creative thinking in initial teacher education

Australian ITE programs are complex programs focussed on learning about teaching practices through the study of curriculum and pedagogy. These programs are developed through well-defined accredited learning designs, underpinned by curriculum, policy, educational theories and pedagogical practices in conjunction with school-based work-integrated learning (WIL) placements to prepare pre-service teachers for success. To achieve this, ITE programs are responsive to multiple reforms: professional regulatory bodies such as the Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL) and the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA), including recent shifts in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, and compliance standards that are enforced through state and commonwealth government authorities. Higher education providers must meet standards from authorities in their home state to enable graduates to register as teachers. University courses are mapped against program standards set by AITSL to ensure that pre-service teachers are classroom ready for the challenging and diverse educational contexts they will encounter.

Reforms and systemic stresses affect early-career graduate teachers' creativity and teaching practices. They are deterred by embedded school practices rather than developing and designing cross-cutting innovative, curious and collaborative future-focussed learning and teaching. Reform pressures are increased by systemic stressors that focus on performance, high-stakes assessment, national testing results and the need to meet national and international benchmarks. Over the last few years, Australian reforms have been directed by the following vision documents: Teacher Education Ministerial Advisory Group Report Action Now – Classroom Ready Teachers ( 2014 ); compulsory testing for teachers entering the profession, implemented as the Literacy and Numeracy Test for Initial Teacher Education (ACER, 2016 ); National Review of Teacher Registration (AITSL, 2018 ); and current Parliamentary reviews such as the Status of the Teaching Profession (Parliament of Australia, 2019 ). While ITE programs vary institutionally, they are all limited by insufficient time to effectively deliver a coherent curriculum that is “taught, assessed and practiced” (AITSL, 2019 ) alongside strategies for integrating new workplace and socio-cultural skills like creativity. The use of more flexible and process-focussed assessment tools in ITE (provided ITE programs offer adequate learner and teacher experience integrated into their units) can positively influence school change, simultaneously promoting creative environments in classrooms and across whole schools, once ITE graduates find employment.

Developments in the Australian context

In Australia, the impetus to foster creativity and innovation, and develop critical thinking skills and creative capacities was at the forefront of The Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians (MCEETYA, 2008 ). More than a decade on, this can still be seen as a significant turning point in the national agenda toward valuing creativity in Australian education, as indicated in the Alice Springs (Mparntwe) Education Declaration ( 2019 ). The need for critical and creative thinking is well established by ACARA ( 2016 ) as a general capability to be integrated across the curriculum continuum. AITSL ( 2019 ) identifies that critical and creative thinking is a teaching strategy for effective teaching and learning to foster confident, creative and innovative young Australians. These shifts signal the growing complexity of teacher responsibilities for developing teaching and assessment skills in critical and creative thinking to design learning for unknown futures.

National Australian reviews of creative and cultural education, and employment strategies (Flew & Cunningham, 2010 ; Harris, 2014 ; Harris, 2016a , 2016b a&b; Harris & Ammerman, 2016 ) have synthesised the interrelationship between education practice and the need to develop creative dispositions such as inquisitiveness, persistence, imagination and collaboration in student learning. It has been further argued within ITE programs and professional teacher/school practices that ecological perspectives via whole-school strategies and audits improve professional teacher practice (Richardson & Mishra, 2018 ). The Australian Government's Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training's Inquiry into innovation and creativity: Workforce for the new economy (Parliament of Australia, 2016 ) was created to ensure that “Australia's tertiary system—including universities and public and private providers of vocational education and training—can meet the needs of a future labour force focussed on innovation and creativity” (n.p). These developments in the Australian national context were mirrored globally (Beghetto, et al., 2014 ; Chiam, et al., 2014 ; DOET, 2014 ; Lassig, 2019 ) pre-pandemic and indicate a groundswell of attention to creativity education and work readiness that drives the need for further development in this area as we reimagine school and education for the future.

ITE programs synthesise both the Australian Curriculum and each state or territory's local curriculum adaptations (GWA, 2018 ; QLD Government, 2018 ; NESA, 2018 ; VCAA, 2016 ). Apart from providing the general blueprint, the Australian Curriculum provides seven general capabilities encompassing knowledge, skills, behaviours and dispositions. Critical and Creative Thinking is one of the capabilities through which students “learn to generate and evaluate knowledge, clarify concepts and ideas, seek possibilities, consider alternatives and solve problems” (ACARA, 2016 ). Schools expect graduate teachers to deliver these capabilities through an integrated curriculum and inter-, multi- and transdisciplinary approaches, which we argue should be explicitly taught and commenced in ITE programs if they are to be successful. The co-authors have significant experience in teaching disciplinarily and have integrated these practices from an interdisciplinary epistemological approach, which we offer as part of the radicalising of the curriculum.

The ITE provider's challenge is to locate appropriate space within their complex teacher education programs to include all capabilities while scaffolding ways to design integrated learning and develop inter-, multi- and transdisciplinary knowledge and skills (Moss, et al., 2019 ). Including the capabilities as part of professional experience units provides practical examples of how to implement the capabilities and the associated pedagogical knowledge for learners in their future classrooms. We assert that engaging deeply in the capabilities within the discipline and curriculum units as both learners and teachers enables greater interaction of those capabilities through two-way pedagogies (Learning Policy Institute & Turnaround for Children, 2021 ) as pre-service teachers themselves learn through creative inquiry methods “to find out what students are thinking, puzzling over, feeling, and struggling with” (Darling-Hammond, 2016 , p. 86). A PBCI rubric that troubles perceived notions of creativity and presents an innovative approach to developing critical and creative thinking, appraisal and assessment qualities in ITE students would assist in achieving this transformation. All the general capabilities, including Critical and Creative Thinking, are noted on each state's syllabus websites, only some of which have been updated to align with the Australian Curriculum (all of which continue to be fluid documents). The states that have adopted these capabilities under the banner of learning across the curriculum, provide limited direction for inclusion outside of the content descriptions in some subjects and short elaborations on the ACARA site.

The inclusion of Critical and Creative Thinking in the Australian Curriculum has created an opportunity to further future-focussed learning that allows for transferable skills in a curriculum for both graduate teachers and their students. “In the Australian Curriculum, general capabilities are addressed through the learning areas and are identified where they offer opportunities to add depth and richness to student learning” (ACARA, 2016 ). Teaching a curriculum of the future requires skills and capabilities (Reeves, 2021 ), necessary in the “fourth industrial revolution” (Farrell & Corbel, 2017 ) and within post-pandemic pedagogies (McCarty, 2020 ) such as play, problem-solving, creative thinking, collaboration and digital skills. These transferable cross-cutting skills include a range of multimodal literacies (Walsh, 2010 ) and capabilities often referred to as “soft skills” (Lucas et al., 2013 ). But how do early-career teachers develop and maintain the ability to design disciplinary future-focussed creative learning and teaching? Where do early-career teachers develop their curriculum integration skills and capacities as practitioners? Arguably, these are acquired through practising over time and found in integrative disciplinary knowledge domains to support graduate teachers as learners as they traverse disciplinary and inter-, multi- and transdisciplinary skills and knowledge. The authors believe that this must begin in their initial teacher education.

Initial teacher education (ITE) and creative ecologies

A creative ecology approach (Harris, 2016a ) in ITE provides a space for learning about 'curriculum as praxis' (Grundy, 1987 ) and for Critical and Creative Thinking to be nurtured collectively and collaboratively rather than individually through a praxis pedagogy (Arnold & Mundy, 2020 ). Transferable, integrated and inter-, multi- and transdisciplinary skills are developed through inquiry-based learning (Magnussen et al., 2000 ) that allow for communication, creativity, problem solving, negotiation, teamwork, reflection, empathy and knowledge that cuts across disciplinary silos (Barnes & Shirley, 2007 ).

As a team of creative educators, we have worked with Harris' creative ecology ( 2016b ) to develop creative inquiry-based learning in a similar holistic, collaborative and creative methodology, focussed on building creative skills across educational sites and communities. This practice-related research is underpinned by Harris' body of work (for example, Harris, 2016b ) in fostering creativity in schools and communities. As such, we are led by a belief that pre-service and early-career teachers are central to generating and opening opportunities for creative ecologies within the teaching profession as they negotiate new epistemic cultures (Knorr Cetina, 2007 ). Our research is driven by a desire to create radical changes in education through a curriculum as praxis, starting within a critical praxis inquiry model of learning in ITE (Arnold, et al., 2012 ). As Grundy ( 1987 ) asserts, “the curriculum is not simply a set of plans to be implemented, but rather is constituted through an active process in which planning, acting and evaluating are all reciprocally related and integrated into the process” (p. 115). Pre-service teachers' ways of knowing about critical and creative thinking are bound by their experiences and skills in instructional strategies and assessment design within these disciplinary knowledge spaces rather than through practice as learners.

To intervene, we propose that Critical and Creative Thinking as a general capability is explicitly implemented within ITE programs through the praxis inquiry model of learning that enables pre-service teachers to make explicit links between practice and theory as both learners and teachers. We know it can be challenging for schools and teachers to implement this general capability, as critical thinking continues to predominate over creative thinking, often because of preconceived disciplinary differences. The essence of creative thinking is considered foundationally, often becoming an afterthought. Similarly, in ITE programs, rather than focussing on the design of the teacher education program and curriculum planning for explicit creative thinking possibilities, creativity and its possibilities remain dependent upon individual teacher educators' comfort or ability levels. Through praxis inquiry-based learning, we propose that our collaboratively developed PBCI rubric exemplar can serve as an agentic 'two-way' pedagogical tool for pre-service teachers as learners, and in-service teachers and students in schools to construct and organise knowledge about Critical and Creative Thinking. The PBCI rubrics become essential parts of the Creative Education Toolkit that connects to Harris' Creative Ecology model (Harris, 2016b ), including the Creativity Index, Whole-School Creativity Audit, Top 10 Creative skills and capacities and the Creative Ecology model (Fig.  1 ).

Creative ecology model (Harris, 2016b )

The Mitchell Institute's ( 2016 ) position paper on teacher education reform mentions creativity once and offers no practical way forward, either in schools or in university ITE programs:

Teachers...are integral to developing the capabilities of young people. Not only do teachers need to be able to develop students to have inquiring minds that can think critically and creatively, but these learning dispositions are critical for teachers to possess. (p. 3)

The Practice Principles for Excellence in Teaching and Learning ( 2017 ) in Victorian schools posits that “Teachers design learning programs to explicitly build deep levels of thinking and application. This is evident when the teacher: models and develops students' critical, creative and higher order thinking skills” (p. 22). Our collaborative work is based on this premise.

It began pre-pandemic with designing and developing a PBCI rubric to support and enable ITE students to contribute positively to the creative ecologies in their creative educational ecosystems, including placement schools and future employment sites. By focussing on the inter-relationships between teaching, learning, practices and assessing for Critical and Creative Thinking, we can avoid definitional skirmishes that frequently occur in disciplinary debates and highlight creative thinking skills. Therefore, we make it clear that ITE programs need to demonstrate how they teach, practice and assess Critical and Creative Thinking through an inquiry-based learning model that can be integrated into and across all disciplinary cultures and practices in education (including in the goal of transdisciplinary work). Australian ITE programs should better reflect the changing global educational landscapes that recognise critical and creative thinking as central to learning, teaching and assessment to ensure success-ready graduates in the pandemic and endemic.

Our collaborative ecological approach offers ITE pre-service teachers experience in considering both the theoretical underpinnings of the Critical and Creative Thinking general capability and practical, implementable strategies for approaching teaching, learning and assessment on their professional experience placements to combat the conflation of critical with creative as problematic. Central to the Creative Education Toolkit are the radical rubrics, designed to align with the NAPLAN testing years, scaffolding the skills to participate in and contribute to, developing a robust creative ecology within their future schools.

Harris' creative ecologies

Harris' formulation of a creative ecology model includes five domains that address elements in all areas of learning communities. Following Amabile and et al.'s ( 1996 ) development of valid ecological measures of creativity in workplace contexts, the Harris creative ecology heuristic follows a desire for “assessment of this complex interaction between a person's creativity and the environment” (Harris, 2016b , p. 85), in contrast to traditional approaches to fostering creativity which remains fixed solely on the individual. By drawing on Amabile's Work Environment Inventory, which assesses workplace environmental factors that are most likely to influence the expression and development of creative ideas, the Harris creative ecology model lends itself to a more environmental, collective approach to fostering creativity within the school (or any) community. This includes students, teachers, school leaders, administrators, practices, built and natural environments in and beyond the classroom, and appears in social, cultural, material and virtual spaces where teachers and students interact for the purposes of learning.

Approaching creativity in education as an ecology (de Bruin & Harris, 2017 ; Harris, 2018 ) engages learners and teachers in practices stimulated by relationships and interactions within their micro, macro and meta-worlds (see Fig.  1 ). Creative thought results from the cognitive, physical, emotional and virtual interaction between people, problems, situations and experiences triggered through affordances that allow such connectivity (McWilliam, 2010 ). A creative ecology demands a systems approach in which all elements of the ecology work in relation to one another, none in isolation. Harris' creative ecologies and the associated literature offer a beneficial framework for designing adaptable Creative Educational Toolkits.

Traditional assessments of creativity in education were primarily rooted in individual tasks of giftedness, talent and psychometric measures (Eysenck, 1996 ; Mayer, 1999 ; Runco & Mraz, 1992 ; Torrance, 1974 ). However, the creative ecologies approach recognises how an education site's people, practices and places are intertwined and connected, working in, out of and through each other—creating the conditions for creativity to thrive, rather than focussing on individual attributes. These ecological connections and conditions enable and allow each entity within the ecosystem to develop through interactions and flows, permeating barriers and discarding false binaries of 'inside' and 'outside', 'individual' and 'collective' activities. One benefit of approaching thinking ecologically is that it provides a framework to support learners and learning, alongside beginning teachers, through attention to the whole-school site, system and community.

A creative ecology model in ITE prepares teachers as future ready by learning about creative practice through practice (Darling-Hammond, et al., 2005 ). Underpinned by Harris' ( 2016b ) Creativity and Education , the creative ecologies approach fosters creativity through an interconnected, iterative approach across professional and disciplinary communities within the school and throughout the sector. Implementing this approach at the beginning of ITE programs, where creative and critical teaching and learning becomes a component of pre-service teachers' core work, centres creativity training regardless of subject or developmental stage (early childhood, primary or secondary). This cyclic program design creates an evaluative feedback loop where pre-service teachers move into the schooling sector with evidence of teaching, practising and assessing the Critical and Creative Thinking general capability as learners themselves.

Because the ecology model requires collaboration to provide the right conditions for integrated creative change, authentic inquiry-based learning designs could be implemented during placements, with mentoring from experienced teachers and university lecturers. The “creative ecological approach to whole-school change” (Harris, 2016b , p. 8) models the ACARA speculative and integrative Critical and Creative Thinking learning continuum that begins with imagination and wonderment. The capacity to learn, create and innovate combined with the capacity to initiate and sustain change are attributes that transfer across contexts. By creating the conditions for teachers to continue to develop critical and creative thinking skills as learners through practice, they adapt to a continually changing and dynamic profession. We believe that developing pre-service teachers' creative and critical thinking skills and capacities through an ecological approach demands effective collaboration, enhancing the school community's unity and providing peer-sustained embedded professional development as part of everyday practice.

Radical Rubrics as important components of a diversified toolkit

We commenced this project as a group of practitioners and researchers: educators experienced in the field of Initial Teacher Education. In forging this collaborative laboratory ('collaboratory') for addressing creative assessment, it was necessary—as a starting point—that we held similar beliefs about the influence of ITE and shared values about the transformative power of creativity. A deep understanding of creativity in education was also common amongst the co-authors, all having employed creative approaches in education at various levels and across multiple learning areas. Approaching this work as both artists and educators was integral to understanding criticality and creativity, inter-, multi- and transdisciplinary and diverse approaches to creativity within the curriculum and beyond.

The remainder of this article explains how we as a collaboratory developed these radical rubrics against the Australian Curriculum General Capability against the USA Common Core Standards (CCSS) and the OECD Learning Framework 2030 (OECD, 2018 ), which share considerable overlap in identifying a need for fostering creative capacities.

While the Australian standards set grade-specific goals, they do not define how the standards should be taught or which materials should be used to support students, and the supports that effectively enhance creative and critical thinking through CCSS aligned Creativity & Innovation Rubrics (Kingston, 2018 ) have also been considered. The OECD Learning Framework 2030 (OECD, 2018 ) articulates learner qualities beyond epistemic and procedural knowledge, and cognitive and social skills. That schema reinforces the need to develop attitudes and values that (in preparing for 2030 and beyond) should enable learners to:

…think creatively, develop new products and services, new jobs, new processes and methods, new ways of thinking and living, new enterprises, new sectors, new business models and new social models. Increasingly, innovation springs not from individuals thinking and working alone, but through cooperation and collaboration with others to draw on existing knowledge to create new knowledge. The constructs that underpin the competency include adaptability, creativity, curiosity and open-mindedness. (OECD, 2018 , p. 5)

Our inquiry-based learning model integrates elements of the CSSS, the OECD Future of Education and Skills 2030 ( 2018 ) and the Australian Curriculum. We have developed and designed radical rubrics for teaching, practising and assessing processes, and to instrumentalise the key ideas of the four interrelated elements in the Critical and Creative Thinking learning continuum:

The radical rubric design was developed to be used in alternate years from the current NAPLAN tests in Years 5, 7 and 9. We link this system of creativity measurement to Australian NAPLAN tests to build an Australian national creativity measure alongside the literacy and numeracy measures in the current NAPLAN testing regime. In December 2022, the PISA 2021 Assessment of Creative Thinking results will be published. They will elevate the recognition of creative thinking (and doing) as a core literacy alongside literacy and numeracy, underlining further focus on creativity assessment at a global scale (Bouchie, 2019 ).

While we recognise that tensions exist across Australian states between implementing a national curricular capability into localised state agendas responsible for implementation, we have designed this overarching assessment strategy through PBCI rubrics (Fig.  2 ) useful for schools across the nation. The radical rubric and Creative Education Toolkit approach reflects our belief that the most effective way to design and develop Critical and Creative Thinking as an essential component of all learning in Australia is by aligning with yearly national assessment years via NAPLAN, and within ITE programs, where pre-service teachers develop knowledge and experiences of curriculum, pedagogy and policy—in addition to the PISA tests, which only occur every three years for member nations.

Description of assessment rubric quadrants https://doi.org/10.26188/14736660

This radical rubric may be used as a capstone or foundational tool in ITE programs to foster assessment of creativity through practice; however, it can also be used individually or collectively within a school- or university-based ecological model. As Moss, et al. ( 2019 ) agree, the “general capabilities need to be targeted explicitly within the assessment criteria or learning goals when integrated approaches are used” (p. 35). By offering this more flexible approach to creativity assessment, this rubric allows students, pre-service teachers and early-career teachers to engage in meaningful creative inquiry-based learning that has both individual and collaborative benefits for the whole-school creative ecology.

The radical rubrics within the Creative Education Toolkit act as an iterative tool through which learners design, develop and review their inquiry. The rubric as an agentic tool allows the merging of learning experiences with ongoing engagement and collaboration. It offers learners (teacher educators and pre-service teachers and in-service teachers with students) to construct and organise knowledge themselves, engage in detailed research, inquiry, writing and analysis, and communicate effectively to audiences. Leadbeater (2008) argues that the successful reinvention of educational systems worldwide depends on transforming pedagogy and redesigning learning tasks. Promoting learner autonomy and creativity through inquiry learning within ITE programs is part of the solution. The Mitchell Institute ( 2016 ) note this approach:

…highlights the increasing duality of the modern teacher – that of both teacher and learner. It also suggests that 21st century teachers will be unable to navigate the modern educational workplace without the skills and dispositions that enable them to focus on their own learning and improvement. (p. 3)

Proposition: a model for teaching, practising and assessing Critical and Creative Thinking

The next section introduces a radical rubric that promotes teaching, practising and assessing creativity and critical thinking in ways that move beyond binaries such as 'standardised' and 'creative' instead of an imaginative, empathetic and inquiry-focussed interdisciplinary assessment tool. Our 'sleight-of-hand' in offering what may at first seem like a capitulation to standardised assessment is the kind of tool that can serve both or, as Maxine Greene argued, offer an imaginative approach that can work within simple standardisation “to combat standardardization” ( 1995 , p. 380). We focus on PBCI rubrics within the Creative Education Toolkit as common ways to explore learning design for authentic inquiry-based tasks. They can be designed to create a backward mapping of the task and offer learners a way into the processes and reflective practices involved in ideation, problem posing, visioning and wondering about things rather than focussing on a preconceived product of learning or the content. They support “teachers who recognize the important role of imagination and creative play in the learning process, [and] want to include these higher-level thought processes as part of authentic assessment” (Young, 2009 , p. 74). Our rubric design offers teachers new ways to reinforce creative practices and processes learned in ITE programs that can be supplemented by ongoing professional development in schools where creativity and critical thinking become observable, teachable and assessable.

Rubrics such as this exemplar can be deployed in Years 6, 8 and 10 (the interstitial years between NAPLAN testing in Years 5, 7 and 9) as part of a networked ecological approach to fostering creativity in educational settings (Harris, 2018 ). Using flexible and adaptable process rubrics allows teachers and learners to negotiate creative practices across various needs and sites. The ecological approach to creativity education (reflected in the radical rubric) invites teachers, students and school leaders to foster creativity in a whole environment but interconnected manner across the entire ecosystem within which learning takes place. Teachers traditionally interpret curriculum documents and apply pedagogies to facilitate learning via the transmission of knowledge and engagement in specific activities to that subject and particularly to that individual teacher. This rubric's interconnected and cross-curricular application allows teachers and students to find connectivities between and across domains and dismantle the siloed information transfer systems that occur within prevailing strict procedural frameworks of content, resources, timelines and assessment/reporting. As a learning and teaching tool, a PBCI rubric such as ours allows for the mental and psychological linking across a whole school that enables students, teachers and leaders to think and act on ideas and situations (Cowan, 2006 ). As an assessment tool, the radical rubric design stimulates imagination, ideation, wondering and possibility thinking, and synthesis and integrative thinking that enables all ecology members to contribute to each school's unique creative needs and resources.

The rubric is described in Fig.  2 ( https://doi.org/10.26188/14736660 ) and provides the framework for implementation. The rubric relies on the inclusion of four quadrants consistent with those specified in the General Capabilities in the Australian Curriculum and cross-referenced with the criteria in the OECD study, “Fostering and assessing creativity and critical thinking in education” (Vincent-Lancrin, et al., 2019 ). The quadrants are inquiring, generating, analysing and reflecting. The descriptors offer clarification of how the quadrant would be demonstrated in practice. The description deliberately remains free of learning area content to encourage transferability across disciplines.

Figure  3 ( https://doi.org/10.26188/14736576 ) provides an example of the achievement standards for the first quadrant of inquiring. We have developed the achievement standards as suggested indicators of student levels of learning. There are three criteria presented against the standards of emerging, expected and working beyond. Each descriptor provides examples of the levels of learning achieved and outlined with an active verb to allow an evaluator to decide the level of achievement and generate appropriate feedback loops. In the context of this creative inquiry rubric, the evaluation can be conducted by a teacher or student (peer) and completed at various stages within a task.

Assessment rubric standards and descriptors https://doi.org/10.26188/14736576

The rubric provides illustrations of practice that enable teaching staff to consider potential implementation ideas. Figure  4 ( https://doi.org/10.26188/14730429 ) provides an example of a Year 8 Geography task. The example provides a brief description of the assessable task and how it would align topic areas and content description. The content description in focus is derived from the Australian Curriculum. The connection to the Critical and Creative Thinking general capability is also included to highlight the existing policy documents and how these may be taught, assessed and practiced. Further description of what the achievement standard might look like is included to guide the correlation between the PBCI rubric, the task and the demonstrable critical and creative skills being assessed. Naturally, additional criteria could be incorporated based on the assessable task's localised school and class needs.

Illustration of practice 1 (year 8 geography) https://doi.org/10.26188/14730429

The second illustration of practice is included in Fig.  5 ( https://doi.org/10.26188/14736843 ). It emphasises how the PBCI rubric might be used for peer learning and review. In this example, an accessible task from the learning area of Health and Physical Education is outlined within a specified focus on content found in the Australian Curriculum. Again, the relevant information about the connections to the general capability of Critical and Creative Thinking is outlined. In this example, the suggestion is that the rubric be used midway through the learning experience, with other students as the peer reviewers. The annotation on the rubric offers further exploration of what may be required to achieve a particular level of learning (in this example, 'working beyond').

Illustration of practice 2 (year 8 health and physical education) https://doi.org/10.26188/14736843

Conclusions and implications for ITE

This paper has explored how and why our collaboratory developed a flexible and responsive PBCI rubric exemplar for teaching, learning and assessing creativity to work within Harris' Creative Education Toolkit. We began this work by asking, 'how do early career teachers develop and maintain the ability to design interdisciplinary future-focussed creative learning and teaching? Where do early career teachers develop curriculum integration skills and capacities as practitioners?' This is an important time to share our praxis approach as educators worldwide face new post-pandemic challenges requiring teachers to design creative, critical, often-digital, inquiry-based learning encounters for young people. Being radical, creative and critical through a critical praxis model that challenges teaching, learning and assessment education, rather than standardising creativity in education, is needed now more than ever. Our radical rubric design provides a model for cultivating and assessing critical and creative thinking across the ecology. This kind of active feedback-feedforward loop through an inquiry model, also understood as curriculum “as praxis” (Grundy, 1987 , p. 15) contributes to better practices across ITE through two-way pedagogies. Ultimately, the approach encourages ground-up creative changes in education policy.

The approach outlined in this paper suggests moving creative change in schools and ITE programs away from teacher-driven activities to co-activating problem posing as a collaborative creative practice that initiates and sustains learning through creative inquiry. The radical rubric design effectively and efficiently initiates and cultivates Critical and Creative Thinking as a general capability in ITE (and by extension into schools and classrooms). The model explored in this article is just one of the Toolkit rubrics that we propose as a set of radical interventions, which together establish more processual and accessible creative practices in learners and across whole-school creative ecologies. As such, ITE holds the potential to activate substantial and sustainable critical and creative thinking development in pre-service and early-career teachers and apply generational mindset change in all learners, by effectively developing and evolving creative communities of practice.

Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the work environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39 (5), 1154–1184.

Article   Google Scholar  

Arnold, J., Edwards, T., Hooley, N., & Williams, J. (2012). Conceptualising teacher education and research as “critical praxis.” Critical Studies in Education, 53 (3), 281–295.

Arnold, J. & Mundy, B. (2020). Praxis pedagogy in teacher education. Smart Learning Environments . https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-020-0116-z

Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER). (2016). Literacy and numeracy test for initial teacher education . https://teacheredtest.acer.edu.au/

Australian Curriculum (ACARA). (2016). Australian national curriculum . https://www.acara.edu.au/curriculum

Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL). (2018). National review of teacher registration . https://www.aitsl.edu.au/teach/national-review-of-teacher-registration

Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL). (2019). Accreditation standards and procedures. https://www.aitsl.edu.au/deliver-ite-programs/standards-and-procedures

Barnes, J., & Shirley, I. (2007). Strangely familiar: Cross-curricular and creative thinking in teacher education. Improving Schools, 10 (2), 162–179. https://doi.org/10.1177/1365480207078580

Beghetto, R. A., Kaufman, J. C., & Baer, J. (2014). Teaching for creativity in the common core classroom . Teachers College Press.

Bouchie, Sarah. (2019). Teaching creative thinking in schools--PISA 2021 will offer some clues . https://www.legofoundation.com/en/learn-how/blog/teaching-creative-thinking-in-schools-pisa-2021-will-offer-some-clues/

Chiam, C. L., H. Hong, F. H. K. Ning, and W. Y. Tay. (2014). Creative and critical thinking in Singapore schools. NIE Working Paper Series No. 2. http://www.nie.edu.sg/docs/default-source/nie-working-papers/niewp2_final-for-web_v2.pdf?sfvrsn=2

Cowan, J. (2006). How should I assess creativity? In N. Jackson, M. Oliver, M. Shaw, & J. Wisdom (Eds.), Developing creativity in higher education: An imaginative curriculum (pp. 156–172). Routledge.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2016). Research on teaching and teacher education and its influences on policy and practice. Educational Researcher, 45 (2), 83–91. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X16639597

Darling-Hammond, L., Hammerness, K., Grossman, P., Rust, F., & Shulman, L. (2005). The design of teacher education programs. In L. Darling-Hammond, K. Hammerness, P. Grossman, F. Rust, & L. Shulman, (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do (pp. 390–441). Wiley

de Bruin, L. R., & Harris, A. (2017). Fostering creative ecologies in Australasian secondary schools. Australian Journal of Teacher Education (online), 42 (9), 23.

Department of Education, Taiwan. (DOET). (2014). Education in Taiwan . Taiwan Ministry of Education. https://www.taiwan.gov.tw/content_9.php

Education Council. (2019). Alice Springs (Mparntwe) Education declaration. https://www.dese.gov.au/alice-springs-mparntwe-education-declaration/resources/alice-springs-mparntwe-education-declaration

Eysenck, H. J. (1996). The measurement of creativity. In M. A. Boden (Ed.), Dimensions of creativity (pp. 208–209). MIT Press.

Farrell, L., & Corbel, C. (2017). Literacy events in the gig economy [online]. Fine Print, 40 (3), 3–7.

Google Scholar  

Flew, T., & Cunningham, S. (2010). Creative industries after the first decade of debate. Information Society, 26 , 1–11.

Freire, P. (1972). Cultural action for freedom . Penguin.

Government of Western Australia (GWA). (2018). Schools curriculum and Standards Authority. https://k10outline.scsa.wa.edu.au/home/teaching/general-capabilities-over/critical-and-creative-thinking/introduction/scope-of-critical-and-creative-thinking

Greene, M. (1995). Releasing the imagination: Essays on education, the arts, and social change . Jossey-Bass.

Grundy, S. (1987). Curriculum: Product or praxis? Falmer Press

Harris, A. (2014). The creative turn: Toward a new aesthetic imaginary. Sense Publishers.

Harris, A. (2016a). Creative ecologies: Fostering creativity in secondary schools . http://creativeresearchhub.com

Harris, A. (2016b). Creativity and education . Palgrave Macmillan.

Harris, A. (2018). Creative agency / creative ecologies. In K. Snepvangers, P. Thomson, & A. Harris (Eds.), Creativity policy, partnerships and practice in education (pp. 65–88). Palgrave Macmillan.

Harris, A., & Ammerman, M. (2016). The changing face of creativity in Australian education. Teaching Education, 27 (1), 103–113. https://doi.org/10.1080/10476210.2015.1077379

Kingston, S. (2018). Project Based Learning & Student Achievement: What Does the Research Tell Us? PBL Evidence Matters, 1 (1), 1–11.

Knorr Cetina, K. (2007). Culture in global knowledge societies: Knowledge cultures and epistemic cultures. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 32 (4), 361–375.

Lassig, C. (2019). Creativity talent development: Fostering creativity in schools. Handbook of giftedness and talent development in the Asia-Pacific (pp. 1–25). New York: Springer.

Learning Policy Institute & Turnaround for Children. (2021). Design principles for schools: Putting the science of learning and development into action. https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/product/sold-design-principles-report

Lucas, B., Claxton, G., & Spencer, E. (2013). Progression in student creativity in school: First steps towards new forms of formative assessment. (OECD Education Working Papers, No. 86). OECD Publishing.

Magnussen, L., Ishida, D., & Itano, J. (2000). The impact of the use of inquiry-based learning as a teaching methodology on the development of critical thinking. Journal of Nursing Education, 39 (8), 360–364. https://doi.org/10.3928/0148-4834-20001101-07

Mayer, R. E. (1999). Fifty years of creativity research. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 449–460). Cambridge University Press.

McCarty, S. (2020, May). Post-pandemic pedagogy. Journal of Online Education. New York University.

McWilliam, E. (2010). Learning culture, teaching economy. Pedagogies: An International Journal , 5 (4), 286–297.

Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs (MCEETYA). (2008). The Melbourne declaration on educational goals for young Australians http://www.curriculum.edu.au/verve/_resources/National_Declaration_on_the_Educational_Goals_for_Young_Australians.pdf

Mitchell Institute. (2016). Response to working together to shape teacher education in Victoria . Discussion paper (September 2016). http://vuir.vu.edu.au/33661/1/Response-to-Working-Together-to-Shape-Teacher-Education-in-Victoria.pdf

Moss, J., Godinho, S. C., & Chao, E. (2019). Enacting the Australian Curriculum: Primary and secondary teachers' approaches to integrating the curriculum. Australian Journal of Teacher Education . https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2018v44n3.2

NESA. (2018). Education standards New South Wales. http://educationstandards.nsw.edu.au/wps/portal/nesa/k-10/understanding-the-curriculum/curriculum-syllabuses-NSW

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2018). The future of education and skills: Education 2030. https://www.oecd.org/education/2030/E2030%20Position%20Paper%20(05.04.2018).pdf

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2019). PISA 2021 Creative thinking framework. https://www.oecd.org/pisa/publications/PISA-2021-creative-thinking-framework.pdf

Parliament of Australia. (2016). The Australian Government's Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training's Inquiry into innovation and creativity: Workforce for the new economy . https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House/Employment_Education_and_Training/Innovationandcreativity

Parliament of Australia. (2019). Status of the teaching profession. https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House/Employment_Education_and_Training/TeachingProfession

Queensland Government. (2018). Every student succeeding, State Schools Strategy 2018–2022. https://education.qld.gov.au/curriculums/Documents/p12-carf-framework.pdf

Reeves, B. (2021). Assessing ethical capability: A framework for supporting teacher judgement of student proficiency. The Australian Educational Researcher , 1–26.

Richardson, C., & Mishra, P. (2018). Learning environments that support student creativity: Developing the SCALE. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 27 , 45–54.

Runco, M. A., & Mraz, W. (1992). Scoring divergent thinking tests using total ideational output and a creativity index. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 52 , 213–221.

Teacher Education Ministerial Advisory Group Report. (2014). Action now—Classroom ready teachers. action_now_classroom_ready_teachers_accessible-(1)da178891b1e86477b58fff00006709da.pdf (aitsl.edu.au)

Torrance, E. P. (1974). Torrance tests of creative thinking . Personnel Press.

VCAA. (2016). Victorian curriculum. http://victoriancurriculum.vcaa.vic.edu.au

Victoria. Department of Education and Training, author, issuing body. (2017). Practice principles for excellence in teaching and learning: Draft version 1 http://nla.gov.au/nla.obj-607567621

Vincent-Lancrin, S., Gonzalez-Sancho, C., Bouckaert, M., de Luca, F., Fernandez-Barrerra, M.-F., Jacotin, G., Urgel, J., & Vidal, Q. (2019). Fostering students’ creativity and critical thinking: What it means in school . OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/62212c37-en

Walsh, M. (2010). Multimodal literacy: What does it mean for classroom practice? Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 33 (3), 211–239.

Young, L. (2009). Imagine creating rubrics that develop creativity. The English Journal, 99 (2), 74–79.

Download references

Open Access funding enabled and organized by CAUL and its Member Institutions.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia

Dan Harris, Kathryn Coleman & Peter J. Cook

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kathryn Coleman .

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Harris, D., Coleman, K. & Cook, P.J. Radical rubrics: implementing the critical and creative thinking general capability through an ecological approach. Aust. Educ. Res. 50 , 729–745 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-022-00521-8

Download citation

Received : 26 February 2021

Accepted : 22 March 2022

Published : 20 April 2022

Issue Date : July 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-022-00521-8

Share this article

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

• Critical and creative thinking
• Creative ecology, praxis
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Search Search Search …
• Search Search …

Critical Thinking Models: A Comprehensive Guide for Effective Decision Making

Critical thinking models are valuable frameworks that help individuals develop and enhance their critical thinking skills . These models provide a structured approach to problem-solving and decision-making by encouraging the evaluation of information and arguments in a logical, systematic manner. By understanding and applying these models, one can learn to make well-reasoned judgments and decisions.

Various critical thinking models exist, each catering to different contexts and scenarios. These models offer a step-by-step method to analyze situations, scrutinize assumptions and biases, and consider alternative perspectives. Ultimately, the goal of critical thinking models is to enhance an individual’s ability to think critically, ultimately improving their reasoning and decision-making skills in both personal and professional settings.

Key Takeaways

• Critical thinking models provide structured approaches for enhancing decision-making abilities
• These models help individuals analyze situations, scrutinize assumptions, and consider alternative perspectives
• The application of critical thinking models can significantly improve one’s reasoning and judgment skills.

Fundamentals of Critical Thinking

Definition and Importance

Critical thinking is the intellectual process of logically, objectively, and systematically evaluating information to form reasoned judgments, utilizing reasoning , logic , and evidence . It involves:

• Identifying and questioning assumptions,
• Applying consistent principles and criteria,
• Analyzing and synthesizing information,
• Drawing conclusions based on evidence.

The importance of critical thinking lies in its ability to help individuals make informed decisions, solve complex problems, and differentiate between true and false beliefs .

Core Cognitive Skills

Several core cognitive skills underpin critical thinking:

• Analysis : Breaking down complex information into smaller components to identify patterns or inconsistencies.
• Evaluation : Assessing the credibility and relevance of sources, arguments, and evidence.
• Inference : Drawing conclusions by connecting the dots between analyzed information.
• Synthesis : Incorporating analyzed information into a broader understanding and constructing one’s argument.
• Logic and reasoning : Applying principles of logic to determine the validity of arguments and weigh evidence.

These skills enable individuals to consistently apply intellectual standards in their thought process, which ultimately results in sound judgments and informed decisions.

Influence of Cognitive Biases

A key aspect of critical thinking is recognizing and mitigating the impact of cognitive biases on our thought processes. Cognitive biases are cognitive shortcuts or heuristics that can lead to flawed reasoning and distort our understanding of a situation. Examples of cognitive biases include confirmation bias, anchoring bias, and availability heuristic.

To counter the influence of cognitive biases, critical thinkers must be aware of their own assumptions and strive to apply consistent and objective evaluation criteria in their thinking process. The practice of actively recognizing and addressing cognitive biases promotes an unbiased and rational approach to problem-solving and decision-making.

The Critical Thinking Process

Stages of Critical Thinking

The critical thinking process starts with gathering and evaluating data . This stage involves identifying relevant information and ensuring it is credible and reliable. Next, an individual engages in analysis by examining the data closely to understand its context and interpret its meaning. This step can involve breaking down complex ideas into simpler components for better understanding.

The next stage focuses on determining the quality of the arguments, concepts, and theories present in the analyzed data. Critical thinkers question the credibility and logic behind the information while also considering their own biases and assumptions. They apply consistent standards when evaluating sources, which helps them identify any weaknesses in the arguments.

Values play a significant role in the critical thinking process. Critical thinkers assess the significance of moral, ethical, or cultural values shaping the issue, argument, or decision at hand. They determine whether these values align with the evidence and logic they have analyzed.

After thorough analysis and evaluation, critical thinkers draw conclusions based on the evidence and reasoning gathered. This step includes synthesizing the information and presenting a clear, concise argument or decision. It also involves explaining the reasoning behind the conclusion to ensure it is well-founded.

Application in Decision Making

In decision making, critical thinking is a vital skill that allows individuals to make informed choices. It enables them to:

• Analyze options and their potential consequences
• Evaluate the credibility of sources and the quality of information
• Identify biases, assumptions, and values that may influence the decision
• Construct a reasoned, well-justified conclusion

By using critical thinking in decision making, individuals can make more sound, objective choices. The process helps them to avoid pitfalls like jumping to conclusions, being influenced by biases, or basing decisions on unreliable data. The result is more thoughtful, carefully-considered decisions leading to higher quality outcomes.

Critical Thinking Models

Critical thinking models are frameworks that help individuals develop better problem-solving and decision-making abilities. They provide strategies for analyzing, evaluating, and synthesizing information to reach well-founded conclusions. This section will discuss four notable models: The RED Model, Bloom’s Taxonomy, Paul-Elder Model, and The Halpern Critical Thinking Assessment.

The RED Model

The RED Model stands for Recognize Assumptions, Evaluate Arguments, and Draw Conclusions. It emphasizes the importance of questioning assumptions, weighing evidence, and reaching logical conclusions.

• Recognize Assumptions: Identify and challenge assumptions that underlie statements, beliefs, or arguments.
• Evaluate Arguments: Assess the validity and reliability of evidence to support or refute claims.
• Draw Conclusions: Make well-reasoned decisions based on available information and sound reasoning.

The RED Model helps individuals become more effective problem solvers and decision-makers by guiding them through the critical thinking process ^(source) .

Bloom’s Taxonomy

Bloom’s Taxonomy is a hierarchical model that classifies cognitive skills into six levels of complexity. These levels are remembering, understanding, applying, analyzing, evaluating, and creating. By progressing through these levels, individuals can develop higher-order thinking skills.

• Remembering: Recall information or facts.
• Understanding: Comprehend the meaning of ideas, facts, or problems.
• Applying: Use knowledge in different situations.
• Analyzing: Break down complex topics or problems into sub-parts.
• Evaluating: Assess the quality, relevance, or credibility of information, ideas, or solutions.
• Creating: Combine elements to form a new whole, generate new ideas, or solve complex issues.

Paul-Elder Model

The Paul-Elder Model introduces the concept of “elements of thought,” focusing on a structured approach to critical thinking. This model promotes intellectual standards, such as clarity, accuracy, and relevance. It consists of three stages:

• Critical Thinking: Employ the intellectual standards to problem-solving and decision-making processes.
• Elements of Thought: Consider purpose, question at issue, information, interpretation and inference, concepts, assumptions, implications, and point of view.
• Intellectual Traits: Develop intellectual traits, such as intellectual humility, intellectual empathy, and intellectual perseverance.

This model fosters a deeper understanding and appreciation of critical thinking ^(source) .

The Halpern Critical Thinking Assessment

The Halpern Critical Thinking Assessment is a standardized test developed by Diane Halpern to assess critical thinking skills. The evaluation uses a variety of tasks to measure abilities in core skill areas, such as verbal reasoning, argument analysis, and decision making. Pearson, a leading publisher of educational assessments, offers this test as a means to assess individuals’ critical thinking skills ^(source) .

These four critical thinking models can be used as frameworks to improve and enhance cognitive abilities. By learning and practicing these models, individuals can become better equipped to analyze complex information, evaluate options, and make well-informed decisions.

Evaluating Information and Arguments

In this section, we will discuss the importance of evaluating information and arguments in the process of critical thinking, focusing on evidence assessment, logic and fallacies, and argument analysis.

Evidence Assessment

Evaluating the relevance, accuracy, and credibility of information is a vital aspect of critical thinking. In the process of evidence assessment, a thinker should consider the following factors:

• Source reliability : Research and understand the expertise and credibility of the source to ensure that biased or inaccurate information is not being considered.
• Currency : Check the date of the information to make sure it is still relevant and accurate in the present context.
• Objectivity : Analyze the information for potential bias and always cross-reference it with other credible sources.

When practicing critical thinking skills, it is essential to be aware of your own biases and make efforts to minimize their influence on your decision-making process.

Logic and Fallacies

Logic is crucial for deconstructing and analyzing complex arguments, while identifying and avoiding logical fallacies helps maintain accurate and valid conclusions. Some common fallacies to watch out for in critical thinking include:

• Ad Hominem : Attacking the person making the argument instead of addressing the argument itself.
• Strawman : Misrepresenting an opponent’s argument to make it easier to refute.
• False Dilemma : Presenting only two options when there may be multiple viable alternatives.
• Appeal to Authority : Assuming a claim is true simply because an authority figure supports it.

Being aware of these fallacies enables a thinker to effectively evaluate the strength of an argument and make sound judgments accordingly.

Argument Analysis

Analyzing an argument is the process of evaluating its structure, premises, and conclusion while determining its validity and soundness. To analyze an argument, follow these steps:

• Identify the premises and conclusion : Determine the main point is being argued, how it is related and substance of the argument.
• Evaluate the validity : Assess whether the conclusion logically follows from the premises and if the argument’s structure is sound.
• Test the soundness : Evaluate the truth and relevance of the premises. This may require verifying the accuracy of facts and evidence, as well as assessing the reliability of sources.
• Consider counter-arguments : Identify opposing viewpoints and counter-arguments, and evaluate their credibility to gauge the overall strength of the original argument.

By effectively evaluating information and arguments, critical thinkers develop a solid foundation for making well-informed decisions and solving problems.

Enhancing Critical Thinking

Strategies for improvement.

To enhance critical thinking, individuals can practice different strategies, including asking thought-provoking questions, analyzing ideas and observations, and being open to different perspectives. One effective technique is the Critical Thinking Roadmap , which breaks critical thinking down into four measurable phases: execute, synthesize, recommend, and communicate. It’s important to use deliberate practice in these areas to develop a strong foundation for problem-solving and decision-making. In addition, cultivating a mindset of courage , fair-mindedness , and empathy will support critical thinking development.

Critical Thinking in Education

In the field of education, critical thinking is an essential component of effective learning and pedagogy. Integrating critical thinking into the curriculum encourages student autonomy, fosters innovation, and improves student outcomes. Teachers can use various approaches to promote critical thinking, such as:

• Employing open-ended questions to stimulate ideas
• Incorporating group discussions or debates to facilitate communication and evaluation of viewpoints
• Assessing and providing feedback on student work to encourage reflection and improvement
• Utilizing real-world scenarios and case studies for practical application of concepts

Developing a Critical Thinking Mindset

To truly enhance critical thinking abilities, it’s important to adopt a mindset that values integrity , autonomy , and empathy . These qualities help to create a learning environment that encourages open-mindedness, which is key to critical thinking development. To foster a critical thinking mindset:

• Be curious : Remain open to new ideas and ask questions to gain a deeper understanding.
• Communicate effectively : Clearly convey thoughts and actively listen to others.
• Reflect and assess : Regularly evaluate personal beliefs and assumptions to promote growth.
• Embrace diversity of thought : Welcome different viewpoints and ideas to foster innovation.

Incorporating these approaches can lead to a more robust critical thinking skillset, allowing individuals to better navigate and solve complex problems.

Critical Thinking in Various Contexts

The workplace and beyond.

Critical thinking is a highly valued skill in the workplace, as it enables employees to analyze situations, make informed decisions, and solve problems effectively. It involves a careful thinking process directed towards a specific goal. Employers often seek individuals who possess strong critical thinking abilities, as they can add significant value to the organization.

In the workplace context, critical thinkers are able to recognize assumptions, evaluate arguments, and draw conclusions, following models such as the RED model . They can also adapt their thinking to suit various scenarios, allowing them to tackle complex and diverse problems.

Moreover, critical thinking transcends the workplace and applies to various aspects of life. It empowers an individual to make better decisions, analyze conflicting information, and engage in constructive debates.

Creative and Lateral Thinking

Critical thinking encompasses both creative and lateral thinking. Creative thinking involves generating novel ideas and solutions to problems, while lateral thinking entails looking at problems from different angles to find unique and innovative solutions.

Creative thinking allows thinkers to:

• Devise new concepts and ideas
• Challenge conventional wisdom
• Build on existing knowledge to generate innovative solutions

Lateral thinking, on the other hand, encourages thinkers to:

• Break free from traditional thought patterns
• Combine seemingly unrelated ideas to create unique solutions
• Utilize intuition and intelligence to approach problems from a different perspective

Both creative and lateral thinking are essential components of critical thinking, allowing individuals to view problems in a holistic manner and generate well-rounded solutions. These skills are highly valued by employers and can lead to significant personal and professional growth.

In conclusion, critical thinking is a multifaceted skill that comprises various thought processes, including creative and lateral thinking. By embracing these skills, individuals can excel in the workplace and in their personal lives, making better decisions and solving problems effectively.

Overcoming Challenges

Recognizing and addressing bias.

Cognitive biases and thinking biases can significantly affect the process of critical thinking . One of the key components of overcoming these challenges is to recognize and address them. It is essential to be aware of one’s own beliefs, as well as the beliefs of others, to ensure fairness and clarity throughout the decision-making process. To identify and tackle biases, one can follow these steps:

• Be self-aware : Understand personal beliefs and biases, acknowledging that they may influence the interpretation of information.
• Embrace diverse perspectives : Encourage open discussions and invite different viewpoints to challenge assumptions and foster cognitive diversity.
• Reevaluate evidence : Continuously reassess the relevance and validity of the information being considered.

By adopting these practices, individuals can minimize the impact of biases and enhance the overall quality of their critical thinking skills.

Dealing with Information Overload

In today’s world, information is abundant, and it can become increasingly difficult to demystify and make sense of the available data. Dealing with information overload is a crucial aspect of critical thinking. Here are some strategies to address this challenge:

• Prioritize information : Focus on the most relevant and reliable data, filtering out unnecessary details.
• Organize data : Use tables, charts, and lists to categorize information and identify patterns more efficiently.
• Break down complex information : Divide complex data into smaller, manageable segments to simplify interpretation and inferences.

By implementing these techniques, individuals can effectively manage information overload, enabling them to process and analyze data more effectively, leading to better decision-making.

In conclusion, overcoming challenges such as biases and information overload is essential in the pursuit of effective critical thinking. By recognizing and addressing these obstacles, individuals can develop clarity and fairness in their thought processes, leading to well-informed decisions and improved problem-solving capabilities.

Measuring Critical Thinking

Assessment tools and criteria.

There are several assessment tools designed to measure critical thinking, each focusing on different aspects such as quality, depth, breadth, and significance of thinking. One example of a widely used standardized test is the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal , which evaluates an individual’s ability to interpret information, draw conclusions, and make assumptions. Another test is the Cornell Critical Thinking Tests Level X and Level Z , which assess an individual’s critical thinking skills through multiple-choice questions.

Furthermore, criteria for assessing critical thinking often include precision, relevance, and the ability to gather and analyze relevant information. Some assessors utilize the Halpern Critical Thinking Assessment , which measures the application of cognitive skills such as deduction, observation, and induction in real-world scenarios.

The Role of IQ and Tests

It’s important to note that intelligence quotient (IQ) tests and critical thinking assessments are not the same. While IQ tests aim to measure an individual’s cognitive abilities and general intelligence, critical thinking tests focus specifically on one’s ability to analyze, evaluate, and form well-founded opinions. Therefore, having a high IQ does not necessarily guarantee strong critical thinking skills, as critical thinking requires additional mental processes beyond basic logical reasoning.

To build and enhance critical thinking skills, individuals should practice and develop higher-order thinking, such as critical alertness, critical reflection, and critical analysis. Using a Critical Thinking Roadmap , such as the four-phase framework that includes execution, synthesis, recommendation, and the ability to apply, individuals can continuously work to improve their critical thinking abilities.

Frequently Asked Questions

What are the main steps involved in the paul-elder critical thinking model.

The Paul-Elder Critical Thinking Model is a comprehensive framework for developing critical thinking skills. The main steps include: identifying the purpose, formulating questions, gathering information, identifying assumptions, interpreting information, and evaluating arguments. The model emphasizes clarity, accuracy, precision, relevance, depth, breadth, logic, and fairness throughout the critical thinking process. By following these steps, individuals can efficiently analyze and evaluate complex ideas and issues.

Can you list five techniques to enhance critical thinking skills?

Here are five techniques to help enhance critical thinking skills:

• Ask open-ended questions : Encourages exploration and challenges assumptions.
• Engage in active listening: Focus on understanding others’ viewpoints before responding.
• Reflect on personal biases: Identify and question any preconceived notions or judgments.
• Practice mindfulness: Develop self-awareness and stay present in the moment.
• Collaborate with others: Exchange ideas and learn from diverse perspectives.

What is the RED Model of critical thinking and how is it applied?

The RED Model of critical thinking consists of three key components: Recognize Assumptions, Evaluate Arguments, and Draw Conclusions. To apply the RED Model, begin by recognizing and questioning underlying assumptions, being aware of personal biases and stereotypes. Next, evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of different arguments, considering evidence, logical consistency, and alternative explanations. Lastly, draw well-reasoned conclusions that are based on the analysis and evaluation of the information gathered.

How do the ‘3 C’s’ of critical thinking contribute to effective problem-solving?

The ‘3 C’s’ of critical thinking – Curiosity, Creativity, and Criticism – collectively contribute to effective problem-solving. Curiosity allows individuals to explore various perspectives and ask thought-provoking questions, while Creativity helps develop innovative solutions and unique approaches to challenges. Criticism, or the ability to evaluate and analyze ideas objectively, ensures that the problem-solving process remains grounded in logic and relevance.

What characteristics distinguish critical thinking from creative thinking?

Critical thinking and creative thinking are two complementary cognitive skills. Critical thinking primarily focuses on analyzing, evaluating, and reasoning, using objectivity and logical thinking. It involves identifying problems, assessing evidence, and drawing sound conclusions. Creative thinking, on the other hand, is characterized by the generation of new ideas, concepts, and approaches to solve problems, often involving imagination, originality, and out-of-the-box thinking.

What are some recommended books to help improve problem-solving and critical thinking skills?

There are several books that can help enhance problem-solving and critical thinking skills, including:

• “Thinking, Fast and Slow” by Daniel Kahneman: This book explores the dual process theory of decision-making and reasoning.
• “The 5 Elements of Effective Thinking” by Edward B. Burger and Michael Starbird: Offers practical tips and strategies for improving critical thinking skills.
• “Critique of Pure Reason” by Immanuel Kant: A classic philosophical work that delves into the principles of reason and cognition.
• “Mindware: Tools for Smart Thinking” by Richard E. Nisbett: Presents a range of cognitive tools to enhance critical thinking and decision-making abilities.
• “The Art of Thinking Clearly” by Rolf Dobelli: Explores common cognitive biases and errors in judgment that can affect critical thinking.

You may also like

Divergent vs Convergent Thinking – What are They and How are They Different?

They say that necessity is the mother of invention but without a dash of creativity and clear thinking, innovation would stall out […]

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

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

Critical Thinking vs. Common Sense

Common sense, as defined by several scholars, is inborn rational thinking that happens naturally in rational humans. Common sense incorporates problem-solving, and […]

Design Thinking vs Critical Thinking: Unraveling the Key Differences

Design thinking and critical thinking are two approaches that individuals and organizations use to solve problems and make decisions. Design thinking, a […]

• Previous Article
• Next Article

Validity and reliability of scientific critical creative thinking model to improve critical thinking skills and creative of chemistry teachers candidates

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data
• Peer Review
• Reprints and Permissions
• Cite Icon Cite
• Search Site

Rusmansyah Rusmansyah , Hamid Abdul , Aufa Mohamad Nor , Isnawati Isnawati; Validity and reliability of scientific critical creative thinking model to improve critical thinking skills and creative of chemistry teachers candidates. AIP Conf. Proc. 24 April 2023; 2673 (1): 120006. https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0125555

Download citation file:

• Ris (Zotero)
• Reference Manager

The Scientific Critical Creative Thinking (SCCrT) model improves the learning process’s critical and creative thinking skills. This study aims to analyze the validity and reliability of the SCCrT learning model. Data on the validity and reliability of the SCCrT learning model were obtained from the validation results by three experts. The results showed that the SCCrT learning model met the validity requirements with a value of 3.74 and reliability of 0.89. This study implies that the validity and reliability of a reliable SCCrT learning model can be used theoretically. Further research can be conducted to test the practicality and effectiveness of the and SCCrT learning model.

Sign in via your Institution

Citing articles via, publish with us - request a quote.

Sign up for alerts

• Online ISSN 1551-7616
• Print ISSN 0094-243X
• For Researchers
• For Librarians
• For Advertisers
• Our Publishing Partners  
• Physics Today
• Conference Proceedings
• Special Topics

pubs.aip.org

• Privacy Policy
• Terms of Use

Connect with AIP Publishing

This feature is available to subscribers only.

Sign In or Create an Account

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List

Critical Thinking: A Model of Intelligence for Solving Real-World Problems

Diane f. halpern.

1 Department of Psychology, Claremont McKenna College, Emerita, Altadena, CA 91001, USA

Dana S. Dunn

2 Department of Psychology, Moravian College, Bethlehem, PA 18018, USA; ude.naivarom@nnud

Most theories of intelligence do not directly address the question of whether people with high intelligence can successfully solve real world problems. A high IQ is correlated with many important outcomes (e.g., academic prominence, reduced crime), but it does not protect against cognitive biases, partisan thinking, reactance, or confirmation bias, among others. There are several newer theories that directly address the question about solving real-world problems. Prominent among them is Sternberg’s adaptive intelligence with “adaptation to the environment” as the central premise, a construct that does not exist on standardized IQ tests. Similarly, some scholars argue that standardized tests of intelligence are not measures of rational thought—the sort of skill/ability that would be needed to address complex real-world problems. Other investigators advocate for critical thinking as a model of intelligence specifically designed for addressing real-world problems. Yes, intelligence (i.e., critical thinking) can be enhanced and used for solving a real-world problem such as COVID-19, which we use as an example of contemporary problems that need a new approach.

1. Introduction

The editors of this Special Issue asked authors to respond to a deceptively simple statement: “How Intelligence Can Be a Solution to Consequential World Problems.” This statement holds many complexities, including how intelligence is defined and which theories are designed to address real-world problems.

2. The Problem with Using Standardized IQ Measures for Real-World Problems

For the most part, we identify high intelligence as having a high score on a standardized test of intelligence. Like any test score, IQ can only reflect what is on the given test. Most contemporary standardized measures of intelligence include vocabulary, working memory, spatial skills, analogies, processing speed, and puzzle-like elements (e.g., Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale Fourth Edition; see ( Drozdick et al. 2012 )). Measures of IQ correlate with many important outcomes, including academic performance ( Kretzschmar et al. 2016 ), job-related skills ( Hunter and Schmidt 1996 ), reduced likelihood of criminal behavior ( Burhan et al. 2014 ), and for those with exceptionally high IQs, obtaining a doctorate and publishing scholarly articles ( McCabe et al. 2020 ). Gottfredson ( 1997, p. 81 ) summarized these effects when she said the “predictive validity of g is ubiquitous.” More recent research using longitudinal data, found that general mental abilities and specific abilities are good predictors of several work variables including job prestige, and income ( Lang and Kell 2020 ). Although assessments of IQ are useful in many contexts, having a high IQ does not protect against falling for common cognitive fallacies (e.g., blind spot bias, reactance, anecdotal reasoning), relying on biased and blatantly one-sided information sources, failing to consider information that does not conform to one’s preferred view of reality (confirmation bias), resisting pressure to think and act in a certain way, among others. This point was clearly articulated by Stanovich ( 2009, p. 3 ) when he stated that,” IQ tests measure only a small set of the thinking abilities that people need.”

3. Which Theories of Intelligence Are Relevant to the Question?

Most theories of intelligence do not directly address the question of whether people with high intelligence can successfully solve real world problems. For example, Grossmann et al. ( 2013 ) cite many studies in which IQ scores have not predicted well-being, including life satisfaction and longevity. Using a stratified random sample of Americans, these investigators found that wise reasoning is associated with life satisfaction, and that “there was no association between intelligence and well-being” (p. 944). (critical thinking [CT] is often referred to as “wise reasoning” or “rational thinking,”). Similar results were reported by Wirthwein and Rost ( 2011 ) who compared life satisfaction in several domains for gifted adults and adults of average intelligence. There were no differences in any of the measures of subjective well-being, except for leisure, which was significantly lower for the gifted adults. Additional research in a series of experiments by Stanovich and West ( 2008 ) found that participants with high cognitive ability were as likely as others to endorse positions that are consistent with their biases, and they were equally likely to prefer one-sided arguments over those that provided a balanced argument. There are several newer theories that directly address the question about solving real-world problems. Prominent among them is Sternberg’s adaptive intelligence with “adaptation to the environment” as the central premise, a construct that does not exist on standardized IQ tests (e.g., Sternberg 2019 ). Similarly, Stanovich and West ( 2014 ) argue that standardized tests of intelligence are not measures of rational thought—the sort of skill/ability that would be needed to address complex real-world problems. Halpern and Butler ( 2020 ) advocate for CT as a useful model of intelligence for addressing real-world problems because it was designed for this purpose. Although there is much overlap among these more recent theories, often using different terms for similar concepts, we use Halpern and Butler’s conceptualization to make our point: Yes, intelligence (i.e., CT) can be enhanced and used for solving a real-world problem like COVID-19.

4. Critical Thinking as an Applied Model for Intelligence

One definition of intelligence that directly addresses the question about intelligence and real-world problem solving comes from Nickerson ( 2020, p. 205 ): “the ability to learn, to reason well, to solve novel problems, and to deal effectively with novel problems—often unpredictable—that confront one in daily life.” Using this definition, the question of whether intelligent thinking can solve a world problem like the novel coronavirus is a resounding “yes” because solutions to real-world novel problems are part of his definition. This is a popular idea in the general public. For example, over 1000 business managers and hiring executives said that they want employees who can think critically based on the belief that CT skills will help them solve work-related problems ( Hart Research Associates 2018 ).

We define CT as the use of those cognitive skills or strategies that increase the probability of a desirable outcome. It is used to describe thinking that is purposeful, reasoned, and goal directed--the kind of thinking involved in solving problems, formulating inferences, calculating likelihoods, and making decisions, when the thinker is using skills that are thoughtful and effective for the particular context and type of thinking task. International surveys conducted by the OECD ( 2019, p. 16 ) established “key information-processing competencies” that are “highly transferable, in that they are relevant to many social contexts and work situations; and ‘learnable’ and therefore subject to the influence of policy.” One of these skills is problem solving, which is one subset of CT skills.

The CT model of intelligence is comprised of two components: (1) understanding information at a deep, meaningful level and (2) appropriate use of CT skills. The underlying idea is that CT skills can be identified, taught, and learned, and when they are recognized and applied in novel settings, the individual is demonstrating intelligent thought. CT skills include judging the credibility of an information source, making cost–benefit calculations, recognizing regression to the mean, understanding the limits of extrapolation, muting reactance responses, using analogical reasoning, rating the strength of reasons that support and fail to support a conclusion, and recognizing hindsight bias or confirmation bias, among others. Critical thinkers use these skills appropriately, without prompting, and usually with conscious intent in a variety of settings.

One of the key concepts in this model is that CT skills transfer in appropriate situations. Thus, assessments using situational judgments are needed to assess whether particular skills have transferred to a novel situation where it is appropriate. In an assessment created by the first author ( Halpern 2018 ), short paragraphs provide information about 20 different everyday scenarios (e.g., A speaker at the meeting of your local school board reported that when drug use rises, grades decline; so schools need to enforce a “war on drugs” to improve student grades); participants provide two response formats for every scenario: (a) constructed responses where they respond with short written responses, followed by (b) forced choice responses (e.g., multiple choice, rating or ranking of alternatives) for the same situations.

There is a large and growing empirical literature to support the assertion that CT skills can be learned and will transfer (when taught for transfer). See for example, Holmes et al. ( 2015 ), who wrote in the prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , that there was “significant and sustained improvement in students’ critical thinking behavior” (p. 11,199) for students who received CT instruction. Abrami et al. ( 2015, para. 1 ) concluded from a meta-analysis that “there are effective strategies for teaching CT skills, both generic and content specific, and CT dispositions, at all educational levels and across all disciplinary areas.” Abrami et al. ( 2008, para. 1 ), included 341 effect sizes in a meta-analysis. They wrote: “findings make it clear that improvement in students’ CT skills and dispositions cannot be a matter of implicit expectation.” A strong test of whether CT skills can be used for real-word problems comes from research by Butler et al. ( 2017 ). Community adults and college students (N = 244) completed several scales including an assessment of CT, an intelligence test, and an inventory of real-life events. Both CT scores and intelligence scores predicted individual outcomes on the inventory of real-life events, but CT was a stronger predictor.

Heijltjes et al. ( 2015, p. 487 ) randomly assigned participants to either a CT instruction group or one of six other control conditions. They found that “only participants assigned to CT instruction improved their reasoning skills.” Similarly, when Halpern et al. ( 2012 ) used random assignment of participants to either a learning group where they were taught scientific reasoning skills using a game format or a control condition (which also used computerized learning and was similar in length), participants in the scientific skills learning group showed higher proportional learning gains than students who did not play the game. As the body of additional supportive research is too large to report here, interested readers can find additional lists of CT skills and support for the assertion that these skills can be learned and will transfer in Halpern and Dunn ( Forthcoming ). There is a clear need for more high-quality research on the application and transfer of CT and its relationship to IQ.

5. Pandemics: COVID-19 as a Consequential Real-World Problem

A pandemic occurs when a disease runs rampant over an entire country or even the world. Pandemics have occurred throughout history: At the time of writing this article, COVID-19 is a world-wide pandemic whose actual death rate is unknown but estimated with projections of several million over the course of 2021 and beyond ( Mega 2020 ). Although vaccines are available, it will take some time to inoculate most or much of the world’s population. Since March 2020, national and international health agencies have created a list of actions that can slow and hopefully stop the spread of COVID (e.g., wearing face masks, practicing social distancing, avoiding group gatherings), yet many people in the United States and other countries have resisted their advice.

Could instruction in CT encourage more people to accept and comply with simple life-saving measures? There are many possible reasons to believe that by increasing citizens’ CT abilities, this problematic trend can be reversed for, at least, some unknown percentage of the population. We recognize the long history of social and cognitive research showing that changing attitudes and behaviors is difficult, and it would be unrealistic to expect that individuals with extreme beliefs supported by their social group and consistent with their political ideologies are likely to change. For example, an Iranian cleric and an orthodox rabbi both claimed (separately) that the COVID-19 vaccine can make people gay ( Marr 2021 ). These unfounded opinions are based on deeply held prejudicial beliefs that we expect to be resistant to CT. We are targeting those individuals who beliefs are less extreme and may be based on reasonable reservations, such as concern about the hasty development of the vaccine and the lack of long-term data on its effects. There should be some unknown proportion of individuals who can change their COVID-19-related beliefs and actions with appropriate instruction in CT. CT can be a (partial) antidote for the chaos of the modern world with armies of bots creating content on social media, political and other forces deliberately attempting to confuse issues, and almost all media labeled “fake news” by social influencers (i.e., people with followers that sometimes run to millions on various social media). Here, are some CT skills that could be helpful in getting more people to think more critically about pandemic-related issues.

Reasoning by Analogy and Judging the Credibility of the Source of Information

Early communications about the ability of masks to prevent the spread of COVID from national health agencies were not consistent. In many regions of the world, the benefits of wearing masks incited prolonged and acrimonious debates ( Tang 2020 ). However, after the initial confusion, virtually all of the global and national health organizations (e.g., WHO, National Health Service in the U. K., U. S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) endorse masks as a way to slow the spread of COVID ( Cheng et al. 2020 ; Chu et al. 2020 ). However, as we know, some people do not trust governmental agencies and often cite the conflicting information that was originally given as a reason for not wearing a mask. There are varied reasons for refusing to wear a mask, but the one most often cited is that it is against civil liberties ( Smith 2020 ). Reasoning by analogy is an appropriate CT skill for evaluating this belief (and a key skill in legal thinking). It might be useful to cite some of the many laws that already regulate our behavior such as, requiring health inspections for restaurants, setting speed limits, mandating seat belts when riding in a car, and establishing the age at which someone can consume alcohol. Individuals would be asked to consider how the mandate to wear a mask compares to these and other regulatory laws.

Another reason why some people resist the measures suggested by virtually every health agency concerns questions about whom to believe. Could training in CT change the beliefs and actions of even a small percentage of those opposed to wearing masks? Such training would include considering the following questions with practice across a wide domain of knowledge: (a) Does the source have sufficient expertise? (b) Is the expertise recent and relevant? (c) Is there a potential for gain by the information source, such as financial gain? (d) What would the ideal information source be and how close is the current source to the ideal? (e) Does the information source offer evidence that what they are recommending is likely to be correct? (f) Have you traced URLs to determine if the information in front of you really came from the alleged source?, etc. Of course, not everyone will respond in the same way to each question, so there is little likelihood that we would all think alike, but these questions provide a framework for evaluating credibility. Donovan et al. ( 2015 ) were successful using a similar approach to improve dynamic decision-making by asking participants to reflect on questions that relate to the decision. Imagine the effect of rigorous large-scale education in CT from elementary through secondary schools, as well as at the university-level. As stated above, empirical evidence has shown that people can become better thinkers with appropriate instruction in CT. With training, could we encourage some portion of the population to become more astute at judging the credibility of a source of information? It is an experiment worth trying.

6. Making Cost—Benefit Assessments for Actions That Would Slow the Spread of COVID-19

Historical records show that refusal to wear a mask during a pandemic is not a new reaction. The epidemic of 1918 also included mandates to wear masks, which drew public backlash. Then, as now, many people refused, even when they were told that it was a symbol of “wartime patriotism” because the 1918 pandemic occurred during World War I ( Lovelace 2020 ). CT instruction would include instruction in why and how to compute cost–benefit analyses. Estimates of “lives saved” by wearing a mask can be made meaningful with graphical displays that allow more people to understand large numbers. Gigerenzer ( 2020 ) found that people can understand risk ratios in medicine when the numbers are presented as frequencies instead of probabilities. If this information were used when presenting the likelihood of illness and death from COVID-19, could we increase the numbers of people who understand the severity of this disease? Small scale studies by Gigerenzer have shown that it is possible.

Analyzing Arguments to Determine Degree of Support for a Conclusion

The process of analyzing arguments requires that individuals rate the strength of support for and against a conclusion. By engaging in this practice, they must consider evidence and reasoning that may run counter to a preferred outcome. Kozyreva et al. ( 2020 ) call the deliberate failure to consider both supporting and conflicting data “deliberate ignorance”—avoiding or failing to consider information that could be useful in decision-making because it may collide with an existing belief. When applied to COVID-19, people would have to decide if the evidence for and against wearing a face mask is a reasonable way to stop the spread of this disease, and if they conclude that it is not, what are the costs and benefits of not wearing masks at a time when governmental health organizations are making them mandatory in public spaces? Again, we wonder if rigorous and systematic instruction in argument analysis would result in more positive attitudes and behaviors that relate to wearing a mask or other real-world problems. We believe that it is an experiment worth doing.

7. Conclusions

We believe that teaching CT is a worthwhile approach for educating the general public in order to improve reasoning and motivate actions to address, avert, or ameliorate real-world problems like the COVID-19 pandemic. Evidence suggests that CT can guide intelligent responses to societal and global problems. We are NOT claiming that CT skills will be a universal solution for the many real-world problems that we confront in contemporary society, or that everyone will substitute CT for other decision-making practices, but we do believe that systematic education in CT can help many people become better thinkers, and we believe that this is an important step toward creating a society that values and practices routine CT. The challenges are great, but the tools to tackle them are available, if we are willing to use them.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, D.F.H. and D.S.D.; resources, D.F.H.; data curation, writing—original draft preparation, D.F.H.; writing—review and editing, D.F.H. and D.S.D. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

No IRB Review.

Informed Consent Statement

No Informed Consent.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

• Abrami Philip C., Bernard Robert M., Borokhovski Evgueni, Wade C. Anne, Surkes Michael A., Tamim Rana, Zhang Dai. Instructional interventions affecting critical thinking skills and dispositions: A Stage 1 meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research. 2008; 78 :1102–34. doi: 10.3102/0034654308326084. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Abrami Philip C., Bernard Robert M., Borokhovski Evgueni, Waddington David I., Wade C. Anne. Strategies for teaching students to think critically: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research. 2015; 85 :275–341. doi: 10.3102/0034654314551063. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Burhan Nik Ahmad Sufian, Kurniawan Yohan, Sidek Abdul Halim, Mohamad Mohd Rosli. Crimes and the Bell curve: Th e role of people with high, average, and low intelligence. Intelligence. 2014; 47 :12–22. doi: 10.1016/j.intell.2014.08.005. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Butler Heather A., Pentoney Christopher, Bong Maebelle P. Predicting real-world outcomes: Critical thinking ability is a better predictor of life decisions than intelligence. Thinking Skills and Creativity. 2017; 25 :38–46. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2017.06.005. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cheng Vincent Chi-Chung, Wong Shuk-Ching, Chuang Vivien Wai-Man, So Simon Yung-Chun, Chen Jonathan Hon-Kwan, Sridhar Sidharth, To Kelvin Kai-Wwang, Chan Jasper Fuk-Wu, Hung Ivan Fan-Ngai, Ho Pak-Leung, et al. The role of community-wide wearing of face mask for control of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) epidemic due to SARS-CoV-2. Journal of Infectious Disease. 2020; 81 :107–14. doi: 10.1016/j.jinf.2020.04.024. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chu Derek K., Aki Elie A., Duda Stephanie, Solo Karla, Yaacoub Sally, Schunemann Holger J. Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: A system atic review and meta-analysis. Lancet. 2020; 395 :1973–87. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31142-9. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Donovan Sarah J., Guss C. Dominick, Naslund Dag. Improving dynamic decision-making through training and self-re flection. Judgment and Decision Making. 2015; 10 :284–95. [ Google Scholar ]
• Drozdick Lisa Whipple, Wahlstrom Dustin, Zhu Jianjun, Weiss Lawrence G. The Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale—Fourth Edition and the Wechsler Memory Scale—Fourth Edition. In: Flanagan Dawn P., Harrison Patti L., editors. Contemporary Intellectual as Sessment: Theories, Tests, and Issues. The Guilford Press; New York: 2012. pp. 197–223. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gigerenzer Gerd. When all is just a click away: Is critical thinking obsolete in the digital age? In: Sternberg Robert J., Halpern Diane F., editors. Critical Thinking IN Psychology. 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press; Cambridge: 2020. pp. 197–223. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gottfredson Linda S. Why g matters: The complexity of everyday life. Intelligence. 1997; 24 :79–132. doi: 10.1016/S0160-2896(97)90014-3. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Grossmann Igor, Varnum Michael E. W., Na Jinkyung, Kitayama Shinobu, Nisbett Richard E. A route to well-being: Intelligence ver sus wise reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. 2013; 142 :944–53. doi: 10.1037/a0029560. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Halpern Diane F. Halpern Critical Thinking Assessment. Schuhfried Test Publishers; Modling: 2018. [(accessed on 30 March 2021)]. Available online: www.schuhfried.com [ Google Scholar ]
• Halpern Diane F., Butler Heather A. Is critical thinking a better model of intelligence? In: Sternberg Robert J., editor. The nature of Intelligence. 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press; Cambridge: 2020. pp. 183–96. [ Google Scholar ]
• Halpern Diane F., Dunn Dana S. Thought and Knowledge: An Introduction to Critical Thinking. 6th ed. Taylor & Francis; New York: Forthcoming. in press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Halpern Diane F., Millis Keith, Graesser Arthur, Butler Heather, Forsyth Carol, Cai Zhiqiang. Operation ARA: A computerized learn ing game that teaches critical thinking and scientific reasoning. Thinking Skills and Creativity. 2012; 7 :93–100. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2012.03.006. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hart Research Associates [(accessed on 30 March 2021)]; Employers Express Confidence in Colleges and Universities: See College as Worth the Investment, New Research Finds. 2018 Aug 29; Available online: https://hartresearch.com/employers-express-confidence-in-colleges-and-universities-see-college-as-worth-the-investment-new-research-finds/
• Heijltjes Anita, Gog Tamara van, Lippink Jimmie, Paas Fred. Unraveling the effects of critical thinking instructions, practice, and self-explanation on students’ reasoning performance. Instructional Science. 2015; 43 :487–506. doi: 10.1007/s11251-015-9347-8. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Holmes Natasha G., Wieman Carl E., Bonn DougA. Teaching critical thinking. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2015; 112 :11199–204. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1505329112. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hunter John E., Schmidt Frank L. Intelligence and job performance: Economic and social implications. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law. 1996; 2 :447–72. doi: 10.1037/1076-8971.2.3-4.447. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kozyreva Anastasia, Lewandowsky Stephan, Hertwig Ralph. Citizens versus the internet: Confronting digital challenges with cognitive tools. [(accessed on 30 March 2021)]; Psychological Science in the Public Interest. 2020 21 doi: 10.1177/1529100620946707. Available online: https://www.psychologi calscience.org/publications/confronting-digital-challenges-with-cognitive-tools.html [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kretzschmar Andre, Neubert Jonas C., Wusternberg Sascha, Greiff Samuel. Construct validity of complex problem- solv ing: A comprehensive view on different facts of intelligence and school grades. Intelligence. 2016; 54 :55–69. doi: 10.1016/j.intell.2015.11.004. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lang Jonas W.B., Kell Harrison J. General mental ability and specific abilities: Their relative importance for extrinsic career success. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2020; 105 :1047–61. doi: 10.1037/apl0000472. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lovelace Berkeley., Jr. Medical Historians Compare the Coronavirus to the 1918 Flu Pandemic: Both Were Highly Political. [(accessed on 30 March 2021)]; CNBC. 2020 Available online: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/28/comparing-1918-flu-vs-corona virus.html?fbclid=IwAR1RAVRUOIdN9qqvNnMPimf5Q4XfV-pn_qdC3DwcfnPu9kavwumDI2zq9Xs
• Marr Rhuaridh. Iranian Cleric Claims COVID-19 Vaccine Can Make People Gay. [(accessed on 30 March 2021)]; Metro Weekly. 2021 Available online: https://www.metroweekly.com/2021/02/iranian-cleric-claims-covid-19-vaccine-can-make-people-gay/
• McCabe Kira O., Lubinski David, Benbow Camilla P. Who shines most among the brightest?: A 25-year longitudinal study of elite STEM graduate students. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2020; 119 :390–416. doi: 10.1037/pspp0000239. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mega Emiliano R. COVID Has Killed more than One Million People. How Many more will Die? [(accessed on 30 March 2021)]; Nature. 2020 Available online: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02762-y [ PubMed ]
• Nickerson Raymond S. Developing intelligence through instruction. In: Sternberg Robert J., editor. The Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence. 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press; Cambridge: 2020. pp. 205–37. [ Google Scholar ]
• OECD . The Survey of Adult Skills: Reader’s Companion. 3rd ed. OECD Publishing; Paris: 2019. OECD Skills Studies. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Smith Matthew. Why won’t Britons Wear Face Masks? [(accessed on 30 March 2021)]; YouGov. 2020 Available online: https://yougov.co.uk/topics/health/articles-reports/2020/07/15/why-wont-britons-wear-face-masks
• Stanovich Keith E. What Intelligence Tests Miss: The Psychology of Rational Thought. Yale University Press; New Haven: 2009. [ Google Scholar ]
• Stanovich Keith E., West Richard F. On the failure of cognitive ability to predict my-side bias and one-sided thinking biases. Thinking & Reasoning. 2008; 14 :129–67. doi: 10.1080/13546780701679764. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stanovich Keith E., West Richard F. What intelligence tests miss. The Psychologist. 2014; 27 :80–83. doi: 10.5840/inquiryctnews201126216. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sternberg Robert J. A theory of adaptive intelligence and its relation to general intelligence. Journal of Intelligence. 2019; 7 :23. doi: 10.3390/jintelligence7040023. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tang Julian W. COVID-19: Interpreting scientific evidence—Uncertainty, confusion, and delays. BMC Infectious Diseases. 2020; 20 :653. doi: 10.1186/s12879-020-05387-8. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wirthwein Linda, Rost Detlef H. Giftedness and subjective well-being: A study with adults. Learning and Individuals Differences. 2011; 21 :182–86. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2011.01.001. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

• Blogs @Oregon State University

Teaching With Writing: The WIC Newsletter

Critical thinking: multiple models for teaching and learning (abridged), excerpts from critical thinking: multiple models for teaching and learning.

By  Aubrae Vanderpool and Tracy Ann Robinson

“A great truth wants to be criticized, not idolized.”

The development of critical thinking skills increasingly is being identified not only as an essential component of writing courses but even more broadly, as a desired outcome of an undergraduate education. In this article, adapted from a paper by Aubrae Vanderpool that focuses on critical thinking in first-year writing classes, we take a look at what critical thinking means, offer some strategies and suggestions for incorporating critical thinking pedagogy into subject-matter courses, and comment on assessment issues and strategies.

Critical Thinking Defined…Or Not…

For some critical thinking has a lot to do with understanding one’s own perspective and those of others. Another model [of critical thinking] is dialectic, an idea or work is critiqued in a way that produces a counter-perspective and ultimately leads to a synthesis. For some critical thinking evokes a synthetic or inductive model based on testing evidence and making arguments. The exercise of reflective judgment is also a form of critical thinking.  (“Critical Thinking and Broad Knowledge”)

While widely accepted as an educational imperative, critical thinking, as the above statement (excerpted from meeting notes for a Critical Thinking dialogue group at Western Washington University) indicates, is quite variously conceived and described. . . . Clearly, however, how an institution or department defines this intellectual practice will influence where in the curriculum critical thinking is taught, how it is taught, and, equally importantly, how it is assessed. For those in the process of formulating a working definition, familiarity with the following widely utilized models may serve as a helpful starting point.

Bloom’s Taxonomy

According to Benjamin Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives (1956)—a cross-disciplinary model for developing higher-order thinking in students—learning how to think critically involves the mastery of six increasingly complex cognitive skills: knowledge (i.e., possession of specific facts or pieces of information) , comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation . See sidebar for details.

Bloom’s Taxonomy conceives critical thinking mastery as a sequential process, that is, one cannot move to the next cognitive tier without successfully negotiating the previous level.  (“Teaching Critical Thinking”). Thus, some view the taxonomy as “a set of microlevel skills which may be used in critical thinking but do not represent critical thinking” (French and Rhoder 195). Philosopher Richard Paul objects to the taxonomy’s product-oriented conceptualization of thinking as a “one-way hierarchy” as opposed to thinking being a process that involves the recursive use of interrelated skills (French and Rhoder 195).  Nonetheless, Bloom’s Taxonomy has been and continues to be an influential model for those developing critical thinking programs, as its inclusion in the Dartmouth College Composition Center’s critical thinking web page attests (Gocsik).

Knowledge: the remembering (recalling) of appropriate, previously learned terminology/specific facts/ways and means of dealing with specifics (conventions, trends and sequences, classifications and categories, criteria, methodology)/universals and abstractions in a field (principles and generalizations, theories and structures). defines; describes; enumerates; identifies; labels; lists; matches; names; reads; records; reproduces; selects; states; views.

Comprehension: Grasping (understanding) the meaning of informational materials. classifies; cites; converts; describes; discusses; estimates; explains; generalizes; gives examples; makes sense out of; paraphrases; restates (in own words); summarizes; traces; understands.

Application: The use of previously learned information in new and concrete situations to solve problems that have single or best answers. acts; administers; articulates; assesses; charts; collects; computes; constructs; contributes; controls; determines; develops; discovers; establishes; extends; implements; includes; informs; instructs; operationalizes; participates; predicts; prepares; preserves; produces; projects; provides; relates; reports; shows; solves; teaches; transfers; uses; utilizes.

Analysis: The breaking down of informational materials into their component parts, examining (and trying to understand the organizational structure of) such information to develop divergent conclusions by identifying motives or causes, making inferences, and/or finding evidence to support generalizations. breaks down; correlates; diagrams; differentiates; discriminates; distinguishes; focuses; illustrates; infers; limits; outlines; points out; prioritizes; recognizes; separates; subdivides.

Synthesis: Creatively or divergently applying prior knowledge and skills to produce a new or original whole. adapts; anticipates; categorizes; collaborates; combines; communicates; compares; compiles; composes; contrasts; creates; designs; devises; expresses; facilitates; formulates; generates; incorporates; individualizes; initiates; integrates; intervenes; models; modifies; negotiates; plans; progresses; rearranges; reconstructs; reinforces; reorganizes; revises; structures; substitutes; validates.

Evaluation: Judging the value of material based on personal values/opinions, resulting in an end product, with a given purpose, without real right or wrong answers. appraises; compares & contrasts; concludes; criticizes; critiques; decides; defends; interprets; judges; justifies; reframes; supports.

SOURCE: http://faculty.washington.edu/krumme/guides/bloom.html (no longer available)

Beyer’s evaluative thinking model

Barry Beyer, a prominent contemporary thinking skills theorist and teacher, interprets critical thinking as a more specifically evaluative activity than Bloom’s Taxonomy would imply:

Critical thinking is not making decisions or solving problems. It is not the same as reflective thinking, creative thinking, or conceptualizing. Each of these other types of thinking serves a specific purpose. We make decisions in order to choose among alternatives. We solve problems when we encounter an obstacle to a preferred condition. We engage in creative or conceptual thinking to invent or improve things. Critical thinking serves a purpose quite different from these other types of thinking. (Beyer 1995, 8)

For Beyer, the crux of critical thinking is criteria : “ The word critical in critical thinking comes from the Greek word for criterion, kriterion , which means a benchmark for judging” (Beyer 1995, 8-9). Thus, critical (or, to use Beyer’s preferred term, evaluative) thinking provides the means to assess the “accuracy, authenticity, plausibility, or sufficiency of claims” (Beyer 1995, 10).

Beyer asserts that critical thinking involves 10 cognitive operations, which can be employed in any sequence or combination as needed for the thinking task at hand:

• Distinguishing between verifiable facts and value claims
• Distinguishing relevant from irrelevant information, claims, or reasons
• Determining the factual accuracy of a statement
• Determining the credibility of a source
• Identifying ambiguous claims or arguments
• Identifying unstated assumptions
• Detecting bias
• Recognizing logical fallacies
• Recognizing logical inconsistencies in a line of reasoning
• Determining the strength of an argument or claim (Beyer 1988, 57)

Further, Beyer argues that successful critical thinking requires “complex and often simultaneous interaction” of the following six elements:

o Dispositions. Critical thinkers develop habits of mind that “guide and sustain critical thinking”, including skepticism, fairmindedness, openmindedness, respect for evidence and reasoning, respect for clarity and precision, ability to consider different points of view, and a willingness to alter one’s position when reason and evidence call for such a shift.

o Criteria . Critical thinkers know about and have the ability to construct appropriate benchmarks for judging the issue at hand.

o Argument —defined as “a proposition with its supporting evidence and reasoning.” Critical thinkers are skillful at constructing, identifying, and evaluating the strength of arguments.

o Reasoning —the “cement that holds an argument together.” Critical thinkers determine the strength and validity of a conclusion by examining the soundness of the inductive or deductive process through which the conclusion was reached.

o Point of View. Critical thinkers are aware of their own point of view and capable of examining other points of view in order to better evaluate an issue.

o Procedures for applying criteria and judging. Critical thinkers have a repertoire of strategies appropriate to the subject matter and type of judgment to be made (Beyer 1995, 10-20)

In other words, critical thinkers habitually question the authenticity of anything that confronts them to ascertain exactly the extent to which it is an authentic instance of what it purports to be. In addition, they make judgments based on certain standards or other measures that serve as criteria for plausibility and truthfulness. And they pay special attention to the reasons and reasoning that undergird conclusions and claims.” (Beyer 1995, 22)

Critical thinking as a divergent process

While Beyer depicts critical thinking as a “ con vergent,” narrowing process, others prefer to view it as a di vergent, expanding, exploratory practice (French and Rhoder, 184-85) —a way to open  up new solutions as well as evaluate those that have already been identified.  For example, consider this statement from Peter Taylor of the UMass/Boston Graduate College of Education’s Critical and Creative Thinking Program. (In February, 2001, Taylor led a critical thinking workshop at OSU, sponsored jointly by the College of Liberal Arts’ Center for Excellence in Teaching, Learning, and Research, the Center for Water and Environmental Sustain-ability, and the Office of Academic Affairs; and organized by Anita Helle [English] and Denise Lach [CWest].)

My sense of critical thinking […] depends on inquiry being informed by a strong sense of how things could be otherwise. I want students to see that they understand things better when they have placed established facts, theories, and practices in tension with alternatives . Critical thinking at this level should not depend on students rejecting conventional accounts, but they do have to move through uncertainty. Their knowledge is, at least for a time, destabilized; what has been established cannot be taken for granted.

This view suggests a much closer connection between critical and creative thinking than Beyer, for instance, would subscribe to. However, many of the concerns that underlie the current interest in furthering college students’ critical thinking skills recognize and affirm this connection.

Teaching Considerations and Strategies

. . .  B. Lehman and D. Hayes propose the following strategies for promoting critical thinking in the classroom:

o Help students recognize what they already know about a topic. [For suggestions, see next section.]

o Help students learn to recognize their biases and keep an open mind about the topic. Have students list and share opinions on the subject, but postpone evaluation until more information is gathered.

o Formulate open-ended questions to help students analyze, synthesize, and evaluate the topic.

o Guide students in finding and using diverse sources to explain and support their ideas.

o Have students check the validity of sources and qualifications of authors.

o Help students see there is no single, final authority. By reading several sources on the same topic, students will discover that information is often conflicting and contradictory.

o Help students develop criteria for evaluation. As students learn to support their opinions with logical thinking and comparison of sources, they [develop] critical thinking skills. (Smith 350) . . . .

 The Writing–Critical Thinking Connection

For centuries, the rhetorical assumption about language was that “one first finds knowledge and then puts it into words” (Bizzell, Herzberg, and Reynolds 1)—in other words, thinking always precedes writing or speaking. Today, however, we recognize that “knowledge is actually created by words” (Bizzell, Herzberg, and Reynolds 1) and that writing and thinking are recursive, interdependent processes that promote and enhance one another.

James Sheridan  points out that “the act of generating written discourse is not merely a result of critical thinking but also a stimulus to new thinking and new discoveries” (52). This claim echoes Linda Flower’s assertion that “writing is a generative act—a process of not just ‘expressing’ but ‘making’ meaning” (193-94). The fact is that “when students write, they cannot remain passive players in the learning game” (Gocsik-source no longer available). As Peter Elbow suggests, “writing helps us achieve the perennially difficult task of standing outside our own thinking” (27). Hence, the concept of “writing to learn,” which has become so integral to Writing Across the Curriculum courses and programs.

Using writing to uncover knowledge

As well as using writing to reinforce and integrate new information, writing can be a way of discovering existing knowledge. Many critical thinking experts advocate beginning any new learning unit by identifying what students already know (but often don’t know they know) about the topic.  This strategy promotes critical thinking and active learning by allowing students to “establish a context for new information and share ideas with others” (Smith 350). Two writing strategies that can assist in this discovery process are freewriting and the “write-and-pass” exercise:

Freewriting. Describing freewriting as an activity that “helps students break the writing-is-grammar chain [, which] stultifies the freedom and risk-taking necessary for innovative critical thinking” (53), James Sheridan suggests the process has only two r equirements:

( 1) “You cannot stop writing during the 10-minute exercise.” (2) “You are forbidden to think. [. . .] Write whatever comes into your right (or left) hand. You must keep on writing. Even if you say ‘I don’t know what to write,’ write that. You cannot scratch your head. You cannot gaze pensively at the ceiling. Just write. You are not responsible for what you say; your hand is doing it all. Say anything. Say ‘This is the worst exercise I ever heard of and I can’t believe they’re paying this guy good bucks to have us do it.’ Yell, scream, shout, kick (in written words). Say anything, but keep writing” (52)

With unfocused freewriting, students write about whatever they want. With focused , or directed , freewriting, students are given a topic or question to write on.

Write-and-pass.  Another informal writing assignment that helps students discover what they already know is to ask them to spend a few minutes writing everything they can think of about a given topic or question (for example, “What is critical thinking?”). After several minutes, students pass what they’ve written to the person next to them, and that person reads and expands on the original response. The process is repeated a few more times; generally, with each pass, adding new information becomes more challenging..  The exercise provides a way both for students to focus their thoughts on a particular topic and to benefit from one another’s stores of knowledge.

Assessing Critical Thinking: Current Models

[A]n informed choice of an approach to assessing critical thinking can be made only after faculty have [asked and answered] these questions: What do we think critical thinking is? How do the critical thinking skills, processes, and strategies work together, and what aspects or combinations of them do we wish to assess? What are our students like? What are their motivations [and] environments? What are our assumptions relative to the knowledge and abilities that students need prior to engaging in college-level critical thinking? (Carpenter and Doig 34-35)

Carpenter and Doig’s observation comes from a 1988 review of assessment instruments developed for specific critical thinking courses and programs. Alternatively, the  rubric developed in 2002 by Washington State University’s Critical Thinking Project can be used in subject-matter courses across the curriculum that focus on critical thinking. This rubric includes the following criteria for student writing:

• Identifies and summarizes the problem/question at issue.
• Identifies and presents the student’s own perspective and position as it is important to the analysis of the issue.
• Identifies and considers other salient perspectives and positions that are important to the analysis of the issue.
• Identifies and assesses the key assumptions.
• Identifies and assesses the quality of supporting data/evidence and provides additional data/evidence related to the issue.
• Identifies and considers the influence of the context (e.g. cultural/social, scientific, educational, economic, technological, ethical, political, personal, and so on) on the issue.
• Identifies and assesses conclusions, implications, and consequences. “Critical Thinking Rubric” no longer available online.

Each item in the rubric includes a description of what would be considered “scant” vs “substantially developed” coverage of that item. The Washington State Critical Thinking Project website is no longer available online.

A Final Note

In this article, we have focused on what Kerry S. Walters describes as the “logicistic” model of critical thinking—that is (according to Walters) “the unwarranted assumption that good thinking is reducible to logical thinking” (1). In Re-Thinking Reason: New Perspectives in Critical Thinking , Walters explores an alternative model being forwarded by an emerging “second-wave” of critical thinking research and pedagogy. Second-wave advocates argue that while “logical skills are essential functions of good thinking, […] so are non-analytic ones such as imagination and intuition, and the good thinker knows how to utilize both types” (2).  This reconception of critical thinking is grounded in current scholarship in the fields of philosophy, psychology, education, feminist theory, and critical pedagogy; Walters’s book serves as an introduction to and dialogue among some of the proponents and practitioners of this alternative. While beyond the scope of this article, the second-wave perspective on critical thinking deserves our serious attention and consideration as well.

This article was previously published in entirety in Teaching with Writing , Winter 2004.

Works Cited (some sources no longer available)

Beyer, Barry K. Critical Thinking. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation, 1995.

________. Developing a Thinking Skills Program. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1988.

Bizzell, Patricia, Bruce Hertzberg, and Nedra Reynolds. The Bedford Bibliography for Teachers of Writing. 5th Ed. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2000.

Carpenter, C. Blaine, and James C. Doig. “Assessing Critical Thinking Across the Curriculum.” Assessing Student’s Learning 34 (Summer 1988): 33-46.

“Critical Thinking and Broad Knowledge Meeting Notes.” 2 Nov. 2001. Center for Instructional Innovation, Western Washington University. 4 March 2003.  http://pandora.cii.wwu.edu/gened/dialogue/critical_notes_nov.htm Source no longer available.

Elbow, Peter. “Teaching Two Kinds of Thinking by Teaching Writing.” Re-Thinking Reason: New Perspectives in Critical Thinking . Ed. Kerry S. Walters. Albany: SUNY Press, 1994. 25-31.

Flower, Linda. “Taking Thought: The Role of Conscious Processing in the Making of Meaning.” Thinking, Reasoning, and Writing. Ed. Elaine P. Maimon, Barbara F. Nodine, and Finbarr W. O’Connor. NY: Longman, 1989. 185-212.

French, Joyce N. and Carol Rhoder. Teaching Thinking Skills: Theory and Practice. NY: Garland, 1992.

Gocsik, Karen. “Teaching Critical Thinking.: 1997 Dartmouth College Composition Center. Source no longer available.

Scriven, Michael and Richard Paul. “Defining Critical Thinking.” Draft Statement for the National Council for Excellence in Critical Thinking. Foundation for Critical Thinking. 27 Feb. 2003. <http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/definint-critical-thinking/766>

Sheridan, James J. “Skipping on the Brink of the Abyss: Teaching Thinking Through Writing.” Cr itical Thinking: Educational Imperative. Ed. Cynthia A. Barnes. New Directions for Community Colleges, No. 77. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1992. 51-61.

Smith, Carl B. “Two Approaches to Critical Thinking.” The Reading Teacher 4.4  (Dec. 1990): 350-51.

Stewart, Ruth. “Teaching Critical Thinking in First-Year Composition: Sometimes More Is More.” Teaching English at the Two-Year College 29 (Dec. 2001): 162-171.

Taylor, Peter. “We Know More Than We Are, At First, Prepared To Acknowledge: Journeying to Develop Critical Thinking.” 12 March 2003 <http://www.faculty.umb.edu/pjt/journey.html>

Walters, Kerry S. Re-Thinking Reason: New Perspectives in Critical Thinking. Albany: SUNY Press, 1994.

Comments are closed.

Contact Info

Critical Thinking and Creative Thinking Skills

Following Calvin Taylor's Model

JGI/Jamie Grill / Getty Images

• Famous Inventions
• Famous Inventors
• Patents & Trademarks
• Invention Timelines
• Computers & The Internet
• American History
• African American History
• African History
• Ancient History and Culture
• Asian History
• European History
• Latin American History
• Medieval & Renaissance History
• Military History
• The 20th Century
• Women's History

The Calvin Taylor creative thinking model describes the talent areas as productive thinking, communication, planning, decision making, and forecasting. This model is best known as Talents Unlimited, a program of the National Diffusion Network of the U.S. Department of Education. The Taylor model incorporates both the critical and creative elements of thinking.

Rather than a taxonomy, this is a thinking skills model that describes the essential elements of thinking, beginning with the academic talent and then incorporating the other talent areas, as described in more detail below.

Productive Thinking

Productivity promotes creative thinking in the Calvin Taylor model. It suggests critical and creative thinking of many ideas, varied ideas, unusual ideas, and adding to those ideas.

Communication

Communication has six elements which include:

• Give many, varied, single words to describe something.
• Give many, varied, single words to describe feelings.
• Think of many, varied things that are like another thing in a special way.
• Let others know that you understand how they feel.
• Make a network of ideas using many, varied and complete thoughts.
• Tell your feelings and needs without using words.

Planning requires that students learn to tell what they are going to plan:

• The materials that they will need.
• The steps that they will need to accomplish the task.
• The problems that might occur.

Decision Making

Decision making teaches the student to:

• Think of the many, varied things that could be done.
• Think more carefully about each alternative.
• Choose one alternative that they think is best.
• Give many, varied reasons for the choice.

Forecasting

Forecasting is the last of the five talents and requires students to make many, varied predictions about a situation, examining cause and effect relationships. Every element of the Calvin Taylor model is used when a child invents.

• Creativity & Creative Thinking
• Benjamin Bloom: Critical Thinking and Critical Thinking Models
• Critical Thinking Definition, Skills, and Examples
• Critical Thinking in Reading and Composition
• Tips for the 8 University of California Personal Insight Questions
• Higher-Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) in Education
• 12 Online Classes to Build Intellectual Character
• Critical Thinking Exercises
• Introduction to Critical Thinking
• 10 Fun Team-Building Activities for Middle School
• The Horse Problem: A Math Challenge
• How to Brainstorm in the Classroom
• Discover Ideas Through Brainstorming
• Definition and Examples of Evaluation Essays
• How to Facilitate Learning and Critical Thinking
• 2020-21 Common Application Essay Option 4—Solving a Problem

Help | Advanced Search

Computer Science > Human-Computer Interaction

Title: language models as critical thinking tools: a case study of philosophers.

Abstract: Current work in language models (LMs) helps us speed up or even skip thinking by accelerating and automating cognitive work. But can LMs help us with critical thinking -- thinking in deeper, more reflective ways which challenge assumptions, clarify ideas, and engineer new concepts? We treat philosophy as a case study in critical thinking, and interview 21 professional philosophers about how they engage in critical thinking and on their experiences with LMs. We find that philosophers do not find LMs to be useful because they lack a sense of selfhood (memory, beliefs, consistency) and initiative (curiosity, proactivity). We propose the selfhood-initiative model for critical thinking tools to characterize this gap. Using the model, we formulate three roles LMs could play as critical thinking tools: the Interlocutor, the Monitor, and the Respondent. We hope that our work inspires LM researchers to further develop LMs as critical thinking tools and philosophers and other 'critical thinkers' to imagine intellectually substantive uses of LMs.

Submission history

Access paper:.

• HTML (experimental)
• Other Formats

References & Citations

• Google Scholar
• Semantic Scholar

BibTeX formatted citation

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Code, data and media associated with this article, recommenders and search tools.

• Institution

arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs .

A Crash Course in Critical Thinking

What you need to know—and read—about one of the essential skills needed today..

Posted April 8, 2024 | Reviewed by Michelle Quirk

• In research for "A More Beautiful Question," I did a deep dive into the current crisis in critical thinking.
• Many people may think of themselves as critical thinkers, but they actually are not.
• Here is a series of questions you can ask yourself to try to ensure that you are thinking critically.

Conspiracy theories. Inability to distinguish facts from falsehoods. Widespread confusion about who and what to believe.

These are some of the hallmarks of the current crisis in critical thinking—which just might be the issue of our times. Because if people aren’t willing or able to think critically as they choose potential leaders, they’re apt to choose bad ones. And if they can’t judge whether the information they’re receiving is sound, they may follow faulty advice while ignoring recommendations that are science-based and solid (and perhaps life-saving).

Moreover, as a society, if we can’t think critically about the many serious challenges we face, it becomes more difficult to agree on what those challenges are—much less solve them.

On a personal level, critical thinking can enable you to make better everyday decisions. It can help you make sense of an increasingly complex and confusing world.

In the new expanded edition of my book A More Beautiful Question ( AMBQ ), I took a deep dive into critical thinking. Here are a few key things I learned.

First off, before you can get better at critical thinking, you should understand what it is. It’s not just about being a skeptic. When thinking critically, we are thoughtfully reasoning, evaluating, and making decisions based on evidence and logic. And—perhaps most important—while doing this, a critical thinker always strives to be open-minded and fair-minded . That’s not easy: It demands that you constantly question your assumptions and biases and that you always remain open to considering opposing views.

In today’s polarized environment, many people think of themselves as critical thinkers simply because they ask skeptical questions—often directed at, say, certain government policies or ideas espoused by those on the “other side” of the political divide. The problem is, they may not be asking these questions with an open mind or a willingness to fairly consider opposing views.

When people do this, they’re engaging in “weak-sense critical thinking”—a term popularized by the late Richard Paul, a co-founder of The Foundation for Critical Thinking . “Weak-sense critical thinking” means applying the tools and practices of critical thinking—questioning, investigating, evaluating—but with the sole purpose of confirming one’s own bias or serving an agenda.

In AMBQ , I lay out a series of questions you can ask yourself to try to ensure that you’re thinking critically. Here are some of the questions to consider:

• Why do I believe what I believe?
• Are my views based on evidence?
• Have I fairly and thoughtfully considered differing viewpoints?
• Am I truly open to changing my mind?

Of course, becoming a better critical thinker is not as simple as just asking yourself a few questions. Critical thinking is a habit of mind that must be developed and strengthened over time. In effect, you must train yourself to think in a manner that is more effortful, aware, grounded, and balanced.

For those interested in giving themselves a crash course in critical thinking—something I did myself, as I was working on my book—I thought it might be helpful to share a list of some of the books that have shaped my own thinking on this subject. As a self-interested author, I naturally would suggest that you start with the new 10th-anniversary edition of A More Beautiful Question , but beyond that, here are the top eight critical-thinking books I’d recommend.

The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark , by Carl Sagan

This book simply must top the list, because the late scientist and author Carl Sagan continues to be such a bright shining light in the critical thinking universe. Chapter 12 includes the details on Sagan’s famous “baloney detection kit,” a collection of lessons and tips on how to deal with bogus arguments and logical fallacies.

Clear Thinking: Turning Ordinary Moments Into Extraordinary Results , by Shane Parrish

The creator of the Farnham Street website and host of the “Knowledge Project” podcast explains how to contend with biases and unconscious reactions so you can make better everyday decisions. It contains insights from many of the brilliant thinkers Shane has studied.

Good Thinking: Why Flawed Logic Puts Us All at Risk and How Critical Thinking Can Save the World , by David Robert Grimes

A brilliant, comprehensive 2021 book on critical thinking that, to my mind, hasn’t received nearly enough attention . The scientist Grimes dissects bad thinking, shows why it persists, and offers the tools to defeat it.

Think Again: The Power of Knowing What You Don't Know , by Adam Grant

Intellectual humility—being willing to admit that you might be wrong—is what this book is primarily about. But Adam, the renowned Wharton psychology professor and bestselling author, takes the reader on a mind-opening journey with colorful stories and characters.

Think Like a Detective: A Kid's Guide to Critical Thinking , by David Pakman

The popular YouTuber and podcast host Pakman—normally known for talking politics —has written a terrific primer on critical thinking for children. The illustrated book presents critical thinking as a “superpower” that enables kids to unlock mysteries and dig for truth. (I also recommend Pakman’s second kids’ book called Think Like a Scientist .)

Rationality: What It Is, Why It Seems Scarce, Why It Matters , by Steven Pinker

The Harvard psychology professor Pinker tackles conspiracy theories head-on but also explores concepts involving risk/reward, probability and randomness, and correlation/causation. And if that strikes you as daunting, be assured that Pinker makes it lively and accessible.

How Minds Change: The Surprising Science of Belief, Opinion and Persuasion , by David McRaney

David is a science writer who hosts the popular podcast “You Are Not So Smart” (and his ideas are featured in A More Beautiful Question ). His well-written book looks at ways you can actually get through to people who see the world very differently than you (hint: bludgeoning them with facts definitely won’t work).

A Healthy Democracy's Best Hope: Building the Critical Thinking Habit , by M Neil Browne and Chelsea Kulhanek

Neil Browne, author of the seminal Asking the Right Questions: A Guide to Critical Thinking, has been a pioneer in presenting critical thinking as a question-based approach to making sense of the world around us. His newest book, co-authored with Chelsea Kulhanek, breaks down critical thinking into “11 explosive questions”—including the “priors question” (which challenges us to question assumptions), the “evidence question” (focusing on how to evaluate and weigh evidence), and the “humility question” (which reminds us that a critical thinker must be humble enough to consider the possibility of being wrong).

Warren Berger is a longtime journalist and author of A More Beautiful Question .

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Support Group
• International
• New Zealand
• South Africa
• Switzerland
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Relationships
• Child Development
• Therapy Center NEW
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

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

• Coronavirus Disease 2019
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience