what are models of critical thinking

• 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

• 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

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 […]

What’s the Difference Between Critical Thinking and Free Thinking?

For the entirety of human history, we’ve been thinking― thinking about our future, our morality, and even the meaning of life itself. […]

Critical thinking and Cyber security (How to protect your personal information online)

Whenever a job vacancy in cyber security is posted, you will always see one of the job requirements as ‘critical thinking’. Honestly, […]

9 Common Characteristics of Strong Critical Thinkers

Famous highly-intelligent thinkers in the world such as Albert Einstein, Sigmund Freud, and Marie Curie are known not only because of their […]

• 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

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

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

What Is Critical Thinking? | Definition & Examples

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

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

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

Critical thinking skills help you to:

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

Table of contents

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

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

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

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

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

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

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

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

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

Academic examples

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

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

Nonacademic examples

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

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

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

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

When encountering information, ask:

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

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

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

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

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

 Plagiarism

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

The only proofreading tool specialized in correcting academic writing - try for free!

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

Try for free

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

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

Critical thinking skills include the ability to:

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

Ask questions such as:

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

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

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

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

Being information literate means that you:

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

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

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

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

Cite this Scribbr article

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

Ryan, E. (2023, May 31). What Is Critical Thinking? | Definition & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved April 8, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/working-with-sources/critical-thinking/

Is this article helpful?

Eoghan Ryan

Other students also liked, student guide: information literacy | meaning & examples, what are credible sources & how to spot them | examples, applying the craap test & evaluating sources, unlimited academic ai-proofreading.

✔ Document error-free in 5minutes ✔ Unlimited document corrections ✔ Specialized in correcting academic texts

How it works

For Business

Join Mind Tools

Article • 8 min read

Critical Thinking

Developing the right mindset and skills.

By the Mind Tools Content Team

We make hundreds of decisions every day and, whether we realize it or not, we're all critical thinkers.

We use critical thinking each time we weigh up our options, prioritize our responsibilities, or think about the likely effects of our actions. It's a crucial skill that helps us to cut out misinformation and make wise decisions. The trouble is, we're not always very good at it!

In this article, we'll explore the key skills that you need to develop your critical thinking skills, and how to adopt a critical thinking mindset, so that you can make well-informed decisions.

What Is Critical Thinking?

Critical thinking is the discipline of rigorously and skillfully using information, experience, observation, and reasoning to guide your decisions, actions, and beliefs. You'll need to actively question every step of your thinking process to do it well.

Collecting, analyzing and evaluating information is an important skill in life, and a highly valued asset in the workplace. People who score highly in critical thinking assessments are also rated by their managers as having good problem-solving skills, creativity, strong decision-making skills, and good overall performance. [1]

Key Critical Thinking Skills

Critical thinkers possess a set of key characteristics which help them to question information and their own thinking. Focus on the following areas to develop your critical thinking skills:

Being willing and able to explore alternative approaches and experimental ideas is crucial. Can you think through "what if" scenarios, create plausible options, and test out your theories? If not, you'll tend to write off ideas and options too soon, so you may miss the best answer to your situation.

To nurture your curiosity, stay up to date with facts and trends. You'll overlook important information if you allow yourself to become "blinkered," so always be open to new information.

But don't stop there! Look for opposing views or evidence to challenge your information, and seek clarification when things are unclear. This will help you to reassess your beliefs and make a well-informed decision later. Read our article, Opening Closed Minds , for more ways to stay receptive.

Logical Thinking

You must be skilled at reasoning and extending logic to come up with plausible options or outcomes.

It's also important to emphasize logic over emotion. Emotion can be motivating but it can also lead you to take hasty and unwise action, so control your emotions and be cautious in your judgments. Know when a conclusion is "fact" and when it is not. "Could-be-true" conclusions are based on assumptions and must be tested further. Read our article, Logical Fallacies , for help with this.

Use creative problem solving to balance cold logic. By thinking outside of the box you can identify new possible outcomes by using pieces of information that you already have.

Self-Awareness

Many of the decisions we make in life are subtly informed by our values and beliefs. These influences are called cognitive biases and it can be difficult to identify them in ourselves because they're often subconscious.

Practicing self-awareness will allow you to reflect on the beliefs you have and the choices you make. You'll then be better equipped to challenge your own thinking and make improved, unbiased decisions.

One particularly useful tool for critical thinking is the Ladder of Inference . It allows you to test and validate your thinking process, rather than jumping to poorly supported conclusions.

Developing a Critical Thinking Mindset

Combine the above skills with the right mindset so that you can make better decisions and adopt more effective courses of action. You can develop your critical thinking mindset by following this process:

Gather Information

First, collect data, opinions and facts on the issue that you need to solve. Draw on what you already know, and turn to new sources of information to help inform your understanding. Consider what gaps there are in your knowledge and seek to fill them. And look for information that challenges your assumptions and beliefs.

Be sure to verify the authority and authenticity of your sources. Not everything you read is true! Use this checklist to ensure that your information is valid:

• Are your information sources trustworthy ? (For example, well-respected authors, trusted colleagues or peers, recognized industry publications, websites, blogs, etc.)
• Is the information you have gathered up to date ?
• Has the information received any direct criticism ?
• Does the information have any errors or inaccuracies ?
• Is there any evidence to support or corroborate the information you have gathered?
• Is the information you have gathered subjective or biased in any way? (For example, is it based on opinion, rather than fact? Is any of the information you have gathered designed to promote a particular service or organization?)

If any information appears to be irrelevant or invalid, don't include it in your decision making. But don't omit information just because you disagree with it, or your final decision will be flawed and bias.

Now observe the information you have gathered, and interpret it. What are the key findings and main takeaways? What does the evidence point to? Start to build one or two possible arguments based on what you have found.

You'll need to look for the details within the mass of information, so use your powers of observation to identify any patterns or similarities. You can then analyze and extend these trends to make sensible predictions about the future.

To help you to sift through the multiple ideas and theories, it can be useful to group and order items according to their characteristics. From here, you can compare and contrast the different items. And once you've determined how similar or different things are from one another, Paired Comparison Analysis can help you to analyze them.

The final step involves challenging the information and rationalizing its arguments.

Apply the laws of reason (induction, deduction, analogy) to judge an argument and determine its merits. To do this, it's essential that you can determine the significance and validity of an argument to put it in the correct perspective. Take a look at our article, Rational Thinking , for more information about how to do this.

Once you have considered all of the arguments and options rationally, you can finally make an informed decision.

Afterward, take time to reflect on what you have learned and what you found challenging. Step back from the detail of your decision or problem, and look at the bigger picture. Record what you've learned from your observations and experience.

Critical thinking involves rigorously and skilfully using information, experience, observation, and reasoning to guide your decisions, actions and beliefs. It's a useful skill in the workplace and in life.

You'll need to be curious and creative to explore alternative possibilities, but rational to apply logic, and self-aware to identify when your beliefs could affect your decisions or actions.

You can demonstrate a high level of critical thinking by validating your information, analyzing its meaning, and finally evaluating the argument.

Critical Thinking Infographic

See Critical Thinking represented in our infographic: An Elementary Guide to Critical Thinking .

You've accessed 1 of your 2 free resources.

Get unlimited access

Discover more content

Book Insights

Overcoming Low Self-Esteem

Melanie Fennell

5 Customer Service Parables

Improve Customer Service With Stories

Add comment

Comments (1)

priyanka ghogare

Team Management

Learn the key aspects of managing a team, from building and developing your team, to working with different types of teams, and troubleshooting common problems.

Sign-up to our newsletter

Subscribing to the Mind Tools newsletter will keep you up-to-date with our latest updates and newest resources.

Subscribe now

Business Skills

Personal Development

Leadership and Management

Member Extras

Most Popular

Newest Releases

SWOT Analysis

SMART Goals

Mind Tools Store

About Mind Tools Content

Discover something new today

How to stop procrastinating.

Overcoming the Habit of Delaying Important Tasks

What Is Time Management?

Working Smarter to Enhance Productivity

How Emotionally Intelligent Are You?

Boosting Your People Skills

Self-Assessment

What's Your Leadership Style?

Learn About the Strengths and Weaknesses of the Way You Like to Lead

Recommended for you

Boost your team with positive narratives infographic.

Infographic Transcript

Infographic

Business Operations and Process Management

Strategy Tools

Customer Service

Business Ethics and Values

Handling Information and Data

Project Management

Knowledge Management

Self-Development and Goal Setting

Time Management

Presentation Skills

Learning Skills

Career Skills

Communication Skills

Negotiation, Persuasion and Influence

Working With Others

Difficult Conversations

Creativity Tools

Self-Management

Work-Life Balance

Stress Management and Wellbeing

Coaching and Mentoring

Change Management

Managing Conflict

Delegation and Empowerment

Performance Management

Leadership Skills

Developing Your Team

Talent Management

Problem Solving

Decision Making

Member Podcast

• Programs & Services
• Delphi Center

Ideas to Action (i2a)

• Paul-Elder Critical Thinking Framework

Critical thinking is that mode of thinking – about any subject, content, or problem — in which the thinker improves the quality of his or her thinking by skillfully taking charge of the structures inherent in thinking and imposing intellectual standards upon them. (Paul and Elder, 2001). The Paul-Elder framework has three components:

• The elements of thought (reasoning)
• The  intellectual standards that should be applied to the elements of reasoning
• The intellectual traits associated with a cultivated critical thinker that result from the consistent and disciplined application of the intellectual standards to the elements of thought

According to Paul and Elder (1997), there are two essential dimensions of thinking that students need to master in order to learn how to upgrade their thinking. They need to be able to identify the "parts" of their thinking, and they need to be able to assess their use of these parts of thinking.

Elements of Thought (reasoning)

The "parts" or elements of thinking are as follows:

• All reasoning has a purpose
• All reasoning is an attempt to figure something out, to settle some question, to solve some problem
• All reasoning is based on assumptions
• All reasoning is done from some point of view
• All reasoning is based on data, information and evidence
• All reasoning is expressed through, and shaped by, concepts and ideas
• All reasoning contains inferences or interpretations by which we draw conclusions and give meaning to data
• All reasoning leads somewhere or has implications and consequences

Universal Intellectual Standards

The intellectual standards that are to these elements are used to determine the quality of reasoning. Good critical thinking requires having a command of these standards. According to Paul and Elder (1997 ,2006), the ultimate goal is for the standards of reasoning to become infused in all thinking so as to become the guide to better and better reasoning. The intellectual standards include:

Intellectual Traits

Consistent application of the standards of thinking to the elements of thinking result in the development of intellectual traits of:

• Intellectual Humility
• Intellectual Courage
• Intellectual Empathy
• Intellectual Autonomy
• Intellectual Integrity
• Intellectual Perseverance
• Confidence in Reason
• Fair-mindedness

Characteristics of a Well-Cultivated Critical Thinker

Habitual utilization of the intellectual traits produce a well-cultivated critical thinker who is able to:

• Raise vital questions and problems, formulating them clearly and precisely
• Gather and assess relevant information, using abstract ideas to interpret it effectively
• Come to well-reasoned conclusions and solutions, testing them against relevant criteria and standards;
• Think open-mindedly within alternative systems of thought, recognizing and assessing, as need be, their assumptions, implications, and practical consequences; and
• Communicate effectively with others in figuring out solutions to complex problems

Paul, R. and Elder, L. (2010). The Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking Concepts and Tools. Dillon Beach: Foundation for Critical Thinking Press.

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

Copyright © 2012 - University of Louisville , Delphi Center

11 Modeling Critical Thinking

Tutors spend lots of time working with students to develop critical thinking skills. Using Socratic questioning, we guide students from memory, to comprehension, to analysis and evaluation. We coach them through the problem solving process so that they make progress with their studies. Facilitating critical thinking is an important part of what we do.

It’s equally important that tutors do not forget to practice critical thinking themselves. In this section, we review the important components of critical thinking, why they’re important, and how we can actively practice critical thinking in our tutoring sessions.

Defining Critical Thinking

We use the words “critical thinking,” quite a lot, but what does it actually mean? The National Counsel for Excellence in Critical Thinking describes critical thinking as an “intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully using one’s observations, communication, and moments of reflection, to understand, apply, analyze, evaluate, and synthesize information.” 1 Let’s break that down:

• “ Intellectually disciplined ”- Using the critical thinking process is a skill. It takes practice. It takes discipline.
• “ Actively and skillfully ”- Critical thinking is an active process. It requires intention and effort. It’s often not something we automatically do, even once we’ve developed our skills.
• “ Observations, communication, and moments of reflection ”- The critical thinking process begins with how we take in information. We first reflect on the things we observe, the material we read, and the exchanges we have with people.
• After we’ve made observations, we can proceed with the Critical Thinking Process. The definition lists the steps that are included in the process: “understand, apply, analyze, evaluate, and synthesize .”

An important characteristic of critical thinking, as defined here, is that it is universally applicable across disciplines and situations. The same process can be applied in a science class, when reading the news, when modifying a recipe in the kitchen, or when tutoring a student. It’s a skill that we can use in all areas of our lives, and it encourages a type of introspection called metacognition . Metacognition occurs when we think about our own thinking. No matter what task we may encounter, applying critical thinking forces us to question our perceptions and reactions. It creates opportunities for us to reflect on the questions we haven’t yet asked, and perspectives we haven’t yet considered. 2

The Critical Thinking Process

There are many models that exist to describe the critical thinking process. One Model of Learning Theory, called Bloom’s Taxonomy, 3 describes the different ways we can “know” something. Bloom’s Taxonomy arranges these ways of knowing into a hierarchy according to the effort required to achieve that level of understanding (See Figure) The more critical our thinking, the higher we move up the hierarchy.

The stages of Remembering and Understanding information, require the least critical thought. These stages include the observations and reflection mentioned earlier and are preliminary to the critical thinking process. True critical thinking begins when, once we have observed new information and understood it, we begin to Apply and Analyze it. 4 We test it out, place it in various scenarios, and begin to ask more probing questions. These are the stages where we “take the idea apart,” breaking it into its components to better understand what they are and how they fit together.

After a certain level of questioning, scrutiny, and reviewing information from a variety of perspectives, we can begin to make assessments, judgements, and evaluations. Evaluation calls us to bring new information into the situation. Here we’re making judgements based on our prior experience and knowledge in other areas. We also make judgements based on our personal values, our goals, and objectives.

Finally, the most critical stage of thought is the Creation or Synthesis stage. Here is where we take in everything we’ve already learned and create a new idea. Creating solutions, proposing alternatives, and generating new thoughts based on what we’ve learned requires the most effort and is the result of much critical thought. 4 , 5

(Ideas which prove to be exceptionally bad, are likely the result of a lack of critical thought. When we skip over the lower stages of the hierarchy, and attempt to start from the very top, we miss all the critical thinking that informs good ideas.)

How Tutors Can Apply Critical Thinking

It’s easy to see how critical thinking can help students, but we may wonder how we should be applying critical thinking when we’re acting as tutors. Remember that the critical thinking process can be applied to any subject or discipline. It can also be applied to situations outside of the classroom. It’s likely that we’re using some degree of critical thinking in our tutoring sessions already. Recognizing how we already use it, and how we can more actively apply the process, lead to more effective assistance during sessions. 6, 7

Let’s walk through what critical thinking might look like for a tutor (see Figure 2.):

We first begin with observations and information gathering. In a session, this means learning what assignment a student is working on, but also observing the student.

• Is this student new to tutoring, or familiar?
• Do they seem to be embarrassed to ask for help, or are they comfortable sharing their struggles?
• Does the student know exactly what’s giving them trouble, or are they unclear on what piece is challenging them?
• Is the student organized, or do they have trouble finding assignments?
• Can they read and understand their notes from class?

All these observations can inform how we proceed with the tutoring session, if we apply critical thinking.

Next, we move onto our Socratic questioning. In addition to giving us the opportunity to make more observations, these interactions with the student help us to better analyze the student’s situation .

• Which parts does the student understand, and which are elusive?
• Are the student’s notes organized and legible?
• Does the student struggle with the language used in their textbook?

This kind of analysis can give us a more holistic view of the student and their particular case.

After learning as much as we can about the situation, we can begin to evaluate and make assessments . This informs how we move forward with the session, and where we ask the student to focus.

• Perhaps we can confidently assess which parts of a process the student has misinterpreted, and so can guide the student to better understand them.
• Perhaps we have identified patterns in the students’ work and choose to focus our attention on addressing something more systemic, rather than working through the specific assignment.
• It might be the case that you evaluate the student’ understanding of a concept and conclude that the underlying issue is that they can’t read their notes from class, or don’t have access to the textbook, or can’t find the assignment instructions due to poor organization.

With this information, a tutor might choose to spend some time addressing these issues with the student, concluding that they are the greater hindrance to the student’s success.

Finally, the tutor moves on to the creation/synthesis stage of critical thinking. The priority for the tutor is to help the student develop their own solutions to the problems they encounter, but this doesn’t mean that the tutor isn’t creating solutions of their own.

Tutors may synthesize a new strategy or approach, in response to the evaluation the tutor has made of the student’s need.

• The tutor’s solution may be to create some practice problems to demonstrate to the student how the concept is applied.
• The tutor may devise a solution that grounds the concept in real-life scenarios or uses creative metaphors to assist the student’s comprehension.

The tutor’s creative solutions and strategies are informed by the assessments made in the previous stages of the critical thinking process.  Solutions and strategies are not always appropriate or effective unless we first take time to observe, analyze, evaluate, and gain a better understanding of the student and their needs.

Quickwrite Reflection

How do you currently use critical thinking in your interactions with students during a tutoring session? Are you actively making observations and responding? Have you adapted your approach with a student based on your observations?

Take a moment to reflect on how you may already be integrating critical thinking into your interactions with students.

How can you improve your critical thinking in your interactions with students?

Pitfalls to Avoid

We can always find ways to improve, no matter how skilled we are in applying the critical thinking process. In addition, it’s important to recognize that we can also fall into bad habits in our critical thinking, if we’re not careful. Many of the habits that influence our reasoning involve unconscious biases, predispositions, and other beliefs that we may not even realize we carry.

This is where our metacognition and self-reflection become important. It’s always a good idea to remember to check in with ourselves, and ask if there are underlying factors that could be influencing our decision making. Even when we have applied critical thinking appropriately, self-awareness is important in understanding what may be influencing our observations, our conclusions, and the solutions we propose. 8

Some of these factors that can unconsciously influence our critical thinking process include:

• Unintentional Prejudices
• Unconscious Biases
• Social Taboos
• Situational Distortions
• Acceptance of Established Social Norms
• Vested Interest in a Particular Outcome
• Our Own Self-Interest

Even the world’s most logical thinkers know that emotions, prior experiences, and unintentional biases can influence how we view situations. This can impact our ability to truly think critically about them. When other factors begin influencing our critical thinking, it can often be difficult to notice. How do we combat this? We can’t eliminate the influence of these factors entirely. That’s why it’s essential that we remain self-aware and maintain an attitude focused on improvement. 9

What might these pitfalls look like for a tutor? Here are a few examples:

1. The tutor has a party to attend later tonight, and if they finish working with a student early, they have more time to get ready. Instead of taking time to carefully evaluate the student’s need, they apply a strategy that is quick.

Is it a bad strategy? Not necessarily. Is it the best strategy? Maybe not.

In this case the tutor’s critical thinking was influenced by their personal motivations.

2. The tutor is working with a student who has an accent. The tutor automatically begins applying strategies they’ve used for students who struggle reading texts in English.

Are these strategies appropriate here? Maybe not.

By automatically focusing on the student’s language proficiency this way, the student has skipped over the preliminary stages of critical thinking, and went directly to creating a solution. What’s more, is that the student could be offended that the tutor made assumptions about their language proficiency.

3. The tutor is assisting a student with an essay on current events. They start the session by asking helpful questions to assist the student in identifying their stance on the issue and to structure their ideas for the paper. The tutor subtly convinces the student to adopt arguments and stances that more closely align with the tutor’s own beliefs and position on the current event issue.

In this example, evaluation of the student’s situation led the tutor to use guided questioning as a strategy to help the student discover their ideas about the assignment topic. However, the tutor allowed their own beliefs about the issue to interfere with the student’s critical thinking process, sabotaging the original goal to help the student to make their own conclusions.

Something to Try

Take the social attitudes implicit bias self-assessment offered by Project Implicit ® https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/

Reflect on your results. Are you surprised? Did you learn something new about yourself? How do you think the results of your assessment impact how you approach your role as a tutor?

Alternatively, take a moment to reflect on the following questions:

• Think back to your childhood. Remember who your teachers were. Can you remember your school principal, your sports coaches, police officers, community leaders? When you were young, did people in positions of authority in your life look like you?
• What did your household look like? Were you raised by parents? Two parents? One parent? Grandparents? Someone else?
• Think about the movies you see. The books you read. Magazines, music, video games, and other popular media. Do the characters and people in these media look like you? Do these media explore topics that you can relate to?
• When you want to go to a new restaurant, theater, or event, how often do you have to research whether or not they can accommodate you?

Our answers to questions like these reveal the lens by which we see the world, and can help us to understand others whose beliefs and perceptions are different from our own, based on their own set of life experiences.

Effective tutoring requires tutors to be well-versed in the critical thinking process. We use the process to guide students through practicing critical thought in their coursework, and we use it ourselves in our sessions assisting those students. We simultaneously focus on the student’s thinking, and on our own approach.

A thorough understanding of the process, and the importance of each of its parts, can provide tutors a solid foundational knowledge when navigating sessions. Metacognition is an important skill in applying the critical thinking process, and self-reflection is an important component in assessing the effectiveness of our own critical thinking.  With lots of practice and an attitude of continuous improvement, we can advance our tutoring skills and better assist the students with whom we work.

• The Foundation For Critical Thinking. (2019). Defining Critical Thinking. The Foundation for Critical Thinking. http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/defining-critical-thinking/766. Accessed 26 Apr. 2021.
• Sanavi and Tarighat . (2014). Critical Thinking and Speaking Proficiency: A Mixed-method Study. Theory and Practice in Language Studies . 4(1), 79-87. http://www.academypublication.com/issues/past/tpls/vol04/01/12.pdf.
• Bloom, Engelhart, Furst, Hill, Krathwohl. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York: David McKay Company. https://www.uky.edu/~rsand1/china2018/texts/Bloom%20et%20al%20-Taxonomy%20of%20Educational%20Objectives.pdf.
• Fahim and Masouleh. (2012). Critical Thinking in Higher Education: A Pedagogical Look. Theory and Practice in Language Studies. 2(7), 1370-1375. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267426179_Critical_Thinking_in_Higher_Education_A_Pedagogical_Look.
• McLoughlin, and Luca. (2000). Cognitive engagement and higher order thinking through computer conferencing: We know why but do we know how? In A. Herrmann, & M. M. Kulski (Ed.), 9th Annual Teaching Learning Forum (pp. 4-15). Perth: Curtin University of Technology. http://cleo.murdoch.edu.au/confs/tlf/tlf2000/mcloughlin.html..
• Cosgrove. (2011). Critical thinking in the Oxford tutorial: a call for an explicit and systematic approach. Journal of Higher Education Research and Development. 30(3), 343-356. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2010.487259.
• Crook. (2006). Substantive Critical Thinking as Developed by the Foundation for Critical Thinking Proves Effective in Raising SAT and ACT Test Scores. Foundation for Critical Thinking. http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/substantive-critical-thinking-as-developed-by-the-foundation-for-critical-thinking-proves-effective-in-raising-sat-and-act-test-scores/632.
• Ashwin. (2006). Variation in academics’ accounts of tutorials. Studies in Higher Education. 31(6), 651–665. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070601004234.
• Anderson and Soden. (2001). Peer Interaction and the Learning of Critical Thinking Skills. Psychology Learning & Teaching. 1(1), 37-40. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.2304/plat.2001.1.1.37 .

Additional Resources:

Paul and Elder. (2020). The Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking: Concepts and Tools, 8th Ed. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Inc. https://rowman.com/isbn/9781538134955.

Tutor Handbook Copyright © 2021 by Penny Feltner and gapinski is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

• Study and research support
• Academic skills

Critical thinking

A model for critical thinking.

Critical thinking is an important life skill, and an essential part of university studies. Central to critical thinking is asking meaningful questions.

This three-stage model, adapted from LearnHigher , will help you generate questions to understand, analyse, and evaluate something, such as an information source.

Description

Starting with the description stage, you ask questions such as: What? Where? Why? and Who? These help you establish the background and context.

For example, if you are reading a journal article, you might ask questions such as:

• Who wrote this?
• What is it about?
• When was it written?
• What is the aim of the article?

If you are thinking through a problem, you might ask:

• What is this problem about?
• Who does it involve or affect?
• When and where is this happening?

These types of questions lead to descriptive answers. Although the ability to describe something is important, to really develop your understanding and critically engage, we need to move beyond these types of questions. This moves you into the analysis stage.

Here you will ask questions such as: How? Why? and What if? These help you to examine methods and processes, reasons and causes, and the alternative options. For example, if you are reading a journal article, you might ask:

• How was the research conducted?
• Why are these theories discussed?
• What are the alternative methods and theories?
• What are the contributing factors to the problem?
• How might one factor impact another?
• What if one factor is removed or altered?

Asking these questions helps you to break something into parts and consider the relationship between each part, and each part to the whole. This process will help you develop more analytical answers and deeper thinking.

Finally, you come to the evaluation stage, where you will ask 'so what?' and 'what next?' questions to make judgments and consider the relevance; implications; significance and value of something.

You may ask questions such as:

• What do I think about this?
• How is this relevant to my assignment?
• How does this compare to other research I have read?

Making such judgments will lead you to reasonable conclusions, solutions, or recommendations.

The way we think is complex. This model is not intended to be used in a strictly linear way, or as a prescriptive set of instructions. You may move back and forth between different segments. For example, you may ask, 'what is this about?', and then move straight to, 'is this relevant to me?'

The model is intended to encourage a critically questioning approach, and can be applied to many learning scenarios at university, such as: interpreting assignment briefs; developing arguments; evaluating sources; analysing data or formulating your own questions to research an answer.

Watch the ‘Thinking Critically at University’ video for an in-depth description of a critical thinking model. View video using Microsoft Stream (link opens in a new window, available for University members only). The rest of our Critical thinking pages will show you how to use this model in practice.

This model has been adapted from LearnHigher under a Creative Commons BY-NC-SA 3.0.

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

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

• Coronavirus Disease 2019
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

Benjamin Bloom: Critical Thinking and Critical Thinking Models

Yeruhamdavid / Wikimedia Commons / CC BY_SA 4.0

• Famous Inventors
• Famous Inventions
• 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

Benjamin Bloom was a U.S. psychiatrist who made several significant contributions to education, mastery learning, and talent development. Born in 1913 in Lansford, Pennsylvania, he exhibited a passion for reading and research from an early age.

Bloom attended Pennsylvania State University and earned a bachelor’s degree and a master's degree, then he became a member of the University of Chicago’s Board of Examinations in 1940. He also served internationally as an educational adviser, working with Israel, India and several other nations. The Ford Foundation sent him to India in 1957 where he ran workshops on educational evaluation. 

Model of Critical Thinking

Bloom's taxonomy , in which he describes the major areas in the cognitive domain, is perhaps the most familiar of his work. This information is drawn from the Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook 1: Cognitive Domain (1956).

The taxonomy begins by defining knowledge as remembering previously learned material. According to Bloom, knowledge represents the lowest level of learning outcomes in the cognitive domain.

Knowledge is followed by comprehension, or the ability to grasp the meaning of material. This goes just beyond the knowledge level. Comprehension is the lowest level of understanding.

Application is the next area in the hierarchy. It refers to the ability to use learned material in new and concrete principles and theories. Application requires a higher level of understanding than comprehension.

Analysis is the next area of the taxonomy in which the learning outcomes require an understanding of both the content and the structural form of material.

Next is synthesis , which refers to the ability to put parts together to form a new whole. Learning outcomes at this level stress creative behaviors with a major emphasis on the formulation of new patterns or structures.

The last level of the taxonomy is evaluation , which concerns the ability to judge the value of material for a given purpose. The judgments are to be based on definite criteria. Learning outcomes in this area are the highest in the cognitive hierarchy because they incorporate or contain elements of knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, and synthesis. In addition, they contain conscious value judgments based on clearly defined criteria.

Inventing encourages the four highest levels of learning—application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation—in addition to knowledge and comprehension.

Bloom's Publications

Bloom’s contributions to education have been memorialized in a series of books over the years. 

• Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook 1: Cognitive Domain . Addison-Wesley Publishing Company. Bloom, Benjamin S. 1956. 
• Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals . Longman. Bloom, Benjamin S. 1956. 
• All Our Children Learning. New York: McGraw-Hill. Bloom, Benjamin S. 1980. 
• Developing Talent in Young People. New York: Ballantine Books. Bloom, B. S., & Sosniak, L.A. 1985. 

One of Bloom’s last studies was conducted in 1985. It concluded that recognition in a respected field requires 10 years of dedication and learning at a minimum, regardless of IQ, innate abilities or talents. Bloom died in 1999 at the age of 86.

• Higher-Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) in Education
• Bloom's Taxonomy in the Classroom
• How to Construct a Bloom's Taxonomy Assessment
• Asking Better Questions With Bloom's Taxonomy
• The 6 Most Important Theories of Teaching
• Using Bloom's Taxonomy for Effective Learning
• Bloom's Taxonomy - Application Category
• Question Stems for Each Level of Bloom's Taxonomy
• Critical Thinking and Creative Thinking Skills
• Critical Thinking in Reading and Composition
• Bloom's Taxonomy - Evaluation Category
• 7 Ways Teachers Can Improve Their Questioning Technique
• Creating Effective Lesson Objectives
• Project Based Learning for Special Education and Inclusion
• Curriculum Mapping: Definition, Purpose, and Tips
• Higher Level Thinking: Synthesis in Bloom's Taxonomy

To read this content please select one of the options below:

Please note you do not have access to teaching notes, history of critical thinking and some models of critical thinking.

A Primer on Critical Thinking and Business Ethics

ISBN : 978-1-83753-309-1 , eISBN : 978-1-83753-308-4

Publication date: 27 July 2023

Executive Summary

In this chapter, we introduce the history of critical thinking briefly, starting from Socrates to contemporary contributions. Based on this history, we derive several modules for training in critical thinking via practical exercises in critical thinking. Three classic critical thinking models are introduced: Socratic questioning method, Cartesian doubting method, and Baconian empirical method. We discuss their potential for critical thinking as foundational methods. The material in this chapter is distributed in three parts. In Part I, we provide a brief history of critical thinking. In Part II, we design models of critical thinking based on its classic history. In Part III, we list some models of critical thinking based on its history, from the Renaissance period to the current times. In the last section, we also discuss critical thinking in the context of business ethics, by delineating its normative domain, assessing its characteristics, and reviewing its processes.

Mascarenhas, O.A.J. , Thakur, M. and Kumar, P. (2023), "History of Critical Thinking and Some Models of Critical Thinking", A Primer on Critical Thinking and Business Ethics , Emerald Publishing Limited, Leeds, pp. 41-80. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-83753-308-420231003

Emerald Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2023 Oswald A. J. Mascarenhas, Munish Thakur and Payal Kumar. Published under exclusive licence by Emerald Publishing Limited

We’re listening — tell us what you think

Something didn’t work….

Report bugs here

All feedback is valuable

Please share your general feedback

Join us on our journey

Platform update page.

Visit emeraldpublishing.com/platformupdate to discover the latest news and updates

Questions & More Information

Answers to the most commonly asked questions here

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 ]

• Table of Contents
• New in this Archive
• Chronological
• Editorial Information
• About the SEP
• Editorial Board
• How to Cite the SEP
• Special Characters
• Support the SEP
• PDFs for SEP Friends
• Make a Donation
• SEPIA for Libraries
• Back to Entry
• Entry Contents
• Entry Bibliography
• Academic Tools
• Friends PDF Preview
• Author and Citation Info
• Back to Top

Supplement to Critical Thinking

Educational methods.

Experiments have shown that educational interventions can improve critical thinking abilities and dispositions, as measured by standardized tests. Glaser (1941) developed teaching materials suitable for senior primary school, high school and college students. To test their effectiveness, he developed with his sponsor Goodwin Watson the Watson-Glaser Tests of Critical Thinking, whose descendants are in widespread global use under the name “Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal” (Watson & Glaser 1980a, 1980b, 1994). He found that senior secondary school students receiving 10 weeks of instruction using these materials improved their scores on these tests more than other such students receiving the standard English curriculum during the 10 weeks, to a degree that was statistically significant (i.e., probably not due to chance). More recently, Abrami et al. (2015) summarized in a meta-analysis the best available evidence on the effectiveness of various strategies for teaching students to think critically. The meta-analysis used as a measure of effectiveness a modified version of a statistical measure known as “Cohen’s d”: the ratio of a difference in mean score to the statistical deviation (SD) of the scores in a reference group. A difference of 0.2 SD is a small effect, a difference of 0.5 SD is a moderate effect, and a difference of 0.8 is a large effect (Cohen 1988: 25–27). Abrami et al. (2015) found a weighted mean effect size of 0.30 among 341 effect sizes, with effect sizes ranging from −1 to +2. This methodologically careful meta-analysis provides strong statistical evidence that explicit instruction for critical thinking can improve critical thinking abilities and dispositions, as measured by standardized tests.

Although contemporary meta-analysis provides a more justified verdict on claims of causal effectiveness than other methods of investigation, it does not give the reader an intuitive grasp of what difference a particular intervention makes to the lives of those who receive it. To get an appreciation of this difference, it helps to read the testimony of the teachers and students in the Laboratory School of Chicago where Dewey’s ideas obtained concreteness. The history of the school, written by two of its former teachers in collaboration with Dewey, makes the following claim for the effects of its approach:

As a result of this guarding and direction of their freedom, the children retained the power of initiative naturally present in young children through their inquisitive interests. This spirit of inquiry was given plenty of opportunity and developed with most of the children into the habit of trying a thing out for themselves. Thus, they gradually became familiar with, and to varying degrees skilled in, the use of the experimental method to solve problems in all areas of their experience. (Mayhew & Edwards 1936: 402–403)

A science teacher in the school wrote:

I think the children did get the scientific attitude of mind. They found out things for themselves. They worked out the simplest problems that may have involved a most commonplace and everyday fact in the manner that a really scientific investigator goes to work. (Mayhew & Edwards 1936: 403)

An alumna of the school summed up the character of its former students as follows:

It is difficult for me to be restrained about the character building results of the Dewey School. As the years have passed and as I have watched the lives of many Dewey School children, I have always been astonished at the ease which fits them into all sorts and conditions of emergencies. They do not vacillate and flounder under unstable emotions; they go ahead and work out the problem in hand, guided by their positively formed working habits. Discouragement to them is non-existent, almost ad absurdum. For that very fact, accomplishment in daily living is inevitable. Whoever has been given the working pattern of tackling problems has a courage born of self-confidence and achieves. (Mayhew & Edwards 1936: 406–407)

In the absence of control groups, of standardized tests, and of statistical methods of controlling for confounding variables, such testimonies are weak evidence of the effectiveness of educational interventions in developing the abilities and dispositions of a critical thinker—in Dewey’s conception, a scientific attitude. But they give a vivid impression of what might be accomplished in an educational system that takes the development of critical thinking as a goal.

Dewey established the Laboratory School explicitly as an experiment to test his theory of knowledge, which

emphasized the part in the development of thought of problems which originated in active situations and also the necessity of testing thought by action if thought was to pass over into knowledge. (Dewey 1936: 464)

Hence the curriculum of the school started from situations familiar to children from their home life (such as preparing food and making clothing) and posed problems that the children were to solve by doing things and noting the consequences. This curriculum was adjusted in the light of its observed results in the classroom.

The school’s continued experimentation with the subject matter of the elementary curriculum proved that classroom results were best when activities were in accord with the child’s changing interests, his growing consciousness of the relation of means and ends, and his increasing willingness to perfect means and to postpone satisfactions in order to arrive at better ends…. The important question for those guiding this process of growth, and of promoting the alignment and cooperation of interest and effort, is this. What specific subject-matter or mode of skill has such a vital connection with the child’s interest, existing powers, and capabilities as will extend the one [the interest–DH] and stimulate, exercise, and carry forward the others [the powers and capabilities–DH] in a progressive course of action? (Mayhew & Edwards 1936: 420–421)

In an appendix to the history of the Laboratory School, Dewey (1936: 468–469) acknowledges that the school did not solve the problem of finding things in the child’s present experience out of which would grow more elaborate, technical and organized knowledge. Passmore (1980: 91) notes one difficulty of starting from children’s out-of-school experiences: they differ a lot from one child to another. More fundamentally, the everyday out-of-school experiences of a child provide few links to the systematic knowledge of nature and of human history that humanity has developed and that schools should pass on to the next generation. If children are to acquire such knowledge through investigation of problems, teachers must first provide information as a basis for formulating problems that interest them (Passmore 1980: 93–94).

More than a century has passed since Dewey’s experiment. In the interim, researchers have refined the methodology of experimenting with human subjects, in educational research and elsewhere. They have also developed the methodology of meta-analysis for combining the results of various experiments to form a comprehensive picture of what has been discovered. Abrami et al. (2015) report the results of such a meta-analysis of all the experimental and quasi-experimental studies published or archived before 2010 that used as outcome variables standardized measures of critical thinking abilities or dispositions of the sort enumerated in Facione 1990a and described in sections 8 and 9 of the main entry. By an experimental study, they mean one in which participants are divided randomly into two groups, one of which receives the educational intervention designed to improve critical thinking and the other of which serves as a control; they found few such experiments, because of the difficulty of achieving randomization in the classrooms where the studies were conducted. By a quasi-experiment, they mean a study with an intervention group that receives an educational intervention designed to improve critical thinking and a control group, but without random allocation to the two groups. Initially, they included also what they called “pre-experiments”, with single-group pretest-posttest designs, but decided at the analysis stage not to include these studies. By a standardized measure, they mean a test with norms derived from previous administration of the test, as set out in the test’s manual, such as the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal (Watson & Glaser 1980a, 1980b, 1994), the Cornell Critical Thinking Tests (Ennis & Millman 1971; Ennis, Millman, & Tomko 1985; 2005), the California Critical Thinking Skills Test (Facione 1990b, 1992) and the California Critical Thinking Dispositions Inventory (Facione & Facione 1992; Facione, Facione, & Giancarlo 2001). They included all such studies in which the educational intervention lasted at least three hours and the participants were at least six years old.

In these studies they found 341 effect sizes. They rated each educational intervention according to the degree to which it involved dialogue, anchored instruction, and mentoring. They found that each of these factors increased the effectiveness of the educational intervention, and that they were most effective when combined. They explained the three factors as follows.

Dialogue : In critical dialogue, which historically goes back to Socrates, individuals discuss a problem together. The dialogue can be oral or written, and cooperative or adversarial. It can take the form of asking questions, discussion, or debate. Some curricula designed to promote critical thinking establish “communities of inquiry” among the students. Such communities were a prominent feature of Dewey’s Laboratory School, incorporated as a means of promoting the primary moral objective of fostering a spirit of social cooperation among the children.

An important aspect of this conditioning process by means of the school’s daily practices was to aid each child in forming a habit of thinking before doing in all of his various enterprises. The daily classroom procedure began with a face-to-face discussion of the work of the day and its relation to that of the previous period. The new problem was then faced, analyzed, and possible plans and resources for its solution suggested by members of the group. The children soon grew to like this method. It gave both individual and group a sense of power to be intelligent, to know what they wanted to do before they did it, and to realize the reasons why one plan was preferred to another. It also enlisted their best effort to prove the validity of their judgment by testing the plan in action. Each member of the group thus acquired a habit of observing, criticizing, and integrating values in thought, in order that they should guide the action that would integrate them in fact. The value of thus previsioning consequences of action before they became fixed as fact was emphasized in the school’s philosophy. The social implication is evident. The conscious direction of his actions toward considered social ends became an unfailing index of the child’s progress toward maturity. (Mayhew & Edwards 1936: 423–424)

Communities of inquiry are also a feature of the Montessori method described by Thayer-Bacon (2000) and of the Philosophy for Children program developed by Matthew Lipman (Splitter 1987). Lipman (2003) examines theoretically what is involved in creating communities of inquiry. Hitchcock (2021) argues that the most obvious way for schools to develop critical thinking is to foster development of communities of inquiry.

Anchored instruction : In anchored instruction, whose advocacy goes back to Rousseau (1762) and Dewey (1910), there is an effort to present students with problems that make sense to them, engage them, and stimulate them to inquire. Simulations, role-playing and presentation of ethical or medical dilemmas are methods of anchoring.

Mentoring : Mentoring is a one-on-one relationship in which someone with more relevant expertise (the mentor) interacts with someone with less (the mentee). The mentor acts as a model and as a critic correcting errors by the mentee. Examples of mentoring are an advisor talking to a student, a physician modeling a procedure for a medical student, and an employee correcting an intern. Abrami et al. (2015) identified three kinds of mentoring in the studies that they analyzed: one-on-one teacher-student interaction, peer-led dyads, and internships.

Abrami et al. (2015) also compared educational interventions with respect to whether they were part of subject-matter instruction. For this purpose, they used a distinction among four types of intervention articulated by Ennis (1989). A general approach tries to teach critical thinking separately from subject-matter instruction. An infusion approach combines deep subject-matter instruction in which students are encouraged to think critically with explicit reference to critical thinking principles. An immersion approach provides deep subject-matter instruction with encouragement to think critically, but without explicit reference to critical thinking principles. A mixed approach combines the general approach with either the infusion or the immersion approach; students combine a separate thread or course aimed at teaching general critical thinking principles with deep subject-matter instruction in which they are encouraged to think critically about the subject-matter. Although the average effect size in the studies using a mixed intervention (+0.38) was greater than the average effect sizes in the studies using general (+0.26), infusion (+0.29) and immersion (+0.23) interventions, the difference was not statistically significant; in other words, it might have been due to chance.

Cleghorn (2021), Makaiau (2021), and Hiner (2021) make specific suggestions for fostering critical thinking respectively in elementary, secondary and post-secondary education. Vincent-Lancrin et al. (2019) report the results of a project of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development to develop with teachers and schools in 11 countries resources for fostering creativity and critical thinking in elementary and secondary schools.

Ennis (2013, 2018) has made a detailed proposal for a mixed approach to teaching critical thinking across the curriculum of undergraduate education. Attempts at implementing such an approach have faced difficulties. Weinstein (2013: 209–213) describes the attempt at Montclair State University in Montclair, New Jersey, from 1987 through the 1990s. He reports that the university’s requirement to include critical thinking in all general education courses led to the use of the concept in identifying topics and tasks in course syllabi, but without a unifying theoretical basis. The committee that approved courses as satisfying a general education requirement ignored the relation of curricular outcomes to critical thinking, and focused instead on work requirements with a prima facie relation to reflective thought: term papers, projects, group work, and dialogue. Sheffield (2018) reports similar difficulties encountered in his position from 2012 to 2015 as the inaugural Eugene H. Fram Chair in Applied Critical Thinking at Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT) in Rochester, New York. A cross-disciplinary faculty advisory group was not ready to accept RIT’s approved definition of critical thinking, but never reached a consensus on an alternative. Payette and Ross (2016), on the other hand, report widespread acceptance of the Paul-Elder framework, which involves elements of thought, intellectual standards, and intellectual virtues (Paul & Elder 2006). Sheffield (2018) reports that many colleges and universities in the United States have received funding for so-called “Quality Enhancement Plans” (QEPs) devoted to critical thinking, many of them written by Paul and Elder or developed in consultation with them. He faults the plans for having a typical time frame of five years, which he argues is probably too short for meaningful results, since lasting institutional change is often extremely slow.

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

• Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

• Info about mirror sites

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is copyright © 2023 by The Metaphysics Research Lab , Department of Philosophy, Stanford University

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research pp 41–92 Cite as

A Model of Critical Thinking in Higher Education

• Martin Davies Ph.D. 3  
• First Online: 12 December 2014

5292 Accesses

41 Citations

3 Altmetric

Part of the book series: Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research ((HATR,volume 30))

There has been no shortage of definitions of the concept of “critical thinking” over the years and the concept has been subject to much detailed scholarly work. In social and educational terms critical thinking is an important topic. Of late, critical thinking has also been widely discussed in the popular media, and the concept has been regarded as one of the most important graduate outcomes expected of a university education. However, despite this, scholars have yet to arrive at a holistic conception of critical thinking—a model of critical thinking as it were—that might usefully underpin the range of considerations about critical thinking that occur in the higher education literature. This paper: (1) reviews the various definitions and approaches to critical thinking, and (2) incorporates them into a single, coherent model. A number of disagreements in critical thinking scholarship are outlined as ‘axis disputes’ arising from the proposed model.

• Critical thinking
• Higher education
• Argumentation
• Critical pedagogy
• Criticality
• Critical dispositions
• Critical attitudes
• Critical citizenship
• Delphi definition
• Cognitive elements
• Propensities

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

Buying options

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Airasian, P. W., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R., Pintrich, P. R., Raths, J., & Wittrock, M. C. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives . New York: Longman.

Google Scholar  

Arum, R., & Roska, J. (2011). Academically adrift: Limited learning on college campuses . Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press.

Bailin, S., Case, R., Coombs, J. R., & Daniels, L. B. (1999). Conceptualizing critical thinking. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 31 (3), 285–302.

Article   Google Scholar  

Barnett, R. (1997). Higher education: A critical business . Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

Barnett, R. (2004). Learning for an unknown future. Higher Education Research and Development, 23 (3), 247–260.

Benner, P., & Tanner, C. (1987, January). How expert nurses use intuition. The American Journal of Nursing, 87 (1), 23–34.

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

Boostrum, R. (1994). Developing creative and critical thinking: An integrated approach . Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Company.

Brookfield, S. (1987). Developing critical thinkers: Challenging adults to explore alternative ways of thinking and acting (1st ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc.

Burbules, N. C., & Berk, R. (1999). Critical thinking and critical pedagogy: Relations, differences, and limits. In T. Popkewitz (Ed.), Critical theories in education: Changing terrains of knowledge and politics (pp. xv, 254 p.). New York: Routledge.

Chance, P. (1986). Thinking in the classroom: A survey of programs . New York: Teachers’ College, Columbia University.

Cooper, A. (2009). In the zone: The zen of sports. Patheos , October 16, from http://www.patheos.com/Resources/Additional-Resources/In-the-Zone.html

Cowden, S., & Singh, G. (2013). Acts of knowing: Critical pedagogy in, against and beyond the university . London: Bloomsbury Academic.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience . New York: Harper and Row.

Cuban, L. (1984). Policy and research dilemmas in the teaching of reasoning. Review of Educational Research, 54 (4), 655–681.

Dane, E., & Pratt, M. G. (2007). Exploring intuition and its role in managerial decision making. Academy of Management Review, 32 (1), 33–54.

Davies, W. M. (2006). An ‘infusion’ approach to critical thinking: Moore on the critical thinking debate. Higher Education Research and Development, 25 (2), 179–193.

Davies, M. (2013). Critical thinking and disciplines reconsidered. Higher Education Research and Development, 32 (4), 529–544.

Dreyfus, H., & Dreyfus, S. (1985). Mind over machine: The power of human intuition and expertise in a era of the computer . New York: Free Press.

Effken, J. A. (2000). Informational basis for expert intuition. Nursing Theory and Concept Development or Analysis, 32 (2), 246–255.

Ennis, R. (1991). Critical thinking: A streamlined conception. Teaching Philosophy, 14 (1), 5–24.

Ennis, R. H. (2011, July 1994, revised and updated). The nature of critical thinking: An outline of critical thinking dispositions and abilities. Paper presented at the sixth international conference on thinking. Cambridge, MA: MIT. http://faculty.education.illinois.edu/rhennis/documents/TheNatureofCriticalThinking_51711_000.pdf

Ennis, R. H. (1962). A concept of critical thinking. Harvard Educational Review, 32 (1), 81–111.

Ennis, R. H. (1985a). Critical thinking and the curriculum. National Forum, 65 , 28–31.

Ennis, R. H. (1985b). A logical basis for measuring critical thinking skills. Educational Leadership, 43 (2), 44–48.

Ennis, R. H. (1987). A taxonomy of critical thinking abilities and dispositions. In J. S. Baron & R. H. Sternberg (Eds.), Teaching thinking skills (pp. 9–26). New York: W.H. Freeman.

Ennis, R. H. (1990). The rationality of rationality: Why think critically? In R. Page (Ed.), Philosophy of education 1989 (pp. 402–405). Bloomington, IL: Philosophy of Education Society.

Ennis, R. H. (1994, April 7). Assessing critical thinking dispositions: Theoretical considerations . Paper presented at annual meeting of the American Education Research Association, New Orleans, LA.

Ennis, R. H. (1996). Critical thinking . Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Ericsson, K. A. (2008). Deliberate practice and acquisition of expert performance: A general overview. Academic Emergency Medicine, 15 , 988–994.

Ericsson, K. A., & Lehmann, A. C. (1996). Expert and exceptional performance: Evidence of maximal adaptation to task constraints. Annual Review of Psychology, 47 , 273–305.

Facione, P. (1998). Critical thinking: What it is and why it counts? Millbrae, CA: California Academic Press. www.insightassessment.com/pdf_files/what&why2006.pdf

Facione, P. (2000). The disposition toward critical thinking: Its character, measurement, and relation to critical thinking skills. Informal Logic, 20 (1), 61–84.

Facione, P., & Facione, N. (1992). The California Critical Thinking Dispositions Inventory (CCTDI) and the CCTDI manual . Millbrae, CA: Academic.

Facione, P. A. (1990). The Delphi Report: Critical thinking: A statement of expert consensus for purposes of educational assessment and instruction . Millbrae, CA: California Academic Press.

Facione, P. A., Sanchez, C. A., Facione, N. C., & Gainen, J. (1995). The disposition toward critical thinking. The Journal of General Education, 44 (1), 1–25.

Fisher, A., & Scriven, D. (1997). Critical thinking: Its definition and assessment . Point Reyes, CA: Edgepress.

Franz, R. (2003). Herbert Simon. Artificial intelligence as a framework for understanding intuition. Journal of Economic Psychology, 24 , 265–277.

Freire, P. (1972). Pedagogy of the oppressed . Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin.

Freire, P. (1973). Education for critical consciousness . New York: Seabury Press.

Giroux, H. A. (1988). Teachers as intellectuals . Granby, MA: Bergin and Garvey.

Giroux, H. A. (1994). Toward a pedagogy of critical thinking. In K. S. Walters (Ed.), Re-thinking reason: New perspectives in critical thinking (pp. 200–201). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Giroux, H. A. (2005). Border crossings: Cultural workers and the politics of education . New York: Routledge.

Giroux, H. A. (2010, October 17). Lessons from Paulo Freire. The Chronicle of Higher Education . Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/Lessons-From-Paulo-Freire/124910/October 18, 2012

Gladwell, M. (2005). Blink: The power of thinking without thinking . New York: Back Bay Books/Little, Brown and Company.

Halonen, J. (1986). Teaching critical thinking in psychology . Milwaukee, WI: Alverno Publications.

Halonen, J. (1995). Demystifying critical thinking. Teaching of Psychology, 22 (1), 75–81.

Halpern, D. (1997). Critical thinking across the curriculum: A brief edition of thought and knowledge . Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.

Halpern, D. (1998). Teaching critical thinking for transfer across domains: Dispositions, skills, structure training, and metacognitive monitoring. American Psychologist, 53 (4), 449–455.

Hennessey, M. G. (1999). Probing the dimensions of metacognition: Implications for conceptual change teaching-learning . Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Boston, MA.

Ip, W., Lee, D. T., Lee, I. F., Chau, J. P., Wootton, Y. S., & Chang, A. M. (2000). Disposition towards critical thinking: a study of Chinese undergraduate nursing students. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 32 (1), 84–90.

Johnston, B., Ford, P., Mitchell, R., & Myles, F. (2011). Developing student criticality in higher education . London: Continuum.

Kaplan, L. D. (1991). Teaching intellectual autonomy: The failure of the critical thinking movement. Educational Theory, 41 (4), 361–370.

Kennedy, M., Fisher, M. B., & Ennis, R. H. (1991). Critical thinking: Literature review and needed research. In L. Idol & B. F. Jones (Eds.), Educational values and cognitive instruction: Implications for reform (pp. 11–40). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.

King, F. J., Goodson, L., & Rohani, F. (n.d.). Higher order thinking skills: Definition, teaching strategies, assessment . Tallahasee, FL: Center for the Advancement of Learning and Assessment Florida State University. http://www.cala.fsu.edu/files/higher_order_thinking_skills.pdf

Knight, P. (2007). Fostering and assessing ‘Wicked’ competencies . Milton Keynes, UK: Institute of Education, Open University. Retrieved from http://www.open.ac.uk/cetl-workspace/cetlcontent/documents/460d1d1481d0f.pdf

Kuhn, D. (1999). A developmental model of critical thinking. Educational Researcher, 28 (2), 12-25+46.

Kuhn, D., & Dean, D. (2004). A bridge between cognitive psychology and educational practice. Theory Into Practice, 43 (4), 268–273.

Kurfiss, J. (1988). Critical thinking: Theory, research, practice and possibilities (ASHE-Eric higher education report no. 2). Washington, DC: Associate for the Study of Higher Education.

Lai, E. R. (2011, June). Critical thinking: A literature review . Retrieved from http://www.pearsonassessments.com/hai/images/tmrs/CriticalThinkingReviewFINAL.pdf

Langer, E. J. (1989). Mindfulness . Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co.

Larkin, J. H., McDermott, J., Simon, D. P., & Simon, H. A. (1980). Expert and novice performance in solving physics problems. Science, 208 (4450), 1335–1342.

Lieberman, M. D. (2000). Intuition: A social cognitive neuroscience approach. Psychological Bulletin, 126 (1), 109–137.

Lipman, M. (1988). Critical thinking: What can it be? Educational Leadership, 46 (1), 38–43.

Martinez, M. E. (2006). What is metacognition? Phi Delta Kappan, 87 (9), 696–699.

Mayer, R., & Goodchild, F. (1990). The critical thinker . New York: Wm. C. Brown.

McLaren, P., & Hammer, R. (1989). Critical pedagogy and the postmodern challenge. Educational Foundations, 3 (3), 29–62.

McPeck, J. E. (1981). Critical thinking and education . New York: St Martin’s Press.

Moore, B., & Parker, R. (1991). Critical thinking (3rd ed.). Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing Company.

Moore, T. (2004). The critical thinking debate: How general are general thinking skills? Higher Education Research and Development, 23 (1), 3–18.

Moore, T. (2011). Critical thinking and disciplinary thinking: A continuing debate. Higher Education Research and Development, 38 (4), 506–522.

Morse, B. (2012). Why critical thinking is overlooked by schools and shunned by students. The Guardian . Retrieved from http://www.guardian.co.uk/teacher-network/2012/sep/12/critical-thinking-overlooked-in-secondary-education

Mulnix, J. W. (2012). Thinking critically about critical thinking. Educational Philosophy and Theory . doi: 10.1111/j.1469-5812.2010.00673.x .

Nelson, J. (2005). Cultivating judgment: A sourcebook for teaching critical thinking . Stillwater, OK: New Forums Press.

Noddings, N. (1992). The challenge to care in schools . New York: Teachers College Press.

Passmore, J. (1967). On teaching to be critical . Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Paul, R. (2011). Critical thinking movement: 3 waves . Retrieved from http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/critical-thinking-movement-3-waves/856 . 20 May 2013.

Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2001). Miniature guide to critical thinking: Concepts & tools . Dillon Beach, CA: Foundation for Critical Thinking.

Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2008). The thinkers’ guide to nature and functions of critical and creative thinking . Dillon Beach, CA: Foundation for Critical Thinking.

Paul, R. W. (1981). Teaching critical thinking in the ‘strong’ sense: A focus on self-deception worldviews, and a dialectical mode of analysis. Informal Logic, 4 (2), 2–7.

Paul, R. W. (1990). Critical thinking: What, why, and how? In A. J. A. Binker (Ed.), Critical thinking: What every person needs to survive in a rapidly changing world . Rohnert Park, CA: Center for Critical Thinking and Moral Critique, Sonoma State University.

Paul, R. W. (1992a). Critical thinking: What every person needs to survive in a rapidly changing world . Santa Rosa, CA: Foundation for Critical Thinking.

Paul, R. W. (1992b). Critical thinking: What, why and how? New Directions for Community Colleges, 77 , 3–24.

Paul, R. W. (1993). Critical thinking: What every person needs to survive in a rapidly changing world . Santa Rosa, CA: Foundation for Critical Thinking.

Perkins, D., Jay, E., & Tishman, S. (1992). Assessing thinking: A framework for measuring critical thinking and problem solving skills at the college level . Washington, DC: The National Center for Educational Statistics Workshop on the Assessment of Higher Order Thinking and Communication Skills of College Graduates: Preliminary Listing of Skills and Levels of Proficiency.

Ryle, G. (1963). The concept of mind . Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin.

Sadler, G. (2010). White paper: Reconciling four models of critical thinking: FSU QEP, Paul-Elder, CLA and APA Delphi Fayetteville State University’s Quality Enhancement Plan Writing Committee, from http://www.academia.edu/480151/Reconciling_Four_Models_of_Critical_Thinking_FSU_QEP_Paul-Elder_CLA_and_APA_Delphi

Salomon, G., & Perkins, D. N. (1998). Individual and social aspects of learning. In P. D. Pearson & A. Iran-Nejad (Eds.), Review of research in education . Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

Scriven, M., & Paul, R. (1987). Defining critical thinking . From http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/defining-critical-thinking/766

Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educational Researcher, 27 , 4–13.

Siegel, H. (1988). Educating reason: Rationality, critical thinking, and education . New York: Routledge.

Siegel, H. (1991). The generalizability of critical thinking. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 23 , 18–30.

Skinner, S. (1976). Cognitive development: A prerequisite for critical thinking. The Clearing House, 49 , 242–299.

Strauss, V. (2012). Texas GOP rejects ‘critical thinking’ skills. Really. The Washington Post . Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/texas-gop-rejects-critical-thinking-skills-really/2012/07/08/gJQAHNpFXW_blog.html

Tama, C. (1989). Critical thinking has a place in every classroom. Journal of Reading, 33 , 64–65.

Tarricone, P. (2011). The taxonomy of metacognition . East Sussex, UK: Psychology Press.

Ten Dam, G., & Volman, M. (2004). Critical thinking as citizenship competence. Learning and Instruction, 14 , 259–379.

The Critical Pedagogy Collective. (2013). From http://critped.wordpress.com/

The Criticality Project. (2013). Retrieved May 17, from http://www.critical.soton.ac.uk/

Tindal, G., & Nolet, V. (1995). Curriculum-based measurement in middle and high schools: Critical thinking skills in content areas. Focus on Exceptional Children, 27 (7), 1–22.

Tishman, S., & Andrade, A. (n.d.). Thinking dispositions: A review of current theories, practices and issues. Available at: learnweb.harvard.edu/alps/thinking/docs/Dispositions.pdf

van Gelder, T. (2005). Teaching critical thinking: Some lessons from cognitive science. College Teaching, 53 (1), 41–48.

Wales, C. E., & Nardi, A. H. (1984). The paradox of critical thinking . Morgantown, WV: Center for Guided Design.

Watson, G., & Glaser, E. M. (2008). Watson-Glaser critical thinking appraisal . Cleveland, OH: Pearson.

Williams, R. (1976). Keywords: A vocabulary of culture and society . New York: Oxford University Press.

Willingham, D. (2007). Critical thinking: Why is it so hard to teach? American Educator, 31 (2), 8–19.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Melbourne Graduate School of Education, University of Melbourne, 234 Queensbury Street, Carlton, VIC, Australia

Martin Davies Ph.D.

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Martin Davies Ph.D. .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Dept. of Educ. Policy and Leadership Stud., The University of Iowa, N491 Lindquist Center, Iowa City, Iowa, USA

Michael B. Paulsen

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter.

Davies, M. (2015). A Model of Critical Thinking in Higher Education. In: Paulsen, M. (eds) Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research. Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, vol 30. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12835-1_2

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12835-1_2

Published : 12 December 2014

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-319-12834-4

Online ISBN : 978-3-319-12835-1

eBook Packages : Humanities, Social Sciences and Law Education (R0)

Share this chapter

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Unlock Your Mind: Explore Critical Thinking Models for Creativity

The power of critical thinking.

In the world of creativity, critical thinking is a powerful tool that can unlock new possibilities and enhance your problem-solving abilities. By understanding and harnessing the power of critical thinking, you can approach challenges with a clear and analytical mindset. Let’s explore what critical thinking is and why it is essential for creativity.

Understanding Critical Thinking

Critical thinking is a cognitive process that involves analyzing, evaluating, and synthesizing information to form reasoned judgments and make informed decisions. It goes beyond simply accepting information at face value and instead encourages deep thinking and active engagement with ideas.

When you engage in critical thinking, you actively question assumptions, evaluate evidence, consider alternative perspectives, and draw logical conclusions. It involves using cognitive processes such as analysis, interpretation, evaluation, inference, explanation, and self-regulation. By employing these cognitive processes, you can gain a deeper understanding of complex issues and make more informed choices.

Why Critical Thinking is Essential for Creativity

Critical thinking plays a vital role in fostering creativity. It allows you to approach problems and challenges from different angles, encouraging you to think beyond the surface level and consider alternative solutions. By questioning assumptions and challenging existing ideas, critical thinking opens up new possibilities and sparks innovation.

When you engage in critical thinking, you develop the ability to see connections between seemingly unrelated concepts and think outside the box. This cognitive flexibility enables you to generate fresh ideas, explore different perspectives, and approach problems with creativity and originality.

Moreover, critical thinking enables you to evaluate the feasibility and effectiveness of your ideas. By critically analyzing your own thoughts and considering potential limitations or drawbacks, you can refine and improve your creative solutions. This process of evaluating and refining ideas is crucial for transforming creative concepts into practical and successful outcomes.

By cultivating critical thinking skills, you can enhance your mental models and cognitive frameworks , enabling you to approach creative endeavors with a structured and analytical mindset. Critical thinking empowers you to challenge assumptions, consider multiple perspectives, and make well-reasoned decisions to achieve your creative goals.

As we delve deeper into critical thinking models and their application to creativity, you will discover how these models can help you problem-solve, generate ideas, and enhance your analytical skills. So, let’s continue our journey of unlocking your mind by exploring different critical thinking models.

Exploring Critical Thinking Models

To unlock your creativity and enhance your problem-solving abilities, it’s important to explore different critical thinking models . These models provide frameworks and strategies that can help you approach challenges from various angles. In this section, we will delve into the RED Model of critical thinking, which consists of three key components: Recognize Assumptions , Evaluate Arguments , and Draw Conclusions .

The RED Model

Recognize assumptions.

Recognizing assumptions is an essential step in critical thinking. Assumptions are the underlying beliefs and ideas that often go unspoken but influence our thoughts and actions. By bringing these assumptions to the forefront, you can assess whether they are valid and relevant to the situation at hand.

To recognize assumptions, you need to question the information you receive and identify any implicit biases or preconceived notions that may be influencing your thinking. By challenging assumptions, you open up new possibilities and broaden your perspective. This allows for more creative and innovative problem-solving.

Evaluate Arguments

Evaluating arguments involves assessing the reasoning and evidence used to support a particular claim or viewpoint. It’s important to critically analyze the logical structure of an argument and the validity of the evidence presented. This helps you determine the strength and weaknesses of the argument and make informed judgments.

To evaluate arguments effectively, you should consider the credibility of the sources, the relevance of the evidence, and the logical coherence of the reasoning. By critically examining arguments, you can identify flaws, gaps in reasoning, and potential biases. This enables you to make more informed decisions and develop well-supported ideas.

Draw Conclusions

Drawing conclusions is the final step in the RED Model. This involves synthesizing information, evaluating the evidence, and arriving at a reasoned judgment or decision. By drawing conclusions, you solidify your understanding of the situation and develop a clear position or course of action.

When drawing conclusions, it’s important to consider the strengths and weaknesses of the arguments, the quality of the evidence, and the impact of any assumptions. This helps you arrive at well-grounded conclusions that are based on critical thinking and analysis.

By applying the RED Model of critical thinking, you can enhance your ability to recognize assumptions, evaluate arguments, and draw informed conclusions. This model provides a structured approach to critical thinking that can be applied to various situations and challenges. To further explore other critical thinking models and their applications, check out our article on cognitive processes .

In the next section, we will explore another valuable critical thinking model: the SCAMPER Model. This model offers a creative approach to problem-solving and idea generation. Stay tuned to uncover the SCAMPER Model and its unique strategies!

The SCAMPER Model

The SCAMPER model is a powerful creative thinking tool that can spark innovative ideas and solutions. Each letter in the acronym represents a different approach to generating new possibilities. Let’s explore each step of the SCAMPER model:

In this step, you consider substituting one element of a problem or idea with something different. Ask yourself, “What can I replace or substitute to create a new perspective?” By substituting elements, you can uncover fresh insights and potential improvements.

The “C” in SCAMPER stands for combine . This step encourages you to consider how different elements or ideas can be merged or combined to form something new. Think about how you can blend concepts or features to create unique solutions or approaches.

Adaptation is about adapting existing ideas, processes, or products to suit a different context or purpose. Ask yourself, “How can I modify or adjust this to fit a different situation?” By adapting, you can find innovative ways to repurpose existing resources or concepts.

The “M” in SCAMPER stands for modify , which involves making changes or alterations to an existing idea or product. Consider how you can tweak or enhance certain aspects to improve performance or functionality. This step encourages you to think critically about the details and refine your ideas.

Put to Another Use

In this step, you explore how you can put an idea or product to another use . Think about alternative applications or contexts where a particular concept or item could be valuable. By considering different uses, you can uncover hidden potential and creative solutions.

To generate fresh ideas, it’s important to consider what you can eliminate . Ask yourself, “What can I remove or reduce to simplify the concept or problem?” By eliminating unnecessary elements or steps, you can streamline processes and uncover more efficient solutions.

The final step of the SCAMPER model is to rearrange elements or components. Consider different ways to organize or arrange the parts of an idea or problem. This step encourages you to think about alternative structures or sequences that may lead to innovative solutions.

By following the steps of the SCAMPER model, you can unlock your creative thinking and generate a wide range of fresh ideas. Remember to be open-minded, challenge assumptions, and explore different perspectives to fully harness the power of this creative thinking tool.

Continue exploring various critical thinking models, such as the RED Model and the Six Thinking Hats Model, to further enhance your creativity and problem-solving skills. Check out our article on critical thinking models for more insights.

The Six Thinking Hats Model

The Six Thinking Hats Model is a powerful tool for critical thinking and decision-making. Developed by Edward de Bono, this model encourages individuals to adopt different perspectives or “hats” to approach a problem or situation. Each hat represents a different mode of thinking and helps explore various aspects of the topic at hand. Let’s take a closer look at each of the hats:

White Hat Thinking

When wearing the White Hat , you focus on gathering and analyzing information. This involves examining the facts, data, and objective details related to the problem or situation. White Hat thinking emphasizes objectivity and rationality by considering what is known and what information is needed to make informed decisions.

Red Hat Thinking

The Red Hat represents emotions and intuition. When wearing this hat, you can freely express your feelings and gut reactions without the need for logical explanations. Red Hat thinking allows for the exploration of personal sentiments, opinions, and hunches, which may provide valuable insights that go beyond logical reasoning.

Black Hat Thinking

The Black Hat signifies critical judgment and caution. This mode of thinking involves analyzing potential risks, weaknesses, and drawbacks associated with ideas or solutions. Black Hat thinking helps identify potential pitfalls and challenges, enabling you to assess the feasibility and effectiveness of different options.

Yellow Hat Thinking

Yellow Hat thinking focuses on optimism, positivity, and benefits. When wearing the Yellow Hat , you explore the potential advantages, benefits, and opportunities presented by ideas or solutions. This mode of thinking encourages you to consider the value and positive outcomes that can arise from different perspectives.

Green Hat Thinking

The Green Hat represents creativity and innovation. This mode of thinking encourages you to explore new ideas, generate alternatives, and think outside the box. Green Hat thinking involves brainstorming, lateral thinking, and embracing unconventional approaches to solve problems or create new possibilities.

Blue Hat Thinking

The Blue Hat represents overall process control and organization. When wearing the Blue Hat, you take on a facilitator role, overseeing the thinking process and managing the different modes of thinking. Blue Hat thinking helps establish the agenda, set goals, and ensure that each thinking hat is utilized effectively. It also helps in summarizing and synthesizing the insights gained from the various modes of thinking.

By utilizing the Six Thinking Hats Model, you can enhance your critical thinking skills and approach problems from multiple angles. Each hat offers a unique perspective, enabling you to consider different factors, emotions, risks, benefits, and innovative ideas. Incorporating this model into your decision-making process can lead to more well-rounded and creative solutions. For more information on critical thinking and decision-making models, check out our article on cognitive processes .

Applying Critical Thinking Models for Creativity

When it comes to fostering creativity, applying critical thinking models can be highly beneficial. These models provide structured approaches to problem-solving, decision-making, and idea generation, enhancing your analytical skills and expanding your creative potential. In this section, we will explore how critical thinking models can be applied in different areas of the creative process.

Problem-Solving and Decision-Making

Critical thinking models play a vital role in problem-solving and decision-making . By employing models such as the RED Model, you can tackle complex problems and make well-informed decisions. The RED Model consists of three steps: Recognize Assumptions , Evaluate Arguments , and Draw Conclusions . By systematically analyzing the information at hand, considering different perspectives, and drawing logical conclusions, you can effectively address challenges and make informed choices.

Idea Generation and Brainstorming

When it comes to idea generation and brainstorming , critical thinking models like the SCAMPER Model can provide valuable guidance. The SCAMPER Model offers a structured approach to stimulate creativity by encouraging you to Substitute , Combine , Adapt , Modify , Put to Another Use , Eliminate , and Rearrange elements. By systematically applying these techniques to existing ideas or concepts, you can generate fresh insights and innovative solutions.

Enhancing Analytical Skills

Critical thinking models also contribute to enhancing your analytical skills . By actively engaging with different models, such as the Six Thinking Hats Model, you can develop a more comprehensive and well-rounded approach to analyzing problems and exploring possibilities. The Six Thinking Hats Model provides a framework for considering different perspectives, such as White Hat Thinking (factual analysis), Red Hat Thinking (emotional and intuitive responses), Black Hat Thinking (critical and cautious evaluation), Yellow Hat Thinking (positive and optimistic viewpoints), Green Hat Thinking (creative and innovative ideas), and Blue Hat Thinking (facilitating and organizing the thinking process). By utilizing these different modes of thinking, you can enhance your analytical skills and approach challenges from various angles.

By applying critical thinking models to different aspects of the creative process, you can unlock your creativity and approach problems and ideas in a more systematic and effective manner. These models provide frameworks and techniques that help you think critically, evaluate information, and generate innovative solutions. Whether you’re problem-solving, making decisions, brainstorming ideas, or enhancing your analytical skills, critical thinking models serve as invaluable tools in cultivating your creative mindset.

Cultivating Critical Thinking Skills

To enhance your critical thinking abilities and unlock your creative potential, it’s important to cultivate certain skills and habits. By practicing reflection and self-analysis , seeking diverse perspectives , and challenging assumptions and biases , you can develop a strong foundation for effective critical thinking.

Practicing Reflection and Self-Analysis

Engaging in regular reflection and self-analysis is a powerful way to enhance your critical thinking skills. Take time to reflect on your thoughts, actions, and decisions. Ask yourself why you think a certain way, what biases you might have, and how your thoughts and beliefs influence your creativity. By developing self-awareness, you can identify areas for improvement and actively work on expanding your thinking. Consider keeping a journal to record your reflections and insights.

Seeking Diverse Perspectives

To broaden your thinking and stimulate creativity, actively seek out diverse perspectives. Engage in conversations with people from different backgrounds, cultures, and areas of expertise. Listen attentively to their viewpoints and consider their reasoning. Exposing yourself to diverse perspectives allows you to challenge your own assumptions and biases, leading to more well-rounded and innovative thinking. Remember to approach these conversations with an open mind and a willingness to learn.

Challenging Assumptions and Biases

Critical thinking involves questioning assumptions and recognizing biases that may affect your thinking process. Challenge your own assumptions by seeking evidence and alternative viewpoints. Be aware of cognitive biases that can cloud your judgment and influence your creativity. By consciously examining your thoughts and biases, you can develop a more objective and unbiased approach to problem-solving and decision-making.

By actively practicing reflection and self-analysis , seeking diverse perspectives , and challenging assumptions and biases , you can enhance your critical thinking skills and unlock your creative potential. These skills are applicable in various aspects of life, from problem-solving and decision-making to idea generation and brainstorming. Embrace the opportunity to continuously develop and refine your critical thinking abilities, as they are essential for unlocking your creative mind.

To dive deeper into cognitive processes and explore various critical thinking models , check out our articles on cognitive processes and decision-making models . These resources will provide you with additional insights and strategies to further enhance your critical thinking capabilities.

Here's How You Build a 6-Figure Business With the 3 Engine Framework

In today's world, it's not enough to simply know how to create a digital product.

You need to know the whole system to make your business flourish.

This is why you build a Full Stack Engine. Not only because you need a system that you can maximize, but also a system that allows you to walk away when you need.

Because while the money is great, freedom is better.

And true freedom arrives when you have all 3 business engines running on their own.

Language Models as Critical Thinking Tools: A Case Study of Philosophers

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.

1 Introduction

“But I like the inconveniences.” — “We don’t,” responds the Controller. “We prefer to do things comfortably.” — “But I don’t want comfort,” John gasps. “I want God, I want poetry, I want real danger, I want freedom, I want goodness. I want sin.” — “In fact,” says the Controller, “you’re claiming the right to be unhappy … the right to live in constant apprehension of what may happen tomorrow; … the right to be tortured by unspeakable pains of every kind.” There is a long silence. “I claim them all,” says John at last.  ( Minimally adapted from Huxley ( 2006 ) .)

Language Models (LMs) have recently alleviated a whole host of our intellectual inconveniences. They can help us do things we would have begrudgingly done by ourselves otherwise: write code  (Chen et al., 2021 ; Rozière et al., 2024 ) , generate emails   (Goodman et al., 2022 ) , and translate text   (Costa-jussà et al., 2022 ) . In sparking ideas by generating stories  (Schwitzgebel et al., 2023 ) and concept designs  (Ma et al., 2023 ) , LMs offer shortcuts to gaining new thoughts. They also help us put our thinking into words by revising  (Mysore et al., 2023 ) and giving feedback  (Liang et al., 2023 ) on our writing. In all these cases, LMs help us speed up and circumvent the inconveniences of thinking ourselves.

In many contexts, however, the “inconvenience” of thinking is not a temporary problem to be alleviated, but a deep puzzle to be reflected upon. Many people are invested in specific areas of intellectual inquiry – e.g., historians, scientists, philosophers – and more generally, in reflection and engagement with the world – e.g., as informed political citizens, critical consumers of media, and moral actors. They are interested in identifying and challenging assumptions, clarifying muddled ideas, and engineering new and useful ways to think. Core to this sort of inquiry is critical thinking – “the propensity and skill to engage in an activity with reflective skepticism”  (McPeck, 2016 ) . Can LMs serve as tools for critical thinking – helping us think more deeply and in more complex ways, rather than faster or not at all? What if – like John – we claim all the rights to think ?

To investigate how LMs can serve as critical thinking tools, we use philosophers as a case study – philosophers being people who are in the business of thinking critically about a wide range of concepts and ideas. We interview 21 professional philosophers to understand their thinking processes, collect their experiences with and views on current LMs, and brainstorm the roles LMs could play as critical thinking tools in philosophy (§ 3 ). We find that current philosophers do not think LMs are good critical thinking tools (§ 4 ) for two primary reasons: LMs are too neutral, detached, and nonjudgmental (§ 4.2 ); and LMs are too servile, passive, and incurious (§ 4.3 ). We propose the selfhood-initiative model for critical thinking tools, which explains why philosophers find conversations with other philosophers and reading philosophical texts to be more helpful for their work than current LMs (§ 5.1 ). Using the model, we describe three roles LMs could play as critical thinking tools: the Interlocutor, the Monitor, and the Respondent (§ 5.2 ). Finally, we outline how these LMs could inform metaphilosophical questions and shape the discipline of philosophy (§ 6.1 ), and discuss challenges in building LMs (§ 6.2 ) and interfaces (§ 6.3 ) for critical thinking.

2 Background and Related Work

2.1 language models as thinking tools.

A large and growing literature investigates how LMs can serve as thinking tools for humans engaged in intellectual work. This research tends to concern how LMs can serve two intellectual functions: idea stimulation and idea expression .

LMs can provide stimulus for ideas – information and formulations which provoke and guide creative processes. In these roles, LMs expand the set of ideas a user has available, which can become inspiration for thinking. These LMs may continue to provide stimulus while the user is thinking. For instance, LMs can produce creative analogies  (Bhavya et al., 2023 ) , metaphors  (Chakrabarty et al., 2021 ) , ‘sparks’  (Gero et al., 2021 ) to stimulate serious thinking. Existing pools of ideas might be expanded with LMs  (Fede et al., 2022 ) . Creative writers may use LMs to propose plots, characters, and entire stories  (Yuan et al., 2022 ; Mirowski et al., 2022 ; Schmitt & Buschek, 2021 ; Calderwood et al., 2020 ; Chakrabarty et al., 2023 ) ; designers may use LMs to generate concept designs  (Ma et al., 2023 ) ; scientists may use LMs to find literature  (Morris, 2023 ) and (re)formulate problems in novel ways  (Gu, 2023 ) .

On the other hand, LMs can also aid the expression of ideas (in language). It is assumed that users have an idea in mind and wish to use LMs to find the formulation which best represents it. LMs can help ‘translate ideas into words’ by making suggested revisions  (Du et al., 2022 ; Mysore et al., 2023 ; Zhao, 2022 ; Shu et al., 2023 ; Lin et al., 2024 ) and helping the user clarify their writing goals  (Arnold et al., 2021 ; Kim et al., 2024 ) . Writing feedback given by LMs may be more useful  (Liang et al., 2023 ) , more motivating  (Meyer et al., 2024 ) , and more engaging  (Tanwar et al., 2024 ) than feedback given by other humans.

2.2 Language Models as Critical Thinking Tools

However, one part of the thinking process is clearly missing. One does not simply go from the stimulus for an idea to figuring out how to express the idea: one needs to do the actual critical thinking , involving reflection upon ideas, judgment, and conceptual engineering. LMs can help provide the seeds for our ideas when we don’t have any (i.e., stimulus) and help us formulate them once we’ve got them (i.e., expression), but how can they help us with questioning, reorienting, analyzing, and developing ideas (i.e., critical thinking)?

There are many different definitions of critical thinking: “the propensity and skill to engage in an activity with reflective skepticism”  (McPeck, 2016 ) , “reasonable, reflective thinking that is focused on deciding what to believe or do”  (Ennis, 1993 ) , and “the development and evaluation of arguments”  (Facione, 1984 ) . Critical thinking requires many dispositions, such as seeking clear statements of questions, looking for alternatives, and being open-minded  (Ennis, 1987 ) . Critical thinking is what makes many areas of intellectual inquiry – such as history, science, and philosophy – difficult. For instance, on different accounts, history requires interpreting the past with alternative (nonlinear, long-range) temporalities  (Braudel, 2023 ) , taking into account the ways in which power structures shape historical record  (Foucault, 1995 ; Trouillot, 1995 ) , and identifying and manipulating narrative structures  (White, 1975 ; Gaddis, 2004 ) . Science requires advances not only in empirical work, but also in the underlying paradigms of research  (Kuhn & Hawkins, 1963 ) and navigation of a variety of social, technical, and material factors  (Latour, 1989 ) .

A limited body of work has explored how LMs might contribute towards human critical thinking. Rodman ( 2023 ) suggests that political theorists might use LMs to metacognitively reflect upon their own creative processes and judgments. Cai et al. ( 2024 ) consider how currently “sycophantic”, “servile”, and “lobotimized” LMs can be used in more critical ways by challenging users’ pre-existing ideas and constructively using antagonistic interactions to develop their thinking. Park & Kulkarni ( 2024 ) show how LMs as “thinking assistants” can facilitate human self-reflection by asking, instead of answering, questions.

2.3 Critical Thinking as Philosophy

In this paper, we focus on philosophy as a case study for critical thinking. Philosophy is concerned with critical, systematic, and reflective examination of the world. This includes understanding the basic structure of life and the world – what does it mean to exist  (Aristotle, 1908 ; Heidegger, 1962 ; Sartre, 1993 ) , live  (Aurelius, 2006 ) , and die  (Kierkegaard, 1983 ; Nietzsche, 1961 ) ?; what does it mean to know something  (Plato, 2008b ; Kant, 2003 ; Husserl, 1977 ) and what are the limits of scientific knowledge   (Popper, 2002 ; Chalmers, 2013 ) ?; on what moral bases should we act  (Aristotle, 2004 ; Spinoza, 2003 ) , and is it even possible to determine ‘objective’ answers to moral questions  (Hume, 2003 ; Harman & Thomson, 1996 ) ? Core to philosophy is “the endeavour to know how and to what extent it might be possible to think differently, instead of legitimating what is already known”  (Foucault & Hurley, 1990 ) . In thinking about how to think, philosophy is not only about suspicion toward the meanings and functions of various phenomena, but also recovery of new significances, meanings, and coherence  (Ricoeur & Thompson, 1981 ) .

Contrary to the image that philosophy is “done in the armchair”, isolated and impractical, philosophy has always been intertwined with other lines of inquiry. Plato engaged extensively with advanced mathematics; Aristotle contributed to early physics; Hume leaned on psychology. Philosophy has asked and continues to ask urgent, relevant questions: how are we to understand “fairness” and “justice” in algorithmic discrimination  (Hu, 2023 ) , legal punishment  (Alexander, 1922 ) , and the distribution of resources  (Rawls, 1971 ) ; quantum mechanics in physics  (Carnap, 1966 ) ; the relationship between consciousness and the brain in neuroscience  (Chalmers, 2013 ) ? Indeed, researchers in every area of intellectual inquiry confront philosophical questions in their work: they might ask if a model or concept is “really real” and how they know so, or aim to formulate normative desiderata for theories.

The first author conducted interviews with 21 professional philosophers at 14 philosophy departments at doctoral universities in the United States. We contacted and selected philosophers for high diversity across area of interest (e.g., ethics, political philosophy, philosophy of science). Interviews took place online and lasted between 30 to 60 minutes, depending on interviewee availability. Interviewees were asked how they philosophize (e.g., where ideas come from, how ideas are developed, what resources are needed) and their views on LMs (e.g., can LMs ‘do’ philosophy, how might they be useful for philosophizing). These questions followed a loose script (see § A.1 ), although we asked novel follow-up questions to pursue interesting lines of inquiry raised by the interviewees’ responses. In cases where interviewees had very little or no prior exposure to LMs, they interacted live with the GPT-4 model on a philosophical topic of their choosing. We received IRB approval from our university to conduct the interviews; all interviewees confirmed their consent to participate in the study, and for their responses to inform the development of this article. We qualitatively analyzed interview recordings and transcripts. Using an inductive approach  (Thomas, 2006 ) and open coding  (Charmaz, 2006 ) , we identified common themes and positions (yielding § 4 and § 5 ). We refer to interviewees with a unique identifier, e.g., (P1, P2, P3) .

4 Language Models Are Not Good Critical Thinking Tools (So Far)

Many of the interviewed philosophers find LMs to be relevant and interesting, and some find them to have limited uses such as for undergraduate instruction  (P1, P13, P20) or becoming acquainted with a topic  (P5, P11, P12) . However, none of the philosophers were convinced that current LMs can reliably and conveniently assist them in the intellectually substantive ways which require critical thinking. Philosophers described current LMs as “boring” (P2) , “anodyne” (P4) , “bland” (P9) , and “cowardly” (P13) . There are two broad reasons for this. First, current LMs tend to be highly neutral, detached, and non-judgmental, often commenting on ideas in abstract and decontextualized ways (§ 4.2 ). Second, current LMs tend to be servile, passive, and incurious, which is unhelpful when the user does not yet have a clear vision of what they want to accomplish; this restricts the variety of intellectual interactions possible S 4.3 ).

4.1 How do philosophers philosophize?

A close investigation of how philosophers think through difficult philosophical questions can give us insight into the types of tools and interactions which support difficult critical thinking, and provide contrast with current LMs, which fail to perform the same function.

Where do philosophical ideas come from? Philosophers report that their ideas usually come from observing puzzles and tensions in the world, in which some aspect feels bothersome  (P5, P12, P20) , incomplete  (P10, P14) , in need of clarity  (P1, P13) , or outright incorrect  (P3) . Philosophers encounter these puzzles and tensions most commonly in open conversation with others  (P1, P2, P5, P9, P19) and while reading texts – books, papers, and monographs making explicitly philosophical arguments or touching upon philosophical themes  (P4, P7, P10, P12, P13, P20) . These puzzles may have an intellectual or logical character: terms might not be sufficiently disambiguated, inferences may not be valid, and propositions may entail absurd conclusions  (P8, P11) . However, for many, these tensions are identified and drawn out by ethical motivations  (P1, P8, P16, P12) . Tensions might arise not primarily because a proposition is incoherent, but rather because it appears ethically problematic. The now-famous trolley problem dilemma was used to probe the differences between doing and allowing harm, with applications to bioethics, particularly abortion  (Foot, 1967 ) . Several philosophers describe being inspired by texts communicating empirical work, seeking to provide explanations for empirical observations  (P1, P2, P16, P18) as well as subjecting the practices and products of the empirical sciences to critical inquiry  (P2, P7, P12, P13, P18) .

What do philosophers want out of their ideas? Once philosophers identify puzzles from conversations and texts, they aim to develop ideas which make progress on these puzzles. Progress is conceived of in many ways: “understand[ing] some part of the world better” (P3) , working through new ways to think about problems (P17) , and better understanding the current ways we think – for instance, by making implicit assumptions explicit and recognizing the implications of propositions  (P7) . Some philosophers describe a developed philosophical idea as a “picture” (P9, P10) which organizes subideas in a systematic way, allowing one to clearly see the main point(s). This often requires “conceptual engineering”  (P6) : challenging, disassembling, and rebuilding the ways in which we think.

The role of texts in philosophical development. Texts continue to actively support the philosophical development past the inception of the idea. Revisiting texts with an idea in mind can unearth new aspects of the text which comment on that idea  (P9) , and repeatedly consulting written ideas can be helpful for putting words to newly developed ideas  (P2, P20) . Because texts are static and highly accessible by many people, texts can become a shared basis for and markers in conversation with others  (P9, P19) . Moreover, because published texts are usually produced by people who have given a problem substantial time and thought, philosophers might approach them with more trust and charity  (P4) .

The role of conversation in philosophical development. Conversations with fellow philosophers are central to evaluating the coherence of ideas  (P21) , raising connections to other ideas and problems  (P5) , and collecting criticism, objections, and feedback  (P3, P10) . Conversations may force philosophers to explain and justify ideas they may have taken for granted  (P1) . Conversation helps philosophers gain confidence that their ideas are good intellectual contributions  (P2, P21) . Philosophers even simulate conversations in their head, taking on various positions for and against their ideas  (P1, P12) . Good philosophical conversation requires several conditions. The interlocutor should be charitable – genuinely listening to and working through ideas  (P1, P12) , and trusting  (P6, P14) – but also willing to boldly push ideas forward  (P3) and take intellectual risks  (P18) . Conversations may not be directed towards any clear goal; interlocutors must be able to “riff off each other”  (P8) and be willing to operate without a preset agenda  (P3, P4) . This requires interlocutors to be curious about addressing problems  (P21) ; it should be a collaborative enterprise, rather than a combative debate  (P3, P7) .

4.2 Language Models are neutral, detached, and nonjudgmental

Philosophers find intellectual value when the conversations and texts they encounter provide substantive and well-defended perspectives, but find that LMs do not do the same.

LMs are abstract, imprecise, and ‘skirt by’ questions. Because philosophy is interested in clearly stating and reflecting upon ideas, philosophers often place high value on precision in language. Changes to a formulation which seem trivial to a layperson may introduce important shifts in meaning for a philosopher. Meanwhile, LMs seem as if they ‘tell the user what they want to hear’, resulting in risk-averse and hand-waving behavior which produced abstract, imprecise, and ultimately intellectually uninteresting statements  (P5, P7, P15) . When interviewees brought up problems with LMs’ responses, LMs skirted around the issue, producing superficially convincing corrections without really addressing the provided issue  (P1, P20) . LMs are highly factually knowledgeable  (P1) but fail to precisely express philosophical ideas; thus, LMs end up reinforcing the status quo rather than proposing substantive challenges  (P9) .

LM responses change too easily and don’t have ‘weight’. Several philosophers describe how easy it is for them to talk LMs into contradictions and incoherent outputs in the same session  (P4, P9) . LMs make “kneejerk reactions” to user concerns and are excellent at effusively apologizing, but don’t “fully appreciate” their mistakes and the user’s comments  (P14) . Moreover, LM responses seem highly sensitive to trivial changes in the prompt, making some philosophers wary of using them at all  (P21) . The ease with which one can manipulate an LM’s output seems to reduce their trustworthiness and value as tools  (P15) .

LM outputs don’t provide judgments. LMs often refrain from formulating serious judgments; they try to remain neutral and ‘see all sides’, but end up presenting all sides in placid and uninteresting ways  (P12, P17) . They refrain from discussing controversial issues  (P4) , which is unfortunate because philosophy prides itself on clearly thinking about otherwise-taboo topics of controversy. As such, LMs are perceived as “cowardly”, refusing to take solid positions and, in some sense, echoing the user  (P13) . “It [conversations with LMs] ends up being unproductive and unsatisfying… they don’t feel like persons because their language is often so bland and impersonal, non-Socratic, generic… they’re boring” (P9) .

LMs don’t have memory and context. Shared context from previous interactions with other humans serve to provide context for and situate ideas in conversation, allowing for efficiency of exploration (as already-exhausted ideas are not brought up again)  (P1, P14) . Because current popular LM interfaces ‘lose their memory’ of previous interactions in different sessions, LMs often produce general and decontextualized responses to user prompts  (P15) .

4.3 Language Models are servile, passive, and incurious

Philosophers find intellectual value when fellow philosophers to develop their own lines of inquiry in conversation and texts, but find that LMs do not do the same.

LMs fail to be useful in open, undetermined contexts. LMs enthusiastically make “my problem its problem”  (P11) , but often philosophers do not have their ‘problem’ entirely clearly thought or formulated  (P5) . For certain basic tasks, “ ‘you have certain success metrics in mind, so you go to [an LM]; but what about truly open-ended conversations where you don’t have success conditions already laid out?”   (P7) LM answers often feel like they’ve been “packaged” or return a “processed end result”, whereas “in the doing of philosophy, we want to be open, in service of a larger dialogue – philosophy as a process rather than as an end product”   (P5) . LMs don’t seem to have a drive to know the truth or care about convincing people  (P2, P21) – features which energize interactions even when there is no clearly desired product.

LMs restrict the variety of intellectual interaction. The “incuriosity” of LMs severely limits possible intellectual interactions philosophers can have with it  (P7) . “It’s a question-answer platform. It won’t follow up with a “what do you think?” “I’m a little puzzled, how it could be?” “Oh gosh, how does it work?” You can’t have a conversation with [an LM] except one which is like an interview.” Several philosophers imagine alternative useful LM interactions in which LMs take on more intellectual risks and independent behaviors: instead of only answering questions, LMs could also ask them  (P12, P17) , or LMs might behave with hostility and antagonism towards users’ ideas  (P6, P8, P11) .

5 Designing Language Models for Critical Thinking

Thus far, we’ve introduced the problem of critical thinking and described how current LMs fail to be good critical thinking tools. Here, we set out a formal model to characterize and compare critical thinking tools (§ 5.1 ). This allows us to imagine new roles for LMs, inspired by what makes other people and texts useful as critical thinking tools (§ 5.2 ).

5.1 The Selfhood-Initiative Model

We use the two broad reasons why LMs fail to be good critical thinking tools in § 4 as the basis for the model’s two axes: current LMs have low selfhood , as they are neutral, detached, and nonjudgmental; they have low initiative , as they are servile, passive, and incurious. In particular, selfhood is a resource’s ability to have certain locally persistent internal states (such as perspectives, beliefs, opinions, memory) and to consistently use them as the basis for judgements. The resource’s internal states may change over time due to new knowledge and experiences, but in an intentional and logical (rather than an arbitrary and capricious) manner. Current LMs exhibit low selfhood (§ 4.2 ). Initiative is a resource’s ability to set its own intentions and goals, possibly different from its user’s, and to execute actions oriented towards those intentions. High-direction resources are not strictly or existentially bound to their user’s directives, and may deviate from them. Current LMs exhibit low initiative (§ 4.3 ). These two axes form the selfhood-initiative model for critical thinking tools, and explain why philosophers find texts and other people (but not LMs) to be useful tools. Our model further provides a design space for LMs as critical thinking tools.

Why do philosophers find other people and texts to be useful critical thinking tools? In the selfhood-initiative model, other people are high-selfhood, variable-initiative tools . People have specific backgrounds and experiences which inform their views, perspectives, and beliefs; these influence how they understand and respond. Philosophers find value in talking to other people often because of their selfhood; they expect that they will receive interesting judgements and comments, rather than placid neutrality. However, these people may have variable initiative, depending on the situation. In free-flowing conversation, each interlocutor may carry the conversation in some direction, whereas in a more focused conversation aimed at collecting feedback, an interlocutor may be expected to directly respond to one’s ideas and requests without their own intellectual initiative. The high selfhood of other people is helpful because it provides particular perspectives and ways of looking into the problem space. Meanwhile, in the selfhood-initiative model, texts are high-initiative, variable-selfhood tools . Texts are not themselves responsive to a user’s intentions  (Plato, 2008a ) ; they express the author’s attempt to fulfill their intentions, and one encounters the product of this attempt after the fact of its production. This exteriority from the user allows the user to reflect upon similarities and differences between their own thinking and the tool’s outputs. On the other hand, the way in which texts are written can vary in the degree of selfhood they express. Informative, survey-based, and clarificatory papers tend to de-emphasize an author’s perspectives and opinions, whereas more explicitly argumentative papers may center them; both can be useful to philosophers in different ways.

Why don’t philosophers find current LMs to be useful critical thinking tools? In the selfhood-initiative model, current LMs are low-selfhood, low-initiative tools . They do not provide philosophers with particular concrete perspectives into the problem space, nor do they provide ideas sufficiently exterior to a philosopher’s own thinking to allow for meaningful reflection and connections. These properties make LMs particularly useful for alternative modes of thought, such as carrying out rote and well-defined tasks and helping rewrite sentences, but hamper critical thinking.

5.2 Three Roles for Language Models as Critical Thinking Tools

According to the selfhood-initiative model, good critical thinking tools should have high selfhood, high initiative, or both. From our model, we set out three roles of LMs for philosophy – the Interlocutor, the Monitor, and the Respondent – corresponding to the three viable cells in the selfhood-initiative model (high-selfhood, high-initiative; low-selfhood, high-initiative; high-selfhood; low-initiative)

The Interlocutor ∘ \circ ∘ high-selfhood, high-initiative . Philosophers mention that they often get their ideas in free-flowing conversation with fellow philosophers or from reading literature making arguments which seem tenuous, incorrect, or incomplete (§ 4.1 ). In the terms of the selfhood-initiative model, these are high-selfhood, high-initiative tools. As a role for LMs, the Interlocutor would invert many of the human-AI relationships taken for granted in current LMs. Rather than attempting to remain neutral, the Interlocutor makes judgments and takes positions based on its perspectives. Rather than accommodating and affirming users’ every response, the Interlocutor thinks through and challenges or disagrees with what its users say; it responds or modifies its own beliefs if users make reasonable points. Rather than remaining passive and answering user questions, the Interlocutor asks its own questions in pursuit of its ‘own’ interests, and refuses or redirects certain lines of inquiry in favor of others. Rather than being amnesic and detached, the Interlocutor draws upon its persistent memories and beliefs across sessions to produce ideas. The Interlocutor does not need to be strictly antagonistic , as explored in Cai et al. ( 2024 ) ; indeed, it may be charitable and polite, much like colleagues, while at the same time resisting the “servility” and “sycophancy” disrupted by the antagonistic paradigm.

The Monitor ∘ \circ ∘ low-selfhood, high-initiative . While developing ideas, philosophers consciously or unconsciously encounter various “decision junctures” at which they use certain approaches or pursue certain ideas over others.  (P6) . Many philosophers suggest that it may be important to reduce, or at least become more aware of, the choices at these decision junctures  (P6, P2, P7) . Without such awareness, philosophers may expose their ideas to imprecision (‘which path did you exactly take?’) and objections (‘why this path and not others?’); moreover, these choices may reproduce personal and disciplinary biases, reifying metaphilosophical problems (§ 6.1 ). As a role for LMs, the Monitor acts as a “checks and balances” on philosophizing; it is not interested in retaining self-consistency or in expressing particular points of view (low selfhood), but has high initiative to provide a variety of ideas and resources to the user. The Monitor functions similarly to survey texts which provide a ‘lay of the land’, illustrating different approaches and ideas to help philosophers situate their ideas, able to take all sorts of changing sides with the initiative to challenge and confront. The Monitor’s suggestions may or may not be directly relevant to the philosopher’s work, but act as reference guides – to which the philosopher might think, “that’s a related idea, maybe there’s a connection here” or “that doesn’t seem directly related, but it’s good to have in mind”. Moreover, the Monitor may ask a variety of uncomfortable and unexpected methodological questions aimed at clarifying philosophers’ decisions.

The Respondent ∘ \circ ∘ high-selfhood, low-initiative . As philosophers develop their ideas, they want to understand how others might react – better understanding possible misinterpretations, objections, and clarification questions which may arise  (P6, P10, P12) . these reactions should have high selfhood to be substantive and particular, and low initiative to remain directly focused on the user’s ideas. As a role for LMs, the Respondent adopts a specific set of beliefs and perspectives and reacts directly to the user’s ideas; it does not merely role-play or superficially caricature different positions, but should have consistent memories and beliefs which are reasonably open to change  (P4) rather than dogmatically fixed. Interactions with the Respondent may inform how the philosopher formulates and presents their ideas; they may anticipate certain objections and strengthen its appeal and utility. The Respondent can also be counterfactually helpful: if an agent representing an unsavory position resonates with a philosopher’s argument, then that philosopher might reconsider how their argument is expressed, not only defending but also delimiting the scope of their argument  (P6) .

6 Discussion

6.1 lms help think about and address metaphilosophical problems.

Throughout our interviews, we found that thinking through how LMs can serve as critical thinking tools raises many interesting metaphilosophical questions. What does it mean to ‘do’ philosophy, and who or what can ‘do’ it? How mechanical or creative is doing philosophy? Our findings in § 4.1 provide some empirical illumination for these questions. Philosophers found concretely reflecting on these questions – provoked by thinking about LMs’ role in doing philosophy – to be interesting and helpful  (P1, P7, P15, P20) .

However, LMs may also play a role in actively addressing metaphilosophical problems. Consider three concerns about the philosophical method and discipline. First, Dotson ( 2012 ) describes how a “culture of justification” results in the exclusion of diverse forms of philosophical inquiry beyond the canon, such as non-Western philosophy and work from historically marginalized people. Second, Diamond ( 1982 ) argues that a myopic focus on formulating convincing arguments against unconvinced listeners overlooks alternative non-argumentative modes of philosophy. Third, many philosophers have suggested that the “analytic-continental” distinction in philosophy – a divide which intellectually segregates philosophers, journals, and departments from each other – is not as substantive as it appears  (Mizrahi & Dickinson, 2021 ; Thomson, ) , counterproductive  (Dolcini, 2007 ) , and reconcilable  (Levy, 2003 ; Bell et al., 2016 ) . Suppose these accounts as presented are true, and that the phenomena they describe occur not by conscious actions but by neglect and the academic structure (as these accounts suggest). Then, LMs may draw philosophers’ attention outside the canon and across the divide as Interlocutors and Monitors, and represent these positions and methodologies as Respondents – possibly more approachably and certainly at larger scale than humans can.

6.2 Challenges for Language Modeling

If LM researchers are convinced that supporting critical thinking is an interesting and important goal for LMs, then critical thinking may serve as another of many “north stars” LM research, guiding what we want from LMs. Corresponding to the limitations of language models discussed in § 4.2 and § 4.3 are several concrete areas for further LM research. LMs will need to become more convincing agents  (Andreas, 2022 ) which can represent specific positions and belief systems  (Scherrer et al., 2023 ; Jin et al., 2024 ) 3 ; stay consistent with them  (Chen et al., 2021 ; Zhao et al., 2024 ) 2 ; and commit towards and draw from long-term memory  (Wang et al., 2023 ) 4 . In particular, LLMs will need to concretely reason about “uncommon sense” 1 2 , seriously considering positions which deviate from intuitively true or correct ways of thinking about the world  (Ziems et al., 2023 ; Hendrycks et al., 2023 ; Bisk et al., 2019 ) . This may require rethinking how we align LMs  (Ouyang et al., 2022 ; Sorensen et al., 2024 ) , given that humans tend to be drawn towards confident common-sense responses  (P5) . LMs will need to improve their long-range planning  (Hao et al., 2023 ) and act autonomously  (Händler, 2023 )   1 , operating in cases where there is no clear algorithm for solving a problem  (P4, P3, P8) ; LMs will need to take effective conceptual risks without clear immediate payoffs  (P18) and reason about unsettled and open ideas  (P8) . To support more diverse forms of interaction beyond question answering or task execution  2 , LMs will need to significantly improve in theory of mind  (Kosinski, 2024 ; Jamali et al., 2023 ) . LMs need to “understand what’s happening [in the conversation] without it being explicitly said, because.. you haven’t fully expressed it to yourself yet”   (P8) , which will allow them to focus on the significant rather than irrelevant or obvious paths of inquiry in conversation  (P6, P8) .

6.3 Challenges for Human-AI Interaction

In addition to modeling challenges , there are several interaction design challenges when developing LMs for critical thinking. First, philosophers tend to highly value thinking through things themselves ; many emphasize that the intellectually substantive parts of philosophy cannot be naively ‘accelerated’  (P1, P7, P14, P17) . Philosophers find the process of thinking to be intrinsically valuable, even when it does not produce obvious payoffs  (P3, P6, P8) – a feature common to other areas of critical thinking. Additionally, philosophers may feel that authorship of ideas requires that the ideas be ‘ mine ’, and that ‘ I ’ should be responsible for making the important intellectual judgments  (P4, P10, P18) . Secondly, it can be difficult and even disruptive to put ideas into words . Although professional philosophy is mainly formally done in language, the process of thinking through ideas can involve many other dimensions of representation and thinking  (P2, P3, P4, P5) . Among other challenges, philosophers cite the apparent incongruence between ideas and language as a source of significant burden in learning how to effectively use LMs (P8, P21) . This may be true for many other areas of critical thinking. Thirdly, philosophers find that human connection is enjoyable and important . Besides giving rise to unexpected philosophical connections and ideas (P6) , conversation with another human is deeply enjoyable and fulfilling, on its own merits (P8, P21) . Moreover, some philosophers feel that serious philosophical inquiry requires some kind of subjectivity or lived experience (P6, P8, P16) . Therefore, LMs will need to coexist with and enrich, rather than seek to replace, the ecosystem of human and textual resources already available to philosophers and other professional critical thinkers.

7 Conclusion: Towards Living Script

In his masterwork Jerusalem , Moses Mendelssohn writes that philosophy has too long prioritized a dead form of interaction, one which stifles human interaction and innovation: “We teach and instruct one another only through writings; we learn to know nature and human only from writings. We work and relax, edify and amuse ourselves through scribbling…”  (Mendelssohn, 1983 , 41) . In response, Mendelssohn calls for a turn towards a living script , “arousing the mind and heart, full of meaning, continuously inspiring thought” . The living script is a way of engaging with tools that inspire and support our critical thinking; it is an ideal both for LM researchers, philosophers, and all of us – as thinkers and humans – to aspire towards. As technologies for reading and writing our living script, LMs can offer critical thinkers a more wide and accessible set of ways to support individuals in their development of ideas and to shape disciplinary practices and cultures. As for the rights and responsibilities to think – we should respond, with John: “We claim them all.”

Ethics Statement

Although exploring ‘uncommon sense’ is important for critical thinking, we acknowledge that it can also be a deeply uncomfortable and unsettling experience. Disagreement can feel awkward in many contexts in daily life, even though it may not in designated spaces: “one of the best gifts a philosopher can give another is a good counterexample… in philosophy, we like a challenge, a pushback, for people to think that we’re wrong. That’s where philosophers thrive”   (P5) . Moreover, common sense encodes certain ethical or moral norms, such as pain is bad and racism is unjust ; critical thinking tools may facilitate the revisiting and challenging of these norms in apparently inappropriate ways. To be sure, there is great value in this practice. We may not only to believe in true things but also know the right or best reasons for why we should believe in them ( why is racism bad?), since having poor reasons for a belief may undermine the belief. Moreover, supposedly obvious moral principles and norms can be utilized to support unsavory positions (e.g., racism is bad, so we should only pursue ‘colorblind’ public policy); it is difficult to identify this if one does not adopt a critical view towards the entire system. Nevertheless, LMs can serve many purposes, and being critical thinking tools is just one of them; low-selfhood and low-initiative tools are needed to accomplish many other tasks. Users should consent to critical interactions with LMs.

Some interviewees expressed that LMs raised difficult questions about academic integrity and authorship of ideas. It should be noted that because critical thinking tools are intended to support the process of thinking rather than replacing it, there is little risk of outright plagiarism , provided the tools are designed properly and used as intended. Nevertheless, there are interesting ethical questions about ownership of ideas with respect to involvement in their development. If a colleague’s offhand comment sparks an idea, leading to a publication, (how) should the colleague be credited? What if instead they intentionally discuss and develop an idea with you? This is an ongoing conversation over how LMs as critical thinking tools should be credited , but there seems to be little basis for stopping the development of LMs as critical thinking tools because of ethical concerns of authorship.

Acknowledgement

We greatly appreciate each of the philosophers who took time and care to talk with us.

• Alexander (1922) Julian P. Alexander. Philosophy of punishment. Journal of the American Institute of Criminal Law and Criminology , 13:235, 1922.
• Andreas (2022) Jacob Andreas. Language models as agent models, 2022.
• Aristotle (1908) Aristotle. Metaphysics . Wikisource, 1908. URL https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Metaphysics_(Ross,_1908) .
• Aristotle (2004) Aristotle. The Nicomachean Ethics . Number 4 in Triskel Philosophy Series. Penguin Classics, Mar 2004.
• Arnold et al. (2021) Kenneth C. Arnold, April M. Volzer, and Noah G. Madrid. Generative models can help writers without writing for them. In IUI Workshops , 2021.
• Aurelius (2006) Marcus Aurelius. Meditations . Penguin Books, Apr 2006. ISBN 9780140449334.
• Bell et al. (2016) Jeffrey A. Bell, Andrew Cutrofello, and Paul M. Livingston (eds.). Beyond the Analytic-Continental Divide: Pluralist Philosophy in the Twenty-First Century . Routledge, 2016. ISBN 9781138787360.
• Bhavya et al. (2023) Bhavya Bhavya, Jinjun Xiong, and Chengxiang Zhai. Cam: A large language model-based creative analogy mining framework. In Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2023 , pp.  3903–3914, New York, NY, USA, April 2023. ACM. doi: 10.1145/3543507.3587431 . URL https://doi.org/10.1145/3543507.3587431 .
• Bisk et al. (2019) Yonatan Bisk, Rowan Zellers, Ronan Le Bras, Jianfeng Gao, and Yejin Choi. Piqa: Reasoning about physical commonsense in natural language, 2019.
• Braudel (2023) F. Braudel. The mediterranean and the mediterranean world in the age of philip ii: Volume i. 2023.
• Cai et al. (2024) Alice Cai, Ian Arawjo, and Elena L. Glassman. Antagonistic ai, 2024.
• Calderwood et al. (2020) Alex Calderwood, Vivian Qiu, K. Gero, and Lydia B. Chilton. How novelists use generative language models: An exploratory user study. In HAI-GEN+user2agent@IUI , 2020.
• Carnap (1966) Rudolf Carnap. Philosophical Foundations of Physics . Basic Books, Inc. Publishers, New York, first printing edition, 1966. ISBN 00008545.
• Chakrabarty et al. (2021) Tuhin Chakrabarty, Xurui Zhang, Smaranda Muresan, and Nanyun Peng. Mermaid: Metaphor generation with symbolism and discriminative decoding. In North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics , 2021.
• Chakrabarty et al. (2023) Tuhin Chakrabarty, Vishakh Padmakumar, Faeze Brahman, and Smaranda Muresan. Creativity support in the age of large language models: An empirical study involving emerging writers. ArXiv , abs/2309.12570, 2023.
• Chalmers (2013) Alan F. Chalmers. What Is This Thing Called Science? Hackett Publishing Company, Inc., fourth edition, Sep 2013. ISBN 978-1624660382.
• Charmaz (2006) Kathy Charmaz. Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis . SAGE Publications Ltd, 1 edition, 1 2006. ISBN 978-0761973539.
• Chen et al. (2021) Mark Chen, Jerry Tworek, Heewoo Jun, Qiming Yuan, Henrique Ponde de Oliveira Pinto, Jared Kaplan, Harri Edwards, Yuri Burda, Nicholas Joseph, Greg Brockman, Alex Ray, Raul Puri, Gretchen Krueger, Michael Petrov, Heidy Khlaaf, Girish Sastry, Pamela Mishkin, Brooke Chan, Scott Gray, Nick Ryder, Mikhail Pavlov, Alethea Power, Lukasz Kaiser, Mohammad Bavarian, Clemens Winter, Philippe Tillet, Felipe Petroski Such, Dave Cummings, Matthias Plappert, Fotios Chantzis, Elizabeth Barnes, Ariel Herbert-Voss, William Hebgen Guss, Alex Nichol, Alex Paino, Nikolas Tezak, Jie Tang, Igor Babuschkin, Suchir Balaji, Shantanu Jain, William Saunders, Christopher Hesse, Andrew N. Carr, Jan Leike, Josh Achiam, Vedant Misra, Evan Morikawa, Alec Radford, Matthew Knight, Miles Brundage, Mira Murati, Katie Mayer, Peter Welinder, Bob McGrew, Dario Amodei, Sam McCandlish, Ilya Sutskever, and Wojciech Zaremba. Evaluating large language models trained on code, 2021.
• Costa-jussà et al. (2022) Marta R. Costa-jussà, James Cross, Onur Çelebi, Maha Elbayad, Kenneth Heafield, Kevin Heffernan, Elahe Kalbassi, Janice Lam, Daniel Licht, Jean Maillard, Anna Sun, Skyler Wang, Guillaume Wenzek, Al Youngblood, Bapi Akula, Loic Barrault, Gabriel Mejia Gonzalez, Prangthip Hansanti, John Hoffman, Semarley Jarrett, Kaushik Ram Sadagopan, Dirk Rowe, Shannon Spruit, Chau Tran, Pierre Andrews, Necip Fazil Ayan, Shruti Bhosale, Sergey Edunov, Angela Fan, Cynthia Gao, Vedanuj Goswami, Francisco Guzmán, Philipp Koehn, Alexandre Mourachko, Christophe Ropers, Safiyyah Saleem, Holger Schwenk, and Jeff Wang. No language left behind: Scaling human-centered machine translation, 2022.
• Diamond (1982) Cora Diamond. Anything but argument? Philosophical Investigations , 5(1):23–41, 1982. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9205.1982.tb00532.x . URL https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-9205.1982.tb00532.x .
• Dolcini (2007) Nevia Dolcini. The analytic/continental divide: Entities and being. 09 2007.
• Dotson (2012) Kristie Dotson. How is this paper philosophy? Comparative Philosophy , 3(1):03–29, 2012. ISSN 2151-6014. URL https://www.comparativephilosophy.org .
• Du et al. (2022) Wanyu Du, Zae Myung Kim, Vipul Raheja, Dhruv Kumar, and Dongyeop Kang. Read, revise, repeat: A system demonstration for human-in-the-loop iterative text revision. In Proceedings of the First Workshop on Intelligent and Interactive Writing Assistants (In2Writing 2022) . Association for Computational Linguistics, 2022. doi: 10.18653/v1/2022.in2writing-1.14 . URL http://dx.doi.org/10.18653/v1/2022.in2writing-1.14 .
• Ennis (1987) Robert H Ennis. A taxonomy of critical thinking dispositions and abilities. 1987.
• Ennis (1993) Robert H Ennis. Critical thinking assessment. Theory into practice , 32(3):179–186, 1993.
• Facione (1984) Peter A Facione. Toward a theory of critical thinking. Liberal Education , 70(3):253–61, 1984.
• Fede et al. (2022) Giulia Di Fede, Davide Rocchesso, Steven W. Dow, and S. Andolina. The idea machine: Llm-based expansion, rewriting, combination, and suggestion of ideas. Proceedings of the 14th Conference on Creativity and Cognition , 2022.
• Foot (1967) Philippa Foot. The problem of abortion and the doctrine of the double effect. Oxford Review , 5:5–15, 1967.
• Foucault (1995) Michel Foucault. The archeology of knowledge. 1995.
• Foucault & Hurley (1990) Michel Foucault and Robert Hurley. The History of Sexuality, Vol. 2: The Use of Pleasure . Vintage, New York, paperback edition, 1990. ISBN 978-0679724698.
• Gaddis (2004) John Lewis Gaddis. The landscape of history: How historians map the past. pp.  208, 2004.
• Gero et al. (2021) K. Gero, Vivian Liu, and Lydia B. Chilton. Sparks: Inspiration for science writing using language models. Proceedings of the 2022 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference , 2021.
• Goodman et al. (2022) Steven M. Goodman, Erin Buehler, Patrick Clary, Andy Coenen, Aaron Donsbach, Tiffanie N. Horne, Michal Lahav, Robert MacDonald, Rain Breaw Michaels, Ajit Narayanan, Mahima Pushkarna, Joel Riley, Alex Santana, Lei Shi, Rachel Sweeney, Phil Weaver, Ann Yuan, and Meredith Ringel Morris. Lampost: Design and evaluation of an ai-assisted email writing prototype for adults with dyslexia. In The 24th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (ASSETS ’22) , pp.  17, Athens, Greece, 2022. ACM. doi: 10.1145/3517428.3544819 .
• Gu (2023) Sophia Gu. Llms as potential brainstorming partners for math and science problems. ArXiv , abs/2310.10677, 2023.
• Hao et al. (2023) Shibo Hao, Yi Gu, Haodi Ma, Joshua Jiahua Hong, Zhen Wang, Daisy Zhe Wang, and Zhiting Hu. Reasoning with language model is planning with world model, 2023.
• Harman & Thomson (1996) Gilbert Harman and Judith Thomson. Moral Relativism and Moral Objectivity . Wiley-Blackwell, 1st edition, Jan 1996. ISBN 978-0631192114.
• Heidegger (1962) Martin Heidegger. Being and Time . Harper and Row, New York, 1962.
• Hendrycks et al. (2023) Dan Hendrycks, Collin Burns, Steven Basart, Andrew Critch, Jerry Li, Dawn Song, and Jacob Steinhardt. Aligning ai with shared human values, 2023.
• Hu (2023) Lily Hu. What is ?race? in algorithmic discrimination on the basis of race? Journal of Moral Philosophy , 21(1-2):1–26, 2023. doi: 10.1163/17455243-20234369 .
• Hume (2003) David Hume. A Treatise of Human Nature . Project Gutenberg, Dec 2003. URL http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/4705 .
• Husserl (1977) Edmund Husserl. Cartesian Meditations: An Introduction to Phenomenology . Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, The Hague/Boston/London, 1977.
• Huxley (2006) Aldous Huxley. Brave New World . Harper Perennial Modern Classics. Harper Perennial, New York, reprint edition, 2006. ISBN 978-0060850524.
• Händler (2023) Thorsten Händler. Balancing autonomy and alignment: A multi-dimensional taxonomy for autonomous llm-powered multi-agent architectures, 2023.
• Jamali et al. (2023) Mohsen Jamali, Ziv M. Williams, and Jing Cai. Unveiling theory of mind in large language models: A parallel to single neurons in the human brain, 2023.
• Jin et al. (2024) Mingyu Jin, Beichen Wang, Zhaoqian Xue, Suiyuan Zhu, Wenyue Hua, Hua Tang, Kai Mei, Mengnan Du, and Yongfeng Zhang. What if llms have different world views: Simulating alien civilizations with llm-based agents, 2024.
• Kant (2003) Immanuel Kant. The Critique of Pure Reason . Project Gutenberg, Jul 2003. URL http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/4280 .
• Kierkegaard (1983) Søren Kierkegaard. The Sickness Unto Death: A Christian Psychological Exposition For Upbuilding And Awakening , volume 19 of Kierkegaard’s Writings . Princeton University Press, Nov 1983. ISBN 9780691020280.
• Kim et al. (2024) Jiho Kim, Ray C. Flanagan, Noelle E. Haviland, ZeAi Sun, Souad N. Yakubu, Edom A. Maru, and Kenneth C. Arnold. Towards full authorship with ai: Supporting revision with ai-generated views, 2024.
• Kosinski (2024) Michal Kosinski. Evaluating large language models in theory of mind tasks, 2024.
• Kuhn & Hawkins (1963) Thomas S. Kuhn and David Hawkins. The structure of scientific revolutions. American Journal of Physics , 31:554–555, 1963.
• Latour (1989) Bruno Latour. Science in action : how to follow scientists and engineers through society. Contemporary Sociology , 18:788, 1989.
• Levy (2003) Neil Levy. Analytic and continental philosophy: Explaining the differences. Metaphilosophy , 34(3):284–304, 2003. ISSN 00261068, 14679973. URL http://www.jstor.org/stable/24439383 .
• Liang et al. (2023) Weixin Liang, Yuhui Zhang, Hancheng Cao, Binglu Wang, Daisy Ding, Xinyu Yang, Kailas Vodrahalli, Siyu He, Daniel Smith, Yian Yin, Daniel McFarland, and James Zou. Can large language models provide useful feedback on research papers? a large-scale empirical analysis, 2023.
• Lin et al. (2024) Susan Lin, Jeremy Warner, J.D. Zamfirescu-Pereira, Matthew G. Lee, Sauhard Jain, Michael Xuelin Huang, Piyawat Lertvittayakumjorn, Shanqing Cai, Shumin Zhai, Bjorn Hartmann, and Can Liu. Rambler: Supporting writing with speech via llm-assisted gist manipulation. ArXiv , abs/2401.10838, 2024.
• Ma et al. (2023) Kevin Ma, Daniele Grandi, Christopher McComb, and Kosa Goucher-Lambert. Conceptual design generation using large language models, 2023.
• McPeck (2016) John E McPeck. Critical thinking and education . Routledge, 2016.
• Mendelssohn (1983) Moses Mendelssohn. Jerusalem: Or on Religious Power and Judaism . Brandeis University Press, 1983.
• Meyer et al. (2024) Jennifer Meyer, Thorben Jansen, Ronja Schiller, Lucas W. Liebenow, Marlene Steinbach, Andrea Horbach, and Johanna Fleckenstein. Using llms to bring evidence-based feedback into the classroom: Ai-generated feedback increases secondary students’ text revision, motivation, and positive emotions. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence , 6:100199, 2024. ISSN 2666-920X. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2023.100199 . URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666920X23000784 .
• Mirowski et al. (2022) Piotr Wojciech Mirowski, Kory Wallace Mathewson, Jaylen Pittman, and Richard Evans. Co-writing screenplays and theatre scripts with language models: Evaluation by industry professionals. Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , 2022.
• Mizrahi & Dickinson (2021) Moti Mizrahi and Mike Dickinson. The analytic-continental divide in philosophical practice: An empirical study. Metaphilosophy , 52(5):668–680, 2021. doi: 10.1111/meta.12519 .
• Morris (2023) Meredith Ringel Morris. Scientists’ perspectives on the potential for generative ai in their fields, 2023.
• Mysore et al. (2023) Sheshera Mysore, Zhuoran Lu, Mengting Wan, Longqi Yang, Steve Menezes, Tina Baghaee, Emmanuel Barajas Gonzalez, Jennifer Neville, and Tara Safavi. Pearl: Personalizing large language model writing assistants with generation-calibrated retrievers. ArXiv , abs/2311.09180, 2023.
• Nietzsche (1961) Friedrich Nietzsche. Thus Spoke Zarathustra: A Book for Everyone and No One . Penguin Classics, Nov 1961. ISBN 978-0140441185.
• Ouyang et al. (2022) Long Ouyang, Jeff Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll L. Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, John Schulman, Jacob Hilton, Fraser Kelton, Luke Miller, Maddie Simens, Amanda Askell, Peter Welinder, Paul Christiano, Jan Leike, and Ryan Lowe. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback, 2022.
• Park & Kulkarni (2024) Soya Park and Chinmay Kulkarni. Thinking assistants: Llm-based conversational assistants that help users think by asking rather than answering, 2024.
• Plato (2008a) Plato. Phaedrus . Project Gutenberg, 2008a. URL http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/1636 .
• Plato (2008b) Plato. Theaetetus . Project Gutenberg, Nov 2008b. URL http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/1726 .
• Popper (2002) Karl Popper. The Logic of Scientific Discovery . Routledge Classics, 2nd edition, Feb 2002. ISBN 978-0415278447.
• Rawls (1971) John Rawls. A Theory of Justice: Original Edition . Harvard University Press, 1971. ISBN 9780674880108. URL http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctvjf9z6v .
• Ricoeur & Thompson (1981) Paul Ricoeur and John B. Thompson. Hermeneutics and the Human Sciences: Essays on Language, Action and Interpretation . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1981. ISBN 0521280028.
• Rodman (2023) Emma Rodman. On political theory and large language models. Political Theory , 2023. doi: 10.1177/0090591723120082 . URL https://doi.org/10.1177/0090591723120082 .
• Rozière et al. (2024) Baptiste Rozière, Jonas Gehring, Fabian Gloeckle, Sten Sootla, Itai Gat, Xiaoqing Ellen Tan, Yossi Adi, Jingyu Liu, Romain Sauvestre, Tal Remez, Jérémy Rapin, Artyom Kozhevnikov, Ivan Evtimov, Joanna Bitton, Manish Bhatt, Cristian Canton Ferrer, Aaron Grattafiori, Wenhan Xiong, Alexandre Défossez, Jade Copet, Faisal Azhar, Hugo Touvron, Louis Martin, Nicolas Usunier, Thomas Scialom, and Gabriel Synnaeve. Code llama: Open foundation models for code, 2024.
• Sartre (1993) Jean-Paul Sartre. Being and Nothingness . Washington Square Press, reprint edition, Aug 1993. ISBN 978-0671867805.
• Scherrer et al. (2023) Nino Scherrer, Claudia Shi, Amir Feder, and David M. Blei. Evaluating the moral beliefs encoded in llms, 2023.
• Schmitt & Buschek (2021) Oliver Jens Schmitt and Daniel Buschek. Characterchat: Supporting the creation of fictional characters through conversation and progressive manifestation with a chatbot. Proceedings of the 13th Conference on Creativity and Cognition , 2021.
• Schwitzgebel et al. (2023) Eric Schwitzgebel, David Schwitzgebel, and Anna Strasser. Creating a large language model of a philosopher, 2023.
• Shu et al. (2023) Lei Shu, Liangchen Luo, Jayakumar Hoskere, Yun Zhu, Yinxiao Liu, Simon Tong, Jindong Chen, and Lei Meng. Rewritelm: An instruction-tuned large language model for text rewriting, 2023.
• Singer (1972) Peter Singer. Famine, affluence, and morality. Philosophy and Public Affairs , 1(3):229–243, 1972. ISSN 00483915, 10884963. URL http://www.jstor.org/stable/2265052 .
• Sorensen et al. (2024) Taylor Sorensen, Jared Moore, Jillian Fisher, Mitchell Gordon, Niloofar Mireshghallah, Christopher Michael Rytting, Andre Ye, Liwei Jiang, Ximing Lu, Nouha Dziri, Tim Althoff, and Yejin Choi. A roadmap to pluralistic alignment, 2024.
• Spinoza (2003) Benedict de Spinoza. The Ethics . Project Gutenberg, Feb 2003. URL http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/3800 .
• Tanwar et al. (2024) Henansh Tanwar, Kunal Shrivastva, Rahul Singh, and Dhruv Kumar. Opinebot: Class feedback reimagined using a conversational llm, 2024.
• Thomas (2006) David R. Thomas. A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data. American Journal of Evaluation , 27(2):237–246, 2006. doi: 10.1177/1098214005283748 .
• (83) Iain D. Thomson. Rethinking the Analytic/Continental Divide , pp.  569–589.
• Trouillot (1995) M.R. Trouillot. Silencing the past: Power and the production of history. 1995.
• Wang et al. (2023) Weizhi Wang, Li Dong, Hao Cheng, Xiaodong Liu, Xifeng Yan, Jianfeng Gao, and Furu Wei. Augmenting language models with long-term memory, 2023.
• White (1975) Hayden V. White. Metahistory: The historical imagination in nineteenth-century europe. 1975.
• Yuan et al. (2022) Ann Yuan, Andy Coenen, Emily Reif, and Daphne Ippolito. Wordcraft: Story writing with large language models. 27th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces , 2022.
• Zhao (2022) Xin Zhao. Leveraging artificial intelligence (ai) technology for english writing: Introducing wordtune as a digital writing assistant for efl writers. RELC Journal , 54:890 – 894, 2022.
• Zhao et al. (2024) Yukun Zhao, Lingyong Yan, Weiwei Sun, Guoliang Xing, Shuaiqiang Wang, Chong Meng, Zhicong Cheng, Zhaochun Ren, and Dawei Yin. Improving the robustness of large language models via consistency alignment, 2024.
• Ziems et al. (2023) Caleb Ziems, Jane Dwivedi-Yu, Yi-Chia Wang, Alon Y. Halevy, and Diyi Yang. Normbank: A knowledge bank of situational social norms. In Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics , 2023.

Appendix A Appendix

A.1 interview questions and guidelines.

Meta-philosophy

What is philosophy? Why do you go about doing philosophy? What aims do you have?

What drives the ‘doing’ of philosophy? What is the role of personal motivations, subjective experience, and aesthetic judgements?

Who or what can ‘do’ philosophy? For instance, can LLMs ‘do’ philosophy?

What makes doing philosophy ‘difficult’ / nontrivial?

How does philosophy distinguish its products from those of other disciplines?

The philosophical process

How do you go from no idea to a spark of an idea / an unrefined idea?

How do you develop and refine philosophical ideas? What moves have to happen?

How mechanical / creative is the process of doing philosophy?

What is the relationship between texts / textual methods and philosophy? Does philosophizing, to some extent, operate ‘above’ language in ideas / thoughts?

What is the role of conversation in the doing of philosophy? What are some of its challenges?

What makes for a good interlocutor, and what makes for a good conversation?

Language Models for philosophy

What roles can language models play in the development of philosophy?

What do language models need to be better in the development of philosophy?

What are some of the opportunities and strengths for language models in philosophy?

What are some of the risks and weaknesses for language models in philosophy?

Would you use language models in intellectually substantive ways currently? What about in the future, with plausible improvements?

Six Thinking Hats model of learning-Creative teaching method in physiotherapy-A pilot study

Affiliation.

• 1 Community Based Rehabilitation, Nootan College of Physiotherapy, Sankalchand Patel University, Visnagar, Gujarat, India.
• PMID: 38545318
• PMCID: PMC10967933
• DOI: 10.4103/jehp.jehp_724_23

Background: The fast growth of science and technology in the 21 st century has made it necessary for advances in many sectors, including social, economic, educational, and health. Physiotherapists must have highly developed critical thinking abilities, such as creative, critical, problem-solving, and analytical thinking, to deal with these changes. Creativity is the capacity to view, shape, and organize the world in a unique way, whereas critical thinking is the ability to think outside the box, notice parts that others cannot see, be open to new ideas, and never be afraid to attempt new things. All of the continually developing and changing knowledge cannot be included in educational programs for physiotherapy students. The Six Thinking Hats were designed by Edward de Bono. The "Six Thinking Hats" concept is a teaching strategy for encouraging creative thinking by organizing and presenting ideas within a predetermined framework. The goal of the study was to apply the Six Thinking Hats model to physiotherapy themes in order to create a creative teaching technique and get feedback by fostering the critical thinking abilities of physiotherapy students.

Materials and methods: During the 2021-2022 academic year, there were 42 students registered for III and IV BPT students enrolled for physiotherapy course; however, the research sample comprised 41 students. The course included 6 h of theory and 18 h of clinical sessions. Students were taught by two instructors via a PowerPoint presentation on SCI, obesity, and for further practice, they were given two case studies taught by Six Thinking Hats model. After the class, each group received a set of hats in one of six colors to use the Six Thinking Hats method effectively, and then students were asked to provide opinions on the Six Thinking Hats model of learning. Data analysis and response reporting were conducted, using literature and student comments.

Results: The Six Thinking Hats model was discovered to be more efficient in comprehending topics and provides all-encompassing care. The ability to understand patients' views, see both the positive and negative aspects in conditions, develop their ability to think critically, and create with unique concepts all improved for the students. About 90.2% of students stated that they learned to think from different aspects, 85.4% of the students stated that it ensured they considered the patient holistically, 87.8% of the students stated that the method allowed for sharing different ideas and thoughts, 75.6% that it helped them to produce creative ideas. Overall, 95% of students agreed that the Six Thinking Hats approach was better than conventional lectures and case studies, with 5% disagreeing.

Conclusion: This study concluded that the Six Thinking Hats model of learning is a creative teaching method that is useful for the development of physiotherapy students' critical thinking. Skills and having this type of study in the physiotherapy literature add to the improvement and enrichment of physiotherapy education.

Keywords: CBR; Physiotherapy; students; teaching.

Copyright: © 2024 Journal of Education and Health Promotion.