cultural barriers to critical thinking

  • The Open University
  • Guest user / Sign out
  • Study with The Open University

OpenLearn

My OpenLearn Profile

Personalise your OpenLearn profile, save your favourite content and get recognition for your learning

About this free course

Become an ou student, download this course, share this free course.

Succeeding in postgraduate study

Start this free course now. Just create an account and sign in. Enrol and complete the course for a free statement of participation or digital badge if available.

1 Barriers to critical thinking

First, let’s briefly examine some barriers to critical thinking.

Take another look at the visual summary below on critical and analytical thinking, which was introduced at the end of Session 3. Note the warning sign next to the ‘black pit’ to the lower right of this figure.

A visual summary of critical and analytical thinking

This figure shows a visual summary of critical and analytical thinking. It includes phrases such as ‘objective analysis and evaluation of an issue in order to form a judgement’, ‘abilities’, ‘dispositions’ and ‘questioning’.

We have provided you with a larger version of this image in PDF format [ Tip: hold Ctrl and click a link to open it in a new tab. ( Hide tip ) ] .

What are the common pitfalls or barriers to thinking critically and analytically? Some of these were highlighted in the visual summary, and include:

  • Misunderstanding . This can arise due to language or cultural differences, a lack of awareness of the ‘processes’ involved, or a misunderstanding that critical thinking means making ‘negative’ comments (as discussed in Sessions 3 and 4).
  • Reluctance to critique the ‘norm’ or experts in a field and consider alternative views (feeling out of your ‘comfort zone’ or fearful of being wrong).
  • Lack of detailed knowledge . Superficial knowledge (not having read deeply enough around the subject).
  • Wanting to know the answers without having to ask questions .

Why do you think being aware of these potential pitfalls is important?

As a critical and reflective thinker, you will need to be aware of the barriers, acknowledge the challenges they may present, and overcome these as best you can. This starts with an understanding of expectations. Some students feel anxious about questioning the work of experts. Critical thinking does not mean that you are challenging someone’s work or telling them that they are wrong, but encourages a deeper understanding, a consideration of alternative views, and engagement in thought, discourse or research that informs your independent judgement. At postgraduate level you will also need to read widely around a subject in order to engage effectively with critical and analytical thinking, and to ask questions: there are no ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ answers, only supported arguments. This is at the heart of postgraduate study.

Critical thinking encourages you to be constructive, by considering the strengths and weaknesses of a claim and differing sides to an argument. It helps you to clarify points, encourages deeper thought, and allows you to determine whether information that you come across is accurate and reliable. This helps you to form your own judgement, and drives research forward.

People can find it difficult to think critically, irrespective of their education or intellectual ability. The key to understanding critical thinking is not only knowing and making sure that you understand the process, but also being able to put this into practice by applying your knowledge.

Critical and reflective thinking are complex and lifelong skills that you continue to develop as part of your personal and professional growth. In your everyday life, you may also come across those who do not exercise critical thinking, and this might impact on decisions that affect you. It is important to recognise this, and to use critical and reflective thinking to ensure that your own view is informed by reasoned judgement, supported by evidence.

Take another look at the visual summary. You will see two aspects to critical thinking: one focusing on the disposition of the person engaged in critical and reflective thinking, and the other concerning their abilities. Let’s focus here on dispositions. At a personal level, barriers to critical thinking can arise through:

  • an over-reliance on feelings or emotions
  • self-centred or societal/cultural-centred thinking (conformism, dogma and peer-pressure)
  • unconscious bias, or selective perception
  • an inability to be receptive to an idea or point of view that differs from your own (close-mindedness)
  • unwarranted assumptions or lack of relevant information
  • fear of being wrong (anxious about being taken out of your ‘comfort zone’)
  • poor communication skills or apathy
  • lack of personal honesty.

Be aware that thinking critically is not simply adhering to a formula. For example, reflect on the following questions:

  • How can you communicate with those who do not actively engage with critical thinking and are unwilling to engage in a meaningful dialogue?
  • How would you react or respond when you experience a lack of critical thinking in the media, amongst your own family members, colleagues at work, or on your course?

Previous

Christopher Dwyer Ph.D.

5 Barriers to Critical Thinking

What holds us back from thinking critically in day-to-day situations.

Posted January 18, 2019 | Reviewed by Davia Sills

  • What Is Cognition?
  • Find a therapist near me

Quite often, discussions of Critical Thinking (CT) revolve around tips for what you or your students should be doing to enhance CT ability. However, it seems that there’s substantially less discussion of what you shouldn’t be doing—that is, barriers to CT.

About a year ago, I posted "5 Tips for Critical Thinking" to this blog, and after thinking about it in terms of what not to do , along with more modern conceptualizations of CT (see Dwyer, 2017), I’ve compiled a list of five major barriers to CT. Of course, these are not the only barriers to CT; rather, they are five that may have the most impact on how one applies CT.

1. Trusting Your Gut

Trust your gut is a piece of advice often thrown around in the context of being in doubt. The concept of using intuitive judgment is actually the last thing you want to be doing if critical thinking is your goal. In the past, intuitive judgment has been described as "the absence of analysis" (Hamm, 1988); and automatic cognitive processing—which generally lacks effort, intention, awareness, or voluntary control—is usually experienced as perceptions or feelings (Kahneman, 2011; Lieberman, 2003).

Given that intuitive judgment operates automatically and cannot be voluntarily "turned off," associated errors and unsupported biases are difficult to prevent, largely because reflective judgment has not been consulted. Even when errors appear obvious in hindsight, they can only be prevented through the careful, self-regulated monitoring and control afforded by reflective judgment. Such errors and flawed reasoning include cognitive biases and logical fallacies .

Going with your gut—experienced as perceptions or feelings—generally leads the thinker to favor perspectives consistent with their own personal biases and experiences or those of their group.

2. Lack of Knowledge

CT skills are key components of what CT is, and in order to conduct it, one must know how to use these skills. Not knowing the skills of CT—analysis, evaluation, and inference (i.e., what they are or how to use them)—is, of course, a major barrier to its application. However, consideration of a lack of knowledge does not end with the knowledge of CT skills.

Let’s say you know what analysis, evaluation, and inference are, as well as how to apply them. The question then becomes: Are you knowledgeable in the topic area you have been asked to apply the CT? If not, intellectual honesty and reflective judgment should be engaged to allow you to consider the nature, limits, and certainty of what knowledge you do have, so that you can evaluate what is required of you to gain the knowledge necessary to make a critically thought-out judgment.

However, the barrier here may not necessarily be a lack of topic knowledge, but perhaps rather believing that you have the requisite knowledge to make a critically thought-out judgment when this is not the case or lacking the willingness to gain additional, relevant topic knowledge.

3. Lack of Willingness

In addition to skills, disposition towards thinking is also key to CT. Disposition towards thinking refers to the extent to which an individual is willing or inclined to perform a given thinking skill, and is essential for understanding how we think and how we can make our thinking better, in both academic settings and everyday circumstances (Norris, 1992; Siegel, 1999; Valenzuela, Nieto, & Saiz, 2011; Dwyer, Hogan & Stewart, 2014).

Dispositions can’t be taught, per se, but they do play a large role in determining whether or not CT will be performed. Simply, it doesn’t matter how skilled one is at analysis, evaluation, and inference—if they’re not willing to think critically, CT is not likely to occur.

4. Misunderstanding of Truth

Truth-seeking is one such disposition towards thinking, which refers to a desire for knowledge; to seek and offer both reasons and objections in an effort to inform and to be well-informed; a willingness to challenge popular beliefs and social norms by asking questions (of oneself and others); to be honest and objective about pursuing the truth, even if the findings do not support one’s self-interest or pre-conceived beliefs or opinions; and to change one’s mind about an idea as a result of the desire for truth (Dwyer, 2017).

cultural barriers to critical thinking

Though this is something for which many of us strive or even just assume we do, the truth is that we all succumb to unwarranted assumptions from time to time: that is, beliefs presumed to be true without adequate justification. For example, we might make a judgment based on an unsubstantiated stereotype or a commonsense/belief statement that has no empirical evidence to justify it. When using CT, it’s important to distinguish facts from beliefs and, also, to dig a little deeper by evaluating "facts" with respect to how much empirical support they have to validate them as fact (see " The Dirtiest Word in Critical Thinking: 'Proof' and its Burden ").

Furthermore, sometimes the truth doesn’t suit people, and so, they might choose to ignore it or try and manipulate knowledge or understanding to accommodate their bias . For example, some people may engage in wishful thinking , in which they believe something is true because they wish it to be; some might engage in relativistic thinking , in which, for them, the truth is subjective or just a matter of opinion.

5. Closed-mindedness

In one of my previous posts, I lay out " 5 Tips for Critical Thinking "—one of which is to play Devil’s Advocate , which refers to the "consideration of alternatives." There’s always more than one way to do or think about something—why not engage such consideration?

The willingness to play Devil’s Advocate implies a sensibility consistent with open-mindedness (i.e., an inclination to be cognitively flexible and avoid rigidity in thinking; to tolerate divergent or conflicting views and treat all viewpoints alike, prior to subsequent analysis and evaluation; to detach from one’s own beliefs and consider, seriously, points of view other than one’s own without bias or self-interest; to be open to feedback by accepting positive feedback, and to not reject criticism or constructive feedback without thoughtful consideration; to amend existing knowledge in light of new ideas and experiences; and to explore such new, alternative, or "unusual" ideas).

At the opposite end of the spectrum, closed-mindedness is a significant barrier to CT. By this stage, you have probably identified the inherent nature of bias in our thinking. The first step of CT is always going to be to evaluate this bias. However, one’s bias may be so strong that it leads them to become closed-minded and renders them unwilling to consider any other perspectives.

Another way in which someone might be closed-minded is through having properly researched and critically thought about a topic and then deciding that this perspective will never change, as if their knowledge will never need to adapt. However, critical thinkers know that knowledge can change and adapt. An example I’ve used in the past is quite relevant here—growing up, I was taught that there were nine planets in our solar system; however, based on further research, our knowledge of planets has been amended to now only consider eight of those as planets.

Being open-minded is a valuable disposition, but so is skepticism (i.e., the inclination to challenge ideas; to withhold judgment before engaging all the evidence or when the evidence and reasons are insufficient; to take a position and be able to change position when the evidence and reasons are sufficient; and to look at findings from various perspectives).

However, one can be both open-minded and skeptical. It is closed-mindedness that is the barrier to CT, so please note that closed-mindedness and skepticism are distinct dispositions.

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

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

Hamm, R. M. (1988). Clinical intuition and clinical analysis: expertise and the cognitive continuum. In J. Dowie & A. Elstein (Eds.), Professional judgment: A reader in clinical decision making, 78–105. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking fast and slow. Penguin: Great Britain.

Lieberman, M. D. (2003). Reflexive and reflective judgment processes: A social cognitive neuroscience approach. Social Judgments: Implicit and Explicit Processes, 5, 44–67.

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

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

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

Christopher Dwyer Ph.D.

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

  • Find a Therapist
  • Find a Treatment Center
  • Find a Psychiatrist
  • Find a Support Group
  • Find 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

January 2024 magazine cover

Overcome burnout, your burdens, and that endless to-do list.

  • Coronavirus Disease 2019
  • Affective Forecasting
  • Neuroscience

SEP home page

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

Bibliography

Academic tools.

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

Critical Thinking

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

2.1 Dewey’s Three Main Examples

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. Examples and Non-Examples

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8. Critical Thinking Dispositions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

12. Controversies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Abrami, Philip C., Robert M. Bernard, Eugene Borokhovski, David I. Waddington, C. Anne Wade, and Tonje Person, 2015, “Strategies for Teaching Students to Think Critically: A Meta-analysis”, Review of Educational Research , 85(2): 275–314. doi:10.3102/0034654314551063
  • Aikin, Wilford M., 1942, The Story of the Eight-year Study, with Conclusions and Recommendations , Volume I of Adventure in American Education , New York and London: Harper & Brothers. [ Aikin 1942 available online ]
  • Alston, Kal, 1995, “Begging the Question: Is Critical Thinking Biased?”, Educational Theory , 45(2): 225–233. doi:10.1111/j.1741-5446.1995.00225.x
  • –––, 2001, “Re/Thinking Critical Thinking: The Seductions of Everyday Life”, Studies in Philosophy and Education , 20(1): 27–40. doi:10.1023/A:1005247128053
  • American Educational Research Association, 2014, Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing / American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, National Council on Measurement in Education , Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
  • Anderson, Lorin W., David R. Krathwohl, Peter W. Airiasian, Kathleen A. Cruikshank, Richard E. Mayer, Paul R. Pintrich, James Raths, and Merlin C. Wittrock, 2001, A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives , New York: Longman, complete edition.
  • Bailin, Sharon, 1987, “Critical and Creative Thinking”, Informal Logic , 9(1): 23–30. [ Bailin 1987 available online ]
  • –––, 1988, Achieving Extraordinary Ends: An Essay on Creativity , Dordrecht: Kluwer. doi:10.1007/978-94-009-2780-3
  • –––, 1995, “Is Critical Thinking Biased? Clarifications and Implications”, Educational Theory , 45(2): 191–197. doi:10.1111/j.1741-5446.1995.00191.x
  • Bailin, Sharon and Mark Battersby, 2009, “Inquiry: A Dialectical Approach to Teaching Critical Thinking”, in Juho Ritola (ed.), Argument Cultures: Proceedings of OSSA 09 , CD-ROM (pp. 1–10), Windsor, ON: OSSA. [ Bailin & Battersby 2009 available online ]
  • –––, 2016a, “Fostering the Virtues of Inquiry”, Topoi , 35(2): 367–374. doi:10.1007/s11245-015-9307-6
  • –––, 2016b, Reason in the Balance: An Inquiry Approach to Critical Thinking , Indianapolis: Hackett, 2nd edition.
  • –––, 2021, “Inquiry: Teaching for Reasoned Judgment”, in Daniel Fasko, Jr. and Frank Fair (eds.), Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Theory, Development, Instruction, and Assessment , Leiden: Brill, pp. 31–46. doi: 10.1163/9789004444591_003
  • Bailin, Sharon, Roland Case, Jerrold R. Coombs, and Leroi B. Daniels, 1999a, “Common Misconceptions of Critical Thinking”, Journal of Curriculum Studies , 31(3): 269–283. doi:10.1080/002202799183124
  • –––, 1999b, “Conceptualizing Critical Thinking”, Journal of Curriculum Studies , 31(3): 285–302. doi:10.1080/002202799183133
  • Blair, J. Anthony, 2021, Studies in Critical Thinking , Windsor, ON: Windsor Studies in Argumentation, 2nd edition. [Available online at https://windsor.scholarsportal.info/omp/index.php/wsia/catalog/book/106]
  • Berman, Alan M., Seth J. Schwartz, William M. Kurtines, and Steven L. Berman, 2001, “The Process of Exploration in Identity Formation: The Role of Style and Competence”, Journal of Adolescence , 24(4): 513–528. doi:10.1006/jado.2001.0386
  • Black, Beth (ed.), 2012, An A to Z of Critical Thinking , London: Continuum International Publishing Group.
  • Bloom, Benjamin Samuel, Max D. Engelhart, Edward J. Furst, Walter H. Hill, and David R. Krathwohl, 1956, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Handbook I: Cognitive Domain , New York: David McKay.
  • Boardman, Frank, Nancy M. Cavender, and Howard Kahane, 2018, Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric: The Use of Reason in Everyday Life , Boston: Cengage, 13th edition.
  • Browne, M. Neil and Stuart M. Keeley, 2018, Asking the Right Questions: A Guide to Critical Thinking , Hoboken, NJ: Pearson, 12th edition.
  • Center for Assessment & Improvement of Learning, 2017, Critical Thinking Assessment Test , Cookeville, TN: Tennessee Technological University.
  • Cleghorn, Paul. 2021. “Critical Thinking in the Elementary School: Practical Guidance for Building a Culture of Thinking”, in Daniel Fasko, Jr. and Frank Fair (eds.), Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Theory, Development, Instruction, and Assessmen t, Leiden: Brill, pp. 150–167. doi: 10.1163/9789004444591_010
  • Cohen, Jacob, 1988, Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences , Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2nd edition.
  • College Board, 1983, Academic Preparation for College. What Students Need to Know and Be Able to Do , New York: College Entrance Examination Board, ERIC document ED232517.
  • Commission on the Relation of School and College of the Progressive Education Association, 1943, Thirty Schools Tell Their Story , Volume V of Adventure in American Education , New York and London: Harper & Brothers.
  • Council for Aid to Education, 2017, CLA+ Student Guide . Available at http://cae.org/images/uploads/pdf/CLA_Student_Guide_Institution.pdf ; last accessed 2022 07 16.
  • Dalgleish, Adam, Patrick Girard, and Maree Davies, 2017, “Critical Thinking, Bias and Feminist Philosophy: Building a Better Framework through Collaboration”, Informal Logic , 37(4): 351–369. [ Dalgleish et al. available online ]
  • Dewey, John, 1910, How We Think , Boston: D.C. Heath. [ Dewey 1910 available online ]
  • –––, 1916, Democracy and Education: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Education , New York: Macmillan.
  • –––, 1933, How We Think: A Restatement of the Relation of Reflective Thinking to the Educative Process , Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath.
  • –––, 1936, “The Theory of the Chicago Experiment”, Appendix II of Mayhew & Edwards 1936: 463–477.
  • –––, 1938, Logic: The Theory of Inquiry , New York: Henry Holt and Company.
  • Dominguez, Caroline (coord.), 2018a, A European Collection of the Critical Thinking Skills and Dispositions Needed in Different Professional Fields for the 21st Century , Vila Real, Portugal: UTAD. Available at http://bit.ly/CRITHINKEDUO1 ; last accessed 2022 07 16.
  • ––– (coord.), 2018b, A European Review on Critical Thinking Educational Practices in Higher Education Institutions , Vila Real: UTAD. Available at http://bit.ly/CRITHINKEDUO2 ; last accessed 2022 07 16.
  • ––– (coord.), 2018c, The CRITHINKEDU European Course on Critical Thinking Education for University Teachers: From Conception to Delivery , Vila Real: UTAD. Available at http:/bit.ly/CRITHINKEDU03; last accessed 2022 07 16.
  • Dominguez Caroline and Rita Payan-Carreira (eds.), 2019, Promoting Critical Thinking in European Higher Education Institutions: Towards an Educational Protocol , Vila Real: UTAD. Available at http:/bit.ly/CRITHINKEDU04; last accessed 2022 07 16.
  • Ennis, Robert H., 1958, “An Appraisal of the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal”, The Journal of Educational Research , 52(4): 155–158. doi:10.1080/00220671.1958.10882558
  • –––, 1962, “A Concept of Critical Thinking: A Proposed Basis for Research on the Teaching and Evaluation of Critical Thinking Ability”, Harvard Educational Review , 32(1): 81–111.
  • –––, 1981a, “A Conception of Deductive Logical Competence”, Teaching Philosophy , 4(3/4): 337–385. doi:10.5840/teachphil198143/429
  • –––, 1981b, “Eight Fallacies in Bloom’s Taxonomy”, in C. J. B. Macmillan (ed.), Philosophy of Education 1980: Proceedings of the Thirty-seventh Annual Meeting of the Philosophy of Education Society , Bloomington, IL: Philosophy of Education Society, pp. 269–273.
  • –––, 1984, “Problems in Testing Informal Logic, Critical Thinking, Reasoning Ability”, Informal Logic , 6(1): 3–9. [ Ennis 1984 available online ]
  • –––, 1987, “A Taxonomy of Critical Thinking Dispositions and Abilities”, in Joan Boykoff Baron and Robert J. Sternberg (eds.), Teaching Thinking Skills: Theory and Practice , New York: W. H. Freeman, pp. 9–26.
  • –––, 1989, “Critical Thinking and Subject Specificity: Clarification and Needed Research”, Educational Researcher , 18(3): 4–10. doi:10.3102/0013189X018003004
  • –––, 1991, “Critical Thinking: A Streamlined Conception”, Teaching Philosophy , 14(1): 5–24. doi:10.5840/teachphil19911412
  • –––, 1996, “Critical Thinking Dispositions: Their Nature and Assessability”, Informal Logic , 18(2–3): 165–182. [ Ennis 1996 available online ]
  • –––, 1998, “Is Critical Thinking Culturally Biased?”, Teaching Philosophy , 21(1): 15–33. doi:10.5840/teachphil19982113
  • –––, 2011, “Critical Thinking: Reflection and Perspective Part I”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking across the Disciplines , 26(1): 4–18. doi:10.5840/inquiryctnews20112613
  • –––, 2013, “Critical Thinking across the Curriculum: The Wisdom CTAC Program”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking across the Disciplines , 28(2): 25–45. doi:10.5840/inquiryct20132828
  • –––, 2016, “Definition: A Three-Dimensional Analysis with Bearing on Key Concepts”, in Patrick Bondy and Laura Benacquista (eds.), Argumentation, Objectivity, and Bias: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA), 18–21 May 2016 , Windsor, ON: OSSA, pp. 1–19. Available at http://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive/OSSA11/papersandcommentaries/105 ; last accessed 2022 07 16.
  • –––, 2018, “Critical Thinking Across the Curriculum: A Vision”, Topoi , 37(1): 165–184. doi:10.1007/s11245-016-9401-4
  • Ennis, Robert H., and Jason Millman, 1971, Manual for Cornell Critical Thinking Test, Level X, and Cornell Critical Thinking Test, Level Z , Urbana, IL: Critical Thinking Project, University of Illinois.
  • Ennis, Robert H., Jason Millman, and Thomas Norbert Tomko, 1985, Cornell Critical Thinking Tests Level X & Level Z: Manual , Pacific Grove, CA: Midwest Publication, 3rd edition.
  • –––, 2005, Cornell Critical Thinking Tests Level X & Level Z: Manual , Seaside, CA: Critical Thinking Company, 5th edition.
  • Ennis, Robert H. and Eric Weir, 1985, The Ennis-Weir Critical Thinking Essay Test: Test, Manual, Criteria, Scoring Sheet: An Instrument for Teaching and Testing , Pacific Grove, CA: Midwest Publications.
  • Facione, Peter A., 1990a, Critical Thinking: A Statement of Expert Consensus for Purposes of Educational Assessment and Instruction , Research Findings and Recommendations Prepared for the Committee on Pre-College Philosophy of the American Philosophical Association, ERIC Document ED315423.
  • –––, 1990b, California Critical Thinking Skills Test, CCTST – Form A , Millbrae, CA: The California Academic Press.
  • –––, 1990c, The California Critical Thinking Skills Test--College Level. Technical Report #3. Gender, Ethnicity, Major, CT Self-Esteem, and the CCTST , ERIC Document ED326584.
  • –––, 1992, California Critical Thinking Skills Test: CCTST – Form B, Millbrae, CA: The California Academic Press.
  • –––, 2000, “The Disposition Toward Critical Thinking: Its Character, Measurement, and Relationship to Critical Thinking Skill”, Informal Logic , 20(1): 61–84. [ Facione 2000 available online ]
  • Facione, Peter A. and Noreen C. Facione, 1992, CCTDI: A Disposition Inventory , Millbrae, CA: The California Academic Press.
  • Facione, Peter A., Noreen C. Facione, and Carol Ann F. Giancarlo, 2001, California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory: CCTDI: Inventory Manual , Millbrae, CA: The California Academic Press.
  • Facione, Peter A., Carol A. Sánchez, and Noreen C. Facione, 1994, Are College Students Disposed to Think? , Millbrae, CA: The California Academic Press. ERIC Document ED368311.
  • Fisher, Alec, and Michael Scriven, 1997, Critical Thinking: Its Definition and Assessment , Norwich: Centre for Research in Critical Thinking, University of East Anglia.
  • Freire, Paulo, 1968 [1970], Pedagogia do Oprimido . Translated as Pedagogy of the Oppressed , Myra Bergman Ramos (trans.), New York: Continuum, 1970.
  • Gigerenzer, Gerd, 2001, “The Adaptive Toolbox”, in Gerd Gigerenzer and Reinhard Selten (eds.), Bounded Rationality: The Adaptive Toolbox , Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 37–50.
  • Glaser, Edward Maynard, 1941, An Experiment in the Development of Critical Thinking , New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University.
  • Groarke, Leo A. and Christopher W. Tindale, 2012, Good Reasoning Matters! A Constructive Approach to Critical Thinking , Don Mills, ON: Oxford University Press, 5th edition.
  • Halpern, Diane F., 1998, “Teaching Critical Thinking for Transfer Across Domains: Disposition, Skills, Structure Training, and Metacognitive Monitoring”, American Psychologist , 53(4): 449–455. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.53.4.449
  • –––, 2016, Manual: Halpern Critical Thinking Assessment , Mödling, Austria: Schuhfried. Available at https://pdfcoffee.com/hcta-test-manual-pdf-free.html; last accessed 2022 07 16.
  • Hamby, Benjamin, 2014, The Virtues of Critical Thinkers , Doctoral dissertation, Philosophy, McMaster University. [ Hamby 2014 available online ]
  • –––, 2015, “Willingness to Inquire: The Cardinal Critical Thinking Virtue”, in Martin Davies and Ronald Barnett (eds.), The Palgrave Handbook of Critical Thinking in Higher Education , New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 77–87.
  • Haran, Uriel, Ilana Ritov, and Barbara A. Mellers, 2013, “The Role of Actively Open-minded Thinking in Information Acquisition, Accuracy, and Calibration”, Judgment and Decision Making , 8(3): 188–201.
  • Hatcher, Donald and Kevin Possin, 2021, “Commentary: Thinking Critically about Critical Thinking Assessment”, in Daniel Fasko, Jr. and Frank Fair (eds.), Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Theory, Development, Instruction, and Assessment , Leiden: Brill, pp. 298–322. doi: 10.1163/9789004444591_017
  • Haynes, Ada, Elizabeth Lisic, Kevin Harris, Katie Leming, Kyle Shanks, and Barry Stein, 2015, “Using the Critical Thinking Assessment Test (CAT) as a Model for Designing Within-Course Assessments: Changing How Faculty Assess Student Learning”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines , 30(3): 38–48. doi:10.5840/inquiryct201530316
  • Haynes, Ada and Barry Stein, 2021, “Observations from a Long-Term Effort to Assess and Improve Critical Thinking”, in Daniel Fasko, Jr. and Frank Fair (eds.), Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Theory, Development, Instruction, and Assessment , Leiden: Brill, pp. 231–254. doi: 10.1163/9789004444591_014
  • Hiner, Amanda L. 2021. “Equipping Students for Success in College and Beyond: Placing Critical Thinking Instruction at the Heart of a General Education Program”, in Daniel Fasko, Jr. and Frank Fair (eds.), Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Theory, Development, Instruction, and Assessment , Leiden: Brill, pp. 188–208. doi: 10.1163/9789004444591_012
  • Hitchcock, David, 2017, “Critical Thinking as an Educational Ideal”, in his On Reasoning and Argument: Essays in Informal Logic and on Critical Thinking , Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 477–497. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-53562-3_30
  • –––, 2021, “Seven Philosophical Implications of Critical Thinking: Themes, Variations, Implications”, in Daniel Fasko, Jr. and Frank Fair (eds.), Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Theory, Development, Instruction, and Assessment , Leiden: Brill, pp. 9–30. doi: 10.1163/9789004444591_002
  • hooks, bell, 1994, Teaching to Transgress: Education as the Practice of Freedom , New York and London: Routledge.
  • –––, 2010, Teaching Critical Thinking: Practical Wisdom , New York and London: Routledge.
  • Johnson, Ralph H., 1992, “The Problem of Defining Critical Thinking”, in Stephen P, Norris (ed.), The Generalizability of Critical Thinking , New York: Teachers College Press, pp. 38–53.
  • Kahane, Howard, 1971, Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric: The Use of Reason in Everyday Life , Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
  • Kahneman, Daniel, 2011, Thinking, Fast and Slow , New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
  • Kahneman, Daniel, Olivier Sibony, & Cass R. Sunstein, 2021, Noise: A Flaw in Human Judgment , New York: Little, Brown Spark.
  • Kenyon, Tim, and Guillaume Beaulac, 2014, “Critical Thinking Education and Debasing”, Informal Logic , 34(4): 341–363. [ Kenyon & Beaulac 2014 available online ]
  • Krathwohl, David R., Benjamin S. Bloom, and Bertram B. Masia, 1964, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook II: Affective Domain , New York: David McKay.
  • Kuhn, Deanna, 1991, The Skills of Argument , New York: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511571350
  • –––, 2019, “Critical Thinking as Discourse”, Human Development, 62 (3): 146–164. doi:10.1159/000500171
  • Lipman, Matthew, 1987, “Critical Thinking–What Can It Be?”, Analytic Teaching , 8(1): 5–12. [ Lipman 1987 available online ]
  • –––, 2003, Thinking in Education , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2nd edition.
  • Loftus, Elizabeth F., 2017, “Eavesdropping on Memory”, Annual Review of Psychology , 68: 1–18. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-010416-044138
  • Makaiau, Amber Strong, 2021, “The Good Thinker’s Tool Kit: How to Engage Critical Thinking and Reasoning in Secondary Education”, in Daniel Fasko, Jr. and Frank Fair (eds.), Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Theory, Development, Instruction, and Assessment , Leiden: Brill, pp. 168–187. doi: 10.1163/9789004444591_011
  • Martin, Jane Roland, 1992, “Critical Thinking for a Humane World”, in Stephen P. Norris (ed.), The Generalizability of Critical Thinking , New York: Teachers College Press, pp. 163–180.
  • Mayhew, Katherine Camp, and Anna Camp Edwards, 1936, The Dewey School: The Laboratory School of the University of Chicago, 1896–1903 , New York: Appleton-Century. [ Mayhew & Edwards 1936 available online ]
  • McPeck, John E., 1981, Critical Thinking and Education , New York: St. Martin’s Press.
  • Moore, Brooke Noel and Richard Parker, 2020, Critical Thinking , New York: McGraw-Hill, 13th edition.
  • Nickerson, Raymond S., 1998, “Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises”, Review of General Psychology , 2(2): 175–220. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175
  • Nieto, Ana Maria, and Jorge Valenzuela, 2012, “A Study of the Internal Structure of Critical Thinking Dispositions”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking across the Disciplines , 27(1): 31–38. doi:10.5840/inquiryct20122713
  • Norris, Stephen P., 1985, “Controlling for Background Beliefs When Developing Multiple-choice Critical Thinking Tests”, Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice , 7(3): 5–11. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3992.1988.tb00437.x
  • Norris, Stephen P. and Robert H. Ennis, 1989, Evaluating Critical Thinking (The Practitioners’ Guide to Teaching Thinking Series), Pacific Grove, CA: Midwest Publications.
  • Norris, Stephen P. and Ruth Elizabeth King, 1983, Test on Appraising Observations , St. John’s, NL: Institute for Educational Research and Development, Memorial University of Newfoundland.
  • –––, 1984, The Design of a Critical Thinking Test on Appraising Observations , St. John’s, NL: Institute for Educational Research and Development, Memorial University of Newfoundland. ERIC Document ED260083.
  • –––, 1985, Test on Appraising Observations: Manual , St. John’s, NL: Institute for Educational Research and Development, Memorial University of Newfoundland.
  • –––, 1990a, Test on Appraising Observations , St. John’s, NL: Institute for Educational Research and Development, Memorial University of Newfoundland, 2nd edition.
  • –––, 1990b, Test on Appraising Observations: Manual , St. John’s, NL: Institute for Educational Research and Development, Memorial University of Newfoundland, 2nd edition.
  • OCR [Oxford, Cambridge and RSA Examinations], 2011, AS/A Level GCE: Critical Thinking – H052, H452 , Cambridge: OCR. Past papers available at https://pastpapers.co/ocr/?dir=A-Level/Critical-Thinking-H052-H452; last accessed 2022 07 16.
  • Ontario Ministry of Education, 2013, The Ontario Curriculum Grades 9 to 12: Social Sciences and Humanities . Available at http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/curriculum/secondary/ssciences9to122013.pdf ; last accessed 2022 07 16.
  • Passmore, John Arthur, 1980, The Philosophy of Teaching , London: Duckworth.
  • Paul, Richard W., 1981, “Teaching Critical Thinking in the ‘Strong’ Sense: A Focus on Self-Deception, World Views, and a Dialectical Mode of Analysis”, Informal Logic , 4(2): 2–7. [ Paul 1981 available online ]
  • –––, 1984, “Critical Thinking: Fundamental to Education for a Free Society”, Educational Leadership , 42(1): 4–14.
  • –––, 1985, “McPeck’s Mistakes”, Informal Logic , 7(1): 35–43. [ Paul 1985 available online ]
  • Paul, Richard W. and Linda Elder, 2006, The Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking: Concepts and Tools , Dillon Beach, CA: Foundation for Critical Thinking, 4th edition.
  • Payette, Patricia, and Edna Ross, 2016, “Making a Campus-Wide Commitment to Critical Thinking: Insights and Promising Practices Utilizing the Paul-Elder Approach at the University of Louisville”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines , 31(1): 98–110. doi:10.5840/inquiryct20163118
  • Possin, Kevin, 2008, “A Field Guide to Critical-Thinking Assessment”, Teaching Philosophy , 31(3): 201–228. doi:10.5840/teachphil200831324
  • –––, 2013a, “Some Problems with the Halpern Critical Thinking Assessment (HCTA) Test”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking across the Disciplines , 28(3): 4–12. doi:10.5840/inquiryct201328313
  • –––, 2013b, “A Serious Flaw in the Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA) Test”, Informal Logic , 33(3): 390–405. [ Possin 2013b available online ]
  • –––, 2013c, “A Fatal Flaw in the Collegiate Learning Assessment Test”, Assessment Update , 25 (1): 8–12.
  • –––, 2014, “Critique of the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal Test: The More You Know, the Lower Your Score”, Informal Logic , 34(4): 393–416. [ Possin 2014 available online ]
  • –––, 2020, “CAT Scan: A Critical Review of the Critical-Thinking Assessment Test”, Informal Logic , 40 (3): 489–508. [Available online at https://informallogic.ca/index.php/informal_logic/article/view/6243]
  • Rawls, John, 1971, A Theory of Justice , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  • Rear, David, 2019, “One Size Fits All? The Limitations of Standardised Assessment in Critical Thinking”, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education , 44(5): 664–675. doi: 10.1080/02602938.2018.1526255
  • Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, 1762, Émile , Amsterdam: Jean Néaulme.
  • Scheffler, Israel, 1960, The Language of Education , Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
  • Scriven, Michael, and Richard W. Paul, 1987, Defining Critical Thinking , Draft statement written for the National Council for Excellence in Critical Thinking Instruction. Available at http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/defining-critical-thinking/766 ; last accessed 2022 07 16.
  • Sheffield, Clarence Burton Jr., 2018, “Promoting Critical Thinking in Higher Education: My Experiences as the Inaugural Eugene H. Fram Chair in Applied Critical Thinking at Rochester Institute of Technology”, Topoi , 37(1): 155–163. doi:10.1007/s11245-016-9392-1
  • Siegel, Harvey, 1985, “McPeck, Informal Logic and the Nature of Critical Thinking”, in David Nyberg (ed.), Philosophy of Education 1985: Proceedings of the Forty-First Annual Meeting of the Philosophy of Education Society , Normal, IL: Philosophy of Education Society, pp. 61–72.
  • –––, 1988, Educating Reason: Rationality, Critical Thinking, and Education , New York: Routledge.
  • –––, 1999, “What (Good) Are Thinking Dispositions?”, Educational Theory , 49(2): 207–221. doi:10.1111/j.1741-5446.1999.00207.x
  • Simon, Herbert A., 1956, “Rational Choice and the Structure of the Environment”, Psychological Review , 63(2): 129–138. doi: 10.1037/h0042769
  • Simpson, Elizabeth, 1966–67, “The Classification of Educational Objectives: Psychomotor Domain”, Illinois Teacher of Home Economics , 10(4): 110–144, ERIC document ED0103613. [ Simpson 1966–67 available online ]
  • Skolverket, 2018, Curriculum for the Compulsory School, Preschool Class and School-age Educare , Stockholm: Skolverket, revised 2018. Available at https://www.skolverket.se/download/18.31c292d516e7445866a218f/1576654682907/pdf3984.pdf; last accessed 2022 07 15.
  • Smith, B. Othanel, 1953, “The Improvement of Critical Thinking”, Progressive Education , 30(5): 129–134.
  • Smith, Eugene Randolph, Ralph Winfred Tyler, and the Evaluation Staff, 1942, Appraising and Recording Student Progress , Volume III of Adventure in American Education , New York and London: Harper & Brothers.
  • Splitter, Laurance J., 1987, “Educational Reform through Philosophy for Children”, Thinking: The Journal of Philosophy for Children , 7(2): 32–39. doi:10.5840/thinking1987729
  • Stanovich Keith E., and Paula J. Stanovich, 2010, “A Framework for Critical Thinking, Rational Thinking, and Intelligence”, in David D. Preiss and Robert J. Sternberg (eds), Innovations in Educational Psychology: Perspectives on Learning, Teaching and Human Development , New York: Springer Publishing, pp 195–237.
  • Stanovich Keith E., Richard F. West, and Maggie E. Toplak, 2011, “Intelligence and Rationality”, in Robert J. Sternberg and Scott Barry Kaufman (eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 3rd edition, pp. 784–826. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511977244.040
  • Tankersley, Karen, 2005, Literacy Strategies for Grades 4–12: Reinforcing the Threads of Reading , Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
  • Thayer-Bacon, Barbara J., 1992, “Is Modern Critical Thinking Theory Sexist?”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines , 10(1): 3–7. doi:10.5840/inquiryctnews199210123
  • –––, 1993, “Caring and Its Relationship to Critical Thinking”, Educational Theory , 43(3): 323–340. doi:10.1111/j.1741-5446.1993.00323.x
  • –––, 1995a, “Constructive Thinking: Personal Voice”, Journal of Thought , 30(1): 55–70.
  • –––, 1995b, “Doubting and Believing: Both are Important for Critical Thinking”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking across the Disciplines , 15(2): 59–66. doi:10.5840/inquiryctnews199515226
  • –––, 2000, Transforming Critical Thinking: Thinking Constructively , New York: Teachers College Press.
  • Toulmin, Stephen Edelston, 1958, The Uses of Argument , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Turri, John, Mark Alfano, and John Greco, 2017, “Virtue Epistemology”, in Edward N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2017 Edition). URL = < https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2017/entries/epistemology-virtue/ >
  • Vincent-Lancrin, Stéphan, Carlos González-Sancho, Mathias Bouckaert, Federico de Luca, Meritxell Fernández-Barrerra, Gwénaël Jacotin, Joaquin Urgel, and Quentin Vidal, 2019, Fostering Students’ Creativity and Critical Thinking: What It Means in School. Educational Research and Innovation , Paris: OECD Publishing.
  • Warren, Karen J. 1988. “Critical Thinking and Feminism”, Informal Logic , 10(1): 31–44. [ Warren 1988 available online ]
  • Watson, Goodwin, and Edward M. Glaser, 1980a, Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal, Form A , San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
  • –––, 1980b, Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal: Forms A and B; Manual , San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation,
  • –––, 1994, Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal, Form B , San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
  • Weinstein, Mark, 1990, “Towards a Research Agenda for Informal Logic and Critical Thinking”, Informal Logic , 12(3): 121–143. [ Weinstein 1990 available online ]
  • –––, 2013, Logic, Truth and Inquiry , London: College Publications.
  • Willingham, Daniel T., 2019, “How to Teach Critical Thinking”, Education: Future Frontiers , 1: 1–17. [Available online at https://prod65.education.nsw.gov.au/content/dam/main-education/teaching-and-learning/education-for-a-changing-world/media/documents/How-to-teach-critical-thinking-Willingham.pdf.]
  • Zagzebski, Linda Trinkaus, 1996, Virtues of the Mind: An Inquiry into the Nature of Virtue and the Ethical Foundations of Knowledge , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139174763
How to cite this entry . Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society . Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO). Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers , with links to its database.
  • Association for Informal Logic and Critical Thinking (AILACT)
  • Critical Thinking Across the European Higher Education Curricula (CRITHINKEDU)
  • Critical Thinking Definition, Instruction, and Assessment: A Rigorous Approach
  • Critical Thinking Research (RAIL)
  • Foundation for Critical Thinking
  • Insight Assessment
  • Partnership for 21st Century Learning (P21)
  • The Critical Thinking Consortium
  • The Nature of Critical Thinking: An Outline of Critical Thinking Dispositions and Abilities , by Robert H. Ennis

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

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

  • Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

  • Info about mirror sites

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

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

  • We're Hiring!
  • Help Center

paper cover thumbnail

Cultural Conditioning: Influences on Critical Thinking

Profile image of Angie Su

To determine whether cultural conditioning influences critical thinking, we utilized qualitative data from a literature review by comparing critical thinking focusing on but not limited to Europeans and Asians. The research questions were the following: How does cultural heritage impinge or assist critical thinking skills and abilities? How does cultural influence determine the way individuals critically think of government authority, moral and immoral judgment, decisions, and organizational success? Can individual frames of reference related to a culture influence or bias the thought process or differently affect the critical thinking process? The literature review indicated that cultural conditioning and language do affect an individual’s thought and decision-making process. Because educational institutions have diverse cultures among faculty, students, and staff, the academic environment provides an opportunity to view cultural conditioning and its effect on critical thinking during the decision-making process. In higher education, case studies have provided a means for students to respond to questions, issues, and challenges that provide reasonable alternatives influenced by cultural conditioning. Research on understanding critical thinking and influences by culture can assist in developing awareness of differences in the decision-making processes and might eliminate many of the misunderstandings incurred when leading a group toward strategic thinking and planning.

Related Papers

Emmanuel Manalo , Masuo Koyasu

This study sought to elucidate some aspects of the relationship between culture and critical thinking by examining whether a number of culture-related factors might relate to university students’ reported use of critical thinking. The participants were 363 undergraduate university students from Kyoto and Okinawa in Japan, and Auckland in New Zealand. They completed a questionnaire that assessed critical thinking use and the following factors: study self-efficacy, regulatory mode (assessment/locomotion), and self-construal (independence/interdependence). Critical thinking use was found to correlate with study self-efficacy, locomotion, assessment, and independent self-construal. The Auckland students scored higher than both Japanese student groups in those factors, except for assessment (in which the groups did not differ). In contrast, the Okinawa students scored higher than the other two groups in interdependent self-construal. No differences were found between the groups on reported critical thinking use. A model, which produced an acceptable fit to the data, is proposed in which self-construal influences regulatory mode and study self-efficacy, and these in turn influence critical thinking. Together, these findings suggest that culture-related factors (self-construal, regulatory mode, self-efficacy) do influence students’ critical thinking use, but that differences in those factors need not necessarily equate to locational group differences in critical thinking use.

cultural barriers to critical thinking

The Journal of General Education

Hisako Kakai

Learning and Individual Differences

Ronald Fischer

International Journal of Chinese Education

Susan Dennett

This quantitative research study compared the critical thinking dispositions of 91 college students studying in a public university in South East Florida. Forty-one students identified as Chinese and 50 students identified as American. The California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory (CCTDI) measured these students’ critical thinking dispositions. There were differences between students on the scale of open-mindedness and gender. A dis-ordinal interaction occurred. American males scored lower than American females on the CCTDI scale of open-mindedness. However, the opposite occurred for the Chinese students. Chinese males received a higher score on the CCTDI scale of open-mindedness than Chinese females. These findings are significant for educators and organizations when designing curriculum and workplace training development for leaders. Being open-minded feeds into decision-making and problem-solving are skills which are necessary for leadership. It is helpful to understand ...

Barbara Kinach

Alessandra Imperio

Il pensiero critico (CT) è considerato un'abilità chiave per il successo nel 21° secolo. Le politiche educative mondiali sostengono la promozione del CT e ricercatori di diverse aree disciplinari sono stati coinvolti in un ampio dibattito sulla sua definizione, senza raggiungere un accordo. Al giorno d'oggi, la ricerca non ha affron-tato compiutamente la valutazione del CT, né il modo in cui dovrebbe essere insegnato. Nel presente lavoro, viene fornita una panoramica sull'argomento, nonché una valutazione delle pratiche, al fine di fornire a ricercatori o professionisti (in particolare quelli della scuola primaria) un riferimento per lo sviluppo di ulteriori teorie e metodi sull'educazione al CT. Il CT è considerato dal punto di vista della filosofia, della psicologia co-gnitiva e delle scienze dell'educazione. Inoltre proponiamo l'inclusione di una quarta prospettiva, che potrebbe essere definita della pedagogia socio-culturale, per le sue importanti implicazioni sull'insegnamento e nelle pratiche valutative. Critical thinking (CT) is considered a key skill for success in the 21st century. Worldwide educational policies advocate the promotion of CT, and scholars across different fields have been involved in a wide debate on its definition, without reaching an agreement. Currently, research has not adequately addressed CT assessment, nor the way in which it should be taught. In the present work, an overview of the topic is provided, as well as an evaluation of the practices, in order to provide researchers or practitioners (particularly those involved in primary school education) a reference for the development of further theories and methods about CT in education. CT is considered from the perspective of philosophy, cognitive psychology, and education sciences. In addition, we propose the inclusion of a fourth perspective, which could be referred as socio-cultural pedagogic perspective, due to its important implications in teaching and assessment practices.

Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences

Jana Martincová

Critical thinking includes the component skills of analyzing arguments, making inferences using inductive or deductive reasoning, judging or evaluating, and making decisions or solving problems. Background knowledge is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for enabling critical thought within a given subject. Critical thinking involves both cognitive skills and dispositions. These dispositions, which can be seen as attitudes or habits of mind, include openand fair-mindedness, inquisitiveness, flexibility, a propensity to seek reason, a desire to be wellinformed, and a respect for and willingness to entertain diverse viewpoints. There are both general-and domain-specific aspects of critical thinking. Empirical research suggests that people begin developing critical thinking competencies at a very young age. Although adults often exhibit deficient reasoning, in theory all people can be taught to think critically. Instructors are urged to provide explicit instruction in critical t...

مجلة الآداب

Noreen Facione , Peter A Facione

What should I believe and what should I do? Throughout the world, and throughout time, these questions have been applied in the context of specific problems and purposes dominating human thinking. We are who we are, as human beings, because of the answers we have given ourselves. And among these answers is one that says: “We should always go on questioning in the hope of even better answers.” This consistent disposition to question, to ask why, to seek courageously and fair-mindedly the best possible answers to every possible question, lies at the very heart of critical thinking. In this essay we will briefly trace the rise of this consistent disposition toward critical thinking in the Western Philosophical Tradition. From its humble and practical roots in ancient Greece, we will jump forward through the centuries past the emergence of modern science all the way to how we define and measure the disposition toward critical thinking today. Finally, we will complete this story with suggestions about how we might build stronger critical thinking skills and cultivate a more robust disposition toward critical thinking. Because of the broad sweep of our story, the language in this essay will, necessarily, be quite general. But the research and teaching applications are none the less particular and practical.

RELATED PAPERS

Journal of Power Sources

Puneet Sinha

EFSA Journal

Bruce Cottrill

Cakrawala Dini: Jurnal Pendidikan Anak Usia Dini

Ainnur Rasydah

Jugoslovenska medicinska biohemija

Snezana Kovacevic

Journal of Language Teaching and Research

Utari Praba Astuti

Circulation Research

Marilza Rudge

Andreas Gärtner

International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences

yusmazida mohd yusoff

IX Congreso Argentino y IV Latinoamericano de Educación Física y Ciencias

Daniel Zambaglione

Adela Coman

Acta Dermato Venereologica

marina de padova

Sebastian Rinken

SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL OF TAN TRAO UNIVERSITY

Trinh Lê việt

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Thiago Júlio Viegas Gomes

Indian Journal of Child Health

Seema Kapoor

Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials

Naděžda Pizúrová

RELATED TOPICS

  •   We're Hiring!
  •   Help Center
  • Find new research papers in:
  • Health Sciences
  • Earth Sciences
  • Cognitive Science
  • Mathematics
  • Computer Science
  • Academia ©2024

Book cover

The Palgrave Handbook of Critical Thinking in Higher Education pp 299–316 Cite as

Do Students from Different Cultures Think Differently about Critical and Other Thinking Skills?

  • Emmanuel Manalo ,
  • Takashi Kusumi ,
  • Masuo Koyasu ,
  • Yasushi Michita &
  • Yuko Tanaka  

4832 Accesses

4 Citations

In this chapter, we explore what students from different cultural backgrounds think “good” thinking skills are, including the skills they perceive as being necessary in their studies. We report on findings from focus group interviews we conducted with undergraduate university students from Kyoto and Okinawa in Japan, and from Auckland in New Zealand. What the students said during the interviews shows important similarities in views about what “good thinkers” possess, including many qualities associated with critical thinking such as consideration of different or alternative perspectives. However, when we specifically asked about the meaning of “critical thinking,” many of the students from Okinawa indicated uncertainty in their responses, and the students from Auckland and Okinawa also referred to thinking approaches that are not commonly associated with critical thinking such as intuition and positive thinking. The findings from our investigation suggest that students need more explicit instruction to promote critical thinking skills development, and that they should be provided clearer, more transparent explanations of the thinking skills they are expected to demonstrate in their courses of study.

  • Critical Thinking
  • Focus Group Interview
  • Thinking Skill
  • Cultural Meaning
  • High Education Research

These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

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

Unable to display preview.  Download preview PDF.

Asian University for Women. 2013. Academic Programs 2008–2013. February 3. Available from http://asian-university.org /academic_programs.htm.

Google Scholar  

Association of American Colleges and Universities. 2013. College Learning for the New Global Century 2007 . February 2. Available from http://www.aacu.org /leap/documents/GlobalCentury_final.pdf.

Atkinson, D. 1997. “A Critical Approach to Critical Thinking in Tesol.” TESOL Quarterly 31 (1): 71–94.

Article   Google Scholar  

Boyatzis, R. E. 1998. Transforming Qualitative Information: Thematic Analysis and Code Development . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ennis, R. H. 1962. “A Concept of Critical Thinking.” Harvard Educational Review 32: 81–111.

Fisher, A., and Scriven, M. 1997. Critical Thinking: Its Definition and Assessment . Norwich, UK: Centre for Research in Critical Thinking.

Floyd, C. B. 2011. “Critical Thinking in a Second Language.” Higher Education Research and Development 30 (3): 289–302.

Fox, H. 1994. Listening to the World . Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

Glassner, A., Weinstock, M., and Neuman, Y. 2005. “Pupils’ Evaluation and Generation of Evidence and Explanation in Argumentation.” British Journal of Educational Psychology 75 (1): 105–118.

Halpern, D. F. 1998. “Teaching Critical Thinking for Transfer across Domains: Dispositions, Skills, Structure Training, and Metacognitive Monitoring.” American Psychologist 53 (4): 449–455.

Jussim, L., and Eccles, J. S. 1992. “Teacher Expectations II: Construction and Reflection of Student Achievement.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 63 (6): 947–961.

Lun, V. M. C., Fischer, R., and Ward, C. 2010. “Exploring Cultural Differences in Critical Thinking: Is It about My Thinking Style or the Language I Speak?” Learning and Individual Differences 20 (6): 604–616.

Markus, H. R., and Kitayama, S. 1991. “Culture and the Self: Implications for Cognition, Emotion, and Motivation.” Psychological Review 98 (2): 224–253.

Mason, M. 2007. “Critical Thinking and Learning.” Educational Philosophy and Theory 39: 339–349.

Miller, D. T., and Turnbull, W. 1986. “Expectancies and Interpersonal Processes.” Annual Review of Psychology 37 (1): 233–256.

Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI), Japan. 2013. Developing Global Human Resources through Industry-Academia-Government Collaboration 2010. February 7. Available from http://www.meti.go.jp /english/press/data/20100423_02.html.

Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT), Japan. 2013. Higher Education Bureau. Higher Education in Japan 2009. February 7. Available from http://www.mext.go.jp /englishlkoutou/detail/_icsFiles/afieldfile/2009/12/0311287370_1_1.pdf

Paton, M. 2005. “Is Critical Analysis Foreign to Chinese Students?” In Communication Skills in University Education: The International Dimension , edited by E. Manalo and G. Wong-Toi. Auckland, New Zealand: Pearson Education. 1–11.

Scharrer, L., Bromme, R., Britt, M. A., and Stadtler, M. 2012. “The Seduction of Easiness: How Science Depictions Influence Laypeople’s Reliance on Their Own Evaluation of Scientific Information.” Learning and Instruction 22 (3): 231–243.

Stapleton, P. 2002. “Critical Thinking in Japanese L2 Writing: Rethinking Tired Constructs.” ELT Journal: English Language Teachers Journal 56 (3): 250–257.

Tapper, J. 2004. “Student Perceptions of How Critical Thinking Is Embedded in a Degree Program.” Higher Education Research and Development 23 (2): 199–222.

Thomm, E., and Bromme, R. 2011. “‘It Should at Least Seem Scientific!’ Textual Features of ‘Scientificness’ and Their Impact on Lay Assessments of Online Information.” Science Education 96 (2): 187–211.

University of Auckland. 2013. Graduate Profile 2003. February 2. Available from http://www.auckland.ac.nz /uoa/home/for/current-students/cs-academic-information/cs-regulations-policies-and-guidelines/cs-graduate-profile.

Wilkinson, D., and Birmingham, P. 2003. Using Research Instruments: A Guide for Researchers . Edited by Peter Birmingham. London, UK: Routledge Falmer.

Book   Google Scholar  

Download references

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Editor information

Copyright information.

© 2015 Martin Davies and Ronald Barnett

About this chapter

Cite this chapter.

Manalo, E., Kusumi, T., Koyasu, M., Michita, Y., Tanaka, Y. (2015). Do Students from Different Cultures Think Differently about Critical and Other Thinking Skills?. In: Davies, M., Barnett, R. (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Critical Thinking in Higher Education. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137378057_19

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137378057_19

Publisher Name : Palgrave Macmillan, New York

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

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

eBook Packages : Palgrave Education Collection Education (R0)

Share this chapter

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

  • Publish with us

Policies and ethics

  • Find a journal
  • Track your research
  • Career Advice
  • Job Search & Interview
  • Productivity
  • Public Speaking and Presentation
  • Social & Interpersonal Skills
  • Professional Development
  • Our Products

Eggcellent Work

12 common barriers to critical thinking (and how to overcome them).

As you know, critical thinking is a vital skill necessary for success in life and work. Unfortunately,  barriers to critical thinking  can hinder a person’s ability. This piece will discuss some of the most common  internal and external barriers to critical thinking  and what you should do if one of them hinders your ability to think critically.

Table of Contents

Critical Thinking Challenges

You already know that  critical thinking  is the process of analyzing and evaluating a situation or person so that you can make a sound judgment. You normally use the judgment you derive from your critical thinking process to make crucial decisions, and the choices you make affect you in workplaces, relationships, and life’s goals and achievements.

Several  barriers to critical thinking  can cause you to skew your judgment. This could happen even if you have a large amount of data and information to the contrary. The result might be that you make a poor or ineffective decision instead of a choice that could improve your life quality. These are some of the top obstacles that hinder and distort the ability to think critically:

1. Using Emotions Instead of Logic

Failing to remove one’s emotions from a critical thinking analysis is one of the hugest barriers to the process. People make these mistakes mainly in the relationship realm when choosing partners based on how they “make them feel” instead of the information collected.

The correct way to decide about a relationship is to use all facts, data, opinions, and situations to make a final judgment call. More times than not, individuals use their hearts instead of their minds.

Emotions can hinder critical thinking in the employment realm as well. One example is an employee who reacts negatively to a business decision, change, or process without gathering more information. The relationship between that person and the employer could become severed by her  lack of critical thinking  instead of being salvaged by further investigations and rational reactions.

2. Personal Biases

Personal biases can come from past negative experiences, skewed teachings, and peer pressure. They create a huge obstacle in critical thinking because they overshadow open-mindedness and fairness.

One example is failing to hire someone because of a specific race, age, religious preference, or perceived attitude. The hiring person circumvents using critical thinking by accepting his or her biases as truth. Thus, the entire processes of information gathering and objective analysis get lost in the mix.

3. Obstinance

Stubbornness almost always ruins the critical thinking procedure. Sometimes, people get so wrapped up in being right that they fail to look at the big picture. Big-picture thinking is a large part of critical thinking; without it, all judgments and choices are rash and incomplete.

4. Unbelief

It’s difficult for a person to do something he or she doesn’t believe in. It’s also challenging to engage in something that seems complex. Many people don’t think critically because they believe they must be scholarly to do so. The truth is that  anyone  can think critically by practicing the following steps:

  • 1. Gather as much data as possible.
  • 2. Have an opinion, but be open to changing it.
  • 3. Understand that assumptions are not the truth, and opinions are not facts.
  • 4. Think about the scenario, person, or problem from different angles.
  • 5. Evaluate all the information thoroughly.
  • 6. Ask simple, precise, and abundant questions.
  • 7. Take time to observe.
  • 8. Don’t be afraid to spend time on the problem or issue.
  • 9. Ask for input or additional information.
  • 10. Make it make sense.

5. Fear of Failure or Change

Fear of change and failure often hinders a person’s critical thinking process because it doesn’t allow thinking outside the box. Sometimes, the most efficient way to resolve a problem is to be open to changing something.

That change might be a different way of doing something, a relationship termination, or a shift of positions at a workplace. Fear can block out all possible scenarios in the critical thinking cycle. The result is often one-dimensional thinking, tunnel vision, or proverbial head-banging.

6. Egocentric Thinking

Egocentric thinking is also one of the main barriers to critical thinking. It occurs when a person examines everything through a “me” lens. Evaluating something properly requires an individual to understand and consider other people’s perspectives, plights, goals, input, etc.

7. Assumptions

Assumptions are one of the negative  factors that affect critical thinking . They are detrimental to the process because they cause distortions and misguided judgments. When using assumptions, an individual could unknowingly insert an invalid prejudgment into a stage of the thought process and sway the final decision.

It’s never wise to assume anything about a person, entity, or situation because it could be 100 percent wrong. The correct way to deal with assumptions is to store them in a separate thought category of possibilities and then use the data and other evidence to validate or nullify them.

XYZ  might  be why ABC happened, but there isn’t enough information or data to conclude it. The same concept is true for the rest of the possibilities, and thus, it’s necessary to research and analyze the facts before accepting them as truths.

8. Group Thinking

Group thinking is another one of the  barriers to critical thinking  that can block sound decisions and muddy judgments. It’s similar to peer pressure, where the person takes on the viewpoint of the people around him or her to avoid seeming “different.”

This barrier is dangerous because it affects how some people think about right and wrong. It’s most prevalent among teens. One example is the “everybody’s doing it (drugs, bullying), so I should too” mindset.

Unfortunately, this barrier can sometimes spill over into the workplace and darken the environment when workers can’t think for themselves. Workers may end up breaking policies, engaging in negative behavior, or harassing the workers who don’t conform.

Group thinking can also skew someone’s opinion of another person before the individual gets a chance to collect facts and evaluate the person for himself. You’ve probably heard of smear campaigns. They work so well against targets because the parties involved don’t use the critical thinking process at all.

9. Impulsivity

Impulsivity is the tendency to do things without thinking, and it’s a bona fide critical thinking killer. It skips right by  every  step in the critical thinking process and goes directly to what feels good in the moment.

Alleviating the habit takes practice and dedication. The first step is to set time aside when impulsive urges come to think about all aspects of the situation. It may take an impulsive person a while to develop a good critical thinking strategy, but it can work with time.

10. Not Knowing What’s Fact and Opinion

Critical thinking requires the thinker to know the difference between facts and opinions. Opinions are statements based on other people’s evaluative processes, and those processes may not be critical or analytical. Facts are an unemotional and unbiased piece of data that one can verify. Statistics and governmental texts are examples.

11. Having a Highly Competitive Nature

A “winning” mindset can overshadow the fair and objective evaluation of a problem, task, or person and undermine critical thinking. People who  think competitively  could lose sight of what’s right and wrong to meet a selfish goal that way.

12. Basing Statements on Popularity

This problem is prevalent in today’s world. Many people will accept anything a celebrity, political figure, or popular person says as gospel, but discredit or discount other people’s input. An adept critical thinker knows how to separate  what’s  being said from  who  said it and perform the necessary verification steps.

  • The Ultimate Guide To Critical Thinking
  • Is Critical Thinking A Soft Skill Or Hard Skill?
  • How To Improve Critical Thinking Skills At Work And Make Better Decisions
  • 5 Creative and Critical Thinking Examples In Workplace
  • 10 Best Books On Critical Thinking And Problem Solving
  • 12 Critical Thinking Interview Questions and Scenarios With Sample Answers
  • How To Promote Critical Thinking In The Workplace

How To Overcome Barriers in Critical Thinking

If you can identify any of the above-mentioned  barriers , your critical thinking may be flawed. These are some tips for overcoming such barriers:

1. Know your flaws.

The very first step toward improving anything is to know and admit your flaws. If you can do that, you are halfway to using better critical thinking strategies.

2. Park your emotions.

Use logic, not emotion, when you are evaluating something to form a judgment. It’s not the time to think with your heart.

3. Be mindful of others.

Try to put yourself in other people’s shoes to understand their stance. A little empathy goes a long way.

4. Avoid black-and-white thinking.

Understand that there’s always more than one way to solve a problem or achieve a goal. Additionally, consider that not every person is all bad or all good.

5. Dare to be unpopular.

Avoid making decisions to please other people. Instead, evaluate the full lot of information and make the decision you feel is best.

6. Don’t assign unjustified merit.

Don’t assume someone is telling the truth or giving you more accurate information because of his or her name or status. Evaluate  all  people’s input equally.

7. Avoid judging others.

Try to keep biases and prejudices out of your decision-making processes. That will make them fair and just.

8. Be patient with yourself.

Take all the days you need to pick apart a situation or problem and resolve it. Don’t rush to make hasty decisions.

9. Accept different points of view.

Not everyone will agree with you or tell you what you want to hear.

10. Embrace change.

Don’t ever be afraid of changing something or trying something new. Thinking outside the box is an integral part of the critical thinking process.

Now you know the answers to the question,  “What are the challenges of critical thinking?”  Use the information about the  barriers to critical thinking  to improve your critical thinking process and make healthier and more beneficial decisions for everyone.

Critical Thinking vs Problem Solving: What’s the Difference?

Is critical thinking overrated  disadvantages of critical thinking.

  • 25 In-Demand Jobs That Require Critical Thinking and Problem-Solving Skills
  • Brainstorming: Techniques Used To Boost Critical Thinking and Creativity
  • 11 Principles Of Critical Thinking  

' src=

Jenny Palmer

Founder of Eggcellentwork.com. With over 20 years of experience in HR and various roles in corporate world, Jenny shares tips and advice to help professionals advance in their careers. Her blog is a go-to resource for anyone looking to improve their skills, land their dream job, or make a career change.

Further Reading...

how to become a polymath

How To Become a Polymath in 4 Steps  

critical thinking is overrated

No Comments

Leave a reply cancel reply.

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

How To List Skills That I Taught Myself On Resume

12 critical thinking interview questions and scenarios with sample answers  .

U.S. flag

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
  • Advanced Search
  • Journal List
  • J Adv Med Educ Prof
  • v.8(2); 2020 Apr

Barriers of Critical Thinking in Medical Students' Curriculum from the Viewpoint of Medical Education Experts: A Qualitative Study

Afshineh kasalaei, msc.

1 Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran

MITRA AMINI, MD

2 Clinical Education Research Center, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran

PARISA NABEIEI, MSc

Leila bazrafkan, phd, houri mousavinezhad, bsc.

3 Cardiovascular Research Centre, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran

Introduction:

 The widespread developments of the twenty-first century have been accompanied by the presentation of intellectual patterns and theories and new achievements. These new achievements emphasize the skill of thinking at high levels, especially in the educational system of universities. This skill is essential for medical students; therefore, the present study aimed to investigate the qualitative barriers of critical thinking in medical students' curriculum.

 This is a qualitative study in which the content analysis method has been used. Participants of this study included 11 medical education experts and medical students (6 females and 5 males) who were selected through a semi-structured interview and purposeful sampling. The data analysis method was conventional content analysis. In the next part, by more investigation of the data, various obtained concepts will be presented in the form of themes, categories, and subcategories.

We obtained two themes (socio-cultural conditions and traditional and unchanging system of education), eight categories and 14 subcategories. Also, these categories were resistance to critical society, intellectual tension, personality characteristics, lack of understanding of society's need for criticism, the rule of traditional teaching pattern, lack of critical thinking skills, ineffective evaluation, and difficulty of critical thinking training.

Conclusion:

 Given the results and the main emphasis of curriculum planners on incorporating high-level critical thinking and revision skills into the curriculum, the country's academic education system requires a change in the thinking style, research, deepening critical thinking, and a change in teachers' attitudes toward curriculum designing (goals, content, teaching and evaluation methods); also, it is suggested that the authorities should pay attention to the need to develop and utilize critical thinking skills in the learners’ education.

Introduction

The widespread and vast developments of the 21st century are accompanied by the presentation of intellectual patterns and theories and the production of modern science and technology. One of the new achievements of this century is emphasis on thinking methods, especially in the educational system ( 1 ).

Critical education is a relatively modern theory developed by educators such as Paulo Freiere, Henry Giroux, Peter McLaren, Michael Apple, and Douglass Kellner based on the principles of critical theory ( 2 ). In this type of education, wisdom, critique, and interpretation are considered as valuable educational goals. The primary approach of this tutorial is, as mentioned before, toward critical thinking. In this type of training, the use of memory and old knowledge is diminished, and learners can analyze, evaluate, and interpret the material. Accordingly, the training of the criticizer and wise students is the first goal of university education to confront the changing society in this age of multiple information explosion ( 3 ).

Critical thinking is a type of high-level thinking skills used by students, i.e. they use personal perspectives and approaches rather than simple acceptance without evaluating the others' judgments, attitudes, and information ( 4 ). The central core of critical thinking is cognitive skills such as interpretation, analysis, evaluation, inference, explanation, and self-regulation.

Critical thinking in the field of medical sciences is a kind of cognitive activity for understanding and evaluating the phenomena based on reasoning and analysing ( 5 - 6 ). Having a critical thinking skill for a physician helps him make the right clinical decision and provide the best care in the patient care process ( 7 - 8 ). The ability to solve a problem at the patient's bedside is valuable in the health process.

Designing the curricula can reflect the important belief in medical students that they should learn these experiences not only to maximize their potential, but also use it as a general skill in classrooms, and conduct this vital issue to the other areas, their other life aspects, and future career ( 9 , 10 ). With this in mind, the importance of the students' curriculum in fostering the students' critical thinking becomes apparent.

Therefore, the institution of education in academic education must carry out its mission to review the goals, content and educational materials, methods of teaching-learning, and the evaluation system and everything related to the curriculum. It should be noticed that the surface change will not be responsive to the revision of the curriculum and that fundamental and logical changes in all curriculum processes are essential ( 11 , 12 ).

The university education course is one of the most critical training courses in every person's life. As the period of school education transition, and objective thinking is the entry into the abstract and adolescent thinking that comes with entering the job market and assuming significant responsibilities in life ( 5 ). It should be stated that people studying critical thinking skills at the university are always looking for reasons and evaluating them in real life and resisting misleading prejudices ( 13 ). Therefore, if students engage in critical thinking skills and critical thinking values are developed in them, social benefits will have to be obtained that will be so huge ( 14 - 15 ).

Amini and Fazli Nejad (2000) reviewed the critical thinking skills of the students of the general practitioners of the medical school of Shiraz University of Medical Sciences; the results of this study showed that students were weak in using critical thinking skills ( 16 ).

Mc Grace's study (2003) showed that the mean scores of critical thinking skills of medical students are increasing from year 1 to 4 (except the third year) ( 17 ). The results of Paul's (2014) Delphi study showed that the curriculum should be designed in such a way as to enhance critical thinking and make it possible to evaluate it. Sufficient time needs to be allocated to assess critical thinking ( 18 ).

Agnesno and Marie (2005) in a study criticized barriers to critical thinking, such as lack of faculty knowledge, use of teaching and assessment methods that do not facilitate the critical thinking of the learners, negative attitudes of faculty members towards change and their resistance to change, inappropriate selection process and poor educational backgrounds that do not facilitate the students' critical thinking, insufficient socialization, culture, and inadequacies of education ( 19 ).

Recently, given the dramatic changes in the students' curriculum, especially the volume of courses and the need to integrate medical courses, the attention of the academic education system to curriculum revisions has been criticized. On the other hand, given the integrated complexity of critical thinking, the importance of revising the curriculum becomes more critical. Therefore, the present study aimed to investigate the barriers of critical thinking in the medical school curriculum from the viewpoints of medical education experts. Perhaps, the qualitative recognition of these barriers in the curriculum has made it possible to redefine it to develop critical thinking in medical students and its importance in their future lives and careers.

This is a qualitative study aiming to explain the barriers of critical thinking in the medical school curriculum. In this study, using the qualitative research approach, critical thinking barriers in the medical school curriculum were explained from the viewpoint of medical education experts of Shiraz University of Medical Sciences. In this section, semi-structured interviews were used to collect the data.

The research context was affiliated to Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, School of Medicine, and clinical and basic sciences groups. These environments provided access to qualified teachers. In this study, participants were selected from the Faculty of Medicine in the departments of Basic and Clinical Sciences, and faculty members of the Department of Medical Education and five medical students were selected by purposive sampling method. The sampling was continued until the previous information was repeated, and the content or new nature of the participants were not extracted.

Inclusion criteria were the participants’willingness to participate in the study and express their views, opinions and wealth of information, and teachers with more than five years of teaching experience in the university regarding the concept under the study. 

Before collecting the data, the researcher provided explanations about the goals, process and conditions of the interview. The data were then extracted using semi-structured interviews with open non-led questions and collected using a few guide questions. The interviews were started with general questions such as “What do you mean by critical thinking?”, “Have you experienced critical thinking in the curriculum?” and "How did you incorporate critical thinking into the curriculum?", Or "What are facilitators or inhibitors of critical thinking in medical students' curriculum? Explain it. Interviews continued based on the responses of contributors and with the help of exploratory questions, such as "Explain more. What is your example?, or What do you mean? ". Subsequent questions were based on initial responses of individuals or analysis of previous interviews. The duration of each interview was about 30 to 45 minutes, considering the faculty members' time. Interviews continued until data saturation, and sufficient information was received. After the participants' agreement interview was done in a relaxed and comfortable environment. All interviews were digitally recorded and verbatim word by word. Data analysis was carried out simultaneously with data collection. The simultaneous analysis of the interviews provided the main people with access to further interviews, resulting in more valuable information.

In the present study, to analyze the data obtained from interviews, we used a qualitative content analysis approach in the conventional way ( 20 ). The analytical unit was firstly determined by rewriting the interviews right after each section. Data analysis began by repeated reading of interviews, so that the researcher obtained an overview of the concept. Subsequently, based on the descriptions of the participants, semantic units containing meaningful sentences and words were identified and analyzed. In this way, the order of raw codes was extracted based on the nature of the data.

Continuously, the process of reduction and compression of semantic units was done. Thus, each semantic unit was named and conceptualized in terms of its implications. Then, the same necessary codes were merged and organized and categorized into the first classes.

We tried to group the codes that are more similar to each other in the same categories. In other words, the codes categorized within the classes were homogeneous and heterogeneous with other classes. Then, the primary classes were merged based on the relationship between them, and the main classes were formed. In the final stage, the researcher tried to discover the central themes by comparing and revisiting the classes and subclasses. At this stage, by integrating the same main classes, the content of the barriers to critical thinking was derived from the curriculum of medical students.

Strobert and Carpenter (2011) have proposed four criteria of validity or reliability, transferability, and verifiability for evaluating and validating data in qualitative research that have been used in this research ( 21 ).

Trustworthiness

In the end, the extracted themes were presented to the participants (member check) and it was found that some changes were needed. The themes were also provided by one of the qualified qualitative experts who tried to present all the opinions of the experts in conveying the concepts to the audience (peer check).

In this part of the study, the findings of the research are presented in order to explain and identify the barriers of critical thinking in the medical school curriculum by content analysis method. In general, the analysis of the interviews in this study was that during the data comparison process, 47 codes were initially extracted from the interviews, which were subdivided into nine main categories after data analysis and integration. Finally, from the clean codes, 14 subcategories, 8 main classes, 2 themes (socio-cultural conditions and traditional and unchanging system of education) were formed. Table 1 shows the themes, categories, and subcategories.

Subjects, main categories, and subcategories extracted from the study

A) Socio-cultural conditions

Providing the right educational and cultural conditions that separate the individual from school education and provide rapid and widespread access to the community and labor market in a college education course is useful in fostering a critical personality. . Given the importance of this topic, social-cultural conditions were the first themes extracted from the qualitative data analysis in this study. The theme consists of three main categories: "resistance to critical society," "tension," and personality factors, which are described below in each of the main categories and subcategories of this theme.

1. Resistance to the critical community: Based on the experiences of the study participants, resistance to society and belief in the superiority of collective thinking over independent thinking as the first significant category were the two subcategories of "linear thinking-intellectual dogmatism" and "systemic obedience."

1-1. The Linear Thinking-Intellectual Dogmatism

Based on the concept of this subcategory, the participants in this study acknowledged that in the current situation, some linear thinking prevails, according to which, without sufficient knowledge of the community's need for criticism, medical schools only train students in a parrot-like and linear fashion.

One contributor commented on positive support for critical thinking:

"When we train the learner with traditional methods, like lectures, and do not use collaborative educational methods and class discussions, the focus and accuracy will be reduced, and the quality of education will also be affected."  (Professor-Contributor No. 8).

The same participant said:

"... there are many students, and it is not easy to control them in the collaborative space and the discussion in the class; on the other hand, the increase in the volume of the course contents and the need to teach all the concepts in the classroom does not provide the opportunity for participatory teaching; therefore, there is not enough opportunity to interact or educate. "  (Professor-Contributor No. 8).

An increase in the volume of the course content, a large amount of documentation in the curriculum, unbalanced workload, and the need to maintain the conditions and get used to implementing traditional training in the classroom are the items participants referred to in expressing their experiences in examining the causes of linear thinking.

1.2. Obedience in the system

Submissiveness in the system is the second main category, and this means that obedient thinking is the product of linear thinking. Contributors mentioned the critical role of obedience, stereotyping, and non-positive mental flexibility in the learning system of learners. One of the participants said:

"The current educational system of the university directs the learner to follow a routine and uniform process and expects them to take a clear and coherent framework. In this atmosphere, the student moves toward a kind of stereotype and cliché. " (Participant No. 3).

One of the contributors believed in the students' desire for traditional education and use of simple mental stereotypes rather than using specific solutions and says:

"Students are interested in temporary and common solutions because of their past education during school time; they are reluctant to participate in class discussions and find creative solutions to the problems."  (Professor- Contributor No. 4).

Another participant believed that:

"Given that the professor has provided space for collaborative learning, in most cases, mental prejudice and lack of critical thinking of learners into specific ideologies and beliefs and mental stereotypes on a particular issue prevent the use of critical thinking skills and the emergence of creative solutions in the classroom." (Professor- Participant No. 12).

2. Intellectual tension

Intellectual stress is the second major category of socio-cultural conditions based on the participants' experiences, consisting of three subcategories of "anxiety, stress and fatigue," "curriculum overload," and "mental messiness." 

2.1. Anxiety, stress, and fatigue

Anxiety, stress, and fatigue were one of the aspects of distracting factors that triggered specific social conditions and factors such as war and sanctions, and ultimately prevented critical focus and thinking on the issues.

One of the participants stated his experiences on stress and exhaustion of learners in the educational environment:

"Sometimes in the classroom I find that some students do not have enough focus on lessons because of fatigue, and sometimes they take a nap in the classroom; stress makes them sick, perhaps due to the educational method, which has taken the opportunity of students to participate and think. "  (Professor- Participant No. 1).

2.2. Curriculum Overload

Providing enough space and time to think about the subject and participate in different topics that were experienced by most of the participants can be useful in enhancing critical thinking skills.

In this regard, one of the participants believed that:

"Due to the compactness of the curriculum of the basic sciences of students, there is no opportunity to present the concepts collaboratively, and they must quickly teach the subject, which removes the atmosphere of thinking and discussing from students." (Student- Participant No. 3).

Also, another participant believed that:

"A large amount of course content in the basic sciences causes the dispersion and confusion of students and takes the opportunity to discuss and think about different concepts from the students."  (Student- Participant No. 6).

2.3. Not-Organized Thinking

Most students expressed distraction, slackness, and lack of mental focus on various subject areas in their experiences, which reduced or neglected the use of critical thinking skills.

"Some participants at the time of entering the university do not have any specific plans of their future, and they are also confused, unobtrusive, and wacky in the classroom, and they usually go from branch to branch."  (Professor-Participant No. 5).

The other participant noted that:

"The confusion and distraction of learners during the education period and the lack of focus on the concepts of learning may prevent the acquisition of new information."  (Student-Participant No. 14).

Another participant in her experience stated that:

"Many entrance exam counselors advise the learners to endure the hardships of studying for a course that will make them more comfortable and free after passing the exam, which will confuse the learners."  (Student-Participant No. 15).

 Most learners in high-level mental situations often think of routines and familiar affairs, which is caused by the entrance exam thoughts leading to lack of attention to innovative and new options. This is due to brain dispersion ?? and slackness and, on the other hand, to thinking in a particular mental context that prevents a person from thinking and creative solutions.

3. Personality characteristics

Faculty members believe that increasing self-confidence is one of the essential needs of all people, especially students. We usually get the most out of those who have high self-esteem because these people have characteristics which make loving people and are often more admired. These people cause classroom dynamics, challenge different issues and opinions, and support their ideas in various topics and provide them with acceptable collective arguments. The existence of such learners is necessary for every educational environment. This theme consists of three categories: "lack of self-esteem," "lack of motivation," and "lack of curiosity in the search for information."

3.1. Lack of confidence

Based on the experiences of the participants, one of the characteristics of the learner's personality that is effective in strengthening critical thinking is self-confidence.

One of the participants believed that:

"Learners who have higher levels of self-esteem in the learning environment and lessons of discussion use critical thinking in decision making and solving different issues, and do not retreat from class positions in class discussions and debates. They have various reasons for their answers, which make a significant contribution to classroom dynamics. " (Student-Participant No. 12).

In this regard, one other participant also said:

"One of the significant barriers to developing critical thinking is the very nature of personal thinking processes. Individuals with high self-esteem seek information and exchange their thoughts in the classroom, and this results in classroom dynamics and better education and higher quality for all learners. " (Professor-Participant No. 4).

The findings suggest that learners with high self-esteem are more successful than their classmates. In other words, learners with a higher level of self-esteem have a better job and a better position than the others and achieve more success in society. This is why increasing self-esteem is one of the essential steps in the success of critical thinking in learners.

3.2. Lack of motivation

Participants' experiences confirm that lack of risk-taking, low self-esteem, and lack of motivation to risk are the primary barriers to critical thinking in learners.

One of the participants stated that:

"Teaching critical thinking is useless to learners who do not have the incentive to use critical thinking in the classroom." (Professor-Participant No. 3).

The participant adds that:

"Learners in the classroom have to work together with faculty members and other learners to analyze issues and topics and find the right solutions actively. To achieve this educational success, the learners should have sufficient motivation as a prerequisite. This motivation can be enhanced with various rewards such as class support and encouragement and feedback, and even so, to say, it can motivate learners to become more risk-averse. " (Professor-Participant No. 4)

3.3. Curiosity in search of information

Participants have experienced that curiosity is the key to developing learning intelligence, and it is a personality trait of some people. Having this feature strengthens critical thinking skills in classroom debates and topics.

“The faculty members must allocate more time for negotiation and show critical thinking while they are teaching. They should also use methods to raise the students’ curiosity.” (Professor- Participant No. 9).

Having some personality traits such as self-confidence, curiosity, flexibility, and creativity, willingness to think is useful in developing critical thinking.

B) The traditional and unchanging system of education

According to the participants and their experiences, the traditional and unchanging system is hard to change, and it doesn't accept any innovation. Believing in this method of passive teaching and learning is a common practice in many academic educational settings. In recent years, considering the positive effects of modern teaching and their acceptance in academic settings, the use of modern teaching methods has been considered that can provide a space for the use of critical thinking skills. The five main categories included "lack of understanding of the community needs for criticism," "dominance of the traditional teaching model," "lack of experts in critical thinking," "ineffective evaluation," and "the difficulty of critical thinking education."

1. Lack of understanding of social needs for criticism

Based on the experiences of the participants, the role of criticism in the curriculum is unclear, and the need for criticism seems urgent. In this regard, fostering critical thinking and developing an appropriate curriculum by incorporating critical thinking concepts and skills can be very useful.

One participant believed that:

"The current curriculum concepts are usually incompatible with the needs of learners and today's society, and the need to rethink curricula is very much felt, while students need to educate themselves on critical thinking and not just accumulate much content in their minds."  (Student- Participant No. 14).

Another participant adds that:

"Teaching students to use critical thinking skills helps them to solve real-life issues and situations in their community and their career prospects, which should be specifically addressed in the curriculum."  (Professor- Participant No. 9).

"Curriculum design is fundamental considering the space for research, hypothesis and idea development in different topics and appropriate timing for learners to utilize critical skills, and it will also have an impact on the future of students' careers and community needs. " (Professor- Participant No. 2).

Critical thinking can be improved through needs assessment and curriculum development which includes essential components such as goals, content, teaching, and evaluation process to foster the learners' critical thinking to achieve creativity and academic achievement.

2. The Rule of Traditional Teaching Pattern

New ways of planning and integrating student courses based on the participants' experiences have been considered. The use of these new teaching methods provides the appropriate space for practicing and critical thinking skills in learners. However, in practice, traditional teaching patterns usually preclude the comprehensive and complete implementation of new teaching methods.

"Most teachers are interested in using traditional teaching methods, and learners have become accustomed to these methods, and they are more than happy to be provided with written content and only memorize the content. " (Professor- Participant No. 10).

Another participant added that:

"Students usually fail to think multidimensional in a variety of subjects around the classroom, and they usually continue one-dimensionally and just memorize the lesson content and avoid participating in different topics or thinking about different subjects."  (Student- Participant No. 16).

This section notes that the use of new teaching methods can provide a space for the use of critical thinking skills.

3. Lack of critical thinking skills

Participants in their experiences stated that faculty members did not have sufficient mastery of critical thinking concepts at present. The use of highly qualified teachers in modern teaching methods and the provision of a suitable environment for student learning has made critical and questioning skills essential in the current teaching environment.

One participant added that:

"Young teachers are usually interested in new teaching methods in their teaching and provide a space for discussion, suggestions, and criticism of free and independent concepts and thinking, which is usually reduced by the work experience of the faculty members, as well as their lack of time. " (Professor- Participant No. 6).

"Some subjects are not considered by the teachers because they cannot be taught in traditional teaching methods. These topics will only be transferable to collaborative discussions or classroom discussions with learners."  (Professor- Participant No. 5).

4. Ineffective evaluation

The experiences of the participants in this study confirm that evaluation without feedback and taxonomy of critical thinking is ineffective in evaluating the learners, and providing feedback in this space is one of the most difficult challenges to which the teachers are faced. On the one hand, the provided feedback must be truthful. On the other hand, feedback should be given to learners at the right time in order to be active and efficient. Providing students with the right feedback at the right time can be one of the appropriate methods of evaluation that enhances their critical thinking skills.

One participant in providing feedback to the students mentioned that:

"Despite the fact that students enjoy receiving rewards or correcting their bugs during their teaching, university faculty members, due to their busy work and high volume of teaching materials, avoid providing a collaborative learning environment with questions and answers while teaching and appropriate evaluation and feedback and they usually finish the teaching with traditional teaching methods, which can affect the quality of teaching. " (Professor- Participant No. 11).

Good feedback always comes with positive things that help the learners feel more at ease and take more steps to succeed, advance and ask questions that require excellent thinking skills to be answered.

5. The difficulty of teaching critical thinking

Providing students with critical thinking skills in educational settings is very difficult, making it less likely to use this teaching method in the classroom.

One contributor believed that:

"Due to the size of the curriculum and the need to train all the resources, teaching traditionally seems more appropriate because taking classes in a new way of teaching will waste the time and not transfer all the subjects to the students."  (Participant No. 6).

"Holding the classroom in new ways is time-consuming and difficult, and the trainees usually do not make effective use of the available space, so the teaching time is spent on unnecessary discussions instead of transferring lesson concepts that will not do better for students than wasting class time."  (Participant No. 7).

It is necessary to develop critical thinking for a learner, due to the increased amount of information, judgment and decision making, and the improvement of the individual and professional life, ( 22 ). Analyzing the data showed that the two themes of cultural-social conditions and the unchanging traditional system are the main barriers of critical thinking in the medical school curriculum.

Cultural-social conditions constituted the first key infrastructure of critical thinking barriers for medical students. The findings of the present study showed that lack of support for independent and critical thinking was one of the most critical issues that most participants mentioned. Rezaei and Haqqani (2015) have studied the causes of resistance to change; they considered the lack of participation of learners in classroom education and values and the shortage of support for creative thinking as one of the most important reasons for resisting changes. What is more, he believes that in order to implement the change successfully, we need to find appropriate solutions to overcome these causes ( 23 ). The results of this study are consistent with those of the present research.

On the other hand, submissiveness in the system is another aspect of this dimension, which is incompatible with the results of the research by Graham (1991) ( 24 ). He has concluded that older people, especially if they are single, look at obedience superficially, and try to solve the issues more creatively and discuss different issues more critically. This result is also consistent with those of the Kalantari and Babayan’s (2014) study ( 25 ).

According to the findings of this study, distortion factors are one of the other themes of this research. Anxiety, stress, and fatigue were the most important aspects of this research. Najafian Zadeh et al. (2014) have concluded that the critical thinking of the students in our country is weak, and one of the causative factors was anxiety and fatigue in students, which was due to the high volume of the courses ( 26 ). Since critical thinking is not considered as an essential dimension in the teaching of students during the educational process by the educational system, and critical thinking is a complex mental process that provides flexibility, proper response, correct predictions and rational decision making of the students in different situations, it is necessary to pay attention to this issue by improving educational patterns, which is consistent with the results of this study.

The lack of enough time to think was another obstacle to this dimension. In this regard, Sharifi et al. (2016) concluded that the use of the assistants of critical thinking capabilities was weak, and this was because they are so busy and do not have enough time during the study that is in the same line with the results of this study ( 27 ).

Intellectual stress is the last theme of this study, the most important aspects of which were anxiety, stress and fatigue, an overload of curriculum, and intellectual fatigue. 

In the research by Durova et al., ( 28 ) participation learning was also a method of developing critical thinking; also, discussing and revealing new ideas and evaluating other people's ideas for developing critical thinking and problem-solving skills and participatory learning were usd. By creating learning management and meaningful experiences and stimulating the learners to think, faculty members have a facilitating role in this issue.

The last subject of this research was the personality factors that included issues such as lack of self-esteem, lack of motivation, and curiosity in seeking information that was attractive to the participants. In this regard, the results showed that, in the viewpoint of the experts participating in this study, one of the most effective barriers to the use of critical thinking is personality barriers. The investigation of numerous texts has shown that having some personality traits such as self-esteem, curiosity, flexibility, creativity, and willingness to think is valid in critical thinking skills ( 13 ). Therefore, the absence of any of these personality traits in individuals can be a barrier to critical thinking. Some scholars believe that critical thinking embraces something beyond the aspects of intelligence and individual performance, and other factors such as emotional and personality traits also affect it ( 14 ). As a result, it seems that before entering the clinical field, it is necessary to go through psychological courses to improve individual characteristics and, thus, increase the skill in critical thinking because the goal of teaching critical thinking is to educate people who are far from personal prejudice and who are careful about their work ( 13 ).

In the personality aspect of the students, "lack of self-esteem" was considered by the experts participating in this study to be the most crucial factor in not using critical thinking, which could cause passive confrontation with events and referral to the authorities. Therefore, along with nursing lessons and in-service training, it is necessary to use strategies for increasing the self-esteem of the nurses and students.

The second theme of this study was the traditional and unchanging system of education which consisted of five categories: "lack of understanding of the need for critical society," "rule of traditional teaching," "lack of experties in critical thinking," "ineffective evaluation" and "difficulty in teaching critical thinking." As noted, the lack of understanding of the community's needs for criticism was one of the main categories of the subject, and it addressed issues such as the lack of attention of curriculum planners to critical thinking and high-level skills in the curriculum. In this regard, researches have been done to confirm the impact of goals on the content, teaching methods, and evaluation as curriculum elements in fostering critical thinking. Based on Vagra’s research (2007) in Lipton School, which teaches in-service teachers, consideration of structure, theory process, this is an essential indicator that critical thinking skills can be achieved through the selection of goals, content, and processes and methods ( 29 ).

Another aspect of this theme was the ineffectiveness of the traditional model of teaching and evaluation. In other words, enhancing motivation to use thinking as the key to improving the quality of students' critical thinking is typically overlooked in the formal curriculum of students; therefore, one of the most effective measures in this regard is to improve the attitude aspects of critical thinking, considering the hidden curriculum function in higher education. In this regard, the researches by Alipour ( 2 ), Sharifi ( 26 ), and Shariatmadari ( 30 ), have neglected development of questioning, analysis, composition and evaluation skills and judgment in learner curriculum, and the lack of attention to the hidden curriculum has been considered one of the significant barriers to developing critical thinking skills. Research by Talebzadeh et al. (2009) has also considered attention to hidden curriculum elements as one of the influential factors in fostering critical thinking ( 29 - 31 ).

Lack of experts in critical thinking was one of the other main categories of this theme. In this regard, Cook and Mull's research points to learning-based approaches to promoting critical thinking, problem-solving, active participation, identification of learning needs, creative discussion, peer learning, and the integration and production of knowledge that make learning realistic, entertaining and attractive.

The difficulty of teaching critical thinking was the last category of this theme; in this regard, research by Drewa et al. found it necessary to discuss and reveal new ideas and evaluate the ideas of others to develop critical thinking and problem-solving skills and collaborative learning, and young teachers have been identified as facilitators or leaders of learning and creators of meaningful experiences that stimulate the learners to think.

According to the results of research done in this dimension, most educational systems tend to have a fixed curriculum content in the curriculum without the use of new, collaborative learning methods in learners, all of which discouraging the students from using critical thinking skills.

Application of findings

The findings of this study provide an overview of the critical thinking situation in the academic environment and the barriers of utilizing critical skills in medical students that can be a practical step in revising and designing curricula with a more comprehensive view of new educational practices, especially concepts and critical thinking skills.

Study limitation

In this study, access to experienced professors in this field was difficult nationwide. However, we sought to use any source of information, scholars, and students in this field.

The educational system Our educational system needs a development which relegates the education from extreme reliance on old knowledge; brings prospects into thinking, intellection, research, creativity, and innovation;blossoms the students’ talents; deepens the critical spirit of critique and review; boosts the self-esteem and self-confidence; and promotes the educational, biological, technical and professional skills in the young generation. Such a change will be possible by changes in the attitudes of the faculty members, planners and curriculum in formulating strategic plans for goals and content, and also teaching and evaluation methods for curricula and attention to the importance and necessity of developing critical thinking at different levels of education. 

In general, the cultural and social conditions of the traditional and unchanging system of education were two significant barriers to the implementation of the critical thinking program, which seems to overcome these barriers to provide critical thinking concepts and skills in medical students' curricula. Therefore, it can be concluded that the reform of the educational system in educational and clinical environments is one of the strategies for increasing the use of critical thinking.

Academic faculty members can help to improve the critical thinking skills of their learners by creating an atmosphere of inquiry and an appropriate platform for negotiation. Establishing workshops and meetings for familiarizing and enhancing search skills, questioning techniques, and evaluating the value and content of information, as well as holding workshops, can reduce the significant barriers to critical thinking development with effective use of information by students. Therefore, based on the results of this study, it is recommended that an effort should be made to transform the classroom environment into the interface between learners and faculty members through the elimination of the existing barriers.

Conflict of Interests: None Declared.

Salamah Embark Saleh University of Sabratha, Libya

cultural barriers to critical thinking

..................................................

cultural barriers to critical thinking

Education Journals    

European Journal of Education Studies

European Journal Of Physical Education and Sport Science

European Journal of English Language Teaching

European Journal of Special Education Research

European Journal of Alternative Education Studies

European Journal of Open Education and E-learning Studies

Public Health Journals

European Journal of Public Health Studies

European Journal of Fitness, Nutrition and Sport Medicine Studies

European Journal of Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation Studies

Social Sciences Journals

European Journal of Social Sciences Studies

European Journal of Economic and Financial Research

European Journal of Management and Marketing Studies

European Journal of Human Resource Management Studies

European Journal of Political Science Studies

Literature, Language and Linguistics Journals

European Journal of Literature, Language and Linguistics Studies

European Journal of Literary Studies

European Journal of Applied Linguistics Studies

European Journal of Multilingualism and Translation Studies

Article template

  • Other Journals
  • ##Editorial Board##
  • ##Indexing and Abstracting##
  • ##Author's guidelines##
  • ##Covered Research Areas##
  • ##Announcements##
  • ##Related Journals##
  • ##Manuscript Submission##

CRITICAL THINKING AS A 21st CENTURY SKILL: CONCEPTIONS, IMPLEMENTATION AND CHALLENGES IN THE EFL CLASSROOM

This qualitative research explores the conceptions, implementation and challenges of critical thinking in the FL classroom. 24 Libyan EFL university instructors participated in this study though completing an open-ended questionnaire sent via FB messenger. The content analysis applied to the participants’ answers revealed different conceptions and misconceptions of critical thinking. It also revealed that the majority of the participants implemented critical thinking in different aspects of their teaching. Some social, cultural and administrative barriers limited the effectiveness of this implementation. Nevertheless, the development of this kind of thinking for 21 st century EFL learners is a necessity, not an option.

Article visualizations:

Hit counter

Ajzen, I. 2005. The influence of attitudes on behavior. ResearchGate. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264000974.

Aliakbaria, M.; Sadeghdaghighib, A. 2013. Teachers' perception of the barriers to critical thinking. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, vol. 70,pp: 1 – 5. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.01.031. www.sciencedirect.com.

Azizinezhad, M; Hashemi, M.; Darvishi, S. 2013. Relationship between EFL teachers’ attitudes, teaching techniques and classroom (large and small). 3rd World Conference on Learning, Teaching and Educational Leadership (WCLTA-2012). Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, vol. 93,pp: 134 – 137.

https://ac.els-cdn.com/S1877042813032680/1-s2.0-S1877042813032680- main.pdf?_tid=64b03078-c441-4149-a1e3- 906660c4a06b&acdnat=1527633887_a628947c6b1d4f726e35d9326cbf78f1.

Bashir, A. 2013. An exploratory study of 21st century skills development among educators and students engaged in an online collaborative educational and cultural program. PhD Thesis Submitted to the Graduate School at Appalachian State University. https://libres.uncg.edu/ir/asu/f/Bashir,%20Arshad_2013_Dissertation.pdf.

Bassham, G., Irwin, W., Nardone, H., & Wallace, J. M. (2011). Critical Thinking: A student's Introduction. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Black, R. 2009. English-Language Learners, Fan Communities, and 21st-Century Skills. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy 52(8).688-697. doi:10.1598/JA AL.52.8.4. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/d9b4/c3c01df299ee54676b8078b47597c8d5ad32.p df.

Boholano, H. 2017. Smart social networking: 21st century teaching and learning skills. Research in Pedagogy, Vol. 7,( 1), pp. 21‐29.

Brookfield, S. 1997. Assessing critical thinking. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, no. (75), Jossey-Bass Publishers. Pp: 17-29. https://dental.nyu.edu/content/dam/nyudental/docume.

Brown, M.N. and S.M. Keeley, 2007. Asking the right questions: A guide to critical thinking. Pearson Prentice Hall: New Jersey.

Coffey, H. 2016. Bloom's Taxonomy.

Cox, C. 2014. 21st Century Skills and Principles of Flow in the Foreign Language Classroom". MA Thesis: Brigham Young University. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd/4197.

Daniela, L. Ed. 2014. The Teacher of the 21st Century: Quality Education for Quality Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. http://www.cambridgescholars.com/download/sample/61587.

Duron, R. & Limbach, B. & Waugh, W. 2006. Critical thinking framework for any discipline. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education 2006, Vol. 17, (2), pp:160-166. http://www.isetl.org/ijtlhe/pdf/IJTLHE55.pdf.

Elfatihi, M. 2017. A rationale for the integration of critical thinking skills in EFL/ESL Instruction. Higher Education of Social Science, Vol. 12, (2), pp. 26-31.

Fandiño, Y. 2013. 21st Century Skills and the English Foreign Language Classroom: A Call for More Awareness in Colombia. Gist Education and Learning Research Journal, 7, pp. 190-208 . ISSN 1692-5777.

Fahim, M.; Rezanejad, A. 2014. Critical Thinking in the EFL Context of Iran.

International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature. Vol. 3, ( 4),pp.: 128- 135.

Florea, N.; Hurjui, E. 2014. Critical thinking in elementary school children. The 6th International Conference Edu World 2014 “Education Facing Contemporary World. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences. Vol. 180,pp: 565 – 572. / doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.02.161.

Helen B. 1 Original scientific paper Cebu Normal University UDK: 37.012 .45 Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License Smart Social Networking: 21st Century Teaching And Learning Skills.

Hughes, J. 2014. Critical Thinking in the Language Classroom. Eli.

https://www.ettoi.pl/PDF_resources/Critical_ThinkingENG.pdf.

Ibrahim, A. 2012. Thematic analysis: a critical review of its process and evaluation. West East Journal of Social Sciences. Vol. 1,( 1). https://fac.ksu.edu.sa/sites/default/files/ta_thematic_analysis_dr_mohammed_al hojailan.pdf.

John P. Portelli, J. 1994. The challenge for teaching for critical thinking. McGill Journal of Education, Vol.29, (2),pp:137-152.

http://john-peter-portelli.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/The-Challenge-of- Teaching-for-Critical-Thinking.pdf.

Kanokpermpoon, M. 2012. 21st century language learning and teaching: implementation of ICT-Oriented Language education. Research Gate:

Kennedy, C. 2010. Conceptions of learning and teaching: impact on the perceptions of quality. International Journal of Arts & Science, 3 (17), 111-122.

Khatib, M.; Marefat, F.; Ahmadi, A.; Tabataba, A. 2012. Enhancing critical thinking abilities in FL classrooms: through written and audiotaped dialogue journals. Humanity & Social Sciences Journal 7 (1): 33-45. ISSN 1818-4960 © IDOSI Publications, 2012 DOI: 10.5829/idosi.hssj.2012.7.1.1104

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/caff/1ae335f1090cb19bc4e1ff76ea49e4f86b64.pdf.

Kim, M.; Pollard, V. 2017. A modest critical pedagogy for English as a foreign language education. Education as Change, Vol. 21,( 1), pp. 50–72. www.educationaschange.co.za.

Koosha, M. & Yakhabi, M. 2013. Problems Associated with the Use of Communicative Language Teaching in EFL Contexts and Possible Solutions. International Journal of Second Language Teaching and Research, Vol. 1, ( 2), pp.: 63-76.

Marin, M. & Pava, L. 2017. Conceptions of critical thinking from university EFL teachers. English Language Teaching; Vol. 10, (7). ISSN 1916-4742 E-ISSN 1916-4750. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1144349.pdf.

Mathis, W. 2013. Twenty-first-century skills and implications for education. Research based options for education policymaking. http://nepc.colorado.edu.

Maya Bialik, M. & Fadel, C. 2015. Skills for the21st Century: What Should Students Learn? Center for Curriculum Redesign-Boston, Massachusetts- www.curriculumredesign. or http://curriculumredesign.org/wp- content/uploads/CCR-Skills_FINAL_June2015.pdg.

Nadire, C. 2009. New trends in 21st Century English. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/229395107_New_trends_in_21st_Cent ury_English_learning.

https://greatlakescenter.org/docs/Policy_Briefs/Research-Based-Options/08- Mathis-21stCentury.pdf.

Ok, S. 2016. Autonomy in an EFL teacher training context: trainee teacher perceptions of instructor expectations. Australian Journal of Teacher Education Vol. 41, ( 3) , p p: 66-86. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1096790.pdf.

Papak, P. & Vujičić, L. & ŽeljkaIvković, Z. 2017. Project activities and encouraging critical thinking: exploring teachers’ attitudes. c e p s Journal ,Vol.7, (3), pp: 27-46. https://www.pedocs.de/volltexte/2017/14905/pdf/cepsj_2017_3_PejiPapak_Vujii_I vkovi_Project_activities.pdf.

Pennycook, A. 1994. The Cultural Politics of English as an International Language. Teacher Talking to Teacher: Vol. III, ( 3), pp. 21-23. Harlow, Essex, UK: Longman Group Limited. http://www.tnewfields.info/Articles/PDF/reviewPennycook.pdf.

Pineda-Báez, C. 2009. Critical Thinking in the EFL Classroom: The Search for a Pedagogical Alternative to Improve English Learning.

P21 Partnership for 21 Century Learning: Framework for 21st century skills. 2007. http://www.p21.org/our-work/p21-framework. A framework was designed by as a coalition bringing together the business community, education leaders, and policymakers in USA.

Reed, J.H. 1998. Effect of a model for critical thinking on students' achievement in primary source document analysis and interpretation, argumentative reasoning, critical thinking disposition and history content in a community college course. (a PhD dissertation) University of south Florida. Retrieved April 28, 2018 from www.criticalthinking.org.

Rezaei, S.; Derakhshan, A.; Bagherkazemi, M. 2011. Critical Thinking in Language Education. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, Vol. 2,(4), pp. 769-777. ISSN 1798-4769.

Robinson, S. & Kay, K., 2010. 21 century knowledge and skills in educator preparation. This paper has been produced as part of a collaborative project by the American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education and the Partnership for 21st Century Skills (P21). Pearson,

Qing, X. 2013. Fostering critical thinking competence in EFL classroom. Studies in Literature and Language. Vol. 7, (1), pp. 6-9. DOI:10.3968/j.sll.1923156320130701.2717. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.904.1695&rep=rep1&ty pe=pdf.

Savu, E.; Chirimbu, S.; Dejica-Cartis, A. 2014. What skills do foreign languages teachers need in the 21st century? Professional Communication and Translation Studies, 7 (1- 2), p:151-158.

Shahrebabaki, M. &Notash, M. 2015. Teachers’ and learners’ attitudes towards critical thinking skills: a case study in the Iranian EFL context. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, Vol.2, (2), pp. 93-106.

Soh, T. &; Osman, K. & Arsad, N. 2012. M-21CSI: A Validated 21st Century Skills Instrument for Secondary Science Students. Asian Social Science; Vol. 8, (16).

Stein, B. & Haynes, A. & Unterstein, J. 2003. Assessing critical thinking skills. Research Gate: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/229021823_Assessing_critical_thinking _skills.

Uehara, S. 2016. Task-based English language teaching, 21st century skills, and learner perceptions through the Marshmallow Challenge. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303994599_Task-.

Ur, P. 2012. A course in English language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Walser, N. 2008.Teaching 21st century skills: what does it look like in practice? Harvard Education Letter. https://www.siprep.org/uploaded/ProfessionalDevelopment/Readings/21stCentu rySkills.pdf.

Wilson, C.; Miles, C.; Baker, R; Shoenberger, R. 2000. Learning outcomes for the 21st century: report of a community college study. © League for Innovation in the Community College.

Yamith José Fandiño 2* Universidad de la Salle Gist Education and LEarninGrEsEarchJournaL. Vol. 1692-5777, (7). pp. 190-208.

  • There are currently no refbacks.

Copyright © 2015 - 2023. European Journal of Foreign Language Teaching (ISSN 2537-1754) is a registered trademark of Open Access Publishing Group .  All rights reserved.

This journal is a serial publication uniquely identified by an International Standard Serial Number ( ISSN ) serial number certificate issued by Romanian National Library ( Biblioteca Nationala a Romaniei ). All the research works are uniquely identified by a CrossRef DOI digital object identifier supplied by indexing and repository platforms.

All the research works published on this journal are meeting the Open Access Publishing requirements and can be freely accessed, shared, modified, distributed and used in educational, commercial and non-commercial purposes under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0) .

cultural barriers to critical thinking

Wesley Cherisien

barriers to critical thinking featured image

Barriers to Critical Thinking & How To Unlock Your Mind’s Full Potential

Thinking critically is a skill that many people aim to perfect. It involves analyzing and evaluating an issue or situation deeply and objectively to form a judgment. It’s not just about solving problems but also about making decisions, understanding the connections between ideas, and even identifying, constructing, and evaluating arguments.

Critical thinking is not just beneficial; it’s necessary for our survival. We use critical thinking skills in our daily lives when making decisions – from what to have for breakfast to which route to take to work. It’s especially important in today’s world, where misinformation, disinformation, and biased information are rampant. Being able to critically assess the information we come across is key to making informed decisions.

What you will learn in this guide:

  • Understanding the Barriers: Dive into the obstacles that hinder our ability to think critically, from cognitive biases to emotional barriers, and even social influences.
  • Strategies to Overcome: Uncover various strategies to bypass these barriers and unlock your mind’s full potential.
  • Developing a Critical Thinking Mindset: Learn practical tips for developing a mindset that naturally gravitates towards critical thinking.

In this guide, we will delve deep into the barriers to critical thinking, the strategies to overcome them, and tips for developing a critical thinking mindset. Let’s get started on this journey towards unlocking your mind’s full potential.

Understanding Critical Thinking

Critical thinking is a term that gets thrown around a lot, but what does it really mean? At its core, critical thinking is the ability to think clearly and rationally about what to do or what to believe. It includes the ability to engage in reflective and independent thinking. In other words, it’s about being active, not passive, in your thought process.

Importance of Critical Thinking

Why is critical thinking so important? For starters, it helps us make better decisions. By analyzing and evaluating all the available information, we can make more informed and rational choices. It also helps us solve problems more effectively because we can identify and analyze the issue at hand, consider all possible solutions, and then select the most appropriate one. Additionally, critical thinking helps us understand and challenge our beliefs and assumptions, leading to personal growth and development . Ultimately, critical thinking is essential for improving ourselves and the world around us.

Key Components of Critical Thinking

Critical thinking is a multifaceted skill that involves several key components:

  • Analysis: This involves examining information in detail and breaking it down into its component parts to understand its structure and meaning.
  • Evaluation: This involves assessing the credibility and strength of the information and arguments presented.
  • Inference: This involves drawing conclusions from the information available, even when it is not explicitly stated.
  • Interpretation: This involves understanding and explaining the meaning of information or a particular situation.
  • Explanation: This involves stating the results of one’s reasoning and justifying that reasoning.

Common Barriers to Critical Thinking

Despite its importance, several barriers can hinder our ability to think critically.

Being aware of these barriers is the first step towards overcoming them.

Here are some common ones:

Cognitive Biases

Our brains are wired to take shortcuts, which often leads to cognitive biases. These are systematic patterns of deviation from norm or rationality in judgment.

Emotional Barriers

Emotions play a significant role in decision-making. However, they can also be a barrier to critical thinking. For example, if we feel strongly about a particular issue, we may ignore or dismiss information that contradicts our beliefs. It’s essential to be aware of our emotions and not let them cloud our judgment.

Intellectual Laziness

Thinking critically requires effort. It’s much easier to accept information at face value or go along with what everyone else is doing. However, this intellectual laziness can lead to poor decisions and a lack of personal growth.

Conformity and Groupthink

Humans are social creatures, and we often seek approval from others. This can lead to conformity and groupthink, where we go along with the group even if it goes against our judgment. This can stifle creativity and independent thought.

Assumptions and Overgeneralizations

We often make assumptions about people, situations, or information without having all the facts.

Similarly, we tend to overgeneralize from a single instance to a broader conclusion. These habits can lead to misunderstandings and faulty conclusions.

By being aware of these barriers and actively working to overcome them, we can improve our critical thinking skills and make better decisions.

The Impact of Barriers on Decision Making

Critical thinking is crucial for effective decision-making. It allows us to evaluate information objectively, consider different perspectives, and make well-informed decisions. However, the barriers to critical thinking can significantly impact our decisions.

The Role of Critical Thinking in Decision-Making

Critical thinking involves evaluating information and arguments in a balanced way. It means not just accepting everything we hear or read but questioning it, analyzing it, and determining its validity. This process helps us make decisions that are logical, well-thought-out, and less likely to be influenced by emotions or biases.

How Barriers to Critical Thinking Affect Decisions

The barriers to critical thinking, such as cognitive biases, emotional barriers, and intellectual laziness, can lead to poor decisions. Similarly, emotional barriers can cause us to make decisions based on our feelings rather than objective facts. For example, if we are angry at someone, we may make a decision to spite them rather than considering what is best for the situation.

Real-life Examples of the Impact of These Barriers

A classic example of the impact of barriers to critical thinking is the Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961. The decision-makers involved were victims of groupthink, a phenomenon where a group of people strive for consensus at the expense of critically evaluating alternative viewpoints. This led to a flawed decision-making process and, ultimately, a failed mission.

Another example is the financial crisis of 2008. Many financial experts and investors ignored warning signs and made decisions based on overconfidence and a lack of critical analysis. This led to disastrous consequences for the global economy.

By being aware of the barriers to critical thinking and actively working to overcome them, we can make better decisions in both our personal and professional lives.

Strategies to Overcome Barriers

To become better critical thinkers and make better decisions, it’s essential to recognize and overcome the barriers to critical thinking. Here are some strategies that can help:

Recognizing and Acknowledging Barriers

The first step in overcoming any barrier is to recognize and acknowledge its existence. This may involve some self-reflection and an honest assessment of our own thinking processes. For example,  are we making assumptions without questioning them?

Developing a Growth Mindset

A growth mindset is the belief that our abilities and intelligence can be developed with practice and effort. This mindset encourages us to view challenges as opportunities to learn and grow rather than obstacles to be avoided. By developing a growth mindset , we can become more open to new ideas and perspectives, which is essential for overcoming barriers to critical thinking.

Enhancing Self-Awareness and Emotional Intelligence

Self-awareness is the ability to recognize and understand our own emotions, thoughts, and behaviors. Emotional intelligence is the ability to manage and use our emotions in positive ways. By enhancing our self-awareness and emotional intelligence, we can become more aware of the emotional barriers that may be affecting our thinking and decision-making.

Practicing Mindfulness and Reflection

Mindfulness involves paying attention to the present moment without judgment. Reflection involves taking time to think about our thoughts, feelings, and actions. By practicing mindfulness and reflection, we can become more aware of our thought processes and identify any barriers that may be affecting our critical thinking.

Seeking Diverse Perspectives and Challenging Assumptions

Seeking out diverse perspectives and challenging our own assumptions is essential for overcoming barriers to critical thinking. This may involve actively seeking out people with different viewpoints, reading articles or books that challenge our existing beliefs, or engaging in debates or discussions that encourage us to think critically about our own assumptions.

By actively working to overcome these barriers, we can become better critical thinkers and make better decisions in our personal and professional lives.

Tips for Developing a Critical Thinking Mindset

Developing a critical thinking mindset is not just about overcoming barriers; it’s also about actively cultivating positive habits that encourage critical thinking. Here are some tips that can help you develop a critical thinking mindset:

Creating a Conducive Environment for Critical Thinking

Our environment plays a significant role in shaping our thinking. Create an environment that encourages critical thinking by surrounding yourself with intellectually stimulating materials, engaging in meaningful conversations, and minimizing distractions.

Regularly Engaging in Critical Thinking Exercises

Like any skill, critical thinking improves with practice. Regularly engage in exercises that challenge your thinking, such as solving puzzles, analyzing case studies, or debating controversial topics.

Adopting a Questioning Attitude

Adopt an attitude of curiosity and skepticism. Question everything, including your own assumptions and beliefs. Ask questions such as, “What is the evidence for this?” “Are there alternative explanations?” “What are the implications of this?”

Being Open to New Ideas and Perspectives

Being open-minded is essential for critical thinking. Actively seek out new ideas and perspectives, and be willing to change your mind when presented with compelling evidence.

Continually Seeking Self-Improvement

Critical thinking is a journey, not a destination. Continually seek to improve your thinking by seeking feedback, reflecting on your experiences, and actively working to overcome your biases and assumptions.

By actively cultivating a critical thinking mindset, you can improve your decision-making and problem-solving skills , both in your personal and professional life.

Final Thoughts

Overcoming the barriers to critical thinking is of utmost importance in today’s world, where we are constantly bombarded with information, misinformation, and disinformation. Developing a critical thinking mindset is not just about overcoming these barriers; it’s about actively cultivating a mindset that enables us to make better decisions, solve problems more effectively, and lead more fulfilling lives.

We encourage you to actively work on developing your critical thinking mindset by recognizing and acknowledging your barriers, developing a growth mindset, enhancing your self-awareness and emotional intelligence, practicing mindfulness and reflection, seeking diverse perspectives, and challenging your assumptions. Remember, critical thinking is a journey, not a destination, and it requires continuous effort and practice.

We hope that this article has provided you with valuable insights and practical tips for overcoming the barriers to critical thinking and developing a critical thinking mindset. We encourage you to apply the strategies and tips shared in this article to your daily life and to continually seek self-improvement.

Recap: Key Points Discussed in this Article

  • Understanding Critical Thinking: Critical thinking is the process of actively analyzing, interpreting, and evaluating information to make better decisions, solve problems, and understand the world around us.
  • Common Barriers to Critical Thinking: Cognitive biases, emotional barriers, intellectual laziness, conformity and groupthink, and assumptions and overgeneralizations are common barriers that hinder our ability to think critically.
  • The Impact of Barriers on Decision Making: Barriers to critical thinking affect our decisions by limiting our ability to accurately assess situations, consider alternative perspectives, and make well-informed choices.
  • Strategies to Overcome Barriers: Recognizing and acknowledging barriers, developing a growth mindset, enhancing self-awareness and emotional intelligence, practicing mindfulness and reflection, seeking diverse perspectives, and challenging assumptions are key strategies for overcoming barriers to critical thinking.
  • Tips for Developing a Critical Thinking Mindset: Creating a conducive environment for critical thinking, regularly engaging in critical thinking exercises, adopting a questioning attitude, being open to new ideas and perspectives, and continually seeking self-improvement are essential tips for developing a critical thinking mindset.

Thank you for taking the time to read this article. If you have any questions or would like further guidance, please do not hesitate to reach out. Remember, the journey to developing a critical thinking mindset is a continuous one, and we are here to support you along the way.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Why is it so hard to overcome cognitive biases?

Cognitive biases are deeply ingrained mental shortcuts that our brains have developed over time to help us make quick decisions without having to analyze every piece of information consciously. These biases often operate in the background, without our conscious awareness, making them difficult to recognize and overcome. Additionally, acknowledging our biases requires a level of self-awareness and self-criticism that can be uncomfortable for many people.

How can I develop a growth mindset?

Developing a growth mindset involves recognizing and challenging your fixed mindset beliefs, embracing challenges, seeing efforts as a path to mastery, learning from criticism, and being inspired by others’ success. It’s essential to practice self-awareness, be open to feedback, and focus on self-improvement rather than comparing yourself to others.

Why is it important to seek diverse perspectives?

Seeking diverse perspectives is crucial for overcoming barriers to critical thinking because it helps us challenge our assumptions, consider alternative viewpoints, and avoid groupthink. It allows us to see the world from different angles, understand the complexities of a situation, and make better-informed decisions.

How can I practice mindfulness and reflection?

Practicing mindfulness involves paying attention to the present moment without judgment. You can practice mindfulness through meditation, deep breathing exercises, or simply by being fully present in your daily activities. Reflection involves taking time to think about your thoughts, feelings, and actions, and considering how they affect your well-being and the people around you. You can practice reflection by keeping a journal, setting aside time for self-reflection, or engaging in activities that encourage introspection, such as reading or spending time in nature.

What are some examples of critical thinking exercises?

Some examples of critical thinking exercises include analyzing a piece of writing or a situation from different perspectives, evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of an argument, solving complex problems that require creative thinking, and engaging in debates or discussions that encourage you to consider alternative viewpoints and challenge your assumptions.

Similar Posts

Metacognitive Mastery: The Complete Guide to Unlocking Your Inner Learning Powerhouse

Metacognitive Mastery: The Complete Guide to Unlocking Your Inner Learning Powerhouse

What are you thinking right now? Wait, that’s not the real question. The real question is, how are…

Constructive Feedback: Navigating the Complexity of Criticism

Constructive Feedback: Navigating the Complexity of Criticism

The ink on my freshly minted diploma had barely dried when I faced the lion’s den of corporate…

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

  • Digital Offerings
  • Biochemistry
  • College Success
  • Communication
  • Electrical Engineering
  • Environmental Science
  • Mathematics
  • Nutrition and Health
  • Philosophy and Religion
  • Our Mission
  • Our Leadership
  • Accessibility
  • Diversity, Equity, Inclusion
  • Learning Science
  • Sustainability
  • Affordable Solutions
  • Curriculum Solutions
  • Inclusive Access
  • Lab Solutions
  • LMS Integration
  • Instructor Resources
  • iClicker and Your Content
  • Badging and Credidation
  • Press Release
  • Learning Stories Blog
  • Discussions
  • The Discussion Board
  • Webinars on Demand
  • Digital Community
  • Macmillan Learning Peer Consultants
  • Macmillan Learning Digital Blog
  • Learning Science Research
  • Macmillan Learning Peer Consultant Forum
  • English Community
  • Achieve Adopters Forum
  • Hub Adopters Group
  • Psychology Community
  • Psychology Blog
  • Talk Psych Blog
  • History Community
  • History Blog
  • Communication Community
  • Communication Blog
  • College Success Community
  • College Success Blog
  • Economics Community
  • Economics Blog
  • Institutional Solutions Community
  • Institutional Solutions Blog
  • Handbook for iClicker Administrators
  • Nutrition Community
  • Nutrition Blog
  • Lab Solutions Community
  • Lab Solutions Blog
  • STEM Community
  • STEM Achieve Adopters Forum
  • Contact Us & FAQs
  • Find Your Rep
  • Training & Demos
  • First Day of Class
  • For Booksellers
  • International Translation Rights
  • Permissions
  • Report Piracy

Digital Products

Instructor catalog, our solutions.

  • Macmillan Community
  • Some Popular Cultural Critical Thinking Flash Card...

Some Popular Cultural Critical Thinking Flash Cards

jack_solomon

  • Subscribe to RSS Feed
  • Mark as New
  • Mark as Read
  • Printer Friendly Page
  • Report Inappropriate Content
  • critical thinking
  • cultural semiotics
  • current events
  • faculty consultant
  • iowa caucuses
  • new hampshire primary
  • pop culture
  • presidential race

You must be a registered user to add a comment. If you've already registered, sign in. Otherwise, register and sign in.

  • Bedford New Scholars 49
  • Composition 524
  • Corequisite Composition 58
  • Developmental English 37
  • Events and Conferences 5
  • Instructor Resources 8
  • Literature 54
  • Professional Resources 4
  • Virtual Learning Resources 48

IMAGES

  1. 7 Barriers to Critical Thinking and How to Destroy Them

    cultural barriers to critical thinking

  2. Top 7 Barriers to Critical Thinking: Examples and Solutions

    cultural barriers to critical thinking

  3. PPT

    cultural barriers to critical thinking

  4. What are the Barriers to Critical Thinking?

    cultural barriers to critical thinking

  5. PPT

    cultural barriers to critical thinking

  6. PPT

    cultural barriers to critical thinking

COMMENTS

  1. Cultural Barriers to Critical Thinking Skills: A Case of Bangladeshi ESL Classrooms

    Cultural Barriers to Critical Thinking Skills: A Case of Bangladeshi ESL Classrooms December 2019 Authors: Shahnaz Akhter Presidency University Abstract Development of critical thinking...

  2. Succeeding in postgraduate study: Session 8: 1

    1 Barriers to critical thinking First, let's briefly examine some barriers to critical thinking. Take another look at the visual summary below on critical and analytical thinking, which was introduced at the end of Session 3. Note the warning sign next to the 'black pit' to the lower right of this figure.

  3. 5 Barriers to Critical Thinking

    Cognition 5 Barriers to Critical Thinking What holds us back from thinking critically in day-to-day situations? Posted January 18, 2019 | Reviewed by Davia Sills Quite often, discussions of...

  4. 'Destroying barriers to critical thinking' to surge the effect of self

    The importance of critical thinking skills is widely accepted as one of the prominent sets of 21st-century skills for innovation and countering pervasive misinformation, developing the cognitive ability of self-regulation, raising responsible citizens, dealing with complex challenges in education, and finding well-reasoned solutions to tricky pr...

  5. Critical Thinking through a Multicultural Lens: Cultural Challenges of

    Critical thinking is 'culturally biased' (Bali, 2015, p. 317) and Global Northern universities teaching non-Western students should heed four considerations: variability in students' cultural...

  6. Exploring cultural differences in critical thinking: Is it about my

    In a follow-up data analysis, students' critical thinking was found to predict their academic performance after controlling for the effects of English proficiency and general intellectual ability, but the relationship does not vary as a function of students' cultural backgrounds or cultural adoption (Study 2b).

  7. Conversations on Critical Thinking: Can Critical Thinking Find Its Way

    There are some cultural barriers, mentioned by the participants, which discourage critical thinking, especially for women. The common social norm expects females to be quiet and this silent trait makes them more appealing to the proposition of marriage. ... Developing a Western thinking like critical thinking in a Confucian culture in Vietnam ...

  8. Critical Thinking

    Critical thinking is a widely accepted educational goal. Its definition is contested, but the competing definitions can be understood as differing conceptions of the same basic concept: careful thinking directed to a goal. ... Practical Guidance for Building a Culture of Thinking", in Daniel Fasko, Jr. and Frank Fair (eds.), Critical Thinking ...

  9. Cultural Conditioning: Influences on Critical Thinking

    Cultural Conditioning: Influences on Critical Thinking Angie Su Dr. Frederick A Ricci To determine whether cultural conditioning influences critical thinking, we utilized qualitative data from a literature review by comparing critical thinking focusing on but not limited to Europeans and Asians.

  10. Do Students from Different Cultures Think Differently about Critical

    In this chapter, we explore what students from different cultural backgrounds think "good" thinking skills are, including the skills they perceive as being necessary in their studies. We report on findings from focus group interviews we conducted with...

  11. 12 Common Barriers To Critical Thinking (And How To Overcome Them)

    Unfortunately, barriers to critical thinking can hinder a person's ability. This piece will discuss some of the most common internal and external barriers to critical thinking and what you should do if one of them hinders your ability to think critically. Critical Thinking Challenges 1. Using Emotions Instead of Logic 2. Personal Biases 3.

  12. An Evaluative Review of Barriers to Critical Thinking in Educational

    Critical thinking (CT) is a metacognitive process—consisting of a number of skills and dispositions—that, through purposeful, self-regulatory reflective judgment, increases the chances of producing a logical solution to a problem or a valid conclusion to an argument ( Dwyer 2017, 2020; Dwyer et al. 2012, 2014, 2015, 2016; Dwyer and Walsh 2019; Q...

  13. Barriers of Critical Thinking in Medical Students' Curriculum from the

    Also, these categories were resistance to critical society, intellectual tension, personality characteristics, lack of understanding of society's need for criticism, the rule of traditional teaching pattern, lack of critical thinking skills, ineffective evaluation, and difficulty of critical thinking training. Conclusion:

  14. Critical Thinking in Academic Writing: A Cultural Approach

    Abstract. The book inquires into critical thinking through a cultural approach. Based on an ethnographic study, it compares Chinese postgraduate students' conceptualisations and applications of ...

  15. Cultural Conditioning: Influences on Critical Thinking

    1 Abstract To determine whether cultural conditioning influences critical thinking, we utilized qualitative data from a literature review by comparing critical thinking focusing on but not limited to Europeans and Asians. The research questions were the following: How does cultural heritage impinge or assist critical thinking skills and abilities?

  16. 7 Critical Thinking Barriers and How to Overcome Them

    7 Critical Thinking Barriers and How to Overcome Them Critical Thinking Jul 19 Written By Lee Crockett It's important to develop critical thinking skills for more than just academic reasons. Substantial critical thinking capacity serves us well in all aspects of our lives.

  17. Cultural Differences in Critical Thinking Style: A Comparison of U. S

    Cultural Differences in Critical Thinking Style: A Comparison of U. S. and Chinese Undergraduate Agricultural Students . Abstract . This study aimed to compare critical thinking styles between students studying agriculture in the U.S. and China. A survey of critical thinking styles was administered to two groups of students in U.S. (n = 104)

  18. CRITICAL THINKING AS A 21st CENTURY SKILL: CONCEPTIONS, IMPLEMENTATION

    Some social, cultural and administrative barriers limited the effectiveness of this implementation. Nevertheless, the development of this kind of thinking for 21 st century EFL learners is a necessity, not an option. ... Teachers' perception of the barriers to critical thinking. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, vol. 70,pp: 1 - 5 ...

  19. Barriers to Critical Thinking & How To Unlock Your Mind's Full

    Understanding Critical Thinking: Critical thinking is the process of actively analyzing, interpreting, and evaluating information to make better decisions, solve problems, and understand the world around us. Common Barriers to Critical Thinking: Cognitive biases, emotional barriers, intellectual laziness, conformity and groupthink, and ...

  20. Pre-Service Teachers' Perceptions of Barriers to Promoting Critical

    Scientific and Cultural Organization-International Bureau of Education [UNESCO-IBE], 2011, p. 2). ... However, research about teachers' perceptions of critical thinking and the barriers of implementing critical thinking have only recently emerged, especially in the Arab region (Allamnakhrah, 2013). Thus, the research will focus mainly ...

  21. Some Popular Cultural Critical Thinking Flash Cards

    One of the most fundamental barriers to effective critical thinking about popular culture is the tendency to take everything as it is for granted, and so fail to question how things have come to be as they are, and what their being that way can tell us about ourselves and our world. One of the major purposes of Signs of Life in the U.S.A. is to help students learn not to take things for ...

  22. PDF Cultural Barriers to Critical Thinking Skills: A Case of Bangladeshi

    Richard Paul (2008) defines critical thinking as, self-directed, self-disciplined, self-monitored, and self-corrective thinking which attempts to reason at the highest level of quality in a...

  23. Barriers to Critical Thinking: Communication

    Barriers to Critical Thinking: Basic Human Limitations. By Therese Nemec. Learners examine seven basic human limitations that prevent people from seeing or understanding the world with total clarity. In an interactive exercise, learners identify ways to overcome those barriers to critical thinking. Watch Now.