difference between creative and critical thinking

The Peak Performance Center

The pursuit of performance excellence, critical thinking vs. creative thinking.

Creative thinking is a way of looking at problems or situations from a fresh perspective to conceive of something new or original.

Critical thinking is the logical, sequential disciplined process of rationalizing, analyzing, evaluating, and interpreting information to make informed judgments and/or decisions.

Critical Thinking vs. Creative Thinking – Key Differences

• Creative thinking tries to create something new, while critical thinking seeks to assess worth or validity of something that already exists.
• Creative thinking is generative, while critical thinking is analytical.
• Creative thinking is divergent, while critical thinking is convergent.
• Creative thinking is focused on possibilities, while critical thinking is focused on probability.
• Creative thinking is accomplished by disregarding accepted principles, while critical thinking is accomplished by applying accepted principles.

About Creative Thinking

Creative thinking is a process utilized to generate lists of new, varied and unique ideas or possibilities. Creative thinking brings a fresh perspective and sometimes unconventional solution to solve a problem or address a challenge.  When you are thinking creatively, you are focused on exploring ideas, generating possibilities, and/or developing various theories.

Creative thinking can be performed both by an unstructured process such as brainstorming, or by a structured process such as lateral thinking.

Brainstorming is the process for generating unique ideas and solutions through spontaneous and freewheeling group discussion. Participants are encouraged to think aloud and suggest as many ideas as they can, no matter how outlandish it may seem.

Lateral thinking uses a systematic process that leads to logical conclusions. However, it involves changing a standard thinking sequence and arriving at a solution from completely different angles.

No matter what process you chose, the ultimate goal is to generate ideas that are unique, useful and worthy of further elaboration. Often times, critical thinking is performed after creative thinking has generated various possibilities. Critical thinking is used to vet those ideas to determine if they are practical.

Creative Thinking Skills

• Open-mindedness
• Flexibility
• Imagination
• Adaptability
• Risk-taking
• Originality
• Elaboration
• Brainstorming

About Critical Thinking

Critical thinking is the process of actively analyzing, interpreting, synthesizing, evaluating information gathered from observation, experience, or communication. It is thinking in a clear, logical, reasoned, and reflective manner to make informed judgments and/or decisions.

Critical thinking involves the ability to:

• remain objective

In general, critical thinking is used to make logical well-formed decisions after analyzing and evaluating information and/or an array of ideas.

On a daily basis, it can be used for a variety of reasons including:

• to form an argument
• to articulate and justify a position or point of view
• to reduce possibilities to convergent toward a single answer
• to vet creative ideas to determine if they are practical
• to judge an assumption
• to solve a problem
• to reach a conclusion

Critical Thinking Skills

• Interpreting
• Integrating
• Contrasting
• Classifying
• Forecasting
• Hypothesizing

Copyright © 2024 | WordPress Theme by MH Themes

Key Difference

Know the Differences & Comparisons

Difference Between Creative Thinking and Critical Thinking

Table of Contents

Introduction

As our world becomes more complex and quickly changing, the ability to think both critically and creatively is increasingly prized.

Both creative thinking and critical thinking play crucial roles in problem-solving, decision making, and innovation – though they should be understood separately with different approaches from each one bringing something unique to the table.

Creative thinking encompasses brainstorming novel ideas, exploring possibilities and thinking out of the box. It fosters imagination and intuition while building connections between seemingly disparate concepts.

On the other hand, critical thinking involves evaluating information, challenging assumptions and applying logical reasoning in assessing validity of arguments or evidence presented against one.

Understanding the differences between creative thinking and critical thinking is vital for unlocking their full cognitive potential.

By investigating their respective characteristics, processes, and outcomes we can gain a more in-depth knowledge of both types of thinking as well as their roles and how they complement one another.

This content outline seeks to clearly differentiate creative thinking and critical thinking by outlining their unique features, approaches, and applications.

By understanding their differences as well as examining how they may work together in various situations, we can foster more holistic thinking skill sets while improving problem-solving capabilities in various contexts.

Definition of creative thinking

Creative thinking refers to the cognitive process of coming up with novel and original ideas or solutions by exploring various perspectives, making connections between seemingly disparate elements, and thinking beyond conventional boundaries.

Divergent thinking plays a central role in creative thinking by providing multiple possibilities and exploring various approaches; creative thinking often relies on imagination, intuition, and risk-taking; it involves divergent thinking as well.

Creative thinking relies on flexible mindsets openness to new experiences as well as transcendence from established norms and patterns in its pursuit.

Creativity plays an essential part in problem-solving, innovation as well as the creation of artistic, scientific, technological breakthroughs.

Definition of critical thinking

Critical thinking refers to the mental process of analyzing, evaluating, and interpreting information or situations logically and objectively.

Skillful reasoning involves being able to assess evidence objectively, identify logical fallacies, and apply reasoning skills in order to form rational judgements or conclusions.

Critical thinking involves critically analyzing assumptions, biases and arguments to ascertain the validity and reliability of information.

Critical thinking emphasizes evidence-based reasoning, logical consistency and being able to recognize and evaluate different perspectives or arguments in order to effectively solve problems, make informed decisions and form informed opinions across various domains – be they academic institutions, professional settings or daily life.

Comparison Table of Creative Thinking and Critical Thinking

Here’s a comparison table highlighting the key differences between creative thinking and critical thinking:

While creative thinking and critical thinking have distinct focuses and approaches, they are not mutually exclusive. In fact, they can complement and enhance each other.

By integrating creative thinking into critical thinking processes, new and innovative solutions can be explored, and by applying critical thinking to creative ideas, their feasibility and effectiveness can be evaluated.

Understanding the differences and connections between creative thinking and critical thinking provides individuals with a broader thinking toolkit, enabling them to approach problems and challenges from multiple angles and make more informed decisions.

Creative thinking focuses on generating new ideas and possibilities

Creative thinking primarily centers on developing novel ideas and possibilities. To do this effectively, creative thinkers often break away from conventional patterns of thought by opening themselves up to different perspectives and engaging in divergent thinking, which involves coming up with multiple ideas or solutions for any given situation.

Divergent thinking allows creative thinkers to expand the range of possible options available while considering unconventional or innovative approaches.

Creative thinking involves the willingness to explore unfamiliar territories, question assumptions and push the limits of what is considered possible.

This type of thinking encourages imagination, brainstorming and free association of ideas in order to generate fresh insights and unique solutions – the goal being originality, novelty and creativity in problem-solving decisions as well as art, literature, design or innovation projects.

Creative thinking unleashes new possibilities by sparking creative thought processes that produce fresh concepts.

Creative thinking paves the way for exploration and innovation, helping individuals to find unconventional solutions, uncover groundbreaking discoveries, and produce lasting impacts.

Critical thinking focuses on analyzing and evaluating information

Critical thinking involves the analysis and evaluation of information. This involves thoroughly scrutinizing evidence, arguments or situations to ascertain their validity, reliability and logical coherence before reaching informed judgments or decisions based on objective reasoning. Critical thinkers strive to use objective and rational analyses in making well-informed judgements or decisions.

Critical thinking requires individuals to engage in an active process of questioning assumptions, identifying biases, assessing arguments or evidence critically and attempting to comprehend its underlying reasoning – whether logical, supported by evidence, or susceptible to fallacies.

Critical thinking involves applying logic, evidence evaluation and systematic analysis in an organized fashion to make informed decisions, avoid misinformation or manipulation and gain a more nuanced understanding of complex issues.

Critically evaluating information allows individuals to make more informed decisions by recognizing patterns, drawing inferences and recognizing logical inconsistencies – this skill involves skills such as data analysis, pattern recognition and inferencing; critically analyzing it provides opportunities for more informed decisions that avoid misinform or manipulation and increases understanding more nuanced understanding of complex issues by critically analyzing it!

Critical thinking has many applications in academia, professional settings and everyday life. It allows individuals to evaluate the credibility of sources, identify flaws in arguments and navigate complex or ambiguous situations with an analytical mindset.

Complementary Relationship Between Creative and Critical Thinking

Creativity and critical thinking do not contradict each other; in fact, they form a complementary relationship that can enhance problem-solving and decision-making processes. Creative thinking generates new ideas while critical thinking provides an analytical framework to evaluate and refine those concepts. Here are some ways creative and critical thinking can work together:

Idea Generation and Evaluation: Creative thinking fosters an array of concepts, while critical thinking enables evaluation and selection of those most likely to bear fruit. Critical thinking allows objective evaluation, identification of any flaws or potential defects, consideration of practicality and feasibility and ultimately determines success or failure of projects.

Problem Identification and Analysis: Creative thinking allows us to quickly recognize problems or challenges by approaching them from different angles and considering multiple viewpoints, while critical thinking allows for an in-depth examination of its underlying causes and possible solutions.

Innovative Solutions and Refinement: Creative thinking fosters original and novel solutions, while critical analysis assesses them on viability, potential shortcomings and practical constraints to make sure they align.

Decision-Making: Creative thinking can provide a variety of options; critical thinking helps evaluate their advantages and disadvantages. Critical thinking allows a systematic consideration of evidence, logic reasoning, potential consequences and other forms of evidence resulting in more informed and effective decision-making processes.

Adaptation and Improvement: Creative thinking allows for flexibility and adaptation in response to changing circumstances or feedback, while critical thinking helps identify areas for improvement, recognize potential pitfalls, and refine ideas or strategies based on evidence or feedback.

Individuals can achieve more comprehensive and effective problem-solving, innovation, and decision making by integrating creative and critical thinking. This combination encourages exploration while still remaining analytical; ultimately producing more robust outcomes.

Importance of integrating both types of thinking

Integrating both creative and critical thinking skills is of critical importance for various reasons:

Holistic Problem-Solving: By integrating creative and critical thinking, individuals can approach problems from various angles. Creative thinking generates fresh concepts, while critical analysis provides tools to evaluate and refine these new ideas. By taking this holistic approach to problem-solving, individuals increase the odds of finding effective and well-rounded solutions.

Critical Thinking Improves Decision-Making: Critical thinking allows individuals to assess the feasibility, reliability and coherence of ideas generated through creative thinking, thus aiding individuals in making more informed and evidence-based decisions while considering both imaginative possibilities as well as real world realities.

Adaptability and Innovation: Creative thinking promotes flexibility, adaptability and thinking beyond established norms; critical thinking adds structure for evaluating creative ideas against viability and effectiveness criteria. Combining both types of thinking enables innovative forward-looking approaches while remaining grounded by rationality and evidence.

Overcoming Challenges: Meeting obstacles and complex problems requires both creative and critical thinking skills, with creative thought producing innovative perspectives and solutions while critical analysis evaluates each option’s merits and drawbacks. Combining both types of thinking allows individuals to tackle problems more effectively while developing comprehensive strategies.

Transdisciplinary Thinking: Many complex real-world problems and projects necessitate multidisciplinary or transdisciplinary approaches, where creative and critical thinking come together seamlessly to bring diverse fields, perspectives and methodologies together into a synthesis that fosters holistic understanding while also producing innovative and well-informed solutions. By merging creative and critical thinking approaches in such environments individuals are better able to draw from multiple fields, perspectives and methodologies in order to solve them successfully.

Lifelong Learning: Integrating creative and critical thinking fosters an attitude of curiosity, open-mindedness and continuous learning. Both forms of thinking involve actively engaging with information while questioning assumptions and exploring possibilities – these combined abilities equip individuals with valuable tools for lifelong education in an ever-evolving world.

By integrating creative and critical thinking, individuals can leverage both approaches for enhanced problem-solving, decision making, and creative endeavors.

Examples of how creative and critical thinking can work together

Absolutely! Below are a few examples of how creative and critical thinking work hand-in-hand:

Product Design: Creativity can lead to groundbreaking ideas for product designs, while critical analysis identifies any feasible, market demand or manufacturing challenges associated with each idea. By employing both aspects of thinking together, designers can produce products which fulfill both functional and creative criteria.

Scientific Research: Creative and critical thinking both play important roles in scientific inquiry. Creative thought can generate hypotheses and explore novel avenues of inquiry while critical thought ensures the research design is rigorous and data analysis valid. Integrating both types of thinking allows scientists to make groundbreaking discoveries while maintaining scientific integrity of their work.

Marketing Campaigns: Creative thinking provides imaginative and eye-catching marketing concepts, while critical analysis evaluates target audiences, market trends and potential effects of each concept. By combining creative with critical thinking, marketers can develop campaigns that not only catch attention but also resonate with target audiences to deliver desired outcomes.

Problem Solving in Business: Creative and critical thinking work together to generate many potential solutions to business issues, while creative thinkers generate numerous creative potential solutions while critical thinkers evaluate risks, costs and impacts of each solution.

By employing both types of thinking together, business professionals can come up with novel yet cost-effective strategies aligned with organizational goals.

Literary Analysis: Creative thinking allows for imaginative interpretations and exploration of themes and symbols within literature, while critical thinking assesses textual evidence, evaluates coherence of arguments, and considers author intent. When used together, literary scholars can produce sophisticated analyses of literary works that integrate creative and critical thought effectively.

Entrepreneurship: Creative thinking helps entrepreneurs identify new business opportunities and innovative business models, while critical analysis examines market potential, competitive landscape analysis and financial viability for each idea. By employing both forms of thinking to formulate successful ventures they can create sustainable and long-term ventures.

In these instances, the integration of creative and critical thinking leads to more robust and effective results. It allows innovative ideas to be evaluated, refined, and implemented logically and thoughtfully; ultimately resulting in solutions that are both innovative and pragmatic.

Creative and critical thinking are Complementary approaches to Problem-solving, decision-making and Innovation.

Creative thinking entails Brainstorming for new ideas while Exploring Possibilities; critical thinking uses objective evaluation of information to evaluate it logically and critically.

Integrating both types of thinking allows individuals to maximize both approaches and produce more comprehensive and effective results.

Creative thinking encourages innovation, broadens perspectives and fosters out-of-the-box thinking; critical thinking provides evidence-based analysis which verifies those ideas.

Integrating Creative and critical Thinking skills is crucial for both Personal and Professional growth, Adaptability, Informed decision-making, and the establishment of an environment of continuous learning and innovation.

Together these forms of thinking help individuals meet challenges with resilience, flexibility and balance that leads to improved problem-solving abilities, innovation and eventual success.

As part of your journey, embrace both creative thinking and critical thinking equally to unlock your full potential, broaden your horizons and lead you towards greater achievements in every area of life.

Recap of the key differences between creative thinking and critical thinking

Here’s an overview of the differences between creative thinking and critical thinking:

Creative Thinking: Engaging in creative thinking involves brainstorming new ideas, possibilities and solutions; emphasizing exploration, intuition and imagination; employing divergent thinking techniques in order to generate multiple solutions simultaneously; leading to innovative and original concepts.

Critical Thinking is used across artistic, scientific, and technological endeavors and emphasizes analysis, logic, and objectivity to assess information critically. Critical Thinking develops skills such as fluency, flexibility and originality of thinking that lead to positive results in any endeavor.

Eventually this leads to Critical Thinking being applied by experts in an academic environment for analysis purposes – typically this means writing essays for examination in exams! Utilizes convergent thinking to identify and select the optimal solutions, leading to informed decision-making and problem solving.

Also used for problem-solving, decision-making, and critical evaluation of information. Develops analytical, logical and evaluative skills. Though creative thinking and critical thinking may have different approaches and purposes, both types are equally essential in terms of effective problem-solving and decision making.

By integrating both types of thinking, individuals are better able to approach challenges from various angles, generate innovative ideas while critically assessing them for successful outcomes.

Importance of developing both types of thinking skills

Strengthening both creative thinking and critical thinking abilities is of great significance, for several reasons:

Comprehensive Problem Solving: Cultivating both types of thinking allows individuals to approach problems from multiple angles. Creative thinking helps generate innovative solutions while critical thinking provides analytical tools for evaluating and refining those ideas.

Combined together, this holistic approach enhances problem-solving abilities while increasing chances of finding effective and comprehensive solutions.

Adaptability and Resilience: In an ever-evolving world, being adaptable and creative are two vital skills. Creative thinking promotes flexibility, adaptability, and thinking outside established norms; critical thinking equips individuals with skills for evaluating creative ideas critically.

By cultivating both types of thinking simultaneously, individuals can more successfully navigate complex or changing situations with resilience and creativity.

Innovation and Entrepreneurship: Innovation and entrepreneurialism require creative thinking skills for success. Individuals who cultivate these abilities are better able to generate new ideas, identify opportunities, and think outside the box when developing products, services or solutions with innovative features or capabilities.

Meanwhile, critical thinking helps evaluate market potential and risks associated with such ideas – all essential elements for innovation and entrepreneurialism success.

Critical Thinking Skills Are Essential to Informed Decision-Making: Critical thinking skills are integral in making informed and effective decisions. Cultivating them allows individuals to evaluate evidence, consider opposing viewpoints and evaluate logical coherence of arguments; creative thinking adds variety and imagination that enables informed decisions with both practical and innovative potential in mind.

Personal and Professional Growth: Fostering creative and critical thinking abilities is central to personal and professional growth. Creative thinking develops imagination, open-mindedness and the capacity for forward-thinking; while critical thinking expands analytical, logical and evaluative capabilities.

Both skills can be utilized across various domains as transferrable assets that aid problem-solving, innovative thinking and lifelong learning.

As previously discussed, developing both creative thinking and critical thinking abilities is fundamental for effective problem-solving, adaptability, innovation, informed decision-making and personal growth.

By honing both forms of thinking simultaneously, individuals can approach challenges with an adaptive and balanced mindset for greater success and satisfaction across various aspects of life.

Encouragement for readers to embrace and cultivate both thinking approaches

As readers, I urge all to embrace and develop both creative thinking and critical thinking approaches. Doing so can open up new possibilities, enhance problem-solving abilities, and lead to greater success across various areas of life.

Here’s why both approaches should be explored:

Expand Your Perspectives: Embracing both creative and critical thinking will enable you to look at problems and opportunities from different angles. Creative thinking offers fresh approaches and imaginative solutions; critical analysis provides objective evaluation. By adopting both approaches simultaneously, your perspective broadens considerably while you gain greater insight into complex issues.

Creativity Fuels Innovation and Growth: Creativity is essential to innovation, driving both personal and professional success. By challenging conventional thinking patterns and considering unique solutions for issues that arise.

Critical Thinking serves to validate those unique concepts by making sure they’re practical, viable and well-reasoned; cultivating both ways of thinking will allow you to foster innovation while propelling you toward continuous development and success.

Enhance Problem-Solving Capabilities: Integrating creative and critical thinking creates an invaluable problem-solving arsenal. Creative thinking helps generate ideas, while critical thinking evaluates and refines them using evidence and logic – this combination gives you a powerful set of tools for taking on challenges effectively and finding lasting solutions.

Navigating Change with Resilience: In an ever-evolving world, adaptability is of the utmost importance. Creative thinking teaches you the ability to accept change with open arms, adapt with the times, and seize new opportunities with flexibility and curiosity.

Critical thinking complements this by making sure decisions are grounded in evidence and sound reasoning; together these approaches help you navigate uncertainties with grace and welcome change with resilience.

Making Informed Decisions: Critical thinking helps you assess information objectively, evaluate arguments fairly and make well-informed decisions. Creative thinking opens up more options and possibilities.

By combining both approaches together, you become a more thoughtful decision-maker who considers both innovative ideas as well as practical concerns when making choices.

Never stop working towards improving both creative and critical thinking abilities; it is a journey worth embarking upon. So nurture your curiosity, practice brainstorming sessions, seek diverse viewpoints, sharpen analytical abilities, embrace discomfort when exploring new ideas or challenging assumptions, cultivating both forms of thinking can unlock full cognitive potential while positioning you for success in an ever-evolving world.

Harness the power of creative and critical thinking together and allow them to drive you toward greater creativity, innovation, and success.

Related Posts

Sage Advice

Creative vs. critical thinking.

At Sage Collective, we champion our inspired model of 9 Ways of Vibrant living , and encourage everyone to discover new methods to help better their wellbeing. Today, we’re taking you back to Psych 101 to talk about the key differences between critical and creative thinking, why they’re both important, and ways you can practice both in your life to help you live more vibrantly: 

What Are Creative and Critical Thinking?

Understanding the difference between critical and creative thinking can be broken down simply this way: creative thinking is approaching problems or situations in new ways and with a new perspective, whereas critical thinking is using logic to analyze a situation in order to make an informed decision. Essentially, creative thinking is more subjective (influenced by feelings) whereas critical thinking is more objective (influenced by logic). Both are important when decision-making, so let’s explore some of the reasons why. 

Why Are They Important?

As we’ve discussed in previous blogs , creativity – particularly for adults – can lead to a happier, healthier lifestyle. The same rings true for thinking creatively! Brainstorming new solutions and exploring new ideas are imperative for older adults because it helps provide a sense of self that is innovative and capable. The goal with creative thinking is to have an open mind and to approach situations with diverse perspectives. As for critical thinking, it’s equally important to approach situations constructively and logically, but it is the synergy of both thinking patterns working together that makes us great problem solvers. 

How to Improve Creative and Critical Thinking Skills:

To improve critical thinking skills, when you’re problem-solving, make a list of facts and then cause and effects. This will help you logically analyze outcomes, and come to a decision that way. To think more creatively, try asking yourself: what other considerations are there in this situation? What perspective could I be missing? An easy way to practice this is by brainstorming with another person– hearing a different perspective may inspire you to think of others as well, and is great practice for when you’re alone.

Creative Thinking vs. Critical Thinking

What's the difference.

Creative thinking and critical thinking are two distinct but equally important cognitive processes. Creative thinking involves generating new ideas, concepts, and solutions by exploring various possibilities and thinking outside the box. It encourages imagination, originality, and innovation. On the other hand, critical thinking involves analyzing, evaluating, and questioning ideas, arguments, and information to make informed decisions and judgments. It emphasizes logical reasoning, evidence-based thinking, and the ability to identify biases and fallacies. While creative thinking focuses on generating ideas, critical thinking focuses on evaluating and refining those ideas. Both thinking processes are essential for problem-solving, decision-making, and personal growth.

Further Detail

Introduction.

Creative thinking and critical thinking are two distinct cognitive processes that play crucial roles in problem-solving, decision-making, and innovation. While they share some similarities, they also have distinct attributes that set them apart. In this article, we will explore the characteristics of creative thinking and critical thinking, highlighting their differences and showcasing how they complement each other in various contexts.

Creative Thinking

Creative thinking is a cognitive process that involves generating new ideas, concepts, or solutions by exploring possibilities, making connections, and thinking outside the box. It is characterized by originality, flexibility, and fluency of thought. Creative thinkers often challenge conventional wisdom, embrace ambiguity, and are open to taking risks. They are adept at finding alternative perspectives and exploring multiple solutions to problems.

One of the key attributes of creative thinking is the ability to think divergently. This means being able to generate a wide range of ideas or possibilities, often through brainstorming or free association. Creative thinkers are not limited by constraints and are willing to explore unconventional or unorthodox approaches to problem-solving.

Another important aspect of creative thinking is the ability to make connections between seemingly unrelated concepts or ideas. This skill, known as associative thinking, allows creative thinkers to draw upon a diverse range of knowledge and experiences to generate innovative solutions. They can see patterns, analogies, and relationships that others may overlook.

Furthermore, creative thinking involves the willingness to take risks and embrace failure as a learning opportunity. Creative thinkers understand that not all ideas will be successful, but they are not deterred by setbacks. They view failures as stepping stones towards finding the right solution and are persistent in their pursuit of innovative ideas.

In summary, creative thinking is characterized by divergent thinking, associative thinking, risk-taking, and persistence. It encourages the exploration of new ideas and unconventional approaches to problem-solving.

Critical Thinking

Critical thinking, on the other hand, is a cognitive process that involves analyzing, evaluating, and interpreting information to form reasoned judgments or decisions. It is characterized by logical, systematic, and objective thinking. Critical thinkers are skilled at identifying biases, assumptions, and fallacies in arguments, and they strive to make well-informed and rational decisions based on evidence.

One of the key attributes of critical thinking is the ability to think analytically. Critical thinkers break down complex problems or situations into smaller components, examine the relationships between them, and evaluate the evidence or information available. They are adept at identifying logical inconsistencies or flaws in reasoning, which helps them make sound judgments.

Another important aspect of critical thinking is the ability to evaluate information objectively. Critical thinkers are skeptical and question the validity and reliability of sources. They seek evidence, consider alternative viewpoints, and weigh the strengths and weaknesses of different arguments before forming their own opinions. This attribute is particularly valuable in today's information-rich society, where misinformation and biased narratives are prevalent.

Furthermore, critical thinking involves the ability to think systematically. Critical thinkers follow a logical and structured approach to problem-solving, ensuring that all relevant factors are considered. They are skilled at identifying assumptions, clarifying concepts, and drawing logical conclusions based on the available evidence. This systematic approach helps minimize errors and biases in decision-making.

In summary, critical thinking is characterized by analytical thinking, objective evaluation, skepticism, and systematic reasoning. It emphasizes the importance of evidence-based decision-making and helps individuals navigate complex and information-rich environments.

Complementary Attributes

While creative thinking and critical thinking have distinct attributes, they are not mutually exclusive. In fact, they often complement each other and can be seen as two sides of the same coin.

Creative thinking can benefit from critical thinking by providing a framework for evaluating and refining ideas. Critical thinking helps creative thinkers assess the feasibility, viability, and desirability of their innovative ideas. It allows them to identify potential flaws, consider alternative perspectives, and make informed decisions about which ideas to pursue further.

On the other hand, critical thinking can benefit from creative thinking by expanding the range of possibilities and solutions. Creative thinking encourages critical thinkers to explore unconventional approaches, challenge assumptions, and consider alternative viewpoints. It helps them break free from rigid thinking patterns and discover innovative solutions to complex problems.

Moreover, both creative thinking and critical thinking require open-mindedness and a willingness to embrace ambiguity. They both involve a certain level of discomfort and uncertainty, as individuals venture into uncharted territories of thought. By combining creative and critical thinking, individuals can develop a well-rounded cognitive toolkit that enables them to tackle a wide range of challenges.

Creative thinking and critical thinking are two distinct cognitive processes that bring unique attributes to problem-solving, decision-making, and innovation. Creative thinking emphasizes divergent thinking, associative thinking, risk-taking, and persistence, while critical thinking emphasizes analytical thinking, objective evaluation, skepticism, and systematic reasoning.

While they have their differences, creative thinking and critical thinking are not mutually exclusive. They complement each other and can be seen as two sides of the same coin. Creative thinking benefits from critical thinking by providing a framework for evaluation and refinement, while critical thinking benefits from creative thinking by expanding the range of possibilities and solutions.

By cultivating both creative and critical thinking skills, individuals can enhance their ability to navigate complex problems, make well-informed decisions, and drive innovation in various domains. These cognitive processes are not only valuable in academic and professional settings but also in everyday life, where the ability to think creatively and critically can lead to personal growth and success.

Comparisons may contain inaccurate information about people, places, or facts. Please report any issues.

• Search Search Search …
• Search Search …

Critical thinking vs Creative thinking

Both critical thinking and creative thinking are used for solving problems , only in different ways. For critical thinking, the process is structured and methodical. For creative thinking, the process is fluid and somewhat experimental. Both thinking strategies are useful, with neither being innately superior to the other and in some unexpected ways even being linked. Now without further ado, let us explore the various components of critical thinking and creative thinking.

The Intersection of Critical Thinking & Creative Thinking

Critical thinking:

Critical thinking as we understand it can be traced all the way back to Ancient Greece in the thoughts of Socrates as recorded by Plato. Critical thinking can be summarized as the careful analysis of facts in order to form judgments. With critical, being derived from the word critic, to think critically is to critique the process of thinking itself. In layman’s terms, this means to develop an efficient and ordered system of both written and oral discourse. There are different subsets of critical thinking, which broadly speaking are; unbiased, skeptical, and rational. Let’s break down these different sections individually.

The unbiased system attempts to remove all possible biases from thinking. Everybody has some form of bias or another. Perhaps a personal bias that one has towards someone or something. Or be it a more ethnocentric bias that prevents an individual from being able to see past the beliefs instilled in them by their culture. The unbiased analysis aims to view things from an objective instead of a subjective stand-point.

The skeptical system is one that encourages both doubt and constant questioning. That includes careful examination of both longstanding beliefs and dogmas. As far as skeptics are concerned nothing is beyond the realms of inquisition. If evidence is not available to support beliefs, then they should not be accepted.

The rationality system is based on obtaining rationality, which can be defined as one being agreeable to reason. What is reason? In philosophical terms, reason is the ability to make sense of the world around us through the application of logic. Logic is a key tenet of the three systems and the cornerstone of critical thinking.

Logic is the systematic study of premises and the arguments that they form and is judged based on their validity (whether the statements make sense and lead to the conclusion) and their truth value (whether or not statements are true or false). There are three primary types of logical reasoning; deductive, inductive, and abductive. Deductive reasoning leads to certain conclusions, inductive reasoning leads to probable conclusions, and abductive reasoning is a quick and practical approach to logic.

When examining deductive arguments, we begin by not looking at the truth value of the premises, but if they lead to the conclusion in a coherent manner. If they do not then the argument is deemed invalid and unsound. If the argument is deemed valid we then examine the truth value of the premises. If true, then the argument is sound, if they are not true then the argument is still valid but unsound.

For inductive arguments, a very similar approach is taken to deductive arguments. First, we begin by examining the validity of the premises. If they are invalid the argument is weak and by extension uncogent. If the premises are valid, the argument is strong and we then examine their truth value. If false then the argument while strong is uncogent, if true however the argument is both strong and cogent.

Abductive arguments are drawn from the heuristic technique. The heuristic technique entails non-optimal problem-solving solutions, but are none the less sufficient for immediate decisions and approximations. Abductive reasoning includes such tactics as making an educated guess, following the general rule of thumb, or simple trial and error.

Creative thinking:

Creativity itself is the process where something truly new, but also valuable is formed. Be it a new idea, invention, or piece of art. Unlike logical thinking, there is no stringent set of rules or guidelines for how to undergo creative thinking. The process itself isn’t even entirely understood and there is much speculation and theorizing as to how creative thinking works, with no theory currently set in stone. This makes it a little more challenging to explain how to become a creative thinker. In attempting to do so we will go over some general principles of creative thinking and theories that may explain it.

One of the most obvious traits of creative thinkers is that they are open-minded individuals. Basically, they are willing to at least consider new ideas that other people would either never have thought of or would outright refuse due to a close-minded nature. Being open-minded doesn’t mean automatically accepting every new idea that comes your way. It just means having the willingness to unbiasedly look at things from a new perspective.

In a sense being open-minded can be viewed as somewhat pragmatic as it allows people to examine, chose, and combine different aspects of various ideas to make something both new and useful. Creative thinking also enhances communications as through being open to new experiences a person is better able to talk and work with those with different beliefs than oneself.

Creative thinking has been hypothesized by some scientists as being a part of the evolutionary process. Some scientists think that by thinking of things in abstract terms we were better able to come up with new and innovative solutions in changing environments. Various scientists and academics have attempted to map out the process of creative thinking, one popular theory being largely developed by the psychologist J.P Guilford. Guilford helped develop the theory of divergent thinking.

Divergent thinking is the process some think is responsible for producing creativity and this is done by examining many possible solutions. Divergent thinking is more spontaneous and doesn’t occur in a linear manner. With divergent thinking a great many possible activities are explored over a short period of time, often with unexpected yet original connections being made. Common activities to help engage in divergent thinking are to create a list of questions, taking the time to think and meditate on ideas, artistic endeavors such as writing and drawing are also encouraged.

You may also like

Critical Thinking Skills in the Workplace

Critical thinking refers to the analysis and evaluation of different points to form a decision or judgment. Whether a person’s position in […]

Debate & Critical Thinking

We’ve all had debates with friends or on social media, where we get into it over some heated issue.  Emotions get out […]

What Does Critical Mean in Critical Thinking?

English is a complex language, and there are often several meanings for the same word depending on the context. Here’s what the […]

What is Associative Thinking and Why it Matters in Today’s Workplace

Associative thinking is a cognitive process that allows the mind to connect seemingly unrelated concepts and ideas. This type of thinking is […]

Creative Thinking vs. Critical Thinking: What's the Difference?

Key Differences

Comparison chart, primary focus, typical usage, creative thinking and critical thinking definitions, creative thinking, critical thinking, what is creative thinking, can creative thinking be taught, what is critical thinking, why is critical thinking important in decision-making, how does creative thinking aid in problem-solving, how does creative thinking benefit businesses, what role does critical thinking play in academia, how does critical thinking help in science, can creative thinking lead to unexpected solutions, what are key skills in critical thinking, are brainstorming sessions a part of creative thinking, why is critical thinking essential in healthcare, does creative thinking only apply to the arts, can creative thinking be systematic, do entrepreneurs need creative thinking, how does critical thinking differ from skepticism, what is an example of creative thinking in technology, how do educators foster critical thinking in students, is critical thinking always objective, why is critical thinking important in media consumption.

Trending Comparisons

Popular Comparisons

New Comparisons

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

Bibliography

Academic tools.

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

Critical Thinking

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

2.1 Dewey’s Three Main Examples

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. Examples and Non-Examples

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8. Critical Thinking Dispositions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

12. Controversies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

• Info about mirror sites

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

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Part Two: You are the President and CEO of You

Thinking Critically and Creatively

Dr. andrew robert baker.

Critical and creative thinking skills are perhaps the most fundamental skills involved in making judgments and solving problems. They are some of the most important skills I have ever developed. I use them everyday and continue to work to improve them both.

The ability to think critically about a matter—to analyze a question, situation, or problem down to its most basic parts—is what helps us evaluate the accuracy and truthfulness of statements, claims, and information we read and hear. It is the sharp knife that, when honed, separates fact from fiction, honesty from lies, and the accurate from the misleading. We all use this skill to one degree or another almost every day. For example, we use critical thinking every day as we consider the latest consumer products and why one particular product is the best among its peers. Is it a quality product because a celebrity endorses it? Because a lot of other people may have used it? Because it is made by one company versus another? Or perhaps because it is made in one country or another? These are questions representative of critical thinking.

The academic setting demands more of us in terms of critical thinking than everyday life. It demands that we evaluate information and analyze a myriad of issues. It is the environment where our critical thinking skills can be the difference between success and failure. In this environment we must consider information in an analytical, critical manner. We must ask questions—What is the source of this information? Is this source an expert one and what makes it so? Are there multiple perspectives to consider on an issue? Do multiple sources agree or disagree on an issue? Does quality research substantiate information or opinion? Do I have any personal biases that may affect my consideration of this information? It is only through purposeful, frequent, intentional questioning such as this that we can sharpen our critical thinking skills and improve as students, learners, and researchers. Developing my critical thinking skills over a twenty year period as a student in higher education enabled me to complete a quantitative dissertation, including analyzing research and completing statistical analysis, and earning my Ph.D. in 2014.

While critical thinking analyzes information and roots out the true nature and facets of problems, it is creative thinking that drives progress forward when it comes to solving these problems. Exceptional creative thinkers are people that invent new solutions to existing problems that do not rely on past or current solutions. They are the ones who invent solution C when everyone else is still arguing between A and B. Creative thinking skills involve using strategies to clear the mind so that our thoughts and ideas can transcend the current limitations of a problem and allow us to see beyond barriers that prevent new solutions from being found.

Brainstorming is the simplest example of intentional creative thinking that most people have tried at least once. With the quick generation of many ideas at once we can block-out our brain’s natural tendency to limit our solution-generating abilities so we can access and combine many possible solutions/thoughts and invent new ones. It is sort of like sprinting through a race’s finish line only to find there is new track on the other side and we can keep going, if we choose. As with critical thinking, higher education both demands creative thinking from us and is the perfect place to practice and develop the skill. Everything from word problems in a math class, to opinion or persuasive speeches and papers, call upon our creative thinking skills to generate new solutions and perspectives in response to our professor’s demands. Creative thinking skills ask questions such as—What if? Why not? What else is out there? Can I combine perspectives/solutions? What is something no one else has brought-up? What is being forgotten/ignored? What about ______? It is the opening of doors and options that follows problem-identification.

Consider an assignment that required you to compare two different authors on the topic of education and select and defend one as better. Now add to this scenario that your professor clearly prefers one author over the other. While critical thinking can get you as far as identifying the similarities and differences between these authors and evaluating their merits, it is creative thinking that you must use if you wish to challenge your professor’s opinion and invent new perspectives on the authors that have not previously been considered.

So, what can we do to develop our critical and creative thinking skills? Although many students may dislike it, group work is an excellent way to develop our thinking skills. Many times I have heard from students their disdain for working in groups based on scheduling, varied levels of commitment to the group or project, and personality conflicts too, of course. True—it’s not always easy, but that is why it is so effective. When we work collaboratively on a project or problem we bring many brains to bear on a subject. These different brains will naturally develop varied ways of solving or explaining problems and examining information. To the observant individual we see that this places us in a constant state of back and forth critical/creative thinking modes.

For example, in group work we are simultaneously analyzing information and generating solutions on our own, while challenging other’s analyses/ideas and responding to challenges to our own analyses/ideas. This is part of why students tend to avoid group work—it challenges us as thinkers and forces us to analyze others while defending ourselves, which is not something we are used to or comfortable with as most of our educational experiences involve solo work. Your professors know this—that’s why we assign it—to help you grow as students, learners, and thinkers!

Foundations of Academic Success: Words of Wisdom Copyright © 2015 by Thomas Priester is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Critical Thinking and Creative Thinking: What’s the Difference?

In our modern life, the most common combination of what we do is work, behavior, and social patterns. In these areas, it is important to be able to make decisions and solve problems to be successful in both personal and professional life.

Have you ever counted how many problems you encounter during the day or week? It can be just basic things like a broken plate after breakfast or more professional tasks like business planning and managing the team.

Two major thinking methods that have gained significant attention in recent years are critical thinking and creative thinking. And truly speaking, these two types are often considered to be opposites. Creative thinking and critical thinking are both needed for effective decision-making and problem-solving. So let’s see how to find the balance between them and what are the main differences between critical thinking and creative thinking!

Critical Thinking

Before we proceed to understand how to find the balance in your lifestyle and work as well, it is important to understand what critical thinking actually is. So it is the type of thinking about any subject, problem, or content.

Moreover, it can improve the quality of your thoughts. Critical thinking will let you make decisions by yourself. In this way, it will help you improve decision-making. It is about asking quick questions and giving quick answers to understand the situation.

There is a huge amount of information we meet every day which needs to be analyzed in order for us to make knowledgeable decisions on it. Critical thinking is an invaluable skill that allows people to think logically and systematically.

This thinking helps analyze information or ideas by breaking them down into smaller components with a view to determining their relevance and completeness. It allows people to question the beliefs and arguments of others, using logical reasoning to come up with good decisions. It can be named as a methodical process that involves analyzing several different sources of information, weighing up information and deductions, and making an informed opinion from them on available facts at hand.

Components of Critical Thinking

Now, it is important to understand what the critical thinking process consists of. According to experts, critical thinking should have:

• Interpretation – meaning or significance of something. This component includes reviewing data through relationships between different groups and making conclusions based on available information while identifying patterns or trends, among other things.
• Analysis – separating complex information into smaller parts to examine their relationships and distinctions. This component refers to evaluating the presented information and identifying any underlying beliefs and arguments presented along with any potential predispositions or errors.
• Evaluation – it is about assessing the strength and validity of presented arguments. Weighing up the evidence presented, evaluating the credibility of sources is a part of this component.
• Explanation. It provides good reasons for the reached conclusion. This component means presenting analytical and assessed findings in a brief format.
• Self-regulation. This component requires one to be aware of one’s discriminations and beliefs, which should be challenged by searching for more information.

Examples of Critical Thinking

As we mentioned, critical thinking helps analyze one question from different sides and then make reasonable decisions. Maybe the most simple example is distinguishing fake news from real news. A person who has critical thinking always does their own research on any problem or idea. This person isn’t satisfied with other people’s opinions, and it is good for them.

So critical thinking is useful in different spheres of life including education, medicine, law, business, and so on. Let’s check some situations, where this type of thinking is applicable.

• Imagine you visit a doctor. The doctor checks your test, analyzes patient’s symptoms, and makes a diagnosis depending on available information. It is also about critical thinking, where you need to analyze different aspects of human health and prepare a conclusion without blood analysis and so on, if possible.
• The next example is a lawyer. A lawyer uses critical thinking in assessing the validity of witness testimonies, weighing down arguments to build a case to protect their client.
• To make a lesson plan that encourages students to think critically, a teacher must use critical thinking, analysis and research, making conclusions from available information on hand and the ability to effectively write plans.
• A business manager who understands market trends and customer preferences through critical thinking can analyze market trends, assess customer preferences, and then make reasonable and effective decisions based on the available data as well.
• A student needs critical thinking when writing papers to ensure a logical structure. Otherwise, such a paper will be chaotic.

So it is important to note that people with good critical thinking skills are able to take in mind some facts before making decisions. And in this way, they can be objective in decisions and findings because they researched the problems from all sides.

Understanding Creative Thinking

Creative thinking is considered one of the key skills of the 21st century. And actually, all enlightened people talk about the importance of its development. It is a complex idea that includes many different aspects. So creative thinking is the creation of unusual and good solutions to the original problem. This definition breaks down the creative thinking process into two stages: creating unusual solutions and choosing solutions that are good enough to deal with the problem.

So creative thinking is the process of generating new ideas, possibilities, or solutions that are original and, in the same way, useful. It is about going away from traditional ways of thinking and finding alternatives. Even if your expertise in the field isn’t skyrocketing, it is possible to achieve excellent results. People tend to think of creative abilities as something that is important only to people in creative professions like musicians, photographers, designers, etc. But in the modern world, the ability to think creatively is one of the most important skills for many specialists. Moreover, employers often try to find people who can think creatively and critically.

Components of Creative Thinking

• Fluency – It is about generating a lot of ideas easily and well. How can we find something that we need? The more ideas our brain generates, the more likely we can find something interesting for the situation.
• Flexibility – As you know, flexibility means finding new perspectives and opportunities. It is important to be willing to consider ideas and opinions that are new or different from your own; it is all about flexibility.
• Association – It is about the connection between new concepts and ideas that didn’t seem to be relevant in this way.
• Originality – It is like the power of independent thought or constructive imagination. You can change tools, environments, and maybe settings to improve your originality.

Examples of Creative Thinking in Real Life

As you already know, we use creative thinking in different spheres of your life. It can be science, art, design, and so on. So let’s look at some examples:

• A Java developer is coding new software, while a UI and UX designer is working on user-friendly interfaces.
• An artist drawing a new picture. They use new materials and styles to create something special and modern.
• The pastry chef came up with a new dessert – a heart-shaped cake with a watermelon flavor. It is something new, yeah? And it is all about creative thinking.

Creative thinking is a powerful tool for our professional and personal lives. It helps us understand how to unlock our possibilities and use them.

Conclusion: Why is it important to Balance Critical and Creative Thinking?

According to experts’ opinion, these two modes of thinking are important in work. Integrating both critical and creative thinking helps in problem-solving and decision-making. Also, having analytical and creative thinking boosts your possibilities. Finding non-traditional ideas is key to success. For example, by using creativity, teachers can engage more students with lesson topics. If it is interesting enough, more students will be successful in this subject or topic.

These types of thinking must be balanced to increase productivity, improve communication abilities, and develop more creative and efficient ways of dealing with problems.

Related Articles:

• Elevate Your Photography Skills With 20 Creative & Ingenious Hacks
• 9 Photography Composition Tips From Steve McCurry’s Iconic Photos
• Unlocking The Essence Of Photography Composition Through 15 Captivating Images
• Behind The Scenes: Photographers Sharing How To Shoot The Perfect Shot
• Learning & Tutorials

Related Posts

The Influence Of Parental Involvement On Student Academic Achievement

The Digital Transformation of Art Exhibitions: A New Era for Artistic Display

The Neuroscience Of Language Learning: Repetry’s Approach To Cognitive Enhancement

Critical And Creative Thinking | Newsletter – October 2021

Critical thinking is the ability to clearly and logically consider information that is presented to us. Creative thinking is about generating new, novel, or useful ideas. The great innovators combine critical thinking and creative thinking. 

Creative thinking (a companion to critical thinking) is an invaluable skill for college students. It’s important because it helps you look at problems and situations from a fresh perspective. You see problems as interesting opportunities, and you challenge assumptions and suspend judgment. You don’t give up easily. Some of the best examples of creative thinking skills may include lateral thinking, visual reading, out-of-the-box thinking, copywriting, artistic creativity, problem-solving, analytical mind, and divergent thinking. By practicing critical thinking, we are allowing ourselves not only to solve problems but also to come up with new and creative ideas to do so. Critical thinking allows us to analyse these ideas and adjust them accordingly

Generally speaking, creativity is associated with generating ideas, while critical thinking is associated with judging them. … It is fundamentally creative in the sense that its aim is to produce something new: an insight, an argument, a new synthesis of ideas or information, a new level of understanding.

Creative Thinking vs Critical Thinking

Creative Thinking is a way of looking at problems or situations from a fresh perspective to conceive of something new or original

Critical Thinking is the logical, sequential disciplined process of rationalizing, analysing, evaluating and interpreting information to make informed judgements and/or decisions.

They are the complementary skills that you use as different stages when trying to solve a problem or forming a judgment about something. Critical thinking  is the ability to clearly and logically consider information that is presented to us. Creative thinking  is about generating new, novel, or useful ideas. The great innovators combine critical thinking and creative thinking. Old world perspectives with new world ideas.

Creative Thinking and Critical Thinking are two expressions that show the difference between them when it comes to their inner meanings. Creative Thinking is going beyond the limitations and being original and fresh in one’s ideas. Critical Thinking, on the other hand, is more evaluative in nature and analyses a particular thing. Hence, one can conclude that while Creative thinking is generative in purpose, Critical Thinking is analytical in purpose. This is one of the main differences between creative thinking and critical thinking. 

No matter what process you chose, the ultimate goal is to generate ideas that are unique, useful and worthy of further elaboration. Oftentimes, critical thinking is performed after creative thinking has generated various possibilities. Critical thinking is used to vet those ideas to determine if they are practical

Importance of Critical and Creative Thinking

Creativity goes hand in hand with innovation. … Creativity improves the process of solving problems. It doesn’t matter if we’re talking about developing a new strategy or an innovative way to stay ahead of the competition. Creative problem solving gives that competitive edge that any business is striving to achieve

Both creative and critical thinking are essential in the success of a business. … Both ways of thinking require elaboration on the problem, which leads to problem-solving. Creative thinking can be used to elaborate on the initial problem in order to come up with new solutions.

By applying creative and critical thinking approaches to your subject area you will enrich and deepen your learning experiences. Furthermore, creative and critical thinking skills can benefit many other areas of your life from problem solutions to decision making.

The reason why innovation benefits from critical thinking is simple; critical thinking is used when judgment is needed to produce the desired set of valued outcomes. That is why the majority of innovation outcomes reflect incremental improvements built on a foundation of critically thought-out solutions.

How to Improve Critical Thinking Skills

• Open-mindedness: Critical thinkers must work to have unbiased thought processes and remain open to more than one point of view. This openness to challenging information is a foundation for critical thinking.
• Analysis: Analyse information to determine its reliability and to understand it well enough to draw further conclusions. This is one of the most important aspects of critical thinking.
• Interpretation: Take time to interpret your analysis, synthesizing, and deciphering the meaning of relevant information.
• Problem-solving: Once you analyse and interpret a problem, you can come up with one or more possible solutions.
• Decision-making: By making a decisive decision, you come to a conclusion based on the data you have interpreted.
• Effective communication: You must be able to convincingly explain your conclusions (and the thought process behind them) toSelf-improvement: Good critical thinkers develop positive habits of mind by reflecting on their own personal critical thinking process and looking for ways to improve it.

How to Improve Creative Thinking Skills

Create your own “Three Ifs”: Many good innovators take an existing object and ask clever questions to twist the very concept of it and make it new.

(i) What would happen if I change it (the object/ system/ social relationship, etc)?

(ii)What would I change or improve about this object if I wanted to use it in 10 years?

(iii) What would I do if I had a one-million-dollar investment to improve it?

• Practice dreaming: The greatest paradox is that creative thinking is not necessarily the product of IQ or enlightenment via the proverbial apple falling on your head. It is a matter of regularly training your imagination, practicing your powers of observation and dreaming, big or small.
• Make time for cohesive creative thinking: Every textbook on creativity affirms to the importance of setting aside clearly defined time for creative thinking and innovation. Allocate time – it might be an hour per day or per week – in which to exercise creative thinking about something specific.
• Learn to pitch your ideas: One of the most important innovation skills is the ability to present a very short and clear description of a new idea (two to three sentences – like shouting through the closing door of an elevator) and to make a short presentation (two to three minutes – what is called an “elevator pitch”).
• Bounce ideas off others: Even a great innovator needs people around her or him to discuss – or “bounce” – new creative ideas and innovations. The important asset to add to your innovation skillset, is the ability to be a valuable team player, capable of bouncing ideas to the next level. 

To conclude

Critical and creative thinkings are two inseparable sides and educational goals everywhere. Both are necessary skills in everyday life. To be applied depends on the ability and confidence of the lecturer to apply in the form lab in the laboratory. They both play an important role in every aspect of our life and as we learn to implement them for solving problems and stay focused in what we do

• Article on the Importance of Creative Thinking
• Video on Critical and Creative Thinking Tool
• Article on Importance of Critical Thinking
• Video on Differences between Creative & Critical Thinking
• Ted Talk on Creative and Critical Thinking

“Education is not the learning of facts, but the training of the mind to think.” – Albert Einstein

Update on Skill Development & Training

In the new cohort, currently in the 2nd year (1438), 699 students were mapped to the Enguru English program and 739 scholars to the Hello English program. This started on August 10th.

The Campus to Corporate “Skills Training Program” supported by Capgemini,1460 scholars gave the Midline test. Based on these scores, 483 students are in the Hi-touch English program by eAge Tutors, 713 in the Coursera program, and 30 in the Skill Lync program. A batch of 100 students from Computer Science & IT streams will do the IBM Skill build program from October 10th.

This year, the 2nd year students in Law (18) and Pharma(52) cohorts are also enrolled in the English program with Enguru that started on 31st August.

FLY (Finding the Leader in You) Program in partnership with CMI and IIT-Gandhinagar

The 12-days workshop was conducted in September with a batch of  34 students. This comprises of 2nd year Engineering scholars. This workshop is conducted by CMI – Competitive Mindset Institute Inc and designed to teach noncognitive skills for the personality and character development of students.

Soft Skill Training programs and webinars for Medical FFE scholars

Qmed – Medical Literature searching course for research and study is going on for 66 Medical scholars. 

Medical Webinar – 13th Medical Webinar (25th September) – “Research in MBBS: translation versus mere research” conducted by Dr. Sakir Ahmed – 231 participants

Placement update

• From the 2019-20 batch of 1023 Engineering scholars, 93% (953) of students are placed, where 723 have secured jobs and 230 have opted for higher studies. 7% (70) of students are currently seeking employment. 
• From the 2020-21 graduating batch of 890 Engineering students, 82% (736) is placed; 519 have secured jobs and 217 have opted for higher studies while 19% students (154) are seeking employment.
• From the 2021-22 graduating batch of 1256 Engineering students (current final year), 29% (361) are placed; 239 have secured jobs and 122 have opted for higher studies. The remaining 895 students are starting campus interviews from September 2021.

FFE is thankful to its corporate partners Geberit Plumbing Technology India Private Limited, O9 Solutions, Altimetrik India Pvt. Limited, Capgemini TechnologyServices India Limited, KPMG Assurance, and Consulting Services LLP, TraneTechnologies, Ingersoll Rand for offering Placement opportunities to FFE’s batch of 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021-22.

Below are toppers in the Coursera training program. They have been issued with gift vouchers, based on their performance. Congratulations to all of you!

Stay Connected

Social media is a great forum to stay connected and updated about our latest events, news and opportunities. Like, Follow & Subscribe!

Latest Posts

In Focus | October – December 2023 Newsletter

FFE’s Scholarships team has been working tirelessly to review renewal applications and expedite the process for awarding scholarships. All the while also working with our

ConnectHUB – The impact of artificial intelligence on future careers in India

In India, the influence of Artificial Intelligence (AI) on the future career landscape is nothing short of revolutionary. India, with its dynamic and diverse workforce,

In Focus | July – September 2023 Newsletter

We were delighted and uplifted to host FFE Founders, Dr. Prabhu and Mrs. Poonam Goel, during their trip to India this quarter. Amidst a whirlwind

In Focus | April – June 2023 Newsletter

The second quarter of this year has been dedicated to reflection, planning and celebrating our successes, while setting ambitiousgoals for the future. Looking back at

You can make a difference, in the lives of financially constrained gifted students, who have the potential to rise above the rest. Support Engineering, Medical, Pharma or Law students, to help achieve their dreams.

Inspire Young Minds With Skills And Confidence To Last A Lifetime! Join us as a Mentor to be a changemaker in the lives of bright young minds.

• Editors Choice

What is the difference between critical thinking and creative thinking?

• No comments
• 3 minute read

What is the difference between critical path and critical chain?

Share article, table of contents hide, tl;dr critical thinking vs. creative thinking, what is critical thinking, what is creative thinking, critical thinking vs. creative thinking – key differences, how to improve your critical thinking skills, how to improve your creative thinking skills.

Critical thinking analyzes, evaluates, and forms reasoned judgments based on evidence. Creative thinking generates novel ideas and solutions.

Critical thinking focuses on analyzing facts , evidence, and logical reasoning to reach a well-justified conclusion, creative thinking involves generating unique ideas, exploring possibilities, and looking beyond conventional boundaries.

Developing strong critical-thinking skills allows individuals to make sound judgments based on evidence and reasoning while minimizing biases or fallacies. Nurturing creative-thinking skills enables individuals to approach challenges with fresh perspectives, think outside the box, and come up with innovative solutions.

Critical thinking is a cognitive process that involves analyzing, evaluating, and interpreting information in a logical and objective manner. It goes beyond simply accepting what we are told or assuming things at face value.

Instead, critical thinkers actively question and examine ideas, arguments, and evidence to form well-informed conclusions.

At its core , critical thinking requires us to be open-minded and willing to challenge our own beliefs and biases. It encourages us to approach problems with curiosity and skepticism while seeking reliable evidence to support or refute claims.

Creative thinking is the ability to come up with new and innovative ideas, concepts, and solutions. Creative thinkers have a unique perspective that allows them to see things from different angles and think outside the box.

Creative thinking involves being open-minded, curious, and willing to take risks. It’s about exploring unconventional approaches and challenging traditional norms. A creative thinker is not afraid to question assumptions or explore alternative possibilities.

• Question Assumptions: Challenge underlying assumptions to uncover hidden biases and gain deeper insights.
• Analyze Information: Break down complex ideas into components, evaluating their logic and relevance.
• Evaluate Sources: Assess the credibility and reliability of information before accepting it as true.
• Solve Problems Systematically: Approach problems step by step, considering multiple solutions and their implications.
• Practice Socratic Questioning: Use probing questions to explore the underlying principles and implications of ideas.
• Consider Multiple Perspectives: Engage with diverse viewpoints to broaden your understanding and avoid narrow thinking.
• Reflect on Decisions: Analyze past decisions to learn from mistakes and refine your future judgment.
• Develop Logical Reasoning: Identify common fallacies and inconsistencies in arguments.
• Write Analytically: Express your thoughts in writing to clarify your ideas and enhance your critical analysis.
• Stay Curious: Cultivate a thirst for knowledge and consistently seek new information and insights.
• Embrace Curiosity: Cultivate a strong desire to explore and learn about various subjects.
• Divergent Thinking: Train your mind to generate multiple ideas and explore different angles.
• Mind Mapping: Visualize connections between ideas to spark new insights and associations.
• Brainstorming: Engage in free-flowing idea sessions to encourage creativity and innovation.
• Change Perspectives: Shift viewpoints or imagine different scenarios to uncover fresh insights.
• Cross-Disciplinary Learning: Draw inspiration from diverse fields to create unique connections.
• Playful Exploration: Engage in creative activities and games to stimulate imaginative thinking.
• Overcome Fear of Failure: Embrace mistakes as learning opportunities and avenues for growth.
• Collaborate: Share and discuss ideas with others to benefit from different viewpoints.
• Mindfulness and Reflection: Practice being present and analyze experiences for creative inspiration.

Image Credits

Featured Image By – storyset on Freepik

Image 1 By – Freepik

Image 2 By – rawpixel.com on Freepik

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

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

You May Also Like

What is the difference between prejudice and discrimination?

• February 1, 2023

What is the difference between lithium and beryllium?

• March 20, 2023

What is the difference between fern and moss?

• March 12, 2023

Corrosion vs. Erosion: Key Differences Unveiled

• Difference Digest
• March 8, 2024

Corruption vs. Destruction: Key Differences Explained

• Mathematics

Cosine vs Sine: Key Differences Explained

• March 7, 2024

County vs. District: Understanding the Differences

The Synergy of Creative and Critical Thinking

More elaboration, excerpted from Preparing Creative and Critical Thinkers by Donald J. Treffinger

Currently Empty: $ 0.00

Continue shopping

• Development

Enhancing Creativity and Critical Thinking Skills: A Comprehensive Guide

Introduction.

In today’s rapidly evolving world, creativity and critical thinking have become invaluable skills for navigating the complexities of life. Whether you’re a student, professional, or simply someone seeking personal growth, developing these skills can greatly enhance your problem-solving abilities, decision-making processes, and overall mental agility. In this comprehensive guide, we will explore various strategies and techniques to foster creativity and critical thinking, empowering you to approach challenges with a fresh perspective and uncover innovative solutions.

Table of Contents

Understanding Creativity and Critical Thinking

Creativity refers to the ability to generate original ideas, approaches, and solutions. It involves thinking beyond conventional boundaries, connecting seemingly unrelated concepts, and exploring new perspectives. On the other hand, critical thinking is the process of analyzing and evaluating information, arguments, and situations in a logical and systematic manner. It involves questioning assumptions, considering multiple viewpoints, and making informed judgments based on evidence and reasoning.

The Importance of Creativity and Critical Thinking

Creativity and critical thinking are vital skills that have a profound impact on various aspects of our lives. In academic settings, they promote deeper understanding, encourage independent thinking, and foster innovative problem-solving abilities. In professional environments, they enable individuals to adapt to changing circumstances, identify opportunities, and make sound decisions. Moreover, in everyday life, these skills empower us to navigate complex challenges, effectively communicate our ideas, and lead fulfilling lives.

Strategies for Enhancing Creativity and Critical Thinking

Embracing curiosity and open-mindedness.

Curiosity is the driving force behind creativity and critical thinking. Cultivating a sense of wonder and actively seeking knowledge about diverse subjects expands our mental horizons and stimulates new ideas. By maintaining an open mind, we become receptive to different perspectives and are more likely to challenge assumptions, explore alternatives, and arrive at novel solutions.

Engaging in Diverse Perspectives

Exposing ourselves to a range of viewpoints and experiences broadens our understanding and nurtures creativity and critical thinking. Actively seeking out diverse sources of information, engaging in discussions with people from different backgrounds, and embracing multicultural experiences can significantly enhance our ability to think critically and generate innovative ideas.

Practicing Reflective Thinking

Reflective thinking involves examining our thoughts, actions, and experiences with a critical lens. By intentionally reflecting on our successes, failures, and the lessons learned, we gain valuable insights that shape our future endeavors. Journaling, meditation, and engaging in meaningful conversations with mentors or peers are effective ways to cultivate reflective thinking.

Encouraging Brainstorming and Idea Generation

Brainstorming is a powerful technique for stimulating creativity and critical thinking. By creating a supportive environment that encourages free-flowing idea generation, we can unlock our imaginative potential. This process involves suspending judgment, allowing for unconventional ideas, and building upon the contributions of others. Collaboration and team-based brainstorming sessions can yield remarkable results by harnessing collective intelligence.

Seeking Feedback and Constructive Criticism

Seeking feedback from trusted sources can provide valuable insights and help refine our creative and critical thinking skills. Constructive criticism enables us to identify blind spots, overcome biases, and enhance the quality of our ideas and arguments. By actively seeking diverse feedback, we open ourselves to continuous improvement and personal growth.

Applying Creativity and Critical Thinking in Different Domains

Education and learning.

Creativity and critical thinking are essential for effective learning. Students who actively engage in these skills are better equipped to analyze information, develop logical arguments, and apply knowledge in real-world scenarios. Educators can facilitate creativity and critical thinking by designing interactive lessons, encouraging active participation, and providing opportunities for independent exploration.

Problem Solving in the Workplace

In today’s competitive job market, creativity and critical thinking are highly sought-after skills. Employers value individuals who can approach problems from different angles, propose innovative solutions, and adapt to rapidly changing circumstances. By leveraging creativity and critical thinking, employees can navigate complex challenges, improve efficiency, and contribute to the overall growth of their organizations.

Everyday Life Challenges

Creativity and critical thinking extend beyond academic and professional contexts. They empower us to approach everyday life challenges with resilience and resourcefulness. Whether it’s finding alternative routes during a traffic jam, coming up with unique gift ideas, or making informed decisions about personal finances, these skills enhance our ability to navigate various situations and seize opportunities.

Overcoming Barriers to Creativity and Critical Thinking

Fear of failure.

Fear of failure often hinders creative and critical thinking processes. To overcome this barrier, it’s important to reframe failure as a valuable learning experience. Embracing a growth mindset allows us to view setbacks as opportunities for growth and improvement. By acknowledging that failures are stepping stones to success, we become more open to taking risks and exploring new ideas.

Narrow-Mindedness and Biases

Narrow-mindedness and biases limit our ability to think critically and inhibit creativity. Recognizing our own biases and actively seeking diverse perspectives can help overcome this barrier. Engaging in empathy-building exercises, exploring opposing viewpoints, and fostering inclusive environments enable us to challenge our assumptions and broaden our perspectives.

Lack of Exposure to Diverse Ideas

Exposure to diverse ideas is crucial for stimulating creativity and critical thinking. Actively seeking out new experiences, exploring different cultures, and engaging with a variety of disciplines can break the monotony and expand our knowledge base. By embracing diversity in all its forms, we foster a rich environment for creative and critical exploration.

External Pressures and Time Constraints

External pressures and time constraints can stifle creativity and critical thinking. Prioritizing self-care, setting aside dedicated time for reflection, and establishing a supportive network can alleviate these challenges. Creating a conducive environment that allows for uninterrupted focus and creative expression is essential for nurturing these skills.

Cultivating a Creative and Critical Mindset

Embracing a growth mindset.

A growth mindset is the belief that intelligence and abilities can be developed through dedication and hard work. By adopting a growth mindset, we embrace challenges, persist in the face of obstacles, and see failures as opportunities for growth. This mindset fosters a sense of curiosity, resilience, and a willingness to experiment, ultimately enhancing creativity and critical thinking.

Developing a Habit of Continuous Learning

Continuous learning is the cornerstone of creativity and critical thinking. Cultivating a habit of seeking knowledge, exploring new fields, and staying updated with emerging trends nurtures our intellectual curiosity and broadens our perspectives. Embracing lifelong learning not only enhances our skills but also keeps us adaptable and open to new ideas and possibilities.

Engaging in Creative and Intellectual Pursuits

Engaging in creative and intellectual pursuits is an excellent way to exercise and enhance our creativity and critical thinking skills. Activities such as writing, painting, playing musical instruments, solving puzzles, or participating in debates and discussions provide avenues for self-expression, problem-solving, and exploring new ideas. By actively engaging in these pursuits, we unlock our creative potential and sharpen our critical thinking abilities.

Tools and Resources for Enhancing Creativity and Critical Thinking

Online courses and workshops.

Online platforms offer a wealth of courses and workshops designed to enhance creativity and critical thinking. Websites like Coursera, Udemy, and FutureLearn provide a wide range of options, from introductory courses to advanced programs. These resources offer structured learning experiences and opportunities to engage with instructors and fellow learners, facilitating the development of these skills.

Books and Reading Materials

Books and reading materials are invaluable sources for enhancing creativity and critical thinking. Authors such as Sir Ken Robinson, Daniel Kahneman, and Steven Johnson provide insights into the creative process, cognitive biases, and innovative thinking. Reading works from different genres, including fiction and non-fiction, exposes us to diverse perspectives and nurtures our intellectual curiosity.

Collaborative Platforms and Idea-sharing Communities

Collaborative platforms and idea-sharing communities foster a supportive environment for creativity and critical thinking. Platforms like GitHub, Stack Overflow, and TED Talks enable individuals to connect with like-minded individuals, share ideas, and collaborate on projects. Engaging with these communities not only provides exposure to diverse perspectives but also allows for valuable feedback and collaborative problem-solving.

Enhancing creativity and critical thinking is a continuous journey that opens doors to innovation, personal growth, and a deeper understanding of the world around us. By embracing curiosity, seeking diverse perspectives, practicing reflective thinking, and engaging in creative pursuits, we can cultivate these skills and apply them in various domains of our lives. Overcoming barriers, adopting a growth mindset, and utilizing available tools and resources further strengthen our creative and critical thinking abilities. Let us embark on this empowering journey of self-discovery, armed with the power of creativity and critical thinking.

Read More: For further insights into creativity and critical thinking, consider exploring the following resources:

• The Harvard Business Review provides a wealth of articles and research papers on critical thinking, its applications, and its impact on decision-making processes.
• TED Talks features engaging talks by experts from various fields, sharing their insights and experiences related to critical thinking and its significance in today’s world.

Q: How can creativity and critical thinking benefit me in my professional life? A: Creativity and critical thinking are highly valued in the professional sphere. They enable individuals to adapt to changing circumstances, identify innovative solutions, and make informed decisions. These skills can contribute to professional growth, open up new opportunities, and enhance problem-solving abilities.

Q: Can creativity and critical thinking be developed, or are they innate abilities? A: While some individuals may have a natural inclination towards creativity and critical thinking, these skills can be developed and nurtured through practice, exposure to diverse perspectives, and continuous learning. Adopting a growth mindset and actively engaging in activities that stimulate these skills can significantly enhance them over time.

Q: How can I overcome the fear of failure and embrace creative thinking? A: Overcoming the fear of failure requires a shift in mindset. Viewing failures as learning opportunities and reframing them as stepping stones to success can help mitigate the fear. Embracing a growth mindset and surrounding yourself with a supportive environment that encourages experimentation and risk-taking can also foster creative thinking.

Top Courses

Food Photography Course

British sign language course

German Language course

Spanish Language course

Dutch Language course

Portuguese Language course

Creating Smart Future For Next Generation. We’re simplifying the process to find and select the industry’s top 1% Courses.

• All Courses
• Digital Skill
• Digital Marketing
• IT and Software
• Personal Development
• Help Center
• Privacy Policy

© SmartCourses – All Right Reserved.

• Term Conditions
• Returns Policy

Insert/edit link

Enter the destination URL

Or link to existing content