Inquiry: Critical Thinking and Disability in Higher Education

INQUIRY
CRITICAL THINKING ACROSS THE DISCIPLINES
Special Issue:
Critical Thinking and Disability in Higher Education

Amy L. Skinner, Guest Editor
Contents
Contents
Amy L.H.
Robert Skinner
Ennis Guest Editorial
Critical Thinking: Reflection and Perspective Part I................. 4
Critical Thinking and Disability in Higher Education ........... 5
Amy L. Skinner,
Michael A. Gillespie Assessing Critical Thinking about Values:
Lee Ann R. Raylins, and A Quasi-Experimental Study................................................... 19
Cynthia Hughes A Preliminary Investigation Comparing Academic
Locus of Control and Perceived Quality of
Articles from the Members of theAcademic
Lone StarLife across
College College
CyFair Students
Campus with and
Critical Thinking Based
without
Faculty Learning Community (CTB-FLC) Disabilities ................................................................ 7
Donna Gilbertson,
Maria Sanders Embracing Critical Thinking as a Model for
Sherrie Mecham, Professional Development: Creating CTB-FLCs
Kara Mickelson, and
On Your Campus..................................................................... 29
Seth Wilhelmsen Training and Generalization of Study Skills for
College Students with Disabilities ......................................... 15
Maria Sanders &
Juliann
Jason Moulenbelt
Mathis and Defining Critical Thinking: How Far Have We Come?........... 38
Amy L. Skinner Enhancing Pre-service Students’ Learning and
Frank Codispoti The Academic
Thinking CollegeDisorder
about Bipolar Course isVia anLecturer
Argument ...................... 47.
Descriptions of Living with Mental Illness ........................... 27
Idolina Hernandez Critical Thinking and Social Interaction in the
Katherine Greenberg Online Environment................................................................
Thinking about Critical Thinking: Disabilities and 55
Learner-Centered Instructional Design from the
Perspective of Mediated Learning Experience Theory ......... 37
Heather Mong & Ben Clegg Review of David Levy’s Tools of Critical Thinking:
Book Review Metathoughts
For for Psychology..................................................
Goodness Sake: Religious Schools and 62
Education for Democratic Citizenry by
Walter Feinberg, reviewed by Graham McDonough ............. 45
Book Review Qu'est-ce qu'un homme? Dialogue de Leo, Chien

sagace, et de son Philosophe, Dessins de Lionel
Koechlin [What is a man? A dialogue between
Leo the wise dog and his philosopher. Drawings by
Lionel Koechin.] by Cecile Robelin, Jean Robelin,
reviewed by David Kennedy ................................................. 51
2 INQUIRY: CRITICAL THINKING ACROSS THE DISCIPLINES
Copyright Permission and Disclaimer

It is the policy of this journal to obtain and hold the copyrights for all articles published with
the exception of those articles or parts of articles in the public domain. Authors are allowed to
make copies of their articles for any scholarly purpose of their own. Other scholars are hereby
given permission to make single or multiple copies of single articles for personal scholarly use
without explicit written permission, providing that no such copies are sold or used for commercial
purposes. It is the obligation of any user to acknowledge sources explicitly and to obtain permission
from the journal if extensive use is to be made of materials or information contained in an article.
Extensive use of copy privileges in such a way would be unethical. These policies will be followed
until further notice.
This journal is not responsible for the statements of any contributor. Statements or opinions
expressed in the journal reflect the views of the author(s) and not the Editor, the Editorial Advisory
Board, or ad hoc reviewers. Publication should not be construed as endorsement.
Frank Fair, Managing Editor

SPRING 2011, VOL. 26, NO. 1 3
From the Editor’s Desk

Frank Fair
I am very pleased that in this issue of INQUIRY we continue the series of reflection pieces that Gerald
Nosich began so well in the previous issue. Now it is Bob Ennis’s turn, and his contribution is so rich, so
replete with relevant detail, that it has been split into two parts. “Critical Thinking: Reflection and Perspec-
tive Part I” appears in this issue and covers Bob’s initial involvement with the field of critical thinking and
the evolution of his conceptualization of critical thinking. “Critical Thinking: Reflection and Perspective
Part II” has equally meaty content, and it will appear in the next issue, INQUIRY Vol. 26, No. 2 (Summer
2011). It will cover Bob’s perspective on issues involved in the assessment and teaching of critical thinking.
Next comes a piece by Michael Gillespie “Assessing Critical Thinking about Values: A Quasi-experi-
mental Study” that reports on a study of an innovative program at Bowling Green State University whose
goal is to foster critical thinking in the context of considering values. Many universities have programs
with similar intent, and Gillespie’s careful study provides a model for how one might assess such programs.
Then we have a series of articles contributed by faculty members from the Cypress Fairbanks (CyFair)
campus of the Lone Star College System. With an enrollment of 85,000 students on its several campuses,
the Lone Star system is the largest institution of higher education in the Houston area and the fastest grow-
ing community college system in Texas. A faculty member and administrator from Lone Star-CyFair, Maria
Sanders, describes in “Embracing Critical Thinking as a Model for Faculty Development” how she and a
number of other faculty members from diverse disciplines formed a CTB-FLC, a “Critical Thinking Based
Faculty Learning Community,” in which critical thinking served as a focus for a low-cost, potentially high-
impact faculty development effort. Then come three essays that are fruits of this effort. The first essay by
Maria Sanders and Jason Moulenbelt “Defining Critical Thinking: How Far Have We Come?” surveys
the often bewildering variety of conceptions of critical thinking with a view toward noting difficulties this
variety poses for critical thinking assessments and for interdisciplinary collaborations. The second essay,
“The Academic College Course is an Argument,” is a spirited defense by Frank Codispoti of the lecture as
an instructional mode when done well and when approached with an emphasis on the same sort of critical
thinking skills that students are supposed to bring to course reading matter. (Note: anyone interested in
improving lectures might also look at the article on “Successful Lecturing” by Patricia deWinstanley and
Robert Bjork in Applying the Science of Learning to University Teaching and Beyond, edited by Diane
Halpern and Milton Hakel, a 2002 collection from Jossey-Bass.) Finally, Idolina Hernandez’s essay “Criti-
cal Thinking and Social Interaction in the Online Environment” considers how the use of discussion boards
in the online course environment can foster critical thinking by encouraging the appropriate processes of
social interaction.
The last contribution is a review of David Levy’s Tools of Critical Thinking: Metathoughts for Psy-
chology. Heather Mong and Ben Clegg give an informative account of the book and a generally favorable
review, but they have a few caveats, mainly about what might be needed to avoid some of the thinking
pitfalls that the Levy discusses.
Critical Thinking: Reflection and Perspective

Part I
Robert Ennis
Abstract
This is Part I of a two-part reflection by Robert Ennis on his involvement in the critical thinking
movement. Part I deals with how he got started in the movement and with the development of his
influential definition of critical thinking and his conception of what critical thinking involves. Part
II of the reflection will appear in the next issue of INQUIRY, Vol. 26, No. 2 (Summer 2011), and it
will cover topics concerned with assessing critical thinking, teaching critical thinking, and what the
future may hold.
Key words: critical thinking definition, rigor, criteria, logic, looseness, progressive education, Vietnam
War protests, subject matter, critical thinking movement
“I am uneasy to think I … decide concerning truth and falsehood, reason and folly, without
knowing upon what principles I proceed.” (David Hume)
It is an honor to have received Editor Frank Fair’s decided to obtain a bachelor’s degree in philosophy rather
request to write a personal historical report about the than engineering, having done no investigating about the
development of critical thinking education.1 My response nature of academic philosophy.
emphasizes the period 1950-2010, but does reach further MIT at that time had no philosophy courses, so I
into the past, and is by no means a historian’s history of cautiously took a leave of absence, never to return. I
critical thinking. It is a personal view of the critical thinking transferred to the University of Wisconsin, Madison. There
movement and my involvement in it. Part I deals with how the contemporary philosophy to which I was exposed was
I became involved in the critical thinking movement and logical positivism, but also some of John Dewey’s work.
how my definition and conception of critical thinking have Neither satisfied me. Logical positivism seemed to be an
evolved. Part II will deal with efforts to assess and to teach interesting, challenging system, like chess, but without
critical thinking and with problems and future prospects. relevance to wisdom; and Dewey’s defense of his positions,
as well as some of his positions, seemed weak. Further-
My Background: How I Arrived at more, even though his advocacy of “reflective thinking”
Critical Thinking (Dewey, 1933) would later appeal to me, that was not part
of what was presented to me as Dewey’s philosophy. Nor
Although in my K-12 years I was exposed to an ex- did I see relevance to wisdom in my history of philosophy
cellent traditional education, I, like Gerald Nosich (2010), courses. The content came too thick and fast for me to
was quite ignorant and naive in making my early decisions. grapple with and to discuss what I now see as important
Because I did well in high school math and physics, and ideas and issues. Grappling and discussing were not part
because of the encouragement of my teachers and parents, I of the total curriculum that I experienced, though they are
went to MIT in 1945, right at the end of World War II, plan- what I now think are crucial elements in critical thinking
ning to become an engineer. Although I did well for four instruction, though of course not in themselves sufficient.
semesters in the math, engineering, and science aspects of As a result of frustration in my search for wisdom,
the curriculum, I developed some misgivings. For those I instead considered a career in the theater because my
and other personal reasons, I interrupted my studies and extra-curricular experiences there were exciting and fun,
joined the US Army, serving in the Army of Occupation and the theater actually is a way of promoting wisdom
in Japan in 1947. There I experienced a 19-year-old-type (e.g., Twelve Angry Men, a timeless play). But I rejected
total revision of my goals and interests. The war-making the theater, partly because I saw so many unemployed
technology and its effects (including what I saw in Hi- actors and dancers who were much more talented than I.
roshima during a visit there on the second anniversary There was a bit of critical thinking here: making observa-
of the bomb) convinced me that the world did not need tions and using the information in considering and being
engineers or more science and technology. It needed a open to alternatives (to some extent) when making deci-
population suffused with wisdom. At the time I thought sions. But these practices were not part of my traditional
that philosophy was the ultimate repository of wisdom, so I education.
SPRING 2011, VOL. 26, NO. 1 5
In 1950 I managed to get a BA in philosophy without the supplementation of our subject-matter courses and oth-
any knowledge of the ordinary-language philosophical er courses with a heavy dose of critical thinking instruction.
developments associated with the later Wittgenstein. More Notice that I said “supplementation,” not “supplanting.” A
ignorance. Then I heard about philosophy of education. It necessary condition for thinking critically about anything is
struck me (still naively, given what I believed about phi- being well informed, which includes subject-matter content
losophy) that what I had learned and had not yet learned where relevant. Unfortunately, aside from simple deduc-
about philosophy could somehow help the field of education, principles of critical thinking were not included in the
tion. There was some equivocation going on in my head content that I encountered — with two minor exceptions:
regarding ‘philosophy,’ but I had not been sensitized to In high school English I was taught to make classification
equivocation or ambiguity in my logic course, or any other (genus-differentia) definitions, and in college physics labs
courses. And I rightly believed that education could have an I was taught to make three measurements (instead of just
important role in developing a world population suffused one) and average the three in order to secure a more reliable
with wisdom. I decided to go into philosophy of education. measure of a quantity. In my undergraduate deductive logic
I then received some wise (though unrequested) course I was not shown that strict deductive logic rarely
advice: Learn first-hand as a teacher what goes on in applies to everyday reasoning (including that of scholars,
our education system before launching into a career in voters, and Supreme Court Justices). However, imprecise
educational theory. Though I had not sought that advice, derivation or qualified reasoning (Ennis, 1969a & 1969b,
I followed it and became a high school physical science 1981a, 1996a, 2004; discussed later in this essay) does
teacher, who also had to teach two sections of a combina- apply to everyday reasoning. Fortunately, material impli-
tion of English and social studies. It was called a “core” cation and its implausible cohorts were, as I remember it,
or “common learnings” course in progressive education not promoted in that logic course.
parlance, and it was a precursor to “writing across the The fact that I did receive advice from an experienced
curriculum.” In the process, I heard about critical thinking person about how to pursue my career is not to my credit.
from the progressive-education movement’s advocacy of it, I did not know enough to seek it out. It was in effect im-
and realized that the promotion of critical thinking would posed on me by the father of a high school friend. In none
be very important for our personal, vocational, and civic of my courses was I told the critical thinking principle that
lives, and that the survival of a democratic way of life de- one needs to make a special effort to get all the relevant
pended on the critical thinking of the voters. I still believe information appropriate for a decision, and to seek, con-
this, even more strongly, and am pleased that I have been sider, and get informed about alternatives before making
able to spend as much time as I have on critical thinking, an important decision.
only wishing that I could have accomplished more. In sum, in my K-12 and undergraduate education there
I tried to incorporate critical thinking in my teaching. was virtually no attention to the principles, procedures,
But I had little notion of how to teach it or even of what and criteria for thinking critically in or out of the subjects
critical thinking was — other than propaganda analysis I studied. Basically I was engaged in acquiring, and was
(Institute for Propaganda Analysis, 1938), which was tested on, straight subject-matter knowledge only.
heavily negative and oversimplified in its approach (as is
commonly the case with the current fallacies approach to The Critical Thinking Movement as I Saw It
teaching critical thinking). and Associated with It:
After three years of high school teaching I became From Progressive Education and the
a graduate student at the University of Illinois, and en- Later Wittgenstein to the Present
rolled in a philosophy of education program with minors
in philosophy and educational measurement. I was lucky Early philosophical concerns about critical thinking
to get an assistantship with the Illinois Project for the Im- can be found, among other places, in Socrates, Plato,
provement of Thinking under the leadership of B. Othanel Aristotle, Bacon, Hume, and especially John Stuart Mill,
Smith and Kenneth Henderson. We tried to help three but John Dewey (Dewey, 1933, first edition 1910) was the
Chicago-area high schools embed critical thinking in their source of inspiration for the progressive-education K-12
subject-matter instruction, physics being the area on which critical thinking movement of which the Illinois Project
I focused. I also found myself immersed in, and fascinated for the Improvement of Thinking was a part.
by, the later-Wittgenstein movement in philosophy, which I
saw and still see to be quite relevant to education, wisdom, The Progressive Education Movement
and critical thinking, in spite of its excesses. I had finally The progressive-education movement, which was
found a home combining philosophy and education. strong in the United States from the 1920’s through the
The above-described background is, among other 1950’s, adopted and developed Dewey’s emphasis on
things, a generalizable argument-by-example in support of reflective thinking. Tests called Interpretation of Data,
Application of Principles of Science, Application of Prin- war (1941-1945 for the United States) when the Eight-Year
ciples of Logical Reasoning, and Nature of Proof (Smith Study’s results appeared; the excesses that inevitably occur
and Tyler, 1942, pp. 35-156) were developed to appraise in any movement; the strong criticisms of the movement
students in the Progressive Education Association’s monu- by academic subject-matter specialists (especially Arthur
mental “Eight-Year Study,” which took place in the 1930’s. Bestor of the University of Illinois); and (the final nail
(See Aiken, 1942, for an overview.) In that study, the words in the coffin) Russia’s beating the USA to having a suc-
“critical thinking” and “clear thinking” replaced “reflec- cessful satellite, Sputnik, in 1957. Sputnik’s appearing
tive thinking” (Smith & Tyler, pp. 35-37), and a 1942 before the USA’s first satellite was blamed by many on
yearbook of the National Council for Social Studies used the schools, which were still somewhat under the influ-
“critical thinking” in its title, Teaching Critical Thinking ence of progressive education. I have a vivid recollection
in the Social Studies (Anderson, 1942). My first published of the large front-page headline in the Chicago Tribune
article was about the teaching of critical thinking (“Critical right after Sputnik, “What went wrong with U.S. schools?”
Thinking: More on Its Motivation,” Ennis, 1956), and ap- According to popular insight, the schools had failed to
peared in the journal, Progressive Education. I submitted to teach science to their students. Progressive education
that journal because the progressive-education movement was held by many to be the problem. As a result, straight
was the primary promoter of critical thinking at the time. subject-matter acquisition became very popular, and was
In addition to my focus on the teaching of critical the theme in former scientist and Harvard President James
thinking, I became the statistician for the Illinois Project for B. Conant’s influential The American High School Today
the Improvement of Thinking, and produced conclusions (Conant, 1959).
from the data obtained with the tests we used and from In spite of the opposition to, and the disintegration
our observations in the classrooms. I saw the importance of, the progressive-education movement, there were con-
of having valid tests of critical thinking, and I realized the tinuing expressions of interest in critical thinking in the
dependence of such tests on one’s conception of critical 1930’s through the 1970’s, mostly by philosophers. Cohen
thinking. As a result, my Ph.D. dissertation topic was “The and Nagel’s Introduction to Logic and Scientific Method
Development of a Critical Thinking Test” (Ennis, 1959b). (1934) introduced me as a graduate student to many aspects
Given the state of critical thinking theory in use at the time, of critical thinking. Max Black’s Critical Thinking: An
I believed that the development of a critical thinking test Introduction to Logic and Scientific Method (1946) and
required the prior development and specification of a con- W. H. Werkmeister’s An Introduction to Critical Thinking
ception of critical thinking. So my dissertation combined (1948) were college textbooks that to my knowledge were
the development of a conception with the development of the earliest college textbooks that used the words “critical
a test. The conception leaned heavily on my philosophi- thinking” in their titles. Another early text was Monroe
cal forbears, as well as this question: “How do people go Beardsley’s Practical Logic (1950). All four of these early
wrong in their thinking?” Because of my assistantship and works were guides used by the staff of the Illinois Project
thesis work I was able at the time to contribute directly to for the Improvement of Thinking, of which I was a member
the literature on the teaching of (Ennis, 1956), the nature from 1954 to 1957.
of (Ennis, 1962, 1964b), and assessment of (Ennis, 1958, Even Conant was a participant in the early promotion
1959b) critical thinking. In particular, my 1962 article of critical thinking at the college level with his general
on the nature of critical thinking, “A Concept of Critical editorship of the series, Harvard Case Histories in Experi-
Thinking,” has received much attention. Michael Roth mental Science (Conant, 1950-1954), and his authorship of
(Roth, 2010), in an article in the Chronicle of Higher On Understanding Science (Conant, 1951). Using detailed
Education challenging critical thinking, attributed critical cases from the history of science, his series and his book
thinking’s becoming popular to this article. Harvey Seigel illustrated “certain principles in the strategy and tactics of
(Siegel, 1988) deemed the article “highly influential” (p. science” (Conant, 1951, pp. 102-111). A principal theme of
5). John McPeck (McPeck, 1981), perhaps the critical Conant’s in these works was opposition to a simple five-
thinking movement’s most vociferous critic, treated this step concept of the scientific method (promoted I believe
article as presenting “the prevailing view of the conception by the progressive-education movement), which he felt
of critical thinking” (pp. 39-57). vastly oversimplified how scientists think. I agreed with
him in his emphasis on principles in scientific thinking
From Progressive Education to Emphasizing Subject (Ennis, 1974b, 1979, 1991a, 1991b), and his complaint
Matter about oversimplification.
Results of the Eight-Year Study were published in From Sputnik through the mid-1970s, I was part of the
1942, when everyone was focused on World War II. I philosophically-oriented minority pressing for the incor-
believe that the progressive-education movement disin- poration of critical thinking in K-12 and higher education.
tegrated because of the overwhelming importance of the During this period (1959-1970), I authored 12 articles
SPRING 2011, VOL. 26, NO. 1 7
and two books concerned with the nature, teaching, and not as part of a rejuvenation of the progressive-education
assessment of critical thinking. movement. Critical thinking was advocated because it
provided the rigor, reflection, and reasonableness that both
The Vietnam War Protests the anti- and pro-war forces had ignored, as evidenced by
From the mid-1960s to the mid-1970s, the Vietnam Howard Kahane’s influential efforts.
War and student-based concerns about relevance, authen- Around 1980, interest in critical thinking suddenly ex-
ticity, and the war itself overwhelmed the subject-matter ploded. The First International Conference on Informal Log-
emphasis of Conant and others. But it was not only students ic was held at the University of Windsor in 1978. Canada,
who challenged the academic establishment. I vividly re- as I understand it, had not experienced the extreme reaction
member a scholarly professor in the English Department against academia that we had in the United States. Never-
at Cornell University in 1968 expressing at a university theless, there was some, and emphasis on critical thinking
faculty meeting his contempt for the academic establish- and informal logic was a step back to rigor and reflection.
ment by gravely pronouncing, “We’re in bad trouble.” Significant establishment institutions contributed. The
“Bad trouble” is not the sort of expression I expected to Commission on the Humanities (1980), sponsored by the
hear from a scholar in the English Department at a Uni- Rockefeller Foundation, placed heavy emphasis on critical
versity Faculty meeting. It was protest language. To use it thinking, as did the Carnegie Foundation’s Ernest Boyer
in those circumstances in 1968 was a powerful expression (Boyer, 1983). The College Board (College Board, 1983),
from within of a rejection of academia. which is responsible for the SAT test, specified reasoning
In that context, critical thinking struggled along, as one of the six basic academic competencies in Aca-
but was not very popular because of its emphasis on demic Preparation for College. In 1983, Executive Order
rigor, reflection, and, alternatives, as opposed to action # 338 in the California State University System required
now. For example, the activists of the period judged that that in order to graduate from one of the State University
neutrality by our educational institutions was impossible units, a student must have had nine hours of instruction
(generally, in that period, neutrality toward the Vietnam in communication and in critical thinking. At the Second
War, and in one instance, toward the administration in the International Conference on Informal Logic at Windsor
late 1960’s by some colleges and universities of a draft- in 1983, The Association for Informal Logic and Critical
exemption examination, an unpopular action in the eyes Thinking (AILACT) was established, the membership of
of most activists because it constituted what they felt was which then consisted mostly of philosophers from Canada
complicity in the war effort). Though I opposed the war, and the United States — and it still does. The American
I disagreed with the judgment that neutrality for colleges Philosophical Association’s Board of Officers (1985) urged
and universities was impossible. I argued that neutrality philosophers to help with attempts to test for critical think-
on any specific issue (though not on every issue at once) ing and attempts to include critical thinking in elementary
was possible, unless the argument assumed from its begin- and secondary curricula.
ning that its position and recommendation on the specific This explosion of interest was neither a return to
issue were correct, in which case the argument became straight subject matter exclusively, nor to the progressive-
essentially circular (Ennis, 1969d, an improvement on an education movement. It was a marriage of subject matter
early version, 1959a). My argument in this case involved and one important feature of the progressive movement,
an ordinary-language sensitivity to reported definition and critical thinking, a marriage that to this day we struggle to
equivocation, sub-aspects of the definition aspect of critical implement. In going beyond straight subject-matter acquisi-
thinking to be considered later and listed in the appendix tion, The College Board exhibited this attempted marriage
(Abilities 9b1 and 9d). in its Academic Preparation for College: “The learning
outcomes described here [including reasoning] are rigorous
Renewed Emphasis on Critical Thinking as well as comprehensive” (College Board, 1983, p. 3).
In the late 1970’s, concern about critical thinking The roots of three current, philosopher-led, criti-
moved back into the foreground, I believe because of the cal-thinking-promoting organizations developed in the
excesses of the protest movement, because the war was 1980’s. One, led by Richard Paul (and currently also
over, and because the protestor’s emphasis on relevance Linda Elder), developed at Sonoma State University,
had strong appeal. Howard Kahane’s popular Logic and California, with large annual conferences of educators at
Contemporary Rhetoric (1971) contributed to the revival the K-12 and university levels at which many of us in
of attention to critical thinking at the time. It “was written AILACT made presentations. Its current titles are Foun-
. . . in an attempt to raise the level of political argument dation for Critical Thinking, Center for Critical Think-
and reasoning by acquainting students with the devices and ing, and The National Council for Excellence in Critical
ploys which drag that level down” (Kahane, 1971, Pref- Thinking. A second, led by Robert Swartz, developed at
ace). But the renewed emphasis on critical thinking was the University of Massachusetts-Boston with a masters
program in critical and creative thinking, and is currently The multiplicity of critical-thinking-promoting activi-
titled the National Center for Teaching Thinking (NCTT). ties from 1980 through the present involved not only phi-
I have participated in some of its workshops. A third, led losophers, but also people in all subject-matter areas. The
by Peter Facione, had its origins at Santa Clara Univer- principal academics with whom I interacted at workshops
sity, California, where Facione led an effort to arrive and conferences were philosophers, psychologists, and
at an agreement by mail among forty-six specialists in speech/communication experts, each with a somewhat dif-
critical thinking (of which I was one) on a fairly-detailed ferent emphasis. To oversimplify, the philosophers tended
dispositions-and-abilities definition of ‘critical thinking.’ to emphasize seeking the truth (or the rightness or correct-
Facione called the results “The Delphi Report” (Facione, ness of a process or result), and using rational methods of
1990). His organization operates under the title Insight doing so; psychologists tended to emphasize empirical
Assessment. The first two of these organizations focus on relationships, such as what causes what, including such
teaching, and the third focuses on a conception of and on processes as metacognition, transfer of critical thinking
the assessment of critical thinking, although all are con- learning to a new area of application, and problem solving.
cerned with all three elements. All three have extensive Speech/communication experts tended to emphasize effec-
web sites. The first and second claim “national” status, tive persuasion. But all three were generally interested at
but I see no interaction or cooperation between them. least to some extent in the others’ emphases. During this
AILACT, of which I am a member and past pres- period I contributed to general critical thinking and criti-
ident, is open to new members on application, has elec- cal thinking in science, and authored some 41 articles and
tions for its leaders, and is not publicized as well as the one book, as well as co-authoring two articles, one book,
above three, though it is trying to catch up. On its web site three published tests, and several unpublished tests, each
at http://ailact.mcmaster.ca, it provides material dealing relevant to at least one of the above-listed controversial
with the nature of, teaching of, and assessment of criti- areas in critical thinking.
cal thinking and informal logic, lists available consultants In the 1980’s, the critical thinking movement em-
from its membership, lists institutions providing advanced phasized critical thinking in K-12, as well as at the un-
instruction in critical thinking, and will be listing avail- dergraduate level. Extending into the 1990’s and the first
able critical thinking tests. AILACT also sponsors criti- decade of the twenty-first century, emphasis on critical
cal thinking and informal logic sessions at annual APA thinking increased in college and universities, at least
meetings. More information about all four of these critical in mission statements. This occurred partly at the behest
thinking organizations can be found on their web sites. of accrediting agencies and partly because people real-
Throughout the 1980’s there was a large amount ized that critical thinking is important and that existing
of activity in critical thinking: workshops, conferences, subject-matter acquisition generally did not adequately
test development, new curricula, restatement of goals, prepare people to think critically in their vocational, civic,
books, articles, etc., accompanied by controversies about and personal lives. All the controversies I have mentioned
all aspects of the movement. These controversies live continue today, though progress has been made. Because
on, and include the basic nature of critical thinking; the critical thinking is so important, I have devoted much of
details of the nature of critical thinking; the relationship my career to the task.
between critical thinking and subject matter; promoting
critical thinking in the different subjects as opposed to My Contributions to the Content of the
doing it in separate critical thinking courses (often unfor- Critical Thinking Movement
tunately assumed to be mutually-exclusive alternatives);
the role of metacognition (being aware of and thinking Because I am probably best known for my develop-
about one’s own thinking) in critical thinking; the nature ment of a conception of critical thinking, and because
of the deduction involved in critical thinking; the role teaching and assessment both assume a conception of
of persuasion in critical thinking; the relation between critical thinking, the nature of critical thinking is the first
critical thinking and problem solving; the degree to which topic to be addressed. It will be followed in Part II in the
critical thinking is broader than argumentation — and next issue of Inquiry by discussions of assessment,
deduction, if at all; the possibility of assessing critical teaching (including incorporation in a curriculum), and
thinking; how to assess critical thinking — on a large future prospects.
scale and on a small scale; the possibility of teaching
critical thinking; the role of critical thinking principles The Nature of Critical Thinking
in critical thinking instruction; whether to seek and how Early on I developed a definition and an associated
to achieve transfer of the learning of critical thinking to elaborated conception of critical thinking (Ennis, 1962).
topics other than those used in instruction; and of course, I am here employing the distinction between ‘concept’
the value of critical thinking. and ’conception’ that John Rawls offered (Rawls, 1971,
SPRING 2011, VOL. 26, NO. 1 9
p. 5), following H. L. A. Hart (Hart, 1961, pp. 155-159): teaching experience. It is that in order to do critical think-
A concept is that which different, more detailed concep- ing, students need criteria for making decisions. These
tions of a particular idea have in common. But I use the criteria would give them guidance that is as precise as is
terms “definition” and “conception” instead of “concept” feasible in making decisions. That meant, for example, not
and “conception” in order to minimize confusion. In 1962 just that students should learn or know that they should
I was not aware of the distinction and called the whole take into account the credibility of their sources, or that
presentation “a concept of critical thinking” (Ennis, 1962, they should judge a hypothesis by looking at the evidence;
p. 81), though a more appropriate title might have been “a but also that they should learn or know criteria (and ac-
definition and a conception of critical thinking.” companying distinctions) for deciding whether a source is
As a result not only of the intense discussions of the credible, or for judging whether the evidence supports the
late 1970s and the early 1980s, but also further investiga- hypothesis. As a high school teacher I had no such criteria
tion from 1962 to 1987 of a number of critical thinking to promote with my students.
aspects, my first definition and conception of critical
thinking developed into a new pair (Ennis 1987b, 1991c, (b) Good Judgment: Qualifications, Tolerating Lack
1996a, 2002), which I shall call my second definition and of Precision, and SEBKUS
conception. In this section, I shall present and discuss the One cannot expect the application of these criteria
features of the two pairs, the second conception having to yield a result automatically, except in mathematics
evolved from the first, and the second definition being and deductive logic. And even deductive logic in real life
radically different from the first, though they both treat applications usually has to deal with implicit or explicit
critical thinking as a term of approbation. An unexempli- qualifying words like ‘ceteris paribus’ (other things be-
fied presentation of the total second definition/conception ing equal), ‘probably,’ ‘tends to,’ ‘roughly,’ etc., making
can be found in the appendix to this essay. the application of criteria not logically necessary in most
cases (Ennis, 1969b); hence, in a way, imprecise or loose.
My First Critical Thinking Definition and the So good judgment in applying the criteria is needed
Associated First Conception of Critical Thinking as well. Criteria used in making a good judgment are
The critical thinking definition that was presented generally aided by Sensitivity, Experience, Background
to me as a graduate student was the one advanced by B. Knowledge, and Understanding of the Situation, that is,
Othanel Smith (Smith, 1953), my advisor, mentor, teacher, “SEBKUS” (an acronym I developed fairly recently (En-
model, and supervisor in the Illinois Project for the Im- nis, 2004)).
provement of Thinking. Smith held that critical thinking is These emphases on criteria and good judgment (ex-
both determining the meaning of statements and assessing pressed with varying degrees of qualification, and made
these statements (p. 130). with SEBKUS) have permeated all my work on critical
For my first definition, I amended Smith’s definition thinking, even my work on operational definition (En-
by holding that critical thinking is “the correct assessing nis, 1964a), but the basic ideas started to develop when
of statements” (Ennis, 1962, p. 83). The key change from I was a graduate student involved in the Illinois Project
Smith’s definition was the addition of the word “correct.” for the Improvement of Thinking. They are key features
I felt that the determining-the-meaning part was implicit, of my 1962 concept article. Many of my articles since
although I now would make it explicit because it is so then have elaborated these emphases in different contexts
important. I added “correct” because I believed and still and with respect to different aspects of critical thinking.
do believe (somewhat under the ordinary-language influ- If I am right about the need for good judgment (which
ence of the later Wittgenstein) that “critical thinking,” as often requires a tolerance of some lack of precision,
used in the critical thinking movement, was not merely a that is, tolerance of some looseness), then I see no hope
descriptive term, but also a term of approbation. for computerizing critical thinking, though I admit that
This approbation feature of the first definition is one expert computer systems can probably ((!) — See my
of several features of particular note in the 1962 defini- paper “Probably” (Ennis, 2006) for a discussion of some
tion/conception. Three other features are (a) emphasis on details of imprecision.) do a better job in tight time limits
detailed criteria, (b) emphasis on good judgment in an than many professionals.
imprecise environment because criteria do not automati- The emphases on qualifications, tolerance of impreci-
cally yield critical thinking decisions, and (c) attention to sion, and SEBKUS are not original. For example, Aristotle
credibility of sources. I shall elaborate. suggested them in The Nichomachean Ethics (I, 3). I have
attempted to implement them in numerous places (Ennis,
(a) Criteria 1964a, 1969b Ch. 5, 1981a, 1987a, 1987b, 1991c, 1996a,
One basic idea in both the first and second of my 2001, 2004, 2006, 2007). But although they seem obvious
conceptions of critical thinking came from my high school to me, they are controversial, both in and out of philosophy.
(c) Credibility of Sources “Critical thinking is reasonable reflective

Another feature I introduced that was not original, thinking focused on deciding what to believe
but that to my knowledge was new to the philosophical or do.” (Ennis, 1987a, 1987b, 1991a, 1996a,
critical thinking literature is the emphasis on judging the 2002).
credibility of sources. I introduced it in my dissertation,
leaning heavily on a legal source, John Henry Wigmore. During the early 1980s when I was developing this
(Wigmore, 1942) In the first definition/conception article definition, Gerald Nosich urged me to add “or do” to
(1962), I discussed credibility of sources and later, at “believe,” on the ground that decisions about actions (not
the time of challenges to President Nixon’s credibility, only decisions about beliefs) are a type of decision that is
elaborated the imprecision of credibility criteria (Ennis, ordinarily included in the concerns of people in the criti-
1974a). I also incorporated credibility of sources in my cal thinking movement and incorporated in their use of
second conception of critical thinking (Ennis, 1980, 1981b, the term. I appreciate his suggestion and did implement it.
1987a, 1991c, 1996a, 2002). It is not a precise definition, which fact befits the gen-
Credibility of sources is now fairly widely accepted eral imprecision in the everyday use of the term ‘critical
as an aspect of critical thinking. I suspect that it was thinking’ (thus illustrating the tolerance of imprecision as
not mentioned in early philosophical works on critical suits the circumstances, which was a topic in the previ-
thinking because of philosophers’ traditional emphasis ous section). If the definition is a true though imprecise
on argument and reasoning (especially deductive logic). report of usage in the critical thinking movement, which
However, I do realize that there was some philosophical is what I hold it to be, then it describes the current no-
concern with this topic, for example in consideration of tion of critical thinking in that movement. But it is also
fallacies, and in Francis Bacon’s “idols,” but criteria for positional in that in offering it I take the position that this
judging credibility of a source (such as the desirability definition represents something worth implementing in
of a source’s not having a conflict of interest) were not at our education system and elsewhere. So I offer it also as
that time advanced in the philosophical literature (so far a defensible positional definition (a definition that takes a
as I know). However, they are in both of my conceptions position on some issue for which rational arguments can
of critical thinking. be offered). I hold this position because I think that reason-
able and reflective thinking focused on what to believe or
My Second Critical Thinking Definition and do should be a very important part of our personal, civic,
Conception of Critical Thinking and vocational lives, and should receive attention in our
Going beyond the special features of the first defi- education system.
nition/conception, (criteria, judgment/imprecision, and
credibility of sources) my second definition/conception (b) Dispositions
has several additional special features. These are (a) the The first conception has been criticized for omitting
definition itself, (b) explicit inclusion of critical thinking critical thinking dispositions (e.g., Siegel, 1988, p. 6), such
dispositions, (c) qualified deduction, (d) detailing of as- as the dispositions to be open-minded, to try to be well
sumption ascription, (e) expansion of inference-to-best- informed, to be alert for alternatives, and to exercise one’s
explanation, (f) special emphasis on equivocation, and (g) critical thinking abilities. Although I believe that critical
inclusion of value judging. All of these except the first and thinking dispositions are implicit in my first conception, I
the last, were present in some form or were implicit in the explicitly included them in the second conception because
first conception. I shall discuss each in turn. they are so important and might otherwise be neglected.
Over the years, I have reorganized my presentation of
(a) The Definition critical thinking dispositions (Ennis, 1987a, 1991c, 1996a,
John Dewey provided two informative examples of 1996b, 2002). See the latest version in the appendix. It is a
critical thinking in How We Think. The first involves what brief list with no examples, containing I believe the most
to believe about the cause of bubbling coming from under important ones.
hot, recently-washed glasses (which involved formulat-
ing alternative hypotheses and checking predictions from (c) Qualified Deduction
them with observations). The second concerned selecting The basic ideas of deduction are important in many
a subway train for a timely trip to his destination (involv- aspects of thought, as I argued in “A Conception of De-
ing alternative possible decisions, exploring their prob- ductive Logic Competence” (Ennis, 1981a), although
able consequences, and making one decision, which was logical necessity is too strict for many practical ap-
implemented and found satisfactory). He thus exemplified plications (discussed under “Good Judgment” above),
the two main emphases (belief and action) in my second and although material implication and its cohorts make
and current definition of critical thinking: trouble and must be ignored in critical thinking (Lewis,
SPRING 2011, VOL. 26, NO. 1 11
C. I., 1912 and Strawson, P. F., 1952). Criteria for useful First with regard to a confusion, IBE basically consists
deduction have not been specified in most versions of my of an approach to evaluation of hypotheses that considers
second conception of critical thinking in order to save the explanatory power of the hypothesis and the inability
space, but can be found in a few places (Ennis, 1969a, of competitors to explain evidence or the outright incon-
1969b, 1981a, 1996a, with further application discussed sistency of the alternatives with the evidence. There are
in 2004). details that are more controversial. But calling it “infer-
Deduction is usually included in attempts by phi- ence” might misleadingly suggest that it is a set of rules for
losophers to teach critical thinking. What is unique in generating hypotheses, that is, of inferring the hypothesis
my conception is my emphasis on qualifying deductive directly from the evidence, which it is not. Rather IBE is an
reasoning so as to accommodate the implicit and explicit approach containing a set of rules or criteria for evaluating
use of words like ‘probably’ and ‘ceteris paribus.’ The a hypothesis, and in many situations is the evaluation part
explicit rejection of material implication and its cohorts is of the exploratory process of refining and developing a final
not unique, but is controversial. Keeping deduction simple hypothesis, which is also evaluated by IBE.
is also a feature of my approach, but it is not unique in the However, ‘IBE’ can also be used as a label for the
field of critical thinking. intuitive leap from the known facts in a situation to a
hypothesis which should then be judged for its adequacy
(d) Assumption Ascription by the rules or criteria of IBE. Thus IBE is both an intui-
This second conception goes more deeply into types tive generation and an approach to evaluating the product
of assumptions and criteria for ascribing assumptions than resulting from this intuitive process. This dual meaning
is widely advocated, perhaps because of the complexity can be confusing.
of the topic. Ordinarily students are urged to identify their Second, as far as applicability is concerned, IBE ap-
and others’ assumptions, but are not told how to do this. plies not only to scientific hypotheses, but also to historical
There are different sorts of assumptions, which need claims about what happened, such as, “Napoleon died of
to be distinguished from each other because different arsenic poisoning”; interpretive claims in literature, such
criteria apply to each. Some are presuppositions, which as the claim that in Othello, Desdemona’s maid, Emelia,
must be true for another proposition to make sense (but “never dreamed he [Iago] was a villain.” (Bradley, 1937,
see Donnellan, 1966,1968). Some are assumptions in the p. 213 — an example suggested to me by Bruce Warner).
pejorative sense. Some are also needed assumptions (called It also applies to test validity claims, such as a claim I have
“assumptions of the argument” by Hitchcock, 1985), made to the effect that a particular critical thinking test is
which, however, are not logically necessary conditions a substantially valid test of college-level critical thinking
for drawing the conclusion, as some people think. And ability under standard conditions (Ennis, 2009). I have
some are used assumptions (called “assumptions of the discussed the Napoleon and Emelia examples elsewhere
arguer” by Hitchcock, 1985), that is, those that someone (Ennis, 1996a).
cognitively used, either explicitly or implicitly. Reason- Third, to consider IBE in relation to causality, as I
able space limits preclude giving more details here, but the see it, all explanatory hypotheses that account for an oc-
distinctions and criteria for ascribing assumptions can be currence or type of occurrence are implicitly or explicitly
found most completely in “Identifying Implicit Assump- causal. There are some, including Bertrand Russell, who
tions” (Ennis, 1982c), and to a lesser extent also in Critical have urged abandoning causality in our disciplined think-
Thinking (Ennis, 1996a), “Argument Appraisal Strategy” ing, and there are various views about what it is and how
(Ennis, 2001), and “Applying Soundness Standards to we identify it. This is a controversial area. In the past, I
Qualified Reasoning” (Ennis, 2004). have argued that we should not abandon causality (Ennis,
1982a), and that being a necessary condition for an effect
(e) Inference-to-best-explanation is not necessarily necessary (Ennis, 1982b), contrary to
Although inference-to-best-explanation (IBE) is well necessary-condition and counterfactual analyses of specific
known in the philosophical literature as exemplified by (singular) causal claims, e.g., the analyses of John Mackie
Gilbert Harman (Harman, 1965, 1973), a discussion by (1974) and David Lewis (1973). I have also tried to sketch
me of one feature of Harman’s approach (Ennis, 1968) out a broad picture of causality (Ennis, 1973), especially
with a reply by him, and Peter Lipton’s book (Lipton, specific causal claims like ‘The bad decisions by BP caused
2004). But outside of my work (Ennis, 1996a), IBE is not the 2010 Gulf oil spill’ and ‘Lack of adequate regulation
generally advocated in the critical thinking literature. There caused the spill’ (two seemingly inconsistent claims),
are three features about IBE that I should mention: (1) the and am now working on a sufficient-condition speech-act
confusion that might be introduced by the name, (2) its interpretation of specific causal claims. However, I am
widespread applicability in fields other than science, and convinced that causality itself is an irreducible notion.
(3) its relation to causality. There is still much work to be done here.
(f) Equivocation Two Overall Summaries

Although equivocation is a standard item in a list of (a) The appendix
fallacies, I treat it as deserving special mention because “The Nature of Critical Thinking: An Outline of
it is particularly insidious. In my first conception I called Critical Thinking Dispositions and Abilities,” which is the
it merely “ambiguity,” but actually it is more serious than appendix to this paper and is in outline form, contains all
ambiguity. It is often connected with definitions, and I of the above-described second-conception ideas, as well
usually mention it in association with definitions. As I use as additional features that are fairly standard in the critical
the term, equivocation is the process of shifting between thinking literature. This outline, though unexemplified, is
two meanings of a term in an argument, generally proving comprehensive and thorough enough to be used in plan-
a proposition using one sense of the term and applying the ning for an overall curriculum, or as a basis for a table
proposition using a different sense. of specifications for a critical thinking test or test series.
For example someone might charge that my concep- But it makes for difficult reading if read straight through,
tion of critical thinking is biased because it takes a posi- especially for beginners, and it contains more than can be
tion on what makes for good thinking. In this example the incorporated in an introductory course in critical thinking.
definition of ‘bias’ that is assumed is that a person is biased
if he or she has a position on something. But the applica- (b) A brief summary of the second conception
tion of the term ‘bias’ seems to be a charge of unfairness Table 1 provides a very brief (“super-streamlined”)
(unfairness not having been mentioned in the definition of overall presentation with neither listings of criteria nor
‘bias,’ but a characteristic ordinarily associated with the detailed listing of aspects of critical thinking. I call it
use of the term ‘bias’). So it seems to follow that critical “super-streamlined” to show that it is a streamlined ver-
thinking is unfair, if one ignores the shift in meaning. But sion of “A streamlined conception of critical thinking”
of course, it does not follow. (Ennis, 1991c) and other article-length presentations of the
Actually, blatant cases of equivocation (in which the second conception. It also merges critical thinking abilities
arguer explicitly adopts two meanings, and deliberately and dispositions. But it can be useful as someone’s first
exploits the shift between them) are rare. Most actual cases encounter with critical thinking, or as a rough checklist for
of equivocation are more subtle, and must be uncovered a student’s paper or thesis, or for anyone’s act of deciding
by probing. One of the subtleties is in what I have called what to believe or do.
“impact equivocation” (Ennis, 1980) which is found in
arguments that have the impact of equivocation but in Table 1
which the arguer does not explicitly adopt both of the A Super-Streamlined Conception of
meanings of the crucial term. Rather the arguer adopts a Critical Thinking
special meaning for a term that is at variance with ordinary
use of the audience, makes a statement using the term in Assuming that critical thinking is reasonable reflective thinking
that special meaning, which will be taken by the audience focused on deciding what to believe or do, a critical thinker:
to assume the ordinary meaning of the term, and thus be
misleading. This sometimes happens with the word ‘bias’, 1. Is open-minded and mindful of alternatives
and with the word ‘reliability’, a psychometric term used 2. Desires to be, and is, well-informed
in the discussion of tests. Concern with equivocation, 3. Judges well the credibility of sources
including impact equivocation, is one of the good things 4. Identifies conclusions, reasons, and assumptions
that was part of the ordinary-language movement inspired 5. Asks appropriate clarifying questions
by the later Wittgenstein. 6. Judges well the quality of an argument, including its reasons,
assumptions, evidence, and their degree of support for the
(g) Value judgments conclusion
Value judgments were omitted in my first conception, 7. Can well develop and defend a reasonable position, doing
making it what I then called a “truncated” conception. justice to challenges
Appraising value judgments is an aspect of the second 8. Formulates plausible hypotheses
conception, and some criteria are offered, such as getting 9. Plans and conducts experiments well
the facts straight (including facts about the likely conse- 10. Defines terms in a way appropriate for the context
quences of an action), prima facie application of acceptable 11. Draws conclusions when warranted — but with caution
principles, and attention to alternatives. But a heavy dose 12. Integrates all items in this list
of good judgment is needed as well.
Incidentally I have argued (Ennis, 1981c) that another
brief characterization of good thinking, Benjamin Bloom’s
popular “Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: Cognitive
SPRING 2011, VOL. 26, NO. 1 13
Domain” (Bloom, 1956) is inspiring, but not very helpful Anderson, H. R. (1942). Teaching critical thinking in the social
as guidance. Among other things, its six categories do studies. Washington: The National Council for the Social
not have useful criteria that can be applied across top- Studies.
ics and subject-matter areas. For example, his category, Bailin, S. (1985). Creativity and quality. In E. Robertson (Ed.),
Philosophy of education 1984 (Proceedings of the fortieth
analysis, covers a range of important activities that vary
annual meeting of the Philosophy of Education Society).
considerably from, for example, chemistry to literature,
Normal, IL: Philosophy of Education Society.
with not much in common that is worth teaching as criti- Beardsley, M. (1950). Practical logic. New York: Prentice Hall.
cal thinking or “higher-order thinking” (a term in use by Black, M. (1946). Critical thinking. New York: Prentice Hall.
Bloom’s followers). There is not much to teach in general Bloom, B. S. (Ed.), (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives
about analysis, making Bloom’s taxonomy vulnerable to – The classification of educational goals – Handbook 1:
McPeck’s (1981, 1990a) complaints about the emptiness The cognitive domain. New York: Longmans Green and Co.
of attempts to teach general thinking. However, in provid- Boyer, E. (1983). High school. New York: Harper & Rowe.
ing a list with a five-to-one ratio of thinking categories to Bradley, A. C. (1937). Shakespearean tragedy. London: Mac-
“knowledge” (Bloom behaviorally defined “knowledge” millan.
as ‘recall,’ but most people have taken it in its ordinary Cohen, M. B., & Nagel, E. (1934). An introduction to logic and
scientific method. New York: Harcourt Brace.
sense), his taxonomy is an apparently persuasive counter to
College Board (1983). Academic preparation for college. New
demands for exclusive attention to subject-matter knowl-
York College Entrance Examination Board.
edge, as opposed to higher-order thinking. Commission on the Humanities (1980). The humanities in
American life. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Other Topics Conant, J. B. (1951). On understanding science. New York,
Related to the second conception, though not explic- Mentor.
itly mentioned in it, is the relationship between critical Conant, J. B. (Ed.) (1950-1954). Harvard case histories in experi-
thinking and creativity. In agreement with Sharon Bailin mental science, #1 through #8. Cambridge, MA: Harvard.
(1985), I hold that they are somewhat interdependent Conant, J. B. (1959). The American high school today: A first
(Ennis, 1985). Judgments that some act of thinking is report to interested citizens. New York: McGraw-Hill Book
creative generally assume a positive evaluation of the Company.
Dewey, J. (1933, first edition 1910). How we think. Boston: D.
thinking (thus requiring critical thinking). Furthermore,
C. Heath.
creativity is needed in generating hypotheses, definitions,
Donnellan, K. S. (1966). Reference and definite descriptions.
and alternatives, in planning experiments, and conceiving The Philosophical Review, 75, 281-304.
of counter-examples. Donnellan, K. S. (1968). Putting Humpty Dumpty together again.
Another so-far-undiscussed topic in this essay is the The Philosophical Review, 77, 203-315.
possibility of critical thinking’s being gender or culturally Ennis, R. H. (May, 1956). Critical thinking: More on its motiva-
biased (Wheary & Ennis, 1995; Ennis, 1998). My view is tion. Progressive Education, 75-78.
that critical thinking is basically not gender or culturally Ennis, R. H. (1958). An appraisal of the Watson-Glaser critical
biased, as can be seen in a point-by-point examination of thinking appraisal. Journal of Educational Research, 52,
the second conception in the Appendix. 155-158.
Later, in the section labeled “Teaching Critical Think- Ennis, R. H. (1959a). The “impossibility” of neutrality. Harvard
Educational Review, 29, 128-136. Reprinted as “Is it impos-
ing” in Part II, I will consider the question of whether
sible for the schools to be neutral?” (1961), Language and
critical thinking is subject-specific, and the question of
concepts in education, 1961, B. O. Smith, & R. H. Ennis
the appropriate allocation of responsibility for teaching (Eds.), Chicago: Rand McNally and Company, pp. 102-111;
critical thinking among various teachers, subject-matter and (1971) “¿Es imposible que las escueles sean neutrales?”
areas, and other units. Both questions are related to one’s in B. O. Smith, & R. H. Ennis (Eds.), Lenguaje y conceptos
conception of critical thinking, but perhaps better consid- en la educacion, 1971, Buenos Aires: Al Ateneo, 113-123.
ered under teaching. Ennis, R. H. (1959b). The development of a critical thinking test.
[To be continued in INQUIRY Vol. 26, No. 2 (Sum- Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Urbana-Champaign, IL:
mer 2011).] University of Illinois, University Microfilms #59-00505.
Ennis, R. H. (1961). “Assumption-finding.” In B. O. Smith, &
References R. H. Ennis (Eds.), Language and concepts in education.
Chicago: Rand McNally and Company, pp. 161-178. Re-
printed as La identificacion de supestos, in B. O. Smith, &
Aiken, W. M. (1942). The story of the eight-year study. New
R. H. Ennis (Eds.), Lenguaje y conceptos en la educacion,
York: Harper & Brothers.
1971, Buenos Aires: El Ateneo, 177-194.
The American Philosophical Association (1985). Board of Of-
ficers’ statement on critical thinking. Proceedings of the
American Philosophical Association, 58, 484.
Ennis, R. H. (1962). A concept of critical thinking. Harvard Ennis, R. H. (1987a). A taxonomy of critical thinking dispositions
Educational Review, 32, pp. 81-111. Reprinted in B. P. and abilities. In J. Baron & R. Sternberg (Eds.), Teaching
Komisar, & C. J. B. Macmillan (Eds.), Psychological thinking skills: Theory and practice. New York: W. H.
concepts in education, 1967, Chicago: Rand McNally and Freeman, 9-26.
Company, 114-148. Ennis, R. H. (1987b). A conception of critical thinking — With
Ennis, R. H. (1964a). Operational definitions. American Educa- some curriculum suggestions. APA Newsletter on Teaching
tional Research Journal, 1, 183-201. Philosophy, Summer, 1-5.
Ennis, Robert H. (1964b). A definition of critical thinking. The Ennis, R. H. (1991a). The State of Illinois goals and sample learn-
Reading Teacher, 17(8), 599-612. ing objectives for scientific thinking and methods: Strengths,
Ennis, R. H. (1968). Enumerative induction and best explanation. weaknesses and suggestions. Spectrum, 17(1), 10-16.
The Journal of Philosophy, 65, 523-530. Ennis, R. H. (1991b). An elaboration of a cardinal goal of science
Ennis, R. H. (1969a). Logic in teaching. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: instruction: Scientific thinking. Educational Philosophy and
Prentice-Hall. Theory, 23(1), 31-45.
Ennis, R. H. (1969b). Ordinary logic. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Ennis, R. H. (1991c). Critical thinking: A streamlined conception.
Prentice-Hall. Teaching Philosophy, 14(1), 5-25.
Ennis, R. H. (1969c). Operationism can and should be divorced Ennis, R. H. (1996a) Critical thinking. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
from covering law assumptions (a reprint of Operational Prentice-Hall.
Definitions (1964). In L. I. Krimerman (Ed.), The nature Ennis, R. H. (1996b). Critical thinking dispositions: Their nature
and scope of social science: A critical anthology, 1969, New and assessability. Informal Logic, 18(2 & 3), 165-182 .
York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 431-444. Ennis, R. H. (March, 1998). Is critical thinking culturally biased?
Ennis, R. H. (1969d). The possibility of neutrality. Journal of Teaching Philosophy, 21(1), 15-33.
Educational Theory, 19, 347-356. Ennis, R. H. (2001). Argument appraisal strategy: A comprehen-
Ennis, R. H. (1973). On causality. Educational Researcher, sive approach. Informal Logic, 21(2), 97-140.
2(6), 4-11. Ennis, Robert H. (2002). Goals for a critical thinking curriculum
Ennis, R. H. (1974a). The believability of people. Educational and its assessment. In A. L. Costa (Ed.), Developing minds
Forum, 38, 347-354. (3rd Edition). Alexandria, VA: ASCD, 44-46.
Ennis, R. H. (1974b). Definition in science teaching. Instructional Ennis, R. H. (2004). Applying soundness standards to qualified
Science, 3, 285-298. reasoning. Informal Logic, 24(1), 23-39.
Ennis, R. H. (1979). Research in philosophy of science and Ennis, R. H. (2006). ‘Probably’. In D. Hitchcock, & B. Verheij
science education. In P. Asquith, & H. Kyburg (Eds.), Cur- (Eds.), Arguing on the Toulmin model. Dordrecht, Nether-
rent research in philosophy of science. East Lansing, MI: lands: Springer, 145-164.
Philosophy of Science Association, 138-170. Ennis, R. H. (2007). ‘Probable’ and its equivalents. In H. V.
Ennis, R. H. (1980). Presidential address: A conception of rational Hansen & R. C. Pinto (Eds.), Reason reclaimed: Essays in
thinking. In J. Coombs (Ed.), Philosophy of education 1979. honor of J. Anthony Blair and Ralph H. Johnson. Newport
Bloomington, IL: Philosophy of Education Society, 1-30. News, VA: Vale Press, 243-256.
Ennis, R. H. (1981a). A conception of deductive logic compe- Ennis, R. H. (2009). Investigating and assessing multiple-choice
tence. Teaching Philosophy, 4, 337-385. critical thinking tests. In J. Sobocan, & L. Groarke (Eds.),
Ennis, R. H. (1981b) Rational thinking and educational practice. Critical thinking education and assessment: Can higher
In J. Soltis (Ed.), Philosophy of education 1981 (Eightieth order thinking be tested? London, Ontario, CA: Althouse,
yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Educa- 75-97.
tion, Part I). Chicago: The National Society for the Study Ennis, R. H. (in process). Situational test validity.
of Education, 143-183. Facione, P. A. (1990). Critical thinking: A statement of expert
Ennis, R. H. (1981c). Eight fallacies in Bloom’s taxonomy. In consensus for purposes of educational assessment and
C. J. B. Macmillan (Ed.), Philosophy of education 1980. instruction (Executive summary of “The Delphi Report”)
Bloomington, IL: Philosophy of Education Society, 269- Millbrae, CA: California Academic Press.
273. Harman, G. (1965). The inference to the best explanation. Philo-
Ennis, R. H. (1982a). Abandon causality? Educational Re- sophical Review, 74(1), 88-95.
searcher, 11(7), 25-27. Harman, G. (1968). Enumerative induction as inference to the
Ennis, R. H. (1982b). Mackie’s singular causality and linked best explanation. Journal of Philosophy, 65(18), 529-533.
overdetermination. In P. D. Asquith, & T. Nickles (Eds.), Harman, G. (1973). Thought. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univer-
PSA 1982. East Lansing, MI: Philosophy of Science As- sity Press.
sociation, 55-64. Hart, H. L. A. (1961). The concept of law. Oxford: The Claren-
Ennis, R. H. (1982c). Identifying implicit assumptions. Synthese, don Press.
51, 61-86. Hitchcock, D. (1985). Enthymematic arguments. Informal Logic,
Ennis, R. H. (1985). Quality and creativity. In E. Robertson (Ed.), 7(2 & 3), 83-97.
Philosophy of education, 1984 (pp. 323-328). Bloomington, Institute for Propaganda Analysis (1938). Propaganda analysis.
IL: Philosophy of Education Society. New York: Columbia University Press.
Kahane, H. (1971). Logic and contemporary rhetoric. Belmont,
CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company.
SPRING 2011, VOL. 26, NO. 1 15
Lewis, C. I. (1912). Implication and the algebra of logic. Mind, outline. For the sake of brevity, clarification in the form of
522-531. examples, qualifications, and more detail, including more
Lewis, D. (1973). Causation. Journal of Philosophy, 70, 556–567. criteria, are omitted, but can be found in sources listed
Lipton, P. (2004). Inference to best explanation. London: Rout- below, but most fully in my Critical Thinking (1996a).
ledge.
This outline is the encapsulation of many years of
Mackie, J. L. (1974). The cement of the universe. Oxford: Clar-
work in the elaboration of the simple definition of critical
endon Press.
McPeck, J. (1981). Critical thinking and education. New York: thinking given above, and it distinguishes between critical
St. Martin’s Press. thinking dispositions and abilities.
McPeck, J. (1990a). Teaching critical thinking. New York: It is only a critical thinking content outline. It does not
Routledge. specify grade level, curriculum sequence, emphasis, teach-
McPeck, J. (1990b). Critical thinking and subject specificity: ing approach, or type of subject-matter content involved
A reply to Ennis. Educational Researcher, 19(4), 10-12. (standard subject-matter content, general knowledge
Nosich, G. (2010). From argument and philosophy to critical content, streetwise-knowledge content, special knowledge
thinking across the curriculum. INQUIRY: Critical Thinking content, etc.). For assessment purposes it can only provide
Across the Disciplines, 25(3), 4-13. a basis for developing a table of specifications and the
Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: The
preparation of assessment rubrics.
Belknap Press.
Roth, M. (2010). Beyond critical thinking. The Chronicle of
Higher Education, January 3. Critical Thinking Dispositions
Siegel, H. (1988). Educating reason. New York: Routledge.
Smith, B. O. (March, 1953). The improvement of critical think- Ideal critical thinkers are disposed to
ing. Progressive Education, 30(5), 130.
Smith E. R., & Tyler, R. W. (1942). Appraising and recording 1. Care that their beliefs be true,4 and that their decisions
student progress. New York: Harper & Brothers. be justified; that is, care to “get it right” to the extent
Strawson, P. F. (1952). Introduction to logical theory. London: possible; including to
Methuen & Co. a. Seek alternative hypotheses, explanations, conclu-
Werkmeister, W. H. (1948). An introduction to critical thinking, sions, plans, sources, etc.; and be open to them
2nd Edition. Lincoln, NE: Johnsen Publishing Co.
b. Consider seriously other points of view than their
Wheary, J., & Ennis, R. H. (1995). Gender bias in critical think-
own
ing: continuing the dialogue. Educational Theory, 45(2),
213-224. c. Try to be well informed
Wigmore, J. H. (1942). Wigmore’s code of the rules of evidence d. Endorse a position to the extent that, but only to the
in trials at law, 3rd Edition. Boston: Little Brown and Co, extent that, it is justified by the information that is
available
Web sites e. Use their critical thinking abilities
AILACT Web Site: ailact.mcmaster.ca/ 2. Care to understand and present a position honestly
Ennis, Robert H. Academic Web Site: faculty.ed.uiuc.edu/rhennis and clearly, theirs as well as others’; including to
Ennis, Robert H. Critical Thinking Web Site: www.criticalth- a. Discover and listen to others’ view and reasons
inking.net b. Be clear about the intended meaning of what is
said, written, or otherwise communicated, seeking
Appendix as much precision as the situation requires
c. Determine, and maintain focus on, the conclusion
The Nature of Critical Thinking: An Outline of or question
Critical Thinking Dispositions and Abilities3 d. Seek and offer reasons
e. Take into account the total situation
Critical thinking is reasonable and reflective think- f. Be reflectively aware of their own basic beliefs
ing focused on deciding what to believe or do. This
definition I believe captures the core of the way the term 3. Care about every person. (This one is an auxiliary,
is used in the critical thinking movement. In deciding what not constitutive, disposition. Although this concern
to believe or do, one is helped by the employment of a set for people is not constitutive, critical thinking can be
of critical thinking dispositions and abilities that I shall dangerous without it.) Caring critical thinkers
outline. These can serve as a set of comprehensive goals a. Avoid intimidating or confusing others with their
for a critical thinking curriculum and its assessment. Use- critical thinking prowess, taking into account others’
fulness in curriculum decisions, teaching, and assessment, feelings and level of understanding
not elegance or mutual exclusiveness, is the purpose of this b. Are concerned about others’ welfare
Critical Thinking Abilities 5. Observe, and judge observation reports. Major

criteria (but not necessary conditions, except for
The following abilities numbered 1 to 3 involve basic the first):
clarification; 4 and 5, the bases for a decision; 6 to 8, a. Minimal inferring involved
inference; 9 and 10, advanced clarification; and 11 and b. Short time interval between observation and report
12, supposition and integration. Abilities 13 to 15 are c. Report by the observer, rather than someone else
auxiliary abilities, not constitutive of critical thinking, (that is, the report is not hearsay)
but very helpful. d. Provision of records
e. Corroboration
Ideal critical thinkers have the ability to: f. Possibility of corroboration
(Basic Clarification, 1 to 3) g. Good access
1. Focus on a question: h. Competent employment of technology, if technol-
a. Identify or formulate a question ogy applies
b. Identify or formulate criteria for judging possible i. Satisfaction by observer (and reporter, if a differ-
answers ent person) of the credibility criteria in Ability # 4
c. Keep the question and situation in mind above (Note: A third basis is your own established
conclusions.)
Analyze arguments:
2.
a. Identify conclusions (Inference, 6 to 8)
b. Identify reasons or premises 6. Deduce, and judge deduction:
c. Ascribe or identify simple assumptions (see also a. Class logic
ability 10) b. Conditional logic
c. Identify and handle irrelevance c. Interpretation of logical terminology, including
d. See the structure of an argument i. Negation and double negation
e. Summarize ii. Necessary and sufficient condition language
iii. Such words as “only”, “if and only if”, “or”,
3. Ask and answer clarification and/or challenge ques- “some”, “unless”, and “not both”
tions, such as: d. Qualified deductive reasoning (a loosening for
a. Why? practical purposes)
b. What is your main point?
c. What do you mean by______________________? 7. Make material inferences (roughly “induction”):
d. What would be an example? a. To generalizations. Broad considerations:
e. What would not be an example (though close to i. Typicality of data, including valid sampling
being one)? where appropriate
f. How does that apply to this case (describe a case, ii. Volume of instances
which appears to be a counterexample)? iii. Conformity of instances to generalization
g. What difference does it make? iv. Having a principled way of dealing with outliers
h. What are the facts? b. To explanatory hypotheses (IBE: “inference-to-
i. Is this what you are saying:__________________? best-explanation”):
j. Would you say more about that? i. Major types of explanatory conclusions and
hypotheses:
(Two Bases for a Decision: 4 and 5) a. Specific and general causal claims
4. Judge the credibility of a source. Major criteria (but b. Claims about the beliefs and attitudes of
not necessary conditions): people
a. Expertise c. Interpretation of authors’ intended meanings
b. Lack of conflict of interest d. Historical claims that certain things happened
c. Agreement with other sources (including criminal accusations)
d. Reputation e. Reported definitions
e. Use of established procedures f. Claims that some proposition is an unstated,
f. Known risk to reputation (the source’s knowing of but used, reason
a risk to reputation, if wrong) ii. Characteristic investigative activities
g. Ability to give reasons a. Designing experiments, including planning
h. Careful habits to control variables
SPRING 2011, VOL. 26, NO. 1 17
b. Seeking evidence and counterevidence, in- 10. Attribute unstated assumptions (an ability that belongs
cluding statistical significance under both basic clarification (2b) and inference (7bif)
c. Seeking other possible explanations a. Pejorative flavor (dubiousness or falsity): com-
iii. Criteria, the first four being essential, the fifth monly but not always associated to some degree
being desirable with the different types. Criteria: See #8 above.
a. The proposed conclusion would explain or b. Types:
help explain the evidence i. Presuppositions (required for a proposition to
b. The proposed conclusion is consistent with make sense)
all known facts ii. Needed assumptions (needed by the reasoning
c. Competitive alternative explanations are to be at its strongest, but not logically necessary
inconsistent with facts (Ennis 1982)), (called “assumptions of the argu-
d. A competent sincere effort has been made ment” by Hitchcock (1985))
to find supporting and opposing data, and iii. Used assumptions (judged by hypothesis-testing
alternative hypotheses criteria, Ennis 1982), called “assumptions of the
e. The proposed conclusion seems plausible and arguer” by Hitchcock (1985)
simple, fitting into the broader picture
(Supposition and Integration, 11 and 12)
Make and judge value judgments
8. 11. Consider and reason from premises, reasons, assump-
Important factors: tions, positions, and other propositions with which
a. Background facts they disagree or about which they are in doubt, without
b. Consequences of accepting or rejecting the judg- letting the disagreement or doubt interfere with their
ment thinking (“suppositional thinking”)
c. Prima facie application of acceptable principles
d. Alternatives 12. Integrate the dispositions and other abilities in making
e. Balancing, weighing, deciding and defending a decision

(Advanced Clarification, 9 and 10) (Auxiliary abilities, 13 to 15)
9. Define terms and judge definitions, using appropriate 13. Proceed in an orderly manner appropriate to the situ-
criteria ation:
Three basic dimensions are form, function (act), a. Follow problem solving steps
and content. A fourth, more advanced dimension is b. Monitor their own thinking (that is, engage in
handling equivocation. metacognition)
a. Definition form. For criteria for 1 through 4 and c. Employ a reasonable critical thinking checklist
6, see Ennis (1996, Ch 12 & 13). For #5 see Ennis
(1964, 1969c). 14. Be sensitive to the feelings, level of knowledge, and
i. Synonym degree of sophistication of others
ii. Classification
iii. Range 15. Employ appropriate rhetorical strategies in discussion
iv. Equivalent-expression and presentation (oral and written), including employ-
v. Operational ing and reacting to “fallacy” labels in an appropriate
vi. Example and non-example manner. Examples of fallacy labels are “circularity,”
b. Definitional functions (acts) “bandwagon,” “post hoc,” “equivocation,” “non se-
i. Report a meaning (criteria: the five for an ex- quitur,” and “straw person”
planatory hypothesis)
ii. Stipulate a meaning (criteria: convenience, Summary and Comments
consistency, avoidance of impact equivocation)
iii. Express a position on an issue (positional defini- In brief, the ideal critical thinker is disposed to try to
tions, including “programmatic” and “persua- “get it right,” to present a position honestly and clearly, and
sive” definitions) Criteria: those for a position to care about others (this last being auxiliary, not constitu-
(Ennis 2001) tive); furthermore the ideal critical thinker has the ability
c. Content of the definition to clarify, to seek and judge well the basis for a view, to
d. Identifying and handling equivocation (Ennis 1996) infer wisely from the basis, to imaginatively suppose and
integrate, and to do these things with dispatch, sensitivity,
and rhetorical skill.
In presenting this outline of critical thinking disposi- for critical thinking research, and the invaluable help
tions and abilities, I have only attempted to depict, rather of my students and colleagues at both universities and
than defend, them. The defense would require much more in AILACT.
space than is available, but would follow two general paths:
1) examining the traditions of good thinking in existing 2. ‘Assessing,’ not ‘assessment,’ thus avoiding the pro-
successful disciplines of inquiry, and 2) seeing how we go cess-product ambiguity of ‘assessment,’ an ambiguity
wrong when we attempt to decide what to believe or do. that John McPeck (1981, pp. 44-46), and others in his
In any teaching situation for which critical thinking footsteps have tried to exploit after misquoting me as
is a goal, whether it be a separate critical thinking course saying “assessment”. If one says “assessment” and
or module, or one in which the critical thinking content assumes the result (product) sense of “assessment,”
is infused in (making critical thinking principles explicit) then “correct assessment,” if it were in the definition,
or immersed in (not making critical thinking principles would fail “to recognize that what makes some bit of
explicit) standard subject-matter content, or some mixture thinking critical is a function not of the result but of
of these; all of the dispositions, as well as the suppositional the way in which a particular result is pursued” (p.
and integrational abilities (# 11 and #12) and auxiliary 44). After misquoting me, McPeck (p. 44) mistakenly
abilities (#13 through #15) are applicable all the time and attributed this sort of failure to my first definition.
should permeate the instruction to the extent that time and
student ability permit. 3. This is a thoroughly revised version of a presentation
I have only attempted to outline a usable and de- at the Sixth International Conference on Thinking at
fensible set of critical thinking goals, including criteria MIT, Cambridge, MA, July, 1994. Last revised Janu-
for making judgments. Space limitations have precluded ary, 2011. Developed by Robert H. Ennis, University
exemplifying their application to curriculum, teaching, and of Illinois. [email protected]
assessment, though I have done so elsewhere.5 However,
goals are the place to start. I hope that this outline provides 4. With respect to epistemological constructivism (the
a useful basis on which to build curriculum, teaching, and view that truth is constructed): In expressing a concern
assessment procedures. about true belief, this conception of critical thinking
accepts the view that our concepts and vocabulary
Sources of exemplification, elaboration, and more are constructed by us, but also that (to oversimplify
criteria. somewhat) the relationships among the referents of
The meaning, significance, and application of some our concepts and terms are not constructed by us. We
of the above aspects might not be apparent to some, who can have true or false beliefs about these.
might find the following items, which contain many ex- With respect to pedagogical constructivism (the view
amples, to be of help. Furthermore criteria for deduction, that students learn best when they construct their own
assumption ascription and definition are not provided in answers to problems and questions): For some (but not
the above outline of the nature of critical thinking because all) goals and types of learning, this view has empirical
they are too complex for a brief listing. Elaboration of support, but it should not be confused with episte-
these criteria and this conception by me are listed in “Ref- mological constructivism. In particular, the validity
erences” (above): 2007, 2006, 2004, 2002, 2001, 1991c, of pedagogical constructivism (to the extent that it is
1987a, 1987b, 1982b, 1982a, 1981a, 1980, 1974a, 1974b, valid) does not imply the validity of epistemological
1973, 1969a, 1969b, 1969c, 1968, 1964a, 1964b, and constructivism. They are totally different ideas.
1962, but most comprehensively in three others (1996a,
1991, 1987a.) 5. My complete list of publications is to be found in
the publications sections of my academic web site,
Endnotes faculty.ed.uiuc.edu/rhennis
1. I deeply appreciate the suggestions for this essay made

by Jennie Berg, Lindley Darden, and Frank Fair. I also
appreciate the fact that my two universities, Cornell
and Illinois, provided me the research time to work
on critical thinking, the fact that the United States
Department of Education and the Center for Advanced
Study in the Behavioral Sciences each provided me
a year of study, the research grants from New York
State and the United States Department of Education
SPRING 2011, VOL. 26, NO. 1 19
Assessing Critical Thinking about Values:

A Quasi-Experimental Study
Michael Gillespie
Bowling Green State University
Abstract
Critical thinking and values are fundamental topics of interest in higher education. The current study
is an empirical validation of a university’s effort to teach students to apply critical thinking to the
recognition and articulation of values contained in focal essays. A Critical Thinking about Values
Assessment (CTVA) is provided, which evaluates students’ responses regarding (1) key components
of critical thinking, and (2) “critical thinking about values,” in response to the essays. These two
criteria were assessed at the beginning and end of the semester as part of a naturally-occurring quasi-
experiment. Results provide some support for the reliability and validity of the CTVA and suggest
that the program has a tenuous relationship with students’ critical thinking, but a moderate to strong
relationship with students’ ability to recognize and articulate values.
Keywords: critical thinking, values, assessment
Colleges and universities are in a unique position to that emphasized critical thinking and values whereas the
teach the leaders of the future to think critically about the other half took otherwise comparable courses without
values that underlie the decisions they will face and to such an emphasis.
reflect on their values to be able to make decisions with an This general methodology can be used by departments
awareness of what those values are. The current study is an or institutions in need of empirical assessment of similar
evaluation of a program at Bowling Green State University learning outcomes, as well as researchers interested in this
that is designed to get students to engage in “critical think- somewhat novel approach to the assessment of students’
ing about values” during their first semester at college. recognition and articulation of values. In summary, the
The past 10 years or so have seen a dramatic rise current study provides an evaluation of the Bowling Green
in the importance of such learning goals or outcomes, eXperience (BGeX), a program that aims to teach students
as calls for accountability in higher education become critical thinking about values. As part of the evaluation of
increasingly louder and more pointed (Achtemeier & this program a flexible method of assessment that others
Simpson, 2005; Alexander, 2000; Field, 2008; Leveille, may be able to use is also provided.
2005, May). Given the emphasis on data-driven decision
making in the university context, empirical assessments Critical Thinking
are becoming necessary to document the achievement
of learning outcomes and progress toward departmental, One of the main contributions of institutions of higher
college, university, state, and national targets (Loacker education is that they develop students to enter the labor
& Rogers, 2005). To assist universities with the task force (Toutkoushian, 2005). Even though the knowledge
of measuring student outcomes, this paper provides an students acquire may soon be forgotten or outdated in
example of a program evaluation using an open-ended the workplace, critical thinking has been described as an
assessment of critical thinking about values among fresh- enduring skill (Terenzini, Springer, Pascarella, & Nora,
men psychology students. The assessment contains two 1995), “one of higher education’s most widely professed
sections – one focusing on the key components (KC) of goals” (Tsui, 2000, p. 421). Further, critical thinking it-
critical thinking, and the other on “critical thinking about self is largely generalizable (Siegel, 1992, 1997), and is
values” (CTV), or the application of basic elements of important across domains of inquiry and careers (Briihl,
critical thinking to the recognition and articulation of Stanny, Jarvis, Darcy, & Belter, 2008; Dunn, Halonen, &
values. Whereas the first assessment measures critical Smith, 2008b;).
thinking, the latter assessment is a direct measure of the As noted by Halonen (1995), there are just about as
program’s learning outcomes, which could loosely be many definitions of critical thinking as there are people
described as “values recognition and articulation.” The who study it (e.g., Browne & Keeley, 2004; Eggan &
program evaluation aspect of this study capitalizes on a Kauchack, 2004; Ennis, 1987; Facione, 2004; Halpern,
naturally-occurring quasi-experiment in which roughly 1997; Jegede & Noordink, 1993; Lipman, 1988; McPeck,
half of the University’s incoming freshmen took courses 1981; Paul, 1993; Siegel, 1988; Terenzini et al., 1995;
Williams, Oliver, Allin, Winn, & Booher, 2003). Some conduct or end-state of existence” (p. 5). Schwartz and
definitions focus exclusively on the logic and reasoning Bilsky (1987) provide an elaborated definition, writing that
aspect of critical thinking, as in “the ability to properly values “(a) are concepts or beliefs, (b) pertain to desirable
construct and evaluate arguments” (Facione, 1986, p. 222). end states or behaviors, (c) transcend specific situations,
Others have a broader approach that includes dispositional (d) guide selection or evaluation of behavior and events,
components, for example: and (e) are ordered by relative importance” (p. 878).
Critical thinking has at least two central Interestingly, this definition (part (d) in particular)
components: a reason assessment component, implies that values are not just abstractions or sets of
which involves abilities and skills relevant to principles that one consults when faced with a dilemma.
the proper understanding and assessment of Instead, values are inherently active, driving attention and
reasons, claims, and arguments; and a critical behavior. In addition, values guide the selection or evalu-
spirit component, which is understood as a ation of behavior and events (Schwartz & Bilsky, 1987)
complex of dispositions, attitudes, habits and help people determine whether a particular situation
of mind, and character traits (Siegel, 1997, presents an ethical dilemma (Lefkowitz, 2003). Therefore,
p. 27). it is essential that people not only be able to identify the
values assumed by others, but also that they understand
Yet other definitions situate critical thinking within their own values clearly, to navigate the complexities of
a broader framework for identifying, measuring, and de- this value-laden world with integrity.
veloping both the logical and dispositional components
of critical thinking: Critical Thinking about Values
Critical thinking is the use of those cognitive
skills or strategies that increase the probabil- Students need to be taught to think critically and to
ity of a desirable outcome. It is used to de- understand the implicit and explicit values that underlie
scribe thinking that is purposeful, reasoned, their decisions and actions. A common way for teach-
and goal directed — the kind of thinking ers and scholars of critical thinking to teach students to
involved in solving problems, formulating identify such values is by identifying certain assumptions
inferences, calculating likelihoods, and made in the evaluation of evidence and arguments. These
making decisions when the thinker is using value assumptions can be found by examining the manner
skills that are thoughtful and effective for the in which given reasons actually support the conclusion
particular context and type of thinking task of an argument (Browne & Keeley, 2004). The process
(Halpern, 1997, p. 4). of examining these assumptions can also help to situate
ideas in their broader historical and philosophical context
Halpern (1998) provides a four-part model of teach- (Yanchar & Slife, 2004).
ing critical thinking skills. The model is a good synthesis The application of critical thinking to the understand-
of current thinking in the domains of motivation theory, ing of values ensures that values education does not lead
cognitive psychology, and educational psychology, focus- to indoctrination. Reciprocally, a focus on values within
ing on (a) dispositions, (b) skills, (c) structure training critical thinking can help educators guard against the
(i.e., contrasting structural versus surface features of an production of merely robotic critical thinkers or walk-
argument), and (d) metacognitive monitoring. ing logical algorithms, instead engendering thoughtful,
There are plenty of excellent examples of teaching principled humans.
and assessing students’ critical thinking (e.g., Browne & The current study provides an evaluation of a uni-
Keeley, 2004; Dunn, Halonen, & Smith, 2008a; Fasko, versity program designed to teach critical thinking skills
2003; Halonen, 1986; Halpern, 1997). Therefore, the novel as applied to the recognition and description of values.
contribution of this study is the evaluation and assessment This program, called the Bowling Green eXperience
of critical thinking with specific application to values. (BGeX), aims to teach students critical thinking about
values (Katzner & Nieman, 2006). An assessment of the
Values BGeX student learning outcomes was developed in order
to evaluate the program’s effectiveness. This study includes
Rokeach’s (1973) definition of values has served as a detailed description of this assessment in hopes that parts
the foundation for much of the current values research in of it may be applicable in other contexts.
the social sciences (see Hitlin & Piliavin, 2004; Meglino & For the purposes of the present study, critical thinking
Ravlin, 1998): “A value is an enduring belief that a specific about values refers to the application of critical thinking
mode of conduct or end-state of existence is personally (characterized very generally) to values-focused learn-
or socially preferable to an opposite or converse mode of ing outcomes. Faculty who taught BGeX classes used
SPRING 2011, VOL. 26, NO. 1 21
the following basic definition of a value: “a principle, State University (a medium-sized public comprehensive
standard, or quality considered worthwhile or desirable” university in the Midwest). Three of the sections were
(Bowling Green State University, 2004a, p. 13). The part of the BGeX program ( BGeX condition n = 85 stu-
BGeX program focuses on teaching students to recognize dents) and the other three were equivalent except for the
and think about their own and others’ values, as opposed instructors and the fact that they did not contain the BGeX
to teaching students to adopt a particular set of values. program content (Comparison group n = 80 students).
The specific learning outcomes assessed are as follows University administrators indicated that the selection of
(Bowling Green State University, 2004b); however, other students into one course versus the other was arbitrary —
similar learning outcomes or goals could be substituted in neither deliberately systematic nor truly random.
future assessments. Because students did not get randomly assigned to
1. Recognize and describe values that arise in the meth- groups, the two groups were examined for significant
ods or content of the subject area. differences on three sets of variables thought to be un-
2. Identify ways in which these sometimes unexamined related to students’ involvement in the BGeX program:
values shape or relate to academic and/or public dis- demographics, admissions criteria, and first-year survey
cussion of issues relevant to today’s citizens. results. These variables and the tests of between-group
3. Understand, articulate, and evaluate reasons and differences are described in the measures and preliminary
justifications that can support their own and others’ results sections, respectively.
value choices.
BGeX Condition
In the current study, these learning outcomes were “BGeX seeks to make critical thinking about values
assessed at two times. The first assessment (time 1) was at the unifying theme of students’ experience…” (Bowling
the beginning of the semester and (for BGeX students only) Green State University, 2004b, p. 5). Although BGeX is a
followed a weekend introduction to the BGeX program. University-wide program, three sections of the Introduc-
The second assessment (time 2) occurred during the last tion to Psychology course served as the BGeX condition.
week of the semester, after all students had been exposed These sections had the same content as non-BGeX sec-
to course material and BGeX students had an opportunity tions, but had two important differences. First, the BGeX
to participate in further discussion and activities regard- program itself began with an introduction weekend several
ing critical thinking about values in the context of their days before the start of classes (“The BGeX Introduction”).
course. The assessments included two dependent variables: Second, the three BGeX-course instructors incorporated
scores on a measure of the key components (KC) of criti- examples, class exercises, and homework assignments
cal thinking, and scores on a more direct measure of the that highlighted the role of critical thinking and of values
learning outcomes, referred to as critical thinking about inherent in the course content.
values (CTV), both of which are described in more detail in During the introduction weekend, students in the
the Measures section. Considering these two time periods BGeX program were assembled into groups of no more
(time 1 and time 2) and two dependent variables (KC scores than 30 each (n’s = 28, 28, and 29). Students’ soon-to-be
and CTV scores), I advance the following hypotheses: instructor and a peer facilitator led these groups (peer
1a. Students in the BGeX program will have higher KC facilitators are students who have already participated in
scores following the introduction weekend — time the program). The introduction gave students an introduc-
1 — than will students in the comparison group. tion to the university and its focus on critical thinking
1b. Students in the BGeX program will have higher KC about values. Faculty, peer facilitators, and students re-
scores at the end of the semester — time 2 — than ceived workbooks that provided, among other things, (a)
will students in the comparison group. a description of the history of the program, (b) common
2a. Students in the BGeX program will have higher CTV language and examples for talking about values, values
scores following the introduction weekend — time preferences, and value conflicts, and (c) worksheets to
1 — than will students in the comparison group. complete during the introductory weekend. In addition,
2b. Students in the BGeX program will have higher CTV the faculty workshop guide contained materials relevant to
scores at the end of the semester — time 2 — than both the introduction weekend and their upcoming class.
will students in the comparison group. These materials included a description of the BGeX learn-
ing outcomes, instructions and case studies regarding ap-
Method proaches to teaching critical thinking about values, sample
assignments, and assessment options. The central aim of
Participants these materials was to encourage students to think about
Data were collected from 165 students enrolled in six their own and others’ values, as well as how their values
small introductory psychology sections at Bowling Green may relate to or conflict with others’ values. Below is a
sample exercise that was used in small group discussions Comparison Group
during the introduction weekend. This example dealt with Three small-enrollment (n’s = 26, 27, 27) Introduction
roommate frustrations: to Psychology sections served as the comparison group.
Keesha is a first year student without any All three sections were taught by the same instructor and
brothers or sisters and has never had to share were identical in content to the BGeX sections, except for
a room with anyone prior to her arrival at the focus on critical thinking and values.
college. Lately she has had several argu-
ments with her roommate Stacey. A recent Measures
disagreement occurred because Keesha likes Student Records. The university’s Office of Institu-
to keep her side of the room very clean while tional Research provided data on students’ demographic
Stacey usually leaves her clothes and books characteristics, admissions criteria, and first-year survey
scattered around the room. When Keesha responses. Demographics included sex, ethnicity, and age.
approached her roommate about this issue, Admissions criteria consisted of high school GPA as well
Stacey explained that the room was hers too as ACT and/or SAT scores, which were standardized us-
and she could leave her stuff wherever she ing national norms to be on the same metric and averaged
wanted. Keesha is frustrated and does not for those students who took both tests (rACT,SAT = .85; p <
know what to do next. .001; n = 40).
a. What value(s) might Stacey hold that In addition, BGSU’s first-year survey contained a
lead(s) her to respond to Keesha the way section asking students about their reasons for attending
she did? college and their general life goals. Although this survey
b. What value(s) that Keesha might hold was not central to the current study, six variables were
is/are in conflict with Stacey’s value? comprised of these items in order to test for possible
c. What are Keesha’s options to resolve pre-existing between-group differences unrelated to the
this issue with her roommate Stacey? BGeX program. A factor analysis with varimax rotation
d. What suggestions would you make to on a previous years’ administration of the survey yielded
the two roommates? What value(s) do three “reasons” factors (N = 1131) and three “goals” factors
you hold that lead(s) you to offer these (N = 1070) with interpretable solutions. Coefficient alpha
suggestions? reliabilities were computed using the current sample. The
(Bowling Green State University, 2004b, reasons factors were Intellectual Development (5 items,
p. 47) α = .61), Extrinsic Interests (2 items, α =.31), and Others’
Advice (2 items, α = .38). The latter two reasons factors
The materials given to faculty also included sample did not produce sufficiently reliable scale scores. The goals
in-class assignments that required students to use care- factors were Social Progress (9 items, α = .84), Achieve-
ful thinking and justification of their own values and the ment and Power (6 items, α = .62), and Humanitarianism
values of others. One sample assignment asked students (2 items, α = .77).
to identify a media message that they agreed with and Critical Thinking about Values Assessment
another that they disagreed with, and required a careful, (CTVA). The CTVA provided here is a two-part essay test
written exposition about why they agreed and disagreed. of critical thinking skills developed as an assessment of
Another included a reflection on “The Lexus and the Olive BGeX’s learning outcomes (see Appendix A). The CTVA
Tree” (Friedman, 1999). This exercise posed the following is similar in structure and method to the International
three questions: Critical Thinking Essay Test (Paul & Elder, 2001), insofar
1. If you have not already done so, read The Lexus and as students are asked to respond to an editorial in essay
the Olive Tree, pages 437-440, paying special atten- format. However, the CTVA was designed to map directly
tion to the chart/matrix on top of page 438. Identify onto the BGeX learning outcomes as much as possible to
the value conflicts existing between the “Separatists” be as sensitive as possible to the effects of the program.
and the “Integrationists.” The first part of the CTVA is a test of the students’
2. Using the same chart/matrix, identify the values ability to analyze an argument (i.e., identify the purpose,
conflicts between “Social-Safety-Netters” and “Let- conclusion, arguments, and assumptions in a particular
Them-Eat-Cakers.” writing prompt). These items are identified as Key Com-
3. Now, examine the value conflicts you have identified ponents (KC) items 1 through 4. The second part builds
in questions 1 and 2. Where do you lie with respect on the same writing prompt and tests the students’ ability
to the value conflicts? Write where you would place to understand the values held by the author of the argu-
yourself on the chart/matrix and explain your answer. ment, the author’s reasons supporting particular values,
(Bowling Green State University, 2004b, p. 16) and the implications of the author’s values on discussion
SPRING 2011, VOL. 26, NO. 1 23
of the issue. These items are identified as Critical Thinking blind to which condition the responses were from. A five-
about Values (CTV) items 1 through 3. Again, the CTV point rating system permitted scores of 0, 0.5, 1, 1.5, or 2
portion of the assessment measures the application of basic for each item, yielding sum scores with a possible range
elements of critical thinking (which does not necessarily of 0-8 and 0-6 for the KC and CTV sections, respectively.
have anything to do with values) toward the recognition A series of iterative pilot rating sessions were conducted
and articulation of values. to develop the actual scoring rubrics, which raters then
The CTVA was administered at two time points: (1) consulted when they made their actual ratings. In addition,
during the first month of the semester, which was about two a set of scoring guidelines were provided that accompanied
weeks after students participated in the BGeX introduction the rubrics to assist the raters’ collective understanding of
weekend; and (2) during the last week of classes before the rationale for the ratings.
students took their final exams. One hundred thirty-one
students participated in both administrations. Results
The CTVA can be used with any writing prompt that
provides rich enough information regarding critical think- Preliminary Analyses
ing and values. Two prompts were used for the current Pre-existing group differences. There were no
study, “The case for self-interest” (Perloff, 2004, May statistically-significant differences between the BGeX and
30), and “The political brain” (Johnson, 2004, August 22). comparison conditions on any of the demographic vari-
Table 1 presents experimental conditions for the BGeX and ables or admissions criteria: Sex χ2(2) = 3.06, p = .08; Cau-
comparison sections along with the corresponding CTVA casian vs. not χ2(1) = 1.34, p = .28 (no specific subgroup
prompts used. The same prompt was administered at time comparisons produced significant differences either); Age
1 and time 2 for one of the comparison groups (comparison t(157) = 0.11, p = .92; High School GPA t(154) = 0.69, p =
group 3). This repeat administration permitted an assess- .49; standardized ACT/SAT scores t(157) = 1.66, p = .10.
ment of test-retest reliability of the CTVA. It also allowed Although the results for ACT/SAT could be interpreted as
for potential score inflation at time 2 to the extent that marginally-significant, students in the comparison group
students in comparison group 3 remembered the assign- actually had a higher mean score (0.29, SD = 0.62) than
ment and thought about it over the course of the semester. those in the BGeX group (0.11, SD = 0.72).
However, this was a rather unlikely scenario, given that One of the “reasons” factors and one of the “goals”
course content in the comparison groups did not focus on factors evidenced statistically significant between-group
any of the questions asked in the CTVA. differences, although these differences were in favor of
the comparison group: Intellectual Development t(82) =
Table 1 2.50, p = .02; and Social Progress t(77) = 2.30, p = .02.
Experimental Conditions The remaining factors were non-significant: Extrinsic In-
terests t(85) = 1.27, p = .21; Others’ Advice t(85) = 1.17,
Groups N Time 1 Time 2 p = .24; Achievement and Power t(80) = 1.54, p = .13; and
Humanitarianism t(80) = -1.57, p = .12.
BGeX groups CTVA reliability. The reliability of the CTVA is
BGeX 1 28 Self-Interest Political Brain discussed in terms of (1) rater agreement and reliability at
BGeX 2 28 Self-Interest Political Brain the item level, (2) internal consistency at the scale level,
BGeX 3 29 Political Brain Self-Interest and (3) test-retest reliability at the scale level. To calculate
rater agreement/reliability, scores for each item (e.g., KC
Comparison groups 1) were obtained using the mean rating of all raters who
Comparison 1 26 Self-Interest Political Brain rated student responses to that item. Because it is the reli-
Comparison 2 27 Self-Interest Political Brain ability of ratings that is of primary of interest in this study,
Comparison 3 27 Political Brain Political Brain Shrout and Fleiss’s (1979) one-way intraclass correlation
(ICC[1,k]) is provided as an indication of the reliable
Scoring the CTVA. A team of six researchers de- variance in raters’ scores. Unlike measures of pure rater
veloped the scoring process and provided ratings for the agreement, ICC(1,k) scores are high when raters exhibit
open-ended and essay CTVA responses. A scoring guide, or both high agreement and high reliability.
rubric (the rubrics and a scoring guide are available upon There was a small amount of missing rating data due
request), was developed that raters used to code responses to some raters not rating every single item and/or respon-
to the CTVA. KC (Key Components) items 1 – 4 were dents not always answering every single item. However,
scored separately from the CTV (Critical Thinking about considering both time 1 and time 2 ratings all together,
Values) items 1 – 3 to avoid biasing the CTV scores as a most KC item responses were rated by three raters (n ≈ 260;
function of the KC scores and vice versa. Raters were also two-rater n ≈ 27; one-rater n ≈ 6). Three-rater ICC(1,k)
values for KC items 1 through 4 were .58, .50, .71, and of BGeX vs. comparison group was statistically significant
.49, respectively. Most of the CTV responses were rated (Wilke’s Λ = .85 F[2, 128] = 11.24, p < .001; partial η2 =
by four raters (n ≈ 178) although a sizeable portion had .15), permitting further investigation of mean differences.
three raters (n ≈ 85; two-rater n ≈ 18; one-rater n ≈ 11). The between-subjects effect (i.e., BGeX vs. comparison
ICC(1,k) values for CTV items 1 through 3 were .70, .64, group) was statistically-significant for CTV (F[1,129] =
and .60, respectively, for four raters. 17.56, p < .001; partial η2 = .12) but not for KC (F[1,129]
Second, coefficient alpha reliabilities were .67 for = 0.01, p = .98; partial η2 = .00), permitting specific hy-
the 4-item KC scale, and .81 for the 3-item CTV scale. pothesis tests for CTV but precluding further tests for
Although the KC scale reliability is just below the gener- KC and failing to support Hypotheses 1a and 1b. Table 2
ally acceptable .70 guideline for an experimental measure shows that BGeX students scored statistically significantly
(Nunnally, 1978; Lance, Butts, & Michels, 2006), the CTV higher (p < .001) than comparison group students on CTV
scale demonstrates adequate reliability. Third, comparison (the measure of BGeX learning outcomes) at time 1 and
group 3 permitted calculation of test-retest reliability. The time 2, supporting hypotheses 2a and 2b. The sizes of
correlation between time 1 and time 2 scores (the lag was these effects were substantial (moderate to strong), with
approximately 3 months) was .36 (p = .10; n = 22) for Cohen’s d values of .53, .63, and .73 for time 1, time 2,
the KC scale and .46 (p =. 03; n = 22) for the CTV scale. and overall, respectively.
Standardizing CTVA scores across the two writing
prompts. Although the CTVA can be used with any ap- Discussion
propriate writing prompt, there is no reason to believe that
scores obtained with one prompt are equivalent to scores This study was a quasi-experimental validation of an
obtained with another prompt. Therefore, scores needed instructional program designed to teach students critical
to be standardized across the two writing forms to adjust thinking about values. I hypothesized that students enrolled
for potential differences in difficulty. An additional 51 in the program (BGeX group) would outperform those
students volunteered for a separate prompt-standardization not enrolled in the program (comparison group) on (a) a
study and were randomly assigned to one of two condi- test of key components of critical thinking (KC), and (b)
tions. In the first condition, students received the CTVA a test of critical thinking about values (CTV). The latter
with the self-interest prompt, followed by the CTVA with measure was designed as an explicit assessment of the
the political brain prompt. In the second, the order was BGeX program learning outcomes.
reversed. This design allowed for a
within-subjects comparison of the
Table 2
relationship and relative difficulty
Means and Standard Deviations of CTVA items and Scales by Condition
of the CTVAs when using the two
(BGX vs. non-BGX)
different prompts. Scores from the
two prompts in the primary sample
BGeX Condition non-BGeX Condition
were then standardized using each
form’s respective mean and stan-
X X
dard deviation from the prompt
n SD n SD t-value p Cohen’s d
standardization sample. These
standardized scores were then used
Time 1
in the following analyses.
KC total (H1a) 82 0.08 1.00 80 0.32 1.07 -1.46 .146 -0.23
CTV total (H1b) 82 0.91 1.18 80 0.30 1.10 3.41 .001 0.53
Hypothesis Tests
Descriptive statistics for all
Time 2
major study variables are pro-
KC total (H2a) 64 -0.10 1.02 68 -0.32 1.15 1.18 .241 0.20
vided in Table 2. A 2 X 2 mixed
CTV total (H2b) 64 0.25 1.26 67 -0.48 1.07 3.57 .001 0.63
Multivariate Analysis of Variance
(MANOVA) was conducted first
Overall
in order to justify the individual
KC total 64 -0.05 1.60 68 0.01 1.66 -0.19 .846 -0.04
hypothesis tests. This analysis
tested for group differences (BGeX
CTV total 64 1.26 2.07 67 -0.14 1.76 4.19 <.001 0.73
vs. comparison) on the two related
dependent variables (KC scores
Note. Means and SDs are adjusted for the differences across writing prompts used;
and CTV scores) across the two “KC” refers to the key component items; “CTV” refers to critical thinking about values items;
time periods. The multivariate test “Overall” is the sum of Time 1 and Time 2 scores.
SPRING 2011, VOL. 26, NO. 1 25
The hypothesis that the BGeX program would posi- group (for the first-year survey factors of Intellectual
tively impact students’ KC scores was not supported. This Development and Social Progress). Thus, the groups are
is not completely surprising in retrospect, given that the not exactly equal, but their inequality works against the
program does not explicitly teach students critical thinking hypothesis (I’d like to thank an anonymous reviewer for
per se. However, students in the program did significantly pointing this out). This strengthens the conclusion that
outperform comparison group students on CTV scores, higher CTV scores in the BGeX condition are indeed at-
the more direct measure of the BGeX learning outcomes. tributable to participation in the BGeX program and not a
Moreover, this difference was substantial, with almost ¾ result of pre-existing differences.
of a standard deviation difference overall between groups Finally, class assignments that are not graded can
(Cohen’s d = .73, combining time 1 and time 2 scores). be unreliable (Napoli & Raymond 2004). Indeed, the
Somewhat ironically, the lack of group differences on intraclass correlation coefficients for the items compris-
KC scores helps to increase confidence that the group ing the two primary dependent variables (KC and CTV)
differences on CTV scores are indeed attributable to the suggest that some error is contained in the scores as they
BGeX program. The conclusion of these results is that are used. This error variance was averaged out to some
the BGeX program appears to have improved students extent when items were summed for the CTV scale,
“critical thinking about values,” or at least their ability to which demonstrated acceptable scale reliability. In fact,
recognize and articulate relevant values, as elicited by the I re-analyzed the data, correcting the results for criterion
BGeX learning outcomes. unreliability (based on coefficient alphas from the KC
Some limitations are noteworthy. First, it would be and CTV scales), but the disattenuated results showed
ideal to obtain a true pre-test measure as a baseline. The the same pattern of findings. Therefore, although the
current study provides tests of two post-intervention ef- results must be interpreted with some caution, the main
fects. This suggests that the effects are robust but it does consequence is likely an underestimate of the true rela-
not permit identification of pre-BGeX to post-BGeX gains tionships of interest.
within students. It can be challenging to implement a true Future research on programs like BGeX would ideally
pre-test prior to the start of the academic year, but we give greater consideration to long term effects on student
encourage future researchers and administrators to try to learning and behavior. The inclusion of true pre-test scores
work together to make this possible. and/or the assessment of far transfer of learning (Barnett
Second and related, the decline in scores from time & Ceci, 2002; Hakel & Halpern, 2005) would be welcome
1 to time 2 presents a few ambiguities. For example, it is contributions to the literature. In addition, programs like
difficult to clearly identify students’ motivation for exert- BGeX could better facilitate such research by adhering
ing effort on the CTVA measure. It would be quite tragic more closely to established models of critical thinking
if freshmen actually become worse critical thinkers during (e.g., Halpern, 1998) and values (e.g., Meglino & Ravlin,
their first semester. Instead, I speculate that the students 1998; Rokeach, 1973; Schwartz, 1994; Schwartz & Bilsky,
realized that the assignment would not count toward their 1987). There are also several other relevant constructs
grade by the time they completed it the second time and or domains of inquiry that similar programs could draw
hence did not exert as much effort then. Also, as noted by from, such as values clarification (Kinnier, 1995; Raths,
an anonymous reviewer, the relatively parallel decline in Harmin, & Simon, 1966; Simon, Howe, & Kirschenbaum,
CTV scores from time 1 to time 2 across both conditions 1972), decision-making (Kahneman & Tversky, 2000),
begs the question of whether the in-class activities had ethics (Lefkowitz, 2003), moral development (Fasko &
much benefit over the introduction weekend. Given the Willis, 2008), moral reasoning (Colby & Kohlberg, 1987;
considerable time and expense associated with continu- Gilligan, 1982; Rest, 1984; Rest, Narvaez, Bebeau, &
ing the BGeX program throughout the semester, this is Thoma, 1999), reflective judgment (King & Kitchener,
an important question. 1994), post-formal reasoning (Labouvie-Vief, 1992), and
Third, the lack of true random assignment to groups wisdom (Halpern, 2001; Sternberg, 1990, 2007).
combined with the lack of a true pre-test leaves open the Notwithstanding the need for programs with a sound
possibility that the observed difference on CTV scores is theoretical basis, a university-wide initiative focusing on
a result of students in the BGeX group being better at ap- critical thinking and/or values is an ambitious undertaking.
plying critical thinking to the recognition and articulation Practical constraints dictate that programs like BGeX need
of values even before the study began. However, if this to be coherent enough to ensure that there is a common
were the case, I would expect to see at least some group core across domains and instructors, yet at the same time
differences in favor of the BGeX group on KC, high school flexible enough to garner faculty support and participation.
GPA, ACT/SAT scores, or the reasons or goals factors For this reason, the assessment of BGeX learning outcomes
from the first-year survey. In actuality, the only statistically was designed to be a flexible means of gathering data on
significant differences were in favor of the comparison student learning.
In an effort to help guide future research and practice, Dunn, D. S., Halonen, J. S., & Smith, R. A. (2008b). Engag-
this paper provides a general description of the BGeX ing minds: Introducing best practices in teaching critical
program as well as information about a general evaluation thinking in psychology. In D. S. Dunn, J. S. Halonen, & R.
methodology and CTVA measure so that others might adapt A. Smith (Eds.), Teaching critical thinking in psychology:
A handbook of best practices (pp. 1-8). Oxford: Wiley-
it for their own use in assessing similar outcomes. The
Blackwell.
evaluation and assessment process described here can be
Ennis, R. H. (1987). A taxonomy of critical thinking dispositions
made applicable to a wide variety of content areas simply and abilities. In J. Baron & R. Sternberg (Eds), Teaching
by using different essay prompts as necessary. Similarly, thinking skills: Theory and practice. New York: W. H.
the learning outcomes can also be modified. Of course, Freeman.
either of these changes would necessitate the develop- Eggan, P. E. & Kauchak, D. (2004). Educational psychology:
ment of a new scoring rubric. The actual scoring process windows on classrooms. 6th Ed. Upper Saddle, NJ: Pearson/
is admittedly arduous, but some technical advances might Merrill/Prentice Hall.
help to make the mass scoring of open-ended responses Facione, P. (1986). Testing college-level critical thinking. Liberal
more feasible (e.g., Chapman & Fiore, 2001; Shermis, Education, 72, 221-231.
Koch, Page, Keith, & Harrington, 2002). Facione, P. (2004). Critical thinking: What it is and why it counts.
Milbrae, CA: Academic Press.
In sum, this study’s results provide some modest
Fasko, D. Jr. (2003). Critical thinking and reasoning: Current
evidence that the development, implementation, and
research, theory, and practice. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.
evaluation of similar programs and assessments can help Fasko, D. Jr., & Willis, W. (2008). Contemporary philosophical
to develop scholars, employees and citizens who are able and psychological perspectives on moral development and
to think critically in accordance with well-understood education. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.
values. The end goal of teaching college students to apply Field, K. (2008). Congress shows colleges they’re not off the
basic critical thinking skills to the understanding of values hook on accountability. The Chronicle of Higher Educa-
is to help develop thoughtful and principled leaders in our tion, 55(2), A32.
communities, universities and organizations. Friedman, T. L. (1999). The lexus and the olive tree. New York:
Farrar, Straus, Giroux.
References Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory
and women’s development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Achtemeier, S. D., & Simpson, R. D. (2005). Practical consider-
Hakel, M. D., & Halpern, D. (2005) How far can transfer go?
ations when using benchmarking for accountability in higher
Making transfer happen across physical, temporal, and
education. Innovative Higher Education, 30(2), 117-128.
conceptual space. In J. Mestre (Ed.), Transfer of learning
Alexander, F. K. (2000). The changing face of accountability:
from a modern multidisciplinary perspective. Greenwich,
Monitoring and assessing institutional performance. The
CT: Information Age Publishing.
Journal of Higher Education, 71, 411-431.
Halonen, J. S. (1986). Teaching critical thinking in psychology.
Barnett, S. M., & Ceci, S. J. (2002). When and where do we apply
Milwaukee, WI: Alverno Productions.
what we learn? A taxonomy for far transfer. Psychological
Halonen, J. S. (1995). Demystifying critical thinking. Teaching
Bulletin, 128, 612-637.
of Psychology, 22, 75-81.
Bowling Green State University. (2004a). BG eXperience faculty/
Halpern, D. F. (1997). Critical thinking across the curriculum:
peer facilitator workbook. Unpublished Manuscript.
A brief edition of thought and knowledge. Mahwah, NJ:
Bowling Green State University. (2004b). BG eXperience faculty
Erlbaum.
workshop guide. Unpublished Manuscript.
Halpern, D. F. (1998). Teaching critical thinking for transfer
Briihl, D. S., Stanny, C. J., Jarvis, K. A., Darcy, M., & Belter,
across domains. American Psychologist, 53, 449-455.
R. W. (2008). In D. S. Dunn, J. S. Halonen, & R. A. Smith
Halpern, D. F. (2001). Why wisdom? Educational Psychologist,
(Eds.), Teaching critical thinking in psychology: a handbook
36, 253-256.
of best practices (pp. 225-234). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Hitlin, S. & Piliavin, J. A. (2004). Theory, research, and measure-
Browne, M. N., & Keeley, S. M. (2004). Asking the right ques-
ment of values: Reviving a dormant concept. Annual Review
tions: A guide to critical thinking. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
of Sociology, 30, 359-394.
Prentice Hall.
Jegede, O. J., & Noordink, P. (June, 1993). The role of critical
Colby, A., & Kohlberg, L. (Eds.) (1987). The measurement of
thinking skills in undergraduate study as perceived by
moral judgment: theoretical foundations and research vali-
university teachers across academic disciplines. Paper pre-
dation. (Vol. 1). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
sented at the annual conference on Problem Solving across
Chapman, O. L. & Fiore, M. A. (2001). Calibrated peer review:
the Curriculum, Geneva, NY.
A writing and critical thinking instructional tool. Retrieved
Johnson, S. (2004). The political brain. The New York Times,
from cpr.molsci.ucla.edu/
August 22, Section 6, Column 1.
Dunn, D. S., Halonen, J. S., & Smith, R. A. (2008a). Teaching
Kahneman, D. & Tversky, A. (2000). Choices, values, and
critical thinking in psychology: A handbook of best prac-
frames. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
tices. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
SPRING 2011, VOL. 26, NO. 1 27
Katzner, L. I., & Nieman, D. G. (2006). Making values education Schwartz, S. (1994). Are there universal aspects in the structure
everyone’s business. About Campus, November/December, and contents of human values? Journal of Social Issues,
16-23. 50(4), 19-45.
King, P. M., & K. Kitchener. (1994). Developing reflective judg- Schwartz, S., & Bilsky, W. (1987). Toward a theory of the
ment: Understanding and promoting intellectual growth and universal content and structure of values: Extensions and
critical thinking in adolescents and adults. San Francisco: cross-cultural replications. Journal of Personality and
Jossey-Bass. Social Research, 58, 878-891.
Kinnier, R. T. (1995). A reconceptualization of values clarifica- Shermis, M. D., Koch, C. M., Page, E. B., Keith, T. Z., & Har-
tion: Values conflict resolution. Journal of Counseling and rington, S. (2002). Trait ratings for automated essay grading.
Development, 74, 18-24. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 62, 5-18.
Labouvie-Vief, G. (1992). A neo-Piagetian perspective on adult Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979). Intraclass correlations:
cognitive development. In R. J. Sternberg & C. A. Berg Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin,
(Eds.), Intellectual development (pp. 197-228). New York: 86, 420-428.
Cambridge University Press. Siegel, H. (1992). The generalizability of critical thinking skills,
Lance, C. E., Butts, M. M., Michels, L. C. (2006). The sources dispositions, and epistemology. In S. P. Norris (Ed.), The
of four commonly reported cutoff criteria: What did they generalizability of critical thinking (pp. 97-108). New York:
really say? Organizational Research Methods, 9, 202-220. Teachers College Press.
Lefkowitz, J. (2003). Ethics and values in industrial-organiza- Siegel, H. (1988). Educating reason: Rationality, critical thinking
tional psychology. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. and education. New York: Routledge.
Leveille, D. F. (2005). An emerging view on accountability in Siegel, H. (1997). Rationality redeemed? Further dialogues on
American higher education. Research & Occasional Paper an educational ideal. New York: Routlege.
Series: CSHE.8.05, May 2005. Retrieved from cshe.berke- Simon, S. B., Howe, L. W., & Kirschenbaum, H. (1972). Values
ley.edu/publications/publications.php?id=54 clarification: A handbook of practical strategies for teachers
Lipman, M. (1988). Teaching critical thinking: What can it be? and students. New York: Hart Publishing.
Analytic Teaching, 8, 5-12. Sternberg, R. J. (1990). Wisdom: Its nature, origins, and develop-
Loacker, G., & Rogers, G. (2005). Assessment at Alverno Col- ment. New York: Cambridge University Press.
lege: Student, program, institutional. Milwaukee, WI: Sternberg, R. J. (2007). Wisdom, intelligence, and creativity
Alverno College Institute. synthesized. New York: Cambridge University Press.
McPeck, J. (1981). Critical thinking and education. New York: Terenzini, P. T., Springer, L., Pascarella, E. T., & Nora, A. (1995).
St. Martin’s. Influences affecting the development of students’ critical
Meglino, B. M., & Ravlin, E. C. (1998). Individual values in or- thinking skills. Research in Higher Education, 36, 23-39.
ganizations: Concepts, controversies, and research. Journal Toutkoushian, R. K. (2005). What can institutional research do
of Management, 24, 351-389. to help colleges meet the workforce needs of states and na-
Napoli, A. R., & Raymond, L. A., (2004). How reliable are our tions? Research in Higher Education, 46, 955-984.
assessment data? A comparison of the reliability of data Tsui, L. (2000). Effects of campus culture on students’ critical
produced in graded and un-graded conditions. Research in thinking. The Review of Higher Education, 23, 431-441.
Higher Education, 45, 921-929. Williams, R. L., Oliver, R., Allin, J. L., Winn, B., & Booher,
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd Ed.). New C. S. (2003). Psychological critical thinking as a course
York: McGraw-Hill. predictor and outcome variable. Teaching of Psychology,
Paul, R. (1993). Critical thinking: How to prepare students for 30, 220-223.
a rapidly changing world. First edition, Santa Rosa, CA: Yanchar, S. C., & Slife, B. (2004). Teaching critical thinking
The Foundation for Critical Thinking. by examining assumptions, Teaching of Psychology, 30,
Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2001). The international critical think- 339-343.
ing essay test. Santa Rosa, CA: Foundation for Critical
Thinking. Author Information
Perloff, R. (2004). The case for self-interest. Pittsburgh Post-
Gazette, May 30, 2004, B 1-2.
Mike Gillespie originally conducted this research as
Raths, L., Harmin, M., & Simon, S. (1966). Value and teaching:
Working with values in the classroom. Columbus, OH:
part of a Ph.D. dissertation in Industrial/Organizational
Charles E. Merrill. Psychology at Bowling Green State University. The dis-
Rest, J. R., (1984). The major components of morality. In W. M. sertation was chaired by Milton D. Hakel, and the article
Kurtines & J. L. Gewirtz, (Eds.), Morality, moral behavior, has benefited from the helpful comments and contributions
and moral development (pp. 24-38). New York: Wiley. by Jessica Blackburn , Daniel Fasko, Jr., Jennifer Gillespie,
Rest, J., D. Narvaez, M. J., Bebeau, & Thoma, S. J. (1999). Post- Dale Klopfer, Lilly Lin, Anna Zarubin, and Michael Zickar.
conventional moral thinking: A neo-Kohlbergian approach. Dr. Gillespie’s research includes critical thinking, values,
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. organizational culture, and measure development and
Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York: norming. Correspondence concerning this article should
Free Press. be sent to: Michael A. Gillespie, Ph.D., who currently is at
550 Education Building, Bowling Green State University, Sarasota-Manatee. His contact information there is College
Bowling Green, OH, 43403; Tel (419) 372-3412; Fax (419) of Arts and Sciences, University of South Florida Sarasota-
372-8265; e-mail: [email protected], but starting in Fall Manatee, 8330 Tamiami Trail, Sarasota, FL 34243. Phone:
2011 he will be an Assistant Professor of Industrial/Orga- (941) 359-4235.
nizational Psychology at the University of South Florida
Appendix A
Critical Thinking about Values Assessment
Part 1: Identify key components

Instructions: Read the accompanying article. You may continually refer back to the essay and you may take any
notes you wish. Complete the sentences in the template below using whatever elaboration you think is necessary to
make your meaning clear. Your answers should demonstrate your ability to recognize important key components in
the thinking of the author.
1. The main purpose of this article is

2. The main conclusion(s) in this article is/are

3. The author uses the following information or arguments to reach his/her conclusion:

4. The main assumption(s) underlying the author’s thinking is (are)

Part 2: Write an essay about the values inherent in the article
Instructions: Using the blank pages provided, construct an essay in response to the article you read that discusses the
values inherent in the author’s argument. Values are abstractions that refer to a person’s sense of what is good and right.
Some common values include autonomy, justice, individual responsibility, safety, and compassion. In writing your es-
say, use your answers to the above questions to help you uncover the author’s values. Your essay should demonstrate
your ability to identify, understand, and evaluate the implications of values. Use the following questions to provide the
structure of your essay:
1. What values does the author hold? Write a short paragraph about each value, defining it and explaining why you
believe the author holds the value (you may want to include quotations from the article as evidence).
2. What reasons or justifications does the author give to support the values identified? The reasons or justifications
may be implicit and you may or may not agree with them. Write this section as a separate paragraph (or paragraphs).
3. How might the author’s values affect the way people discuss and create policy with regard to this issue?
SPRING 2011, VOL. 26, NO. 1 29
Embracing Critical Thinking as a Model for Professional

Development: Creating Critical Thinking Based – Faculty
Learning Communities On Your Campus
Maria Sanders, Professor of Philosophy, Lone Star College – CyFair
Abstract
This essay provides a summary of the steps taken to build a critical thinking based faculty learning
community (CTB-FLC) on the Lone Star College – CyFair campus across various disciplines. The
author shares the motivations driving this project, the challenges and successes of the ten participat-
ing members, and the plans for future CTB-FLCs. The primary purpose of this essay is to encourage
other colleges to build similar critical thinking based faculty learning communities as professional
development opportunities on their campuses. The essay culminates with a set of recommendations
which result from the lessons learned during the implementation of a CTB-FLC from 2008 to 2010
at Lone Star College – CyFair.
Keywords: Faculty Learning Community
The primary focus of much of the literature on criti- htm). Even while experiencing unprecedented percent-
cal thinking has been on critical thinking techniques and ages in growth, our campus could not escape the current
the assessment of critical thinking skills, but little atten- economic challenges being experienced worldwide. As a
tion has been devoted towards ancillary aspects of critical result, the budget was severely cut and a chill was placed
thinking on college campuses that are essential in creat- on hiring vacant positions. This is an all-too-familiar sto-
ing a sustainable model for education which incorporates ry among colleges today.
critical thinking. This essay will focus upon one such So where does this leave professional development?
aspect, the professional development of educators. Even It is a well-established principle that educators must con-
though the initial target group for this project was com- tinue to learn if they are to continue to effectively teach
munity college faculty, much, if not all, of the informa- students to high standards, yet professional development
tion discussed here is equally applicable in universities budgets tend to fare poorly in times of economic distress.
and primary and secondary schools as well. So a change of perspective may be needed. For example,
Guskey (2000) states:
Setting the Context Viewing professional development as spe-
cial events that occur on 3 or 4 days of
The term “professional development” may conjure the school year severely restricts educa-
up images of traveling to conferences or attending work- tors’ opportunities to learn. But if we view
shops, but the current economic crisis has caused many professional development as an ongoing,
colleges to revisit viable options for faculty professional job-embedded process, every day presents
development. The current reality for many institutions of a variety of learning opportunities. These
education is drastic budget cuts coupled with soaring en- opportunities occur every time a lesson
rollment numbers. Most colleges find themselves faced is taught, an assessment is administered,
with the challenges of providing a quality education for a curriculum is reviewed, a professional
more students while receiving less funding. Professional journal or magazine is read, a classroom
development funds rarely survive severe budget cuts to- activity is observed, or a conversation takes
tally intact, if they survive at all. place with another teacher or administrator.
This essay is one of a series of seven essays that are The challenge is to take advantage of these
the result of a professional development project devel- opportunities, to make them available, to
oped at Lone Star College – CyFair (LSC-CYFair). LSC- make them purposeful, and to use them ap-
CyFair, located in northwest Houston, serviced 16,086 propriately. (Guskey, 2000, p. 19)
students during the Fall 2010 semester. This was a fif-
ty-five percent increase in enrollment from Fall 2005 to College campuses are eclectic collections of ex-
Fall 2010 (as reported from www.lonestar.edu/about-lsc. perts offering opportunities for learning for all who
enter them, not only students. Faculty are in an ideal The intent to include critical thinking as a basic core
position to reach across disciplinary lines to create col- competency was clear, but the definition of critical think-
laborative professional development opportunities in ing, as well as the means for successfully incorporating
order to create a deeper understanding of content ar- critical thinking into individual courses in the core, was
eas and teaching methodologies. This is not to suggest much less clear. The THECB provided a very general
that internal professional development should replace definition for critical thinking, stating:
external opportunities, but rather to encourage faculty- Critical thinking embraces methods for
driven professional development opportunities on your applying both qualitative and quantitative
campus, especially during these challenging economic skills analytically and creatively to subject
times. matter in order to evaluate arguments and
to construct alternative strategies. Problem
Project Motivation solving is one of the applications of criti-
cal thinking, used to address an identified
The primary motivation driving this project was a task. (THECB, 1999, from www.thecb.
desire to create an interdisciplinary, collaborative and state.tx.us/)
economically feasible model for ongoing professional
development that is responsive to the local, state, and The definition appears to be intentionally broad to
national interest in incorporating critical thinking across enable diverse disciplines to include critical thinking
collegiate curriculums. This motivation stemmed from competencies into their learning outcomes. The THECB
a growing concern that Texas colleges were being recognizes:
mandated to include critical thinking competencies in (…) in most curricula there are no required
their core curriculums but at the same time there was courses specifically dedicated to reading
widespread confusion among faculty across the various or to critical thinking. Thus, if a core cur-
disciplines about what this implied. Even workforce riculum is to prepare students effectively,
programs within the medical, legal, and business fields it is imperative that, insofar as possible,
were being required to assess critical thinking skills as these intellectual competencies be included
part of their exit exams and certification exams, and the among the objectives of many individual
workforce faculty’s understanding of critical thinking core courses and reflected in their course
appears even more ill-defined than that of the academic content. (THECB, 1999, from www.thecb.
faculty. state.tx.us/).
All post-secondary education in the state of Texas
is monitored by the Texas Higher Education Coordinat- Unfortunately, the broadness of the definition has led
ing Board (THECB), an agency of the Texas state gov- many to view the definition as of little value in creating
ernment. In 1997, the 75th Texas Legislature enacted practical applications. Discipline-specific definitions for
Senate Bill 148 that mandates the THECB adopt rules critical thinking as well as discipline-specific applications
that include a statement of the content, component ar- and assessments for critical thinking naturally began to
eas, and objectives of the core curriculum (Tex. SB. emerge to meet the state mandated requirements set forth
148,5(S)§5.390-5.404). In response to Texas Senate Bill by the THECB. This specialization of critical thinking
148 (1997), the THECB articulated basic assumptions definitions, applications, and assessments is occurring at a
regarding core curriculums as well as defining character- time of heightened awareness regarding the importance of
istics of core curriculums for institutions of higher educa- collegiate collaboration and bridging the gaps between the
tion in the state of Texas. One of the assumptions set forth “ivory towers” of traditionally diverse disciplines. As the
by the THECB stated: Undergraduate Education Advisory Committee (UEAC)
The basic intellectual competencies disin Texas continued to work towards revising the core cur-
cussed in this document — reading, writ- riculum shared by all Texas public colleges, the Higher
ing, speaking, listening, critical thinking, Education Policy Institute conducted a General Education
and computer literacy — should inform Assessment Practices Survey in 2009, and the three 2009-
the components of any core curriculum. 2010 Accountability Peer Group Meetings focused on
(…) The basic intellectual competencies, how student learning was being assessed in core curricu-
including critical thinking, are essential to lum courses in Texas public colleges. Particular attention
the learning process in any discipline and was paid to the assessment of writing and critical thinking
thus should inform any core curriculum. skills, and a report entitled Assessing Student Learning in
(THECB, 1999, from www.thecb.state. General Education: Practices Used at Texas Public Col-
tx.us/). leges and Universities documented their findings.
SPRING 2011, VOL. 26, NO. 1 31
At the end of the day, the challenge of as- munities in the past, regarding the benefits experienced
sessing critical thinking lies most clearly by faculty members involved in those learning commu-
in the challenge of defining what critical nities. Teaching learning communities promoted deeper
thinking really means. Some institutions, in faculty engagement with one another and encouraged
fact, noted that there is not agreement on more widespread interaction between junior and senior
their campuses about a definition of critical faculty. Faculty readily found themselves redeveloping
thinking. (University of Maryland Univer- their curriculum to incorporate a broader pedagogical
sity College Office of Outcomes Assess- repertoire than they were accustomed to delivering on
ment, 2010, p. 11 from www.thecb.state. their own. It was the undeniable faculty benefits being
tx.us/reports/docfetch.cfm?DocID=2019 ) consistently reported by faculty themselves that led me to
adopt a faculty learning community format for this criti-
The need for a crucial conversation on critical cal thinking project.
thinking spanning the various disciplines was obviously As director of this project, my intent was to build
warranted. Jane S. Halonen (1995) describes the state a professional development opportunity for ten faculty
of critical thinking scholarship as being in a “mystified members, which could serve as a model for future facul-
state.” ty-driven, in-house professional development opportuni-
No single definition of critical thinking is ties for faculty and staff. This project was focused upon
widely accepted, but stakeholders in higher the topic of critical thinking, but the specific focus topic
education often enter conversation about will change with future projects, while maintaining the
critical thinking with the premise that their basic framework of a faculty learning community. The
individual definitions are uniformly shared. underlying philosophy was that to understand critical
With an increasing emphasis on academic thinking, we must do critical thinking.
accountability, we need to work toward a It may seem redundant to label this project as a criti-
better understanding of the varying ways cal thinking based faculty learning community, since
the terms critical thinking is used and ex- learning communities naturally seem to incorporate criti-
plore the implications of the variation for cal thinking skills, but there is a reason for the inclusion
effective pedagogy. (Halonen, 1995, p. 75) of the phrase critical thinking based. Since all too often
stakeholders in higher education presume their defini-
Recognizing the need for an in-depth, interdisciplin- tion for critical thinking is clear and uniformly accepted,
ary discussion on critical thinking, I began to reflect upon when a review of the literature quickly reveals that no
a model for enabling such a discussion to occur. The de- such consensus exists, it then is extremely important for
livery format for such a model would be a topic-based the faculty learning community to begin with a discus-
faculty learning community which incorporated a schol- sion designed towards formulating a working definition
arly process while being flexible enough to accommodate of what critical thinking means for that learning commu-
individual experiences and topical preferences. nity. Once a working definition for critical thinking is ad-
The term “learning community” in higher education opted, the methods for achieving critical thinking under
typically refers to the linking or clustering of classes dur- that definition will naturally follow. The focal topic for
ing a single academic term that enrolls a common co- the critical thinking based faculty learning community
hort of students and teaches lessons around a common (CTB-FLC) discussed in this essay was critical think-
interdisciplinary theme. The beneficial impact of learning, but even as the focal topic of the CTB-FLC shifts
ing communities for both students and faculty have long to something other than critical thinking, the process of
been promoted and documented by the Washington Cen- doing critical thinking must continue to occupy a very
ter for Improving the Quality of Undergraduate Educa- visible place in the learning community.
tion located at Evergreen State College (www.evergree.
edu/washcenter/lcfaq.htm). Having personally taught Funding the CTB-FLC Does Not Have to
several learning communities for LSC-CyFair, I have Cost a Fortune
witnessed many of these benefits first-hand including im-
proved student retention and completion in certain ma- The Lone Star College System along with the Lone
jors, increased time students spent on course materials, Star College Foundation annually awards a select num-
and ultimately increased student learning of those course ber of mini-grants to assist Lone Star College employ-
materials. ees at each of the colleges and the System Office in the
Moreover, there exists an overwhelming consensus development and implementation of exemplary projects.
among our faculty currently teaching learning commu- The Mini-Grant program seeks to finance projects not
nities, as well as those who have taught learning com- normally funded through the regular budgetary process.
A primary focus of the Mini-Grant Program is to pro- a short essay explaining their interest in participating in
vide “seed money” for innovative projects that may later a CTB-FLC on critical thinking, and participants were
develop into full initiatives funded within the normal selected three weeks later. As project director, I selected
budget of the college. I applied to the 2007-2008 Mini participants based upon the merits of their essays includ-
Grant Program and was awarded $2,500 to fund a Fac- ing their desire to explore current research on critical
ulty Learning Community on the topic: Applying Critical thinking, their desire to apply critical thinking in their
Thinking Across the Curriculum in Higher Education. classrooms, and a willingness to participate in discus-
The project sought to create a learning community com- sions on variant and possibly contradictory viewpoints
prised of ten Lone Star College – CyFair faculty partici- regarding critical thinking. Moreover, I desired to maxi-
pants who would: mize the diversity of disciplines represented. The se-
1. Read pre-selected literature on critical thinking and lected group included representation in the disciplines
apply such thinking across the curriculum in higher of philosophy, psychology, biology, chemistry, sociol-
education; and ogy, government, business, and library science. The first
2. Attend group sessions to discuss the assigned read- group meeting was held in February 2008 and included
ings, and share personal challenges and successes in introductions, a general overview of expectations, time
applying critical thinking across the curriculum; and commitments, and exchanging of schedules, as well as
3. Research a specific area of interest in critical think- an initial conversation on each participant’s motivation
ing; for joining the CTB-FLC and individual challenges in-
4. Apply critical thinking exercises in their classes; and volving teaching and assessing critical thinking. The
5. Co-author a publication on “Applying Critical premise underlying future discussion meetings was that
Thinking Skills Across the Curriculum in Higher understanding critical thinking required doing critical
Education.” thinking, so facilitation duties and the role of leading the
discussion rotated among the participants during subse-
The overall goal of the project was to increase the quent meetings. Approximately one month was allotted
knowledge base of the learning community participants to read and hold at least one group discussion on each
on the topic of applying critical thinking across the cur- book. Each book discussion lasted one to two hours and
riculum and to create a valuable resource for community was facilitated by two of the participating members. This
college faculty seeking to apply critical thinking in their enabled the entire group to go deeper into the readings
respective classes. within a very limited time frame. In addition, an online
“class” was created for the faculty learning community
Creating the Faculty Based participants using our campus distance learning platform.
Learning Community This enabled us to continue the momentum of the dis-
cussions and exchanges of ideas during the time between
Lone Star College System, along with its five cam- face-to-face group meetings. The webpage included a
puses, offers a range of rich and rather diverse faculty section for posting current articles on critical thinking, a
professional development opportunities, and it has a his- section for posting upcoming conferences and workshops
tory of supporting faculty-driven initiatives. It was this on critical thinking, and a discussion board to continue
positive environment that encouraged me to ponder the group discussions.
development of a faculty-driven professional develop- By Fall 2008, one participant had to withdraw from
ment opportunity for faculty addressing the growing the CTB-FLC due to overwhelming outside commit-
concerns regarding critical thinking and its assessment, ments. Since the books were purchased by a grant, the
and to approach the Lone Star College System to request withdrawn member’s books were donated to the campus
initial funding for such a project. In January 2008 we library. The remaining faculty learning community par-
received notification of the Lone Star College System’s ticipants had completed reading and discussing the five
Mini Grant award to fund the building of a faculty learn- grant-purchased texts and were beginning to explore in-
ing community focused on Applying Critical Thinking dividual topic areas on critical thinking in order to re-
Across the Curriculum. The grant primarily funded the search and contribute to a collaborative end product. The
purchasing of five texts for each of the ten participants: group met in September 2008 to discuss the most appro-
(1) Cranton (1998), (2) Bean (1996), (3) Kurfiss (1998), priate collaborative end product for meeting the needs
(4) Brookfield (1987), and (5) Tynjala, Valima, and Boul- and interests of each faculty member in the CTB-FLC.
ton-Lewis, (2006). The texts served as the basis for the Initially the group was interested in writing a two-part
initial discussion meetings. book where the first section would include a series of es-
A call for participants was sent out in early Janu- says on critical thinking followed by a second section in-
ary of 2008 which required interested applicants to write cluding practical exercises for teaching critical thinking.
SPRING 2011, VOL. 26, NO. 1 33
It quickly became apparent that such an undertaking was 1. “Defining Critical Thinking: How Far Have We
too ambitious to complete within one year, so the group Come?” by Jason Moulenbelt (Philosophy) and Ma-
ultimately decided to limit its collaborative end product ria Sanders (Philosophy)
to a series of essays written either individually or with a 2. “The Academic College Course is an Argument” by
partner. The finished set of essays would be submitted Frank Codispoti (Government)
as a unit for publication. During Spring 2009, the par- 3. “Critical Thinking and Social Interaction in the On-
ticipants researched and began writing essays. The proj- line Environment” by Idolina Hernandez (Sociol-
ect suffered potential derailment in May 2009, when I, ogy)
who had been serving as the project director, accepted
an administrative position for one year, but eight of the The remaining three essays that will appear in the
nine participants expressed interest in continuing when next issue of INQUIRY:
I re-approached them in August 2010. One member did 4. “Faculty as Critical Thinkers: Challenging Assump-
withdraw from the final collaborative writing project due tions” by Claire Phillips (Business) and Susan Green
to a shift in research interest. The remaining eight partici- (Library)
pants continued writing during Fall 2010, and the seven 5. “Correlates of Critical Thinking” by Lori Richter
completed essays were submitted for consideration for (Psychology)
publication during Spring 2011. 6. “Transforming a Content-driven Chemistry Course
to One Focused on Critical Thinking Skills (Without
The Collaboration’s Final Products “Sacrificing” Any Content)”
by Ann Van Heerden (Chemistry)
One of the goals of the CTB-FLC project on criti-
cal thinking was to co-author a publication on critical Even though all of the participants were initially
thinking across various disciplines. The specific type attracted to the CTB-FLC on critical thinking by their
of publication was intentionally left open to enable the shared interest in critical thinking, the particular areas on
participants as much freedom and flexibility as possible which each participant focused were greatly varied. This
while exploring the topic of critical thinking. As project is evidenced by the participants’ broad selection of essay
director, I constantly strove to offer just enough guid- topics.
ance to maintain a sense of coherence among the group
while allowing maximum flexibility for the group to de- Lessons Learned
velop the topic in the direction they chose. Although it
was firmly established that the project would terminate During the course of this CTB-FLC on critical think-
with a co-authored writing product, the particularities ing, many lessons were learned. The lessons learned fall
of that product shifted as the group worked through the rather naturally into two categories: (1) methodological
research materials. Initially the group was leaning to- lessons, and (2) content-based lessons.
wards writing a two-part book where the first part of
the book would be a compilation of original essays and Methodological lessons
the second part would incorporate practical exercises Reflecting upon the methodology of this project,
in critical thinking. As the learning community pro- several lessons emerge. First, utilizing a critical think-
gressed, the group decided to focus on writing a set of ing based faculty learning community was an effective
essays and save the compilation of practical exercises platform for exploring the concept of critical thinking.
for a future undertaking. The initial assumption that a deep understanding of
At the culmination of our CTB-FLC on critical critical thinking would result from doing critical think-
thinking, the remaining eight faculty participants decided ing was confirmed. There is still much to learn, but par-
to write a set of seven essays on a diverse selection of ticipants did express a deeper understanding of critical
topics derived from research and experiences involving thinking as a result of their participation in the CTB-
the teaching, assessment, and understanding of critical FLC on critical thinking, an understanding manifested
thinking as it applies to higher education. The essays are by their subsequent discussions and individual research
intended most directly for faculty in higher education, projects.
but they will also be useful for directors of professional A second very valuable lesson learned involved the
development, education administrators, high school and duration of the learning community. Much of the litera-
middle school educators, college students, and anyone ture on faculty learning communities recommends dura-
interested in understanding and improving critical think- tion of one year. The original intent of this CTB-FLC in-
ing skills. In addition to this essay, the other three appear- volved a one year implementation, but it quickly became
ing in this issue of INQUIRY are: apparent that one year would not be long enough given
the busy schedules of the participants and the enormity Content-based lessons
of the topic tackled. A decision was made early on that It is not my desire to summarize all of the con-
it would be preferable to move slower but with greater tent-based lessons learned as many of the individual les-
depth, than to move too quickly through a topic as impor- sons learned will more appropriately be shared directly
tant and educationally relevant as critical thinking. Un- by their authors in their individual essays, but there were
fortunately, there were several unforeseen delays which several content-based lessons learned by the group as a
extended the CTB-FLC to three years, but three years is whole worthy of note. One important realization con-
a long time to maintain the necessary momentum for a cerned how broadly the term critical thinking is used in
successful faculty learning community. higher education today. Given the extensive diversity of
For future CTB-FLCs, I recommend a two-year time disciplines represented in the CTB-FLC, it readily be-
frame divided into four well-defined phases for partici- came apparent that different disciplines defined critical
pants, each corresponding to a full academic semester. thinking in vastly different ways. Initially, we were all us-
Phase 1: Participants read selected texts ing the same term, critical thinking, but talking past each
and participate in group discussions. other. It was only after this realization occurred that the
Phase 2: Participants recommend ad- group was able to begin developing working definitions
ditional readings for the group. The par- for critical thinking in order to explore deeper topics in-
ticipants also select a collaborative final volving critical thinking such as teaching critical think-
product, and begin initial research towards ing skills, assessing critical thinking, and practical tips
actualizing the final product. There are for embedding critical thinking into various classroom
many possible final products including settings. Two of our working definitions were (1) criti-
writing a monograph, contributing chap- cal thinking as problem solving, and (2) critical thinking
ters to a book, submitting journal articles, as incorporating the top level’s of Bloom’s Taxonomy
presenting at conferences, developing web — analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. (Bloom, 1956, p.
pages or smart phone applications, or any 201-207).
other final product the group deems worth- Critical thinking is a vast and rich topic, so the CTB-
while. It is very important to have a clear FLC can serve as a springboard for future faculty-driven
plan for completing the final product, along projects on critical thinking. Our CTB-FLC included not
with corresponding deadlines. only academic faculty, but also workforce faculty and a
Phase 3: Participants develop the final librarian, so the prospect of future critical thinking col-
product. The activities undertaken during laborations to expand this conversation more broadly
phase 3 will vary in accordance with the across our campus is exciting indeed.
collaborative final product selected by the
participants. In our case, this is the phase Eight Steps Toward Creating a CTB-FLC on Your
where each participant was to have finished Campus
the first draft of their essays. Several steps to consider in facilitating the creation of
Phase 4: Participants peer review other a CTB-FLC on your campus include (1) initiating the idea
learning community member’s drafts lead- on your campus, (2) securing funding, (3) recruiting and
ing to final revisions. A public display of the selecting participants, (4) organizing meetings and topics,
final product should also occur during this (5) facilitating discussions, (6) selecting a collaborative
phase, whether that involves submission for end product, (7) facilitating collaboration towards realiz-
publication or a public presentation. ing that end product, and (8) sharing your findings. The
following is a closer examination of each of these topics.
The CTB-FLC culminates with the collection of
constructive feedback from the participants. Ideally, the 1. Initiating a CTB-FLC on your campus
constructive feedback should involve both group and in- An important initial step in developing a critical
dividual feedback. Group feedback can be obtained by thinking based faculty learning community on your
holding a group discussion facilitated by an objective campus is to write a formal proposal outlining the
party who did not participate in the learning commu- mission, method, budget, funding options, recruit-
nity. Individual feedback can be obtained using surveys ment and facilitation, collaborative activities, and
or having participants submit a personal reflective paper assessments. Even if you never show the proposal to
on their experiences in the learning community. Writing anyone, it will serve as a useful tool for organizing
a final report documenting the successes and challenges your thoughts. Remain flexible, however, as most of
experienced can also serve a useful function for improv- what you initially outline may change prior to the
ing future faculty learning communities. implementation of your CTB-FLC.
SPRING 2011, VOL. 26, NO. 1 35
Selecting a topic for the CTB-FLC is of the ut- An equally important consideration when se-
most importance. First, decide whether it is more lecting participants is the time commitment involved
desirable for you to select a topic and then recruit in the CTB-FLC. Ensure selected faculty can fully
people interested in that topic, or whether it would commit to participating in the entire CTB-FLC for
be more beneficial to send out a call for topics to the entire duration of that project. Losing members
ensure the topic selected is one of interest to multiple midstream threatens the momentum of the project
people. When selecting a topic for your CTB-FLC, and can negatively impact the attitudes of the re-
consider your college’s mission and strategic priori- maining participants.
ties. This will place an appropriate focus upon your
topic and will be a great asset should you need to 4. Organizing meetings and discussions
request internal funding from your college. If one Most educators juggle very busy teaching
of the goals of the CTB-FLC is to recruit participa- schedules with other institutional commitments, so
tion from varying disciplines, then the topic selected scheduling group meetings and face-to-face group
must be one that is of interest to parties in those vary- discussions can be quite challenging, but such meet-
ing disciplines. ings are essential for facilitating a successful CTB-
Establish a clear time period for the CTB-FLC. FLC. The value of face-to-face interactions should
Cox (2004) recommends a duration of one year, but not be underestimated. It may be possible to hold
a longer period of time may be necessary depending some meetings virtually so long as a reliable tech-
upon the climate of your college environment. In our nology platform is consistently available and all par-
case, a two year CTB-FLC was a more feasible op- ticipants are skilled in utilizing that technology. The
tion. Be realistic when establishing the duration. focus should remain on the CTB-FLC topic rather
2. Securing funding than the delivery technology. If the technology plat-
Even though it is possible to implement CTB- form is not reliable, CTB-FLC participants may feel
FLCs on your campus with minimal funding, it will disconnected and the CTB-FLC runs the risk of los-
be necessary to have some funding available for ing its initial momentum.
research supplies, refreshments, meeting locations, When developing a schedule for the CTB-FLC,
travel, and possibly compensation for participants. include time for reading pre-assigned works, con-
The needed funding will directly correlate to the ducting additional research, group discussions, in-
needs of the CTB-FLC and may vary according to dividual reflections, and writing. Depending upon
the topic adopted. Consider carefully the pros and the CTB-FLC topic, it may also be useful to include
cons of offering monetary compensation to faculty field trips or inviting experts onto your campus. Do
for participation in the CTB-FLC. Compensating not try to pack too much into a single meeting or
faculty for participating in the CTB-FLC may grant activity. Time for reflection is essential. Scheduling
an opportunity for otherwise very busy faculty mem- multiple one to two hour meetings is typically pref-
bers to participate in the CTB-FLC, especially if the erable over an eight hour marathon day.
compensation is in the form of released time from 5. Facilitating discussions
the faculty members teaching load or other institu- The primary goal with discussions is to create
tional commitments. Compensation may, however, a context within which participants can learn from
attract faculty who would not otherwise be passion- each other. As Adler and Elmhorst (1999) observe,
ate about the topic at hand. a synergetic effect can occur through the usage of
3. Recruiting and selecting participants discussions. That is, the result of the discussion is
The selection process for attracting participants greater than the number of individuals involved in
for the CTB-FLC must be open and fair. Whether re- the discussion. The synergetic effect is amplified
cruitment will occur within one discipline or across when participants share a common knowledge base.
disciplines, strive to achieve balance in your group Selecting common readings is one way to establish a
between diversity of expertise and complimentary common knowledge base among an otherwise rather
working styles. CTB-FLCs tend to thrive on di- diverse group of faculty. As Terehoff (2002) notes,
versity, so maximize the diversity of cultures, per- previous knowledge and expertise, internal motiva-
spectives, attitudes, and discipline expertise in the tion, self-direction, and problem solving should be
CTB-FLC. The method used for recruitment may integral to any adult study group.
unintentionally exclude certain parties, so consider There are many philosophies on effective
utilizing several venues to share information about methods for facilitating group discussions and long
the upcoming CTB-FLC and put forth a call for par- term projects, but a few guiding principles seem to
ticipation. apply to all situations involving facilitation. First,
it is extremely important to establish a “safe” en- 7. Facilitating the realization of that end product
vironment for all members to freely participate. Considering the multitude of time-consuming
Facilitation involves empowering others to share responsibilities faculty members tend to have be-
their knowledge, expertise, and concerns in order tween teaching loads and other institutional commit-
to enable the members of the group to learn from ments, checking in regularly on the progress of the
each other. It is essential for the facilitator to create collaborative end product is essential. It is prudent to
a respectful environment within which all partici- plan for unexpected events such as family emergen-
pants are at ease to share their unique and valuable cies, illnesses affecting participants, administrative
ideas. changes at your college, etc. Ideally, the end product
It is possible, and even desirable, for the project should be completed within one academic semester,
director of the CTB-FLC to also be an active partici- but this will ultimately depend upon the product it-
pant in the CTB-FLC, but in doing so the role of fa- self as well as the time commitments of the contribu-
cilitator over discussions must not be compromised. tors. In any case, a clear plan for completion must be
By rotating the role of facilitator over individual dis- established and agreed upon by all participants. Ev-
cussions, the delicate balance between directing the ery effort should be made to stick to the established
overall project and remaining actively involved in plan.
the substantive discussions can be maintained. In our 8. Sharing your findings
CTB-FLC, the project director facilitated the first two Once the final product is complete, it is ex-
discussions, but subsequent meetings were facilitated tremely important to share your findings. This can
by other CTB-FLC participants. Since our group had be accomplished in several ways, including campus
ten participants and five pre-assigned books, each presentations, conference presentations, local press
member selected a partner and a particular book to releases, and informal discussions with colleagues.
co-facilitate one of the discussion meetings. It is also important to embed the lessons learned into
Finally, it is extremely important to respect your courses wherever applicable. This extends the
the time of the participants and keep the discus- lessons learned to the students.
sions productive. Most educators have participated It is also highly advisable to submit a final report
in professional development activities that were to your key administrators, including all key admin-
poorly planned and poorly executed. The result was istrators in your supervisory line as well as other in-
often frustration, but this can be avoided through terested key individuals. Keeping key administrators
advanced planning. Discussions should remain on well-informed on your CTB-FLC will be very valu-
topic and all participants should be encouraged to able in working towards practical implementations
actively participate. of your CTB-FLC’s findings on your campus as well
6. Selecting a collaborative end product as encouraging support for future CTB-FLCs.
A collaborative end product provides direction
for the participants as they work through the focal Summary
topic and creates a sense of closure for the CTB-FLC.
Setting the expectation for a culminating group proj- In summary, the CTB-FLC served as a vehicle for
ect bonds the group and enables deeper interaction the participants to heighten their awareness of critical
between the participating faculty members. It may thinking and the challenges still facing attempts to teach
even motivate participants to create their own future and assess critical thinking in higher education today. Al-
collaborations expanding upon lessons learned dur- though deep learning appeared to result from the CTB-
ing the CTB-FLC. FLC, the author is optimistic that this project will serve
Since the end product is intended to be collab- as a catalyst for future projects and discussions on criti-
orative, ideally all participants should be included in cal thinking. The initial hypothesis that understanding
the decision-making process when selecting a final critical thinking requires doing critical thinking was con-
product. Several possible end products include co- firmed in our CTB-FLC, and we look forward to devel-
authoring a book or monograph, submitting a series oping and participating in future critical thinking based
of essays for publication, co-presenting at a local, faculty learning communities.
state, national, or international conference, co-pre-
senting on your campus, or implementing a new pro- References
cess on your campus. This is by no means an exhaus-
tive list. The end product should reflect the interests Adler, R. B., & Elmforst, J. M. (1999). Effective meetings. Com-
of the participants while complementing the mission municating at work: Principles and practices for business
of the CTB-FLC. and professions. (6th Ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill, 260-284.
SPRING 2011, VOL. 26, NO. 1 37
Bean, J. C. (1996). Engaging ideas: The professor’s guide to Author information

integrating writing, critical thinking, and active learning
in the classroom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Maria Sanders is a professor of philosophy and Fac-
Bloom, B. S., Jr. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives:
ulty Excellence Award winner at Lone Star College – Cy-
Handbook I. The cognitive domain. New York: McKay.
Fair. She is a co-author of “Broaching Fragmented Learn-
Brookfield, S. D. (1987). Developing critical thinkers: Chal-
lenging adults to explore alternative ways of thinking and ing: Principles for Reflective Learning in the Cyber-age”
acting. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. published by the 2011 International Technology and Edu-
Cox, M. D. (2004) Introduction to faculty learning communication Development Conference held in Valenica, Spain,
ties. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 97, 5-23. and she has most recently co-presented at the 6th Annual
Cranton, P. (1998). No one way: Teaching and learning in high- On Course Conference held in Long Beach, California on
er education. Dayton, OH: Wall & Emerson, Inc. “Reflection Simulations: Cyber-Learning in the Cyber-
Dewey, J. (1910). How we think. Boston: D. C. Heath. Age.” She teaches logic, social and political philosophy,
FIPSE Project on Faculty Learning Communities at Miami and applied ethics courses, and she received her M.A.
University. (2009). What is a faculty and professional in Philosophy from Southern Illinois University—Ed-
learning community? Retrieved December 13, 2010, from
wardsville and her J.D. from Saint Louis University. Her
www.units.muohio.edu/flc/whatis.php
contact information is Lone Star College – CyFair, 9191
Guskey, T. R. (2000). Evaluating professional development.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc. Barker Cypress Road, Cypress, TX 77433-1383. Phone:
Halonen, J. S. (1995). Demystifying critical thinking. Teaching (281) 290-3232, Email [email protected]
of Psychology, 22(1), 75-81.
Kurfiss, J. G. (1998). Critical thinking: Theory, research, prac-
tice, and possibilities. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Re-
port No. 2, 1988. Washington: Association for the Study of
Higher Education.
Lone Star College System. (2010). About LSCS. Retrieved De-
cember 27, 2010, from www.lonestar.edu/about-lsc.htm
MacGregor, J., & Smith, B. L., (2003). Frequently cited goals
of learning communities. Retrieved December 9, 2010
from www.evergreen.edu/washcenter/lcfaq.htm
Meiklejohn, A. (1932). The experimental college. New York:
HarperCollins.
Terehoff, I. I. (2002). Elements of adult learning in teacher pro-
fessional development. NASSP Bulletin, 86(632), 65-77.
Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. (1999). Core cur-
riculum: Assumptions and defining characteristics. Re-
trieved September 12, 2010 from www.thecb.state.tx.us/
Texas State Legislature. (1997). Tex. SB 148,5(S)§5.390-5.404.
Tynjala, P., Valimaa, J., & Boulton-Lewis, G. (2006). Higher
education and working life: Collaborations, confronta-
tions, and challenges. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: El-
sevier.
University of Maryland University College’s Office of Out-
comes Assessment. (2010). Assessing student learning
in general education: Practices used at Texas public
colleges and universities. Based on the 2009-2010 Ac-
countability Peer Group meetings and the 2009 General
Education Assessment Practices survey. Retrieved April
10, 2011 from www.thecb.state.tx.us/reports/docfetch.
cfm?DocID=2019.
Washington Center for Improving the Quality of Undergraduate
Education. (1987, reaffirmed 2009). Learning Communi-
ties National Resource Center. Retrieved December 13,
2010 from www.evergree.edu/washcenter/lcfaq.htm
Defining Critical Thinking: How Far Have We Come?

Maria Sanders and Jason Moulenbelt, Lone Star College – CyFair
Abstract
While there is no shortage of scholarship on the topic, there appears to be no widely accepted defini-
tion of critical thinking. This is coupled with the troublesome fact that those in higher education of-
ten believe their definitions are the norm. In this article, we demonstrate a lack of uniformity through
a representative sample of historically influential definitions for critical thinking. These definitions
are then classified into two distinct categories: context specific and cross-disciplinary definitions.
From this lack of uniformity we argue that at least two problems in higher education arise: lack of
proper critical thinking assessment and difficulty in interdisciplinary collaboration on the topic of
critical thinking. Given the current focus on critical thinking assessment alongside a movement
toward greater interdisciplinary collaboration within higher education, we conclude with a call for a
uniform definition of critical thinking.
Keywords: defining critical thinking
In Spring 2008, ten faculty members from Lone Star ing activities with hopes of attaining benefits by associa-
College – CyFair representing eight different disciplines tion with the prestigious concept of critical thinking.
embarked on a scholarly exploration of the concept, ap- As attractive as the concept of critical thinking may
plication, and assessment of critical thinking in higher be, serious problems arise from the lack of consensus as
education. This essay is one of seven essays resulting to the definition of critical thinking. This essay explores
from the faculty learning community. two of these problematic areas, assessment in higher edu-
As philosophers, the authors were immediately cation and cross-disciplinary collaboration.
struck by the varying definitions for critical thinking
given by the participants in the faculty learning commu- Assessing Critical Thinking
nity. The offered definitions were as diverse as the dis- In 1983, President Ronald Reagan’s National Com-
ciplines and teaching styles from which they originated. mission on Excellence in Education published a report,
Jane S. Halonen (1995) claimed if you “ask 12 psychol- A Nation at Risk: The Imperative For Education Reform,
ogy faculty members to define the term critical thinking, that generated a wave of educational reform efforts at
you may receive 12 overlapping but distinct definitions.” both the state and federal levels. The report warned that
(Halonen, 1995, p. 75). Our faculty learning community America’s educational system was failing its students,
not only confirmed Halonen’s claim, but even amplified and called for reform:
the distinctiveness of the definitions mirroring the dis- Our concern, however, goes well beyond
tinctiveness of the disciplines represented. This motivat- matters such as industry and commerce. It
ed the authors to explore the scholarly research defining also includes the intellectual, moral, and
critical thinking. spiritual strengths of our people which knit
together the very fabric of our society. (…)
A Summary of the Problem For our country to function, citizens must
be able to reach some common understand-
There is certainly no shortage of scholarship on criti- ings on complex issues, often on short no-
cal thinking, but a single, widely-accepted, cross-disci- tice and on the basis of conflicting or in-
plinary definition for critical thinking still does not exist. complete evidence. (National Commission
Stakeholders in higher education presume they know the on Excellence in Education, 1983, p. 10).
definition of critical thinking and enter into discussions
on critical thinking as if their personal or discipline- The call for reform was heard again in 1989 when
specific definitions are consistently shared by all. (Ha- President Bush and state governors designed Goals 2000
lonen, 1995) The root of this willingness to assume clar- to urge institutions of higher education to:
ity where considerable ambiguity exists may stem from (…) take critical thinking objectives more
critical thinking being viewed as a positive concept. No seriously by improving the abilities of col-
educator opposes critical thinking. According to Wales lege students to be more effective criti-
and Nardi (1984), faculty may unintentionally contribute cal thinkers, communicators, and problem
to the problem by over-asserting claims to critical think- solvers. (Edgerton, 1991, p. 8).
SPRING 2011, VOL. 26, NO. 1 39
By 1997, the educational reform movement fo- learning communities, combining two or three different
cused on critical thinking skill development and assess- discipline subjects into one mega-course addressing a
ment had firmly made its way to many states, including common cohort of students, are increasing in popularity,
Texas. The 75th Texas Legislature mandated the Texas educators readily become aware of the overlapping criti-
Higher Education Coordinating Board, an agency of the cal thinking goals in their various disciplines but none-
Texas state government responsible for overseeing all theless struggle to find a uniform definition for what is
post-secondary education in the state of Texas, to adopt meant by critical thinking.
rules that include “a statement of the content, compo- The challenge faced by educators from varying dis-
nent areas, and objectives of the core curriculum” (Tex. ciplines searching for a common definition for critical
SB 148, 5S,5.390-5.404). In response, the Texas Higher thinking is further complicated by the fact that an indi-
Education Coordinating Board set forth basic intellectual vidual discipline may lack consensus on a definition for
competencies to be included in core curriculums at all critical thinking. The Videbeck study (1997, as report by
Texas colleges and universities. (THECB, 1999, from Gordon, 2000) evidences the lack of a common definition
www.thecb.state.tx.us/). These intellectual competencies for critical thinking among nursing programs. It points
included, among other things, critical thinking. Teaching out that:
and assessing critical thinking was now clearly on the po- (…) 55 nursing programs used 10 different
litical agenda at both the federal and state levels. definitions of critical thinking and assessed
The practicability of teaching and assessing critical critical thinking using a variety of measure-
thinking is undermined by the apparent lack of aware- ment tools, including standardized tests and
ness among many stakeholders in higher education that locally developed instruments. (Videbeck,
no uniformly accepted definition of critical thinking cur- 1997, as discussed by Gordon, 2000, p.
rently exists. Morgan (1995) recognized this problem, 340).
stating:
Perhaps the greatest threat to implementing The need for consensus is evident if collaboration
critical thinking instruction has been the across disciplines is to involve the development of criti-
passage of the term into the common ver- cal thinking skills.
nacular of educators, legislators, business-
people, and the public. What was not too Chronological Literature Review of
long ago a very restrictive notion of think- Critical Thinking Definitions
ing based first on formal logic and then on
informal logic has become so broad a no- A review of the literature easily reveals a plethora
tion that it has become nearly meaningless. of definitions for critical thinking. The following is not
The plethora of definitions may have lead intended to be a comprehensive literature review, but
to a conviction that conceptualizing critical rather a chronological mapping of the more influential
thinking is relativistic, with any definition definitions for critical thinking. Definitions are included
or conceptualization as good as any other. from John Dewey, Edward Glaser and the Watson-Gla-
(Morgan, 1995, 339). ser Test of Critical Thinking, Benjamin Bloom and the
influences of cognitive psychology, Robert Ennis, John
If the term critical thinking is to be a more meaning- McPeck, Richard Paul, The American Philosophical As-
ful concept, achieving some consensus as to its definition sociation, Stephen Brookfield, Joanne Kurfiss, and Di-
is imperative. ane Halpern.
Collaborating Across Disciplines John Dewey

In addition to concerns about the effect of a lack of John Dewey was an American philosopher, psychol-
uniform definition for critical thinking has upon assess- ogist, and educational reformer during the early 1900s.
ment, the authors are also interested in the impact such a Dewey (1910) articulated reflective thought as:
lack of consensus has upon collaboration among educa- Active, persistent, and careful consider-
tors from varying disciplines. The traditional landscape ation of any belief or supposed form of
of higher education in the United States has been one fo- knowledge in the light of the grounds that
cusing on rather isolated fields of specialization earning supports it, and the further conclusions
many disciplines the title of ivory towers, but the environ- which it tends. (Dewey, 1910, p. 6).
ment at many colleges is shifting to a more collaborative-
friendly environment where academics are encouraged to The process identified by Dewey as reflective thought
create bridges between the ivory towers. As team-taught possesses the same characteristics currently identified by
many as critical thinking. Morgan (1995) summarizes 3. some skill in applying those methods. (Glaser, 1941,
this process of reflective thought as: p. 5-6)
A self-directed type of thought which ana-
lyzes a belief to see upon what it is based Glaser argued that “American Education is freely
and to determine as well as possible what criticized today because the ability to think critically is
consequences will follow from that be- not well developed among secondary pupils and even
lief. Dewey felt that thought — reflective among college graduates” (Glaser, 1941, p. 8).
thought — was the only preventive mea- In order to address this shortfall, Glaser developed
sure to keep a person from acting merely on an instructional program that “consisted of eight lessons
the basis of impulse or habit. (Dewey, 1910 or topic related to critical thinking, including definition,
as discussed by Morgan, 1995, p. 337). evidence, inference, scientific method and attitude, preju-
dice, propaganda, and values and logic” (Kurfiss, 1988,
Critical thinking originates in the doubt of the think- p. 8). In order to test that these skills were indeed be-
er (a “perplexed” situation) that prompted hypotheses ing taught Glaser developed the Watson-Glaser Criti-
(“suggestions”), while observation and reason allowed cal Thinking Appraisal. The multiple choice exam tests
the thinker to refine his hypotheses. These mental pro- “skills of arguments, specifically drawing inferences,
cesses do proceed in a linear fashion but are “recursive recognizing assumptions, evaluating conclusions, and as-
and mutually influential” (Dewey, 1910 as discussed by sessing the strength of reasons offered in supporting a
Kurfiss, 1988, p. 7). claim” (Kurfiss, 1988, p. 8).
Learning should be active and education should cen- The Watson-Glaser exam incorporated the later work
ter on judgments, not merely knowledge. Judgment, for of Dressel and Mayhew, who identified further skills and
Dewey, is reflective thinking that consisted of three fea- abilities of critical thinkers, and it has been modified
tures: throughout the years to increase clarity and remove gen-
1. a controversy, consisting of opposite claims regard- der and racial biases. (Morgan, 1995, Watson and Glaser,
ing the same objective situation; 1980) The work of Glaser and well as the Watson-Glaser
2. a process of defining and elaborating these claims exam still heavily influence thought on critical thinking
and of sifting the facts adduced to support them; and are used widely by high schools and colleges as a
3. a final decision, or sentence, closing the particular means of testing the ability of students to think critically.
matter in dispute and also serving as a rule or prin-
ciple for deciding future cases. (Dewey, 1910 pp. Benjamin Bloom
101-102). Benjamin Bloom was an educational psychologist
whose career spanned several decades in the 20th centu-
Judgment allows the critical thinker to analyze all ry, and who is best known for developing a taxonomy of
of the facts, determining whether they are facts or not, cognitive thought. Bloom (1956, p. 18, 201-207)) defined
relevant or not, and synthesize the appropriate factual in- the cognitive domain as having three aspects: knowledge,
formation into a whole. To fully exercise judgment, it is intellectual abilities, and skills that have a hierarchy of
necessary to maintain an open mind along with a healthy six levels:
skepticism. 1. Knowledge: the recall of previously learned material
Out of Dewey’s ideas came the movement called from specific facts to complete theories.
“progressive education” that was designed to make chang- 2. Comprehension: the ability to grasp and understand
es to education and improve the critical thinking ability at the meaning of the material presented in the forms of
the elementary school level. These changes, however, had translation, interpretation, or the estimation of future
little impact in secondary schools (Morgan, 1995). trends.
3. Application: the ability to use learned material and
Edward Glaser and the Watson-Glaser Test of apply this material in new specific situations.
Critical Thinking. 4. Analysis: the ability to break down information into
In a pioneer study on critical thinking and education, parts and examine the relationship among the parts
Edward Glaser (1941) proposed three key components of so that organization can be understood.
critical thinking: 5. Synthesis: the ability to organize many elements or
1. an attitude of being disposed in a thoughtful way to parts to form a new whole.
the problems and subjects that come within the range 6. Evaluation: making judgments or ideas or methods
of one’s experiences; using evidence and based on definite internal (orga-
2. knowledge of the methods of logical inquiry and rea- nizational) or external (relevant to purpose) criteria.
soning; and
SPRING 2011, VOL. 26, NO. 1 41
Bloom’s hierarchy is excellent for explaining 1. Judge the credibility of sources.

what goes on in the classroom from both the teachers’ 2. Identify conclusions, reasons, and assumptions.
and students’ perspectives. Unfortunately, it lacks the 3. Judge the quality of an argument, including the ac-
specificity necessary for assessment of critical think- ceptability of its reasons, assumptions, and evidence.
ing. (Ennis, 1993) For the task at hand, it is important 4. Develop and defend a position on an issue.
to note that Bloom’s hierarchy viewed the evaluation 5. Ask appropriate clarifying questions.
of judgments as having a purpose or contextually spe- 6. Plan experiments and judge experimental designs.
cific component. 7. Be open minded.
8. Try to be well informed.
Robert Ennis 9. Draw conclusions when warranted, but with caution.
Robert Ennis is currently Professor Emeritus at Uni- (Ennis, 1993, p. 180).
versity of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. In 1962, En-
nis defined critical thinking as “the correct assessing of Ennis considers this definition a ‘working definition’
statements” and distinguished “three dimensions of criti- and went on to co-author the extensively used “Cornell
cal thinking—logical (judging the alleged relationships Critical Thinking Tests” and lead the Illinois Critical
between the meanings of words and statements), criteria Thinking Project at the University of Illinois until his
(covers the knowledge of the criteria for judging), [and] recent retirement. (Thayer-Bacon, 2000). For Ennis’ lat-
pragmatic (impression of the background purpose on est thoughts on critical thinking, see his article entitled,
the judgment)” and identified twelve “aspects of critical “Critical Thinking: Reflection and Perspective Part I” in
thinking”. (Ennis, 1962, 83-85) The twelve aspects are this issue of INQUIRY.
summed as:
1. Grasping the meaning of a statement. John McPeck
2. Judging whether there is ambiguity in a In an attempt to clarify and critique work previously
line of reasoning 3. …whether certain state- done on critical thinking, John McPeck (1981) argued
ments contradict each other. 4. …a conclu- that critical thinking was not a skill that could stand
sion follows necessarily. 5. … a statement alone; it must always be about something. According to
is specific enough. 6 …a statement is actu- McPeck (1981):
ally the application of a certain principle. In isolation from a particular subject, the
7. … an observation statement is reliable. phrase ‘critical thinking’ neither refers to
8. … an inductive conclusion is warranted. nor denotes any particular skill. It follows
9 … the problem has been identified. 10. from this that it makes no sense to talk
Something is an assumption. 11. A defini- about critical thinking as a distinct subject
tion is adequate. 12. … a statement made and that it therefore cannot be profitably be
by an alleged authority is acceptable. (En- taught as such.” (McPeck, 1981, p. 5).
nis, 1962, p. 84 as summarized by Curry,
1999, p. 4). McPeck goes on to argue, from this premise, that
critical thinking is only properly understood when seen
Ennis realized that his definition suffered from the as subject-specific. “Critical thinking always manifests
same problem that Bloom’s taxonomy suffered from, itself in connection with some identifiable activity or sub-
namely, an inability to properly assess critical thinking. ject area and never in isolation.” (McPeck, 1981, p. 5).
As a result, Ennis revised his definition to allow for “cor- McPeck (1981) emphasizes that critical thinking
rect assessing”. This revised definition, however, suffered does include:
from “excluding creative aspects of critical thinking”, so (…)the judicious use of skepticism, tem-
the more streamlined definition of critical thinking that pered by experience…[where] the crite-
Ennis believes will allow for “greater communication rion for regarding skepticism as judicious,
among proponents of critical thinking” (Ennis, 1993, p. as opposed to incorrect or frivolous, must
180) is as follows: “Critical thinking is reasonable re- be determined by the norms and standards
flective thinking focused on deciding on what to believe of the subject area in question.” (McPeck,
or do.” (Ennis, 1993, p. 180) This definition too, Ennis 1981, p. 7)
feels, suffers from being too vague, so Ennis adds elabo-
rations (of which the list below is an abridgment) by list- It is not sufficient to simply ask questions or to crit-
ing “abilities and dispositions” (Ennis, 1993, p. 180) of icize thoughts as they come, but rather, to develop the
the critical thinker that allows for some guidance in as- ability to ask the right questions. This leads McPeck to
sessment. These abilities and dispositions are: develop an informal definition of critical thinking:
The core meaning of critical thinking is the Richard Paul distinguishes between two forms of criti-
propensity and skill to engage in an activity cal thinking, the ‘weak’ and the ‘strong’ forms. Because
with reflective skepticism. (McPeck, 1981, a student comes to the post secondary education setting
p. 8). with:
(…) a highly developed belief system but-
McPeck acknowledges his informal definition leaves tressed by a deep-seated, uncritical, ego-
room for ambiguities. McPeck offers further explanation centric and socio-centric habits of thought
of his ideas concerning skills and reflective skepticism: by which he interprets and processes his
[The skills] necessary for engaging in an or her experience… the practical result is
activity, critical thinking cannot be di- that most students find it easy to question
vorced from the skills that make the activ- just, and only, those beliefs, assumptions,
ity what it is. [Reflective skepticism] like and inferences that [they] have already re-
‘health’skepticism’, refers to both the pur- jected and very difficult, in some cases to
pose and the quality of the thinking in ques- traumatic, to question those in which they
tion. (McPeck, 1981, p. 9). have a personal, egocentric investment.
(Paul 1981, p. 2).
McPeck’s definition of critical thinking requires
knowledge of the subject at hand, as well as the desire to Paul concludes that those that learn to think critically
resolve problems that arise. in order to merely employ these skills to ward away chal-
McPeck’s informal definition, along with the accom- lenges to what they already believe become more sophis-
panying clarifications, lead to McPeck’s formal definition tic rather than less so. Paul classifies the engagement in
of critical thinking: this type of critical thinking as ‘atomistic’ or the ‘weak
Let X stand for a problem or activity requir- sense’ of critical thinking.
ing some mental effort. However, in the ‘strong sense’ of critical thinking
Let E stand for the available evidence from one abandons critical thinking skills as a set of “atomic
the pertinent field or problem area. arguments” and seeks to focus on “argument networks
Let P stand for some proposition or action (world views)”, seeks to take a more “dialectical/dia-
within X. logical” approach to argumentation where arguments are
Then we can say of a given student (S) that “appraised in relation to counter arguments”, and realizes
he is a critical thinker in area X if S has the that atomic arguments (such as informal fallacies) are
disposition and skill to do X in such a way rarely employed in the “real world” but that “argument
that E, or some subset of E, is suspended as exchanges are means by which contesting points of view
being sufficient to establish the truth or vi- are brought into rational conflict…” (Paul, 1981, p. 2).
ability of P.” (McPeck, 1981, p. 9). Harvey Siegel (1998) sums the “strong sense” of critical
thinking as “appearing to be more a matter of dialogue
It is noteworthy that McPeck emphasizes two central between opposing perspectives than a series of atomic
components of his concept of critical thinking. Siegel ar- criticisms and deflections.” (Siegel, 1998, p. 13). This al-
ticulates the two components as: lows for the following definition:
There is first, the ability to assess reasons Critical thinking is disciplined, self direct-
properly… the reason assessment compo- ed thinking which exemplifies the perfec-
nent. There is, second, the willingness, de- tions of thinking appropriate to a particular
sire, and disposition to base one’s actions mode or domain of thought. It comes in two
and beliefs on reasons; that is to do reason forms. If disciplined to serve the interests
assessment and be guided by the results of of a particular individual or group, to the
such assessment. (Siegel, 1998, p. 23). exclusion of other relevant persons and
groups, it is sophistic or weak sense critical
Richard Paul thinking. If disciplined to take into account
Richard Paul established, and served as director of, the interests of diverse persons or groups, it
the Center for Critical Thinking and Moral Critique at is fair-minded or strong sense critical think-
Sonoma State University. He currently organizes the An- ing. (Paul, 1990, p. 51).
nual International Conference on Critical Thinking and
serves as Director of Research and Professional Develop- It must be noted here that Paul’s definition of criti-
ment for the Center and Foundation for Critical Think- cal thinking does not exclude other definitions of critical
ing. Prior to setting forth a definition for critical thinking, thinking. In fact, Paul argues that there are many limita-
SPRING 2011, VOL. 26, NO. 1 43
tions in the process of defining critical thinking itself, and The affective dispositions a critical thinker should
goes so far as to argue that it is more desirable to have a develop are set in two categories. The first category is
variety of definitions for two reasons: approaches to life and living in general. This includes
(1) in order to maintain insight into the things such as, inquisitiveness in many issues, flexibility
various dimensions of critical thinking that in considering alternatives, understanding other opin-
alternative definitions highlight, and 2) to ions, honesty in facing ones biases, and a willingness to
help oneself escape the limitations of any revise ones ideas when warranted. The second catego-
given definition.” (Paul, 1987, as quoted in ry includes approaches to specific issues, questions or
Thayer-Bacon, 2000, p. 61). problems. This includes things such as, clarity in stating
questions, diligence in seeking relevant information, per-
The American Philosophical Association Expert sistence, and precision to the degree allowed. (Facione,
Consensus Definition 1990). The broad definition and lists of skills and dispo-
In 1988, a panel of experts on critical thinking em- sitions commonly referred to as the Delphi definition is
ployed a Delphi process and worked for two years to pro- perhaps the most often cited study on critical thinking in
duce a definition of consensus allowing for uniformity the modern literature on the subject.
within the field as well as guide assessment. The defini-
tion reads: Stephen Brookfield
We understand critical thinking to be pur- Stephen Brookfield (1987), a distinguished univer-
poseful, self regulatory judgments which sity professor at the University of St. Thomas in Min-
results in interpretation, analysis evalua- neapolis-St. Paul, focuses on the development of criti-
tion, and inference, as well as explanation cal thinkers in our society. Consequently, his definition
of the evidential, and inference, as well as focuses on the activities, traits, and abilities necessary for
explanation of the evidential, conceptual, identification and cultivation of critical thinking in not
methodological, criteriological, or contex- only education, but also society as a whole. Brookfield
tual considerations upon which judgment is believes that critical thinking involves three concepts: (1)
based… The ideal critical thinker is habitu- emancipatory learning, (2) dialectical thinking, and (3)
ally inquisitive, well-informed, trustful of reflective learning. Emancipatory learning occurs when
reason, open-minded, flexible, fair-minded “a learner becomes aware of the forces that have brought
in evaluation, honest in facing personal bi- them to their current situations and take action to change
ases, prudent in making judgments, willing some aspect of these situations” (Brookfield, 1987, p.
to reconsider, clear about issues, orderly 12). Dialectical thinking focuses on understanding con-
in complex matters, diligent in seeking tradictions and arriving at suitable resolutions. Reflec-
relevant information, reasonable in the se- tive learning involves a process of internal examination
lection of criteria, focused in inquiry, and brought on by some experience that allows the critical
persistent in seeking results which are as thinker to understand and appreciate a new understand-
precise as the subject and the circumstances ing. (Brookfield, 1987, p. 14).
of inquiry permit (…). (Facione, 1990, p. Brookfield also outlines four components of critical
3). thinking: identifying and challenging assumptions, chal-
lenging the importance of context, imagining and explor-
In addition to providing a general definition for criti- ing alternatives, and reflective skepticism. Critical think-
cal thinking, the panel also provided a list of cognitive ing is a positive activity that should be properly viewed
skills and sub-skills, as well as a list of affective disposi- as a process, rather than an outcome. Brookfield (1987)
tions of critical thinking. The skills include: recognizes that “practices, structures and actions are
(…) interpretation (categorization, de- never context-free” (Brookfield, 1987, p. 5). Both posi-
coding significance, clarifying meaning), tive and negative events within the context of the think-
analysis (examining ideas, identifying ar- ing process can impact the critical thinking process itself.
guments, analyzing arguments), evaluation Consequently, the critical thinking process can be “emo-
(assessing claims, assessing arguments), tive as well as rational” (Brookfield, 1987, p. 7).
inference (querying evidence, conjectur-
ing alternatives), explanation (stating Joanne Kurfiss
results, justifying procedures, present- Joanne Kurfiss, director of the Teaching and Learn-
ing arguments), and self-regulation (self- ing Center at Santa Clara University, argues that critical
examination, self correction). (Facione, thinking is “a rational response to questions that cannot
1990, p. 12). be answered definitively and for which all the relevant
information may not be available” (Kurfiss, 1988, p. 2). differs from critical thinking in business to the extent the
The critical thinking process, as outlined by Kurfiss, usu- subject matters themselves differ. McPeck’s (1981) defi-
ally begins with an argument and has two outcomes: a nition strongly falls into the context-specific category,
hypothesis or conclusion and the justification for this but other context-specific definitions include the defini-
conclusion. tions set forth by Brookfield (1987) and Kurfiss (1988).
Kurfiss defines critical thinking as: With increased attention on assessment, context-
(…) an investigation whose purpose is to specific definitions can be quite useful. When critical
explore a situation, phenomenon, question, thinking skills are well-defined in unambiguous terms,
or problem to arrive at a hypothesis or con- they are much easier to assess. By limiting the assess-
clusion about it that integrates all available ment to a context-specific domain, the results can be
information and that can therefore be con- more accurate and far more useful for the specific focal
vincingly justified. (Kurfiss, 1988, p. 2). discipline. This is evidenced by the creation of the Texas
Assessment of Critical Thinking Skills (TACTS), which
Diane Halpern was developed by an interdisciplinary team in response
Diane Halpern, former president of the American to the accrediting association for collegiate schools of
Psychological Association, is heavily quoted in modern business’ (AACSB) decision to include assessment of
literature on critical thinking for her conception of criti- analytic and reflective thinking in its accreditation stan-
cal thinking components in education. Her definition, al- dards. (Fair, Miller, Muehsam, & Elliott, 2010, 37). The
though very broad, seeks to capture the main elements of TACTS team stated:
the various definitions of critical thinking found in cur- (…) for the sake of assessing how our Col-
rent psychological literature: lege of Business is doing in meeting the
“Critical thinking is the use of those cog- AACSB standards, it is desirable to use a
nitive skills or strategies that increase the “special purpose” instrument that has sev-
probability of a desirable outcome. It is eral items built into it that tap quantita-
used to describe thinking that is purpose- tive skills especially relevant to business
ful, reasoned, and goal directed…[it is not] majors. (Fair, Miller, Muehsam, & Elliott,
merely thinking about your own thinking… 2010, 41).
it is using skills that will make “desirable
outcomes” more likely. Decisions as to It is important to note this only applies to assessments
which outcomes should be desirable are designed to incorporate a specific context familiar to the
embedded in a system of values.” (Halpern, assessed. If critical thinking skills cannot be isolated from
2003, p. 6-7). the context within which they occur, then attempting to
assess critical thinking skills alone appears futile.
Further challenges arise when context-specific
Classifications for Critical Thinking definitions are used blindly in collaborative situations.
Definitions Context-specific definitions do not lend themselves to
inter-disciplinary collaborations involving substantially
A review of the literature confirms the lack of con- different disciplines, unless the context is clearly articu-
sensus regarding a uniform definition for critical think- lated and agreed upon by the participants. The faculty
ing, but there does appear to be some common ground learning community on critical thinking which spurred
among many of the influential definitions. In fact, it ap- the writing of this essay is a good example. Of the ten
pears all of the definitions discussed in this essay can be participating members, most joined the group with con-
clustered into one of two classifications: context-specific text-specific definitions for critical thinking, but were
definitions and cross-disciplinary definitions. unaware that other disciplines may define critical think-
ing from an entirely different context. It was essential
Context-Specific Definitions for the group to openly discuss the varying definitions
Context-specific definitions assume critical thinking along with their corresponding contexts to work towards
cannot occur without a specific context. In other words, a deeper understanding of critical thinking.
the development of critical thinking skills is interdepen-
dent with the context within which the critical thinking Cross-Disciplinary Definitions
activity occurs. Under this philosophy, critical thinking Cross-disciplinary definitions clarify critical think-
should not be taught as a stand-alone course, since the ing in very broad terms, enabling critical thinking skills
critical thinking skills cannot be isolated from the cor- to be taught independent of a specific context. This is
responding subject matter. Critical thinking in chemistry not to claim that critical thinking skills occur without
SPRING 2011, VOL. 26, NO. 1 45
a context, but rather that the critical thinking skills are enough to enable accurate and useable assessment, but
not dependent upon a particular context. In this way, the cross-disciplinarily enough to encourage effective col-
skills needed to critically think in chemistry are similar laboration across diverse fields and disciplines.
to the skills needed to critically think in business. Dewey
(1910) offered a cross-disciplinary definition for critical References
thinking by identifying its key components as analyzing
the facts, determining whether facts are relevant, and Bailey, C. (2008). The tools of women’s studies and philoso-
then synthesizing the appropriate factual information into phy: Critical thinking in writing courses. Feminist Teacher,
a whole. Bloom (1956) also provided a cross-disciplinary 18(2), 91-100.
definition for critical thinking as involving analysis, syn- Bassham, F., Irwin, W., Nardone, H., & Wallace, J. M. (2005).
Critical thinking: A student’s introduction. Boston: Mc-
thesis, and evaluation. Other cross-disciplinary defini-
Graw-Hill Companies, Inc.
tions for critical thinking include those by Ennis (1962, Bloom, B. S., Jr. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives:
1993), American Philosophical Association Expert Con- handbook I. The cognitive domain. New York: McKay.
sensus (1990), Paul (1981, 1992), Halpern (2003), and Borg, J. R., & Borg, M. O. (2001). Teaching critical thinking
Glaser (1941). in interdisciplinary economics. College Teaching, 49(1),
Cross-disciplinary definitions, by their very nature 20-25.
work well for interdisciplinary collaboration, but us- Brookfield, S. D. (1987). Developing critical thinkers: Chal-
ing them to guide assessment can be challenging. Even lenging adults to explore alternative ways of thinking and
though the feasibility of assessing critical thinking skills acting. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
is readily acknowledged, cross-disciplinary definitions Cody, D. (2006). Critical thoughts on critical thinking. Journal
tend to be rather vague and ambiguous. The broadness of Academic Librarianship, 32(4), 403-407.
Curry, M. J. (1999). Critical thinking: Origins, applications,
of the definitions can lead to confusion, and may cause
and limitation for postsecondary students of English as a
some to challenge the reliability as well as practicability second language. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting
of the assessment results. of American Education Research Association, Montreal,
Quebec, Canada.
Conclusion Daly, W. M. (1998). Critical thinking as an outcome of nurs-
ing education. What is it? Why is it important to nursing
In summary, the current definitions for critical think- practice? Journal of Advanced Nursing, 28(2), 323-331.
ing can be classified into two categories: content-specific Dewey, J. (1910). How we think. Boston: D. C. Heath and Com-
definitions and cross-disciplinary definitions. Content- pany Publishers.
specific definitions tend to work well for assessment Dike, S. E., Kochan, F. K., Reed, C., & Ross, M. (2006). Ex-
within particular disciplines, but challenges arise for ploring conceptions of critical thinking held by military
educators in higher education settings. International Jour-
cross-disciplinary assessment and for collaborative situ-
nal of Leadership in Education, 9(1), 45-60.
ations involving varying disciplines. Cross-disciplinary Edgerton, R. (1991). National standards are coming! … Na-
definitions appear on the surface to work well for cross- tional standards are coming! AAHE Bulletin, December,
disciplinary collaborations and general critical thinking 1991, 8-12.
assessments, but when actually applied, cross-disciplinary Ennis, R. H. (1962). A concept of critical thinking. Harvard
definitions tend to be very broad and often vague, creat- Educational Review, 32(1), 81-111.
ing very real challenges for both collaboration and general Ennis, R. H. (1993). Critical thinking assessment. Theory Into
assessment. Kennedy, Fisher, and Ennis (1991) claimed Practice, 32(3), 179-186.
“agreement on a definition of and a vocabulary for criti- Ennis, R. H. (2011). Critical thinking reflection and perspective
cal thinking is needed in order to get a better idea of what Part I. INQUIRY: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines,
should be assessed by a critical thinking evaluation in- 26(1).
Facione, P. A. (1990). Critical thinking: A statement of expert
strument. (Kennedy, Fisher, and Ennis, 1991, 29). Twenty
consensus for purposes of education assessment and in-
years later, the need for such agreement still exists. struction. Research findings and recommendations pre-
Perhaps the greatest lesson can be learned from the pared for the Committee on Pre-College Philosophy of
ongoing practices of Ennis and Paul. Both researchers the American Philosophical Association. American Philo-
continue to analyze and revise their existing definitions sophical Association. (ERIC Document Reproduction Ser-
for critical thinking. If understanding critical thinking re- vice No. ED 315-423).
quires doing critical thinking, then Ennis and Paul have Fair, F., Miller, J., Muehsam, V., & Elliott, W. (Summer, 2010).
provided us with the perfect models for continuing to im- TACTS: Developing a new critical thinking assessment
prove our understanding of critical thinking. Stakehold- instrument. INQUIRY: Critical Thinking Across the Disci-
ers in higher education must continue to work towards plines, 25(2), 37-41.
a definition for critical thinking that is context-specific
Glaser, E. M. (1941). An experiment in the development of criti- Siegel, H. (1988). Educating reason: Rationality, critical think-
cal thinking. New York: Teachers College of Columbia ing, and education. London: Routledge (Philosophy of
University, Bureau of Publications. Education Research Library).
Gordon, J. M. (2000). Congruency in defining critical think- Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. (1999). Core cur-
ing by nurse educators and non-nurse scholars. Journal of riculum: Assumptions and defining characteristics. Re-
Nursing Education, 39(8), 340-351. trieved September 12, 2010 from www.thecb.state.tx.us/.
Halonen, J. S. (1995). Demystifying critical thinking. Teaching Texas State Legislature. (1997). Tex. SB148, 5S, 5.390-5.404.
of Psychology, February 1995, 75-81. Thayer-Bacon, B. (2000). Transforming critical thinking:
Halpern, D. F. (1997). Critical thinking across the curriculum: Thinking constructively. New York: Teachers College
A brief edition of thought and knowledge. Hillsdale, NJ: Press.
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Vaske, J. M. (2001). Critical thinking in adult education: an
Halpern, D. F. (2003). Thought and knowledge: an introduc- elusive quest for a definition of the field. Des Moines, IA:
tion to critical thinking (4th Ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Unpublished dissertation, School of Education, Drake
Erlbaum Associates, Inc. University.
Heffner, S., & Rudy, S. (2008). Critical thinking. Critical Care Videbeck, S. L. (1997). Critical thinking: Prevailing practice in
Nursing Quarterly, 31(1), 73-78. baccalaureate schools of nursing. Journal of Nursing Edu-
Kelly, S. E. (2001). Thinking well: An introduction to critical cation, 36(1), 5-10.
thinking. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing Com- Wales, C. E., & Nardi, A. H. (1984). The paradox of critical
pany. thinking. Morgantown, WV: Center for Guided Design.
Kennedy, M, Fisher, M. B. & Ennis, R. H. (1991) Critical think- Watson, G., & Glaser, E. M. (1980). Watson-Glaser Critical
ing: Literature review and needed research. In L. Idol and Thinking Appraisal. Cleveland, OH: Psychological Cor-
B. F. Jones (Eds.), Educational values and cognitive in- poration.
struction: Implications for reform. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Zygmont, D. M., & Schaefer, K. M. (2006). Assessing the criti-
11-40. cal thinking skills of faculty: What do the findings mean
Kogut, L. S. (1996). Critical thinking in general chemistry. for nursing education? Nursing Education Perspectives,
Journal of Chemical Education, 73(3), 218-221. 27(5), 260-268.
Kurfiss, J. G. (1998). Critical thinking: Theory, research, prac-
tice, and possibilities. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Re- Author information
port No. 2, 1988. Washington: Association for the Study of
Higher Education.
Maria Sanders is a professor of philosophy and Fac-
Lauer, T. (2005). Teaching critical-thinking skills using course
content material: A reversal of roles. Journal of College
ulty Excellence Award winner at Lone Star College – Cy-
Science Teaching, 34-37. Fair. She is a co-author of “Broaching Fragmented Learn-
Lipman, M. (1991). Thinking in education. New York: Cam- ing: Principles for Reflective Learning in the Cyber-age”
bridge University Press. published by the 2011 International Technology and
Mazer, J. P., Hunt, S. K., & Kuznekoff, J. H. (2007). Revising Education Development Conference held in Valenica,
general education: Assessing a critical thinking instruc- Spain, and she has most recently co-presented at the 6th
tional model in the basic communication course. Journal Annual On Course Conference held in Long Beach, Cali-
of General Education, 56(3-4), 173-199. fornia on “Reflection Simulations: Cyber-Learning in the
McPeck, J. E. (1981). Critical thinking and education. New Cyber-Age.” She teaches logic, social and political phi-
York: St. Martin’s Press. losophy, and applied ethics courses and received her M.
Moore, B. N., & Parker, R. (2001). Critical thinking. Mountain
A. in Philosophy from Southern Illinois University—Ed-
View, CA: Mayfield Publishing Company.
Morgan, W. R., Jr. (1995). “Critical thinking” — What does that
wardsville and her J.D. from Saint Louis University. Her
mean? Journal for College Science Teaching, 336-340. contact information is Lone Star College – CyFair, 9191
Olsen, J., & Statham, A. (2005). Critical thinking in politi- Barker Cypress Road, Cypress, TX 77433-1383. Phone:
cal science: Evidence from the introductory comparative (281) 290-3232, Email [email protected]
politics course. Journal of Political Science Education, 1, Jason Moulenbelt received his B.A. and M.A. de-
323-344. grees in Philosophy from Western Michigan University.
Paul, R. W. (1981).Teaching critical thinking in the ‘strong’ He is Professor of Philosophy at Lone Star College-Cy-
sense: A focus on self deception, world views, and a dia- Fair, and his teaching specializations include Practical
lectical mode of analysis. Informal Logic, 4(2), 2-7. and Applied Ethics, Race and Gender Issues, Business
Paul, R. W. (1990). Critical thinking: What every person needs Ethics. He received the Dr. Christal Albrecht Learning
to survive in a rapidly changing world. Rhonert Park, CA:
Innovation Award in May 2008. His contact informa-
Sonoma State University Center for Critical Thinking and
Moral Critique.
tion is Lone Star College – CyFair, 9191 Barker Cypress
Ruminski, H. J., & Hanks, W. E. (1995). Critical thinking lacks Road, Cypress, TX 77433-1383. Phone: (281) 290-3912,
definition and uniform evaluation criteria. Journalism & Email: [email protected].
Mass Communication Educator, 4-11.
SPRING 2011, VOL. 26, NO. 1 47
The Academic College Course is An Argument

Frank Codispoti
Lone Star College-CyFair
Abstract
A college academic course is an argument constructed by the professor who teaches the course.
Richard Paul’s elements of thinking are used to clarify this contention. It is the responsibility of
the professor to choose reading materials, construct lectures, and develop other activities and as-
signments that can best aid her students to understand the argument. Reading texts and listening
to lectures effectively to grasp the argument requires critical thinking skills that can be learned by
students. Students fail when those responsible for their education either assume they already possess
such skills or that they cannot learn them.
Keywords: lectures, critical reading
A college academic course is an argument. An argu- icy and international relations as areas of public policy
ment in this context is a conclusion supported by reasons more than would a professor trained in American national
and evidence (Weston, 2008, p. xi). A well-constructed institutions. A professor trained in Political Philosophy is
college course begins with a central proposition or prop- likely to have a very different point of view on the entire
ositions upon which the course elaborates. The funda- subject of American government beginning with a differ-
mental task of a college professor is to create the argu- ent definition of politics from those trained as empirical
ments for those propositions. This task requires creating political scientists. The questions that flow from a dif-
arguments that can be followed, understood, and applied ferent definition of politics, that the course will seek to
by students through the time of the course and beyond. explore and answer, will be different and will lead to a
College courses, particularly those at the undergraduate different body of knowledge being acquired by students.
level, are often conceived of by those who do not teach It is the ability of a professor to bring her well-developed
them as consisting of a standard body of information that, perspective to the subject that makes her a college profes-
because it is standard, does not vary from professor to sor instead of a simple conveyor or information.
professor. Therefore, they reason, if two professors each While this discussion has used examples from Politi-
teach an introductory American government course, the cal Science, there is nothing unique about the particular
body of information conveyed will be essentially the discipline in this regard. The same phenomenon would
same in each course. But while it is likely that there will be observed in any other scholarly field. Being exposed
be a great deal of overlap between two such courses and to a variety of professors with a variety of points of view
while the central elements of the courses often will be the about a subject is central to a college education. It is what
same, yet each professor brings to the course a point of makes a college education a different learning experience
view on the subject matter that has been developed dur- from other forms of education. The student is exposed
ing the process of acquiring an advanced education on to different ways of examining, understanding, explain-
the subject. This education is never exactly the same as ing, and evaluating the world. In the process of gaining
the one received by others. One reason is that each pro- insights from a variety of points of view a student can de-
fessor has a major area of concentration in one or more velop a more sophisticated and mature understanding of
subfields of her discipline, and this concentration shapes the very idea of knowledge. This process moves the stu-
what she considers to be important and worth attend- dent from, in the words of Mary Burgan, “a world view
ing to. As a graduate student she was introduced to and based on absolutes-right/wrong, good/bad... (to one in
learned to apply theories, concepts, and explanations that which) they can accept the reality of multiple viewpoints,
differed from those acquired and employed by others. then see that judgments can be made among them, and,
Furthermore, as a professor conducts research, reads, and finally, to make commitments in the light of relative un-
teaches, she shapes an individual complex understanding certainties.” (Burgan, 2006) Of course, a student is also
of her subject matter that will differ from that of other exposed to different ways of understanding the world as
professors. This means that a professor whose main area he or she moves from subject to subject. However, the
of concentration is International Relations, for example, point here is that even as students take courses within
is likely to give a greater emphasis to the role of the presi- a single subject from different professors they begin to
dent in foreign policy when discussing the institution of develop a new perspective on knowledge and on their
the presidency and will emphasize the role of foreign pol- world that is the product of synthesizing the different
perspectives she encounters or of choosing to emphasize they develop a more or less distinctive way of organizing
one presented by a professor whose perspective she finds and understanding the subject that is a synthesis of the
particularly attractive. perspectives they each bring to the subject. It is neces-
sary to develop a common perspective in order to agree
What Is an Argument: Richard Paul, on degree requirements and specific courses that must be
Linda Elder, and the Elements of Reasoning taken by all students in the discipline.
Perhaps an example of the differences that can occur
To understand the concept of a course as an argu- will help to clarify the point. Two important subjects of
ment it is necessary to elaborate on the meaning of an study within the discipline of political science are the or-
argument. A common definition of an argument like the ganizations of interest groups and political parties. Both
one given above is that it is a conclusion supported by may be covered as part of an undergraduate curriculum
reasons and evidence. To understand what is involved in and both are invariably important topics in introductory
creating an entire course as an argument requires, how- courses on American government. There are two ways
ever, a more highly developed notion of reasoning. One these organizations can be presented. One way, perhaps
such developed scheme of the elements of reasoning is the more common, is to treat them as separate subjects
provided by Richard Paul and Linda Elder (Paul & Elder, with each given its own focus in the course; for instance,
2006 pp. 11-42). They are interested in what they call they are often discussed in separate chapters in American
“the fundamental structures of thought” (Paul & Elder government textbooks. In contrast, however, one may
13), but the elements they define can also be understood also stress the similarities between the two types of orga-
as relevant to the construction of an argument. The eight nization. Both are ways in which citizens in democracies
elements are: (1) a purpose, goal, or end in view; (2) a organize to influence political outcomes. Both are non-
question at issue or problem to be solved; (3) a point profit, voluntary organizations whose internal dynamics
of view or frame of reference; (4) the evidence — data, share many characteristics. Presenting these two types
facts, experiences; (5) the conceptual or theory dimen- of organizations in this way leads to a different set of
sion of reasoning; (6) the assumptions one makes; (7) the questions to be asked, a different set of problems to be
inferences or conclusions one develops from the reason- solved, and places the facts concerning them in a differ-
ing process; and (8) the implications or consequences one ent context. It is up to the particular professor to decide
draws from the argument that is developed. how to handle these topics in her own course and it is up
Applying Paul and Elder’s scheme leads to identify- to the faculty of a particular institution to decide how to
ing the purpose is a crucial first step in creating the argu- develop them within their curriculum.
ment that is the course. One might be tempted to simply The second element is the problem to be solved or
identify the purpose of a course as teaching a particular question to be answered. As with the goal or purpose
subject to a class of students, but the greater the speci- of the course, there usually is one central problem to be
ficity with which the professor identifies the purpose or solved or question to be answered in creating a course,
goal of a course the more clearly she can articulate the though numerous other problems or questions are gener-
goals for her students. Many course syllabi include a list ated in the attempt to solve the central problem or an-
of course goals that are to be achieved, often identified as swer the central question, and these must be identified
tasks students will be able to perform if they successfully and analyzed. The process of identifying those questions
complete the course. These tasks are generated from the takes place as the professor develops the argument of the
overall purpose of the course, and the purpose is derived course. As with the purpose, the questions or problems
from the larger subject matter discipline of which the are already part of the professor’s knowledge.
course is a part. A scholar has learned to see each course An example of a problem to be solved in a course is
as part of a larger whole and to see each lecture in the the decline in political participation in the United States.
course as part of the larger whole that is the course. The Beginning in the 1960’s political participation in the
particular subject of the course gains its purpose from the United States, particularly voting in elections, began to
place it takes in the larger body of knowledge of which decline. Many political scientists consider this decline
the discipline consists. When one examines the curricu- substantial enough to require study and to raise ques-
lum of any particular discipline at a college or university tions as to how it might affect the performance of the
one can follow the way the subject matter of the disci- American political system. The decline in participation
pline is organized by scholars in the discipline. By com- in politics was particularly pronounced among younger
paring the specific courses taught at different institutions citizens. Over time scholars within the discipline devel-
one can infer the differences in points of view among dif- oped positions concerning the importance of these trends
ferent faculties. A department faculty is not just a group for American politics. There are differences on this ques-
of individuals who teach the same discipline. Over time tion, but one can observe the production of introductory
SPRING 2011, VOL. 26, NO. 1 49
American government texts in recent years in which the an attitude is “a predisposition to react in a certain way to
main problem to be solved seems to be that of convinc- a political object.” To have students appreciate this con-
ing students that politics has an important impact on their cept the definition should be analyzed. A predisposition
lives. These texts emphasize the ways in which citizens means that the individual does not develop the reaction in
influence political outcomes and include the message that the presence of the object. but will automatically respond
a wise citizen will participate in the process. because he or she already has certain feelings, beliefs, or
The third of Paul’s elements, point of view or frame feelings about objects of such a nature. The term “object”
of reference, is primarily generated from the discipline is used because a wide variety of stimuli, from people,
one is teaching, though a more refined point of view is to political parties, to nations, are subjects of attitudes.
based on the perspective that a professor has developed Having this general concept in mind allows a student to
through her education and research. This is illustrated analyze a wide variety of human behavior.
when the same topic is taught in courses in two differ- Sixth, every argument requires assumptions. It is im-
ent disciplines. The representatives of the disciplines possible to construct an argument in which everything is
will pose different problems, make use of different evi- proven. Assumptions are also the most difficult part of
dence, reason to different inferences, identify different any argument to identify. Many of the most important as-
implications and consequences, and make use of what is sumptions made in an argument become so entrenched
learned to move in different directions in the next part in the subject matter over time that they are no longer
of the course. The writing, adoption, and content of the discussed, justified, or even acknowledged. The assump-
United States Constitution are examined in both courses tions have become a subconscious part of how the profes-
on American History as part of a history curriculum and sor thinks about the subject. The assumptions make up
in introductory courses on American government taught part of the basic thought processes of everyone in the dis-
as part of a Political Science curriculum. There is a great cipline. Yet they form part of the fundamental structure of
deal of overlap in the development of the material in the the argument and if they can be identified and discussed
two courses. Yet it is easy to see that there will also be sig- explicitly, it will help those who are learning the subject
nificant differences, since every academic subject has its to understand it more fully. One of the most fundamental
own set of purposes and goals, questions and problems, assumptions made by political scientists is that humans
assumptions, concepts, central facts, and has at any time do not act with free will but behave in response to stimuli.
its own set of important implications and consequences The stimuli may be sociological in nature, psychologi-
drawn from arguments made in its discipline. All of these cal in nature, or rational, self-interested responses. This
are part of the body of knowledge which constitutes the is such a basic assumption of political science as a dis-
discipline. The professor brings all of these to the forma- cipline that it is rarely articulated or discussed. This is
tion of a course. one of those assumptions that become so basic to those
The fourth element concerns the facts, data, and evi- trained as political scientists that they forget that it is an
dence that are treated in the course. Facts in any course assumption and simply apply it. It would be valuable
range from the most basic, those that are central to the for their students to have this assumption articulated for
study of the subject, to those that are trivial and useful them. This would help them to be more critical in their
only as examples or in creating full descriptions of rele- analysis of political phenomenon.
vant broader conditions. The particular objects that make Seventh, all reasoning creates inferences. “An infer-
up the empirical dimension of a subject may range from ence is a ‘step’ of the mind, an intellectual act by which
the very specific to the very broad. There are 435 mem- one concludes that something is true in the light of some-
bers of the United States House of Representatives. This thing else’s being true, or seeming to be true.” (Paul &
is a very specific and very important fact in the study of Elder, 2006, p. 31) A fully developed course will draw
American national politics. many inferences and will use earlier inferences as part of
The fifth element is the set of concepts and theories the reasoning to later ones. The application of assump-
that have been developed in the course of the research and tions, concepts, and theories to the subject of the disci-
writing on the subject. The development of the argument pline in systematic reasoning is what leads to the infer-
which is the course will use these concepts. The concepts ences of the subject and which need to form the center
will require definition and perhaps analysis within the of the course. For example, we have previously noted
course and will have to be understood by students as part that participation in politics among the American popula-
of completing the course. The theories and ideas will also tion showed a significant decline between the 1960’s and
be a major part of the content that requires describing and 1980’s. Applying the basic political science theory that
explaining and which will be used in the process of argu- changes in human behavior can be explained by changes
ing in the course. One concept used a great deal in Politi- in attitudes, a term which the political scientist will care-
cal Science is the concept of “attitude.” One definition of fully define, we can use the data we have on attitudes to-
wards politics to draw the inference that the reduction in atic, logical, and well-developed thought process about
participation is explained by a change in attitudes towards the subject matter of the course. This goal is not easy to
the honesty, accountability, and motivation of behavior achieve. There is a very large gap between the way in
by government officials. This is a basic inference that which the professor thinks about her subject and how her
political scientists have drawn and will teach students. students think about it. Reducing that gap requires a great
However, the goal is not to have students memorize this deal of effort on the part of both the professor and the stu-
inference, but to teach them to use the theories, concepts dent. It is the professor who must be aware of this differ-
and data of Political Science to answer important ques- ence and who is in a position to help students strengthen
tions and draw important inferences. This is the differ- their ways of thinking.
ence between learning to critically think about politics
and simply memorizing what is taught as a series of facts. Critical Thinking Skills Associated with the
The final element of Paul’s elements includes the im- Course as an Argument
plications and consequences that follow from the argu-
ment. It is the implications and consequences that fulfill Recognizing that a course is an argument clarifies a
the purpose of the reasoning and answer the questions or set of critical thinking skills college students must possess
solve the problems posed by the thinker as the argument in order to succeed in their courses. Students need to be
is first developed. An implication of the argument that able (1) to grasp the underlying purpose of the course, (2)
citizen participation has gone down as a result of changes to identify the specific questions or problems the course
in their attitudes towards government is that those atti- addresses, (3) to articulate the point of view which gives
tudes must be changed if participation is to rise. A con- rise to the questions, (4) to assess the evidence related to
sequence of this has been the attempt by political science possible answers, (5) to understand the main concepts,
professors to convince their students that politics matters (6) to recognize important background assumptions, (7)
in their lives so it worth their time and effort to partici- to make sound inferences, and (8) to attend to implica-
pate. tions and consequences of those inferences. Sadly, it is
Paul and Elder’s scheme of elements of reasoning a set of skills they often lack when they enter college,
has been used to present the basic idea of the course as but these skills are crucial for the use of two of the ways
an argument because it clarifies the set of decisions that in which the argument of a course is presented to stu-
must be made and the structure that must be developed dents, through reading and attending lectures. The latter
in creating and teaching a college course. It is not being is particularly important in larger, introductory courses,
argued that college professors consciously recognize that the very courses students take when the first enter college
the development of a college course is the construction and often before they have developed the skills to get the
of an argument. However, in the process of obtaining an most benefit out of them.
advanced college degree and in studying and conducting Mortimer J. Adler argued that in both reading and
research in their discipline, college professors develop attending to a lecture “the learner acts on something com-
the process of creating arguments as their normal way municated to him. He performs operations on discourse,
of thinking, particularly within their subject matter. They written or oral.” (Adler, 1972, p. 13) Two points need
come to understand, explain, critique, and create such ar- to be emphasized about Adler’s observation. First, Adler
guments as the dominant activity in graduate school and argues that the critical thinking skills necessary to de-
in their professional lives. When the time comes to develop understanding from reading and from a lecture are
velop their own college courses, constructing a course as essentially the same. It is common for analysts to argue
an argument is one way they complete the task. against the use of lectures in college classes but exceed-
One assumption that underlies the argument of this ingly rare for anyone to argue for eliminating, or even re-
paper has not been revealed until now. It is assumed that ducing, reading requirements. Perhaps this is because the
one cannot think about a subject without reasoning about similarities are not obvious until one examines the two
it. All thinking involves reasoning. The individual may activities in detail. Second, Adler emphasizes that “al-
be more or less conscious of the reasoning process going though the teacher may help his students in many ways,
on in her, she may be more or less systematic in her rea- it is the student himself who must do the learning (Adler,
soning, her reasoning may be more or less logical and her 1972, p. 13).” While they may understand some need to
arguments may be more or less well developed, but in all be minimally active in reading, students often perceive
cases, reasoning is going on. their role at lectures to be completely passive. Perhaps
There is also a major implication that follows from the classic statement of how such students think of their
the position that has been presented here. A central, if role in lectures came from a student who commented on
not the central, task of a professor in a college course is a course evaluation that he wished the professor had lec-
to guide her students towards a more conscious, system- tured less because he “does not like being lectured at.”
SPRING 2011, VOL. 26, NO. 1 51
In either reading or attending to lectures students often developed, but presenting a weakly developed argument
underestimate the degree to which they must be actively that is a composite of many, sometimes even contradic-
engaged with the material. In both cases students often tory points of view. Sometimes this presentation is ac-
believe that the primary intellectual process they must companied by a description of various ways in which a
use is memorization. Reading the notes that students take particular topic can be understood. However, such pre-
in lectures reveals that they often only write down what sentations are invariably fragmentary, do not develop the
is written on a board or included in a PowerPoint slide. various ways of understanding the subject in any depth,
These students fail to perceive the argument being pre- and fail to explore the implications of accepting each of
sented and, therefore, often miss the relationships being the points of view that have been named. More frequently
presented and developed. Their notes become a list of in- the text simply creates a contradictory, vague description
dividual fragments of the argument with the result that of the subject matter without acknowledging that there is
they end up using their notes to memorize the individual more than one way of understanding it.
points they have listed instead of understanding the argu- Such texts are usually packed with an overwhelm-
ment of the lecture. The same tendency can be found if ing amount of descriptive material that obfuscates any
one quizzes students on their strategies for studying texts. analysis that is taking place. This structure reinforces the
When asked what they do students will often state they tendency of students to see the subject as a compilation of
attempt to identify the ‘important points’ in the text and to facts that should be memorized. Even theories, concept,
memorize them. When asked how they determine which and assumptions are presented as if they are individual
are the important points in a chapter of the text, students facts with little development of their role in an argument.
will reveal that they highlight what seem to be important A particularly common feature of such texts that is in-
facts and definitions and perhaps the topic sentences of tended to aid students in learning, but one which may
paragraphs. Again an inspection of their notes often re- hinder them instead, is the tendency to highlight terms
veals a fragmentary list that is based on clues in the text and their definitions. This may be done by simply high-
and guidance provided by the publishers, such as highlighting the term and its definition in the body of the text
lighted terms and definitions. Moreover, the students’ ap- or reproducing it in the margin of the text, or even includ-
proach toward the reading and lecture material presented ing a list of terms and their definitions in another place in
to them suggests strongly that they believe their task is to the book. While this feature is intended to help students,
identify and remember the important pieces of informa- it reinforces the belief that terms are isolated pieces of
tion embedded in the material so it can be recalled on ex- information whose definition should be memorized. Stu-
ams. When they question their professors as to what they dents need to realize that terms play a role in an argument
must know for an upcoming exam, what they are often and that the way in which a term is defined has conse-
asking is to have the professor separate the information quences for how the subject is understood. They need to
that they must memorize from the information that they realize that many of the most important terms can have
need not recall. Another form of this request is the plea more than one definition and that the particular defini-
that the professor provide a study guide for the exam. tion was a choice made by the authors of the text to fit
Again the request is usually for a list of the items that their understanding of the subject. Further, students need
are to be remembered for the exam. It seems plausible to realize how using the term in its context contributes to
that this tendency to focus on discrete bits of information understanding the subject. Understanding all of this is ac-
is strongly reinforced by the pervasive use of machine- tually harder when the term and its definition are isolated
scored, multiple-choice examinations. from the context in which they are used.
These students have not been taught that they are
reading or listening to an argument. They do not grasp The Course as an Argument and the
the need to go through the material critically to bring Necessity and Desirability of Lectures
out the structure of the argument so they can develop an
understanding of the material, yet understanding is the The idea that a college course is an argument tends
goal of the learning process. And there are other factors to suggest that the professor will the one to present the
that reinforce their misconception about the process of argument and that in turn suggests the need for the pro-
learning. The contemporary college textbook is often a fessor to give lectures as the vehicles for presenting the
very poorly developed argument. Such texts are written argument. However, while the need for college students
and published with the intention that they be adopted by to be able to read more critically is never disputed, lec-
the largest possible number of professors. As a result, tures have come under attack in recent years from those
authors usually try to accommodate as many approaches who argue that they are a poor method of education. The
to the subject matter as possible. This requires adopting most common criticism of lectures is that they turn stu-
no single point of view from which an argument can be dents into a passive audience whose members simply
take down information from the professor so it can be lack of concentration that students manifest is a conse-
memorized and restated on an exam. John C. Bean ar- quence of being passive observers of an activity they do
gues that “Lecture courses, by nature, place students in not understand and the fact they have not learned the skill
a passive role and imply a transmission theory of knowl- of concentrating.
edge in which students ‘receive’ the ideas and informa- Students must also be taught explicitly that their
tion ‘sent’ by the instructor.” (Bean, 2001, p. 169) This texts and lectures are arguments that they can come to
description of the lecture process treats the mind of the understand and that will give them a more sophisticated
student as if it is simply a recording device which takes and systematic understanding of the subject of the course.
down the sounds within earshot. But of course the brain They can be taught that this is the goal of an academic
is no such thing, and the actual relationship between the course. They can learn that taking a college course is not
lecturer and the student is much more complex. At least a matter of sorting through a bewildering mass of mate-
Bean adds ideas to what the professor is “transmitting.” rial and memorizing as much of it as possible, but that it
Many descriptions of lectures state simply that they are is a more manageable task of identifying and learning the
used to transmit information. But the term ‘information’ structure and content of what is considered to be knowl-
hides much more than it reveals about the content of lec- edge in a particular subject. Such students are more able
tures. In everyday language information is taken to refer to focus their studies, learn much more efficiently, and do
to individual facts, terms, etc. The idea that the professor far more with the content of the course than repeat it on
is revealing an entire structure of thought about important examinations.
phenomena is not even hinted at by the word ‘informa- The implication of this is that far too little time is
tion.’ As for the student, he is interpreting, comparing, spent training students in these skills. While a great deal
analyzing, considering the significance of various points, of effort is expended in asking how the critical thinking
relating what is being said to his own previous knowledge skills of students can be developed, much improvement
and experience, engaging in a process that will transform of student performance in college could be achieved if
what was said by the professor into the argument he be- the way students perform in lectures was not so often
lieves she is trying to help students understand. taken as a given that cannot be changed and that requires
This characterization of the student’s activities is a the abandonment of lectures as a teaching technique.
brief, incomplete description of what should be happen- Lectures are central to the contribution made by profes-
ing. For this to be the case the student must be aware of sors to the learning of their students. Lectures, like read-
the course as an extended argument and, consequently, of ing materials, require students to stretch their minds, to
what she must do to attend to a lecture to maximize her grasp concepts, ideas, and ways of thinking that they do
understanding. If a student is unaware of these things, if not possess when they enter the classroom. It is a dif-
she thinks a lecture is an activity in which she is only an ficult process that requires a great deal of effort, is often
observer whose task is to “identify the important points,” frustrating, and inevitably includes mistakes and failures
perhaps write them down, and then later memorize them, in the process of improving. But the level and amount
she will be the passive receptor portrayed by the critics of of content that can be transmitted through lectures and
lectures. The student will be bored, her mind will wander through reading cannot be included in a course in any
aimlessly during much of the class period, or she will be other way. To eliminate one of these teaching strategies
texting during much of the class period. Active, engaged or to fail to prepare students to make the maximum use
interaction with a lecturer, just as with a written text, of them is to drastically limit what can be taught and
involves a set of intellectual skills that must be devel- learned.
oped. The beginning of such learning requires awareness
of one’s thought processes. Most of us do not regularly The Professor’s Responsibility for
pay conscious attention to our own thought processes. Improving Students’ Critical Thinking Skills
We take such activities as natural and do not attempt to
control them. However, when we are engaged in thinking The more extreme critics of lecturing as a teaching
critically while interacting with written or oral material, method often refer to the professor as “the sage on the
we need to have the habit of consciously engaging the stage.” It is a clever epithet. It reminds one of labeling the
material in order to reveal the structure of the argument estate tax “the death tax.” These terms conjure up nega-
that is being presented to us. First, this means that we tive images that can be used to condemn something with-
must pay attention. Critics of lectures often argue that out the need for actually analyzing what is being con-
students lack the ability to pay attention to an oral presen- demned. The idea that a lecturer is “the sage on the stage”
tation for more than a few minutes. Yet, the same students reminds one of the professor who enters a large lecture
attend long movies, read novels, and otherwise engage in hall, steps to the podium and launches into a lecture that
activities that require long periods of concentration. The may be intelligent, informed, and well delivered, but is
SPRING 2011, VOL. 26, NO. 1 53
beyond the comprehension of the students who listen, or therance of these goals. Colleges and universities should
fail to listen, while the self-satisfied professor drones on be encouraged to build into their curriculums a goal of
without a thought as to whether he is getting anything developing these skills in their students, rather than as-
across to the students. When he finishes the lecture, the suming that students enter college with these skills either
professor strides from the lecture hall and returns to his fully developed or without the ability to learn them.
office where he can return to the more important activity
of working on his latest research project, having fulfilled The Importance of Other
his teaching obligations. Certainly such professors exist Teaching Strategies
and they should be criticized. The more typical profes-
sor, however, is interested in having her students learn If this paper stopped at this point, readers would be
the subject to which she has dedicated her career. How- justified in concluding that the author believes that all
ever, good intentions are not enough. Just as students are college courses should be lecture courses and that profes-
often unaware of the task that is before them, professors sors should only lecture. This would be a complete mis-
often underestimate the gap between their understanding understanding of the author’s position. We began with the
of the subject and that of their students. Certainly they point that a course is an argument and that each subunit
understand that students need to be educated, but the of the course is an argument that is part of the larger argu-
task of creating lectures that both do justice to the sub- ment that is the course. In developing each section of the
ject and can be followed and understood by students is a course, a professor should take full advantage of the full
much more difficult task than is often realized. Lectures array of written assignments, discussions, class exercises,
must stretch the student’s mind yet be within his grasp. and every form of activity that is often discussed as “en-
The process of obtaining and using a graduate education gaging” the students. The professor should ask herself the
creates within the professor ways of thinking about the nature of the concepts, ideas, questions, phenomena, con-
subject that become second nature. It may be very dif- clusions, consequences, and so forth she will be bringing
ficult for the professor to envision the real gap between into the course at any point. Then she should ask which
herself and her students. As a consequence she underes- types of assignments can best enhance and deepen stu-
timates her responsibilities and the size and complexity dents’ understanding of those points and how she can fur-
of her task. This may be particularly true for the young ther their understanding of the course material. The idea
professor who is less likely to aware of the gap between of engaging students in activities to help them learn is not
herself and her students. Good lectures, and good lectur- new. Plato wrote dialogues because he believed that if
ing, are created by a process of development, discovery, students acted out the dialogues or read them they would
and evolution. Every method of feedback available to the learn better. In a number of disciplines laboratory sec-
professor must be used to determine whether her lecture tions are included in a course to further student learning
is clear, accurate, and can be understood by the attentive, through active engagement. Note that the laboratory does
interested student. Thus the professor with the yellowed not replace the rest of the course; it enhances it. This au-
lecture notes who gives the same lectures semester after thor wishes his courses included such explicit additional
semester is another example of the professor who should time to allow both lecturing and activities to further the
not be in a classroom. Conscientious professors are con- learning. At some major universities introductory courses
stantly reading and thinking about their subject to deepen are often a combination of lectures by the professor and
and broaden their own understanding. Another distortion “discussion sections” to explore the ideas presented more
that comes from the view that lectures are just a way of deeply. The point is that such activities do not replace
conveying information is the implication that the profes- the lecture or the assigned readings; they enhance them
sor only need know a very limited set of information that and strengthen the course. This is the proper relationship
she is to convey to her students, just what the course de- among various elements of a course.
scription covers, and no more. However, the deeper and
broader the professor’s knowledge and understanding of Conclusions
her subject the more she will have from which to draw in
creating strong lectures that aid students in learning the A college course is an argument. It is the task of a
subject. college professor to construct that argument and to de-
It is necessary to think in terms of incorporating strat- velop a set of teaching materials, including lectures and
egies, assignments, exercises, and any other techniques readings, that maximize her students’ ability to under-
that can be used to improve student’s ability to read criti- stand the argument that is the course, and thus to help
cally and to attend lectures critically. It would require an- them become more systematic thinkers about that sub-
other paper to do justice to the many techniques that have ject. To accomplish this goal, the professor must be aware
been developed, tested, and used over the years in fur- of the gap between her ability to think critically about
the subject and her students’ ability to do so. She should Politics. He spent 9 years on the Political Science Faculty
make a concerted effort to include assignments and dis- at Indiana University-Purdue University, Fort Wayne. Dr.
cussions designed to increase her students’ critical read- Codispoti is the author of articles on political ambition,
ing and listening skills, and she must include assignments the Lieutenant Governorship of Texas, and environmen-
that aid them in understanding her and making use of her tal interest groups. He received his Ph.D. from Michigan
argument in thinking about the subject. State University. Contact Information: Frank Codispoti,
No professor, however, can make much progress Professor of Political Science, Department of Political
on her own in enhancing her student’s critical reading Science, Lone Star College-CyFair, 9191 Barker Cypress
and listening skills. Colleges and universities must quit Road, Cypress, TX 77433-1383. Phone (281) 290-3923
treating students as if they come to college understand- and email [email protected].
ing already how to read critically and how to listen criti-
cally, or, alternatively, that they are incapable of learning
these skills. Instead colleges must train their students in
the skills they need to succeed in college. The students
deserve no less.
Finally, one can wish that college faculty would re-
fuse, en masse, to write or to adopt college textbooks that
are crutches for students who have not learned to read
critically and which make it more difficult for them to
learn these skills. If a faculty member wishes to write a
textbook, let her write one that is a coherent argument on
the subject of the course. Let her refuse to have the pages
littered with “teaching aids” that are really no such thing.
Let professors adopt such texts. One need not fully agree
with the argument that is presented, but it is much easier
to teach the subject by working through an argument with
one’s students and offering alternatives or having them
think about alternatives than it is for them to learn by us-
ing what currently passes for a college text book in many
disciplines.
References
Adler, M. J., & Van Doren, C. (1972). How to read a book. Re-
vised and updated edition. New York: Simon & Schuster,
Inc.
Bean, J. C. (2001). Engaging ideas: The professor’s guide to
integrating writing, critical thinking, and active learning
in the classroom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Burgan, M. (2006). In defense of lecturing. Change: The Mag-
azine of Higher Learning, 38(6), 30-34. Retrieved from
ERIC (Accession No. EJ772134)
Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2006) Critical thinking: Learning the
tools the best thinkers use. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pear-
son-Prentice Hall.
Weston, A. (2008). A rulebook for arguments. 4th Ed. India-
napolis, IN: Hackett Publishing, Inc.
Author Information
Frank Codispoti is Professor of Political Science at

Lone Star College-CyFair. For 17 years prior to joining
the faculty at CyFair he was a member of the Political
Science Faculty at Stephen F. Austin State University
where he taught Political Theory and American and Texas
SPRING 2011, VOL. 26, NO. 1 55
Critical Thinking and Social Interaction in the Online Environment

Idolina Hernandez, Lone Star College – CyFair
Abstract
Critical thinking is often assumed to be an integral part of learning in higher education. This learn-
ing increasingly takes place in the online environment, where students and faculty are challenged
to engage in a collaborative project of critical thinking. This paper seeks to explore the process of
critical thinking that is currently taking place online and proposes that social interaction and the so-
cial construction of knowledge are integral parts of this process. Discussion boards from economics,
history, and sociology are discussed as examples of how critical thinking is developed in the online
environment.
Keywords: Critical Thinking, Social Interaction, Social Construction
Critical thinking is something that is often aspired ter, but that have a significant online component (Allen
to in teaching, but it varies widely in definition. For the & Seaman, 2010). While distance learning courses are
purpose of this analysis, critical thinking is defined as asynchronous, their delivery historically has varied dra-
the evaluation of ideas, sources and information that matically through correspondence, radio, and televised
is purposeful. It is a process that allows for individu- courses (Larreamendy-Joerns, Leindhardt, 2006). The
als to deliberate, question, and assess information or importance of the online delivery method today is due
situations that are experienced or presented (Brookfield, to the rapid growth of the internet as well as an acces-
1987; Halpern, 1998). The emphasis on the “process” sibility that has allowed for this method of instruction to
does not offer a comprehensive definition as defined by be widely used by nonprofit and for profit institutions of
an emphasis on argumentation (Ennis, 1962), but other higher learning.
conceptions of critical thinking take into account impor- In the online environment, dispositions, attitudes,
tant aspects that include prior skill sets, ability, attitudes, academic background, access to resources, and prior
social environment, and social contexts (Abrami, et al., knowledge of the use of technology all affect how criti-
2008; Makoe, Richardson, & Price, 2008; Nieto & Saiz, cal thinking is exercised in the online classroom (Edge
2010). All of these factors contribute to processes in- & Loegering, 2000; Farber, 1998). Dispositions in the
volved in critical thinking engagement. critical thinking context refer to the preparation and past
An important question that this inquiry addresses is experiences that students bring to the critical thinking
whether online learning can promote elements important process. Institutionalization of online learning has pro-
in critical thinking development. The literature available vided a window of access to previously excluded popu-
on the topic indicates that key elements to critical think- lations; however, there are questions about the types of
ing in a face to face classroom are the same ones neces- students who sign up for these courses and whether or
sary for the development of successful instruction in the not they have the dispositions that will help them to suc-
online environment. ceed (Larreamendy-Joerns & Leindhardt, 2006; Edge &
Loegering, 2000).
What is online learning? I contend that aspects of critical thinking that are
often associated with the face to face environment can
Online learning is a particular type of distance be fostered through interactive processes in an online
learning that can be defined as learning that occurs ex- class. An assessment of what Ennis (1989) called the
clusively through and mediated on the internet (Tall- “infusion” of critical thinking into an online course en-
ent-Runnels et al., 2006; Allen & Seaman, 2010). The vironment will give evidence that social processes of in-
components discussed here are applicable to web based teraction and knowledge construction are important in
education as well as online learning. Web based educa- understanding how the critical thinking process can be
tion refers to education where work and activities for a conducted and evaluated.
class are provided through the internet as a supplement
to face to face instruction. Hybrid courses are those in Critical Thinking and Social Interaction
which interactions vary depending on the structure of the
course and which can be identified as courses that meet Two important perspectives are explored here. The
face to face several times during the course of a semes- first is based on theoretical assumptions embedded in so-
cial interaction theory, and the second is based on the so- the direct result of being a part of a group and society.
cial constructionist approach. Both of these theories are Social control is exercised through the behavior control
linked in the way in which they address the importance that is the result of self criticism. We are who we are, not
of society in creating meaning. Interactions are a part of because we are socially controlled, but because we are a
and embedded within the critical thinking process. The part of society and acquiesce to the expectations inherent
theories emphasize important elements that apply to the in social interactions.
online learning environment, elements which include Online communication offers students the opportu-
the role of the individual, the role of groups, character- nity to apply critical thinking by interacting with infor-
istic social interactions, and the production of knowl- mation provided by the group. Students who engage in
edge that occurs through these interactions. The online the critical thinking process will be deliberate about the
environment provides a unique opportunity for students way in which they assess the information’s usefulness
to derive and construct meaning from their interactions and then apply it. Effective instructional strategies will
in a way that accomplishes the same goals expected of challenge the student to assess information provided by
face to face classrooms. Asynchronous interactions en- others in the online course. While the students’ respons-
gage the process of critical thinking through knowledge es may be asynchronous, the “tone” and expectations
production. This collaborative process allows students generated by faculty and fellow students will affect the
to evaluate information presented by their peers and in- way in which a student responds to the information, and
structors. Students are also able to assess the validity and the student will tend to express conclusions based on his/
“truths” (Ennis, 1989; McPeck, 1984) of evidence pre- her sense of what the social expectations of the online
sented to support claims and are challenged to develop group are believed to be.
their own conclusions in the context of online learning. The other important component in this process
The social interaction perspective is derived from is that of the self, where the experiences that students
the important theoretical foundation established by bring to the classroom will shape how they engage in
George Herbert Mead (Mead, 1967). Mead provided a the critical thinking process. For example, knowledge
framework for studying the individual and the creation of the material being discussed, access to resources, and
of consciousness as directly connected to society. The writing skills are integral to engagement in critical think-
self is generated from the process of social interaction. ing. These elements of self, however, often are managed
Language, which is learned through socialization, is the carefully in generating responses that will be read by
means by which meaning is understood in social interac- others. Critical thinking in the online environment is not
tion and is therefore essential to an understanding of the just the result of an individual’s consciousness; it is a
social world. Through the use of language, the self is process that is dependent on social interaction and most
developed by creating a consciousness that is both indi- often mediated through language in the form or writing
vidual and the result of society. This sense of self creates in the online environment.
the necessity for individuals to understand themselves in
the context of social interaction. They develop a deeper Social Construction and
understanding by molding their actions according to per- Knowledge Production
ceived expectations from the group. This is what Mead
refers to as taking the role of the other. Role taking then The social construction approach provides a theo-
generates a controlled response from the individual that retical framework that helps us to understand how this
takes into account not only the individual, but also the online environment encourages critical thinking skills. It
expectations of conduct within the group. This process focuses on the process of how meaning is created based
generates a cooperative environment through expected on social context, language, and social norms in devel-
patterns in communication. oping an understanding of society (Berger & Luckmann
An important component of taking the role of the 1966; Burr 1995). Social construction in the online en-
other is that of social control. Social interactions often vironment takes many forms as a result of the different
establish a set of rules and expectations generated by the tools that are used to generate interaction. From the in-
group; therefore, individuals temper their own responses dividual perspective student experiences, social context,
in interactions based on these expectations. While this and dispositions affect the way in which the students in-
could be construed as a constraint, Mead (Mead, 1967) teract with the tools available in an online class. These
asserts that this is an element essential to an understand- characteristics then influence the different ways in which
ing of whom the individual is. The individual’s sense students apply the critical thinking process in their inter-
of self is the result of social interactions, so rather than actions. Unlike a face to face class, students in the on-
lessening individuality, this process of social interaction line environment have the opportunity to think about the
is what creates individuality. Self consciousness thus is ways in which they apply language and meaning in writ-
SPRING 2011, VOL. 26, NO. 1 57
ing responses, such as responses to postings on to things plication in the online classroom. Online programs are
such as discussion boards. The social interactions gener- available at public, nonprofit and for profit institutions
ated in the online environment allow students to develop of higher education. Advantages cited about these pro-
these important skills by building an understanding that grams include increased access and cost savings. In the
is based on constructed knowledge. last couple of years, online enrollments have grown
Berger and Luckmann (1966) propose that concep- exponentially, accounting for over twenty-five percent
tions and understanding are developed through social of all enrollments in some higher education institutions
interactions. Meaning is constructed to maintain or chal- (Allen & Seaman 2010).
lenge the social consensus. These social meanings are Despite the tremendous growth in these courses, re-
the result of both interactions and social context. The search on their effectiveness and quality is still needed.
social processes developed through these interactions Administrators at institutions of higher education are
and context will in turn affect participants’ perceptions increasingly optimistic about these courses. A survey
of reality and their understanding. The key components by the Babson Survey Group for the Sloan Consortium
in this process are language and knowledge that is both (Allen & Seaman, 2010) found that sixty-six percent
constituted by and constrained by the individuals who of chief academic officers perceived online courses to
produce it. Social reality and knowledge production are be as good as or better than face to face courses. How-
a social construction in this interactive process. ever, the effectiveness of these courses and how they
Therefore, the critical thinking process that pro- are connected to learning outcomes and success is still
motes evaluation of information, development of under- controversial. A recent study comparing online learning
standing and critical application of knowledge can be and face to face classes found that certain groups fare
viewed as a process of social construction. Participants worse in online courses than face to face classes (Fi-
reflect on their own social position in the context of time glio, Rush & Yin, 2010). These studies show that there
and space, generated through asynchronous interaction, is significant work to be done to truly assess the quality
and generated in multiple locations. These interactions and effectiveness of online teaching if it is to serve the
allow for the creation of shared meaning and generation purpose of creating a more educated and prepared stu-
of new ideas. Students then are able to engage in criti- dent population.
cal thinking with other students in the course as well as Because critical thinking often is cited as an impor-
the instructor. The end result of critical thinking in the tant part of the aims of education and because online
online environment is the creation of knowledge that re- courses are taught at the community college, university,
sults from the social interactions as well as the attributes and graduate level, it is important to begin to understand
that the individual uses to generate this knowledge. the different ways in which faculty and students are
Based on these theoretical perspectives, online creating vibrant and relevant critical thinking discourse
learning provides a unique opportunity to extend the in the online environment. The process of knowledge
traditional experience of writing into a deliberate tool production that is available in this delivery method can
for promoting critical thinking through an interactive help both faculty and students to enter into a reflexive
process. When directed activities are embedded within dialectical process that enriches not only the interaction
the online learning environment, students can engage in online, but can extend to the classroom through web en-
critical thinking through a collaborative rather than in- hanced assignments (Valima & Hoffman, 2008).
dividual process. The importance of the use of language
through writing provides a framework through which Analyzing critical thinking exercises from
students can enter this reflexive process (Cohen & Spen- a multidisciplinary perspective
cer, 1993).
The elements mentioned in this analysis by no Several articles analyze the different ways in which
means constitute a comprehensive conception of critical researchers assess online courses and the learning that
thinking. This analysis is meant to capture what McPeck takes place in them. These reviews demonstrate that the
(1984) called the “complexity of everyday problems” (p. understanding of what online research is varies widely.
35), which can be used to acknowledge the importance There are also significant differences as they related to
of the complexity of the critical thinking process itself technology, access, technical support for faculty and the
through social interaction and social construction. population of students who take these courses as well
As the online environment continues to be seen as (Tallent-Runnels et al., 2006). However, the tools avail-
a means to ameliorate pressures that colleges and uni- able to incorporate this process provide an important
versities are undergoing, it is important to understand means in which to re-imagine the ways by which critical
the impact that these instructional methodologies have thinking is developed and how knowledge is created in
on how critical thinking is understood as well as its ap- the online classroom.
Online instruction offers opportunities for critical thinking still happening? In constructing a post students
thinking development, but its implementation has to be access their personal experiences and knowledge. How-
deliberate and supported through course outcomes and ever, if the purpose of an online discussion board is to
classroom management. The literature shows a direct develop interactions that result in critical thinking, then
relationship between the types of tools used and how interaction beyond an initial response to the question
they are connected to course requirements (Abrami et posted needs to be achieved.
al., 2008). In addition, students often report favorable Another important aspect of discussion boards is the
impressions about courses that use technology as part of mediation provided by the instructor. Mediated discus-
their instruction (Koeber, 2005). sion boards are those in which faculty actively partici-
An important element of successful implementation pate in mediating posts. Mediation allows for increased
of critical thinking in online courses is the incorporation accountability, reflection, and purposeful discussion for
of explicit critical thinking objectives. (Abrami et al., students (Greenlaw & DeLoach, 2003). In promoting
2008). These critical thinking learning objectives serve critical thinking that focuses on the evaluation and un-
to set the tone for the courses and are a simple step that derstanding of material to generate their own views, un-
faculty can take to ensure that critical thinking is part of mediated discussion boards could have the unintended
students’ expectations in a particular course. The rein- effect of allowing students to promote claims that are
forcement of these learning objectives through the use of unsubstantiated and diminish the overall critical think-
tools such as discussion boards develops a dynamic in- ing that may be produced in a discussion post.
teraction where students challenge and collaborate with Mediation is therefore the preferred mode used by
one another as they learn the course material. faculty in the discussion boards. However, this interven-
The challenge that faculty face as they transition to tion strategy needs to be balanced with an understand-
this modality is to develop the way that they explicitly ing of the instructor as guide rather than as the “source”
incorporate critical thinking in the online classroom. The for answers. Too much intervention by a faculty mem-
tools provided by the online mediated environment vary ber in the online environment can stifle the collabora-
depending on the system that a particular school may be tive critical thinking process generated by students. Too
using; however, research shows that the role of faculty as little intervention can result in posts that do not extend or
creators and mediators is key in managing these online challenge students’ thinking. Students’ critical thinking
tools. is enhanced by having students respond to one another,
thereby generating the type of discussion that is often
Discussion Boards encouraged in the face to face environment.
The following discussion board examples provide
While there are many other tools that can demon- instances of how to evaluate the critical thinking process
strate critical thinking, such as videos, audio files, pre- in the online environment. This multidisciplinary sam-
sentations, etc., access to these tools is based on the types pling provides insights into strategies that are necessary
of technology and support provided at each institution to engage students in the critical thinking process in the
of higher learning. However, discussion boards are very online environment. Each of the different disciplines ap-
commonly found in online courses, and therefore they plies elements that are connected to their learning out-
can provide a way to assess the role of social interaction comes. They also share important elements that create
and social construction in the critical thinking process in an online environment where students socially construct
online courses. meaning through social interaction.
Because discussion boards are asynchronous they
allow for students to reflect in a purposeful way on in- Economics
formation. They provide a means for students to think An analysis of the discussion boards of a web en-
reflectively about the way in which they deliver and hanced course by Greenlaw & DeLoach (2003) was
present information, and also they enable students to re- based on a taxonomy that focused on different levels
spond to a variety of viewpoints (Greenlaw & Deloach, of critical thinking in an economics course. They cat-
2003). While these can be viewed as a traditional writ- egorized the levels in a rubric that focused on specific
ing assignments, they differ in that students are expected demonstrated skills in discussion boards. These included
to evaluate and assess many viewpoints and respond to categories that assessed posts as having simple facts,
them in turn. posts that developed an argument, and posts that drew
Discussion boards often are constructed so that the specific conclusions. These definitions are in line with
student is to respond to a particular question or analyze a traditional understanding of critical thinking that em-
a particular issue. This encourages students to make ini- phasizes logic and argumentation; however, their taxon-
tial postings. If the process stops at that point, is critical omy and evaluation of postings aligned with McPeck’s
SPRING 2011, VOL. 26, NO. 1 59
(1984) argument for the need to address both “truth” and Persell found that students were much more engaged in
complexity in critical thinking development. The way in the critical thinking process through the online discus-
which students interacted in the discussion environment sion boards. Directing them to post before class encour-
showed that there were important ways in which the in- aged students to organize the ways in which they thought
teractions allowed for students to engage in collaborative about the different issues being addressed in class. The
construction of these arguments. The emphasis on com- requirement to post after class allowed for students to
plexity in posts demonstrated that students were engaged reassess their initial assumptions and to evaluate what
in a process of evaluating information and then develop- other students had written. The frequency of these ex-
ing conclusions that were based on their own thinking, pected interactions created an environment where stu-
as well as on what others were generating. Overall, their dents had to actively participate and engage other stu-
study found that students demonstrated critical thinking dents. The analysis also showed that students that who
skills through the interactions provided in the discussion were silent in the face to face class actively participated
boards. in the online environment. Their interactions allowed for
them to socially construct meaning from two different
History perspectives, posts before class and posts after class.
Lyons’ (2004) examination of the role of discus- This type of discussion board promoted the evaluation
sion boards in his history class, was based on setting and assessment of information as well as increased par-
clear parameters about what the expectations were for ticipation by students who may not have been as com-
each of the required posts. Specific guidelines provided fortable in voicing their understanding of material in the
deadlines, expected length of discussions, as well as face to face class.
criteria for replies to other students’ posts. The discus- As the findings from these different studies show,
sion boards were based on the use of original histori- this tool allows for a reflexive exchange of ideas in the
cal documentation that students had to discuss. They evaluation of information and critical application of
were expected to reflect on the material and on the dif- knowledge. This construction of meaning through social
ferent ways in which other students posted about it in interaction fostered by emphasis on complexity, clear
the online environment. This generated increased social guidelines, and promoting increased participation can
interaction between participants and allowed for them make discussion boards an effective means to encourage
to engage in critical thinking skills through this a col- critical thinking in the online environment.
laborative process. Lyons (2004) claims that the use of
discussion boards created a safe forum for students to Conclusions
participate more actively in the online environment than
they would have in a face to face class. The emphasis Discussion boards are just one device being used in
on clear expectations about how to engage in the pro- the online environment that shows promise in promoting
cess of discussion provided an opportunity for students critical thinking. This tool is effective because it is based
to deliberate and assess information in an environment on social interaction both amongst students and through
that promoted the use of critical analysis rather than just the creation of information that is posted. Following
stating opinions. best practices for discussion boards allows students to
apply the critical thinking process to information pre-
Sociology sented and gives the instructor a sense of how material
Sociology often deals with controversial topics that is being understood in a class. Discussion boards that
require students to engage in the critical thinking pro- provide for a reflexive exchange of information among
cesses and develop what is called the sociological imagi- students give them flexibility and an ability to question
nation. The sociological imagination becomes evident in and justify their own understanding of concepts by al-
the connections that students make between their own lowing students to become experts as they evaluate ideas
experiences and what they observe in society. Persell from other classmates. This interactive process leads to
(2004) developed a study that sought to assess differ- social construction and knowledge production resulting
ent aspects of the collaborative critical thinking process. from a critical thinking process that is purposeful, has
Students were asked to participate by posting discus- set parameters, and is mediated by the instructor. These
sions both before and after class meetings, and students interactions are similar to those that one would expect to
were encouraged to evaluate postings by other students find in the face to face classroom.
in a reflective way. A three point scale was used to assess The growth of online learning gives faculty and stu-
complexity in the writing by students. The scale mea- dents a means to engage in the critical thinking process
sured how “sociological” the writing was as well as the in a new ways. By focusing on the importance of social
“complexity of thought.” Compared to previous classes, interactions in critical thinking development, we can
begin to see how the reflexive nature of online posting Brookfield, S. D. (1987). Developing critical thinkers: Chal-
allows for collaboration amongst faculty and students. lenging adults to explore alternative ways of thinking and
While elements of critical thinking may differ in scope acting. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishing.
for certain disciplines, it is interesting to see that even Burr, V. (1995). An introduction to social constructionism.
London: Routledge.
though the tools, such as discussion boards, are being
Greenlaw, S. A., & DeLoach, S. B. (2003). Teaching critical
used by different disciplines, there are observable simi-
thinking with electronic discussion. The Journal of Eco-
larities in the ways in which students socially construct nomic Education, 34(1), 36-52.
an understanding of the information provided. As tech- Edge, W. D., & Loegering, J. P. (2000). Distance education:
nology improves and the tools for online learning con- Expanding learning opportunities. Wildlife Society Bulle-
tinue to be refined, the opportunities for further study tin, 28(3), 522-533.
of how critical thinking can be infused in courses will Ennis, R. H. (1962). A concept of critical thinking. Harvard
continue. Educational Review, 32, 81-111.
While the benefits of online learning are consid- Ennis, R. H. (1989). Critical thinking and subject specificity:
erable, there are some limitations to what can be done Clarification and needed research. American Educational
in the online environment. Student dispositions, prior Research Association, 18(3), 4-10.
Farber, J. (1998). The third circle: On education and distance
skills, set and prior knowledge definitely can affect their
learning. Sociological Perspectives, 41(4), 797-814.
engagement in the critical thinking process. The multi-
Figlio, D. N., Rush, M., & Yin, Lu. (2010). Is it live or is it
ple social contexts in an online environment, as well as internet? Experimental estimates of the effects of online
their “real” environment also affect a student’s’ under- instruction on student learning. (NBER Working Paper
standing of the process of learning and critical thinking 16089). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic
(Makoe et al., 2008). Research. Retrieved from www.nber.org/papers/w16089
Quality of instruction should remain an important Halpern, D. F. (2003) Teaching critical thinking for transfer
issue in evaluation of these classes as online learning across domains. American Psychologist, 53(4), 449-455.
expands access to students. Positive perceptions of on- Koeber, C. (2005). Introducing multimedia presentations and a
line classes will continue to increase if instruction suc- course website to an introductory sociology course: How
cessfully integrates critical thinking processes. How- technology affects student perceptions of teaching effec-
tiveness. Teaching Sociology, 33(3), 285-300.
ever, faculty development processes and reevaluation
Larreamendy-Joerns, J., & Leinhardt, G. (2006). Going the
of traditional learning axioms used in the face to face
distance with online education. Review of Educational
classroom need to be re-imagined to be used effectively Research, 76(4), 567-605.
in the online environment (Powell & Keen, 2006; Lea Lea, S. J., & Callaghan, L. (2008). Lecturers on teaching with
& Callaghan, 2008). Through an understanding of how the ‘supercomplexity’ of higher education. Higher Educa-
social interaction and social construction are a part of tion, 56(5), 171-187.
critical thinking, the tools provided in online learning Lyons, J. F. (2004). Teaching U.S. history online: Problems
can be used effectively to engage students in this pro- and prospects. The History Teacher, 37(4), 447-456.
cess. Makoe, M., Richardson, J. T. E., & Price, L. (2008). Concep-
tions of learning in adult students embarking on distance
References education. Higher Education, 55(3), 303-320.
McPeck, J. E. (1984). Stalking beasts, but swatting flies: The
teaching of critical thinking. Canadian Journal of Educa-
Abrami, P. C., Bernard, R. M., Boroskhovski E., Wade, A.,
tion/Revue canadienne de l’education, 9(1), 28-44.
Surkes, M. A., Tamim, R., & Zhang, D. (2008). Instruc-
Mead, G. H (1967, original 1934). Works of George Herbert
tional interventions affecting critical thinking skills and
Mead Volume 1: Mind, self and society from the stand-
dispositions: A stage 1 meta-analysis. American Educa-
point of a social behaviorist. Charles Morris (Ed.). Chi-
tional Research Association, 78(4), 1102-1134.
cago: University of Chicago Press.
Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2010). Class differences: Online ed-
Nieto, A. M., & Saiz, C. (2010). Critical thinking: A question
ucation in the United States. Retrieved from sloanconsor-
of aptitude and attitude? Inquiry: Critical Thinking
tium.org/publications/survey/pdf/class_differences.pdf
Across the Disciplines, 25(2), 19-25.
Berger, P. L. & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction
Persell, C. H. (2004). Using focus web-based discussions to
of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. New
enhance student engagement and deep understanding.
York: Doubleday.
Teaching Sociology, 32(1), 61-68.
Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Lou, Y., Borokhovski, E., Wade,
Powell, R., & Keen, C. (2006). The axiomatic trap: Stultify-
A., Wozney, L., Wallet, P. A., Fiset, M., & Huang, B.
ing myths in distance education. Higher Education, 52(2),
(2004). How does distance education compare with class-
283-201.
room instruction? Review of Educational Research, 74(3),
379-339.
SPRING 2011, VOL. 26, NO. 1 61
Tallent-Runnels, M. K., Thomas, J., William, Y. L., Cooper,

S., Terrence, C. A., Shaw, S. M., & Xiaoming, L. (2006).
Teaching courses online: A review of the research. Review
of Educational Research, 76(1), 93-135.
Valimaa, J., & Hoffman, D. (2008). Knowledge society dis-
course and higher education. Review of Educational Re-
search, 74(3), 256-285.
Author Information
Idolina Hernandez received her Master of Arts de-

gree from Boston College. She is a professor of Sociol-
ogy and Lead Faculty in the Sociology Department at
Lone Star College-Cy Fair where she teaches Sociology
courses, both face to face and online. She can be con-
tacted at [email protected].
Tools of Critical Thinking: Metathoughts for Psychology

by David Levy
Waveland Press, 2009, Second Edition, 298 pages
Reviewed by Heather M. Mong and Benjamin A. Clegg
David Levy’s Tools of Critical Thinking: tendency to apply tautological reasoning. The text’s ex-
Metathoughts for Psychology offers readers a broad ar- amples in this category are largely psychological disor-
ray of pitfalls in critical thinking as well as “antidotes” to ders, like insomnia — “Why does she have difficulty fall-
enhance rational thought. This is a quick and well-written ing or staying asleep?” “Because she has insomnia.” The
read that includes insights from social and cognitive psy- prescribed antidote is to remember that having a name
chology, and also clinical practice. The presentation is for a thing is not the same as having an explanation for
interesting, and the style engaging. The book is aimed that thing. To give some sense of the brevity of Levy’s
at current and future practitioners and scientists within treatment, this whole topic is covered in the book with
psychology, and also contains many important and use- two pages of text, some quotations, an exercise, and a
ful elements for those outside the field. Potential flaws glossary of terms which stretch the chapter across a total
in critical thinking are addressed through a review of 30 of five pages. You can quickly pick up the chapter, read it,
errors, fallacies, effects, biases, and heuristics, and Levy and move on, but the exploration is not deep, nor are you
then offers some steps you can take to try to detect or directed to sources where you could find greater detail
avoid those problems. Essentially problems are identified (one place to start for a greater discussion of such falla-
as occurring within two major groups: (1) scientific or cies would be Hansen & Pinto, 1995).
logical errors and (2) errors arising from the general na- In discussing reification errors, in which abstract
ture of human cognition. concepts or constructs are treated as concrete things,
Scientific or logical errors occur when there is either Levy classifies theories as either being event theories or
a misunderstanding of the workings of the natural world construct theories. Event theories are directly measurable
or a faulty conclusion is drawn from improper reasoning. while construct theories can only be indirectly measured.
These are mistakes that should typically be discussed in Further, Levy defines event theories as being provable
experimental methods or introductory psychology cours- with construct theories as being unprovable as a conse-
es. An error from this group is equating correlation with quence of their indirect, abstract nature. The reification
causation. It is easy, although frequently wrong, to find a of theories occurs when construct theories are treated
relationship between factors and assume that one is lead- as event theories, which can lead to “outdated and em-
ing to the other. Levy uses the example that, although de- pirically unsupported theories that have long overstayed
pression tends to be correlated with low self-esteem, it is their welcome” (12). Not surprisingly, the antidote for the
impossible to say if low self-esteem causes depression, or reification theory is to not treat abstract concepts as real
if having depression leads to having a lower self-esteem, objects.
or if there is some other cause possibly leading to both A closer examination of Levy’s classification of
low self-esteem and depression. However, as is often the theories raises a few questions. An event theory is only
case throughout the book, Levy’s explanation of the er- a theory so long as it is not verified or proven; the mo-
ror is fairly narrow and somewhat shallow, and for this ment the theory does get verified or proven it becomes
particular topic that means there is surprisingly limited a fact. Many event theories seem then better described
exploration of the tricky concept of causation (Taylor, as possible answers to unanswered questions (i.e., “Who
1967). Levy offers a little discussion of the basis for this is responsible for committing these serial murders?”, 11)
type of thought error in the context of his examples, and rather than scientific theory. Is there truly a need to define
he also highlights its relation to the formation of supersti- a path to a fact as a distinct type of theory?
tions. The thought process, or “antidote,” that Levy rec- Levy’s examples of what he considers construct the-
ommends to counter this type of thinking is to be mindful ories were in the form of what the theories try to account
of whether the relationship between events had a definite for, and included some from physics, like magnetism and
causal nature or was just a correlation, and in the case of a electricity, as well as some from psychology, like cogni-
correlation, to be sure to consider alternate explanations. tion and personality. While the examples from physics
Another logical error covered is the “nominal fal- and psychology are both impossible to directly observe
lacy,” which occurs when simply giving a name or label through the senses, Levy’s physics examples, like elec-
to something is thought to explain it, and the associated tricity, are often far more understood at a fundamental
SPRING 2011, VOL. 26, NO. 1 63
level than psychological constructs like personality. To This book is particularly valuable in terms of its
say that these are equally intangible seems to be over- content and approach. There are a number of very good
simplifying, and perhaps even misrepresenting, the na- books highlighting problems and flaws within our think-
ture of the two fields and the range of phenomena being ing (e.g., Ariely & Jones, 2008; Chabris & Simons, 2010;
theorized about in both disciplines. Ultimately Levy sug- Gladwell, 2005), others focused on applying metacog-
gests that construct theories be evaluated in terms of their nitive research as a whole into education (e.g., Fogarty,
utility, which raises the question of the utility of Levy’s 1994; Hacker, Dunlosky, & Graesser, 1998; Waters,
own theory about theories. At the very least there has to Schneider, & Borkowski, 2009), as well as books that try
be some question about what clarity is gained from the to teach readers to apply metacognitive findings to gen-
presence of this complex issue within the context of this eral life (e.g., Perfect & Schwartz, 2002). Levy’s book
book. Reinventing theories seems to demand a much full- serves an almost unique role in focusing on practical
er discussion of the philosophy of science classification insights for improving critical thinking specifically as it
of theories and laws (Carnap, 1974; Popper, 1959). relates to psychology and daily life. Further, the separate
The second broad group of errors Levy discusses audiences Levy tries to reach with this book are varied
are those related to general thought processes. These in their critical thinking training, and this text does seem
are the logical short-cuts, or heuristics, that the human relevant to some degree for all of them.
mind employs to deal with the complexity of the world The antidotes to the errors, while clearly necessary
in a quick and efficient manner (e.g., Gigerenzer & Todd, in a book designed to provide tools to enhance critical
1999; Tversky & Kahneman, 1973). Many psychology thinking, are rarely empirically supported, either in de-
students will encounter these in greater detail in a cog- scribing the antidote itself, or in documenting the ef-
nitive psychology class. An example from this group is fectiveness of the antidote in preventing the error-prone
the hindsight bias, in which, after having knowledge of thought pattern. Of course, this generally points to gaps
the actual outcome of an event, persons feel they previ- in the field of psychology. The need to examine the ef-
ously had accurately predicted that outcome (Fischhoff fectiveness of training in overcoming confirmation bias
& Beyth, 1975). The antidote for this bias is the empiri- has been suggested (Nickerson, 1998), but it has thus far
cally based (Slovic & Fischhoff, 1977) advice of gener- only been considered and examined in specific contexts
ating alternative outcomes for the event. Importantly, as (e.g., Arnott, 2006; Larrick, 2004). These studies go be-
discussed by Slovic and Fischhoff, this antidote served yond the type of approach exemplified in this book, by
only to reduce the hindsight bias, not do away with it including a training period in which people are provided
altogether. More recent evidence suggests that there is a with specific feedback based on how biased their choice
metacognitive component linked to how surprising the was. Where the data do exist, there is often then reason
outcome of the event is. The relationship between sur- to employ at least some of the skepticism and critical
prise and the extent of the bias is that bias is reduced for thinking that this book so valuably promotes to consider
unsurprising outcomes (Nestler & Egloff, 2009; Pezzo, whether mere exposure to the suggested antidotes pro-
2003). Consequently, people would need to be more wary duces significant improvements in thinking. Improving
of the hindsight bias for outcomes which surprise them critical thinking needs to be based on what does and does
than for those event outcomes that do not. To us these not work, and merely offering a suggestion that is simply
findings suggest depth and nuances for this potential an- the opposite of the error may not be effective.
tidote that are simply not present in Levy’s discussion. Levy intends that this book is for psychology (and
Although Levy carefully picks his words, it seems like other fields as well) students and instructors, psychother-
a more direct statement on the limitations of the antidote apists, and psychological researchers. Given the large
being offered could have left the reader more informed. variety of thought errors identified and the brevity with
This book is well-written and very accessible, and which each is covered, the book does seem targeted to-
is liberally sprinkled with humor. The examples are wards being used as an introductory supplement for those
straightforward and offer just enough detail to get a gen- who will be getting more depth later in their educational
eral idea of each concept. This book seems especially career or those with interest but no formal background.
valuable to someone learning about these errors for the But developing critical thinking in individuals without
first time, with approachable explanations that are clear content knowledge of an area is problematic (Willing-
and concise. Levy clearly has a gift for explaining com- ham, 2007). It is not always clear how much value will
plex concepts in ways that those outside the field can be obtained for those students who will go on to content
readily grasp. The structure also allows readers to dip classes in the discipline of psychology. Many of these
into essentially stand-alone chapters, to learn about con- elements appear in one guise or another within standard
cepts or review them without needing to read earlier or textbooks in research methods, abnormal psychology,
later sections. cognitive psychology, social psychology, and a variety
of philosophy courses. In an academic psychology con- Baker, J., & Dunlosky, J. (2006). Does momentary accessibility
text this book might best serve as a single source for influence metacomprehension judgments? The influence
course instructors, highlighting and illustrating a num- of study-judgment lags on accessibility effects. Psycho-
ber of essential ideas that should be getting additional nomic Bulletin & Review, 13, 60-65.
Bjork, R. A. (1999). Assessing our own competence: Heuris-
coverage. While the book would undoubtedly be ben-
tics and illusions. In D. Gopher, & A. Koriat (Eds.), At-
eficial for this audience, there are features that detract
tention and performance XVII: Cognitive regulation of
from the potential impact, including the lack of depth in performance: Interaction of theory and application (pp.
places when exploring concepts, and the absence of data 435-459). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
or concrete examples to demonstrate whether problems Carnap, R. (1974). An introduction to the philosophy of science.
identified are central and common ones. We both also Mineola, NY: Dover Publications, Inc.
soon abandoned doing the large number of fairly trivial Chabris, C. & Simons, D. (2010). The invisible gorilla: And
exercises. other ways our intuitions deceive us. London: HarperCol-
If this book is to be used to teach critical thinking, lins.
then it would need to be one part of a larger curriculum Dunlosky, J., & Lipko, A. (2007). Metacomprehension: A brief
designed around this goal. An improvement in scholas- history and how to improve its accuracy. Current Direc-
tions in Psychological Science, 16, 228-232.
tic ability from metacognitive training requires integra-
Fischhoff, B., & Beyth, R. (1975). “I knew it would happen”:
tion of the “thinking about thinking” (Flavel, 1979) at
Remembered probabilities of once-future things. Organi-
almost every level in the course (White & Frederiksen, zational Behavior and Human Performance, 13, 1-16.
1998). It is quite likely that the same integrative approach Flavel, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring:
would be necessary in promoting critical thinking in stu- A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American
dents. Indeed one puzzling omission from a book about Psychologist, 34, 906-911.
“metathoughts” is the absence of discussion of work on Fogarty, R. J. (1994). How to teach metacognitive reflection
metacognition. Metacognition is a burgeoning branch of (Mindful School). Glenview, IL: Corwin Press.
experimental psychology which is concerned with how Gigerenzer, G., & Todd, P. M. (1999). Simple heuristics that
people think about their own thoughts (Flavel, 1979). make us smart. New York: Oxford University Press.
People frequently misjudge their competence at a task Gladwell, M. (2005). Blink. New York: Little, Brown and Com-
pany.
(e.g., Bjork, 1999) or misjudge their thoughts in general
Hacker, D., Dunlosky, J., & Graesser, A. (Eds.) (1998). Meta-
(Nelson, 1996). The book might benefit from integrating
cognition in educational theory and practice. Hillsdale,
a fuller discussion of relevant findings from metacogni- NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
tive research (e.g., Baker & Dunlosky, 2006; Dunlosky Hansen, H. V., & Pinto, R. C. (1995). Fallacies: Classical and
& Lipko, 2007), especially to give a sense that reflecting contemporary readings. University Park, PA: Pennsylva-
on our own thinking is not straightforward and is subject nia State University Press.
to errors itself. Larrick, R. P. (2004). Debiasing. In D. Koehler, & N. Harvey
In closing, Tools for Critical Thinking: Metathoughts (Eds.) Blackwell Handbook of Judgment and Decision
for Psychology by David A. Levy provides the reader Marking (pp. 316-357). Oxford: Blackwell.
with 30 common thinking errors and suggests ways to Nelson, T. O. (1996). Consciousness and metacognition. Ameri-
avoid them to enhance critical thinking in psychology. can Psychologist, 51, 102-116.
Nestler, S., & Egloff, B. (2009). Increased or reversed? The ef-
This is a quick, clear, and overall mechanically well-
fect of surprise on hindsight bias depends on the hindsight
written book. The recommended methods for avoiding
component. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learn-
the thought errors are frequently just instructions not to ing, Memory, and Cognition, 35, 1539-1544.
commit the error, and the ultimate effectiveness of such Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phe-
an approach to avoiding many of these errors is question- nomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology,
able. This book could serve as supplemental material to 2, 175-220.
an introductory level course or as a brief refresher for Schwartz, B. L. & Perfect, T. J. (2002). Toward an applied
more advanced students and practitioners. metacognition. In T. J. Perfect, & B. L. Schwartz (Eds.)
Applied metacognition. New York: Cambridge University
References Press.
Pezzo, M. V. (2003). Surprise, defence, or making sense: What
Ariely, D., & Jones, S. (2008). Predictably irrational: The hid- removes hindsight bias? Memory, 11, 421-441.
den forces that shape our decisions. New York: Harper. Popper, K. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. New York:
Arnott, D. (2006). Cognitive biases and decision support sys- Routledge Classics.
tems development: A design science approach. Informa- Slovic, P., & Fischhoff, B. (1977). On the psychology of exper-
tion Systems Journal, 16, 55-78. imental surprises. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Human Perception and Performance, 3, 544-551.
SPRING 2011, VOL. 26, NO. 1 65
Taylor, R. (1967). Causation. In P. Edwards (Ed.), The Encyclo-

pedia of Philosophy (pp. 56-66). New York: Macmillan.
Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1973). Judgment under uncer-
tainty: Heuristics and biases. Oxford: Cambridge Univer-
sity Press.
Waters, H. S., Schneider, W., & Borkowski, J. G. (Eds.), (2009).
Metacognition, strategy use, and instruction. New York:
The Guilford Press.
White, B. Y., & Frederiksen, J. R. (1998). Inquiry, modeling,
and metacognition: Making science accessible to all stu-
dents. Cognition and Instruction, 16, 3-118.
Willingham, D. T. (2007). Critical thinking: Why is it so hard to
teach? American Educator, Summer, 8-19.
Author Information
Heather Mong is a cognitive psychology gradu-

ate student working with Ben Clegg at Colorado State
University. Her research has focused on the nature of the
knowledge gained from implicit learning, or learning in-
formation without conscious awareness of what is being
learned.
Ben Clegg is an associate professor in the Depart-
ment of Psychology at Colorado State University. He
teaches courses that include Cognitive Psychology and
Applied Research Methods. His research looks at both
basic and applied aspects of cognition and human per-
formance. Correspondence should be addressed to: Ben
Clegg, Department of Psychology, Colorado State Uni-
versity, 1876 Campus Delivery, Fort Collins, CO 80523-
1876. Email: [email protected].
From Crimes Against Logic by Jamie Whyte (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2005), p. x:
The modern world is a noxious environment for those of us bothered by logical

error. People may have become no worse at reasoning, but now they have so many
more opportunities to show off how bad they are. (… )
Why are we protesters so lonely? Why don’t the other consumers of all this de-
fective thinking complain to their supplier, and to whoever else will listen, as they
would if their washing machines leaked or their cars wouldn’t start? The simple
answer is that most people don’t notice the problem.
SPRING 2011, VOL. 26, NO. 1 67
ELECTRONIC SUBSCRIPTION PROCESS

To subscribe electronically, go to the Philosophy Documentation Center website at www.pdcnet.org. On the website
go to the “Products” heading and click on “Journals and Series.” That will take you to a list of journals, and then click
on “Inquiry” for the electronic subscription page. Inquiry is published three times per year.
To subscribe by mail use this form.
MAIL SUBSCRIPTION FORM

This form can be duplicated and can be used to subscribe to Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines
and can be used by individuals and institutions.
Please enter a subscription to Inquiry for:
Name:____________________________________________________________________________
Institution:________________________________________________________________________
Address:__________________________________________________________________________
City/State/Zip:_____________________________________________________________________

No. of Years COST
Individual Subscription
Print only ($40 per year) ______ ______
Online only ($50 per year--includes electronic access to
volumes 1 to the present) ______ ______
Print + Online ($64 per year--includes electronic access to
Institutional Subscription
Online only ($160 per year--includes electronic access to
Print + Online ($200 per year--includes electronic access to
Foreign Surcharge ($8.00 per year, applies to both individual and

institutional subscriptions to cover increased postage ______ ______
Single Issue ($18 each) Number of issues ______ ______
TOTAL COST: ______
MAKE CHECKS PAYABLE TO: Inquiry
SEND FORM AND CHECK TO: Philosophy Documentation Center

P.O. Box 7147
Charlottesville, VA 22906-7147
(800) 444-2419 (US & Canada) or
(434) 220-3300
FAX: (434) 220-3301
Web: www.pdcnet.org
The Texas State University System

Board of Regents
Charlie Amato, Chairman............................................ San Antonio

Donna N. Williams, Vice Chairman..................................Arlington
Jaime R. Garza............................................................. San Antonio
Kevin J. Lilly.......................................................................Houston
Ron Mitchell............................................................ Horseshoe Bay
David Montagne...............................................................Beaumont
Trisha Pollard........................................................................Bellaire
Rossanna Salazar.................................................................. Austin
Michael Truncale.............................................................Beaumont
Ryan Bridges, Student Regent....................................... Huntsville
Brian McCall, Chancellor...................................................... Austin
Sam Houston State University

Sponsors
Dr. Mitchell Muehsam, Dean, College of Business Administration

Dr. Vincent J. Webb, Dean, College of Criminal Justice
Dr. Genevieve Brown, Dean, College of Education
Dr. Dana Nicolay, Interim Dean, College of Fine Arts and Mass Communications
Dr. John de Castro, Dean, College of Humanities and Social Sciences
Dr. Jaimie Hebert, Dean, College of Sciences
View publication stats

Inquiry: Critical Thinking and Disability in Higher Education

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Inquiry: Critical Thinking and Disability in Higher Education

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Inquiry: Critical Thinking and Disability in Higher Education

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

INQUIRY

CRITICAL THINKING ACROSS THE DISCIPLINES

Critical Thinking and Disability in Higher Education

Book Review Qu'est-ce qu'un homme? Dialogue de Leo, Chien

Copyright Permission and Disclaimer

Frank Fair, Managing Editor

From the Editor’s Desk

Critical Thinking: Reflection and Perspective

(c) Credibility of Sources “Critical thinking is reasonable reflective

(f) Equivocation Two Overall Summaries

Critical Thinking Abilities 5. Observe, and judge observation reports. Major

1. I deeply appreciate the suggestions for this essay made

Assessing Critical Thinking about Values:

Keywords: critical thinking, values, assessment

Critical Thinking about Values Assessment

Part 1: Identify key components

1. The main purpose of this article is

2. The main conclusion(s) in this article is/are

4. The main assumption(s) underlying the author’s thinking is (are)

Part 2: Write an essay about the values inherent in the article

Embracing Critical Thinking as a Model for Professional

Keywords: Faculty Learning Community

Bean, J. C. (1996). Engaging ideas: The professor’s guide to Author information

Defining Critical Thinking: How Far Have We Come?

Keywords: defining critical thinking

Collaborating Across Disciplines John Dewey

Bloom’s hierarchy is excellent for explaining 1. Judge the credibility of sources.

The Academic College Course is An Argument

Keywords: lectures, critical reading

Frank Codispoti is Professor of Political Science at

Critical Thinking and Social Interaction in the Online Environment

Keywords: Critical Thinking, Social Interaction, Social Construction

Tallent-Runnels, M. K., Thomas, J., William, Y. L., Cooper,

Idolina Hernandez received her Master of Arts de-

Tools of Critical Thinking: Metathoughts for Psychology

Reviewed by Heather M. Mong and Benjamin A. Clegg

Taylor, R. (1967). Causation. In P. Edwards (Ed.), The Encyclo-

Heather Mong is a cognitive psychology gradu-

The modern world is a noxious environment for those of us bothered by logical

ELECTRONIC SUBSCRIPTION PROCESS

MAIL SUBSCRIPTION FORM

Please enter a subscription to Inquiry for:

Foreign Surcharge ($8.00 per year, applies to both individual and

Single Issue ($18 each) Number of issues ______ ______

TOTAL COST: ______

MAKE CHECKS PAYABLE TO: Inquiry

SEND FORM AND CHECK TO: Philosophy Documentation Center

The Texas State University System

Charlie Amato, Chairman............................................ San Antonio

Brian McCall, Chancellor...................................................... Austin

Sam Houston State University

Dr. Mitchell Muehsam, Dean, College of Business Administration

View publication stats

You might also like

Single Issue ($18 each) Number of issues