What’s so critical about Critical Thinking?
The whole idea of a democratic application of skepticism is that everyone should have the essential tools to effectively and constructively evaluate claims to knowledge. Carl Sagan
Thinking is an action. For all aspiring intellectuals, thoughts are the laboratory where one goes to pose questions and find answers.. The heartbeat of critical thinking is the longing to know — to understand how life works. Children are organically predisposed to be critical thinkers. Across the boundaries of race, class, gender, and circumstance, children come into the world of wonder and language consumed with a desire for knowledge. Sometimes they are so eager for knowledge that they become relentless interrogators — demanding. bell hooks
Can critical thinking skills be taught?
It’s an important question for a number of reasons, not least because practically everyone in education it seems — especially at higher level — agrees critical thinking is, well, critical. But also because many believe critical thinking is fundamental to cititzenship. Perhaps the ‘Leave’ outcome of the Brexit referendum, or Trump’s election, wouldn’t have happened if more people had understood the context and likely consequences? Did that comment alert you to my political leanings? Good, you’re exercising your critical faculties.
But before we get into a wider discussion about politics, let’s begin with a critical look at the concept of critical thinking itself, and the question of how it might actually be taught.
Having taught critical thinking with reasonable success myself, I’m naturally inclined to believe that it can be taught by any teacher with the relevant expertise. But I know better than to simply argue from anecdotal evidence. I also know how important it is when trying to persuade others of your case, to clearly define your terms and to consider conflicting evidence/arguments.
So what exactly do we mean by ‘critical thinking’? Not surprisingly the complexity of the concept makes this task difficult, Moon (2007), Lai (2010). However, one concise definition of critical thinking has stood up to scrutiny and the test of time:
Critical thinking calls for a persistent effort to examine any belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the evidence that supports it and the further conclusions to which it tends. Glaser (1941:5)
Glaser breaks this broad definition down as follows:
( 1 ) An attitude of being disposed to consider in a thoughtful way the problems and subjects that come within the range of one’s experiences;
(2) Knowledge of the methods of logical inquiry and reasoning;
(3) Some skill in applying those methods.
Of course Glaser’s thinking on critical thinking has itself been subject to criticism. Others for instance have developed the dimensions of metacognition — the development of awareness about one’s own thinking in an effort to improve it — and problem-solving. No wonder the thinking around critical thinking has itself become complex.
Indeed, things gets more complex still when we consider criticality. Although the terms ‘critical thinking’ and ‘criticality’ are often used inter-changeably, Dunne (2015) argues that we should distinguish the latter from the former as it implies more of a self-reflexive/situated approach — the ‘embodied’ critical thinker embedded in complex social relations — whilst Danvers (2016) goes further, arguing that critical thinking also needs to be understood in the context of the political/ideological (principally patriarchal and neoliberal) forces shaping higher education discourse and policy.
However, leaving these more nuanced/contextual issues aside for the moment, I think Glaser’s conception offers a useful introductory framework, so let’s consider each element in turn.
Disposition
The motto of the prestigious and world-renowned Royal Society in London — the world’s oldest independent, scientific academy — is ‘Nullius in Verba’: take nothing on authority. It was conceived to express the Society’s commitment to rigorous empirical investigation of the natural world. But in my view it captures the spirit of critical thinking that pervades science’s sister subject, philosophy, equally well. Asking searching questions and never settling for simple answers, is common to both subjects and has always been the royal road to truth, even if the postmodern critique of ‘truth’ has, arguably, challenged its validity.
Does this mean students in general should be fiercely sceptical of every argument or piece of research they encounter? No. There’s clearly an inherent danger in such a disposition of jumping to conclusions and, worse still, relativism — the postmodern idea that there are no objective facts or truths because everything is a matter of perspective.
As philosopher, Julian Baggini, argues in A Short History of the Truth: Consolations for a Post-Truth World, ‘One of the perennial challenges of being a critical thinker is to be appropriately critical without being indiscriminately cynical.’ In a similar vein it’s worth recalling Aristotle’s famous dictum on the importance of keeping an open mind:
Of course this begs the question of whether a balanced critical disposition, or habit of mind, can in fact be taught. However, as a general observation we know parents and schools alike can have a strong influence on children’s behaviour/attitudes. Furthermore, whilst studies of critical thinking are undeniably conflicting, a substantial number point to the possibility of a shift in attitudes given the right approach.
Knowledge
Drawing on the fields of philosophy and to some extent psychology (the important concept of confirmation bias for example) critical thinking has developed in recent years into a subject in its own right. As you’d expect, there is some variation in approach. But it’s certainly possible to delineate a discrete body of knowledge with concepts of reasoning —logical fallacies, inductive/deductive thinking etc. — forming the main framework.
We might reasonably infer then that any successful student of critical thinking should be able to transfer their knowledge and skills from one subject/context to another. But a number of studies show this is not as straightforward as it seems, raising important questions about how best to teach critical thinking. I will consider the latter issue in a moment.
Before moving on to consider skills though, I would like to make a few general points about knowledge.
Regardless of the indisputable facts that information is now at everyone’s fingertips via digital technologies and artificial intelligence is encroaching further and further into our lives, threatening perhaps to displace/replace teachers in the process, I believe knowledge is fundamental to learning and should remain so. How would we expect to develop a complex understanding of critical thinking without it?
However, it’s not just the importance of knowledge academically that we need to consider. Whilst the criticism of his thinking as ‘technological determinism’ may be valid, I do share Nicholas Carr’s core concern that the more we come to rely on the internet/artificial intelligence, the greater the risk that we will ‘outsource’ our memory and ‘dumb-down’ our thinking (you can always Google ‘artificial intelligence’ right?). To be fit for learning, it is clear that the brain needs to be exercised regularly and rigorously, and accessing information is not the same as building knowledge.
This ‘brain-based’ perspective explains why (although more of a Constructivist than an Instructivist) I’m fascinated by cognitive science/neuroscience in general, and knowledge building in particular. See my article, ‘Talking Gibberish — from Nonsense to Meaning in Learning’ here, and my article on note-taking, ‘How do you take Notes? A Noteworthy Survey’, here.
At the same time it’s clear to me that there is a tension between knowledge building and critical thinking — in a very real sense they pull in opposite directions. On the one hand there’s the need to establish knowledge/truth, on the other to question (scepticism/Socratic enquiry etc.) what we mean by truth and why we should believe knowledge claims.
Even if we reject such abstract thinking, it still leaves some awkward practical issues, particularly perhaps for more traditionally-minded teachers favouring a didactic/instructivist (explicit, teacher-centred, instruction) approach. My impression is they often feel a keener obligation (especially at primary and secondary levels) to ‘cover the syllabus’, which in turn leads to pressure to ‘teach to the test’ — squeezing out time and space for critical thinking.
It’s also not difficult to appreciate why the notion of developing critical thinking students could undermine the confidence of some teachers in their own teaching, again, particularly if they adopt a more traditional, ‘sage on the stage’ approach. It’s certainly easy to imagine how students that ‘take nothing on authority’ can become very challenging to teach: ‘But sir, how do you know this?’ and ‘Why should I believe what it says in this textbook?’ may be intelligently sceptical questions, but unless reasonable academic/epistemic grounds are established for truth, they risk rotting the foundations of the whole learning enterprise.
On the other hand, Moon (2007) argues that the development of critical thinking is crucial to gaining ‘academic assertiveness’ — the self confidence to value one’s own thinking/social background and challenge the views of others, bearing in mind (1) confidence doesn’t come easy to more marginalised social groups and (2) the higher academics are on the ladder, the more intimidating they can appear.
Skills
The notion that critical thinking can be developed as a set of skills is undoubtedly the most contentious aspect of the debate around it.
The literature (Lai, 2010) shows a clear divide between those, like me, who argue that it involves a set of generic skills that can be applied in any context, and those that believe all knowledge is subject/domain specific —to think critically about geography say, you need to understand some geography. Indeed, as Carl Hendrick argues, there’s more than a degree of common sense to this claim:
Citing Willingham’s (2007) seminal article, and bemoaning the recent trend in education away from knowledge and didacticism towards ‘21st century skills’, Hendrick argues, ‘Instead of teaching generic critical-thinking skills, we ought to focus on subject-specific critical-thinking skills that seek to broaden a student’s individual subject knowledge and unlock the unique, intricate mysteries of each subject.’ In other words, not only can’t critical thinking skills be taught separately — they’re ‘intertwined’ to use a common metaphor — they don’t even meaningfully exist outside of a knowledge domain.
To those familiar with the perennial ‘knowledge vs. skills’ debate in education, such thinking will come as no surprise. What Hendrick neglects to explain however (admittedly it’s a brief article) is how exactly subject-specific critical thinking skills should be taught. The assumption, which is typical of many who adopt this position, appears to be that it develops by a kind of academic osmosis — as students build knowledge they automatically develop an awareness of the problems this entails and learn to reason/think critically as a consequence. However, this is not only questionable, it contradicts the central claim made by the ‘traditional camp’ in education that learning relies on explicit instruction.
Not that we should be too surprised by vague/fanciful notions of how students develop critical thinking— they seem all-pervasive in education. As Ellerton (2014) points out:
‘The problem is that critical thinking is the Cheshire Cat of educational curricula — it is hinted at in all disciplines but appears fully formed in none. As soon as you push to see it in focus, it slips away.’
Another apparent weakness with Hendrick’s argument is that it focuses on professional problem-solving skills (the main example he uses is air traffic control). Granted, the concept of critical thinking is open to interpretation. But extending it in this way does make it easier to argue that knowledge/skills are tied to a domain and as such are not transferable. If we define critical thinking in the more general, academic sense, it’s clear that it is fundamentally about the logical development of an argument and the critical analysis of evidence/reasoning. This is what Greene and Yu (2016), arguing for a constructivist/inquiry approach to critical thinking, call Epistemic Cognition:
Epistemic Cognition is a process involving dispositions, beliefs, and skills regarding how individuals determine what they actually know, versus what they believe, doubt, or distrust .. (the) challenges of the modern world make it clear that today’s students need to know more than just what, but also why and how. For example, compared with students who are taught scientific facts and nothing more, students who understand how science works are better able to evaluate and decide among differing claims about vaccines, climate change, and genetically modified foods.
Indeed this conception of critical thinking is reflected in the main finding of a recent study (Bahr, 2010) of Australian lecturers and their students. Whilst the lecturers surveyed tended to emphasise more theoretical aspects of critical thinking, there was a common understanding about its core academic elements.
Clearly though (to return to the article at hand) even able academics make mistakes with their reasoning.
Take Hendrick’s logic on the non-transferability of skills. He argues, ‘.. we all know people who are ‘clever’ in their professional lives yet who often seem to make stupid decisions in their personal lives.’ Yet the reasons why professional people mess up in their personal lives may well have little to do with their intelligence and a lot to do with the demands of their job — taking the stress home with them. In simple terms, it’s not a good analogy.
Unless perhaps I’m guilty of misrepresenting Hendrick’s argument in order to make my case. In which case I’ve committed the classic ‘straw man’ fallacy:
If I’d stooped to taking a cheap shot at Carl’s character not his argument, that of course would have been an ‘ad hominem’ — literally ‘against the man’ — fallacy.
What’s the worst fallacy of all to commit? There are several candidates in my book. But one in particular speaks volumes about the poor quality of public debate that bedevils modern democracies: the ‘Bandwagon’ fallacy. This alerts us to the timeless truth that the huge numbers of people supporting a belief/jumping on board tells us nothing about whether such a belief is actually credible, invariably quite the reverse. Did I mention Brexit and Trump?
Source (free downloadable posters): https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/poster
Source (free downloadable posters): https://www.yourbias.is
Consider finally in this section exploring the concept of critical thinking, whether generic, as opposed to subject-specific, critical thinking skills are evident in this study of history teaching (first page below).
My teaching of Critical Thinking
So how does my own practical experience support the argument advanced by many academics that critical thinking can be taught as a separate subject/generic skill?
As a university lecturer I taught critical thinking as part of a module which I wrote on a Journalism Studies degree course (I’ve also taught a Theory of Knowledge module at degree level, similar to the subject taught on the International Baccalaureate). The first semester was designed to ‘problematise’ knowledge using a range of key philosophical (epistemology) perspectives, the second semester to develop critical thinking skills. The core texts for the latter are available as PDF downloads here:
By way of a brief overview, Ann Thomson’s book provides a step-by-step/case study approach to developing critical thinking/reasoning skills, whilst Nigel Warburton’s is a glossary of key terms focusing on common fallacies.
What surprised me more than anything about teaching the module is how little the students actually knew about critical thinking. I well remember at the outset asking them for a definition of ‘argument’ only to be met by a wall of blank faces. When pressed, some were able to distinguish an argument in the general sense of the word from an academic argument. But none could provide the common definition for the latter of ‘reasons in support of a conclusion’ (Kuhn, 1991) — despite, in effect, applying this approach every time they wrote an essay.
In my teaching of the module I used a range of strategies, but the core approach involved working through exercises in Thomson’s book, and the students debating topical issues. For their final assessment, they were required to select one of three articles I’d taken from current affairs magazines and produce a critical analysis. The assessment criteria for this included summarising, analysing and evaluating the argument, and applying relevant concepts.
Now of course I advised the students to gain some background knowledge of the topic/debate in their chosen article prior to analysis. There is no question that this is important — even if it’s not sufficient. As Lai (2011) notes:
.. most researchers view background knowledge as a necessary but not sufficient condition for critical thinking. In addition, some researchers see the transfer of critical thinking skills across domains as unlikely unless students are provided with sufficient opportunities to practice these skills in a variety of domains and the students are explicitly taught to transfer.
So we come to a critical point — two types of knowledge are key with critical thinking: knowledge of the subject and knowledge of critical thinking. Furthermore, it’s important not only to develop a set of critical/conceptual tools but to sharpen them.
Fortunately there are many practical tools available to help with the process. An interesting technique I’ve discovered recently is the use of argument maps. As you can see from the example below, these maps present a visual breakdown of both sides of an argument, identifying and grouping the reasons/premises used to make each one.
How did my students actually perform over the three years I taught the module? Better than I expected but not as well as I hoped. The consensus in feedback (which certainly reflects the findings of studies) was that critical thinking is hard, basically because it demands not only that you think a lot but at a deep level using higher order skills. However, all the students agreed they’d not only learnt valuable critical thinking skills, but gained the confidence to use them beyond the module.
Twitter Polls
I have left formal education now and moved into educational apps development/other creative areas. But I retain a strong interest in the field and critical thinking is a continuing fascination/concern, not just because of my educational background but also because I’m a politically active and unapologetically ‘progressive’ person — I’m broadly left-green in my outlook and I think education should have a key role in changing the world for the better. I’m also quite active on social media, frequently sharing and debating with educational professionals.
Which brings me to a Twitter poll I conducted amongst my teaching network on the subject of critical thinking:
One respondent to the poll said, ‘What does this even mean?’. Another questioned the wording of the options. Full marks to them both for critical thinking.
In addition to noting the stark statistic that a mere 7% of respondents voted ‘Yes’ to the question of whether critical thinking is being developed by our educational system, we can reasonably infer the following findings:
- A clear consensus (93%) think that our education system is not developing critical thinking as well as it might;
- Over half (53%) of respondents felt that our (notionally UK) education system is significantly failing — either not developing critical thinking at all or not nearly enough. Indeed this reflects the findings of a major longitudinal study recently undertaken in the US that provoked a storm of controversy and much academic navel-gazing.
We should also note, on the critical side, that the representativeness of the poll can certainly be questioned. However I think the sample size is reasonable and I did make efforts to share the poll across the traditional-progressive teaching spectrum.
Shortly after I did a follow-up poll. I’ll let you be the judge of the results.
How should we teach Critical Thinking?
So, assuming I’m right that we can teach critical thinking skills, how best to do it?
According to Kennedy et al (2010) we now have sufficient evidence to substantiate the view that critical thinking skills can be taught (acknowledged authority Diane Halpern also cites numerous studies here). However, they further argue that there is much investigation needed on the question of what the best approach is:
‘The remaining task, and it is a large one, is the refinement of our understanding of what aspects of (critical) thinking can be learned, by whom, under what conditions, in what settings, and using what methods.’
Nonetheless my recommendation, on paper at least, is quite simple: Teach the core principles and concepts separately and embed them contextually — allowing for the specific knowledge issues raised by the domain. Essentially this is the ‘mixed model’ (rejecting purely domain, and generic approaches) advocated by Sternberg (1987).
Of course I recognise that strategically, this has significant implications, not least in terms of making room in the curriculum/timetable and developing an integrated approach. Whilst it’s beyond the scope of this article to consider the practicalities of this proposal (including how it may be adapted to different levels of education), it is clear nonetheless that it would offer considerable scope for research, the continuing difficulties of conceptualising and measuring critical thinking notwithstanding.
In pursuit of such an initiative, there is certainly a considerable range of ideas for teaching critical thinking to draw on, Moon (2007). See further the links below.
Critical Thinking and Citizenship
‘No one can make up your mind for you, unless you make up your mind to let them’ Julian Baggini.
Thus far my argument has focused on the importance of critical thinking in education. But there are many who consider it fundamental to citizenship and I certainly concur.
Of course both critical thinking and citizenship have been on the curriculum for many years in one form or another. In the UK, cross-party support has ensured that Citizenship became a statutory subject on the secondary school curriculum in 2002 (although the primary focus is on citizenship not critical thinking).
However, the recent focus of attention on so-called ‘fake news’ (in conjunction with the rise of social media/decline of traditional media) has triggered a spate of calls from politicians, other key figures, and parents, for young people to develop a stronger critical awareness of the power of the mainstream media to manipulate public opinion; likewise of how social media platforms are increasingly being exploited by tech-savvy extremist groups.
Furthermore, many commentators have noted an alarming tendency of social media users — both young and old — to all too readily believe that the information they consume and share is reliable. As Irish President Michael D Higgins argues:
The emergence of those digital echo-chambers in which people are not allowing themselves, their beliefs, or indeed their prejudice to be challenged, has become a matter for considerable discussion as a response to recent events in the USA and Europe. It is so important .. that our children — all of our citizens — be encouraged to think critically rather than merely reproduce the information pushed towards them by proliferating media sources ..
However, whilst I certainly agree with President Higgins on the importance of including a strong element of digital/media literacy, I part company with him on teaching critical thinking as ‘philosophy’. As much as I like and value the subject, I favour the less abstract/academic and more specific title of ‘Critical Thinking and Citizenship’.
In terms of educational progression, it’s reasonable to speculate that a solid grounding in schools on the back of rigorous research, adequate training and so on, might eventually remove the need for critical thinking (minus citizenship) at higher level completely. Something to think about that’s for sure.
Turning now to the wider, socio-political context, I will briefly consider two very different, but no less significant critical perspectives on Critical Thinking: the ‘traditionalist’ argument against teaching ‘21 st century skills’, and Critical Pedagogy.
Critical Thinking and ‘21st century skills’
Given the seemingly dramatic changes we’re experiencing in all sectors of society and the threat to traditional forms of employment posed by artificial intelligence and economic globalisation in particular, I believe the argument voiced by many left/progressive thinkers that we should focus less on knowledge and more on a set of ‘21st century skills’ — notably creativity and critical thinking — is a plausible one. But also because I’ve always believed skills and knowledge go hand in hand. Whatever the level or context of education, we need skills to make use of knowledge and knowledge to develop skills. Which means, yes, I reject the false — ‘knowledge vs skills’ — dichotomy.
But doesn’t this contradict my assertion that knowledge is ‘fundamental’? No, it’s about valuing knowledge as the basis of learning and of a curriculum that’s ‘knowledge-rich’, but also recognising the ‘symbiotic’ relationship between knowledge and critical thinking — to underline the key point I made earlier, in my view they are inter-dependent.
That said, I do acknowledge the validity of the principal counter-argument to ‘21st century skills’ thinking — despite the sophisticated projections of futurologists, no-one can predict the future. This is what Martin Robinson calls the ‘Future Fallacy’. Fellow prominent ‘Edu-blogger’, Mark Enser, makes a persuasive case for getting critical about the issue here, whilst echoing the more general traditionalist perspective on ‘genericism’ voiced by Carl Hendrick above.
However, what we can be sure about is there is strong evidence that employers value critical thinking even if, like teachers, they’re continually frustrated by how little graduates are able to demonstrate/deploy the skills.
Furthermore, I would argue that teaching critical thinking on grounds of citizenship, as well as academic and employment necessity, transcends the objections of the sceptics.
Critical Thinking and Critical Pedagogy
The notion of critical thinking as the foundation of citizenship is a clear expression of the liberal-democratic values that have shaped Western society. Politically it is rooted in the Enlightenment promotion of rational/scientific thinking over unthinking religious faith/anti-clericalism (the power of the church), and in the ideas of more modern thinkers like Habermas who argued for the importance of a ‘public sphere’ in which the free flow of information and ideas could protect and nurture democracy.
Culturally it is central to the ‘liberal arts’ tradition that values the ‘best that has been thought and said’ in Western civilisation and the classical skills of rhetoric and dialectic developed principally by the ancient Greek philosophers Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. For an interesting discussion of how these skills might reform modern education, see Martin Robinson’s book Trivium 21c: preparing young people for the future with lessons from the past.
One of the key sources in the debate around critical thinking and citizenship is the early 20th century American progressive educationalist and philosopher John Dewey. His classic work ‘Democracy and Education: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Education’ argued that the needs of the child and the needs of democracy go hand in hand — drilling facts into passive minds, Gradgrind- style, does not develop active, independent-thinking citizens.
But we should note (Sewell, 2013) that there is now a significant school of thought/discourse in education, challenging the liberal-humanist assumptions underpinning liberal arts and progressive/democratic thinking: Critical Pedagogy. Whilst there is not the scope here to address the complexity of this perspective, it is clear at the very least that the debate around critical thinking extends beyond its traditional framing as a set of academic/professional skills rooted in classical philosophy, into wider contexts of power and ideology.
Strongly influenced by the radical/left ideas of education theorist, Paulo Friere, and his critique of the traditional ‘banking’ (market-driven knowledge and skills) approach to teaching and learning, the black American feminist, bell hooks, wrote extensively on critical thinking from a critical pedagogy perspective. Her writing is infused with an equal passion for learning and for structural change (‘praxis’) in pursuit of an educational system that truly reflects the egalitarian and emancipatory ideals of modern, liberal-democratic society, not the narrow demands of industrial-capitalism:
See first-hand the ways that democratic education is being undermined as the interests of big business and corporate capitalism encourage students to see education solely as a means to achieve material success. Such thinking makes acquiring information more important than gaining knowledge or learning how to think critically. (hooks 2010)
Progressives who have yet to encounter these two thinkers will find much to engage them whilst open-minded traditionalists might benefit from the challenge to some of their core ideas and values.
For an excellent discussion of progressive/critical pedagogic thinking, and a thought-provoking counter-argument (to those who argue it isn’t the role of education to ‘politicise’) see Giroux (2011) ‘On Critical Pedagogy’.
Bringing the debate within Critical Pedagogy up to date, teacher and PhD student Kay Sidebottom confronts ‘the international rise of the far-right’ by arguing for an ‘anti-Fascist curriculum’ drawing on the thinking of hooks and other prominent left/progressive thinkers, here.
Which brings me finally to an unorthodox conclusion and this question: Given the background knowledge on Critical Thinking provided above, how far can critical thinking skills help you to critique my argument?
By way of assistance (following the format of my module) I’ve briefly summarised my argument and outlined my reasoning below. Perhaps you’d like to add your evaluation in the comments? In particular you may wish to address any underlying/hidden assumptions in my argument and the evidence I have used to back it up.
Summary
The writer argues/is asking me to believe that critical thinking is fundamental both to academic development and citizenship and can be taught as a generic skill whilst acknowledging that more research is needed on this. He further argues that Critical Pedagogy offers a valid critique of traditional/mainstream thinking on critical thinking. Hence critical thinking is as much a political as a pedagogical issue.
Reasons/Premises
Breaking the argument down, the following ‘reasons in support of the conclusion’ can be identified:
- It’s important to define critical thinking clearly as there is much confusion around the term and conflicting evidence/perspectives.
- Critical Thinking is a subject in its own right with a discrete body of knowledge.
- The evidence suggests that, with the right approach, critical thinking can be taught as a generic skill (but more research is needed on this).
- Domain knowledge is a ‘necessary but not sufficient’ condition of critical thinking, hence critical thinking needs to be taught explicitly.
- Students find critical thinking very challenging because it demands higher order skills, hence a clear understanding of core concepts/principles combined with regular practice is essential.
- The recommended strategy for teaching critical thinking is a ‘mixed model’ — teaching the core concepts/principles separately and embedding the skills in each domain (allowing for contextual variation). But more research is needed on this too.
- Critical Thinking is also fundamental to citizenship in our complex/modern, liberal-democratic society.
- The notion of Critical Thinking as fundamental to citizenship can itself be criticised, both from a Traditional (vs. 21st century skills) and Critical Pedagogy perspective, the latter situating critical thinking in a broader political/ideological context that engages with the deeper (social justice) issues in liberal-democratic society.
Useful Links
References (not linked)
Alexander, P. A., Dinsmore, D. L., Fox, E., Grossnickle, E. M., Loughlin, S. M., Maggioni, L., Winters, F. I. (2011) Higher order thinking and knowledge: Domain-general and domain-specific trends and future directions. In G. Schraw & D. R. Robinson (Eds.), Current perspectives on cognition, learning, and instruction. Assessment of higher order thinking skills (pp. 47–88). Charlotte, NC: IAP Information Age Publishing.
Glaser, E. M. (1941) An Experiment in the Development of Critical Thinking, Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, New York
hooks, bell. Teaching Critical Thinking: Practical. Wisdom. New York, N.Y.: Routledge, 2010
Kennedy, M., Fisher, M. B., & Ennis, R. H. (1991). Critical thinking: Literature review and needed research. In L. Idol & B.F. Jones
(Eds.), Educational values and cognitive instruction: Implications for reform Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum & Associates.
Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge, England:CambridgeUniversity Press.
Sternberg, R. J. (1987). Teaching critical thinking: Eight easy ways to fail before you begin. Phi Delta Kappan
