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.
4 INQUIRY: CRITICAL THINKING ACROSS THE DISCIPLINES

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
request to write a personal historical report about the
development of critical thinking education.1 My response
emphasizes the period 1950-2010, but does reach further
into the past, and is by no means a historian’s history of
critical thinking. It is a personal view of the critical thinking
movement and my involvement in it. Part I deals with how
I became involved in the critical thinking movement and
how my definition and conception of critical thinking have
evolved. Part II will deal with efforts to assess and to teach
critical thinking and with problems and future prospects.
My Background: How I Arrived at
Critical Thinking
Although in my K-12 years I was exposed to an ex-
cellent traditional education, I, like Gerald Nosich (2010),
was quite ignorant and naive in making my early decisions.
Because I did well in high school math and physics, and
because of the encouragement of my teachers and parents, I
went to MIT in 1945, right at the end of World War II, plan-
ning to become an engineer. Although I did well for four
semesters in the math, engineering, and science aspects of
the curriculum, I developed some misgivings. For those
and other personal reasons, I interrupted my studies and
joined the US Army, serving in the Army of Occupation
in Japan in 1947. There I experienced a 19-year-old-type
total revision of my goals and interests. The war-making
technology and its effects (including what I saw in Hi-
roshima during a visit there on the second anniversary
of the bomb) convinced me that the world did not need
engineers or more science and technology. It needed a
population suffused with wisdom. At the time I thought
that philosophy was the ultimate repository of wisdom, so I
decided to obtain a bachelor’s degree in philosophy rather
than engineering, having done no investigating about the
nature of academic philosophy.
MIT at that time had no philosophy courses, so I
cautiously took a leave of absence, never to return. I
transferred to the University of Wisconsin, Madison. There
the contemporary philosophy to which I was exposed was
logical positivism, but also some of John Dewey’s work.
Neither satisfied me. Logical positivism seemed to be an
interesting, challenging system, like chess, but without
relevance to wisdom; and Dewey’s defense of his positions,
as well as some of his positions, seemed weak. Further-
more, even though his advocacy of “reflective thinking”
(Dewey, 1933) would later appeal to me, that was not part
of what was presented to me as Dewey’s philosophy. Nor
did I see relevance to wisdom in my history of philosophy
courses. The content came too thick and fast for me to
grapple with and to discuss what I now see as important
ideas and issues. Grappling and discussing were not part
of the total curriculum that I experienced, though they are
what I now think are crucial elements in critical thinking
instruction, though of course not in themselves sufficient.
As a result of frustration in my search for wisdom,
I instead considered a career in the theater because my
extra-curricular experiences there were exciting and fun,
and the theater actually is a way of promoting wisdom
(e.g., Twelve Angry Men, a timeless play). But I rejected
the theater, partly because I saw so many unemployed
actors and dancers who were much more talented than I.
There was a bit of critical thinking here: making observa-
tions and using the information in considering and being
open to alternatives (to some extent) when making deci-
sions. But these practices were not part of my traditional
education.
SPRING 2011, VOL. 26, NO. 1
In 1950 I managed to get a BA in philosophy without
any knowledge of the ordinary-language philosophical
developments associated with the later Wittgenstein. More
ignorance. Then I heard about philosophy of education. It
struck me (still naively, given what I believed about phi-
losophy) that what I had learned and had not yet learned
about philosophy could somehow help the field of educa-
tion. There was some equivocation going on in my head
regarding ‘philosophy,’ but I had not been sensitized to
equivocation or ambiguity in my logic course, or any other
courses. And I rightly believed that education could have an
important role in developing a world population suffused
with wisdom. I decided to go into philosophy of education.
I then received some wise (though unrequested)
advice: Learn first-hand as a teacher what goes on in
our education system before launching into a career in
educational theory. Though I had not sought that advice,
I followed it and became a high school physical science
teacher, who also had to teach two sections of a combina-
tion of English and social studies. It was called a “core”
or “common learnings” course in progressive education
parlance, and it was a precursor to “writing across the
curriculum.” In the process, I heard about critical thinking
from the progressive-education movement’s advocacy of it,
and realized that the promotion of critical thinking would
be very important for our personal, vocational, and civic
lives, and that the survival of a democratic way of life de-
pended on the critical thinking of the voters. I still believe
this, even more strongly, and am pleased that I have been
able to spend as much time as I have on critical thinking,
only wishing that I could have accomplished more.
I tried to incorporate critical thinking in my teaching.
But I had little notion of how to teach it or even of what
critical thinking was — other than propaganda analysis
(Institute for Propaganda Analysis, 1938), which was
heavily negative and oversimplified in its approach (as is
commonly the case with the current fallacies approach to
teaching critical thinking).
After three years of high school teaching I became
a graduate student at the University of Illinois, and en-
rolled in a philosophy of education program with minors
in philosophy and educational measurement. I was lucky
to get an assistantship with the Illinois Project for the Im-
provement of Thinking under the leadership of B. Othanel
Smith and Kenneth Henderson. We tried to help three
Chicago-area high schools embed critical thinking in their
subject-matter instruction, physics being the area on which
I focused. I also found myself immersed in, and fascinated
by, the later-Wittgenstein movement in philosophy, which I
saw and still see to be quite relevant to education, wisdom,
and critical thinking, in spite of its excesses. I had finally
found a home combining philosophy and education.
The above-described background is, among other
things, a generalizable argument-by-example in support of
5
the supplementation of our subject-matter courses and oth-
er courses with a heavy dose of critical thinking instruction.
Notice that I said “supplementation,” not “supplanting.” A
necessary condition for thinking critically about anything is
being well informed, which includes subject-matter content
where relevant. Unfortunately, aside from simple deduc-
tion, principles of critical thinking were not included in the
content that I encountered — with two minor exceptions:
In high school English I was taught to make classification
(genus-differentia) definitions, and in college physics labs
I was taught to make three measurements (instead of just
one) and average the three in order to secure a more reliable
measure of a quantity. In my undergraduate deductive logic
course I was not shown that strict deductive logic rarely
applies to everyday reasoning (including that of scholars,
voters, and Supreme Court Justices). However, imprecise
derivation or qualified reasoning (Ennis, 1969a & 1969b,
1981a, 1996a, 2004; discussed later in this essay) does
apply to everyday reasoning. Fortunately, material impli-
cation and its implausible cohorts were, as I remember it,
not promoted in that logic course.
The fact that I did receive advice from an experienced
person about how to pursue my career is not to my credit.
I did not know enough to seek it out. It was in effect im-
posed on me by the father of a high school friend. In none
of my courses was I told the critical thinking principle that
one needs to make a special effort to get all the relevant
information appropriate for a decision, and to seek, con-
sider, and get informed about alternatives before making
an important decision.
In sum, in my K-12 and undergraduate education there
was virtually no attention to the principles, procedures,
and criteria for thinking critically in or out of the subjects
I studied. Basically I was engaged in acquiring, and was
tested on, straight subject-matter knowledge only.
The Critical Thinking Movement as I Saw It
and Associated with It:
From Progressive Education and the
Later Wittgenstein to the Present
Early philosophical concerns about critical thinking
can be found, among other places, in Socrates, Plato,
Aristotle, Bacon, Hume, and especially John Stuart Mill,
but John Dewey (Dewey, 1933, first edition 1910) was the
source of inspiration for the progressive-education K-12
critical thinking movement of which the Illinois Project
for the Improvement of Thinking was a part.
The Progressive Education Movement
The progressive-education movement, which was
strong in the United States from the 1920’s through the
1950’s, adopted and developed Dewey’s emphasis on
reflective thinking. Tests called Interpretation of Data,
6 INQUIRY: CRITICAL THINKING ACROSS THE DISCIPLINES
Application of Principles of Science, Application of Prin-
ciples of Logical Reasoning, and Nature of Proof (Smith
and Tyler, 1942, pp. 35-156) were developed to appraise
students in the Progressive Education Association’s monu-
mental “Eight-Year Study,” which took place in the 1930’s.
(See Aiken, 1942, for an overview.) In that study, the words
“critical thinking” and “clear thinking” replaced “reflec-
tive thinking” (Smith & Tyler, pp. 35-37), and a 1942
yearbook of the National Council for Social Studies used
“critical thinking” in its title, Teaching Critical Thinking
in the Social Studies (Anderson, 1942). My first published
article was about the teaching of critical thinking (“Critical
Thinking: More on Its Motivation,” Ennis, 1956), and ap-
peared in the journal, Progressive Education. I submitted to
that journal because the progressive-education movement
was the primary promoter of critical thinking at the time.
In addition to my focus on the teaching of critical
thinking, I became the statistician for the Illinois Project for
the Improvement of Thinking, and produced conclusions
from the data obtained with the tests we used and from
our observations in the classrooms. I saw the importance
of having valid tests of critical thinking, and I realized the
dependence of such tests on one’s conception of critical
thinking. As a result, my Ph.D. dissertation topic was “The
Development of a Critical Thinking Test” (Ennis, 1959b).
Given the state of critical thinking theory in use at the time,
I believed that the development of a critical thinking test
required the prior development and specification of a con-
ception of critical thinking. So my dissertation combined
the development of a conception with the development of
a test. The conception leaned heavily on my philosophi-
cal forbears, as well as this question: “How do people go
wrong in their thinking?” Because of my assistantship and
thesis work I was able at the time to contribute directly to
the literature on the teaching of (Ennis, 1956), the nature
of (Ennis, 1962, 1964b), and assessment of (Ennis, 1958,
1959b) critical thinking. In particular, my 1962 article
on the nature of critical thinking, “A Concept of Critical
Thinking,” has received much attention. Michael Roth
(Roth, 2010), in an article in the Chronicle of Higher
Education challenging critical thinking, attributed critical
thinking’s becoming popular to this article. Harvey Seigel
(Siegel, 1988) deemed the article “highly influential” (p.
5). John McPeck (McPeck, 1981), perhaps the critical
thinking movement’s most vociferous critic, treated this
article as presenting “the prevailing view of the conception
of critical thinking” (pp. 39-57).
From Progressive Education to Emphasizing Subject
Matter
Results of the Eight-Year Study were published in
1942, when everyone was focused on World War II. I
believe that the progressive-education movement disin-
tegrated because of the overwhelming importance of the
war (1941-1945 for the United States) when the Eight-Year
Study’s results appeared; the excesses that inevitably occur
in any movement; the strong criticisms of the movement
by academic subject-matter specialists (especially Arthur
Bestor of the University of Illinois); and (the final nail
in the coffin) Russia’s beating the USA to having a suc-
cessful satellite, Sputnik, in 1957. Sputnik’s appearing
before the USA’s first satellite was blamed by many on
the schools, which were still somewhat under the influ-
ence of progressive education. I have a vivid recollection
of the large front-page headline in the Chicago Tribune
right after Sputnik, “What went wrong with U.S. schools?”
According to popular insight, the schools had failed to
teach science to their students. Progressive education
was held by many to be the problem. As a result, straight
subject-matter acquisition became very popular, and was
the theme in former scientist and Harvard President James
B. Conant’s influential The American High School Today
(Conant, 1959).
In spite of the opposition to, and the disintegration
of, the progressive-education movement, there were con-
tinuing expressions of interest in critical thinking in the
1930’s through the 1970’s, mostly by philosophers. Cohen
and Nagel’s Introduction to Logic and Scientific Method
(1934) introduced me as a graduate student to many aspects
of critical thinking. Max Black’s Critical Thinking: An
Introduction to Logic and Scientific Method (1946) and
W. H. Werkmeister’s An Introduction to Critical Thinking
(1948) were college textbooks that to my knowledge were
the earliest college textbooks that used the words “critical
thinking” in their titles. Another early text was Monroe
Beardsley’s Practical Logic (1950). All four of these early
works were guides used by the staff of the Illinois Project
for the Improvement of Thinking, of which I was a member
from 1954 to 1957.
Even Conant was a participant in the early promotion
of critical thinking at the college level with his general
editorship of the series, Harvard Case Histories in Experi-
mental Science (Conant, 1950-1954), and his authorship of
On Understanding Science (Conant, 1951). Using detailed
cases from the history of science, his series and his book
illustrated “certain principles in the strategy and tactics of
science” (Conant, 1951, pp. 102-111). A principal theme of
Conant’s in these works was opposition to a simple five-
step concept of the scientific method (promoted I believe
by the progressive-education movement), which he felt
vastly oversimplified how scientists think. I agreed with
him in his emphasis on principles in scientific thinking
(Ennis, 1974b, 1979, 1991a, 1991b), and his complaint
about oversimplification.
From Sputnik through the mid-1970s, I was part of the
philosophically-oriented minority pressing for the incor-
poration of critical thinking in K-12 and higher education.
During this period (1959-1970), I authored 12 articles
SPRING 2011, VOL. 26, NO. 1
and two books concerned with the nature, teaching, and
assessment of critical thinking.
The Vietnam War Protests
From the mid-1960s to the mid-1970s, the Vietnam
War and student-based concerns about relevance, authen-
ticity, and the war itself overwhelmed the subject-matter
emphasis of Conant and others. But it was not only students
who challenged the academic establishment. I vividly re-
member a scholarly professor in the English Department
at Cornell University in 1968 expressing at a university
faculty meeting his contempt for the academic establish-
ment by gravely pronouncing, “We’re in bad trouble.”
“Bad trouble” is not the sort of expression I expected to
hear from a scholar in the English Department at a Uni-
versity Faculty meeting. It was protest language. To use it
in those circumstances in 1968 was a powerful expression
from within of a rejection of academia.
In that context, critical thinking struggled along,
but was not very popular because of its emphasis on
rigor, reflection, and, alternatives, as opposed to action
now. For example, the activists of the period judged that
neutrality by our educational institutions was impossible
(generally, in that period, neutrality toward the Vietnam
War, and in one instance, toward the administration in the
late 1960’s by some colleges and universities of a draft-
exemption examination, an unpopular action in the eyes
of most activists because it constituted what they felt was
complicity in the war effort). Though I opposed the war,
I disagreed with the judgment that neutrality for colleges
and universities was impossible. I argued that neutrality
on any specific issue (though not on every issue at once)
was possible, unless the argument assumed from its begin-
ning that its position and recommendation on the specific
issue were correct, in which case the argument became
essentially circular (Ennis, 1969d, an improvement on an
early version, 1959a). My argument in this case involved
an ordinary-language sensitivity to reported definition and
equivocation, sub-aspects of the definition aspect of critical
thinking to be considered later and listed in the appendix
(Abilities 9b1 and 9d).
Renewed Emphasis on Critical Thinking
In the late 1970’s, concern about critical thinking
moved back into the foreground, I believe because of the
excesses of the protest movement, because the war was
over, and because the protestor’s emphasis on relevance
had strong appeal. Howard Kahane’s popular Logic and
Contemporary Rhetoric (1971) contributed to the revival
of attention to critical thinking at the time. It “was written
. . . in an attempt to raise the level of political argument
and reasoning by acquainting students with the devices and
ploys which drag that level down” (Kahane, 1971, Pref-
ace). But the renewed emphasis on critical thinking was
7
not as part of a rejuvenation of the progressive-education
movement. Critical thinking was advocated because it
provided the rigor, reflection, and reasonableness that both
the anti- and pro-war forces had ignored, as evidenced by
Howard Kahane’s influential efforts.
Around 1980, interest in critical thinking suddenly ex-
ploded. The First International Conference on Informal Log-
ic was held at the University of Windsor in 1978. Canada,
as I understand it, had not experienced the extreme reaction
against academia that we had in the United States. Never-
theless, there was some, and emphasis on critical thinking
and informal logic was a step back to rigor and reflection.
Significant establishment institutions contributed. The
Commission on the Humanities (1980), sponsored by the
Rockefeller Foundation, placed heavy emphasis on critical
thinking, as did the Carnegie Foundation’s Ernest Boyer
(Boyer, 1983). The College Board (College Board, 1983),
which is responsible for the SAT test, specified reasoning
as one of the six basic academic competencies in Aca-
demic Preparation for College. In 1983, Executive Order
# 338 in the California State University System required
that in order to graduate from one of the State University
units, a student must have had nine hours of instruction
in communication and in critical thinking. At the Second
International Conference on Informal Logic at Windsor
in 1983, The Association for Informal Logic and Critical
Thinking (AILACT) was established, the membership of
which then consisted mostly of philosophers from Canada
and the United States — and it still does. The American
Philosophical Association’s Board of Officers (1985) urged
philosophers to help with attempts to test for critical think-
ing and attempts to include critical thinking in elementary
and secondary curricula.
This explosion of interest was neither a return to
straight subject matter exclusively, nor to the progressive-
education movement. It was a marriage of subject matter
and one important feature of the progressive movement,
critical thinking, a marriage that to this day we struggle to
implement. In going beyond straight subject-matter acquisi-
tion, The College Board exhibited this attempted marriage
in its Academic Preparation for College: “The learning
outcomes described here [including reasoning] are rigorous
as well as comprehensive” (College Board, 1983, p. 3).
The roots of three current, philosopher-led, criti-
cal-thinking-promoting organizations developed in the
1980’s. One, led by Richard Paul (and currently also
Linda Elder), developed at Sonoma State University,
California, with large annual conferences of educators at
the K-12 and university levels at which many of us in
AILACT made presentations. Its current titles are Foun-
dation for Critical Thinking, Center for Critical Think-
ing, and The National Council for Excellence in Critical
Thinking. A second, led by Robert Swartz, developed at
the University of Massachusetts-Boston with a masters
8 INQUIRY: CRITICAL THINKING ACROSS THE DISCIPLINES
program in critical and creative thinking, and is currently
titled the National Center for Teaching Thinking (NCTT).
I have participated in some of its workshops. A third, led
by Peter Facione, had its origins at Santa Clara Univer-
sity, California, where Facione led an effort to arrive
at an agreement by mail among forty-six specialists in
critical thinking (of which I was one) on a fairly-detailed
dispositions-and-abilities definition of ‘critical thinking.’
Facione called the results “The Delphi Report” (Facione,
1990). His organization operates under the title Insight
Assessment. The first two of these organizations focus on
teaching, and the third focuses on a conception of and on
the assessment of critical thinking, although all are con-
cerned with all three elements. All three have extensive
web sites. The first and second claim “national” status,
but I see no interaction or cooperation between them.
AILACT, of which I am a member and past pres-
ident, is open to new members on application, has elec-
tions for its leaders, and is not publicized as well as the
above three, though it is trying to catch up. On its web site
at http://ailact.mcmaster.ca, it provides material dealing
with the nature of, teaching of, and assessment of criti-
cal thinking and informal logic, lists available consultants
from its membership, lists institutions providing advanced
instruction in critical thinking, and will be listing avail-
able critical thinking tests. AILACT also sponsors criti-
cal thinking and informal logic sessions at annual APA
meetings. More information about all four of these critical
thinking organizations can be found on their web sites.
Throughout the 1980’s there was a large amount
of activity in critical thinking: workshops, conferences,
test development, new curricula, restatement of goals,
books, articles, etc., accompanied by controversies about
all aspects of the movement. These controversies live
on, and include the basic nature of critical thinking; the
details of the nature of critical thinking; the relationship
between critical thinking and subject matter; promoting
critical thinking in the different subjects as opposed to
doing it in separate critical thinking courses (often unfor-
tunately assumed to be mutually-exclusive alternatives);
the role of metacognition (being aware of and thinking
about one’s own thinking) in critical thinking; the nature
of the deduction involved in critical thinking; the role
of persuasion in critical thinking; the relation between
critical thinking and problem solving; the degree to which
critical thinking is broader than argumentation — and
deduction, if at all; the possibility of assessing critical
thinking; how to assess critical thinking — on a large
scale and on a small scale; the possibility of teaching
critical thinking; the role of critical thinking principles
in critical thinking instruction; whether to seek and how
to achieve transfer of the learning of critical thinking to
topics other than those used in instruction; and of course,
the value of critical thinking.
The multiplicity of critical-thinking-promoting activi-
ties from 1980 through the present involved not only phi-
losophers, but also people in all subject-matter areas. The
principal academics with whom I interacted at workshops
and conferences were philosophers, psychologists, and
speech/communication experts, each with a somewhat dif-
ferent emphasis. To oversimplify, the philosophers tended
to emphasize seeking the truth (or the rightness or correct-
ness of a process or result), and using rational methods of
doing so; psychologists tended to emphasize empirical
relationships, such as what causes what, including such
processes as metacognition, transfer of critical thinking
learning to a new area of application, and problem solving.
Speech/communication experts tended to emphasize effec-
tive persuasion. But all three were generally interested at
least to some extent in the others’ emphases. During this
period I contributed to general critical thinking and criti-
cal thinking in science, and authored some 41 articles and
one book, as well as co-authoring two articles, one book,
three published tests, and several unpublished tests, each
relevant to at least one of the above-listed controversial
areas in critical thinking.
In the 1980’s, the critical thinking movement em-
phasized critical thinking in K-12, as well as at the un-
dergraduate level. Extending into the 1990’s and the first
decade of the twenty-first century, emphasis on critical
thinking increased in college and universities, at least
in mission statements. This occurred partly at the behest
of accrediting agencies and partly because people real-
ized that critical thinking is important and that existing
subject-matter acquisition generally did not adequately
prepare people to think critically in their vocational, civic,
and personal lives. All the controversies I have mentioned
continue today, though progress has been made. Because
critical thinking is so important, I have devoted much of
my career to the task.
My Contributions to the Content of the
Critical Thinking Movement
Because I am probably best known for my develop-
ment of a conception of critical thinking, and because
teaching and assessment both assume a conception of
critical thinking, the nature of critical thinking is the first
topic to be addressed. It will be followed in Part II in the
next issue of Inquiry by discussions of assessment,
teaching (including incorporation in a curriculum), and
future prospects.
The Nature of Critical Thinking
Early on I developed a definition and an associated
elaborated conception of critical thinking (Ennis, 1962).
I am here employing the distinction between ‘concept’
and ’conception’ that John Rawls offered (Rawls, 1971,
SPRING 2011, VOL. 26, NO. 1
p. 5), following H. L. A. Hart (Hart, 1961, pp. 155-159):
A concept is that which different, more detailed concep-
tions of a particular idea have in common. But I use the
terms “definition” and “conception” instead of “concept”
and “conception” in order to minimize confusion. In 1962
I was not aware of the distinction and called the whole
presentation “a concept of critical thinking” (Ennis, 1962,
p. 81), though a more appropriate title might have been “a
definition and a conception of critical thinking.”
As a result not only of the intense discussions of the
late 1970s and the early 1980s, but also further investiga-
tion from 1962 to 1987 of a number of critical thinking
aspects, my first definition and conception of critical
thinking developed into a new pair (Ennis 1987b, 1991c,
1996a, 2002), which I shall call my second definition and
conception. In this section, I shall present and discuss the
features of the two pairs, the second conception having
evolved from the first, and the second definition being
radically different from the first, though they both treat
critical thinking as a term of approbation. An unexempli-
fied presentation of the total second definition/conception
can be found in the appendix to this essay.
My First Critical Thinking Definition and the
Associated First Conception of Critical Thinking
The critical thinking definition that was presented
to me as a graduate student was the one advanced by B.
Othanel Smith (Smith, 1953), my advisor, mentor, teacher,
model, and supervisor in the Illinois Project for the Im-
provement of Thinking. Smith held that critical thinking is
both determining the meaning of statements and assessing
these statements (p. 130).
For my first definition, I amended Smith’s definition
by holding that critical thinking is “the correct assessing
of statements” (Ennis, 1962, p. 83). The key change from
Smith’s definition was the addition of the word “correct.”
I felt that the determining-the-meaning part was implicit,
although I now would make it explicit because it is so
important. I added “correct” because I believed and still
do believe (somewhat under the ordinary-language influ-
ence of the later Wittgenstein) that “critical thinking,” as
used in the critical thinking movement, was not merely a
descriptive term, but also a term of approbation.
This approbation feature of the first definition is one
of several features of particular note in the 1962 defini-
tion/conception. Three other features are (a) emphasis on
detailed criteria, (b) emphasis on good judgment in an
imprecise environment because criteria do not automati-
cally yield critical thinking decisions, and (c) attention to
credibility of sources. I shall elaborate.
(a) Criteria
One basic idea in both the first and second of my
conceptions of critical thinking came from my high school
9
teaching experience. It is that in order to do critical think-
ing, students need criteria for making decisions. These
criteria would give them guidance that is as precise as is
feasible in making decisions. That meant, for example, not
just that students should learn or know that they should
take into account the credibility of their sources, or that
they should judge a hypothesis by looking at the evidence;
but also that they should learn or know criteria (and ac-
companying distinctions) for deciding whether a source is
credible, or for judging whether the evidence supports the
hypothesis. As a high school teacher I had no such criteria
to promote with my students.
(b) Good Judgment: Qualifications, Tolerating Lack
of Precision, and SEBKUS
One cannot expect the application of these criteria
to yield a result automatically, except in mathematics
and deductive logic. And even deductive logic in real life
applications usually has to deal with implicit or explicit
qualifying words like ‘ceteris paribus’ (other things be-
ing equal), ‘probably,’ ‘tends to,’ ‘roughly,’ etc., making
the application of criteria not logically necessary in most
cases (Ennis, 1969b); hence, in a way, imprecise or loose.
So good judgment in applying the criteria is needed
as well. Criteria used in making a good judgment are
generally aided by Sensitivity, Experience, Background
Knowledge, and Understanding of the Situation, that is,
“SEBKUS” (an acronym I developed fairly recently (En-
nis, 2004)).
These emphases on criteria and good judgment (ex-
pressed with varying degrees of qualification, and made
with SEBKUS) have permeated all my work on critical
thinking, even my work on operational definition (En-
nis, 1964a), but the basic ideas started to develop when
I was a graduate student involved in the Illinois Project
for the Improvement of Thinking. They are key features
of my 1962 concept article. Many of my articles since
then have elaborated these emphases in different contexts
and with respect to different aspects of critical thinking.
If I am right about the need for good judgment (which
often requires a tolerance of some lack of precision,
that is, tolerance of some looseness), then I see no hope
for computerizing critical thinking, though I admit that
expert computer systems can probably ((!) — See my
paper “Probably” (Ennis, 2006) for a discussion of some
details of imprecision.) do a better job in tight time limits
than many professionals.
The emphases on qualifications, tolerance of impreci-
sion, and SEBKUS are not original. For example, Aristotle
suggested them in The Nichomachean Ethics (I, 3). I have
attempted to implement them in numerous places (Ennis,
1964a, 1969b Ch. 5, 1981a, 1987a, 1987b, 1991c, 1996a,
2001, 2004, 2006, 2007). But although they seem obvious
to me, they are controversial, both in and out of philosophy.
10 INQUIRY: CRITICAL THINKING ACROSS THE DISCIPLINES
(c) Credibility of Sources
Another feature I introduced that was not original,
but that to my knowledge was new to the philosophical
critical thinking literature is the emphasis on judging the
credibility of sources. I introduced it in my dissertation,
leaning heavily on a legal source, John Henry Wigmore.
(Wigmore, 1942) In the first definition/conception article
(1962), I discussed credibility of sources and later, at
the time of challenges to President Nixon’s credibility,
elaborated the imprecision of credibility criteria (Ennis,
1974a). I also incorporated credibility of sources in my
second conception of critical thinking (Ennis, 1980, 1981b,
1987a, 1991c, 1996a, 2002).
Credibility of sources is now fairly widely accepted
as an aspect of critical thinking. I suspect that it was
not mentioned in early philosophical works on critical
thinking because of philosophers’ traditional emphasis
on argument and reasoning (especially deductive logic).
However, I do realize that there was some philosophical
concern with this topic, for example in consideration of
fallacies, and in Francis Bacon’s “idols,” but criteria for
judging credibility of a source (such as the desirability
of a source’s not having a conflict of interest) were not at
that time advanced in the philosophical literature (so far
as I know). However, they are in both of my conceptions
of critical thinking.
My Second Critical Thinking Definition and
Conception of Critical Thinking
Going beyond the special features of the first defi-
nition/conception, (criteria, judgment/imprecision, and
credibility of sources) my second definition/conception
has several additional special features. These are (a) the
definition itself, (b) explicit inclusion of critical thinking
dispositions, (c) qualified deduction, (d) detailing of as-
sumption ascription, (e) expansion of inference-to-best-
explanation, (f) special emphasis on equivocation, and (g)
inclusion of value judging. All of these except the first and
the last, were present in some form or were implicit in the
first conception. I shall discuss each in turn.
(a) The Definition
John Dewey provided two informative examples of
critical thinking in How We Think. The first involves what
to believe about the cause of bubbling coming from under
hot, recently-washed glasses (which involved formulat-
ing alternative hypotheses and checking predictions from
them with observations). The second concerned selecting
a subway train for a timely trip to his destination (involv-
ing alternative possible decisions, exploring their prob-
able consequences, and making one decision, which was
implemented and found satisfactory). He thus exemplified
the two main emphases (belief and action) in my second
and current definition of critical thinking:
“Critical thinking is reasonable reflective
thinking focused on deciding what to believe
or do.” (Ennis, 1987a, 1987b, 1991a, 1996a,
2002).
During the early 1980s when I was developing this
definition, Gerald Nosich urged me to add “or do” to
“believe,” on the ground that decisions about actions (not
only decisions about beliefs) are a type of decision that is
ordinarily included in the concerns of people in the criti-
cal thinking movement and incorporated in their use of
the term. I appreciate his suggestion and did implement it.
It is not a precise definition, which fact befits the gen-
eral imprecision in the everyday use of the term ‘critical
thinking’ (thus illustrating the tolerance of imprecision as
suits the circumstances, which was a topic in the previ-
ous section). If the definition is a true though imprecise
report of usage in the critical thinking movement, which
is what I hold it to be, then it describes the current no-
tion of critical thinking in that movement. But it is also
positional in that in offering it I take the position that this
definition represents something worth implementing in
our education system and elsewhere. So I offer it also as
a defensible positional definition (a definition that takes a
position on some issue for which rational arguments can
be offered). I hold this position because I think that reason-
able and reflective thinking focused on what to believe or
do should be a very important part of our personal, civic,
and vocational lives, and should receive attention in our
education system.
(b) Dispositions
The first conception has been criticized for omitting
critical thinking dispositions (e.g., Siegel, 1988, p. 6), such
as the dispositions to be open-minded, to try to be well
informed, to be alert for alternatives, and to exercise one’s
critical thinking abilities. Although I believe that critical
thinking dispositions are implicit in my first conception, I
explicitly included them in the second conception because
they are so important and might otherwise be neglected.
Over the years, I have reorganized my presentation of
critical thinking dispositions (Ennis, 1987a, 1991c, 1996a,
1996b, 2002). See the latest version in the appendix. It is a
brief list with no examples, containing I believe the most
important ones.
(c) Qualified Deduction
The basic ideas of deduction are important in many
aspects of thought, as I argued in “A Conception of De-
ductive Logic Competence” (Ennis, 1981a), although
logical necessity is too strict for many practical ap-
plications (discussed under “Good Judgment” above),
and although material implication and its cohorts make
trouble and must be ignored in critical thinking (Lewis,
SPRING 2011, VOL. 26, NO. 1
C. I., 1912 and Strawson, P. F., 1952). Criteria for useful
deduction have not been specified in most versions of my
second conception of critical thinking in order to save
space, but can be found in a few places (Ennis, 1969a,
1969b, 1981a, 1996a, with further application discussed
in 2004).
Deduction is usually included in attempts by phi-
losophers to teach critical thinking. What is unique in
my conception is my emphasis on qualifying deductive
reasoning so as to accommodate the implicit and explicit
use of words like ‘probably’ and ‘ceteris paribus.’ The
explicit rejection of material implication and its cohorts is
not unique, but is controversial. Keeping deduction simple
is also a feature of my approach, but it is not unique in the
field of critical thinking.
(d) Assumption Ascription
This second conception goes more deeply into types
of assumptions and criteria for ascribing assumptions than
is widely advocated, perhaps because of the complexity
of the topic. Ordinarily students are urged to identify their
and others’ assumptions, but are not told how to do this.
There are different sorts of assumptions, which need
to be distinguished from each other because different
criteria apply to each. Some are presuppositions, which
must be true for another proposition to make sense (but
see Donnellan, 1966,1968). Some are assumptions in the
pejorative sense. Some are also needed assumptions (called
“assumptions of the argument” by Hitchcock, 1985),
which, however, are not logically necessary conditions
for drawing the conclusion, as some people think. And
some are used assumptions (called “assumptions of the
arguer” by Hitchcock, 1985), that is, those that someone
cognitively used, either explicitly or implicitly. Reason-
able space limits preclude giving more details here, but the
distinctions and criteria for ascribing assumptions can be
found most completely in “Identifying Implicit Assump-
tions” (Ennis, 1982c), and to a lesser extent also in Critical
Thinking (Ennis, 1996a), “Argument Appraisal Strategy”
(Ennis, 2001), and “Applying Soundness Standards to
Qualified Reasoning” (Ennis, 2004).
(e) Inference-to-best-explanation
Although inference-to-best-explanation (IBE) is well
known in the philosophical literature as exemplified by
Gilbert Harman (Harman, 1965, 1973), a discussion by
me of one feature of Harman’s approach (Ennis, 1968)
with a reply by him, and Peter Lipton’s book (Lipton,
2004). But outside of my work (Ennis, 1996a), IBE is not
generally advocated in the critical thinking literature. There
are three features about IBE that I should mention: (1) the
confusion that might be introduced by the name, (2) its
widespread applicability in fields other than science, and
(3) its relation to causality.
11
First with regard to a confusion, IBE basically consists
of an approach to evaluation of hypotheses that considers
the explanatory power of the hypothesis and the inability
of competitors to explain evidence or the outright incon-
sistency of the alternatives with the evidence. There are
details that are more controversial. But calling it “infer-
ence” might misleadingly suggest that it is a set of rules for
generating hypotheses, that is, of inferring the hypothesis
directly from the evidence, which it is not. Rather IBE is an
approach containing a set of rules or criteria for evaluating
a hypothesis, and in many situations is the evaluation part
of the exploratory process of refining and developing a final
hypothesis, which is also evaluated by IBE.
However, ‘IBE’ can also be used as a label for the
intuitive leap from the known facts in a situation to a
hypothesis which should then be judged for its adequacy
by the rules or criteria of IBE. Thus IBE is both an intui-
tive generation and an approach to evaluating the product
resulting from this intuitive process. This dual meaning
can be confusing.
Second, as far as applicability is concerned, IBE ap-
plies not only to scientific hypotheses, but also to historical
claims about what happened, such as, “Napoleon died of
arsenic poisoning”; interpretive claims in literature, such
as the claim that in Othello, Desdemona’s maid, Emelia,
“never dreamed he [Iago] was a villain.” (Bradley, 1937,
p. 213 — an example suggested to me by Bruce Warner).
It also applies to test validity claims, such as a claim I have
made to the effect that a particular critical thinking test is
a substantially valid test of college-level critical thinking
ability under standard conditions (Ennis, 2009). I have
discussed the Napoleon and Emelia examples elsewhere
(Ennis, 1996a).
Third, to consider IBE in relation to causality, as I
see it, all explanatory hypotheses that account for an oc-
currence or type of occurrence are implicitly or explicitly
causal. There are some, including Bertrand Russell, who
have urged abandoning causality in our disciplined think-
ing, and there are various views about what it is and how
we identify it. This is a controversial area. In the past, I
have argued that we should not abandon causality (Ennis,
1982a), and that being a necessary condition for an effect
is not necessarily necessary (Ennis, 1982b), contrary to
necessary-condition and counterfactual analyses of specific
(singular) causal claims, e.g., the analyses of John Mackie
(1974) and David Lewis (1973). I have also tried to sketch
out a broad picture of causality (Ennis, 1973), especially
specific causal claims like ‘The bad decisions by BP caused
the 2010 Gulf oil spill’ and ‘Lack of adequate regulation
caused the spill’ (two seemingly inconsistent claims),
and am now working on a sufficient-condition speech-act
interpretation of specific causal claims. However, I am
convinced that causality itself is an irreducible notion.
There is still much work to be done here.
12 INQUIRY: CRITICAL THINKING ACROSS THE DISCIPLINES
(f) Equivocation
Although equivocation is a standard item in a list of
fallacies, I treat it as deserving special mention because
it is particularly insidious. In my first conception I called
it merely “ambiguity,” but actually it is more serious than
ambiguity. It is often connected with definitions, and I
usually mention it in association with definitions. As I use
the term, equivocation is the process of shifting between
two meanings of a term in an argument, generally proving
a proposition using one sense of the term and applying the
proposition using a different sense.
For example someone might charge that my concep-
tion of critical thinking is biased because it takes a posi-
tion on what makes for good thinking. In this example the
definition of ‘bias’ that is assumed is that a person is biased
if he or she has a position on something. But the applica-
tion of the term ‘bias’ seems to be a charge of unfairness
(unfairness not having been mentioned in the definition of
‘bias,’ but a characteristic ordinarily associated with the
use of the term ‘bias’). So it seems to follow that critical
thinking is unfair, if one ignores the shift in meaning. But
of course, it does not follow.
Actually, blatant cases of equivocation (in which the
arguer explicitly adopts two meanings, and deliberately
exploits the shift between them) are rare. Most actual cases
of equivocation are more subtle, and must be uncovered
by probing. One of the subtleties is in what I have called
“impact equivocation” (Ennis, 1980) which is found in
arguments that have the impact of equivocation but in
which the arguer does not explicitly adopt both of the
meanings of the crucial term. Rather the arguer adopts a
special meaning for a term that is at variance with ordinary
use of the audience, makes a statement using the term in
that special meaning, which will be taken by the audience
to assume the ordinary meaning of the term, and thus be
misleading. This sometimes happens with the word ‘bias’,
and with the word ‘reliability’, a psychometric term used
in the discussion of tests. Concern with equivocation,
including impact equivocation, is one of the good things
that was part of the ordinary-language movement inspired
by the later Wittgenstein.
(g) Value judgments
Value judgments were omitted in my first conception,
making it what I then called a “truncated” conception.
Appraising value judgments is an aspect of the second
conception, and some criteria are offered, such as getting
the facts straight (including facts about the likely conse-
quences of an action), prima facie application of acceptable
principles, and attention to alternatives. But a heavy dose
of good judgment is needed as well.
Two Overall Summaries
(a) The appendix
“The Nature of Critical Thinking: An Outline of
Critical Thinking Dispositions and Abilities,” which is the
appendix to this paper and is in outline form, contains all
of the above-described second-conception ideas, as well
as additional features that are fairly standard in the critical
thinking literature. This outline, though unexemplified, is
comprehensive and thorough enough to be used in plan-
ning for an overall curriculum, or as a basis for a table
of specifications for a critical thinking test or test series.
But it makes for difficult reading if read straight through,
especially for beginners, and it contains more than can be
incorporated in an introductory course in critical thinking.
(b) A brief summary of the second conception
Table 1 provides a very brief (“super-streamlined”)
overall presentation with neither listings of criteria nor
detailed listing of aspects of critical thinking. I call it
“super-streamlined” to show that it is a streamlined ver-
sion of “A streamlined conception of critical thinking”
(Ennis, 1991c) and other article-length presentations of the
second conception. It also merges critical thinking abilities
and dispositions. But it can be useful as someone’s first
encounter with critical thinking, or as a rough checklist for
a student’s paper or thesis, or for anyone’s act of deciding
what to believe or do.
Table 1
A Super-Streamlined Conception of
Critical Thinking
Assuming that critical thinking is reasonable reflective thinking
focused on deciding what to believe or do, a critical thinker:
1. Is open-minded and mindful of alternatives
2. Desires to be, and is, well-informed
3. Judges well the credibility of sources
4. Identifies conclusions, reasons, and assumptions
5. Asks appropriate clarifying questions
6. Judges well the quality of an argument, including its reasons,
assumptions, evidence, and their degree of support for the
conclusion
7. Can well develop and defend a reasonable position, doing
justice to challenges
8. Formulates plausible hypotheses
9. Plans and conducts experiments well
10. Defines terms in a way appropriate for the context
11. Draws conclusions when warranted — but with caution
12. Integrates all items in this list
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
Domain” (Bloom, 1956) is inspiring, but not very helpful
as guidance. Among other things, its six categories do
not have useful criteria that can be applied across top-
ics and subject-matter areas. For example, his category,
analysis, covers a range of important activities that vary
considerably from, for example, chemistry to literature,
with not much in common that is worth teaching as criti-
cal thinking or “higher-order thinking” (a term in use by
Bloom’s followers). There is not much to teach in general
about analysis, making Bloom’s taxonomy vulnerable to
McPeck’s (1981, 1990a) complaints about the emptiness
of attempts to teach general thinking. However, in provid-
ing a list with a five-to-one ratio of thinking categories to
“knowledge” (Bloom behaviorally defined “knowledge”
as ‘recall,’ but most people have taken it in its ordinary
sense), his taxonomy is an apparently persuasive counter to
demands for exclusive attention to subject-matter knowl-
edge, as opposed to higher-order thinking.
Other Topics
Related to the second conception, though not explic-
itly mentioned in it, is the relationship between critical
thinking and creativity. In agreement with Sharon Bailin
(1985), I hold that they are somewhat interdependent
(Ennis, 1985). Judgments that some act of thinking is
creative generally assume a positive evaluation of the
thinking (thus requiring critical thinking). Furthermore,
creativity is needed in generating hypotheses, definitions,
and alternatives, in planning experiments, and conceiving
of counter-examples.
Another so-far-undiscussed topic in this essay is the
possibility of critical thinking’s being gender or culturally
biased (Wheary & Ennis, 1995; Ennis, 1998). My view is
that critical thinking is basically not gender or culturally
biased, as can be seen in a point-by-point examination of
the second conception in the Appendix.
Later, in the section labeled “Teaching Critical Think-
ing” in Part II, I will consider the question of whether
critical thinking is subject-specific, and the question of
the appropriate allocation of responsibility for teaching
critical thinking among various teachers, subject-matter
areas, and other units. Both questions are related to one’s
conception of critical thinking, but perhaps better consid-
ered under teaching.
[To be continued in INQUIRY Vol. 26, No. 2 (Sum-
mer 2011).]
References
Aiken, W. M. (1942). The story of the eight-year study. New
York: Harper & Brothers.
The American Philosophical Association (1985). Board of Of-
ficers’ statement on critical thinking. Proceedings of the
American Philosophical Association, 58, 484.
13
Anderson, H. R. (1942). Teaching critical thinking in the social
studies. Washington: The National Council for the Social
Studies.
Bailin, S. (1985). Creativity and quality. In E. Robertson (Ed.),
Philosophy of education 1984 (Proceedings of the fortieth
annual meeting of the Philosophy of Education Society).
Normal, IL: Philosophy of Education Society.
Beardsley, M. (1950). Practical logic. New York: Prentice Hall.
Black, M. (1946). Critical thinking. New York: Prentice Hall.
Bloom, B. S. (Ed.), (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives
– The classification of educational goals – Handbook 1:
The cognitive domain. New York: Longmans Green and Co.
Boyer, E. (1983). High school. New York: Harper & Rowe.
Bradley, A. C. (1937). Shakespearean tragedy. London: Mac-
millan.
Cohen, M. B., & Nagel, E. (1934). An introduction to logic and
scientific method. New York: Harcourt Brace.
College Board (1983). Academic preparation for college. New
York College Entrance Examination Board.
Commission on the Humanities (1980). The humanities in
American life. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Conant, J. B. (1951). On understanding science. New York,
Mentor.
Conant, J. B. (Ed.) (1950-1954). Harvard case histories in experi-
mental science, #1 through #8. Cambridge, MA: Harvard.
Conant, J. B. (1959). The American high school today: A first
report to interested citizens. New York: McGraw-Hill Book
Company.
Dewey, J. (1933, first edition 1910). How we think. Boston: D.
C. Heath.
Donnellan, K. S. (1966). Reference and definite descriptions.
The Philosophical Review, 75, 281-304.
Donnellan, K. S. (1968). Putting Humpty Dumpty together again.
The Philosophical Review, 77, 203-315.
Ennis, R. H. (May, 1956). Critical thinking: More on its motiva-
tion. Progressive Education, 75-78.
Ennis, R. H. (1958). An appraisal of the Watson-Glaser critical
thinking appraisal. Journal of Educational Research, 52,
155-158.
Ennis, R. H. (1959a). The “impossibility” of neutrality. Harvard
Educational Review, 29, 128-136. Reprinted as “Is it impos-
sible for the schools to be neutral?” (1961), Language and
concepts in education, 1961, B. O. Smith, & R. H. Ennis
(Eds.), Chicago: Rand McNally and Company, pp. 102-111;
and (1971) “¿Es imposible que las escueles sean neutrales?”
in B. O. Smith, & R. H. Ennis (Eds.), Lenguaje y conceptos
en la educacion, 1971, Buenos Aires: Al Ateneo, 113-123.
Ennis, R. H. (1959b). The development of a critical thinking test.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Urbana-Champaign, IL:
University of Illinois, University Microfilms #59-00505.
Ennis, R. H. (1961). “Assumption-finding.” In B. O. Smith, &
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, &
R. H. Ennis (Eds.), Lenguaje y conceptos en la educacion,
1971, Buenos Aires: El Ateneo, 177-194.
14 INQUIRY: CRITICAL THINKING ACROSS THE DISCIPLINES
Ennis, R. H. (1962). A concept of critical thinking. Harvard
Educational Review, 32, pp. 81-111. Reprinted in B. P.
Komisar, & C. J. B. Macmillan (Eds.), Psychological
concepts in education, 1967, Chicago: Rand McNally and
Company, 114-148.
Ennis, R. H. (1964a). Operational definitions. American Educa-
tional Research Journal, 1, 183-201.
Ennis, Robert H. (1964b). A definition of critical thinking. The
Reading Teacher, 17(8), 599-612.
Ennis, R. H. (1968). Enumerative induction and best explanation.
The Journal of Philosophy, 65, 523-530.
Ennis, R. H. (1969a). Logic in teaching. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Ennis, R. H. (1969b). Ordinary logic. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Ennis, R. H. (1969c). Operationism can and should be divorced
from covering law assumptions (a reprint of Operational
Definitions (1964). In L. I. Krimerman (Ed.), The nature
and scope of social science: A critical anthology, 1969, New
York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 431-444.
Ennis, R. H. (1969d). The possibility of neutrality. Journal of
Educational Theory, 19, 347-356.
Ennis, R. H. (1973). On causality. Educational Researcher,
2(6), 4-11.
Ennis, R. H. (1974a). The believability of people. Educational
Forum, 38, 347-354.
Ennis, R. H. (1974b). Definition in science teaching. Instructional
Science, 3, 285-298.
Ennis, R. H. (1979). Research in philosophy of science and
science education. In P. Asquith, & H. Kyburg (Eds.), Cur-
rent research in philosophy of science. East Lansing, MI:
Philosophy of Science Association, 138-170.
Ennis, R. H. (1980). Presidential address: A conception of rational
thinking. In J. Coombs (Ed.), Philosophy of education 1979.
Bloomington, IL: Philosophy of Education Society, 1-30.
Ennis, R. H. (1981a). A conception of deductive logic compe-
tence. Teaching Philosophy, 4, 337-385.
Ennis, R. H. (1981b) Rational thinking and educational practice.
In J. Soltis (Ed.), Philosophy of education 1981 (Eightieth
yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Educa-
tion, Part I). Chicago: The National Society for the Study
of Education, 143-183.
Ennis, R. H. (1981c). Eight fallacies in Bloom’s taxonomy. In
C. J. B. Macmillan (Ed.), Philosophy of education 1980.
Bloomington, IL: Philosophy of Education Society, 269-
273.
Ennis, R. H. (1982a). Abandon causality? Educational Re-
searcher, 11(7), 25-27.
Ennis, R. H. (1982b). Mackie’s singular causality and linked
overdetermination. In P. D. Asquith, & T. Nickles (Eds.),
PSA 1982. East Lansing, MI: Philosophy of Science As-
sociation, 55-64.
Ennis, R. H. (1982c). Identifying implicit assumptions. Synthese,
51, 61-86.
Ennis, R. H. (1985). Quality and creativity. In E. Robertson (Ed.),
Philosophy of education, 1984 (pp. 323-328). Bloomington,
IL: Philosophy of Education Society.
Ennis, R. H. (1987a). A taxonomy of critical thinking dispositions
and abilities. In J. Baron & R. Sternberg (Eds.), Teaching
thinking skills: Theory and practice. New York: W. H.
Freeman, 9-26.
Ennis, R. H. (1987b). A conception of critical thinking — With
some curriculum suggestions. APA Newsletter on Teaching
Philosophy, Summer, 1-5.
Ennis, R. H. (1991a). The State of Illinois goals and sample learn-
ing objectives for scientific thinking and methods: Strengths,
weaknesses and suggestions. Spectrum, 17(1), 10-16.
Ennis, R. H. (1991b). An elaboration of a cardinal goal of science
instruction: Scientific thinking. Educational Philosophy and
Theory, 23(1), 31-45.
Ennis, R. H. (1991c). Critical thinking: A streamlined conception.
Teaching Philosophy, 14(1), 5-25.
Ennis, R. H. (1996a) Critical thinking. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Ennis, R. H. (1996b). Critical thinking dispositions: Their nature
and assessability. Informal Logic, 18(2 & 3), 165-182 .
Ennis, R. H. (March, 1998). Is critical thinking culturally biased?
Teaching Philosophy, 21(1), 15-33.
Ennis, R. H. (2001). Argument appraisal strategy: A comprehen-
sive approach. Informal Logic, 21(2), 97-140.
Ennis, Robert H. (2002). Goals for a critical thinking curriculum
and its assessment. In A. L. Costa (Ed.), Developing minds
(3rd Edition). Alexandria, VA: ASCD, 44-46.
Ennis, R. H. (2004). Applying soundness standards to qualified
reasoning. Informal Logic, 24(1), 23-39.
Ennis, R. H. (2006). ‘Probably’. In D. Hitchcock, & B. Verheij
(Eds.), Arguing on the Toulmin model. Dordrecht, Nether-
lands: Springer, 145-164.
Ennis, R. H. (2007). ‘Probable’ and its equivalents. In H. V.
Hansen & R. C. Pinto (Eds.), Reason reclaimed: Essays in
honor of J. Anthony Blair and Ralph H. Johnson. Newport
News, VA: Vale Press, 243-256.
Ennis, R. H. (2009). Investigating and assessing multiple-choice
critical thinking tests. In J. Sobocan, & L. Groarke (Eds.),
Critical thinking education and assessment: Can higher
order thinking be tested? London, Ontario, CA: Althouse,
75-97.
Ennis, R. H. (in process). Situational test validity.
Facione, P. A. (1990). Critical thinking: A statement of expert
consensus for purposes of educational assessment and
instruction (Executive summary of “The Delphi Report”)
Millbrae, CA: California Academic Press.
Harman, G. (1965). The inference to the best explanation. Philo-
sophical Review, 74(1), 88-95.
Harman, G. (1968). Enumerative induction as inference to the
best explanation. Journal of Philosophy, 65(18), 529-533.
Harman, G. (1973). Thought. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univer-
sity Press.
Hart, H. L. A. (1961). The concept of law. Oxford: The Claren-
don Press.
Hitchcock, D. (1985). Enthymematic arguments. Informal Logic,
7(2 & 3), 83-97.
Institute for Propaganda Analysis (1938). Propaganda analysis.
New York: Columbia University Press.
Kahane, H. (1971). Logic and contemporary rhetoric. Belmont,
CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company.
SPRING 2011, VOL. 26, NO. 1
Lewis, C. I. (1912). Implication and the algebra of logic. Mind,
522-531.
Lewis, D. (1973). Causation. Journal of Philosophy, 70, 556–567.
Lipton, P. (2004). Inference to best explanation. London: Rout-
ledge.
Mackie, J. L. (1974). The cement of the universe. Oxford: Clar-
endon Press.
McPeck, J. (1981). Critical thinking and education. New York:
St. Martin’s Press.
McPeck, J. (1990a). Teaching critical thinking. New York:
Routledge.
McPeck, J. (1990b). Critical thinking and subject specificity:
A reply to Ennis. Educational Researcher, 19(4), 10-12.
Nosich, G. (2010). From argument and philosophy to critical
thinking across the curriculum. INQUIRY: Critical Thinking
Across the Disciplines, 25(3), 4-13.
Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: The
Belknap Press.
Roth, M. (2010). Beyond critical thinking. The Chronicle of
Higher Education, January 3.
Siegel, H. (1988). Educating reason. New York: Routledge.
Smith, B. O. (March, 1953). The improvement of critical think-
ing. Progressive Education, 30(5), 130.
Smith E. R., & Tyler, R. W. (1942). Appraising and recording
student progress. New York: Harper & Brothers.
Strawson, P. F. (1952). Introduction to logical theory. London:
Methuen & Co.
Werkmeister, W. H. (1948). An introduction to critical thinking,
2nd Edition. Lincoln, NE: Johnsen Publishing Co.
Wheary, J., & Ennis, R. H. (1995). Gender bias in critical think-
ing: continuing the dialogue. Educational Theory, 45(2),
213-224.
Wigmore, J. H. (1942). Wigmore’s code of the rules of evidence
in trials at law, 3rd Edition. Boston: Little Brown and Co,
Web sites
AILACT Web Site: ailact.mcmaster.ca/
Ennis, Robert H. Academic Web Site: faculty.ed.uiuc.edu/rhennis
Ennis, Robert H. Critical Thinking Web Site: www.criticalth-
inking.net
Appendix
The Nature of Critical Thinking: An Outline of
Critical Thinking Dispositions and Abilities3
Critical thinking is reasonable and reflective think-
ing focused on deciding what to believe or do. This
definition I believe captures the core of the way the term
is used in the critical thinking movement. In deciding what
to believe or do, one is helped by the employment of a set
of critical thinking dispositions and abilities that I shall
outline. These can serve as a set of comprehensive goals
for a critical thinking curriculum and its assessment. Use-
fulness in curriculum decisions, teaching, and assessment,
not elegance or mutual exclusiveness, is the purpose of this
15
outline. For the sake of brevity, clarification in the form of
examples, qualifications, and more detail, including more
criteria, are omitted, but can be found in sources listed
below, but most fully in my Critical Thinking (1996a).
This outline is the encapsulation of many years of
work in the elaboration of the simple definition of critical
thinking given above, and it distinguishes between critical
thinking dispositions and abilities.
It is only a critical thinking content outline. It does not
specify grade level, curriculum sequence, emphasis, teach-
ing approach, or type of subject-matter content involved
(standard subject-matter content, general knowledge
content, streetwise-knowledge content, special knowledge
content, etc.). For assessment purposes it can only provide
a basis for developing a table of specifications and the
preparation of assessment rubrics.
Critical Thinking Dispositions
Ideal critical thinkers are disposed to
1. Care that their beliefs be true,4 and that their decisions
be justified; that is, care to “get it right” to the extent
possible; including to
a. Seek alternative hypotheses, explanations, conclu-
sions, plans, sources, etc.; and be open to them
b. Consider seriously other points of view than their
own
c. Try to be well informed
d. Endorse a position to the extent that, but only to the
extent that, it is justified by the information that is
available
e. Use their critical thinking abilities
2. Care to understand and present a position honestly
and clearly, theirs as well as others’; including to
a. Discover and listen to others’ view and reasons
b. Be clear about the intended meaning of what is
said, written, or otherwise communicated, seeking
as much precision as the situation requires
c. Determine, and maintain focus on, the conclusion
or question
d. Seek and offer reasons
e. Take into account the total situation
f. Be reflectively aware of their own basic beliefs
3. Care about every person. (This one is an auxiliary,
not constitutive, disposition. Although this concern
for people is not constitutive, critical thinking can be
dangerous without it.) Caring critical thinkers
a. Avoid intimidating or confusing others with their
critical thinking prowess, taking into account others’
feelings and level of understanding
b. Are concerned about others’ welfare
16 INQUIRY: CRITICAL THINKING ACROSS THE DISCIPLINES
Critical Thinking Abilities
The following abilities numbered 1 to 3 involve basic
clarification; 4 and 5, the bases for a decision; 6 to 8,
inference; 9 and 10, advanced clarification; and 11 and
12, supposition and integration. Abilities 13 to 15 are
auxiliary abilities, not constitutive of critical thinking,
but very helpful.
Ideal critical thinkers have the ability to:
(Basic Clarification, 1 to 3)
1. Focus on a question:
a. Identify or formulate a question
b. Identify or formulate criteria for judging possible
answers
c. Keep the question and situation in mind
Analyze arguments:
2.
a. Identify conclusions
b. Identify reasons or premises
c. Ascribe or identify simple assumptions (see also
ability 10)
c. Identify and handle irrelevance
d. See the structure of an argument
e. Summarize
3. Ask and answer clarification and/or challenge ques-
tions, such as:
a. Why?
b. What is your main point?
c. What do you mean by______________________?
d. What would be an example?
e. What would not be an example (though close to
being one)?
f. How does that apply to this case (describe a case,
which appears to be a counterexample)?
g. What difference does it make?
h. What are the facts?
i. Is this what you are saying:__________________?
j. Would you say more about that?
(Two Bases for a Decision: 4 and 5)
4. Judge the credibility of a source. Major criteria (but
not necessary conditions):
a. Expertise
b. Lack of conflict of interest
c. Agreement with other sources
d. Reputation
e. Use of established procedures
f. Known risk to reputation (the source’s knowing of
a risk to reputation, if wrong)
g. Ability to give reasons
h. Careful habits
5. Observe, and judge observation reports. Major
criteria (but not necessary conditions, except for
the first):
a. Minimal inferring involved
b. Short time interval between observation and report
c. Report by the observer, rather than someone else
(that is, the report is not hearsay)
d. Provision of records
e. Corroboration
f. Possibility of corroboration
g. Good access
h. Competent employment of technology, if technol-
ogy applies
i. Satisfaction by observer (and reporter, if a differ-
ent person) of the credibility criteria in Ability # 4
above (Note: A third basis is your own established
conclusions.)
(Inference, 6 to 8)
6. Deduce, and judge deduction:
a. Class logic
b. Conditional logic
c. Interpretation of logical terminology, including
i. Negation and double negation
ii. Necessary and sufficient condition language
iii. Such words as “only”, “if and only if”, “or”,
“some”, “unless”, and “not both”
d. Qualified deductive reasoning (a loosening for
practical purposes)
7. Make material inferences (roughly “induction”):
a. To generalizations. Broad considerations:
i. Typicality of data, including valid sampling
where appropriate
ii. Volume of instances
iii. Conformity of instances to generalization
iv. Having a principled way of dealing with outliers
b. To explanatory hypotheses (IBE: “inference-to-
best-explanation”):
i. Major types of explanatory conclusions and
hypotheses:
a. Specific and general causal claims
b. Claims about the beliefs and attitudes of
people
c. Interpretation of authors’ intended meanings
d. Historical claims that certain things happened
(including criminal accusations)
e. Reported definitions
f. Claims that some proposition is an unstated,
but used, reason
ii. Characteristic investigative activities
a. Designing experiments, including planning
to control variables
SPRING 2011, VOL. 26, NO. 1
b. Seeking evidence and counterevidence, in-
cluding statistical significance
c. Seeking other possible explanations
iii. Criteria, the first four being essential, the fifth
being desirable
a. The proposed conclusion would explain or
help explain the evidence
b. The proposed conclusion is consistent with
all known facts
c. Competitive alternative explanations are
inconsistent with facts
d. A competent sincere effort has been made
to find supporting and opposing data, and
alternative hypotheses
e. The proposed conclusion seems plausible and
simple, fitting into the broader picture
Make and judge value judgments
8. 11. Consider and reason from premises, reasons, assump-
Important factors:
a. Background facts
b. Consequences of accepting or rejecting the judg-
ment
c. Prima facie application of acceptable principles
d. Alternatives
e. Balancing, weighing, deciding
(Advanced Clarification, 9 and 10)
9. Define terms and judge definitions, using appropriate
criteria
  Three basic dimensions are form, function (act),
and content. A fourth, more advanced dimension is
handling equivocation.
a. Definition form. For criteria for 1 through 4 and
6, see Ennis (1996, Ch 12 & 13). For #5 see Ennis
(1964, 1969c).
i. Synonym
ii. Classification
iii. Range
iv. Equivalent-expression
v. Operational
vi. Example and non-example
b. Definitional functions (acts)
i. Report a meaning (criteria: the five for an ex-
planatory hypothesis)
ii. Stipulate a meaning (criteria: convenience,
consistency, avoidance of impact equivocation)
iii. Express a position on an issue (positional defini-
tions, including “programmatic” and “persua-
sive” definitions) Criteria: those for a position
(Ennis 2001)
c. Content of the definition
d. Identifying and handling equivocation (Ennis 1996)
17
10. Attribute unstated assumptions (an ability that belongs
under both basic clarification (2b) and inference (7bif)
a. Pejorative flavor (dubiousness or falsity): com-
monly but not always associated to some degree
with the different types. Criteria: See #8 above.
b. Types:
i. Presuppositions (required for a proposition to
make sense)
ii. Needed assumptions (needed by the reasoning
to be at its strongest, but not logically necessary
(Ennis 1982)), (called “assumptions of the argu-
ment” by Hitchcock (1985))
iii. Used assumptions (judged by hypothesis-testing
criteria, Ennis 1982), called “assumptions of the
arguer” by Hitchcock (1985)
(Supposition and Integration, 11 and 12)
tions, positions, and other propositions with which
they disagree or about which they are in doubt, without
letting the disagreement or doubt interfere with their
thinking (“suppositional thinking”)
12. Integrate the dispositions and other abilities in making
and defending a decision
(Auxiliary abilities, 13 to 15)
13. Proceed in an orderly manner appropriate to the situ-
ation:
a. Follow problem solving steps
b. Monitor their own thinking (that is, engage in
metacognition)
c. Employ a reasonable critical thinking checklist
14. Be sensitive to the feelings, level of knowledge, and
degree of sophistication of others
15. Employ appropriate rhetorical strategies in discussion
and presentation (oral and written), including employ-
ing and reacting to “fallacy” labels in an appropriate
manner. Examples of fallacy labels are “circularity,”
“bandwagon,” “post hoc,” “equivocation,” “non se-
quitur,” and “straw person”
Summary and Comments
In brief, the ideal critical thinker is disposed to try to
“get it right,” to present a position honestly and clearly, and
to care about others (this last being auxiliary, not constitu-
tive); furthermore the ideal critical thinker has the ability
to clarify, to seek and judge well the basis for a view, to
infer wisely from the basis, to imaginatively suppose and
integrate, and to do these things with dispatch, sensitivity,
and rhetorical skill.
18 INQUIRY: CRITICAL THINKING ACROSS THE DISCIPLINES
In presenting this outline of critical thinking disposi-
tions and abilities, I have only attempted to depict, rather
than defend, them. The defense would require much more
space than is available, but would follow two general paths:
1) examining the traditions of good thinking in existing
successful disciplines of inquiry, and 2) seeing how we go
wrong when we attempt to decide what to believe or do.
In any teaching situation for which critical thinking
is a goal, whether it be a separate critical thinking course
or module, or one in which the critical thinking content
is infused in (making critical thinking principles explicit)
or immersed in (not making critical thinking principles
explicit) standard subject-matter content, or some mixture
of these; all of the dispositions, as well as the suppositional
and integrational abilities (# 11 and #12) and auxiliary
abilities (#13 through #15) are applicable all the time and
should permeate the instruction to the extent that time and
student ability permit.
I have only attempted to outline a usable and de-
fensible set of critical thinking goals, including criteria
for making judgments. Space limitations have precluded
exemplifying their application to curriculum, teaching, and
assessment, though I have done so elsewhere.5 However,
goals are the place to start. I hope that this outline provides
a useful basis on which to build curriculum, teaching, and
assessment procedures.
Sources of exemplification, elaboration, and more
criteria.
The meaning, significance, and application of some
of the above aspects might not be apparent to some, who
might find the following items, which contain many ex-
amples, to be of help. Furthermore criteria for deduction,
assumption ascription and definition are not provided in
the above outline of the nature of critical thinking because
they are too complex for a brief listing. Elaboration of
these criteria and this conception by me are listed in “Ref-
erences” (above): 2007, 2006, 2004, 2002, 2001, 1991c,
1987a, 1987b, 1982b, 1982a, 1981a, 1980, 1974a, 1974b,
1973, 1969a, 1969b, 1969c, 1968, 1964a, 1964b, and
1962, but most comprehensively in three others (1996a,
1991, 1987a.)
Endnotes
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
for critical thinking research, and the invaluable help
of my students and colleagues at both universities and
in AILACT.
2. ‘Assessing,’ not ‘assessment,’ thus avoiding the pro-
cess-product ambiguity of ‘assessment,’ an ambiguity
that John McPeck (1981, pp. 44-46), and others in his
footsteps have tried to exploit after misquoting me as
saying “assessment”. If one says “assessment” and
assumes the result (product) sense of “assessment,”
then “correct assessment,” if it were in the definition,
would fail “to recognize that what makes some bit of
thinking critical is a function not of the result but of
the way in which a particular result is pursued” (p.
44). After misquoting me, McPeck (p. 44) mistakenly
attributed this sort of failure to my first definition.
3. This is a thoroughly revised version of a presentation
at the Sixth International Conference on Thinking at
MIT, Cambridge, MA, July, 1994. Last revised Janu-
ary, 2011. Developed by Robert H. Ennis, University
of Illinois. rhennis@illinois.edu
4. With respect to epistemological constructivism (the
view that truth is constructed): In expressing a concern
about true belief, this conception of critical thinking
accepts the view that our concepts and vocabulary
are constructed by us, but also that (to oversimplify
somewhat) the relationships among the referents of
our concepts and terms are not constructed by us. We
can have true or false beliefs about these.
With respect to pedagogical constructivism (the view
that students learn best when they construct their own
answers to problems and questions): For some (but not
all) goals and types of learning, this view has empirical
support, but it should not be confused with episte-
mological constructivism. In particular, the validity
of pedagogical constructivism (to the extent that it is
valid) does not imply the validity of epistemological
constructivism. They are totally different ideas.
5. My complete list of publications is to be found in
the publications sections of my academic web site,
faculty.ed.uiuc.edu/rhennis
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
teach the leaders of the future to think critically about the
values that underlie the decisions they will face and to
reflect on their values to be able to make decisions with an
awareness of what those values are. The current study is an
evaluation of a program at Bowling Green State University
that is designed to get students to engage in “critical think-
ing about values” during their first semester at college.
The past 10 years or so have seen a dramatic rise
in the importance of such learning goals or outcomes,
as calls for accountability in higher education become
increasingly louder and more pointed (Achtemeier &
Simpson, 2005; Alexander, 2000; Field, 2008; Leveille,
2005, May). Given the emphasis on data-driven decision
making in the university context, empirical assessments
are becoming necessary to document the achievement
of learning outcomes and progress toward departmental,
college, university, state, and national targets (Loacker
& Rogers, 2005). To assist universities with the task
of measuring student outcomes, this paper provides an
example of a program evaluation using an open-ended
assessment of critical thinking about values among fresh-
men psychology students. The assessment contains two
sections – one focusing on the key components (KC) of
critical thinking, and the other on “critical thinking about
values” (CTV), or the application of basic elements of
critical thinking to the recognition and articulation of
values. Whereas the first assessment measures critical
thinking, the latter assessment is a direct measure of the
program’s learning outcomes, which could loosely be
described as “values recognition and articulation.” The
program evaluation aspect of this study capitalizes on a
naturally-occurring quasi-experiment in which roughly
half of the University’s incoming freshmen took courses
that emphasized critical thinking and values whereas the
other half took otherwise comparable courses without
such an emphasis.
This general methodology can be used by departments
or institutions in need of empirical assessment of similar
learning outcomes, as well as researchers interested in this
somewhat novel approach to the assessment of students’
recognition and articulation of values. In summary, the
current study provides an evaluation of the Bowling Green
eXperience (BGeX), a program that aims to teach students
critical thinking about values. As part of the evaluation of
this program a flexible method of assessment that others
may be able to use is also provided.
Critical Thinking
One of the main contributions of institutions of higher
education is that they develop students to enter the labor
force (Toutkoushian, 2005). Even though the knowledge
students acquire may soon be forgotten or outdated in
the workplace, critical thinking has been described as an
enduring skill (Terenzini, Springer, Pascarella, & Nora,
1995), “one of higher education’s most widely professed
goals” (Tsui, 2000, p. 421). Further, critical thinking it-
self is largely generalizable (Siegel, 1992, 1997), and is
important across domains of inquiry and careers (Briihl,
Stanny, Jarvis, Darcy, & Belter, 2008; Dunn, Halonen, &
Smith, 2008b;).
As noted by Halonen (1995), there are just about as
many definitions of critical thinking as there are people
who study it (e.g., Browne & Keeley, 2004; Eggan &
Kauchack, 2004; Ennis, 1987; Facione, 2004; Halpern,
1997; Jegede & Noordink, 1993; Lipman, 1988; McPeck,
1981; Paul, 1993; Siegel, 1988; Terenzini et al., 1995;
20 INQUIRY: CRITICAL THINKING ACROSS THE DISCIPLINES
Williams, Oliver, Allin, Winn, & Booher, 2003). Some
definitions focus exclusively on the logic and reasoning
aspect of critical thinking, as in “the ability to properly
construct and evaluate arguments” (Facione, 1986, p. 222).
Others have a broader approach that includes dispositional
components, for example:
Critical thinking has at least two central
components: a reason assessment component,
which involves abilities and skills relevant to
the proper understanding and assessment of
reasons, claims, and arguments; and a critical
spirit component, which is understood as a
complex of dispositions, attitudes, habits
of mind, and character traits (Siegel, 1997,
p. 27).
Yet other definitions situate critical thinking within
a broader framework for identifying, measuring, and de-
veloping both the logical and dispositional components
of critical thinking:
Critical thinking is the use of those cognitive
skills or strategies that increase the probabil-
ity of a desirable outcome. It is used to de-
scribe thinking that is purposeful, reasoned,
and goal directed — the kind of thinking
involved in solving problems, formulating
inferences, calculating likelihoods, and
making decisions when the thinker is using
skills that are thoughtful and effective for the
particular context and type of thinking task
(Halpern, 1997, p. 4).
Halpern (1998) provides a four-part model of teach-
ing critical thinking skills. The model is a good synthesis
of current thinking in the domains of motivation theory,
cognitive psychology, and educational psychology, focus-
ing on (a) dispositions, (b) skills, (c) structure training
(i.e., contrasting structural versus surface features of an
argument), and (d) metacognitive monitoring.
There are plenty of excellent examples of teaching
and assessing students’ critical thinking (e.g., Browne &
Keeley, 2004; Dunn, Halonen, & Smith, 2008a; Fasko,
2003; Halonen, 1986; Halpern, 1997). Therefore, the novel
contribution of this study is the evaluation and assessment
of critical thinking with specific application to values.
Values
Rokeach’s (1973) definition of values has served as
the foundation for much of the current values research in
the social sciences (see Hitlin & Piliavin, 2004; Meglino &
Ravlin, 1998): “A value is an enduring belief that a specific
mode of conduct or end-state of existence is personally
or socially preferable to an opposite or converse mode of
conduct or end-state of existence” (p. 5). Schwartz and
Bilsky (1987) provide an elaborated definition, writing that
values “(a) are concepts or beliefs, (b) pertain to desirable
end states or behaviors, (c) transcend specific situations,
(d) guide selection or evaluation of behavior and events,
and (e) are ordered by relative importance” (p. 878).
Interestingly, this definition (part (d) in particular)
implies that values are not just abstractions or sets of
principles that one consults when faced with a dilemma.
Instead, values are inherently active, driving attention and
behavior. In addition, values guide the selection or evalu-
ation of behavior and events (Schwartz & Bilsky, 1987)
and help people determine whether a particular situation
presents an ethical dilemma (Lefkowitz, 2003). Therefore,
it is essential that people not only be able to identify the
values assumed by others, but also that they understand
their own values clearly, to navigate the complexities of
this value-laden world with integrity.
Critical Thinking about Values
Students need to be taught to think critically and to
understand the implicit and explicit values that underlie
their decisions and actions. A common way for teach-
ers and scholars of critical thinking to teach students to
identify such values is by identifying certain assumptions
made in the evaluation of evidence and arguments. These
value assumptions can be found by examining the manner
in which given reasons actually support the conclusion
of an argument (Browne & Keeley, 2004). The process
of examining these assumptions can also help to situate
ideas in their broader historical and philosophical context
(Yanchar & Slife, 2004).
The application of critical thinking to the understand-
ing of values ensures that values education does not lead
to indoctrination. Reciprocally, a focus on values within
critical thinking can help educators guard against the
production of merely robotic critical thinkers or walk-
ing logical algorithms, instead engendering thoughtful,
principled humans.
The current study provides an evaluation of a uni-
versity program designed to teach critical thinking skills
as applied to the recognition and description of values.
This program, called the Bowling Green eXperience
(BGeX), aims to teach students critical thinking about
values (Katzner & Nieman, 2006). An assessment of the
BGeX student learning outcomes was developed in order
to evaluate the program’s effectiveness. This study includes
a detailed description of this assessment in hopes that parts
of it may be applicable in other contexts.
For the purposes of the present study, critical thinking
about values refers to the application of critical thinking
(characterized very generally) to values-focused learn-
ing outcomes. Faculty who taught BGeX classes used
SPRING 2011, VOL. 26, NO. 1
the following basic definition of a value: “a principle,
standard, or quality considered worthwhile or desirable”
(Bowling Green State University, 2004a, p. 13). The
BGeX program focuses on teaching students to recognize
and think about their own and others’ values, as opposed
to teaching students to adopt a particular set of values.
The specific learning outcomes assessed are as follows
(Bowling Green State University, 2004b); however, other
similar learning outcomes or goals could be substituted in
future assessments.
1. Recognize and describe values that arise in the meth-
ods or content of the subject area.
2. Identify ways in which these sometimes unexamined
values shape or relate to academic and/or public dis-
cussion of issues relevant to today’s citizens.
3. Understand, articulate, and evaluate reasons and
justifications that can support their own and others’
value choices.
In the current study, these learning outcomes were
assessed at two times. The first assessment (time 1) was at
the beginning of the semester and (for BGeX students only)
followed a weekend introduction to the BGeX program.
The second assessment (time 2) occurred during the last
week of the semester, after all students had been exposed
to course material and BGeX students had an opportunity
to participate in further discussion and activities regard-
ing critical thinking about values in the context of their
course. The assessments included two dependent variables:
scores on a measure of the key components (KC) of criti-
cal thinking, and scores on a more direct measure of the
learning outcomes, referred to as critical thinking about
values (CTV), both of which are described in more detail in
the Measures section. Considering these two time periods
(time 1 and time 2) and two dependent variables (KC scores
and CTV scores), I advance the following hypotheses:
1a. Students in the BGeX program will have higher KC
scores following the introduction weekend — time
1 — than will students in the comparison group.
1b. Students in the BGeX program will have higher KC
scores at the end of the semester — time 2 — than
will students in the comparison group.
2a. Students in the BGeX program will have higher CTV
scores following the introduction weekend — time
1 — than will students in the comparison group.
2b. Students in the BGeX program will have higher CTV
scores at the end of the semester — time 2 — than
will students in the comparison group.
Method
Participants
Data were collected from 165 students enrolled in six
small introductory psychology sections at Bowling Green
21
State University (a medium-sized public comprehensive
university in the Midwest). Three of the sections were
part of the BGeX program ( BGeX condition n = 85 stu-
dents) and the other three were equivalent except for the
instructors and the fact that they did not contain the BGeX
program content (Comparison group n = 80 students).
University administrators indicated that the selection of
students into one course versus the other was arbitrary —
neither deliberately systematic nor truly random.
Because students did not get randomly assigned to
groups, the two groups were examined for significant
differences on three sets of variables thought to be un-
related to students’ involvement in the BGeX program:
demographics, admissions criteria, and first-year survey
results. These variables and the tests of between-group
differences are described in the measures and preliminary
results sections, respectively.
BGeX Condition
“BGeX seeks to make critical thinking about values
the unifying theme of students’ experience…” (Bowling
Green State University, 2004b, p. 5). Although BGeX is a
University-wide program, three sections of the Introduc-
tion to Psychology course served as the BGeX condition.
These sections had the same content as non-BGeX sec-
tions, but had two important differences. First, the BGeX
program itself began with an introduction weekend several
days before the start of classes (“The BGeX Introduction”).
Second, the three BGeX-course instructors incorporated
examples, class exercises, and homework assignments
that highlighted the role of critical thinking and of values
inherent in the course content.
During the introduction weekend, students in the
BGeX program were assembled into groups of no more
than 30 each (n’s = 28, 28, and 29). Students’ soon-to-be
instructor and a peer facilitator led these groups (peer
facilitators are students who have already participated in
the program). The introduction gave students an introduc-
tion to the university and its focus on critical thinking
about values. Faculty, peer facilitators, and students re-
ceived workbooks that provided, among other things, (a)
a description of the history of the program, (b) common
language and examples for talking about values, values
preferences, and value conflicts, and (c) worksheets to
complete during the introductory weekend. In addition,
the faculty workshop guide contained materials relevant to
both the introduction weekend and their upcoming class.
These materials included a description of the BGeX learn-
ing outcomes, instructions and case studies regarding ap-
proaches to teaching critical thinking about values, sample
assignments, and assessment options. The central aim of
these materials was to encourage students to think about
their own and others’ values, as well as how their values
may relate to or conflict with others’ values. Below is a
22 INQUIRY: CRITICAL THINKING ACROSS THE DISCIPLINES
sample exercise that was used in small group discussions
during the introduction weekend. This example dealt with
roommate frustrations:
Keesha is a first year student without any
brothers or sisters and has never had to share
a room with anyone prior to her arrival at
college. Lately she has had several argu-
ments with her roommate Stacey. A recent
disagreement occurred because Keesha likes
to keep her side of the room very clean while
Stacey usually leaves her clothes and books
scattered around the room. When Keesha
approached her roommate about this issue,
Stacey explained that the room was hers too
and she could leave her stuff wherever she
wanted. Keesha is frustrated and does not
know what to do next.
a. What value(s) might Stacey hold that
lead(s) her to respond to Keesha the way
she did?
b. What value(s) that Keesha might hold
is/are in conflict with Stacey’s value?
c. What are Keesha’s options to resolve
this issue with her roommate Stacey?
d. What suggestions would you make to
the two roommates? What value(s) do
you hold that lead(s) you to offer these
suggestions?
(Bowling Green State University, 2004b,
p. 47)
The materials given to faculty also included sample
in-class assignments that required students to use care-
ful thinking and justification of their own values and the
values of others. One sample assignment asked students
to identify a media message that they agreed with and
another that they disagreed with, and required a careful,
written exposition about why they agreed and disagreed.
Another included a reflection on “The Lexus and the Olive
Tree” (Friedman, 1999). This exercise posed the following
three questions:
1. If you have not already done so, read The Lexus and
the Olive Tree, pages 437-440, paying special atten-
tion to the chart/matrix on top of page 438. Identify
the value conflicts existing between the “Separatists”
and the “Integrationists.”
2. Using the same chart/matrix, identify the values
conflicts between “Social-Safety-Netters” and “Let-
Them-Eat-Cakers.”
3. Now, examine the value conflicts you have identified
in questions 1 and 2. Where do you lie with respect
to the value conflicts? Write where you would place
yourself on the chart/matrix and explain your answer.
(Bowling Green State University, 2004b, p. 16)
Comparison Group
Three small-enrollment (n’s = 26, 27, 27) Introduction
to Psychology sections served as the comparison group.
All three sections were taught by the same instructor and
were identical in content to the BGeX sections, except for
the focus on critical thinking and values.
Measures
Student Records. The university’s Office of Institu-
tional Research provided data on students’ demographic
characteristics, admissions criteria, and first-year survey
responses. Demographics included sex, ethnicity, and age.
Admissions criteria consisted of high school GPA as well
as ACT and/or SAT scores, which were standardized us-
ing national norms to be on the same metric and averaged
for those students who took both tests (rACT,SAT = .85; p <
.001; n = 40).
In addition, BGSU’s first-year survey contained a
section asking students about their reasons for attending
college and their general life goals. Although this survey
was not central to the current study, six variables were
comprised of these items in order to test for possible
pre-existing between-group differences unrelated to the
BGeX program. A factor analysis with varimax rotation
on a previous years’ administration of the survey yielded
three “reasons” factors (N = 1131) and three “goals” factors
(N = 1070) with interpretable solutions. Coefficient alpha
reliabilities were computed using the current sample. The
reasons factors were Intellectual Development (5 items,
α = .61), Extrinsic Interests (2 items, α =.31), and Others’
Advice (2 items, α = .38). The latter two reasons factors
did not produce sufficiently reliable scale scores. The goals
factors were Social Progress (9 items, α = .84), Achieve-
ment and Power (6 items, α = .62), and Humanitarianism
(2 items, α = .77).
Critical Thinking about Values Assessment
(CTVA). The CTVA provided here is a two-part essay test
of critical thinking skills developed as an assessment of
BGeX’s learning outcomes (see Appendix A). The CTVA
is similar in structure and method to the International
Critical Thinking Essay Test (Paul & Elder, 2001), insofar
as students are asked to respond to an editorial in essay
format. However, the CTVA was designed to map directly
onto the BGeX learning outcomes as much as possible to
be as sensitive as possible to the effects of the program.
The first part of the CTVA is a test of the students’
ability to analyze an argument (i.e., identify the purpose,
conclusion, arguments, and assumptions in a particular
writing prompt). These items are identified as Key Com-
ponents (KC) items 1 through 4. The second part builds
on the same writing prompt and tests the students’ ability
to understand the values held by the author of the argu-
ment, the author’s reasons supporting particular values,
and the implications of the author’s values on discussion
SPRING 2011, VOL. 26, NO. 1
of the issue. These items are identified as Critical Thinking
about Values (CTV) items 1 through 3. Again, the CTV
portion of the assessment measures the application of basic
elements of critical thinking (which does not necessarily
have anything to do with values) toward the recognition
and articulation of values.
The CTVA was administered at two time points: (1)
during the first month of the semester, which was about two
weeks after students participated in the BGeX introduction
weekend; and (2) during the last week of classes before
students took their final exams. One hundred thirty-one
students participated in both administrations.
The CTVA can be used with any writing prompt that
provides rich enough information regarding critical think-
ing and values. Two prompts were used for the current
study, “The case for self-interest” (Perloff, 2004, May
30), and “The political brain” (Johnson, 2004, August 22).
Table 1 presents experimental conditions for the BGeX and
comparison sections along with the corresponding CTVA
prompts used. The same prompt was administered at time
1 and time 2 for one of the comparison groups (comparison
group 3). This repeat administration permitted an assess-
ment of test-retest reliability of the CTVA. It also allowed
for potential score inflation at time 2 to the extent that
students in comparison group 3 remembered the assign-
ment and thought about it over the course of the semester.
However, this was a rather unlikely scenario, given that
course content in the comparison groups did not focus on
any of the questions asked in the CTVA.
Table 1
Experimental Conditions
Groups N Time 1 Time 2
BGeX groups
BGeX 1 28 Self-Interest Political Brain
BGeX 2 28 Self-Interest Political Brain
BGeX 3 29 Political Brain Self-Interest
Comparison groups
Comparison 1 26 Self-Interest Political Brain
Comparison 2 27 Self-Interest Political Brain
Comparison 3 27 Political Brain Political Brain
Scoring the CTVA. A team of six researchers de-
veloped the scoring process and provided ratings for the
open-ended and essay CTVA responses. A scoring guide, or
rubric (the rubrics and a scoring guide are available upon
request), was developed that raters used to code responses
to the CTVA. KC (Key Components) items 1 – 4 were
scored separately from the CTV (Critical Thinking about
Values) items 1 – 3 to avoid biasing the CTV scores as a
function of the KC scores and vice versa. Raters were also
23
blind to which condition the responses were from. A five-
point rating system permitted scores of 0, 0.5, 1, 1.5, or 2
for each item, yielding sum scores with a possible range
of 0-8 and 0-6 for the KC and CTV sections, respectively.
A series of iterative pilot rating sessions were conducted
to develop the actual scoring rubrics, which raters then
consulted when they made their actual ratings. In addition,
a set of scoring guidelines were provided that accompanied
the rubrics to assist the raters’ collective understanding of
the rationale for the ratings.
Results
Preliminary Analyses
Pre-existing group differences. There were no
statistically-significant differences between the BGeX and
comparison conditions on any of the demographic vari-
ables or admissions criteria: Sex χ2(2) = 3.06, p = .08; Cau-
casian vs. not χ2(1) = 1.34, p = .28 (no specific subgroup
comparisons produced significant differences either); Age
t(157) = 0.11, p = .92; High School GPA t(154) = 0.69, p =
.49; standardized ACT/SAT scores t(157) = 1.66, p = .10.
Although the results for ACT/SAT could be interpreted as
marginally-significant, students in the comparison group
actually had a higher mean score (0.29, SD = 0.62) than
those in the BGeX group (0.11, SD = 0.72).
One of the “reasons” factors and one of the “goals”
factors evidenced statistically significant between-group
differences, although these differences were in favor of
the comparison group: Intellectual Development t(82) =
2.50, p = .02; and Social Progress t(77) = 2.30, p = .02.
The remaining factors were non-significant: Extrinsic In-
terests t(85) = 1.27, p = .21; Others’ Advice t(85) = 1.17,
p = .24; Achievement and Power t(80) = 1.54, p = .13; and
Humanitarianism t(80) = -1.57, p = .12.
CTVA reliability. The reliability of the CTVA is
discussed in terms of (1) rater agreement and reliability at
the item level, (2) internal consistency at the scale level,
and (3) test-retest reliability at the scale level. To calculate
rater agreement/reliability, scores for each item (e.g., KC
1) were obtained using the mean rating of all raters who
rated student responses to that item. Because it is the reli-
ability of ratings that is of primary of interest in this study,
Shrout and Fleiss’s (1979) one-way intraclass correlation
(ICC[1,k]) is provided as an indication of the reliable
variance in raters’ scores. Unlike measures of pure rater
agreement, ICC(1,k) scores are high when raters exhibit
both high agreement and high reliability.
There was a small amount of missing rating data due
to some raters not rating every single item and/or respon-
dents not always answering every single item. However,
considering both time 1 and time 2 ratings all together,
most KC item responses were rated by three raters (n ≈ 260;
two-rater n ≈ 27; one-rater n ≈ 6). Three-rater ICC(1,k)
24 INQUIRY: CRITICAL THINKING ACROSS THE DISCIPLINES

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
The hypothesis that the BGeX program would posi-
tively impact students’ KC scores was not supported. This
is not completely surprising in retrospect, given that the
program does not explicitly teach students critical thinking
per se. However, students in the program did significantly
outperform comparison group students on CTV scores,
the more direct measure of the BGeX learning outcomes.
Moreover, this difference was substantial, with almost ¾
of a standard deviation difference overall between groups
(Cohen’s d = .73, combining time 1 and time 2 scores).
Somewhat ironically, the lack of group differences on
KC scores helps to increase confidence that the group
differences on CTV scores are indeed attributable to the
BGeX program. The conclusion of these results is that
the BGeX program appears to have improved students
“critical thinking about values,” or at least their ability to
recognize and articulate relevant values, as elicited by the
BGeX learning outcomes.
Some limitations are noteworthy. First, it would be
ideal to obtain a true pre-test measure as a baseline. The
current study provides tests of two post-intervention ef-
fects. This suggests that the effects are robust but it does
not permit identification of pre-BGeX to post-BGeX gains
within students. It can be challenging to implement a true
pre-test prior to the start of the academic year, but we
encourage future researchers and administrators to try to
work together to make this possible.
Second and related, the decline in scores from time
1 to time 2 presents a few ambiguities. For example, it is
difficult to clearly identify students’ motivation for exert-
ing effort on the CTVA measure. It would be quite tragic
if freshmen actually become worse critical thinkers during
their first semester. Instead, I speculate that the students
realized that the assignment would not count toward their
grade by the time they completed it the second time and
hence did not exert as much effort then. Also, as noted by
an anonymous reviewer, the relatively parallel decline in
CTV scores from time 1 to time 2 across both conditions
begs the question of whether the in-class activities had
much benefit over the introduction weekend. Given the
considerable time and expense associated with continu-
ing the BGeX program throughout the semester, this is
an important question.
Third, the lack of true random assignment to groups
combined with the lack of a true pre-test leaves open the
possibility that the observed difference on CTV scores is
a result of students in the BGeX group being better at ap-
plying critical thinking to the recognition and articulation
of values even before the study began. However, if this
were the case, I would expect to see at least some group
differences in favor of the BGeX group on KC, high school
GPA, ACT/SAT scores, or the reasons or goals factors
from the first-year survey. In actuality, the only statistically
significant differences were in favor of the comparison
25
group (for the first-year survey factors of Intellectual
Development and Social Progress). Thus, the groups are
not exactly equal, but their inequality works against the
hypothesis (I’d like to thank an anonymous reviewer for
pointing this out). This strengthens the conclusion that
higher CTV scores in the BGeX condition are indeed at-
tributable to participation in the BGeX program and not a
result of pre-existing differences.
Finally, class assignments that are not graded can
be unreliable (Napoli & Raymond 2004). Indeed, the
intraclass correlation coefficients for the items compris-
ing the two primary dependent variables (KC and CTV)
suggest that some error is contained in the scores as they
are used. This error variance was averaged out to some
extent when items were summed for the CTV scale,
which demonstrated acceptable scale reliability. In fact,
I re-analyzed the data, correcting the results for criterion
unreliability (based on coefficient alphas from the KC
and CTV scales), but the disattenuated results showed
the same pattern of findings. Therefore, although the
results must be interpreted with some caution, the main
consequence is likely an underestimate of the true rela-
tionships of interest.
Future research on programs like BGeX would ideally
give greater consideration to long term effects on student
learning and behavior. The inclusion of true pre-test scores
and/or the assessment of far transfer of learning (Barnett
& Ceci, 2002; Hakel & Halpern, 2005) would be welcome
contributions to the literature. In addition, programs like
BGeX could better facilitate such research by adhering
more closely to established models of critical thinking
(e.g., Halpern, 1998) and values (e.g., Meglino & Ravlin,
1998; Rokeach, 1973; Schwartz, 1994; Schwartz & Bilsky,
1987). There are also several other relevant constructs
or domains of inquiry that similar programs could draw
from, such as values clarification (Kinnier, 1995; Raths,
Harmin, & Simon, 1966; Simon, Howe, & Kirschenbaum,
1972), decision-making (Kahneman & Tversky, 2000),
ethics (Lefkowitz, 2003), moral development (Fasko &
Willis, 2008), moral reasoning (Colby & Kohlberg, 1987;
Gilligan, 1982; Rest, 1984; Rest, Narvaez, Bebeau, &
Thoma, 1999), reflective judgment (King & Kitchener,
1994), post-formal reasoning (Labouvie-Vief, 1992), and
wisdom (Halpern, 2001; Sternberg, 1990, 2007).
Notwithstanding the need for programs with a sound
theoretical basis, a university-wide initiative focusing on
critical thinking and/or values is an ambitious undertaking.
Practical constraints dictate that programs like BGeX need
to be coherent enough to ensure that there is a common
core across domains and instructors, yet at the same time
flexible enough to garner faculty support and participation.
For this reason, the assessment of BGeX learning outcomes
was designed to be a flexible means of gathering data on
student learning.
26 INQUIRY: CRITICAL THINKING ACROSS THE DISCIPLINES
In an effort to help guide future research and practice,
this paper provides a general description of the BGeX
program as well as information about a general evaluation
methodology and CTVA measure so that others might adapt
it for their own use in assessing similar outcomes. The
evaluation and assessment process described here can be
made applicable to a wide variety of content areas simply
by using different essay prompts as necessary. Similarly,
the learning outcomes can also be modified. Of course,
either of these changes would necessitate the develop-
ment of a new scoring rubric. The actual scoring process
is admittedly arduous, but some technical advances might
help to make the mass scoring of open-ended responses
more feasible (e.g., Chapman & Fiore, 2001; Shermis,
Koch, Page, Keith, & Harrington, 2002).
In sum, this study’s results provide some modest
evidence that the development, implementation, and
evaluation of similar programs and assessments can help
to develop scholars, employees and citizens who are able
to think critically in accordance with well-understood
values. The end goal of teaching college students to apply
basic critical thinking skills to the understanding of values
is to help develop thoughtful and principled leaders in our
communities, universities and organizations.
References
Achtemeier, S. D., & Simpson, R. D. (2005). Practical consider-
ations when using benchmarking for accountability in higher
education. Innovative Higher Education, 30(2), 117-128.
Alexander, F. K. (2000). The changing face of accountability:
Monitoring and assessing institutional performance. The
Journal of Higher Education, 71, 411-431.
Barnett, S. M., & Ceci, S. J. (2002). When and where do we apply
what we learn? A taxonomy for far transfer. Psychological
Bulletin, 128, 612-637.
Bowling Green State University. (2004a). BG eXperience faculty/
peer facilitator workbook. Unpublished Manuscript.
Bowling Green State University. (2004b). BG eXperience faculty
workshop guide. Unpublished Manuscript.
Briihl, D. S., Stanny, C. J., Jarvis, K. A., Darcy, M., & Belter,
R. W. (2008). In D. S. Dunn, J. S. Halonen, & R. A. Smith
(Eds.), Teaching critical thinking in psychology: a handbook
of best practices (pp. 225-234). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Browne, M. N., & Keeley, S. M. (2004). Asking the right ques-
tions: A guide to critical thinking. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Colby, A., & Kohlberg, L. (Eds.) (1987). The measurement of
moral judgment: theoretical foundations and research vali-
dation. (Vol. 1). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chapman, O. L. & Fiore, M. A. (2001). Calibrated peer review:
A writing and critical thinking instructional tool. Retrieved
from cpr.molsci.ucla.edu/
Dunn, D. S., Halonen, J. S., & Smith, R. A. (2008a). Teaching
critical thinking in psychology: A handbook of best prac-
tices. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Dunn, D. S., Halonen, J. S., & Smith, R. A. (2008b). Engag-
ing minds: Introducing best practices in teaching critical
thinking in psychology. In D. S. Dunn, J. S. Halonen, & R.
A. Smith (Eds.), Teaching critical thinking in psychology:
A handbook of best practices (pp. 1-8). Oxford: Wiley-
Blackwell.
Ennis, R. H. (1987). A taxonomy of critical thinking dispositions
and abilities. In J. Baron & R. Sternberg (Eds), Teaching
thinking skills: Theory and practice. New York: W. H.
Freeman.
Eggan, P. E. & Kauchak, D. (2004). Educational psychology:
windows on classrooms. 6th Ed. Upper Saddle, NJ: Pearson/
Merrill/Prentice Hall.
Facione, P. (1986). Testing college-level critical thinking. Liberal
Education, 72, 221-231.
Facione, P. (2004). Critical thinking: What it is and why it counts.
Milbrae, CA: Academic Press.
Fasko, D. Jr. (2003). Critical thinking and reasoning: Current
research, theory, and practice. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.
Fasko, D. Jr., & Willis, W. (2008). Contemporary philosophical
and psychological perspectives on moral development and
education. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.
Field, K. (2008). Congress shows colleges they’re not off the
hook on accountability. The Chronicle of Higher Educa-
tion, 55(2), A32.
Friedman, T. L. (1999). The lexus and the olive tree. New York:
Farrar, Straus, Giroux.
Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory
and women’s development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Hakel, M. D., & Halpern, D. (2005) How far can transfer go?
Making transfer happen across physical, temporal, and
conceptual space. In J. Mestre (Ed.), Transfer of learning
from a modern multidisciplinary perspective. Greenwich,
CT: Information Age Publishing.
Halonen, J. S. (1986). Teaching critical thinking in psychology.
Milwaukee, WI: Alverno Productions.
Halonen, J. S. (1995). Demystifying critical thinking. Teaching
of Psychology, 22, 75-81.
Halpern, D. F. (1997). Critical thinking across the curriculum:
A brief edition of thought and knowledge. Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Halpern, D. F. (1998). Teaching critical thinking for transfer
across domains. American Psychologist, 53, 449-455.
Halpern, D. F. (2001). Why wisdom? Educational Psychologist,
36, 253-256.
Hitlin, S. & Piliavin, J. A. (2004). Theory, research, and measure-
ment of values: Reviving a dormant concept. Annual Review
of Sociology, 30, 359-394.
Jegede, O. J., & Noordink, P. (June, 1993). The role of critical
thinking skills in undergraduate study as perceived by
university teachers across academic disciplines. Paper pre-
sented at the annual conference on Problem Solving across
the Curriculum, Geneva, NY.
Johnson, S. (2004). The political brain. The New York Times,
August 22, Section 6, Column 1.
Kahneman, D. & Tversky, A. (2000). Choices, values, and
frames. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
SPRING 2011, VOL. 26, NO. 1
Katzner, L. I., & Nieman, D. G. (2006). Making values education
everyone’s business. About Campus, November/December,
16-23.
King, P. M., & K. Kitchener. (1994). Developing reflective judg-
ment: Understanding and promoting intellectual growth and
critical thinking in adolescents and adults. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Kinnier, R. T. (1995). A reconceptualization of values clarifica-
tion: Values conflict resolution. Journal of Counseling and
Development, 74, 18-24.
Labouvie-Vief, G. (1992). A neo-Piagetian perspective on adult
cognitive development. In R. J. Sternberg & C. A. Berg
(Eds.), Intellectual development (pp. 197-228). New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Lance, C. E., Butts, M. M., Michels, L. C. (2006). The sources
of four commonly reported cutoff criteria: What did they
really say? Organizational Research Methods, 9, 202-220.
Lefkowitz, J. (2003). Ethics and values in industrial-organiza-
tional psychology. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Leveille, D. F. (2005). An emerging view on accountability in
American higher education. Research & Occasional Paper
Series: CSHE.8.05, May 2005. Retrieved from cshe.berke-
ley.edu/publications/publications.php?id=54
Lipman, M. (1988). Teaching critical thinking: What can it be?
Analytic Teaching, 8, 5-12.
Loacker, G., & Rogers, G. (2005). Assessment at Alverno Col-
lege: Student, program, institutional. Milwaukee, WI:
Alverno College Institute.
McPeck, J. (1981). Critical thinking and education. New York:
St. Martin’s.
Meglino, B. M., & Ravlin, E. C. (1998). Individual values in or-
ganizations: Concepts, controversies, and research. Journal
of Management, 24, 351-389.
Napoli, A. R., & Raymond, L. A., (2004). How reliable are our
assessment data? A comparison of the reliability of data
produced in graded and un-graded conditions. Research in
Higher Education, 45, 921-929.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd Ed.). New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Paul, R. (1993). Critical thinking: How to prepare students for
a rapidly changing world. First edition, Santa Rosa, CA:
The Foundation for Critical Thinking.
Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2001). The international critical think-
ing essay test. Santa Rosa, CA: Foundation for Critical
Thinking.
Perloff, R. (2004). The case for self-interest. Pittsburgh Post-
Gazette, May 30, 2004, B 1-2.
Raths, L., Harmin, M., & Simon, S. (1966). Value and teaching:
Working with values in the classroom. Columbus, OH:
Charles E. Merrill.
Rest, J. R., (1984). The major components of morality. In W. M.
Kurtines & J. L. Gewirtz, (Eds.), Morality, moral behavior,
and moral development (pp. 24-38). New York: Wiley.
Rest, J., D. Narvaez, M. J., Bebeau, & Thoma, S. J. (1999). Post-
conventional moral thinking: A neo-Kohlbergian approach.
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York:
Free Press.
27
Schwartz, S. (1994). Are there universal aspects in the structure
and contents of human values? Journal of Social Issues,
50(4), 19-45.
Schwartz, S., & Bilsky, W. (1987). Toward a theory of the
universal content and structure of values: Extensions and
cross-cultural replications. Journal of Personality and
Social Research, 58, 878-891.
Shermis, M. D., Koch, C. M., Page, E. B., Keith, T. Z., & Har-
rington, S. (2002). Trait ratings for automated essay grading.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 62, 5-18.
Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979). Intraclass correlations:
Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin,
86, 420-428.
Siegel, H. (1992). The generalizability of critical thinking skills,
dispositions, and epistemology. In S. P. Norris (Ed.), The
generalizability of critical thinking (pp. 97-108). New York:
Teachers College Press.
Siegel, H. (1988). Educating reason: Rationality, critical thinking
and education. New York: Routledge.
Siegel, H. (1997). Rationality redeemed? Further dialogues on
an educational ideal. New York: Routlege.
Simon, S. B., Howe, L. W., & Kirschenbaum, H. (1972). Values
clarification: A handbook of practical strategies for teachers
and students. New York: Hart Publishing.
Sternberg, R. J. (1990). Wisdom: Its nature, origins, and develop-
ment. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Sternberg, R. J. (2007). Wisdom, intelligence, and creativity
synthesized. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Terenzini, P. T., Springer, L., Pascarella, E. T., & Nora, A. (1995).
Influences affecting the development of students’ critical
thinking skills. Research in Higher Education, 36, 23-39.
Toutkoushian, R. K. (2005). What can institutional research do
to help colleges meet the workforce needs of states and na-
tions? Research in Higher Education, 46, 955-984.
Tsui, L. (2000). Effects of campus culture on students’ critical
thinking. The Review of Higher Education, 23, 431-441.
Williams, R. L., Oliver, R., Allin, J. L., Winn, B., & Booher,
C. S. (2003). Psychological critical thinking as a course
predictor and outcome variable. Teaching of Psychology,
30, 220-223.
Yanchar, S. C., & Slife, B. (2004). Teaching critical thinking
by examining assumptions, Teaching of Psychology, 30,
339-343.
Author Information
Mike Gillespie originally conducted this research as
part of a Ph.D. dissertation in Industrial/Organizational
Psychology at Bowling Green State University. The dis-
sertation was chaired by Milton D. Hakel, and the article
has benefited from the helpful comments and contributions
by Jessica Blackburn , Daniel Fasko, Jr., Jennifer Gillespie,
Dale Klopfer, Lilly Lin, Anna Zarubin, and Michael Zickar.
Dr. Gillespie’s research includes critical thinking, values,
organizational culture, and measure development and
norming. Correspondence concerning this article should
be sent to: Michael A. Gillespie, Ph.D., who currently is at
28 INQUIRY: CRITICAL THINKING ACROSS THE DISCIPLINES

550 Education Building, Bowling Green State University,
Bowling Green, OH, 43403; Tel (419) 372-3412; Fax (419)
372-8265; e-mail: mgilles@bgsu.edu, but starting in Fall
2011 he will be an Assistant Professor of Industrial/Orga-
nizational Psychology at the University of South Florida
Sarasota-Manatee. His contact information there is College
of Arts and Sciences, University of South Florida Sarasota-
Manatee, 8330 Tamiami Trail, Sarasota, FL 34243. Phone:
(941) 359-4235.

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

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
College – CyFair representing eight different disciplines
embarked on a scholarly exploration of the concept, ap-
plication, and assessment of critical thinking in higher
education. This essay is one of seven essays resulting
from the faculty learning community.
As philosophers, the authors were immediately
struck by the varying definitions for critical thinking
given by the participants in the faculty learning commu-
nity. The offered definitions were as diverse as the dis-
ciplines and teaching styles from which they originated.
Jane S. Halonen (1995) claimed if you “ask 12 psychol-
ogy faculty members to define the term critical thinking,
you may receive 12 overlapping but distinct definitions.”
(Halonen, 1995, p. 75). Our faculty learning community
not only confirmed Halonen’s claim, but even amplified
the distinctiveness of the definitions mirroring the dis-
tinctiveness of the disciplines represented. This motivat-
ed the authors to explore the scholarly research defining
critical thinking.
A Summary of the Problem
There is certainly no shortage of scholarship on criti-
cal thinking, but a single, widely-accepted, cross-disci-
plinary definition for critical thinking still does not exist.
Stakeholders in higher education presume they know the
definition of critical thinking and enter into discussions
on critical thinking as if their personal or discipline-
specific definitions are consistently shared by all. (Ha-
lonen, 1995) The root of this willingness to assume clar-
ity where considerable ambiguity exists may stem from
critical thinking being viewed as a positive concept. No
educator opposes critical thinking. According to Wales
and Nardi (1984), faculty may unintentionally contribute
to the problem by over-asserting claims to critical think-
ing activities with hopes of attaining benefits by associa-
tion with the prestigious concept of critical thinking.
As attractive as the concept of critical thinking may
be, serious problems arise from the lack of consensus as
to the definition of critical thinking. This essay explores
two of these problematic areas, assessment in higher edu-
cation and cross-disciplinary collaboration.
Assessing Critical Thinking
In 1983, President Ronald Reagan’s National Com-
mission on Excellence in Education published a report,
A Nation at Risk: The Imperative For Education Reform,
that generated a wave of educational reform efforts at
both the state and federal levels. The report warned that
America’s educational system was failing its students,
and called for reform:
Our concern, however, goes well beyond
matters such as industry and commerce. It
also includes the intellectual, moral, and
spiritual strengths of our people which knit
together the very fabric of our society. (…)
For our country to function, citizens must
be able to reach some common understand-
ings on complex issues, often on short no-
tice and on the basis of conflicting or in-
complete evidence. (National Commission
on Excellence in Education, 1983, p. 10).
The call for reform was heard again in 1989 when
President Bush and state governors designed Goals 2000
to urge institutions of higher education to:
(…) take critical thinking objectives more
seriously by improving the abilities of col-
lege students to be more effective criti-
cal thinkers, communicators, and problem
solvers. (Edgerton, 1991, p. 8).
SPRING 2011, VOL. 26, NO. 1
By 1997, the educational reform movement fo-
cused on critical thinking skill development and assess-
ment had firmly made its way to many states, including
Texas. The 75th Texas Legislature mandated the Texas
Higher Education Coordinating Board, an agency of the
Texas state government responsible for overseeing all
post-secondary education in the state of Texas, to adopt
rules that include “a statement of the content, compo-
nent areas, and objectives of the core curriculum” (Tex.
SB 148, 5S,5.390-5.404). In response, the Texas Higher
Education Coordinating Board set forth basic intellectual
competencies to be included in core curriculums at all
Texas colleges and universities. (THECB, 1999, from
www.thecb.state.tx.us/). These intellectual competencies
included, among other things, critical thinking. Teaching
and assessing critical thinking was now clearly on the po-
litical agenda at both the federal and state levels.
The practicability of teaching and assessing critical
thinking is undermined by the apparent lack of aware-
ness among many stakeholders in higher education that
no uniformly accepted definition of critical thinking cur-
rently exists. Morgan (1995) recognized this problem,
stating:
Perhaps the greatest threat to implementing
critical thinking instruction has been the
passage of the term into the common ver-
nacular of educators, legislators, business-
people, and the public. What was not too
long ago a very restrictive notion of think-
ing based first on formal logic and then on
informal logic has become so broad a no-
tion that it has become nearly meaningless.
The plethora of definitions may have lead
to a conviction that conceptualizing critical
thinking is relativistic, with any definition
or conceptualization as good as any other.
(Morgan, 1995, 339).
If the term critical thinking is to be a more meaning-
ful concept, achieving some consensus as to its definition
is imperative.
Collaborating Across Disciplines
In addition to concerns about the effect of a lack of
uniform definition for critical thinking has upon assess-
ment, the authors are also interested in the impact such a
lack of consensus has upon collaboration among educa-
tors from varying disciplines. The traditional landscape
of higher education in the United States has been one fo-
cusing on rather isolated fields of specialization earning
many disciplines the title of ivory towers, but the environ-
ment at many colleges is shifting to a more collaborative-
friendly environment where academics are encouraged to
create bridges between the ivory towers. As team-taught
39
learning communities, combining two or three different
discipline subjects into one mega-course addressing a
common cohort of students, are increasing in popularity,
educators readily become aware of the overlapping criti-
cal thinking goals in their various disciplines but none-
theless struggle to find a uniform definition for what is
meant by critical thinking.
The challenge faced by educators from varying dis-
ciplines searching for a common definition for critical
thinking is further complicated by the fact that an indi-
vidual discipline may lack consensus on a definition for
critical thinking. The Videbeck study (1997, as report by
Gordon, 2000) evidences the lack of a common definition
for critical thinking among nursing programs. It points
out that:
(…) 55 nursing programs used 10 different
definitions of critical thinking and assessed
critical thinking using a variety of measure-
ment tools, including standardized tests and
locally developed instruments. (Videbeck,
1997, as discussed by Gordon, 2000, p.
340).
The need for consensus is evident if collaboration
across disciplines is to involve the development of criti-
cal thinking skills.
Chronological Literature Review of
Critical Thinking Definitions
A review of the literature easily reveals a plethora
of definitions for critical thinking. The following is not
intended to be a comprehensive literature review, but
rather a chronological mapping of the more influential
definitions for critical thinking. Definitions are included
from John Dewey, Edward Glaser and the Watson-Gla-
ser Test of Critical Thinking, Benjamin Bloom and the
influences of cognitive psychology, Robert Ennis, John
McPeck, Richard Paul, The American Philosophical As-
sociation, Stephen Brookfield, Joanne Kurfiss, and Di-
ane Halpern.
John Dewey
John Dewey was an American philosopher, psychol-
ogist, and educational reformer during the early 1900s.
Dewey (1910) articulated reflective thought as:
Active, persistent, and careful consider-
ation of any belief or supposed form of
knowledge in the light of the grounds that
supports it, and the further conclusions
which it tends. (Dewey, 1910, p. 6).
The process identified by Dewey as reflective thought
possesses the same characteristics currently identified by
40 INQUIRY: CRITICAL THINKING ACROSS THE DISCIPLINES
many as critical thinking. Morgan (1995) summarizes
this process of reflective thought as:
A self-directed type of thought which ana-
lyzes a belief to see upon what it is based
and to determine as well as possible what
consequences will follow from that be-
lief. Dewey felt that thought — reflective
thought — was the only preventive mea-
sure to keep a person from acting merely on
the basis of impulse or habit. (Dewey, 1910
as discussed by Morgan, 1995, p. 337).
Critical thinking originates in the doubt of the think-
er (a “perplexed” situation) that prompted hypotheses
(“suggestions”), while observation and reason allowed
the thinker to refine his hypotheses. These mental pro-
cesses do proceed in a linear fashion but are “recursive
and mutually influential” (Dewey, 1910 as discussed by
Kurfiss, 1988, p. 7).
Learning should be active and education should cen-
ter on judgments, not merely knowledge. Judgment, for
Dewey, is reflective thinking that consisted of three fea-
tures:
1. a controversy, consisting of opposite claims regard-
ing the same objective situation;
2. a process of defining and elaborating these claims
and of sifting the facts adduced to support them;
3. a final decision, or sentence, closing the particular
matter in dispute and also serving as a rule or prin-
ciple for deciding future cases. (Dewey, 1910 pp.
101-102).
Judgment allows the critical thinker to analyze all
of the facts, determining whether they are facts or not,
relevant or not, and synthesize the appropriate factual in-
formation into a whole. To fully exercise judgment, it is
necessary to maintain an open mind along with a healthy
skepticism.
Out of Dewey’s ideas came the movement called
“progressive education” that was designed to make chang-
es to education and improve the critical thinking ability at
the elementary school level. These changes, however, had
little impact in secondary schools (Morgan, 1995).
Edward Glaser and the Watson-Glaser Test of
Critical Thinking.
In a pioneer study on critical thinking and education,
Edward Glaser (1941) proposed three key components of
critical thinking:
1. an attitude of being disposed in a thoughtful way to
the problems and subjects that come within the range
of one’s experiences;
2. knowledge of the methods of logical inquiry and rea-
soning; and
3. some skill in applying those methods. (Glaser, 1941,
p. 5-6)
Glaser argued that “American Education is freely
criticized today because the ability to think critically is
not well developed among secondary pupils and even
among college graduates” (Glaser, 1941, p. 8).
In order to address this shortfall, Glaser developed
an instructional program that “consisted of eight lessons
or topic related to critical thinking, including definition,
evidence, inference, scientific method and attitude, preju-
dice, propaganda, and values and logic” (Kurfiss, 1988,
p. 8). In order to test that these skills were indeed be-
ing taught Glaser developed the Watson-Glaser Criti-
cal Thinking Appraisal. The multiple choice exam tests
“skills of arguments, specifically drawing inferences,
recognizing assumptions, evaluating conclusions, and as-
sessing the strength of reasons offered in supporting a
claim” (Kurfiss, 1988, p. 8).
The Watson-Glaser exam incorporated the later work
of Dressel and Mayhew, who identified further skills and
abilities of critical thinkers, and it has been modified
throughout the years to increase clarity and remove gen-
der and racial biases. (Morgan, 1995, Watson and Glaser,
1980) The work of Glaser and well as the Watson-Glaser
exam still heavily influence thought on critical thinking
and are used widely by high schools and colleges as a
means of testing the ability of students to think critically.
Benjamin Bloom
Benjamin Bloom was an educational psychologist
whose career spanned several decades in the 20th centu-
ry, and who is best known for developing a taxonomy of
cognitive thought. Bloom (1956, p. 18, 201-207)) defined
the cognitive domain as having three aspects: knowledge,
intellectual abilities, and skills that have a hierarchy of
six levels:
1. Knowledge: the recall of previously learned material
from specific facts to complete theories.
2. Comprehension: the ability to grasp and understand
the meaning of the material presented in the forms of
translation, interpretation, or the estimation of future
trends.
3. Application: the ability to use learned material and
apply this material in new specific situations.
4. Analysis: the ability to break down information into
parts and examine the relationship among the parts
so that organization can be understood.
5. Synthesis: the ability to organize many elements or
parts to form a new whole.
6. Evaluation: making judgments or ideas or methods
using evidence and based on definite internal (orga-
nizational) or external (relevant to purpose) criteria.
SPRING 2011, VOL. 26, NO. 1
Bloom’s hierarchy is excellent for explaining
what goes on in the classroom from both the teachers’
and students’ perspectives. Unfortunately, it lacks the
specificity necessary for assessment of critical think-
ing. (Ennis, 1993) For the task at hand, it is important
to note that Bloom’s hierarchy viewed the evaluation
of judgments as having a purpose or contextually spe-
cific component.
Robert Ennis
Robert Ennis is currently Professor Emeritus at Uni-
versity of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. In 1962, En-
nis defined critical thinking as “the correct assessing of
statements” and distinguished “three dimensions of criti-
cal thinking—logical (judging the alleged relationships
between the meanings of words and statements), criteria
(covers the knowledge of the criteria for judging), [and]
pragmatic (impression of the background purpose on
the judgment)” and identified twelve “aspects of critical
thinking”. (Ennis, 1962, 83-85) The twelve aspects are
summed as:
1. Grasping the meaning of a statement.
2. Judging whether there is ambiguity in a
line of reasoning 3. …whether certain state-
ments contradict each other. 4. …a conclu-
sion follows necessarily. 5. … a statement
is specific enough. 6 …a statement is actu-
ally the application of a certain principle.
7. … an observation statement is reliable.
8. … an inductive conclusion is warranted.
9 … the problem has been identified. 10.
Something is an assumption. 11. A defini-
tion is adequate. 12. … a statement made
by an alleged authority is acceptable. (En-
nis, 1962, p. 84 as summarized by Curry,
1999, p. 4).
Ennis realized that his definition suffered from the
same problem that Bloom’s taxonomy suffered from,
namely, an inability to properly assess critical thinking.
As a result, Ennis revised his definition to allow for “cor-
rect assessing”. This revised definition, however, suffered
from “excluding creative aspects of critical thinking”, so
the more streamlined definition of critical thinking that
Ennis believes will allow for “greater communication
among proponents of critical thinking” (Ennis, 1993, p.
180) is as follows: “Critical thinking is reasonable re-
flective thinking focused on deciding on what to believe
or do.” (Ennis, 1993, p. 180) This definition too, Ennis
feels, suffers from being too vague, so Ennis adds elabo-
rations (of which the list below is an abridgment) by list-
ing “abilities and dispositions” (Ennis, 1993, p. 180) of
the critical thinker that allows for some guidance in as-
sessment. These abilities and dispositions are:
41
1. Judge the credibility of sources.
2. Identify conclusions, reasons, and assumptions.
3. Judge the quality of an argument, including the ac-
ceptability of its reasons, assumptions, and evidence.
4. Develop and defend a position on an issue.
5. Ask appropriate clarifying questions.
6. Plan experiments and judge experimental designs.
7. Be open minded.
8. Try to be well informed.
9. Draw conclusions when warranted, but with caution.
(Ennis, 1993, p. 180).
Ennis considers this definition a ‘working definition’
and went on to co-author the extensively used “Cornell
Critical Thinking Tests” and lead the Illinois Critical
Thinking Project at the University of Illinois until his
recent retirement. (Thayer-Bacon, 2000). For Ennis’ lat-
est thoughts on critical thinking, see his article entitled,
“Critical Thinking: Reflection and Perspective Part I” in
this issue of INQUIRY.
John McPeck
In an attempt to clarify and critique work previously
done on critical thinking, John McPeck (1981) argued
that critical thinking was not a skill that could stand
alone; it must always be about something. According to
McPeck (1981):
In isolation from a particular subject, the
phrase ‘critical thinking’ neither refers to
nor denotes any particular skill. It follows
from this that it makes no sense to talk
about critical thinking as a distinct subject
and that it therefore cannot be profitably be
taught as such.” (McPeck, 1981, p. 5).
McPeck goes on to argue, from this premise, that
critical thinking is only properly understood when seen
as subject-specific. “Critical thinking always manifests
itself in connection with some identifiable activity or sub-
ject area and never in isolation.” (McPeck, 1981, p. 5).
McPeck (1981) emphasizes that critical thinking
does include:
(…)the judicious use of skepticism, tem-
pered by experience…[where] the crite-
rion for regarding skepticism as judicious,
as opposed to incorrect or frivolous, must
be determined by the norms and standards
of the subject area in question.” (McPeck,
1981, p. 7)
It is not sufficient to simply ask questions or to crit-
icize thoughts as they come, but rather, to develop the
ability to ask the right questions. This leads McPeck to
develop an informal definition of critical thinking:
42 INQUIRY: CRITICAL THINKING ACROSS THE DISCIPLINES
The core meaning of critical thinking is the
propensity and skill to engage in an activity
with reflective skepticism. (McPeck, 1981,
p. 8).
McPeck acknowledges his informal definition leaves
room for ambiguities. McPeck offers further explanation
of his ideas concerning skills and reflective skepticism:
[The skills] necessary for engaging in an
activity, critical thinking cannot be di-
vorced from the skills that make the activ-
ity what it is. [Reflective skepticism] like
‘health’skepticism’, refers to both the pur-
pose and the quality of the thinking in ques-
tion. (McPeck, 1981, p. 9).
McPeck’s definition of critical thinking requires
knowledge of the subject at hand, as well as the desire to
resolve problems that arise.
McPeck’s informal definition, along with the accom-
panying clarifications, lead to McPeck’s formal definition
of critical thinking:
Let X stand for a problem or activity requir-
ing some mental effort.
Let E stand for the available evidence from
the pertinent field or problem area.
Let P stand for some proposition or action
within X.
Then we can say of a given student (S) that
he is a critical thinker in area X if S has the
disposition and skill to do X in such a way
that E, or some subset of E, is suspended as
being sufficient to establish the truth or vi-
ability of P.” (McPeck, 1981, p. 9).
It is noteworthy that McPeck emphasizes two central
components of his concept of critical thinking. Siegel ar-
ticulates the two components as:
There is first, the ability to assess reasons
properly… the reason assessment compo-
nent. There is, second, the willingness, de-
sire, and disposition to base one’s actions
and beliefs on reasons; that is to do reason
assessment and be guided by the results of
such assessment. (Siegel, 1998, p. 23).
Richard Paul thinking. If disciplined to take into account
Richard Paul established, and served as director of,
the Center for Critical Thinking and Moral Critique at
Sonoma State University. He currently organizes the An-
nual International Conference on Critical Thinking and
serves as Director of Research and Professional Develop-
ment for the Center and Foundation for Critical Think-
ing. Prior to setting forth a definition for critical thinking,
Richard Paul distinguishes between two forms of criti-
cal thinking, the ‘weak’ and the ‘strong’ forms. Because
a student comes to the post secondary education setting
with:
(…) a highly developed belief system but-
tressed by a deep-seated, uncritical, ego-
centric and socio-centric habits of thought
by which he interprets and processes his
or her experience… the practical result is
that most students find it easy to question
just, and only, those beliefs, assumptions,
and inferences that [they] have already re-
jected and very difficult, in some cases to
traumatic, to question those in which they
have a personal, egocentric investment.
(Paul 1981, p. 2).
Paul concludes that those that learn to think critically
in order to merely employ these skills to ward away chal-
lenges to what they already believe become more sophis-
tic rather than less so. Paul classifies the engagement in
this type of critical thinking as ‘atomistic’ or the ‘weak
sense’ of critical thinking.
However, in the ‘strong sense’ of critical thinking
one abandons critical thinking skills as a set of “atomic
arguments” and seeks to focus on “argument networks
(world views)”, seeks to take a more “dialectical/dia-
logical” approach to argumentation where arguments are
“appraised in relation to counter arguments”, and realizes
that atomic arguments (such as informal fallacies) are
rarely employed in the “real world” but that “argument
exchanges are means by which contesting points of view
are brought into rational conflict…” (Paul, 1981, p. 2).
Harvey Siegel (1998) sums the “strong sense” of critical
thinking as “appearing to be more a matter of dialogue
between opposing perspectives than a series of atomic
criticisms and deflections.” (Siegel, 1998, p. 13). This al-
lows for the following definition:
Critical thinking is disciplined, self direct-
ed thinking which exemplifies the perfec-
tions of thinking appropriate to a particular
mode or domain of thought. It comes in two
forms. If disciplined to serve the interests
of a particular individual or group, to the
exclusion of other relevant persons and
groups, it is sophistic or weak sense critical
the interests of diverse persons or groups, it
is fair-minded or strong sense critical think-
ing. (Paul, 1990, p. 51).
It must be noted here that Paul’s definition of criti-
cal thinking does not exclude other definitions of critical
thinking. In fact, Paul argues that there are many limita-
SPRING 2011, VOL. 26, NO. 1
tions in the process of defining critical thinking itself, and
goes so far as to argue that it is more desirable to have a
variety of definitions for two reasons:
(1) in order to maintain insight into the
various dimensions of critical thinking that
alternative definitions highlight, and 2) to
help oneself escape the limitations of any
given definition.” (Paul, 1987, as quoted in
Thayer-Bacon, 2000, p. 61).
The American Philosophical Association Expert
Consensus Definition
In 1988, a panel of experts on critical thinking em-
ployed a Delphi process and worked for two years to pro-
duce a definition of consensus allowing for uniformity
within the field as well as guide assessment. The defini-
tion reads:
We understand critical thinking to be pur-
poseful, self regulatory judgments which
results in interpretation, analysis evalua-
tion, and inference, as well as explanation
of the evidential, and inference, as well as
explanation of the evidential, conceptual,
methodological, criteriological, or contex-
tual considerations upon which judgment is
based… The ideal critical thinker is habitu-
ally inquisitive, well-informed, trustful of
reason, open-minded, flexible, fair-minded
in evaluation, honest in facing personal bi-
ases, prudent in making judgments, willing
to reconsider, clear about issues, orderly
in complex matters, diligent in seeking
relevant information, reasonable in the se-
lection of criteria, focused in inquiry, and
persistent in seeking results which are as
precise as the subject and the circumstances
of inquiry permit (…). (Facione, 1990, p.
3).
In addition to providing a general definition for criti-
cal thinking, the panel also provided a list of cognitive
skills and sub-skills, as well as a list of affective disposi-
tions of critical thinking. The skills include:
(…) interpretation (categorization, de-
coding significance, clarifying meaning),
analysis (examining ideas, identifying ar-
guments, analyzing arguments), evaluation
(assessing claims, assessing arguments),
inference (querying evidence, conjectur-
ing alternatives), explanation (stating
results, justifying procedures, present-
ing arguments), and self-regulation (self-
examination, self correction). (Facione,
1990, p. 12).
43
The affective dispositions a critical thinker should
develop are set in two categories. The first category is
approaches to life and living in general. This includes
things such as, inquisitiveness in many issues, flexibility
in considering alternatives, understanding other opin-
ions, honesty in facing ones biases, and a willingness to
revise ones ideas when warranted. The second catego-
ry includes approaches to specific issues, questions or
problems. This includes things such as, clarity in stating
questions, diligence in seeking relevant information, per-
sistence, and precision to the degree allowed. (Facione,
1990). The broad definition and lists of skills and dispo-
sitions commonly referred to as the Delphi definition is
perhaps the most often cited study on critical thinking in
the modern literature on the subject.
Stephen Brookfield
Stephen Brookfield (1987), a distinguished univer-
sity professor at the University of St. Thomas in Min-
neapolis-St. Paul, focuses on the development of criti-
cal thinkers in our society. Consequently, his definition
focuses on the activities, traits, and abilities necessary for
identification and cultivation of critical thinking in not
only education, but also society as a whole. Brookfield
believes that critical thinking involves three concepts: (1)
emancipatory learning, (2) dialectical thinking, and (3)
reflective learning. Emancipatory learning occurs when
“a learner becomes aware of the forces that have brought
them to their current situations and take action to change
some aspect of these situations” (Brookfield, 1987, p.
12). Dialectical thinking focuses on understanding con-
tradictions and arriving at suitable resolutions. Reflec-
tive learning involves a process of internal examination
brought on by some experience that allows the critical
thinker to understand and appreciate a new understand-
ing. (Brookfield, 1987, p. 14).
Brookfield also outlines four components of critical
thinking: identifying and challenging assumptions, chal-
lenging the importance of context, imagining and explor-
ing alternatives, and reflective skepticism. Critical think-
ing is a positive activity that should be properly viewed
as a process, rather than an outcome. Brookfield (1987)
recognizes that “practices, structures and actions are
never context-free” (Brookfield, 1987, p. 5). Both posi-
tive and negative events within the context of the think-
ing process can impact the critical thinking process itself.
Consequently, the critical thinking process can be “emo-
tive as well as rational” (Brookfield, 1987, p. 7).
Joanne Kurfiss
Joanne Kurfiss, director of the Teaching and Learn-
ing Center at Santa Clara University, argues that critical
thinking is “a rational response to questions that cannot
be answered definitively and for which all the relevant
44 INQUIRY: CRITICAL THINKING ACROSS THE DISCIPLINES
information may not be available” (Kurfiss, 1988, p. 2).
The critical thinking process, as outlined by Kurfiss, usu-
ally begins with an argument and has two outcomes: a
hypothesis or conclusion and the justification for this
conclusion.
Kurfiss defines critical thinking as:
(…) an investigation whose purpose is to
explore a situation, phenomenon, question,
or problem to arrive at a hypothesis or con-
clusion about it that integrates all available
information and that can therefore be con-
vincingly justified. (Kurfiss, 1988, p. 2).
Diane Halpern
Diane Halpern, former president of the American
Psychological Association, is heavily quoted in modern
literature on critical thinking for her conception of criti-
cal thinking components in education. Her definition, al-
though very broad, seeks to capture the main elements of
the various definitions of critical thinking found in cur-
rent psychological literature:
“Critical thinking is the use of those cog-
nitive skills or strategies that increase the
probability of a desirable outcome. It is
used to describe thinking that is purpose-
ful, reasoned, and goal directed…[it is not]
merely thinking about your own thinking…
it is using skills that will make “desirable
outcomes” more likely. Decisions as to
which outcomes should be desirable are
embedded in a system of values.” (Halpern,
2003, p. 6-7).
Classifications for Critical Thinking
Definitions
A review of the literature confirms the lack of con-
sensus regarding a uniform definition for critical think-
ing, but there does appear to be some common ground
among many of the influential definitions. In fact, it ap-
pears all of the definitions discussed in this essay can be
clustered into one of two classifications: context-specific
definitions and cross-disciplinary definitions.
Context-Specific Definitions
Context-specific definitions assume critical thinking
cannot occur without a specific context. In other words,
the development of critical thinking skills is interdepen-
dent with the context within which the critical thinking
activity occurs. Under this philosophy, critical thinking
should not be taught as a stand-alone course, since the
critical thinking skills cannot be isolated from the cor-
responding subject matter. Critical thinking in chemistry
differs from critical thinking in business to the extent the
subject matters themselves differ. McPeck’s (1981) defi-
nition strongly falls into the context-specific category,
but other context-specific definitions include the defini-
tions set forth by Brookfield (1987) and Kurfiss (1988).
With increased attention on assessment, context-
specific definitions can be quite useful. When critical
thinking skills are well-defined in unambiguous terms,
they are much easier to assess. By limiting the assess-
ment to a context-specific domain, the results can be
more accurate and far more useful for the specific focal
discipline. This is evidenced by the creation of the Texas
Assessment of Critical Thinking Skills (TACTS), which
was developed by an interdisciplinary team in response
to the accrediting association for collegiate schools of
business’ (AACSB) decision to include assessment of
analytic and reflective thinking in its accreditation stan-
dards. (Fair, Miller, Muehsam, & Elliott, 2010, 37). The
TACTS team stated:
(…) for the sake of assessing how our Col-
lege of Business is doing in meeting the
AACSB standards, it is desirable to use a
“special purpose” instrument that has sev-
eral items built into it that tap quantita-
tive skills especially relevant to business
majors. (Fair, Miller, Muehsam, & Elliott,
2010, 41).
It is important to note this only applies to assessments
designed to incorporate a specific context familiar to the
assessed. If critical thinking skills cannot be isolated from
the context within which they occur, then attempting to
assess critical thinking skills alone appears futile.
Further challenges arise when context-specific
definitions are used blindly in collaborative situations.
Context-specific definitions do not lend themselves to
inter-disciplinary collaborations involving substantially
different disciplines, unless the context is clearly articu-
lated and agreed upon by the participants. The faculty
learning community on critical thinking which spurred
the writing of this essay is a good example. Of the ten
participating members, most joined the group with con-
text-specific definitions for critical thinking, but were
unaware that other disciplines may define critical think-
ing from an entirely different context. It was essential
for the group to openly discuss the varying definitions
along with their corresponding contexts to work towards
a deeper understanding of critical thinking.
Cross-Disciplinary Definitions
Cross-disciplinary definitions clarify critical think-
ing in very broad terms, enabling critical thinking skills
to be taught independent of a specific context. This is
not to claim that critical thinking skills occur without
SPRING 2011, VOL. 26, NO. 1
a context, but rather that the critical thinking skills are
not dependent upon a particular context. In this way, the
skills needed to critically think in chemistry are similar
to the skills needed to critically think in business. Dewey
(1910) offered a cross-disciplinary definition for critical
thinking by identifying its key components as analyzing
the facts, determining whether facts are relevant, and
then synthesizing the appropriate factual information into
a whole. Bloom (1956) also provided a cross-disciplinary
definition for critical thinking as involving analysis, syn-
thesis, and evaluation. Other cross-disciplinary defini-
tions for critical thinking include those by Ennis (1962,
1993), American Philosophical Association Expert Con-
sensus (1990), Paul (1981, 1992), Halpern (2003), and
Glaser (1941).
Cross-disciplinary definitions, by their very nature
work well for interdisciplinary collaboration, but us-
ing them to guide assessment can be challenging. Even
though the feasibility of assessing critical thinking skills
is readily acknowledged, cross-disciplinary definitions
tend to be rather vague and ambiguous. The broadness
of the definitions can lead to confusion, and may cause
some to challenge the reliability as well as practicability
of the assessment results.
Conclusion
In summary, the current definitions for critical think-
ing can be classified into two categories: content-specific
definitions and cross-disciplinary definitions. Content-
specific definitions tend to work well for assessment
within particular disciplines, but challenges arise for
cross-disciplinary assessment and for collaborative situ-
ations involving varying disciplines. Cross-disciplinary
definitions appear on the surface to work well for cross-
disciplinary collaborations and general critical thinking
assessments, but when actually applied, cross-disciplinary
definitions tend to be very broad and often vague, creat-
ing very real challenges for both collaboration and general
assessment. Kennedy, Fisher, and Ennis (1991) claimed
“agreement on a definition of and a vocabulary for criti-
cal thinking is needed in order to get a better idea of what
should be assessed by a critical thinking evaluation in-
strument. (Kennedy, Fisher, and Ennis, 1991, 29). Twenty
years later, the need for such agreement still exists.
Perhaps the greatest lesson can be learned from the
ongoing practices of Ennis and Paul. Both researchers
continue to analyze and revise their existing definitions
for critical thinking. If understanding critical thinking re-
quires doing critical thinking, then Ennis and Paul have
provided us with the perfect models for continuing to im-
prove our understanding of critical thinking. Stakehold-
ers in higher education must continue to work towards
a definition for critical thinking that is context-specific
45
enough to enable accurate and useable assessment, but
cross-disciplinarily enough to encourage effective col-
laboration across diverse fields and disciplines.
References
Bailey, C. (2008). The tools of women’s studies and philoso-
phy: Critical thinking in writing courses. Feminist Teacher,
18(2), 91-100.
Bassham, F., Irwin, W., Nardone, H., & Wallace, J. M. (2005).
Critical thinking: A student’s introduction. Boston: Mc-
Graw-Hill Companies, Inc.
Bloom, B. S., Jr. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives:
handbook I. The cognitive domain. New York: McKay.
Borg, J. R., & Borg, M. O. (2001). Teaching critical thinking
in interdisciplinary economics. College Teaching, 49(1),
20-25.
Brookfield, S. D. (1987). Developing critical thinkers: Chal-
lenging adults to explore alternative ways of thinking and
acting. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Cody, D. (2006). Critical thoughts on critical thinking. Journal
of Academic Librarianship, 32(4), 403-407.
Curry, M. J. (1999). Critical thinking: Origins, applications,
and limitation for postsecondary students of English as a
second language. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting
of American Education Research Association, Montreal,
Quebec, Canada.
Daly, W. M. (1998). Critical thinking as an outcome of nurs-
ing education. What is it? Why is it important to nursing
practice? Journal of Advanced Nursing, 28(2), 323-331.
Dewey, J. (1910). How we think. Boston: D. C. Heath and Com-
pany Publishers.
Dike, S. E., Kochan, F. K., Reed, C., & Ross, M. (2006). Ex-
ploring conceptions of critical thinking held by military
educators in higher education settings. International Jour-
nal of Leadership in Education, 9(1), 45-60.
Edgerton, R. (1991). National standards are coming! … Na-
tional standards are coming! AAHE Bulletin, December,
1991, 8-12.
Ennis, R. H. (1962). A concept of critical thinking. Harvard
Educational Review, 32(1), 81-111.
Ennis, R. H. (1993). Critical thinking assessment. Theory Into
Practice, 32(3), 179-186.
Ennis, R. H. (2011). Critical thinking reflection and perspective
Part I. INQUIRY: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines,
26(1).
Facione, P. A. (1990). Critical thinking: A statement of expert
consensus for purposes of education assessment and in-
struction. Research findings and recommendations pre-
pared for the Committee on Pre-College Philosophy of
the American Philosophical Association. American Philo-
sophical Association. (ERIC Document Reproduction Ser-
vice No. ED 315-423).
Fair, F., Miller, J., Muehsam, V., & Elliott, W. (Summer, 2010).
TACTS: Developing a new critical thinking assessment
instrument. INQUIRY: Critical Thinking Across the Disci-
plines, 25(2), 37-41.
46 INQUIRY: CRITICAL THINKING ACROSS THE DISCIPLINES
Glaser, E. M. (1941). An experiment in the development of criti-
cal thinking. New York: Teachers College of Columbia
University, Bureau of Publications.
Gordon, J. M. (2000). Congruency in defining critical think-
ing by nurse educators and non-nurse scholars. Journal of
Nursing Education, 39(8), 340-351.
Halonen, J. S. (1995). Demystifying critical thinking. Teaching
of Psychology, February 1995, 75-81.
Halpern, D. F. (1997). Critical thinking across the curriculum:
A brief edition of thought and knowledge. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Halpern, D. F. (2003). Thought and knowledge: an introduc-
tion to critical thinking (4th Ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Heffner, S., & Rudy, S. (2008). Critical thinking. Critical Care
Nursing Quarterly, 31(1), 73-78.
Kelly, S. E. (2001). Thinking well: An introduction to critical
thinking. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing Com-
pany.
Kennedy, M, Fisher, M. B. & Ennis, R. H. (1991) Critical think-
ing: Literature review and needed research. In L. Idol and
B. F. Jones (Eds.), Educational values and cognitive in-
struction: Implications for reform. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
11-40.
Kogut, L. S. (1996). Critical thinking in general chemistry.
Journal of Chemical Education, 73(3), 218-221.
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.
Lauer, T. (2005). Teaching critical-thinking skills using course
content material: A reversal of roles. Journal of College
Science Teaching, 34-37.
Lipman, M. (1991). Thinking in education. New York: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Mazer, J. P., Hunt, S. K., & Kuznekoff, J. H. (2007). Revising
general education: Assessing a critical thinking instruc-
tional model in the basic communication course. Journal
of General Education, 56(3-4), 173-199.
McPeck, J. E. (1981). Critical thinking and education. New
York: St. Martin’s Press.
Moore, B. N., & Parker, R. (2001). Critical thinking. Mountain
View, CA: Mayfield Publishing Company.
Morgan, W. R., Jr. (1995). “Critical thinking” — What does that
mean? Journal for College Science Teaching, 336-340.
Olsen, J., & Statham, A. (2005). Critical thinking in politi-
cal science: Evidence from the introductory comparative
politics course. Journal of Political Science Education, 1,
323-344.
Paul, R. W. (1981).Teaching critical thinking in the ‘strong’
sense: A focus on self deception, world views, and a dia-
lectical mode of analysis. Informal Logic, 4(2), 2-7.
Paul, R. W. (1990). Critical thinking: What every person needs
to survive in a rapidly changing world. Rhonert Park, CA:
Sonoma State University Center for Critical Thinking and
Moral Critique.
Ruminski, H. J., & Hanks, W. E. (1995). Critical thinking lacks
definition and uniform evaluation criteria. Journalism &
Mass Communication Educator, 4-11.
Siegel, H. (1988). Educating reason: Rationality, critical think-
ing, and education. London: Routledge (Philosophy of
Education Research Library).
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. SB148, 5S, 5.390-5.404.
Thayer-Bacon, B. (2000). Transforming critical thinking:
Thinking constructively. New York: Teachers College
Press.
Vaske, J. M. (2001). Critical thinking in adult education: an
elusive quest for a definition of the field. Des Moines, IA:
Unpublished dissertation, School of Education, Drake
University.
Videbeck, S. L. (1997). Critical thinking: Prevailing practice in
baccalaureate schools of nursing. Journal of Nursing Edu-
cation, 36(1), 5-10.
Wales, C. E., & Nardi, A. H. (1984). The paradox of critical
thinking. Morgantown, WV: Center for Guided Design.
Watson, G., & Glaser, E. M. (1980). Watson-Glaser Critical
Thinking Appraisal. Cleveland, OH: Psychological Cor-
poration.
Zygmont, D. M., & Schaefer, K. M. (2006). Assessing the criti-
cal thinking skills of faculty: What do the findings mean
for nursing education? Nursing Education Perspectives,
27(5), 260-268.
Author information
Maria Sanders is a professor of philosophy and Fac-
ulty Excellence Award winner at Lone Star College – Cy-
Fair. She is a co-author of “Broaching Fragmented Learn-
ing: Principles for Reflective Learning in the Cyber-age”
published by the 2011 International Technology and
Education Development Conference held in Valenica,
Spain, and she has most recently co-presented at the 6th
Annual On Course Conference held in Long Beach, Cali-
fornia on “Reflection Simulations: Cyber-Learning in the
Cyber-Age.” She teaches logic, social and political phi-
losophy, and applied ethics courses and received her M.
A. in Philosophy from Southern Illinois University—Ed-
wardsville and her J.D. from Saint Louis University. Her
contact information is Lone Star College – CyFair, 9191
Barker Cypress Road, Cypress, TX 77433-1383. Phone:
(281) 290-3232, Email Maria.a.sanders@lonestar.edu
Jason Moulenbelt received his B.A. and M.A. de-
grees in Philosophy from Western Michigan University.
He is Professor of Philosophy at Lone Star College-Cy-
Fair, and his teaching specializations include Practical
and Applied Ethics, Race and Gender Issues, Business
Ethics. He received the Dr. Christal Albrecht Learning
Innovation Award in May 2008. His contact informa-
tion is Lone Star College – CyFair, 9191 Barker Cypress
Road, Cypress, TX 77433-1383. Phone: (281) 290-3912,
Email: Jason.l.moulenbelt@lonestar.edu.
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-
ment in this context is a conclusion supported by reasons
and evidence (Weston, 2008, p. xi). A well-constructed
college course begins with a central proposition or prop-
ositions upon which the course elaborates. The funda-
mental task of a college professor is to create the argu-
ments for those propositions. This task requires creating
arguments that can be followed, understood, and applied
by students through the time of the course and beyond.
College courses, particularly those at the undergraduate
level, are often conceived of by those who do not teach
them as consisting of a standard body of information that,
because it is standard, does not vary from professor to
professor. Therefore, they reason, if two professors each
teach an introductory American government course, the
body of information conveyed will be essentially the
same in each course. But while it is likely that there will
be a great deal of overlap between two such courses and
while the central elements of the courses often will be the
same, yet each professor brings to the course a point of
view on the subject matter that has been developed dur-
ing the process of acquiring an advanced education on
the subject. This education is never exactly the same as
the one received by others. One reason is that each pro-
fessor has a major area of concentration in one or more
subfields of her discipline, and this concentration shapes
what she considers to be important and worth attend-
ing to. As a graduate student she was introduced to and
learned to apply theories, concepts, and explanations that
differed from those acquired and employed by others.
Furthermore, as a professor conducts research, reads, and
teaches, she shapes an individual complex understanding
of her subject matter that will differ from that of other
professors. This means that a professor whose main area
of concentration is International Relations, for example,
is likely to give a greater emphasis to the role of the presi-
dent in foreign policy when discussing the institution of
the presidency and will emphasize the role of foreign pol-
icy and international relations as areas of public policy
more than would a professor trained in American national
institutions. A professor trained in Political Philosophy is
likely to have a very different point of view on the entire
subject of American government beginning with a differ-
ent definition of politics from those trained as empirical
political scientists. The questions that flow from a dif-
ferent definition of politics, that the course will seek to
explore and answer, will be different and will lead to a
different body of knowledge being acquired by students.
It is the ability of a professor to bring her well-developed
perspective to the subject that makes her a college profes-
sor instead of a simple conveyor or information.
While this discussion has used examples from Politi-
cal Science, there is nothing unique about the particular
discipline in this regard. The same phenomenon would
be observed in any other scholarly field. Being exposed
to a variety of professors with a variety of points of view
about a subject is central to a college education. It is what
makes a college education a different learning experience
from other forms of education. The student is exposed
to different ways of examining, understanding, explain-
ing, and evaluating the world. In the process of gaining
insights from a variety of points of view a student can de-
velop a more sophisticated and mature understanding of
the very idea of knowledge. This process moves the stu-
dent from, in the words of Mary Burgan, “a world view
based on absolutes-right/wrong, good/bad... (to one in
which) they can accept the reality of multiple viewpoints,
then see that judgments can be made among them, and,
finally, to make commitments in the light of relative un-
certainties.” (Burgan, 2006) Of course, a student is also
exposed to different ways of understanding the world as
he or she moves from subject to subject. However, the
point here is that even as students take courses within
a single subject from different professors they begin to
develop a new perspective on knowledge and on their
world that is the product of synthesizing the different
48 INQUIRY: CRITICAL THINKING ACROSS THE DISCIPLINES
perspectives she encounters or of choosing to emphasize
one presented by a professor whose perspective she finds
particularly attractive.
What Is an Argument: Richard Paul,
Linda Elder, and the Elements of Reasoning
To understand the concept of a course as an argu-
ment it is necessary to elaborate on the meaning of an
argument. A common definition of an argument like the
one given above is that it is a conclusion supported by
reasons and evidence. To understand what is involved in
creating an entire course as an argument requires, how-
ever, a more highly developed notion of reasoning. One
such developed scheme of the elements of reasoning is
provided by Richard Paul and Linda Elder (Paul & Elder,
2006 pp. 11-42). They are interested in what they call
“the fundamental structures of thought” (Paul & Elder
13), but the elements they define can also be understood
as relevant to the construction of an argument. The eight
elements are: (1) a purpose, goal, or end in view; (2) a
question at issue or problem to be solved; (3) a point
of view or frame of reference; (4) the evidence — data,
facts, experiences; (5) the conceptual or theory dimen-
sion of reasoning; (6) the assumptions one makes; (7) the
inferences or conclusions one develops from the reason-
ing process; and (8) the implications or consequences one
draws from the argument that is developed.
Applying Paul and Elder’s scheme leads to identify-
ing the purpose is a crucial first step in creating the argu-
ment that is the course. One might be tempted to simply
identify the purpose of a course as teaching a particular
subject to a class of students, but the greater the speci-
ficity with which the professor identifies the purpose or
goal of a course the more clearly she can articulate the
goals for her students. Many course syllabi include a list
of course goals that are to be achieved, often identified as
tasks students will be able to perform if they successfully
complete the course. These tasks are generated from the
overall purpose of the course, and the purpose is derived
from the larger subject matter discipline of which the
course is a part. A scholar has learned to see each course
as part of a larger whole and to see each lecture in the
course as part of the larger whole that is the course. The
particular subject of the course gains its purpose from the
place it takes in the larger body of knowledge of which
the discipline consists. When one examines the curricu-
lum of any particular discipline at a college or university
one can follow the way the subject matter of the disci-
pline is organized by scholars in the discipline. By com-
paring the specific courses taught at different institutions
one can infer the differences in points of view among dif-
ferent faculties. A department faculty is not just a group
of individuals who teach the same discipline. Over time
they develop a more or less distinctive way of organizing
and understanding the subject that is a synthesis of the
perspectives they each bring to the subject. It is neces-
sary to develop a common perspective in order to agree
on degree requirements and specific courses that must be
taken by all students in the discipline.
Perhaps an example of the differences that can occur
will help to clarify the point. Two important subjects of
study within the discipline of political science are the or-
ganizations of interest groups and political parties. Both
may be covered as part of an undergraduate curriculum
and both are invariably important topics in introductory
courses on American government. There are two ways
these organizations can be presented. One way, perhaps
the more common, is to treat them as separate subjects
with each given its own focus in the course; for instance,
they are often discussed in separate chapters in American
government textbooks. In contrast, however, one may
also stress the similarities between the two types of orga-
nization. Both are ways in which citizens in democracies
organize to influence political outcomes. Both are non-
profit, voluntary organizations whose internal dynamics
share many characteristics. Presenting these two types
of organizations in this way leads to a different set of
questions to be asked, a different set of problems to be
solved, and places the facts concerning them in a differ-
ent context. It is up to the particular professor to decide
how to handle these topics in her own course and it is up
to the faculty of a particular institution to decide how to
develop them within their curriculum.
The second element is the problem to be solved or
question to be answered. As with the goal or purpose
of the course, there usually is one central problem to be
solved or question to be answered in creating a course,
though numerous other problems or questions are gener-
ated in the attempt to solve the central problem or an-
swer the central question, and these must be identified
and analyzed. The process of identifying those questions
takes place as the professor develops the argument of the
course. As with the purpose, the questions or problems
are already part of the professor’s knowledge.
An example of a problem to be solved in a course is
the decline in political participation in the United States.
Beginning in the 1960’s political participation in the
United States, particularly voting in elections, began to
decline. Many political scientists consider this decline
substantial enough to require study and to raise ques-
tions as to how it might affect the performance of the
American political system. The decline in participation
in politics was particularly pronounced among younger
citizens. Over time scholars within the discipline devel-
oped positions concerning the importance of these trends
for American politics. There are differences on this ques-
tion, but one can observe the production of introductory
SPRING 2011, VOL. 26, NO. 1
American government texts in recent years in which the
main problem to be solved seems to be that of convinc-
ing students that politics has an important impact on their
lives. These texts emphasize the ways in which citizens
influence political outcomes and include the message that
a wise citizen will participate in the process.
The third of Paul’s elements, point of view or frame
of reference, is primarily generated from the discipline
one is teaching, though a more refined point of view is
based on the perspective that a professor has developed
through her education and research. This is illustrated
when the same topic is taught in courses in two differ-
ent disciplines. The representatives of the disciplines
will pose different problems, make use of different evi-
dence, reason to different inferences, identify different
implications and consequences, and make use of what is
learned to move in different directions in the next part
of the course. The writing, adoption, and content of the
United States Constitution are examined in both courses
on American History as part of a history curriculum and
in introductory courses on American government taught
as part of a Political Science curriculum. There is a great
deal of overlap in the development of the material in the
two courses. Yet it is easy to see that there will also be sig-
nificant differences, since every academic subject has its
own set of purposes and goals, questions and problems,
assumptions, concepts, central facts, and has at any time
its own set of important implications and consequences
drawn from arguments made in its discipline. All of these
are part of the body of knowledge which constitutes the
discipline. The professor brings all of these to the forma-
tion of a course.
The fourth element concerns the facts, data, and evi-
dence that are treated in the course. Facts in any course
range from the most basic, those that are central to the
study of the subject, to those that are trivial and useful
only as examples or in creating full descriptions of rele-
vant broader conditions. The particular objects that make
up the empirical dimension of a subject may range from
the very specific to the very broad. There are 435 mem-
bers of the United States House of Representatives. This
is a very specific and very important fact in the study of
American national politics.
The fifth element is the set of concepts and theories
that have been developed in the course of the research and
writing on the subject. The development of the argument
which is the course will use these concepts. The concepts
will require definition and perhaps analysis within the
course and will have to be understood by students as part
of completing the course. The theories and ideas will also
be a major part of the content that requires describing and
explaining and which will be used in the process of argu-
ing in the course. One concept used a great deal in Politi-
cal Science is the concept of “attitude.” One definition of
49
an attitude is “a predisposition to react in a certain way to
a political object.” To have students appreciate this con-
cept the definition should be analyzed. A predisposition
means that the individual does not develop the reaction in
the presence of the object. but will automatically respond
because he or she already has certain feelings, beliefs, or
feelings about objects of such a nature. The term “object”
is used because a wide variety of stimuli, from people,
to political parties, to nations, are subjects of attitudes.
Having this general concept in mind allows a student to
analyze a wide variety of human behavior.
Sixth, every argument requires assumptions. It is im-
possible to construct an argument in which everything is
proven. Assumptions are also the most difficult part of
any argument to identify. Many of the most important as-
sumptions made in an argument become so entrenched
in the subject matter over time that they are no longer
discussed, justified, or even acknowledged. The assump-
tions have become a subconscious part of how the profes-
sor thinks about the subject. The assumptions make up
part of the basic thought processes of everyone in the dis-
cipline. Yet they form part of the fundamental structure of
the argument and if they can be identified and discussed
explicitly, it will help those who are learning the subject
to understand it more fully. One of the most fundamental
assumptions made by political scientists is that humans
do not act with free will but behave in response to stimuli.
The stimuli may be sociological in nature, psychologi-
cal in nature, or rational, self-interested responses. This
is such a basic assumption of political science as a dis-
cipline that it is rarely articulated or discussed. This is
one of those assumptions that become so basic to those
trained as political scientists that they forget that it is an
assumption and simply apply it. It would be valuable
for their students to have this assumption articulated for
them. This would help them to be more critical in their
analysis of political phenomenon.
Seventh, all reasoning creates inferences. “An infer-
ence is a ‘step’ of the mind, an intellectual act by which
one concludes that something is true in the light of some-
thing else’s being true, or seeming to be true.” (Paul &
Elder, 2006, p. 31) A fully developed course will draw
many inferences and will use earlier inferences as part of
the reasoning to later ones. The application of assump-
tions, concepts, and theories to the subject of the disci-
pline in systematic reasoning is what leads to the infer-
ences of the subject and which need to form the center
of the course. For example, we have previously noted
that participation in politics among the American popula-
tion showed a significant decline between the 1960’s and
1980’s. Applying the basic political science theory that
changes in human behavior can be explained by changes
in attitudes, a term which the political scientist will care-
fully define, we can use the data we have on attitudes to-
50 INQUIRY: CRITICAL THINKING ACROSS THE DISCIPLINES
wards politics to draw the inference that the reduction in
participation is explained by a change in attitudes towards
the honesty, accountability, and motivation of behavior
by government officials. This is a basic inference that
political scientists have drawn and will teach students.
However, the goal is not to have students memorize this
inference, but to teach them to use the theories, concepts
and data of Political Science to answer important ques-
tions and draw important inferences. This is the differ-
ence between learning to critically think about politics
and simply memorizing what is taught as a series of facts.
The final element of Paul’s elements includes the im-
plications and consequences that follow from the argu-
ment. It is the implications and consequences that fulfill
the purpose of the reasoning and answer the questions or
solve the problems posed by the thinker as the argument
is first developed. An implication of the argument that
citizen participation has gone down as a result of changes
in their attitudes towards government is that those atti-
tudes must be changed if participation is to rise. A con-
sequence of this has been the attempt by political science
professors to convince their students that politics matters
in their lives so it worth their time and effort to partici-
pate.
Paul and Elder’s scheme of elements of reasoning
has been used to present the basic idea of the course as
an argument because it clarifies the set of decisions that
must be made and the structure that must be developed
in creating and teaching a college course. It is not being
argued that college professors consciously recognize that
the development of a college course is the construction
of an argument. However, in the process of obtaining an
advanced college degree and in studying and conducting
research in their discipline, college professors develop
the process of creating arguments as their normal way
of thinking, particularly within their subject matter. They
come to understand, explain, critique, and create such ar-
guments as the dominant activity in graduate school and
in their professional lives. When the time comes to de-
velop their own college courses, constructing a course as
an argument is one way they complete the task.
One assumption that underlies the argument of this
paper has not been revealed until now. It is assumed that
one cannot think about a subject without reasoning about
it. All thinking involves reasoning. The individual may
be more or less conscious of the reasoning process going
on in her, she may be more or less systematic in her rea-
soning, her reasoning may be more or less logical and her
arguments may be more or less well developed, but in all
cases, reasoning is going on.
There is also a major implication that follows from
the position that has been presented here. A central, if
not the central, task of a professor in a college course is
to guide her students towards a more conscious, system-
atic, logical, and well-developed thought process about
the subject matter of the course. This goal is not easy to
achieve. There is a very large gap between the way in
which the professor thinks about her subject and how her
students think about it. Reducing that gap requires a great
deal of effort on the part of both the professor and the stu-
dent. It is the professor who must be aware of this differ-
ence and who is in a position to help students strengthen
their ways of thinking.
Critical Thinking Skills Associated with the
Course as an Argument
Recognizing that a course is an argument clarifies a
set of critical thinking skills college students must possess
in order to succeed in their courses. Students need to be
able (1) to grasp the underlying purpose of the course, (2)
to identify the specific questions or problems the course
addresses, (3) to articulate the point of view which gives
rise to the questions, (4) to assess the evidence related to
possible answers, (5) to understand the main concepts,
(6) to recognize important background assumptions, (7)
to make sound inferences, and (8) to attend to implica-
tions and consequences of those inferences. Sadly, it is
a set of skills they often lack when they enter college,
but these skills are crucial for the use of two of the ways
in which the argument of a course is presented to stu-
dents, through reading and attending lectures. The latter
is particularly important in larger, introductory courses,
the very courses students take when the first enter college
and often before they have developed the skills to get the
most benefit out of them.
Mortimer J. Adler argued that in both reading and
attending to a lecture “the learner acts on something com-
municated to him. He performs operations on discourse,
written or oral.” (Adler, 1972, p. 13) Two points need
to be emphasized about Adler’s observation. First, Adler
argues that the critical thinking skills necessary to de-
velop understanding from reading and from a lecture are
essentially the same. It is common for analysts to argue
against the use of lectures in college classes but exceed-
ingly rare for anyone to argue for eliminating, or even re-
ducing, reading requirements. Perhaps this is because the
similarities are not obvious until one examines the two
activities in detail. Second, Adler emphasizes that “al-
though the teacher may help his students in many ways,
it is the student himself who must do the learning (Adler,
1972, p. 13).” While they may understand some need to
be minimally active in reading, students often perceive
their role at lectures to be completely passive. Perhaps
the classic statement of how such students think of their
role in lectures came from a student who commented on
a course evaluation that he wished the professor had lec-
tured less because he “does not like being lectured at.”
SPRING 2011, VOL. 26, NO. 1
In either reading or attending to lectures students often
underestimate the degree to which they must be actively
engaged with the material. In both cases students often
believe that the primary intellectual process they must
use is memorization. Reading the notes that students take
in lectures reveals that they often only write down what
is written on a board or included in a PowerPoint slide.
These students fail to perceive the argument being pre-
sented and, therefore, often miss the relationships being
presented and developed. Their notes become a list of in-
dividual fragments of the argument with the result that
they end up using their notes to memorize the individual
points they have listed instead of understanding the argu-
ment of the lecture. The same tendency can be found if
one quizzes students on their strategies for studying texts.
When asked what they do students will often state they
attempt to identify the ‘important points’ in the text and to
memorize them. When asked how they determine which
are the important points in a chapter of the text, students
will reveal that they highlight what seem to be important
facts and definitions and perhaps the topic sentences of
paragraphs. Again an inspection of their notes often re-
veals a fragmentary list that is based on clues in the text
and guidance provided by the publishers, such as high-
lighted terms and definitions. Moreover, the students’ ap-
proach toward the reading and lecture material presented
to them suggests strongly that they believe their task is to
identify and remember the important pieces of informa-
tion embedded in the material so it can be recalled on ex-
ams. When they question their professors as to what they
must know for an upcoming exam, what they are often
asking is to have the professor separate the information
that they must memorize from the information that they
need not recall. Another form of this request is the plea
that the professor provide a study guide for the exam.
Again the request is usually for a list of the items that
are to be remembered for the exam. It seems plausible
that this tendency to focus on discrete bits of information
is strongly reinforced by the pervasive use of machine-
scored, multiple-choice examinations.
These students have not been taught that they are
reading or listening to an argument. They do not grasp
the need to go through the material critically to bring
out the structure of the argument so they can develop an
understanding of the material, yet understanding is the
goal of the learning process. And there are other factors
that reinforce their misconception about the process of
learning. The contemporary college textbook is often a
very poorly developed argument. Such texts are written
and published with the intention that they be adopted by
the largest possible number of professors. As a result,
authors usually try to accommodate as many approaches
to the subject matter as possible. This requires adopting
no single point of view from which an argument can be
51
developed, but presenting a weakly developed argument
that is a composite of many, sometimes even contradic-
tory points of view. Sometimes this presentation is ac-
companied by a description of various ways in which a
particular topic can be understood. However, such pre-
sentations are invariably fragmentary, do not develop the
various ways of understanding the subject in any depth,
and fail to explore the implications of accepting each of
the points of view that have been named. More frequently
the text simply creates a contradictory, vague description
of the subject matter without acknowledging that there is
more than one way of understanding it.
Such texts are usually packed with an overwhelm-
ing amount of descriptive material that obfuscates any
analysis that is taking place. This structure reinforces the
tendency of students to see the subject as a compilation of
facts that should be memorized. Even theories, concept,
and assumptions are presented as if they are individual
facts with little development of their role in an argument.
A particularly common feature of such texts that is in-
tended to aid students in learning, but one which may
hinder them instead, is the tendency to highlight terms
and their definitions. This may be done by simply high-
lighting the term and its definition in the body of the text
or reproducing it in the margin of the text, or even includ-
ing a list of terms and their definitions in another place in
the book. While this feature is intended to help students,
it reinforces the belief that terms are isolated pieces of
information whose definition should be memorized. Stu-
dents need to realize that terms play a role in an argument
and that the way in which a term is defined has conse-
quences for how the subject is understood. They need to
realize that many of the most important terms can have
more than one definition and that the particular defini-
tion was a choice made by the authors of the text to fit
their understanding of the subject. Further, students need
to realize how using the term in its context contributes to
understanding the subject. Understanding all of this is ac-
tually harder when the term and its definition are isolated
from the context in which they are used.
The Course as an Argument and the
Necessity and Desirability of Lectures
The idea that a college course is an argument tends
to suggest that the professor will the one to present the
argument and that in turn suggests the need for the pro-
fessor to give lectures as the vehicles for presenting the
argument. However, while the need for college students
to be able to read more critically is never disputed, lec-
tures have come under attack in recent years from those
who argue that they are a poor method of education. The
most common criticism of lectures is that they turn stu-
dents into a passive audience whose members simply
52 INQUIRY: CRITICAL THINKING ACROSS THE DISCIPLINES
take down information from the professor so it can be
memorized and restated on an exam. John C. Bean ar-
gues that “Lecture courses, by nature, place students in
a passive role and imply a transmission theory of knowl-
edge in which students ‘receive’ the ideas and informa-
tion ‘sent’ by the instructor.” (Bean, 2001, p. 169) This
description of the lecture process treats the mind of the
student as if it is simply a recording device which takes
down the sounds within earshot. But of course the brain
is no such thing, and the actual relationship between the
lecturer and the student is much more complex. At least
Bean adds ideas to what the professor is “transmitting.”
Many descriptions of lectures state simply that they are
used to transmit information. But the term ‘information’
hides much more than it reveals about the content of lec-
tures. In everyday language information is taken to refer
to individual facts, terms, etc. The idea that the professor
is revealing an entire structure of thought about important
phenomena is not even hinted at by the word ‘informa-
tion.’ As for the student, he is interpreting, comparing,
analyzing, considering the significance of various points,
relating what is being said to his own previous knowledge
and experience, engaging in a process that will transform
what was said by the professor into the argument he be-
lieves she is trying to help students understand.
This characterization of the student’s activities is a
brief, incomplete description of what should be happen-
ing. For this to be the case the student must be aware of
the course as an extended argument and, consequently, of
what she must do to attend to a lecture to maximize her
understanding. If a student is unaware of these things, if
she thinks a lecture is an activity in which she is only an
observer whose task is to “identify the important points,”
perhaps write them down, and then later memorize them,
she will be the passive receptor portrayed by the critics of
lectures. The student will be bored, her mind will wander
aimlessly during much of the class period, or she will be
texting during much of the class period. Active, engaged
interaction with a lecturer, just as with a written text,
involves a set of intellectual skills that must be devel-
oped. The beginning of such learning requires awareness
of one’s thought processes. Most of us do not regularly
pay conscious attention to our own thought processes.
We take such activities as natural and do not attempt to
control them. However, when we are engaged in thinking
critically while interacting with written or oral material,
we need to have the habit of consciously engaging the
material in order to reveal the structure of the argument
that is being presented to us. First, this means that we
must pay attention. Critics of lectures often argue that
students lack the ability to pay attention to an oral presen-
tation for more than a few minutes. Yet, the same students
attend long movies, read novels, and otherwise engage in
activities that require long periods of concentration. The
lack of concentration that students manifest is a conse-
quence of being passive observers of an activity they do
not understand and the fact they have not learned the skill
of concentrating.
Students must also be taught explicitly that their
texts and lectures are arguments that they can come to
understand and that will give them a more sophisticated
and systematic understanding of the subject of the course.
They can be taught that this is the goal of an academic
course. They can learn that taking a college course is not
a matter of sorting through a bewildering mass of mate-
rial and memorizing as much of it as possible, but that it
is a more manageable task of identifying and learning the
structure and content of what is considered to be knowl-
edge in a particular subject. Such students are more able
to focus their studies, learn much more efficiently, and do
far more with the content of the course than repeat it on
examinations.
The implication of this is that far too little time is
spent training students in these skills. While a great deal
of effort is expended in asking how the critical thinking
skills of students can be developed, much improvement
of student performance in college could be achieved if
the way students perform in lectures was not so often
taken as a given that cannot be changed and that requires
the abandonment of lectures as a teaching technique.
Lectures are central to the contribution made by profes-
sors to the learning of their students. Lectures, like read-
ing materials, require students to stretch their minds, to
grasp concepts, ideas, and ways of thinking that they do
not possess when they enter the classroom. It is a dif-
ficult process that requires a great deal of effort, is often
frustrating, and inevitably includes mistakes and failures
in the process of improving. But the level and amount
of content that can be transmitted through lectures and
through reading cannot be included in a course in any
other way. To eliminate one of these teaching strategies
or to fail to prepare students to make the maximum use
of them is to drastically limit what can be taught and
learned.
The Professor’s Responsibility for
Improving Students’ Critical Thinking Skills
The more extreme critics of lecturing as a teaching
method often refer to the professor as “the sage on the
stage.” It is a clever epithet. It reminds one of labeling the
estate tax “the death tax.” These terms conjure up nega-
tive images that can be used to condemn something with-
out the need for actually analyzing what is being con-
demned. The idea that a lecturer is “the sage on the stage”
reminds one of the professor who enters a large lecture
hall, steps to the podium and launches into a lecture that
may be intelligent, informed, and well delivered, but is
SPRING 2011, VOL. 26, NO. 1
beyond the comprehension of the students who listen, or
fail to listen, while the self-satisfied professor drones on
without a thought as to whether he is getting anything
across to the students. When he finishes the lecture, the
professor strides from the lecture hall and returns to his
office where he can return to the more important activity
of working on his latest research project, having fulfilled
his teaching obligations. Certainly such professors exist
and they should be criticized. The more typical profes-
sor, however, is interested in having her students learn
the subject to which she has dedicated her career. How-
ever, good intentions are not enough. Just as students are
often unaware of the task that is before them, professors
often underestimate the gap between their understanding
of the subject and that of their students. Certainly they
understand that students need to be educated, but the
task of creating lectures that both do justice to the sub-
ject and can be followed and understood by students is a
much more difficult task than is often realized. Lectures
must stretch the student’s mind yet be within his grasp.
The process of obtaining and using a graduate education
creates within the professor ways of thinking about the
subject that become second nature. It may be very dif-
ficult for the professor to envision the real gap between
herself and her students. As a consequence she underes-
timates her responsibilities and the size and complexity
of her task. This may be particularly true for the young
professor who is less likely to aware of the gap between
herself and her students. Good lectures, and good lectur-
ing, are created by a process of development, discovery,
and evolution. Every method of feedback available to the
professor must be used to determine whether her lecture
is clear, accurate, and can be understood by the attentive,
interested student. Thus the professor with the yellowed
lecture notes who gives the same lectures semester after
semester is another example of the professor who should
not be in a classroom. Conscientious professors are con-
stantly reading and thinking about their subject to deepen
and broaden their own understanding. Another distortion
that comes from the view that lectures are just a way of
conveying information is the implication that the profes-
sor only need know a very limited set of information that
she is to convey to her students, just what the course de-
scription covers, and no more. However, the deeper and
broader the professor’s knowledge and understanding of
her subject the more she will have from which to draw in
creating strong lectures that aid students in learning the
subject.
It is necessary to think in terms of incorporating strat-
egies, assignments, exercises, and any other techniques
that can be used to improve student’s ability to read criti-
cally and to attend lectures critically. It would require an-
other paper to do justice to the many techniques that have
been developed, tested, and used over the years in fur-
53
therance of these goals. Colleges and universities should
be encouraged to build into their curriculums a goal of
developing these skills in their students, rather than as-
suming that students enter college with these skills either
fully developed or without the ability to learn them.
The Importance of Other
Teaching Strategies
If this paper stopped at this point, readers would be
justified in concluding that the author believes that all
college courses should be lecture courses and that profes-
sors should only lecture. This would be a complete mis-
understanding of the author’s position. We began with the
point that a course is an argument and that each subunit
of the course is an argument that is part of the larger argu-
ment that is the course. In developing each section of the
course, a professor should take full advantage of the full
array of written assignments, discussions, class exercises,
and every form of activity that is often discussed as “en-
gaging” the students. The professor should ask herself the
nature of the concepts, ideas, questions, phenomena, con-
clusions, consequences, and so forth she will be bringing
into the course at any point. Then she should ask which
types of assignments can best enhance and deepen stu-
dents’ understanding of those points and how she can fur-
ther their understanding of the course material. The idea
of engaging students in activities to help them learn is not
new. Plato wrote dialogues because he believed that if
students acted out the dialogues or read them they would
learn better. In a number of disciplines laboratory sec-
tions are included in a course to further student learning
through active engagement. Note that the laboratory does
not replace the rest of the course; it enhances it. This au-
thor wishes his courses included such explicit additional
time to allow both lecturing and activities to further the
learning. At some major universities introductory courses
are often a combination of lectures by the professor and
“discussion sections” to explore the ideas presented more
deeply. The point is that such activities do not replace
the lecture or the assigned readings; they enhance them
and strengthen the course. This is the proper relationship
among various elements of a course.
Conclusions
A college course is an argument. It is the task of a
college professor to construct that argument and to de-
velop a set of teaching materials, including lectures and
readings, that maximize her students’ ability to under-
stand the argument that is the course, and thus to help
them become more systematic thinkers about that sub-
ject. To accomplish this goal, the professor must be aware
of the gap between her ability to think critically about
54 INQUIRY: CRITICAL THINKING ACROSS THE DISCIPLINES

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 Frank.codispoti@lonestar.edu.
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
to in teaching, but it varies widely in definition. For the
purpose of this analysis, critical thinking is defined as
the evaluation of ideas, sources and information that
is purposeful. It is a process that allows for individu-
als to deliberate, question, and assess information or
situations that are experienced or presented (Brookfield,
1987; Halpern, 1998). The emphasis on the “process”
does not offer a comprehensive definition as defined by
an emphasis on argumentation (Ennis, 1962), but other
conceptions of critical thinking take into account impor-
tant aspects that include prior skill sets, ability, attitudes,
social environment, and social contexts (Abrami, et al.,
2008; Makoe, Richardson, & Price, 2008; Nieto & Saiz,
2010). All of these factors contribute to processes in-
volved in critical thinking engagement.
An important question that this inquiry addresses is
whether online learning can promote elements important
in critical thinking development. The literature available
on the topic indicates that key elements to critical think-
ing in a face to face classroom are the same ones neces-
sary for the development of successful instruction in the
online environment.
What is online learning?
Online learning is a particular type of distance
learning that can be defined as learning that occurs ex-
clusively through and mediated on the internet (Tall-
ent-Runnels et al., 2006; Allen & Seaman, 2010). The
components discussed here are applicable to web based
education as well as online learning. Web based educa-
tion refers to education where work and activities for a
class are provided through the internet as a supplement
to face to face instruction. Hybrid courses are those in
which interactions vary depending on the structure of the
course and which can be identified as courses that meet
face to face several times during the course of a semes-
ter, but that have a significant online component (Allen
& Seaman, 2010). While distance learning courses are
asynchronous, their delivery historically has varied dra-
matically through correspondence, radio, and televised
courses (Larreamendy-Joerns, Leindhardt, 2006). The
importance of the online delivery method today is due
to the rapid growth of the internet as well as an acces-
sibility that has allowed for this method of instruction to
be widely used by nonprofit and for profit institutions of
higher learning.
In the online environment, dispositions, attitudes,
academic background, access to resources, and prior
knowledge of the use of technology all affect how criti-
cal thinking is exercised in the online classroom (Edge
& Loegering, 2000; Farber, 1998). Dispositions in the
critical thinking context refer to the preparation and past
experiences that students bring to the critical thinking
process. Institutionalization of online learning has pro-
vided a window of access to previously excluded popu-
lations; however, there are questions about the types of
students who sign up for these courses and whether or
not they have the dispositions that will help them to suc-
ceed (Larreamendy-Joerns & Leindhardt, 2006; Edge &
Loegering, 2000).
I contend that aspects of critical thinking that are
often associated with the face to face environment can
be fostered through interactive processes in an online
class. An assessment of what Ennis (1989) called the
“infusion” of critical thinking into an online course en-
vironment will give evidence that social processes of in-
teraction and knowledge construction are important in
understanding how the critical thinking process can be
conducted and evaluated.
Critical Thinking and Social Interaction
Two important perspectives are explored here. The
first is based on theoretical assumptions embedded in so-
56 INQUIRY: CRITICAL THINKING ACROSS THE DISCIPLINES
cial interaction theory, and the second is based on the so-
cial constructionist approach. Both of these theories are
linked in the way in which they address the importance
of society in creating meaning. Interactions are a part of
and embedded within the critical thinking process. The
theories emphasize important elements that apply to the
online learning environment, elements which include
the role of the individual, the role of groups, character-
istic social interactions, and the production of knowl-
edge that occurs through these interactions. The online
environment provides a unique opportunity for students
to derive and construct meaning from their interactions
in a way that accomplishes the same goals expected of
face to face classrooms. Asynchronous interactions en-
gage the process of critical thinking through knowledge
production. This collaborative process allows students
to evaluate information presented by their peers and in-
structors. Students are also able to assess the validity and
“truths” (Ennis, 1989; McPeck, 1984) of evidence pre-
sented to support claims and are challenged to develop
their own conclusions in the context of online learning.
The social interaction perspective is derived from
the important theoretical foundation established by
George Herbert Mead (Mead, 1967). Mead provided a
framework for studying the individual and the creation
of consciousness as directly connected to society. The
self is generated from the process of social interaction.
Language, which is learned through socialization, is the
means by which meaning is understood in social interac-
tion and is therefore essential to an understanding of the
social world. Through the use of language, the self is
developed by creating a consciousness that is both indi-
vidual and the result of society. This sense of self creates
the necessity for individuals to understand themselves in
the context of social interaction. They develop a deeper
understanding by molding their actions according to per-
ceived expectations from the group. This is what Mead
refers to as taking the role of the other. Role taking then
generates a controlled response from the individual that
takes into account not only the individual, but also the
expectations of conduct within the group. This process
generates a cooperative environment through expected
patterns in communication.
An important component of taking the role of the
other is that of social control. Social interactions often
establish a set of rules and expectations generated by the
group; therefore, individuals temper their own responses
in interactions based on these expectations. While this
could be construed as a constraint, Mead (Mead, 1967)
asserts that this is an element essential to an understand-
ing of whom the individual is. The individual’s sense
of self is the result of social interactions, so rather than
lessening individuality, this process of social interaction
is what creates individuality. Self consciousness thus is
the direct result of being a part of a group and society.
Social control is exercised through the behavior control
that is the result of self criticism. We are who we are, not
because we are socially controlled, but because we are a
part of society and acquiesce to the expectations inherent
in social interactions.
Online communication offers students the opportu-
nity to apply critical thinking by interacting with infor-
mation provided by the group. Students who engage in
the critical thinking process will be deliberate about the
way in which they assess the information’s usefulness
and then apply it. Effective instructional strategies will
challenge the student to assess information provided by
others in the online course. While the students’ respons-
es may be asynchronous, the “tone” and expectations
generated by faculty and fellow students will affect the
way in which a student responds to the information, and
the student will tend to express conclusions based on his/
her sense of what the social expectations of the online
group are believed to be.
The other important component in this process
is that of the self, where the experiences that students
bring to the classroom will shape how they engage in
the critical thinking process. For example, knowledge
of the material being discussed, access to resources, and
writing skills are integral to engagement in critical think-
ing. These elements of self, however, often are managed
carefully in generating responses that will be read by
others. Critical thinking in the online environment is not
just the result of an individual’s consciousness; it is a
process that is dependent on social interaction and most
often mediated through language in the form or writing
in the online environment.
Social Construction and
Knowledge Production
The social construction approach provides a theo-
retical framework that helps us to understand how this
online environment encourages critical thinking skills. It
focuses on the process of how meaning is created based
on social context, language, and social norms in devel-
oping an understanding of society (Berger & Luckmann
1966; Burr 1995). Social construction in the online en-
vironment takes many forms as a result of the different
tools that are used to generate interaction. From the in-
dividual perspective student experiences, social context,
and dispositions affect the way in which the students in-
teract with the tools available in an online class. These
characteristics then influence the different ways in which
students apply the critical thinking process in their inter-
actions. Unlike a face to face class, students in the on-
line environment have the opportunity to think about the
ways in which they apply language and meaning in writ-
SPRING 2011, VOL. 26, NO. 1
ing responses, such as responses to postings on to things
such as discussion boards. The social interactions gener-
ated in the online environment allow students to develop
these important skills by building an understanding that
is based on constructed knowledge.
Berger and Luckmann (1966) propose that concep-
tions and understanding are developed through social
interactions. Meaning is constructed to maintain or chal-
lenge the social consensus. These social meanings are
the result of both interactions and social context. The
social processes developed through these interactions
and context will in turn affect participants’ perceptions
of reality and their understanding. The key components
in this process are language and knowledge that is both
constituted by and constrained by the individuals who
produce it. Social reality and knowledge production are
a social construction in this interactive process.
Therefore, the critical thinking process that pro-
motes evaluation of information, development of under-
standing and critical application of knowledge can be
viewed as a process of social construction. Participants
reflect on their own social position in the context of time
and space, generated through asynchronous interaction,
and generated in multiple locations. These interactions
allow for the creation of shared meaning and generation
of new ideas. Students then are able to engage in criti-
cal thinking with other students in the course as well as
the instructor. The end result of critical thinking in the
online environment is the creation of knowledge that re-
sults from the social interactions as well as the attributes
that the individual uses to generate this knowledge.
Based on these theoretical perspectives, online
learning provides a unique opportunity to extend the
traditional experience of writing into a deliberate tool
for promoting critical thinking through an interactive
process. When directed activities are embedded within
the online learning environment, students can engage in
critical thinking through a collaborative rather than in-
dividual process. The importance of the use of language
through writing provides a framework through which
students can enter this reflexive process (Cohen & Spen-
cer, 1993).
The elements mentioned in this analysis by no
means constitute a comprehensive conception of critical
thinking. This analysis is meant to capture what McPeck
(1984) called the “complexity of everyday problems” (p.
35), which can be used to acknowledge the importance
of the complexity of the critical thinking process itself
through social interaction and social construction.
As the online environment continues to be seen as
a means to ameliorate pressures that colleges and uni-
versities are undergoing, it is important to understand
the impact that these instructional methodologies have
on how critical thinking is understood as well as its ap-
57
plication in the online classroom. Online programs are
available at public, nonprofit and for profit institutions
of higher education. Advantages cited about these pro-
grams include increased access and cost savings. In the
last couple of years, online enrollments have grown
exponentially, accounting for over twenty-five percent
of all enrollments in some higher education institutions
(Allen & Seaman 2010).
Despite the tremendous growth in these courses, re-
search on their effectiveness and quality is still needed.
Administrators at institutions of higher education are
increasingly optimistic about these courses. A survey
by the Babson Survey Group for the Sloan Consortium
(Allen & Seaman, 2010) found that sixty-six percent
of chief academic officers perceived online courses to
be as good as or better than face to face courses. How-
ever, the effectiveness of these courses and how they
are connected to learning outcomes and success is still
controversial. A recent study comparing online learning
and face to face classes found that certain groups fare
worse in online courses than face to face classes (Fi-
glio, Rush & Yin, 2010). These studies show that there
is significant work to be done to truly assess the quality
and effectiveness of online teaching if it is to serve the
purpose of creating a more educated and prepared stu-
dent population.
Because critical thinking often is cited as an impor-
tant part of the aims of education and because online
courses are taught at the community college, university,
and graduate level, it is important to begin to understand
the different ways in which faculty and students are
creating vibrant and relevant critical thinking discourse
in the online environment. The process of knowledge
production that is available in this delivery method can
help both faculty and students to enter into a reflexive
dialectical process that enriches not only the interaction
online, but can extend to the classroom through web en-
hanced assignments (Valima & Hoffman, 2008).
Analyzing critical thinking exercises from
a multidisciplinary perspective
Several articles analyze the different ways in which
researchers assess online courses and the learning that
takes place in them. These reviews demonstrate that the
understanding of what online research is varies widely.
There are also significant differences as they related to
technology, access, technical support for faculty and the
population of students who take these courses as well
(Tallent-Runnels et al., 2006). However, the tools avail-
able to incorporate this process provide an important
means in which to re-imagine the ways by which critical
thinking is developed and how knowledge is created in
the online classroom.
58 INQUIRY: CRITICAL THINKING ACROSS THE DISCIPLINES
Online instruction offers opportunities for critical
thinking development, but its implementation has to be
deliberate and supported through course outcomes and
classroom management. The literature shows a direct
relationship between the types of tools used and how
they are connected to course requirements (Abrami et
al., 2008). In addition, students often report favorable
impressions about courses that use technology as part of
their instruction (Koeber, 2005).
An important element of successful implementation
of critical thinking in online courses is the incorporation
of explicit critical thinking objectives. (Abrami et al.,
2008). These critical thinking learning objectives serve
to set the tone for the courses and are a simple step that
faculty can take to ensure that critical thinking is part of
students’ expectations in a particular course. The rein-
forcement of these learning objectives through the use of
tools such as discussion boards develops a dynamic in-
teraction where students challenge and collaborate with
one another as they learn the course material.
The challenge that faculty face as they transition to
this modality is to develop the way that they explicitly
incorporate critical thinking in the online classroom. The
tools provided by the online mediated environment vary
depending on the system that a particular school may be
using; however, research shows that the role of faculty as
creators and mediators is key in managing these online
tools.
Discussion Boards
While there are many other tools that can demon-
strate critical thinking, such as videos, audio files, pre-
sentations, etc., access to these tools is based on the types
of technology and support provided at each institution
of higher learning. However, discussion boards are very
commonly found in online courses, and therefore they
can provide a way to assess the role of social interaction
and social construction in the critical thinking process in
online courses.
Because discussion boards are asynchronous they
allow for students to reflect in a purposeful way on in-
formation. They provide a means for students to think
reflectively about the way in which they deliver and
present information, and also they enable students to re-
spond to a variety of viewpoints (Greenlaw & Deloach,
2003). While these can be viewed as a traditional writ-
ing assignments, they differ in that students are expected
to evaluate and assess many viewpoints and respond to
them in turn.
Discussion boards often are constructed so that the
student is to respond to a particular question or analyze
a particular issue. This encourages students to make ini-
tial postings. If the process stops at that point, is critical
thinking still happening? In constructing a post students
access their personal experiences and knowledge. How-
ever, if the purpose of an online discussion board is to
develop interactions that result in critical thinking, then
interaction beyond an initial response to the question
posted needs to be achieved.
Another important aspect of discussion boards is the
mediation provided by the instructor. Mediated discus-
sion boards are those in which faculty actively partici-
pate in mediating posts. Mediation allows for increased
accountability, reflection, and purposeful discussion for
students (Greenlaw & DeLoach, 2003). In promoting
critical thinking that focuses on the evaluation and un-
derstanding of material to generate their own views, un-
mediated discussion boards could have the unintended
effect of allowing students to promote claims that are
unsubstantiated and diminish the overall critical think-
ing that may be produced in a discussion post.
Mediation is therefore the preferred mode used by
faculty in the discussion boards. However, this interven-
tion strategy needs to be balanced with an understand-
ing of the instructor as guide rather than as the “source”
for answers. Too much intervention by a faculty mem-
ber in the online environment can stifle the collabora-
tive critical thinking process generated by students. Too
little intervention can result in posts that do not extend or
challenge students’ thinking. Students’ critical thinking
is enhanced by having students respond to one another,
thereby generating the type of discussion that is often
encouraged in the face to face environment.
The following discussion board examples provide
instances of how to evaluate the critical thinking process
in the online environment. This multidisciplinary sam-
pling provides insights into strategies that are necessary
to engage students in the critical thinking process in the
online environment. Each of the different disciplines ap-
plies elements that are connected to their learning out-
comes. They also share important elements that create
an online environment where students socially construct
meaning through social interaction.
Economics
An analysis of the discussion boards of a web en-
hanced course by Greenlaw & DeLoach (2003) was
based on a taxonomy that focused on different levels
of critical thinking in an economics course. They cat-
egorized the levels in a rubric that focused on specific
demonstrated skills in discussion boards. These included
categories that assessed posts as having simple facts,
posts that developed an argument, and posts that drew
specific conclusions. These definitions are in line with
a traditional understanding of critical thinking that em-
phasizes logic and argumentation; however, their taxon-
omy and evaluation of postings aligned with McPeck’s
SPRING 2011, VOL. 26, NO. 1
(1984) argument for the need to address both “truth” and
complexity in critical thinking development. The way in
which students interacted in the discussion environment
showed that there were important ways in which the in-
teractions allowed for students to engage in collaborative
construction of these arguments. The emphasis on com-
plexity in posts demonstrated that students were engaged
in a process of evaluating information and then develop-
ing conclusions that were based on their own thinking,
as well as on what others were generating. Overall, their
study found that students demonstrated critical thinking
skills through the interactions provided in the discussion
boards.
History
Lyons’ (2004) examination of the role of discus-
sion boards in his history class, was based on setting
clear parameters about what the expectations were for
each of the required posts. Specific guidelines provided
deadlines, expected length of discussions, as well as
criteria for replies to other students’ posts. The discus-
sion boards were based on the use of original histori-
cal documentation that students had to discuss. They
were expected to reflect on the material and on the dif-
ferent ways in which other students posted about it in
the online environment. This generated increased social
interaction between participants and allowed for them
to engage in critical thinking skills through this a col-
laborative process. Lyons (2004) claims that the use of
discussion boards created a safe forum for students to
participate more actively in the online environment than
they would have in a face to face class. The emphasis
on clear expectations about how to engage in the pro-
cess of discussion provided an opportunity for students
to deliberate and assess information in an environment
that promoted the use of critical analysis rather than just
stating opinions.
Sociology
Sociology often deals with controversial topics that
require students to engage in the critical thinking pro-
cesses and develop what is called the sociological imagi-
nation. The sociological imagination becomes evident in
the connections that students make between their own
experiences and what they observe in society. Persell
(2004) developed a study that sought to assess differ-
ent aspects of the collaborative critical thinking process.
Students were asked to participate by posting discus-
sions both before and after class meetings, and students
were encouraged to evaluate postings by other students
in a reflective way. A three point scale was used to assess
complexity in the writing by students. The scale mea-
sured how “sociological” the writing was as well as the
“complexity of thought.” Compared to previous classes,
59
Persell found that students were much more engaged in
the critical thinking process through the online discus-
sion boards. Directing them to post before class encour-
aged students to organize the ways in which they thought
about the different issues being addressed in class. The
requirement to post after class allowed for students to
reassess their initial assumptions and to evaluate what
other students had written. The frequency of these ex-
pected interactions created an environment where stu-
dents had to actively participate and engage other stu-
dents. The analysis also showed that students that who
were silent in the face to face class actively participated
in the online environment. Their interactions allowed for
them to socially construct meaning from two different
perspectives, posts before class and posts after class.
This type of discussion board promoted the evaluation
and assessment of information as well as increased par-
ticipation by students who may not have been as com-
fortable in voicing their understanding of material in the
face to face class.
As the findings from these different studies show,
this tool allows for a reflexive exchange of ideas in the
evaluation of information and critical application of
knowledge. This construction of meaning through social
interaction fostered by emphasis on complexity, clear
guidelines, and promoting increased participation can
make discussion boards an effective means to encourage
critical thinking in the online environment.
Conclusions
Discussion boards are just one device being used in
the online environment that shows promise in promoting
critical thinking. This tool is effective because it is based
on social interaction both amongst students and through
the creation of information that is posted. Following
best practices for discussion boards allows students to
apply the critical thinking process to information pre-
sented and gives the instructor a sense of how material
is being understood in a class. Discussion boards that
provide for a reflexive exchange of information among
students give them flexibility and an ability to question
and justify their own understanding of concepts by al-
lowing students to become experts as they evaluate ideas
from other classmates. This interactive process leads to
social construction and knowledge production resulting
from a critical thinking process that is purposeful, has
set parameters, and is mediated by the instructor. These
interactions are similar to those that one would expect to
find in the face to face classroom.
The growth of online learning gives faculty and stu-
dents a means to engage in the critical thinking process
in a new ways. By focusing on the importance of social
interactions in critical thinking development, we can
60 INQUIRY: CRITICAL THINKING ACROSS THE DISCIPLINES
begin to see how the reflexive nature of online posting
allows for collaboration amongst faculty and students.
While elements of critical thinking may differ in scope
for certain disciplines, it is interesting to see that even
though the tools, such as discussion boards, are being
used by different disciplines, there are observable simi-
larities in the ways in which students socially construct
an understanding of the information provided. As tech-
nology improves and the tools for online learning con-
tinue to be refined, the opportunities for further study
of how critical thinking can be infused in courses will
continue.
While the benefits of online learning are consid-
erable, there are some limitations to what can be done
in the online environment. Student dispositions, prior
skills, set and prior knowledge definitely can affect their
engagement in the critical thinking process. The multi-
ple social contexts in an online environment, as well as
their “real” environment also affect a student’s’ under-
standing of the process of learning and critical thinking
(Makoe et al., 2008).
Quality of instruction should remain an important
issue in evaluation of these classes as online learning
expands access to students. Positive perceptions of on-
line classes will continue to increase if instruction suc-
cessfully integrates critical thinking processes. How-
ever, faculty development processes and reevaluation
of traditional learning axioms used in the face to face
classroom need to be re-imagined to be used effectively
in the online environment (Powell & Keen, 2006; Lea
& Callaghan, 2008). Through an understanding of how
social interaction and social construction are a part of
critical thinking, the tools provided in online learning
can be used effectively to engage students in this pro-
cess.
References
Abrami, P. C., Bernard, R. M., Boroskhovski E., Wade, A.,
Surkes, M. A., Tamim, R., & Zhang, D. (2008). Instruc-
tional interventions affecting critical thinking skills and
dispositions: A stage 1 meta-analysis. American Educa-
tional Research Association, 78(4), 1102-1134.
Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2010). Class differences: Online ed-
ucation in the United States. Retrieved from sloanconsor-
tium.org/publications/survey/pdf/class_differences.pdf
Berger, P. L. & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction
of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. New
York: Doubleday.
Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Lou, Y., Borokhovski, E., Wade,
A., Wozney, L., Wallet, P. A., Fiset, M., & Huang, B.
(2004). How does distance education compare with class-
room instruction? Review of Educational Research, 74(3),
379-339.
Brookfield, S. D. (1987). Developing critical thinkers: Chal-
lenging adults to explore alternative ways of thinking and
acting. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishing.
Burr, V. (1995). An introduction to social constructionism.
London: Routledge.
Greenlaw, S. A., & DeLoach, S. B. (2003). Teaching critical
thinking with electronic discussion. The Journal of Eco-
nomic Education, 34(1), 36-52.
Edge, W. D., & Loegering, J. P. (2000). Distance education:
Expanding learning opportunities. Wildlife Society Bulle-
tin, 28(3), 522-533.
Ennis, R. H. (1962). A concept of critical thinking. Harvard
Educational Review, 32, 81-111.
Ennis, R. H. (1989). Critical thinking and subject specificity:
Clarification and needed research. American Educational
Research Association, 18(3), 4-10.
Farber, J. (1998). The third circle: On education and distance
learning. Sociological Perspectives, 41(4), 797-814.
Figlio, D. N., Rush, M., & Yin, Lu. (2010). Is it live or is it
internet? Experimental estimates of the effects of online
instruction on student learning. (NBER Working Paper
16089). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic
Research. Retrieved from www.nber.org/papers/w16089
Halpern, D. F. (2003) Teaching critical thinking for transfer
across domains. American Psychologist, 53(4), 449-455.
Koeber, C. (2005). Introducing multimedia presentations and a
course website to an introductory sociology course: How
technology affects student perceptions of teaching effec-
tiveness. Teaching Sociology, 33(3), 285-300.
Larreamendy-Joerns, J., & Leinhardt, G. (2006). Going the
distance with online education. Review of Educational
Research, 76(4), 567-605.
Lea, S. J., & Callaghan, L. (2008). Lecturers on teaching with
the ‘supercomplexity’ of higher education. Higher Educa-
tion, 56(5), 171-187.
Lyons, J. F. (2004). Teaching U.S. history online: Problems
and prospects. The History Teacher, 37(4), 447-456.
Makoe, M., Richardson, J. T. E., & Price, L. (2008). Concep-
tions of learning in adult students embarking on distance
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-
tion/Revue canadienne de l’education, 9(1), 28-44.
Mead, G. H (1967, original 1934). Works of George Herbert
Mead Volume 1: Mind, self and society from the stand-
point of a social behaviorist. Charles Morris (Ed.). Chi-
cago: University of Chicago Press.
Nieto, A. M., & Saiz, C. (2010). Critical thinking: A question
of aptitude and attitude? Inquiry: Critical Thinking
Across the Disciplines, 25(2), 19-25.
Persell, C. H. (2004). Using focus web-based discussions to
enhance student engagement and deep understanding.
Teaching Sociology, 32(1), 61-68.
Powell, R., & Keen, C. (2006). The axiomatic trap: Stultify-
ing myths in distance education. Higher Education, 52(2),
283-201.
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 Idolina.hernandez@lonestar.edu.
62 INQUIRY: CRITICAL THINKING ACROSS THE DISCIPLINES
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:
Metathoughts for Psychology offers readers a broad ar-
ray of pitfalls in critical thinking as well as “antidotes” to
enhance rational thought. This is a quick and well-written
read that includes insights from social and cognitive psy-
chology, and also clinical practice. The presentation is
interesting, and the style engaging. The book is aimed
at current and future practitioners and scientists within
psychology, and also contains many important and use-
ful elements for those outside the field. Potential flaws
in critical thinking are addressed through a review of 30
errors, fallacies, effects, biases, and heuristics, and Levy
then offers some steps you can take to try to detect or
avoid those problems. Essentially problems are identified
as occurring within two major groups: (1) scientific or
logical errors and (2) errors arising from the general na-
ture of human cognition.
Scientific or logical errors occur when there is either
a misunderstanding of the workings of the natural world
or a faulty conclusion is drawn from improper reasoning.
These are mistakes that should typically be discussed in
experimental methods or introductory psychology cours-
es. An error from this group is equating correlation with
causation. It is easy, although frequently wrong, to find a
relationship between factors and assume that one is lead-
ing to the other. Levy uses the example that, although de-
pression tends to be correlated with low self-esteem, it is
impossible to say if low self-esteem causes depression, or
if having depression leads to having a lower self-esteem,
or if there is some other cause possibly leading to both
low self-esteem and depression. However, as is often the
case throughout the book, Levy’s explanation of the er-
ror is fairly narrow and somewhat shallow, and for this
particular topic that means there is surprisingly limited
exploration of the tricky concept of causation (Taylor,
1967). Levy offers a little discussion of the basis for this
type of thought error in the context of his examples, and
he also highlights its relation to the formation of supersti-
tions. The thought process, or “antidote,” that Levy rec-
ommends to counter this type of thinking is to be mindful
of whether the relationship between events had a definite
causal nature or was just a correlation, and in the case of a
correlation, to be sure to consider alternate explanations.
Another logical error covered is the “nominal fal-
lacy,” which occurs when simply giving a name or label
to something is thought to explain it, and the associated
tendency to apply tautological reasoning. The text’s ex-
amples in this category are largely psychological disor-
ders, like insomnia — “Why does she have difficulty fall-
ing or staying asleep?” “Because she has insomnia.” The
prescribed antidote is to remember that having a name
for a thing is not the same as having an explanation for
that thing. To give some sense of the brevity of Levy’s
treatment, this whole topic is covered in the book with
two pages of text, some quotations, an exercise, and a
glossary of terms which stretch the chapter across a total
of five pages. You can quickly pick up the chapter, read it,
and move on, but the exploration is not deep, nor are you
directed to sources where you could find greater detail
(one place to start for a greater discussion of such falla-
cies would be Hansen & Pinto, 1995).
In discussing reification errors, in which abstract
concepts or constructs are treated as concrete things,
Levy classifies theories as either being event theories or
construct theories. Event theories are directly measurable
while construct theories can only be indirectly measured.
Further, Levy defines event theories as being provable
with construct theories as being unprovable as a conse-
quence of their indirect, abstract nature. The reification
of theories occurs when construct theories are treated
as event theories, which can lead to “outdated and em-
pirically unsupported theories that have long overstayed
their welcome” (12). Not surprisingly, the antidote for the
reification theory is to not treat abstract concepts as real
objects.
A closer examination of Levy’s classification of
theories raises a few questions. An event theory is only
a theory so long as it is not verified or proven; the mo-
ment the theory does get verified or proven it becomes
a fact. Many event theories seem then better described
as possible answers to unanswered questions (i.e., “Who
is responsible for committing these serial murders?”, 11)
rather than scientific theory. Is there truly a need to define
a path to a fact as a distinct type of theory?
Levy’s examples of what he considers construct the-
ories were in the form of what the theories try to account
for, and included some from physics, like magnetism and
electricity, as well as some from psychology, like cogni-
tion and personality. While the examples from physics
and psychology are both impossible to directly observe
through the senses, Levy’s physics examples, like elec-
tricity, are often far more understood at a fundamental
SPRING 2011, VOL. 26, NO. 1
level than psychological constructs like personality. To
say that these are equally intangible seems to be over-
simplifying, and perhaps even misrepresenting, the na-
ture of the two fields and the range of phenomena being
theorized about in both disciplines. Ultimately Levy sug-
gests that construct theories be evaluated in terms of their
utility, which raises the question of the utility of Levy’s
own theory about theories. At the very least there has to
be some question about what clarity is gained from the
presence of this complex issue within the context of this
book. Reinventing theories seems to demand a much full-
er discussion of the philosophy of science classification
of theories and laws (Carnap, 1974; Popper, 1959).
The second broad group of errors Levy discusses
are those related to general thought processes. These
are the logical short-cuts, or heuristics, that the human
mind employs to deal with the complexity of the world
in a quick and efficient manner (e.g., Gigerenzer & Todd,
1999; Tversky & Kahneman, 1973). Many psychology
students will encounter these in greater detail in a cog-
nitive psychology class. An example from this group is
the hindsight bias, in which, after having knowledge of
the actual outcome of an event, persons feel they previ-
ously had accurately predicted that outcome (Fischhoff
& Beyth, 1975). The antidote for this bias is the empiri-
cally based (Slovic & Fischhoff, 1977) advice of gener-
ating alternative outcomes for the event. Importantly, as
discussed by Slovic and Fischhoff, this antidote served
only to reduce the hindsight bias, not do away with it
altogether. More recent evidence suggests that there is a
metacognitive component linked to how surprising the
outcome of the event is. The relationship between sur-
prise and the extent of the bias is that bias is reduced for
unsurprising outcomes (Nestler & Egloff, 2009; Pezzo,
2003). Consequently, people would need to be more wary
of the hindsight bias for outcomes which surprise them
than for those event outcomes that do not. To us these
findings suggest depth and nuances for this potential an-
tidote that are simply not present in Levy’s discussion.
Although Levy carefully picks his words, it seems like
a more direct statement on the limitations of the antidote
being offered could have left the reader more informed.
This book is well-written and very accessible, and
is liberally sprinkled with humor. The examples are
straightforward and offer just enough detail to get a gen-
eral idea of each concept. This book seems especially
valuable to someone learning about these errors for the
first time, with approachable explanations that are clear
and concise. Levy clearly has a gift for explaining com-
plex concepts in ways that those outside the field can
readily grasp. The structure also allows readers to dip
into essentially stand-alone chapters, to learn about con-
cepts or review them without needing to read earlier or
later sections.
63
This book is particularly valuable in terms of its
content and approach. There are a number of very good
books highlighting problems and flaws within our think-
ing (e.g., Ariely & Jones, 2008; Chabris & Simons, 2010;
Gladwell, 2005), others focused on applying metacog-
nitive research as a whole into education (e.g., Fogarty,
1994; Hacker, Dunlosky, & Graesser, 1998; Waters,
Schneider, & Borkowski, 2009), as well as books that try
to teach readers to apply metacognitive findings to gen-
eral life (e.g., Perfect & Schwartz, 2002). Levy’s book
serves an almost unique role in focusing on practical
insights for improving critical thinking specifically as it
relates to psychology and daily life. Further, the separate
audiences Levy tries to reach with this book are varied
in their critical thinking training, and this text does seem
relevant to some degree for all of them.
The antidotes to the errors, while clearly necessary
in a book designed to provide tools to enhance critical
thinking, are rarely empirically supported, either in de-
scribing the antidote itself, or in documenting the ef-
fectiveness of the antidote in preventing the error-prone
thought pattern. Of course, this generally points to gaps
in the field of psychology. The need to examine the ef-
fectiveness of training in overcoming confirmation bias
has been suggested (Nickerson, 1998), but it has thus far
only been considered and examined in specific contexts
(e.g., Arnott, 2006; Larrick, 2004). These studies go be-
yond the type of approach exemplified in this book, by
including a training period in which people are provided
with specific feedback based on how biased their choice
was. Where the data do exist, there is often then reason
to employ at least some of the skepticism and critical
thinking that this book so valuably promotes to consider
whether mere exposure to the suggested antidotes pro-
duces significant improvements in thinking. Improving
critical thinking needs to be based on what does and does
not work, and merely offering a suggestion that is simply
the opposite of the error may not be effective.
Levy intends that this book is for psychology (and
other fields as well) students and instructors, psychother-
apists, and psychological researchers. Given the large
variety of thought errors identified and the brevity with
which each is covered, the book does seem targeted to-
wards being used as an introductory supplement for those
who will be getting more depth later in their educational
career or those with interest but no formal background.
But developing critical thinking in individuals without
content knowledge of an area is problematic (Willing-
ham, 2007). It is not always clear how much value will
be obtained for those students who will go on to content
classes in the discipline of psychology. Many of these
elements appear in one guise or another within standard
textbooks in research methods, abnormal psychology,
cognitive psychology, social psychology, and a variety
64 INQUIRY: CRITICAL THINKING ACROSS THE DISCIPLINES
of philosophy courses. In an academic psychology con-
text this book might best serve as a single source for
course instructors, highlighting and illustrating a num-
ber of essential ideas that should be getting additional
coverage. While the book would undoubtedly be ben-
eficial for this audience, there are features that detract
from the potential impact, including the lack of depth in
places when exploring concepts, and the absence of data
or concrete examples to demonstrate whether problems
identified are central and common ones. We both also
soon abandoned doing the large number of fairly trivial
exercises.
If this book is to be used to teach critical thinking,
then it would need to be one part of a larger curriculum
designed around this goal. An improvement in scholas-
tic ability from metacognitive training requires integra-
tion of the “thinking about thinking” (Flavel, 1979) at
almost every level in the course (White & Frederiksen,
1998). It is quite likely that the same integrative approach
would be necessary in promoting critical thinking in stu-
dents. Indeed one puzzling omission from a book about
“metathoughts” is the absence of discussion of work on
metacognition. Metacognition is a burgeoning branch of
experimental psychology which is concerned with how
people think about their own thoughts (Flavel, 1979).
People frequently misjudge their competence at a task
(e.g., Bjork, 1999) or misjudge their thoughts in general
(Nelson, 1996). The book might benefit from integrating
a fuller discussion of relevant findings from metacogni-
tive research (e.g., Baker & Dunlosky, 2006; Dunlosky
& Lipko, 2007), especially to give a sense that reflecting
on our own thinking is not straightforward and is subject
to errors itself.
In closing, Tools for Critical Thinking: Metathoughts
for Psychology by David A. Levy provides the reader
with 30 common thinking errors and suggests ways to
avoid them to enhance critical thinking in psychology.
This is a quick, clear, and overall mechanically well-
written book. The recommended methods for avoiding
the thought errors are frequently just instructions not to
commit the error, and the ultimate effectiveness of such
an approach to avoiding many of these errors is question-
able. This book could serve as supplemental material to
an introductory level course or as a brief refresher for
more advanced students and practitioners.
References
Ariely, D., & Jones, S. (2008). Predictably irrational: The hid-
den forces that shape our decisions. New York: Harper.
Arnott, D. (2006). Cognitive biases and decision support sys-
tems development: A design science approach. Informa-
tion Systems Journal, 16, 55-78.
Baker, J., & Dunlosky, J. (2006). Does momentary accessibility
influence metacomprehension judgments? The influence
of study-judgment lags on accessibility effects. Psycho-
nomic Bulletin & Review, 13, 60-65.
Bjork, R. A. (1999). Assessing our own competence: Heuris-
tics and illusions. In D. Gopher, & A. Koriat (Eds.), At-
tention and performance XVII: Cognitive regulation of
performance: Interaction of theory and application (pp.
435-459). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Carnap, R. (1974). An introduction to the philosophy of science.
Mineola, NY: Dover Publications, Inc.
Chabris, C. & Simons, D. (2010). The invisible gorilla: And
other ways our intuitions deceive us. London: HarperCol-
lins.
Dunlosky, J., & Lipko, A. (2007). Metacomprehension: A brief
history and how to improve its accuracy. Current Direc-
tions in Psychological Science, 16, 228-232.
Fischhoff, B., & Beyth, R. (1975). “I knew it would happen”:
Remembered probabilities of once-future things. Organi-
zational Behavior and Human Performance, 13, 1-16.
Flavel, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring:
A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American
Psychologist, 34, 906-911.
Fogarty, R. J. (1994). How to teach metacognitive reflection
(Mindful School). Glenview, IL: Corwin Press.
Gigerenzer, G., & Todd, P. M. (1999). Simple heuristics that
make us smart. New York: Oxford University Press.
Gladwell, M. (2005). Blink. New York: Little, Brown and Com-
pany.
Hacker, D., Dunlosky, J., & Graesser, A. (Eds.) (1998). Meta-
cognition in educational theory and practice. Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hansen, H. V., & Pinto, R. C. (1995). Fallacies: Classical and
contemporary readings. University Park, PA: Pennsylva-
nia State University Press.
Larrick, R. P. (2004). Debiasing. In D. Koehler, & N. Harvey
(Eds.) Blackwell Handbook of Judgment and Decision
Marking (pp. 316-357). Oxford: Blackwell.
Nelson, T. O. (1996). Consciousness and metacognition. Ameri-
can Psychologist, 51, 102-116.
Nestler, S., & Egloff, B. (2009). Increased or reversed? The ef-
fect of surprise on hindsight bias depends on the hindsight
component. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learn-
ing, Memory, and Cognition, 35, 1539-1544.
Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phe-
nomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology,
2, 175-220.
Schwartz, B. L. & Perfect, T. J. (2002). Toward an applied
metacognition. In T. J. Perfect, & B. L. Schwartz (Eds.)
Applied metacognition. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Pezzo, M. V. (2003). Surprise, defence, or making sense: What
removes hindsight bias? Memory, 11, 421-441.
Popper, K. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. New York:
Routledge Classics.
Slovic, P., & Fischhoff, B. (1977). On the psychology of exper-
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: Benjamin.clegg@colostate.edu.
66 INQUIRY: CRITICAL THINKING ACROSS THE DISCIPLINES

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
volumes 1 to the present) ______ ______

Institutional Subscription
Online only ($160 per year--includes electronic access to
volumes 1 to the present) ______ ______
Print + Online ($200 per year--includes electronic access to
volumes 1 to the present) ______ ______

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
 68 INQUIRY: CRITICAL THINKING ACROSS THE DISCIPLINES

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