SEPhomepage

St
anf
ordEncy
clopedi
aofPhi
l
osophy

Menu

Sear
chSEP

Ent
ryNav
igat
ion

Cr
it
ical
Thi
nki
ng

Fi
rstpubl
i
shedSatJul
21,
2018;
subst
ant
iver
evi
sionWedOct12,
2022

Crit
ical thinki ngi sawi delyaccept ededucat ional goal.Itsdef i
niti
oni scont ested, butt he
compet ingdef initionscanbeunder st
oodasdi fferi
ngconcept ionsoft hesamebasi cconcept :
careful thinki ngdi rect edt oagoal .Concept ionsdi f
ferwi t
hr espectt ot hescopeofsucht hinking,
thetypeofgoal ,thecr iteri
aandnor msf orthi nkingcar efull
y,andt hethinkingcomponent son
whicht heyf ocus.I tsadopt i
onasaneducat i
onal goal hasbeenr ecommendedont hebasi sof
respectf orst udent s’aut onomyandpr epar i
ngst udent sforsuccessi nl i
feandf ordemocr atic
cit
izenshi p.“ Cr i
tical thinker s”hav ethedi sposi t
ionsandabi liti
est hatleadt hem t othi nkcr i
ticall
y
whenappr opr iate.Theabi liti
escanbei dent i
f i
eddi rectly;t
hedi sposi t
ionsi ndirectl
y, by
consider ingwhatf actor scont ributetoori mpedeexer ci
seoft heabi l
i
ties.St andardizedt ests
havebeendev elopedt oassesst hedegr eet owhi chaper sonpossessessuchdi sposi ti
onsand
abili
ti
es.Educat i
onal interventionhasbeenshownex peri
ment allyt oi
mpr ov et hem, par ti
cularly
wheni tincl udesdi alogue, anchor edinstruction, andment oring.Cont roversieshav ear i
senov er
thegener al i
zabi l
ityofcr iti
cal t
hinkingacr ossdomai ns, overallegedbi asincr i
ticalthinking
theoriesandi nst ruction, andov ertherelationshi pofcr i
ti
cal t
hinkingt oot herty pesoft hi
nki ng.

1.Hi
stor
y

2.Exampl
esandNon-
Exampl
es

2.
1Dewey
’sThr
eeMai
nEx
ampl
es

2.
2Dewey
’sOt
herExampl
es

2.
3Fur
therExampl
es

2.
4Non-
exampl
es

3.TheDef
ini
ti
onofCr
it
ical
Thi
nki
ng

4.I
tsVal
ue
5.ThePr
ocessofThi
nki
ngCr
it
ical
l
y

6.Component
soft
hePr
ocess

7.Cont
ri
but
oryDi
sposi
ti
onsandAbi
l
iti
es

8.Cr
it
ical
Thi
nki
ngDi
sposi
ti
ons

8.
1Ini
ti
ati
ngDi
sposi
ti
ons

8.
2Int
ernal
Disposi
ti
ons

9.Cr
it
ical
Thi
nki
ngAbi
l
iti
es

10.Requi
redKnowl
edge

11.Educat
ional
met
hods

12.Cont
rov
ersi
es

12.
1TheGener
ali
zabi
l
ityofCr
it
ical
Thi
nki
ng

12.
2Bi
asi
nCr
it
ical
Thi
nki
ngTheor
yandPedagogy

12.
3Rel
ati
onshi
pofCr
it
ical
Thi
nki
ngt
oOt
herTy
pesofThi
nki
ng

Bi
bli
ogr
aphy

Academi
cTool
s

Ot
herI
nter
netResour
ces

Rel
atedEnt
ri
es

1.Hi
stor
y

Useoftheterm‘cr
it
ical
thi
nking’
todescr
ibeaneducat
ionalgoalgoesbacktotheAmeri
can
phi
losopherJohnDewey(1910),
whomor ecommonlycall
edit‘r
eflect
ivet
hinki
ng’
.Hedef
inedi
t
as

acti
ve,per
sist
entandcar
efulconsi
derat
ionofanybel
ieforsupposedfor
m ofknowledgei
nthe
l
ightofthegroundst
hatsupporti
t,andt
hefurt
herconclusi
onstowhichitt
ends.(
Dewey1910:
6;1933:9)

andi
dent
if
iedahabi
tofsuchconsi
der
ati
onwi
thasci
ent
if
icat
ti
tudeofmi
nd.Hi
slengt
hy
quotat
ionsofFranci
sBacon,
JohnLocke,andJohnSt
uartMil
li
ndi
cat
ethathewasnotthef
ir
st
persontoproposedevel
opmentofasci
enti
fi
catt
it
udeofmindasaneducat
ional
goal
.

Inthe1930s, manyoft heschool sthatpar t

ici
patedintheEi ght-
YearSt udyoft hePr ogr essive
EducationAssoci at
ion(Aikin1942)adopt edcrit
ical
thinkingasaneducat ional goal,forwhose
achievementthest udy’
sEv al
uati
onSt affdev el
opedt est
s( Smi t
h,Tyler,&Ev aluati
onSt aff1942).
Glaser(1941)showedexper i
mental
lyt hatitwaspossi bl
et oi mprovethecr it
ical t
hinkingofhi gh
school st
udents.Bloom’ sinfl
uenti
altaxonomyofcogni t
iveeducat i
onal objectives(Bloom etal .
1956)incorporatedcrit
icalthinki
ngabi l
iti
es.Ennis(1962)pr oposed12aspect sofcr it
ical
thi
nkingasabasi sforresearchont het eachingandev aluationofcriti
calthinkingabi l
ity.

Since1980, anannual international conferenceinCal i

forni
aoncr i
ti
calthi
nkingandeducat i
onal
reform hasat tractedtensoft housandsofeducat orsf rom alll
evel
sofeducat ionandf rom many
partsofthewor l
d.Alsosi nce1980, thestateuni versit
ysy stem inCalif
orni
ahasr equiredal l
undergraduat est udentst ot akeacr it
icalthi
nkingcour se.Since1983, t
heAssoci ati
onf or
Infor
mal Logi candCr i
t i
cal Thinkinghassponsor edsessi onsi nconjuncti
onwi tht hedivisional
meet i
ngsoft heAmer icanPhi losophi calAssoci ati
on( APA) .In1987, t
heAPA’ sCommi tteeon
Pre-Coll
egePhi losophycommi ssionedaconsensusst atementoncr i
ti
calthi
nkingf orpur poses
ofeducat ionalassessmentandi nstructi
on( Facione1990a) .Researchershavedev el
oped
standardizedt estsofcr i
ticalthinkingabi l
i
t i
esanddi spositi
ons;fordetail
s,seet heSuppl ement
onAssessment .Educat i
onal j
ur i
sdictionsar oundt hewor l
dnowi ncludecriti
calthinkingi n
guideli
nesf orcur ri
culum andassessment .

Fordet
ail
sont
hishi
stor
y,seet
heSuppl
ementonHi
stor
y.

2.Exampl
esandNon-
Exampl
es

Befor
econsideri
ngthedefi
nit
ionofcri
ti
calt
hinki
ng,
itwi
l
lbehel
pful
tohavei
nmindsome
examplesofcri
ti
calthi
nki
ng,aswellassomeexamplesofki
ndsoft
hinki
ngt
hatwoul
d
appar
entlynotcountascr
iti
calt
hinki
ng.

2.
1Dewey
’sThr
eeMai
nEx
ampl
es

Dewey(1910:68–71;
1933:91–94)takesasparadigmsofrefl
ecti
vethi
nki
ngthreecl
asspaper
s
ofst
udentsinwhicht
heydescri
betheirt
hinki
ng.Theexamplesrangefr
om theever
ydayt
othe
sci
enti
fi
c.
Transit
:“Theotherday ,whenIwasdownt ownon16t hSt r
eet,aclockcaughtmyey e.Isawt hat
thehandspoi ntedto12: 20.Thissuggest edt hatIhadanengagementat124t hStreet,
atone
o’cl
ock.Ireasonedt hatasi thadtakenmeanhourt ocomedownonasur f
acecar ,Ishould
probablybetwent ymi nuteslateifIreturnedt hesameway .Imightsavetwent yminutesbya
subwayexpr ess.Butwast hereast ationnear ?Ifnot,Imightlosemor ethant wentymi nutesin
l
ookingf orone.ThenIt houghtoftheel ev ated,andIsawt herewassuchal inewi t
hintwo
blocks.Butwher ewast hestati
on?I fitwer esev eralblocksabov eorbelowt hestreetIwason, I
shouldlosetimei nsteadofgai ni
ngi t.Mymi ndwentbackt othesubwayexpr essasqui cker
thantheelevated; f
urthermore,Iremember edt hatitwentnear erthant
heel evatedtothepar tof
124thSt r
eetIwi shedt oreach,sot hattimewoul dbesav edatt heendofthej ourney.I
concludedinfav orofthesubway ,andr eachedmydest i
nationbyoneo’clock.”(Dewey1910:
68–69; 1933:91–92)

Ferryboat:“Projecti
ngnearlyhor i
zont all
yfrom theupperdeckoft heferryboatonwhi chIdai l
y
crosst heriverisalongwhi tepole, hav i
ngagi l
dedbal l
atitsti
p.Itsuggestedaf lagpolewhenI
fi
rstsawi t
;it
scol or
,shape,andgi l
dedbal lagreedwi t
hthisidea,andtheser easonsseemedt o
j
ust i
fymei nthisbeli
ef.Butsoondi ff
iculti
espresentedthemsel v
es.Thepol ewasnear l
y
horizontal,anunusual posi
tionforaf lagpole;
inthenextplace,therewasnopul l
ey ,
ring,orcord
bywhi cht oattachaf l
ag;fi
nal l
y,therewer eelsewher eontheboatt wov ert
icalstaff
sf rom
whichf lagswer eoccasionallyfl
own.I tseemedpr obablethatthepolewasnott heref orfl
ag-
fl
ying.

“Ithentri
edtoi magineallpossibl
epurposesoft hepole,andtoconsiderforwhichofthesei
t
wasbestsui ted:(a)Possibl
yitwasanor nament .Butasal l
theferr
yboatsandev enthe
tugboatscarriedpoles,
thishy pot
hesi
swasr ejected.(
b)Possiblyitwasthet er
minalofa
wirelesstel
egraph.Butthesameconsi derati
onsmadet hisimprobabl
e.Besides,themore
naturalpl
acef orsuchat erminalwoul
dbet hehighestpar toft
heboat ,
ont opofthepil
othouse.
(c)Itspurposemi ghtbetopoi ntoutt
hedirect
ioni nwhichtheboatismov ing.

“Insupportofthi
sconcl usion,Idiscoveredthatt hepolewaslowerthanthepil
othouse, sot hat
thesteersmancoul deasilyseeit .Moreov er
,thet i
pwasenoughhi ghert
hanthebase, sot hat,
from t
hepi l
ot’
spositi
on, i
tmustappeart oprojectfarouti
nf r
ontoftheboat
.Mor eover,thepilot
beingnearthef r
ontoftheboat ,hewoul dneedsomesuchgui deastoit
sdir
ection.Tugboat s
wouldalsoneedpol esforsuchapur pose.Thi shypothesi
swassomuchmor epr obablet han
theothersthatIacceptedi t.If
ormedt heconcl usi
onthatthepolewassetupfort hepurposeof
showingt hepi
lotthedirectioninwhi chtheboatpoi nt
ed,t
oenablehimtosteercor r
ectl
y.”
(
Dewey1910:
69–70;
1933:
92–93)

Bubbl es:“I
nwashi ngt umbl ersinhotsoapsudsandpl acingt hem mout hdownwar donapl ate,
bubbl esappear edont heout sideoft hemout hoft het umbl ersandt henwenti nside.Why ?The
presenceofbubbl essuggest sai r
, whichInot emustcomef r
om i nsidet het umbler.Iseet hat
thesoapywat eront hepl atepr eventsescapeoft heai rsav easi tmaybecaughti nbubbl es.But
whyshoul dai rl eav ethet umbl er?Ther ewasnosubst anceent eringt oforcei tout.Itmusthav e
expanded.I texpandsbyi ncreaseofheat ,orbydecr easeofpr essur e,orbot h.Couldt heai rhav e
becomeheat edaf terthet umbl erwast akenf r
om t hehotsuds?Cl earlynott heairthatwas
alreadyent angl edi nthewat er.Ifheat edairwast hecause, coldai rmusthav eenteredi n
transferr
ingt het umbl er
sf rom t hesudst othepl ate.Itestt oseei fthi
ssupposi ti
oni strueby
takingsev eral mor et umbl ersout .SomeIshakesoast omakesur eofent rappingcol dai rin
them.SomeIt akeouthol dingmout hdownwar dinor dertopr ev entcol dairf r
om ent eri
ng.
Bubbl esappearont heout sideofev eryoneoft hef ormerandonnoneoft hel att
er.Imustbe
ri
ghti nmyi nf erence.Ai rfrom t heout si
demusthav ebeenexpandedbyt heheatoft het umbl er
,
whi chexplai nst heappear anceoft hebubbl esont heout side.Butwhydot heyt hengoi nside?
Col dcontract s.Thet umbl ercool edandal sotheai rinsideit.Tensi onwasr emov ed, andhence
bubbl esappear edi nside.Tobesur eoft his,Itestbypl acingacupofi ceont hetumbl erwhi le
thebubbl esar est i
llformingout side.Theysoonr everse”(Dewey1910: 70–71; 1933: 93–94) .

2.
2Dewey
’sOt
herExampl
es

Dewey(1910,
1933)spr
inkl
eshi
sbookwi
thot
herexampl
esofcr
it
ical
thi
nki
ng.Wewi
l
lref
ert
o
t
hefol
lowing.

Weather:
Amanonawal knot
icest
hati
thassuddenl
ybecomecool,
thi
nksthati
tisprobably
goi
ngtor ai
n,l
ooksupandseesadarkcl
oudobscuri
ngt
hesun,andqui
ckenshissteps(1910:
6–10;1933:9–13)
.

Disor
der:Amanf i
ndshisroomsonhi sr
eturnt
ot hem indisorderwi
thhisbel ongi
ngsthrown
about,t
hinksatfi
rstofburglaryasanexplanat
ion,thenthinksofmischievouschil
drenasbeing
analter
nativ
eexplanati
on,thenlookstoseewhet hervaluablesaremissing,anddiscov
ersthat
theyare(1910:82–83;1933: 166–168).

Ty
phoi
d:Aphy
sici
andi
agnosi
ngapat
ientwhoseconspi
cuoussy
mpt
omssuggestt
yphoi
d
av
oidsdrawi
ngaconclusi
onuntil
mor edat
aar
egat
her
edbyquest
ioni
ngt
hepat
ientandby
makingt
ests(1910:
85–86;1933:170).

Blur:
Amov ingblurcat
chesoureyeinthedistance,
weaskoursel
veswhetheriti
sacl oudof
whirl
ingdustoratreemovingit
sbranchesoramansi gnal
ingt
ous,wet hi
nkofot hertr
ait
sthat
shouldbefoundoneachoft hosepossi
bil
it
ies,andwelookandseeift
hosetrait
sar efound
(1910:102,108;
1933:121,133).

Suctionpump: I
nt hinki
ngaboutt hesuct ionpump, thescienti
stfirstnotesthatitwi l
ldrawwat er
onlytoamaxi mum hei ghtof33f eetatseal ev
el andt oalessermaxi mum heightathi gher
elevati
ons,selectsf orattentionthedi f
feringatmospher icpressureatt heseelev at
ions,setsup
exper i
mentsinwhi chtheai risremov edf rom av esselcontaini
ngwat er(whensuct ionnolonger
works)andi nwhi cht hewei ghtofai ratv ari
ousl evelsi
scalculated, comparest heresultsof
reasoningaboutt hehei ghtt owhi chagi venwei ghtofairwi l
lal
lowasuct ionpumpt oraise
waterwi ththeobser vedmaxi mum hei ghtatdifferentelevati
ons, andf i
nall
yassi mil
atesthe
suctionpumpt osuchappar entl
ydifferentphenomenaast hesiphonandt herisingofabal loon
(1910: 150–153;1933: 195–198) .

2.
3Fur
therExampl
es

Diamond: Apassengerinacardr i
vi
ngi nadi amondl aner eserv
edforvehicleswithatleastone
passengernot i
cesthatthedi
amondmar ksont hepav ementarefarapartinsomepl acesand
cl
oset ogetherinother
s.Why?Thedr iv
ersuggest st hatthereasonmaybet hatthediamond
mar ksarenotneededwher etherei
sasol i
ddoubl elineseparati
ngthediamondl anef r
om the
adjoini
nglane,butareneededwhent hereisadot tedsi ngl
elinepermit
ti
ngcr ossingint
ot he
di
amondl ane.Furt
herobserv
ationconfir
mst hatthediamondsar eclosetogetherwhena
dottedli
nesepar at
esthediamondlanef rom itsneighbour ,
butotherwi
sef arapart.

Rash:Awomansuddenl ydev el
opsaveryitchyredrashonhert hr oatandupperchest .She
recentl
ynot i
cedamar kont hebackofherr i
ghthand,butwasnotsur ewhetherthemar kwasa
rashorascr ape.Shel iesdowni nbedandt hi
nksaboutwhatmi ghtbecausi ngther ashand
whattodoabouti t.Aboutt woweeksbef ore,shebegant aki
ngbl oodpr essuremedi cationthat
contai
nedasul f
adr ug, andt hepharmacisthadwar nedher,i
nv iewofapr eviousall
ergic
reacti
ont oamedi cationcont ai
ningasulfadrug,t
obeont healertforanal l
ergicreaction;
howev er
, shehadbeent aki
ngt hemedicationfortwoweekswi thnosuchef f
ect.Thedaybef ore,
shebeganusi nganewcr eam onherneckandupperchest ;againstt henewcr eam ast hecause
wasmar kont hebackofherhand, whichhadnotbeenexposedt ot hecream.Shebegant aki
ng
probi
oticsaboutamont hbef ore.Sheal sorecentlystar
tednewey edrops,butshesupposed
thatmanuf acturer
sofey edr opswoul dbecar efulnottoincludeall
ergy-causi
ngcomponent sin
themedi cati
on.Ther ashmi ghtbeaheatr ash,sincesher ecentl
ywassweat i
ngprofuselyf
rom
herupperbody .Si
nceshei saboutt ogoawayonashor tvacati
on, whereshewouldnothav e
accesst oherusual physici
an, shedecidestokeept aki
ngt heprobiot
icsandusingthenewey e
dropsbutt odiscontinuethebl oodpressuremedi cationandt oswitchbackt otheol
dcr eam f
or
herneckandupperchest .Shef or
msapl antoconsul therregul
arphy si
cianonherreturnabout
thebloodpr essuremedi cati
on.

Candidat
e:Al
thoughDeweyi ncludednoexampl esofthinki
ngdi r
ectedatapprai
singthe
argumentsofother
s,suchthinkinghascomet obeconsi der
edaki ndofcr i
ti
cal
thinki
ng.We
fi
ndanexampl eofsucht hi
nkingintheper
formancet askontheCol legi
ateLear
ning
Assessment(CLA+),whichitssponsori
ngorganizat
iondescribesas

aperfor
mance-basedassessmentthatprov
idesameasureofaninst
it
uti
on’
scont
ri
but
iontothe
devel
opmentofcrit
ical
-t
hinki
ngandwr i
tt
encommunicat
ionskil
l
sofitsst
udent
s.(
Counci
lfor
AidtoEducat
ion2017)

Asampl etaskpost
edoni tswebsiterequi
resthetest
-takert
owrit
eareportf
orpubli
c
distr
ibut
ioneval
uat
ingaf i
cti
onalcandidat
e’spoli
cyproposal
sandthei
rsupport
ingargument
s,
usingsuppli
edbackgrounddocument s,wi
thar ecommendationonwhethert
oendorsethe
candidate.

2.
4Non-
exampl
es

Immedi ateaccept anceofani deathatsuggest sitselfasasol ut

iont oapr oblem (e.
g.,apossible
explanati
onofanev entorphenomenon, anact iont hatseemsl i
kel ytopr oduceadesi redresul t
)
i
s“ uncri
ticalt
hinking,theminimum ofr efl
ection”(Dewey1910: 13) .On-goi ngsuspensionof
j
udgmenti nthelightofdoubtaboutapossi blesol uti
oni snotcrit
icalthinking(Dewey1910:
108).Criti
quedr i
venbyadogmat i
call
yheldpol iti
cal orrel
igi
ousideol ogyi snotcriti
calthi
nking;
thusPaul oFrei
re( 1968[1970])isusingthet erm( e.g.,at1970:71, 81,100, 146)inamor e
poli
tical
lyfrei
ghtedsenset hatincl
udesnotonl yref l
ectionbutalsor evoluti
onar yacti
onagai nst
oppression.Derivationofaconclusionf r
om gi vendat ausinganal gor i
thm i snotcri
ti
cal t
hinking.

3.TheDef
ini
ti
onofCr
it
ical
Thi
nki
ng
Whatiscrit
icalt
hinki
ng?Therearemanydef init
ions.Ennis(
2016)li
sts14phi
losophicall
y
ori
entedscholar
lydefi
nit
ionsandthreedict
ionarydefini
ti
ons.Fol
l
owingRawls(1971) ,who
di
sti
nguishedhisconceptionofj
usti
cef r
om aut il
it
ari
anconcepti
onbutregar
dedt hem asri
val
concepti
onsofthesameconcept ,Ennismaintainsthatthe17defi
nit
ionsar
edifferent
concepti
onsofthesameconcept .Rawlsarticul
atedthesharedconceptofj
usti
ceas

achar
act
eri
sticsetofpr
inci
plesforassi
gni
ngbasicri
ght
sanddutiesandfordet
ermi
ning…t
he
pr
operdi
str
ibuti
onofthebenefi
tsandburdensofsoci
alcooper
ati
on.(Rawl
s1971:5)

Bail
inetal
.(1999b)clai
mt hat,
ifoneconsider
swhatsor tsoft
hinki
nganeducat
orwouldt ake
nottobecrit
icalt
hinki
ngandwhatsor tstobecr i
ti
calt
hinki
ng,onecanconcl
udethateducator
s
ty
pical
lyunderst
andcr i
ti
calthi
nki
ngtohav eatleastt
hreefeat
ures.

I
tisdonef
ort
hepur
poseofmaki
ngupone’
smi
ndaboutwhatt
obel
i
eveordo.

Theper
sonengagi
nginthet
hinki
ngi
str
yingt
oful
fi
ll
standar
dsofadequacyandaccur
acy
appr
opr
iat
etothethi
nki
ng.

Thet
hinki
ngf
ulf
il
lst
her
elev
antst
andar
dst
osomet
hreshol
dlev
el.

Onecoul dsum upt hecoreconceptt hatinvolvesthesethreef eatur

esbysay ingthatcri
tical
thi
nkingiscarefulgoal-
dir
ectedt hinking.Thiscoreconceptseemst oapplytoalltheexampl es
ofcri
ticalt
hinki
ngdescr i
bedi nthepr evioussection.Asf orthenon-exampl es,t
heirexclusion
dependsonconst r
uingcarefult
hi nkingasexcl udingjumpingi mmedi atel
ytoconclusions,
suspendingjudgmentnomat terhowst rongt heev i
dence,reasoningfrom anunquest i
oned
i
deologicalorrel
igi
ousper specti
v e,andr outi
nelyusinganal gorit
hm toansweraquest i
on.

Ift
hecor eofcr i
ticalthi
nkingi scarefulgoal-directedthinking,conceptionsofi tcanv ary
accordingtoi t
spr esumedscope, i
tspresumedgoal ,one’scri
ter i
aandt hresholdf orbeing
caref
ul,andt hethinkingcomponentonwhi chonef ocuses.Ast oitsscope, someconcept i
ons
(e.
g.,Dewey1910, 1933)r estri
ctittoconst ructivethi
nkingont hebasi sofone’ sown
observati
onsandexper i
ment s,others(e.g.,Ennis1962; Fi
sher&Scr i
ven1997; Johnson1992)
toappraisalofthepr oduct sofsucht hinking.Enni s(1991)andBai li
netal .(1999b)t akei tt
o
coverbothconst ructionandappr ai
sal.Ast oi t
sgoal ,someconcept i
onsrest r
ictittof or
mi nga
j
udgment( Dewey1910, 1933; Lipman1987; Facione1990a) .Ot hersall
owf oract ionsaswel l
as
beli
efsast heendpoi ntofapr ocessofcr i
ti
cal thinki
ng( Ennis1991; Bail
inetal .1999b) .Ast o
thecrit
eriaandt hresholdforbei ngcareful,def i
niti
onsv aryinthet erm usedt oindicat ethat
criti
cal thinki ngsat isfiescer t
ainnor ms: “i
nt ellectuallydi sciplined”( Scr iven&Paul 1987) ,
“reasonabl e”( Enni s1991) ,“skill
ful ”(Lipman1987) ,“skill
ed”( Fisher&Scr iven1997) , “caref ul
”
(Bai l
in&Bat tersby2009) .Somedef initionsspeci fythesenor ms, refer r
ingv ariousl yt o
“consi derat ionofanybel ieforsupposedf or m ofknowl edgei nthel ightoft hegr oundst hat
suppor titandt hef urtherconcl usi onst owhi chi ttends”( Dewey1910, 1933) ;“themet hodsof
l
ogi cal inqui ryandr easoni ng”( Gl aser1941) ;“concept ual i
zing, appl ying, anal yzing, sy nthesi zing,
and/ orev aluatingi nfor mat iongat her edf r
om, orgener atedby ,obser v ation, exper i
ence,
reflection, reasoni ng, orcommuni cation”( Scr iven&Paul 1987) ; ther equi rementt hat“ itis
sensi ti
v et ocont ext ,reli
esoncr iteria, andi ssel f-correct i
ng”( Li
pman1987) ;“ev i
dent ial,
concept ual ,met hodol ogical ,criteriologi cal, orcont extual consi der ations”( Faci one1990a) ;and
“plus- minusconsi der at i
onsoft hepr oducti nt ermsofappr opr i
atest andar ds( orcr iteria)”
(Johnson1992) .St anov i
chandSt anov ich( 2010)pr oposet ogr oundt heconceptofcr iti
cal
thinkingi nt heconceptofr ational i
ty, whi cht heyunder standascombi ningepi st emi cr ational i
ty
(fi
ttingone’ sbel ief stot hewor l
d)andi nst rument al r
at i
onal ity(opt imi zi
nggoal fulfil
lment );a
criti
cal thinker ,int hei rview, i
ssomeonewi th“ apr opensi tytoov erri
desubopt imal responses
from t heaut onomousmi nd”( 2010: 227) .Thesev ari
antspeci fi
cat i
onsofnor msf orcr iti
cal
thinkingar enotnecessar ilyincompat i
blewi t
honeanot her ,andi nanycasepr esupposet hecor e
not i
onoft hinkingcar efull
y .Ast ot het hi nkingcomponentsi ngledout ,somedef initi
onsf ocuson
suspensi onofj udgmentdur i
ngt het hinki ng( Dewey1910; McPeck1981) ,ot hersoni nqui rywhi l
e
j
udgmenti ssuspended( Bai li
n&Bat tersby2009, 2021) ,other sont her esul tingj udgment
(Faci one1990a) , andst il
l othersonr esponsi v enesst oreasons( Siegel 1988) .Kuhn( 2019)t akes
criti
cal thinki ngt obemor eadi al ogicpr act iceofadv anci ngandr espondi ngt oar gument st han
ani ndiv i
dual ability.

Ineducat i
onal contexts,
adefinit
ionofcr it
ical t
hinki
ngisa“ programmat i
cdef i
nit
ion”(Scheffl
er
1960: 19).Itexpressesapractical pr
ogr am f orachievi
nganeducat i
onalgoal.Forthi
spur pose,
aone- sentencef ormulai
cdefinit
ionismuchl essusefulthanarti
culat
ionofacr i
ti
cal t
hinking
process,wi thcrit
eri
aandst andardsf ort heki ndsofthinkingthattheprocessmayi nvolve.The
realeducat i
onal goalisr
ecogniti
on, adopt i
onandi mplement ati
onbyst udentsofthosecr i
teri
a
andst andar ds.Thatadopti
onandi mpl ement ati
oninturnconsistsinacquiri
ngtheknowl edge,
abil
it
iesanddi sposit
ionsofacr i
ticalthinker.

Concept i
onsofcr i
ti
calthi
nkinggener all
ydonoti ncludemor alint
egrit
yaspar toftheconcept .
Dewey ,forexample,tookcri
ticalthinkingtobet heul t
imateintell
ectualgoal ofeducat ion,but
distinguisheditfr
om thedev elopmentofsoci alcooperati
onamongschool chil
dren, whichhe
tookt obet hecentralmor al
goal .Enni s(1996,2011)addedt ohi sprevi
ousl istofcr i
tical
thinkingdispositi
onsagr oupofdi sposi ti
onstocar eaboutthedi gnit
yandwor thofev eryperson,
whi chhedescr ibedasa“ correlat
ive”( 1996)dispositi
onwithoutwhi chcrit
ical t
hinkingwoul dbe
l
essv aluableandperhapshar mf ul.Aneducat ionalprogr
am t hataimedatdev elopingcr i
ti
cal
thi
nki
ngbutnott
hecor
rel
ati
vedisposi
ti
ontocar
eaboutthedigni
tyandwort
hofev
eryper
son,
heasser
ted,
“woul
dbedefi
cientandper
hapsdanger
ous”(Enni
s1996:172)
.

4.I
tsVal
ue

Deweyt houghtt hateducat ionf orrefl

ect i
v et hinki ngwoul dbeofv aluetobot ht hei ndividual and
society; r
ecogni tioni neducat ional practiceoft heki nshi ptot hesci entif
icat t
it
udeofchi ldren’s
nativecur iosity,fert
ilei magi nat i
onandl ov eofexper i
ment al i
nquiry“ wouldmakef orindi vidual
happi nessandt her educt i
onofsoci al wast e”( Dewey1910: ii
i)
.School spar ti
cipat i
ngi nt heEi ght
-YearSt udyt ookdev elopmentoft hehabi tofr ef l
ect ivet hi
nki ngandski lli
nsolv i
ngpr oblemsas
ameanst ol eadingy oungpeopl etounder stand, appr eciateandl i
vet hedemocr at i
cwayofl ife
char acteri
sticoft heUni tedSt ates( Aikin1942: 17–18, 81) .Har veySi egel(1988: 55–61)has
offeredf ourconsi der ationsi nsuppor tofadopt ingcr iti
cal thinki
ngasaneducat ional ideal .(
1)
Respectf orper sonsr equi rest hatschool sandt eacher shonourst udent s’demandsf orr easons
andexpl anations, deal wi t
hst udent shonest ly, andr ecogni zet heneedt oconf rontst udent s’
i
ndependentj udgment ;t heser equirement sconcer nt hemanneri nwhi cht eacher streat
student s.(2)Educat ionhast het askofpr epar ingchi ldrent obesuccessf uladults,at askt hat
requi r
esdev elopmentoft hei rself-
suf fi
ciency .( 3)Educat i
onshoul di ni
tiat
echi l
dr enint ot he
rati
onal traditionsi nsuchf ieldsashi story, scienceandmat hemat ics.(4)Educat ionshoul d
prepar echi l
dr entobecomedemocr aticcitizens, whi chr equi r
esr easonedpr ocedur esand
cri
ticaltalent sandat titudes.Tosuppl ementt heseconsi der ati
ons, Siegel(1988: 62–90)
respondst ot woobj ect i
ons: thei deologyobj ect iont hatadopt i
onofanyeducat ional ideal
requi r
esapr iorideol ogi calcommi tmentandt hei ndoct ri
nat i
onobj ect i
ont hatcultivationof
cri
ticalthinkingcannotescapebei ngaf orm ofi ndoct ri
nation.

5.ThePr
ocessofThi
nki
ngCr
it
ical
l
y

Despi
tet
hediver
sit
yofour11exampl
es,
onecanr
ecogni
zeacommonpat
ter
n.Deweyanal
yzed
i
tasconsi
sti
ngoffivephases:

suggest
ions,
inwhi
cht
hemi
ndl
eapsf
orwar
dtoapossi
blesol
uti
on;

ani
ntel
lect
ual
i
zati
onofthedi
ff
icul
tyorper
plexi
tyi
ntoapr
obl
em t
obesol
ved,
aquest
ionf
or
whi
chtheanswermustbesought;

theuseofonesuggest
ionaft
eranot
herasaleadi
ngi
dea,orhypothesi
s,t
oini
ti
ateandgui
de
observ
ati
onandotheroper
ati
onsincol
lect
ionoff
act
ualmater
ial;

t
hement
alel
abor
ati
onoft
hei
deaorsupposi
ti
onasani
deaorsupposi
ti
on(
reasoni
ng,
int
he
senseonwhi
chr
easoni
ngi
sapar
t,nott
hewhol
e,ofi
nfer
ence)
;and

t
est
ingt
hehy
pot
hesi
sbyov
ertori
magi
nat
iveact
ion.(
Dewey1933:
106–107;
ital
i
csi
nor
igi
nal
)

Theprocessofr efl
ect
ivethinki
ngconsisti
ngofthesephaseswouldbepr ecededbyaper plexed,
tr
oubledorconfusedsituationandfoll
owedbyacl eared-
up,uni
fi
ed,r
esolvedsit
uati
on(Dewey
1933:106).Thet er
m‘phases’ r
eplacedtheter
m‘ st
eps’(Dewey1910:72),t
husremov i
ngt he
earl
i
ersuggestionofani nvari
antsequence.Vari
antsoftheaboveanaly
sisappearedin(Dewey
1916:177)and( Dewey1938: 101–119).

Thev ariantf or mul ationsi ndicat et hedi fficul tyofgi v i

ngasi ngl elogi cal anal ysisofsuchav ari
ed
process.Thepr ocessofcr i
tical thi nkingmayhav easpi r
al pat tern, wi tht hepr oblem bei ng
redef inedi nt hel i
ghtofobst acl est osol v ingi tasor iginal l
yf or mul at ed.Forexampl e,t heper son
i
nTr ansi tmi ghthav econcl udedt hatget t
ingt ot heappoi ntmentatt heschedul edt imewas
i
mpossi bleandhav er eformul at edt hepr obl em ast hatofr eschedul ingt heappoi nt mentf ora
mut ual l
yconv eni entt i
me.Fur ther ,def iningapr obl em doesnotal way sf ollowaf terorl ead
i
mmedi at elyt oani deaofasuggest edsol ut ion.Norshoul di tdoso, asDeweyhi msel f
recogni zedi ndescr ibingt hephy siciani nTy phoi dasav oidinganyst r ongpr eferencef ort hi sor
thatconcl usi onbef oreget tingf ur theri nf ormat ion( Dewey1910: 85; 1933: 170) .Peopl ewi tha
hypot hesi si nmi nd, evenonet owhi cht heyhav eav eryweakcommi tment ,hav easo- call
ed
“conf irmat i
onbi as”( Nickerson1998) : t
heyar elikel yt opayat tent iont oev idencet hatconf irms
thehy pot hesisandt oi gnoreev idencet hatcount sagai nsti torf orsomecompet inghy pothesi s.
Det ect ives, intelligenceagenci es, andi nv est igator sofai rplaneacci dent sar ewel l adv isedt o
gat herr el evantev idencesy st emat icallyandt opost poneev ent ent at iveadopt i
onofan
expl anat or yhy pot hesi sunt i
l thecol l
ect edev i
dencer ulesoutwi tht heappr opr i
at edegr eeof
cer taintyal l butoneexpl anat ion.Dewey ’
sanal ysisoft hecr i
tical thinki ngpr ocesscanbef aulted
aswel lforr equi ri
ngaccept anceorr eject ionofapossi blesol utiont oadef inedpr obl em, wi thno
all
owancef ordeci dingi nthel i
ghtoft heav ailableev i
dencet osuspendj udgment .Fur ther,gi ven
thegr eatv arietyofki ndsofpr obl emsf orwhi chr ef l
ect ioni sappr opr iat e,ther ei sl i
kel yt obe
variat ioni ni tscomponentev ent s.Per hapst hebestwayt oconcept ual izet hecr it
ical thinki ng
processi sasacheckl istwhosecomponentev ent scanoccuri nav ar i
et yofor der s, sel ect i
v ely,
andmor et hanonce.Thesecomponentev ent smi ghti nclude( 1)not icingadi ffi
cul t
y, (2)
def i
ni ngt hepr obl em, (3)dividingt hepr obl em i nt omanageabl esub- pr obl ems, (4)f or mul at i
nga
variet yofpossi blesol uti
onst ot hepr obl em orsub- probl em, (5)det er mi ningwhatev idencei s
relev antt odeci dingamongpossi blesol utionst ot hepr oblem orsub- pr obl em, (
6)dev i
singa
planofsy stemat i
cobser vationorexper imentt hatwi lluncov ert her el ev antev i
dence, (7)
car ryingoutt hepl anofsy stemat i
cobser v ationorexper i
ment ation, ( 8)not ingt her esul t
soft he
syst emat i
cobser v ationorexper iment ,( 9)gat her ingr elevantt est i
monyandi nf ormat ionf rom
other s, (10)j udgi ngt hecr edibi l
i
t yoft est i
monyandi nf ormat i
ongat her edf rom ot her s, (11)
drawi ngconcl usi onsf rom gat her edev i
denceandaccept edt est imony , and( 12)accept inga
solut iont hatt heev idenceadequat el ysuppor ts( cf .Hi tchcock2017: 485) .
Checkli
stconcept i
onsofthepr ocessofcr i
tical t
hinki
ngareopentotheobj ect
ionthattheyar e
toomechani calandproceduraltofitt
hemul ti-
dimensionalandemotional
lychargedissuesf or
whichcri
ticalthi
nkingi
surgentlyneeded( Paul 1984).Forsuchi
ssues,amor edial
ectical
processisadv ocat
ed,i
nwhi chcompet i
ngr elevantwor l
dviewsar
eidentif
ied,t
heirimplicat
ions
explor
ed,andsomesor tofcreati
vesy nthesisat t
empt ed.

6.Component
soft
hePr
ocess

Ifoneconsi dersthecr i
ticalt
hinkingpr ocessi l
lustrat edbythe11exampl es, onecani dent i
fy
disti
nctki ndsofment al act
sandment alstatest hatf orm partofit.Todi sti
ngui sh, l
abel and
briefl
ychar acteri
zet hesecomponent sisausef ulpr eli
minaryt oidentifyingabi l
ities,skil
ls,
dispositi
ons, atti
tudes,habi t
sandt helikethatcont ributecausal l
yt ot hinkingcr it
icall
y.
Identif
yingsuchabi l
iti
esandhabi tsisint urnausef ul pr
eli
mi narytoset t i
ngeducat ional goals.
Set t
ingthegoal si sinitsturnausef ulpreli
minar ytodesi gningst rategiesf orhel pinglear nerst
o
achievet hegoal sandt odesi gningway sofmeasur ingtheext entt owhi chl earner shav edone
so.Suchmeasur espr ov i
debot hf eedbackt olearner sont heirachi evementandabasi sf or
exper i
ment al r
esearchont heeffect i
venessofv ari
ousst r
ategiesf oreducat ingpeopl et ot hi
nk
criti
call
y.Letusbegi n,then,bydi sti
nguishingt heki ndsofment al actsandment alevent sthat
canoccuri nacr i
ticalthinki
ngpr ocess.

Observ
ing:Onenoti
cessomet hi
nginone’simmedi at
eenv i
ronment(suddencooli
ngof
temperat
ureinWeather,bubbl
esformingoutsi
deagl assandt hengoingi
nsidei
nBubbles,
a
movingbluri
nthedistanceinBl
ur,arashinRash).Oronenot estheresul
tsofanexperi
mentor
syst
ematicobser
vation(val
uabl
esmi ssi
nginDisorder,nosuctionwi
thoutai
rpressur
ein
Suct
ionpump)

Feeli
ng:Onefeelspuzzledoruncer
tai
naboutsomethi
ng(howtogett
oanappoint
mentont i
me
i
nTr ansit
,whythediamondsv ar
yinspaci
nginDiamond)
.Onewantstor
esol
vethisperpl
exi
ty.
Onef eel
ssati
sfact
iononceonehaswor kedoutananswer(t
otaket
hesubwayexpressin
Transit
,diamondscloserwhenneededasawar ni
nginDi
amond).

Wonder
ing:Onef
ormulat
esaquesti
ontobeaddr
essed(
whybubblesf
orm outsi
deatumbler
t
akenfr
om hotwateri
nBubbl
es,howsuct
ionpumpsworki
nSucti
onpump, whatcausedt
he
r
ashinRash).

I
magi ni
ng:Onethi
nksofpossi
bleanswer
s(busorsubwayorel
evat
edinTr
ansit
,fl
agpoleor
ornamentorwir
elesscommunicat
ionai
dordir
ect
ionindi
cat
ori
nFerry
boat
,al
ler
gicreacti
onor
heatrashi
nRash).
I
nf er
ring: Onewor ksoutwhatwoul dbethecaseifapossibleanswerwer eassumed( valuabl
es
missingi ftherehasbeenabur glaryi
nDisorder
,earl
i
erstarttotherashifiti
sanaller
gic
reactiont oasulfadruginRash).Oronedr awsaconclusi
ononcesuf fi
cientrel
evantevidenceis
gather ed(takethesubwayi nTransit
,bur
glaryi
nDisorder
,discont
inuebloodpressure
medi cationandnewcr eam i
nRash) .

Knowledge:Oneusesst oredknowledgeofthesubj
ect-
mattertogenerat
epossibl
eanswersor
toinf
erwhatwoul dbeexpect edontheassumpti
onofapar ti
cul
aranswer(knowledgeofacit
y’s
publi
ctransi
tsystem i
nTr ansit
,oft
herequi
rementsforaf
lagpoleinFerr
yboat,
ofBoyle’
slawin
Bubbles,ofal
ler
gicreact
ionsinRash).

Experi
ment ing:Onedesignsandcar r
iesoutanexper i
mentorasy st
ematicobser
vati
ont ofi
nd
outwhet hertheresult
sdeducedf r
om apossi bl
eanswerwi l
loccur(
looki
ngatthelocati
onof
thefl
agpol einrel
ationtothepi
lot’
spositi
oninFer r
yboat,
putti
nganicecubeontopofat umbler
takenfr
om hotwat erinBubbl
es,measur i
ngtheheighttowhichasuctionpumpwi l
ldrawwat er
atdif
ferentelevati
onsinSucti
onpump, noti
cingthespaci
ngofdiamondswhenmov ementt oor
from adiamondl aneisall
owedi nDiamond) .

Consult
ing: Onefi
ndsasour ceofinf
ormat i
on,get stheinformat
ionf r
om thesource,andmakes
ajudgmentonwhet hert oaccepti
t.Noneofour11exampl esi
ncludesearchi
ngforsour cesof
i
nformation.Inthi
sr especttheyareunrepresentativ
e,sincemostpeopl enowaday shavealmost
i
nstantaccesst oinformat i
onrel
evanttoanswer inganyquest i
on, i
ncludi
ngmanyoft hose
i
ll
ustrat
edbyt heexampl es.However,Candidateincludestheactivi
ti
esofextract
inginformati
on
fr
om sour cesandev aluati
ngitscr
edibil
it
y.

Identi
fyi
ngandanalyzi
ngargument s:Onenoticesanargumentandworksoutit
sstructureand
contentasaprel
iminarytoevaluati
ngitsstr
ength.Thi
sacti
vi
tyiscent
ral
toCandidate.Iti
san
i
mpor tantpar
tofacr i
ti
calt
hinkingprocessinwhichonesurvey
sargumentsforvar
ious
posit
ionsonanissue.

Judgi
ng:Onemakesajudgmentonthebasi
sofaccumulatedevi
denceandreasoni
ng,suchas
thej
udgmenti
nFerr
yboatthatt
hepurposeoft
hepolei
st oprov
idedir
ect
iontothepil
ot.

Decidi
ng:Onemakesadeci
siononwhatt
odooronwhatpol
i
cyt
oadopt
,asi
nthedeci
sioni
n
Transi
ttotaket
hesubway
.

7.Cont
ri
but
oryDi
sposi
ti
onsandAbi
l
iti
es

Bydefini
ti
on,apersonwhodoessomet hi
ngvoluntar
il
yi sbothwill
ingandabl etodot hatthing
atthatti
me.Boththewi l
li
ngnessandt heabi
li
tycontributecausall
ytot heperson’sacti
on, i
nt he
sensethatthevol
untaryacti
onwoul dnotoccurifeit
her( orbot
h)oft hesewer elacki
ng.For
example,supposethatoneisstandingwithone’sarmsatone’ ssidesandonev olunt
aril
ylif
t s
one’sri
ghtarmtoanext endedhorizontal
posit
ion.Onewoul dnotdosoi fonewer eunablet ol i
ft
one’sarm,iff
orexampleone’srightsidewaspar al
yzedast heresultofastroke.Norwoul done
dosoi fonewer eunwi l
li
ngtoliftone’sarm, iff
orexampl eonewereparti
cipati
ngi nastreet
demonst rati
onatwhi chawhi t
esupr emaci stwasurgingthecrowdtolif
ttheirrightarmina
Nazisaluteandonewer eunwilli
ngt oexpresssuppor ti
nt hi
swayfortheracistNazi i
deology
.
Thesameanal ysisappli
estoav ol
untaryment alpr
ocessoft hi
nki
ngcrit
icall
y.Itrequi
resboth
wil
li
ngnessandabi l
it
ytot hi
nkcr i
ti
cally
,includi
ngwill
ingnessandabil
i
tytoper form eachofthe
mental actsthatcomposet hepr ocessandt ocoor
dinatethoseact
sinasequencet hatis
di
rectedatr esol
vingtheinit
iat
ingper pl
exity.

Considerwill
ingnessfir
st.Wecani dentif
ycausal contribut
orstowi l
lingnesst othinkcri
ti
call
yby
consi
der i
ngfactorsthatwouldcauseaper sonwhowasabl etothinkcr i
ticall
yaboutani ssue
nevert
helessnott odoso( Hamby2014) .Foreachf actor,t
heopposi tecondi ti
onthus
contr
ibutescausallytowill
i
ngnesst othinkcri
tical
lyonapar t
icul
aroccasi on.Forexample,
peoplewhohabi t
uall
yjumpt oconclusi
onswi thoutconsi deri
ngalt
er nati
v eswi l
lnotthi
nk
cri
ti
callyaboutissuesthatari
se,eveniftheyhav ether equir
edabili
ties.Thecont r
arycondit
ion
ofwil
lingnesstosuspendj udgmenti sthusacausal contri
butort
ot hinkingcr i
ti
call
y.

Nowconsi derabili
ty.Incontrasttotheabi li
tytomov eone’sarm, whi chcanbecompl etely
absentbecauseast rokehasl ef
tthear m paralyzed,theabi l
i
tytothi nkcriti
call
yisadev eloped
abil
ity
, whoseabsencei snotacompl eteabsenceofabi li
tytot hi
nkbutabsenceofabi l
ityto
thi
nkwel l.Wecani denti
fytheabi l
it
ytot hinkwel ldir
ectl
y,intermsoft henor msandst andar ds
forgoodt hinking.I
ngener al,tobeabl edowel lthet hi
nkingact i
vit
iest hatcanbecomponent sof
acriti
cal t
hinkingprocess,oneneedst oknowt heconcept sandpr incipl
est hatcharacterize
thei
rgoodper formance, t
or ecognizeinpar ti
cularcasest hattheconcept sandpr i
nciplesappl y,
andt oapplyt hem.Theknowl edge, r
ecogni t
ionandappl icati
onmaybepr oceduralrathert han
declarati
ve.Itmaybedomai n-specif
icratherthanwi delyapplicable, andineithercasemayneed
subject-matterknowl edge,somet i
mesofadeepki nd.

Refl
ecti
onsoft hesortil
lustr
atedbyt heprevioustwopar agraphshav eledschol
arstoi
denti
fy
theknowl edge,abi
li
ti
esanddi sposit
ionsofa“ crit
icalthinker”,i
.e.
,someonewhot hi
nkscri
ti
cal
ly
whenev eriti
sappropr i
atetodoso.Wet urnnowt ot heset hreet y
pesofcausalcont
ri
butor
sto
thi
nki
ngcr i
ti
call
y.West artwithdispositi
ons,sincear guablythesear et
hemostpower f
ul
contr
ibutorstobeingacr i
ti
calthi
nker ,
canbef osteredatanear l
ystageofachil
d’s
devel
opment ,andaresuscept i
bletogener ali
mpr ovement( Glaser1941:175)

8.Cr
it
ical
Thi
nki
ngDi
sposi
ti
ons

Educat
ional
resear
cher
suset
het
erm‘
disposi
ti
ons’
broadl
yfort
hehabi
tsofmi
ndandat
ti
tudes
thatcontri
butecausal l
yt obeingacr i
ti
calthi
nker.Somewr i
ters(
e.g.,Paul &Elder2006;Hamby
2014;Baili
n&Bat t
ersby2016a)pr oposet ouset heterm‘ v
irt
ues’f
orthi sdimensionofacrit
ical
thi
nker.Thev ir
tuesinquest i
on,al
thoughtheyar evi
rtuesofcharacter,concerntheperson’s
way softhinki
ngr at
hert hant heperson’
sway sofbehavingtowardsot hers.Theyarenotmor al
vir
tuesbuti nt
ell
ectualvirtues,oft
hesor tart
icul
atedbyZagzebski (1996)anddi scussedby
Turri
,Alf
ano, andGr eco( 2017).

Onar ealisti
cconcept i
on, thinkingdi sposi ti
onsori ntel
lect ual virt
uesar er ealproper tiesof
thi
nker s.Theyar egener altendenci es, propensi ties,orincl inationstot hinki npar ticularway si
n
parti
cul arcircumst ances, andcanbegenui nelyexpl anat ory( Siegel1999) .Scept i
csar guethat
thereisnoev idenceforaspeci fi
cment al basisf orthehabi tsofmi ndt hatcont ribut etothinki
ng
cri
ti
cal l
y ,andt hatitispedagogi call
ymi sleadingt oposi tsuchabasi s(Bai li
netal .1999a) .
What ev ertheirst at
us,criti
cal thinki
ngdi spositionsneedmot iv
at i
onfort hei rini
tial f
ormat i
onin
achild—mot i
v ati
onthatmaybeext er nalori nt
er nal.Aschi ldrendev elop, thef orceofhabi twil
l
gradual l
ybecomei mpor tanti nsust ainingt hedi sposi t
ion( Ni eto&Val enzuel a2012) .Meref or
ce
ofhabi t,howev er,i
sunlikelyt osust aincr i
ticalthinkingdi spositions.Cr i
tical t
hinker smustv al
ue
andenj oyusi ngtheirknowl edgeandabi l
itiestot hinkthi ngst hr oughfort hemsel ves.Theymust
becommi t
tedt o,andlov ersof ,inquiry.

Aper sonmayhav eacrit

icalt
hinki
ngdisposi
ti
onwi threspectt
oonlysomeki ndsofissues.For
exampl e,onecoul
dbeopen- mindedaboutscient
if
icissuesbutnotaboutrel
igi
ousissues.
Similar
ly,onecoul
dbeconf i
dentinone’
sabili
tytoreasonaboutthetheologi
cali
mplicati
onsof
theexistenceofevi
li
nthewor l
dbutnoti none’sabi
li
tytoreasonaboutthebestdesignfora
guidedbal l
i
sti
cmissi
le.

Facione( 1990a:25)di v
ides“aff
ecti
vedisposit
ions”ofcr i
ti
calthi
nkingintoapproachest ol
if
e
andl i
vingi ngener alandapproachestospecificissues,questi
onsorpr oblems.Adaptingthi
s
disti
nction, onecanusef ull
ydivi
decrit
icalthi
nkingdispositi
onsintoini
tiat
ingdisposi
tions
(thoset hatcont r
ibutecausall
ytostarti
ngtothinkcr i
ti
call
yaboutani ssue)andi nt
ernal
dispositions( t
hoset hatcontr
ibutecausall
ytodoi ngagoodj oboft hi
nkingcrit
ical
lyonceone
hasst arted).Thet wocat egori
esarenotmut uall
yexclusive.Forexampl e,
open- mi
ndedness,in
thesenseofwi l
li
ngnesst oconsideralt
ernati
vepoi nt
sofv iewtoone’sown, isbothani ni
ti
ati
ng
andani nternaldisposit
ion.

8.
1Ini
ti
ati
ngDi
sposi
ti
ons

Usi
ngt
hest
rat
egyofconsi
der
ingf
act
orst
hatwoul
dbl
ockpeopl
ewi
tht
heabi
l
ityt
othi
nk
cri
ti
call
yfrom doi
ngso,wecani dent
if
yasi nit
iat
ingdi
spositi
onsfort hi
nki
ngcrit
ical
l
y
att
enti
veness,ahabi
tofinqui
ry,sel
f-
confidence,cour
age,open-mindedness,wil
li
ngnessto
suspendjudgment,t
rusti
nreason,wantingev i
denceforone’
sbeliefs,andseeki
ngthetruth.We
consi
derbr i
efl
ywhateachofthesedispositi
onsamount sto,i
neachcaseci ti
ngsourcesthat
acknowledgethem.

Attenti
veness:Onewillnotthinkcri
ti
call
yifonefai
l
st orecognizeani ssuet hatneedstobe
thoughtthrough.Forexampl e,t
hepedestri
aninWeatherwoul dnothav elookedupi fhehadnot
noticedthattheairwassuddenl ycool
er.Tobeacr i
ti
calthi
nker ,
then,oneneedst obehabit
uall
y
attenti
vetoone’ssurroundings,not
ici
ngnotonlywhatonesensesbutal sosour cesof
perplexi
tyinmessagesr eceivedandinone’sownbelief
sandat t
itudes(Faci one1990a:25;
Facione,Facione,
&Gi ancarlo2001).

Habi tofinquiry:Inqui
ryiseffor t
ful,andoneneedsani nternal pushtoengagei nit
.Forexample,
thest udentinBubbl escoul deasi l
yhav estoppedati dl
ewonder i
ngaboutt hecauseofthe
bubbl esratherthanr easoningt oahy pothesis,thendesigningandexecut i
nganexper i
mentto
testit.Thuswi ll
ingnesstot hinkcr i
ticall
yneedsment alener gyandi ni
ti
ativ
e.Whatcansuppl y
thatener gy?Lov eofinquiry,orper hapsj ustahabi tofinquiry.Hamby( 2015)hasar guedthat
will
ingnesst oinqui r
eisthecent r
al cri
ticalthi
nkingv i
rt
ue,onet hatencompassesal lt
heother
s.
I
tisr ecognizedasacr iti
calthinkingdi spositi
onbyDewey( 1910: 29;1933: 35)
,Gl
aser(1941:5)
,
Ennis( 1987:12; 1991: 8)
,Faci one(1990a: 25),Bail
inetal.(1999b: 294),Halpern(
1998:452),
andFaci one, Facione,&Gi ancarlo(2001) .

Self
-confi
dence:Lackofconf i
denceinone’
sabil
it
iescanbl ockcr i
ti
calt
hinking.Forexampl e,
if
thewomani nRashl ackedconfidencei
nherabil
it
yt of
igurethingsoutf orherself
,shemi ght
j
usthav eassumedt hattherashonherchestwast heall
ergicreactiontohermedi cat
ionagainst
whichthepharmacisthadwar nedher.Thuswil
li
ngnesst othinkcrit
ical
lyrequir
esconfidencein
one’sabil
i
tytoinquir
e(Facione1990a:25;Faci
one,Facione,&Gi ancarl
o2001) .

Courage:Fearoft
hinki
ngforoneselfcanst
oponefrom doi
ngit
.Thuswi
l
li
ngnesst
othi
nk
cr
it
icall
yrequir
esi
ntell
ect
ualcourage(Paul
&Elder2006:16)
.

Open-mindedness: Adogmat icattit

udewi l
limpedet hinki
ngcrit
ically.Forexampl e, aper son
whoadher esr igidlytoa“ pro-choice”positi
onont hei ssueofthel egal statusofi nduced
aborti
onisl i
kelyt obeunwi ll
ingt oconsiderseriouslyt hei
ssueofwheni nitsdev el
opmentan
unbornchildacqui resamor alrighttoli
fe.Thuswi ll
ingnesst othinkcr iti
callyrequiresopen-
mindedness, i
nt hesenseofawi l
li
ngnesst oexami nequest i
onst owhi choneal r
eadyaccept s
ananswerbutwhi chfurtherev i
denceorr easoni ngmi ghtcauseonet oanswerdi fferently
(Dewey1933; Faci one1990a; Ennis1991; Baili
netal .1999b;Halper n1998, Facione, Facione,&
Giancarl
o2001) .Paul (
1981)emphasi zesopen- mindednessaboutal ternativewor ld-vi
ews, and
recommendsadi alecti
calappr oacht oi
ntegr at
ingsuchv i
ewsascent raltowhathecal ls“str
ong
sense”cri
ticalt hinking.Inthreest udi
es,Har an,Rit
ov ,&Mel l
ers(2013)f oundt hatact ivelyopen-
mindedthi
nking,i
ncl
uding“
thet
endencytoweighnewevidenceagainstaf avor
edbeli
ef,t
o
spendsuff
ici
entti
meonapr obl
em befor
egivi
ngup,andtoconsidercarefull
ytheopi
nionsof
other
sinformingone’
sown”,l
edstudypart
ici
pant
stoacquirei
nformationandt hust
omake
accur
ateesti
mat i
ons.

Will
ingnesstosuspendjudgment
:Premat
ureclosureonanini
ti
alsol
uti
onwill
blockcr
it
ical
thi
nking.Thuswil
li
ngnesstothi
nkcri
ti
cal
l
yrequiresawil
li
ngnesstosuspendj
udgmentwhile
alt
ernati
vesareexplor
ed(Faci
one1990a;
Ennis1991;Halper
n1998).

Trusti nreason: Sincedistrusti

nt hepr ocessesofr easonedi nqui
rywilldissuadeonef r
om
engagi nginit,t
r ustinthem isani niti
ati
ngcr i
ti
calthinki
ngdi sposi
tion(Facione1990a, 25;Bai
l
in
etal .1999b:294; Facione,Facione, &Gi ancar
lo2001; Paul&El der2006) .Inreacti
ont oan
allegedlyexclusiveemphasi sonr easoni ncri
ti
calthinkingtheoryandpedagogy ,Thay er-
Bacon
(2000)ar guest hatintuit
ion,imagination,andemot ionhav eimportantrolest oplayinan
adequat econcept i
onofcr iti
calthinki
ngt hatshecal l
s“constructi
vethinking”.From herpointof
view, cri
ti
calthinkingrequirestrustnotonl yinreasonbutal soi ni
ntuit
ion, i
magination,and
emot i
on.

Seeki ngthetruth:Ifonedoesnotcar eaboutt hetr

uthbutiscont enttost i
ckwi t
hone’sinit
ial
bi
asonani ssue,thenonewi llnotthinkcr i
ticall
yaboutit
.Seekingt het r
uthisthusani ni
ti
ating
cri
ticalthi
nkingdi sposi
ti
on( Baili
netal .1999b: 294;Faci
one,Faci one,&Gi ancar
lo2001).A
di
sposi ti
ont oseekt hetr
uthi simplicitinmor especifi
ccrit
icalthinki
ngdi sposit
ions,
suchas
tr
yingt obewel l-i
nformed,consi der
ingser iouslypoi
ntsofv i
ewot hert hanone’sown, l
ookingfor
al
ter nati
ves,suspendingjudgmentwhent heev i
denceisinsuff
icient,andadopt i
ngaposi t
ion
whent heevidencesuppor t
ingi tissuffici
ent.

8.
2Int
ernal
Disposi
ti
ons

Someoft hei niti

atingdi spositi
ons, suchasopen- mi ndednessandwi lli
ngnesst osuspend
j
udgment , arealsoi nternalcrit
ical t
hinki ngdi spositi
ons, i
nt hesenseofment al habi t
sor
atti
tudest hatcont ributecausal lytodoi ngagoodj obofcr iti
cal thinkingonceonest artsthe
process.Butt herear emanyot herint ernal cri
ti
calthi nkingdi sposi ti
ons.Someoft hem ar e
parasiti
conone’ sconcept ionofgoodt hinking.Forexampl e, i
tisconst i
tuti
veofgoodt hi
nking
aboutani ssuet of ormul atethei ssuecl ear lyandt omai ntainfocusoni t.Forthispur pose,one
needsnotonl ythecor r
espondi ngabi litybutal sothecor r
espondi ngdi spositi
on.Enni s(1991: 8)
describesi tast hedi sposition“t odet ermi neandmai ntainfocusont heconcl usi onorquest ion”,
Facione( 1990a: 25)as“ cl
arit
yi nst atingt hequest i
onorconcer n”.Ot herinternal dispositi
ons
aremot ivat orstocont i
nueoradj ustt hecr iti
calthi
nki ngpr ocess, suchaswi ll
ingnesst oper sist
i
nacompl ext askandwi ll
i
ngnesst oabandonnonpr oduct i
v estrat egi
esi nanat temptt osel f-
correct(Hal pern1998: 452) .Foral istofi dent i
fi
edi nt er
nal crit
ical thi
nkingdi sposi ti
ons, seet he
SupplementonI nter nalCriti
cal ThinkingDi sposit
ions.
9.Cr
it
ical
Thi
nki
ngAbi
l
iti
es

Somet heori
stspostulateski
ll
s,i
.e.,
acquiredabili
ti
es,asoperati
vei ncri
ti
cal t
hinki
ng.Itisnot
obvious,howev er,t
hatagoodment alactistheexerci
seofagener icacquiredskil
l.I
nferri
ngan
expectedt i
meofar rival
,asinTransit
,hassomegener iccomponent sbutalsousesnon- gener
ic
subject-matterknowledge.Bail
i
netal .(1999a)argueagainstvi
ewi ngcri
ti
cal thi
nkingskill
sas
genericanddi scret
e,ont hegr
oundt hatskil
ledperfor
manceatacr i
ti
calt
hinkingtaskcannotbe
separatedfrom knowl edgeofconcept sandf r
om domai n-
specif
icpr i
nci
plesofgoodt hinking.
Talkofski l
l
s, t
heyconcede, i
sunproblemat i
cifitmeansmer elythataper sonwi t
hcriti
cal
thi
nkingskill
si scapableofint
ell
igentperformance.

Despi t
esuchscept icism, t
heor i
stsofcr i
tical thi
nkinghav elist
edasgener alcontribut orst o
crit
icalthinkingwhatt heyvariousl
ycal labi l
i
ties(Gl aser1941; Enni s1962, 1991) ,skills( Facione
1990a; Hal pern1998)orcompet enci
es( Fisher&Scr iven1997) .Amal gamat i
ngt hesel i
st swoul d
produceaconf usingandchaot i
ccornucopi aofmor ethan50possi bl
eeducat i
onal obj ectives,
withonl ypar ti
alov erl
apamongt hem.I tmakessensei nsteadtot rytounder standt her easons
forthemul ti
pli
cityanddi versit
y,andtomakeasel ectionaccor dingt oone’ sownr easonsf or
singli
ngoutabi li
ti
est obedev el
opedi nacr i
ticalthinkingcur ri
culum.Twor easonsf ordi versit
y
amongl istsofcr i
tical thi
nkingabili
ti
esar etheunder lyingconcept ionofcr iti
calthinkingandt he
envisagededucat ional l
evel.Apprai
sal-onlyconcept i
ons, forexampl e, i
nvolveadi fferentsui teof
abil
iti
est hanconst ruct i
ve-
onlyconcept ions.Somel i
sts,suchast hosei n(Glaser1941) ,areput
forwardaseducat ional objecti
vesforsecondar yschool students,wher easot hersar epr oposed
asobj ectivesforcol legest udents(e.g.,Faci one1990a) .

Theabili
ti
esdescribedint heremai ni
ngparagraphsofthissecti
onemer gefr
om r ef
lect
ionon
thegeneralabi
li
ti
esneededt odowel l t
hethi
nkingacti
viti
esident
ifi
edinsecti
on6as
component softhecriti
cal t
hinki
ngpr ocessdescri
bedinsection5.Thederiv
ationofeach
coll
ecti
onofabili
tiesisaccompani edbyci t
ati
onofsour cesthatl
istsuchabil
it
iesandof
standar
dizedteststhatclaimt otestthem.

Observati
onalabili
ti
es:Carefulandaccur ateobser vat
ionsomet imesr equiresspeci alist
expert
iseandpr acti
ce,asint hecaseofobser vi
ngbi r
dsandobser vingacci dentscenes.
Howev er
,therearegener alabil
it
iesofnot i
cingwhatone’ ssensesar epi cki
ngupf rom one’ s
envi
ronmentandofbei ngablet oar t
icul
ateclearl
yandaccur at
elytoonesel fandot her swhat
onehasobser ved.Ithelpsinexer ci
singthem tobeabl et or
ecognizeandt akeintoaccount
fact
orsthatmakeone’ sobser v
ationlesstrustworthy,suchaspr i
orframi ngoft hesi tuati
on,
i
nadequatet i
me, defi
cientsenses, poorobservati
oncondi ti
ons,andt hel i
ke.Ithelpsaswel l
to
beskil
ledattakingstepst omakeone’ sobservationmor etrustwort
hy ,suchasmov ingcl osert
o
getabet t
erlook,measur i
ngsomet hingthreet i
mesandt akingtheav erage,andchecki ngwhat
onet hinksonei sobservingwit hsomeoneel sewhoi sinagoodposi ti
ontoobser vei t
.Italso
helpst obeski l
ledatrecognizingr espectsi nwhichone’ sreportofone’ sobser v
ationinv olves
i
nferencer atherthandirectobser vation,sot hatonecant henconsi derwhetherthei nferencei s
j
ust i
fi
ed.Theseabi li
ti
escomei ntopl ayaswel lwhenonet hinksaboutwhet herandwi thwhat
degreeofconf i
dencet oacceptanobser vationreport,
forexampl einthestudyofhi storyori na
cri
mi nal i
nvesti
gati
onori nassessi ngnewsr eport
s.Obser vati
onal abil
it
iesshowupi nsome
l
istsofcr it
icalt
hinki
ngabi l
it
ies( Enni s1962: 90;Facione1990a: 16;Ennis1991: 9).Therear e
i
temst esti
ngaper son’sabil
ityt ojudget hecr edi
bil
it
yofobser vati
onr eport
sint heCor nell
Crit
ical Thi
nkingTests,LevelsXandZ( Ennis&Mi l
l
man1971; Ennis,Mill
man, &Tomko1985,
2005) .NorrisandKing( 1983,1985, 1990a, 1990b)isat estofabi l
it
yt oappraiseobser vation
reports.

Emotionalabil
i
ties:Theemot ionsthatdriv
eacr it
ical
thinki
ngprocessareper
plexityor
puzzl
ement ,awi shtoresol
vei t
,andsatisfact
ionatachievi
ngthedesir
edresol
ution.Children
experi
encetheseemot ionsatanear lyage, wi
thoutbeingtr
ainedtodoso.Educationthattakes
cri
ti
calthi
nkingasagoal needsonlytochannel theseemot i
onsandtomakesur enott ost i
fl
e
them.Coll
aborativecri
ticalt
hinki
ngbenef i
tsfrom abil
i
tytorecogni
zeone’sownandot hers’
emotionalcommi t
mentsandr eacti
ons.

Questi
oningabil
it
ies:Acrit
icalthi
nkingprocessneedstransfor
mat i
onofaninchoat
esenseof
perpl
exit
yintoaclearquestion.Formulati
ngaquest i
onwellrequi
resnotbuil
dingi
n
questi
onableassumptions,notprejudgingthei
ssue,andusinglanguagethati
ncontexti
s
unambiguousandpr eciseenough( Ennis1962:97;1991:9).

Imaginati
veabilit
ies: Thinki
ngdirectedatfindingthecor r
ectcausalexplanationofagener al
phenomenonorpar t
iculareventrequiresanabi l
it
yt oimaginepossibleexplanati
ons.Thinking
aboutwhatpol icyorpl anofactiont oadoptr equi
resgener ati
onofopt i
onsandconsi derat
ionof
possi
bleconsequencesofeachopt ion.Domai nknowl edgeisrequi
redf orsuchcreati
veact iv
ity
,
butagener alabil
itytoi maginealternati
vesishelpfulandcanbenur turedsoast obecome
easi
er,quicker,mor eext ensi
ve,anddeeper( Dewey1910: 34–39;1933: 40–47).Faci
one( 1990a)
andHal pern(1998)i ncludetheabi l
i
tytoimagi nealter
nativesasacr i
ti
calthinki
ngabili
ty.

I
nferent
ial
abil
i
ties:
Theabi l
i
tyt
odr awconcl
usionsfrom gi
veni
nformat
ion,andtorecogni
ze
wit
hwhatdegreeofcer t
aint
yone’
sownorot hers’concl
usi
onsfol
low,i
suniversal
lyr
ecogni
zed
asageneralcr
iti
calthi
nki
ngabil
it
y.All
11exampl esinsect
ion2ofthi
sarti
clei
nclude
i
nf erences, somef r
om hy pot hesesoropt ions( asi nTr ansi t,Fer r
y boatandDi sor der )
, others
from somet hi ngobser ved( asi nWeat herandRash) .Noneoft hesei nfer encesi sf or mal lyvali
d.
Rat her, theyar el icensedbygener al,somet i
mesqual i
fiedsubst ant iver ul esofi nf er ence
(Toul mi n1958)t hatr estondomai nknowl edge—t hatabust r
ipt akesaboutt hesamet imei n
eachdi rect i
on, thatt het ermi nal ofawi r
elesst elegr aphwoul dbel ocat edont hehi ghest
possi blepl ace, thatsuddencool ingi sof tenf ollowedbyr ain,thatanal l
er gicreact iont oasul fa
druggener allyshowsupsoonaf teronest artst aki ngi t.I tisamat terofcont r
ov er syt owhat
extentt hespeci alizedabi li
tyt odeduceconcl usi onsf rom pr emi ssesusi ngf ormal rulesof
i
nf erencei sneededf orcr iti
cal thi nking.Dewey( 1933)l ocat esl ogi cal for msi nset tingoutt he
product sofr ef lect i
onr at hert hani nthepr ocessofr eflect ion.Enni s( 1981a) ,ont heot herhand,
mai ntainst hatal iberally-educat edper sonshoul dhav et hef ollowi ngabi li
ties:tot r ansl ate
nat ural-l
anguagest atement si ntost atement susi ngt hest andar dl ogi cal operat ors, touse
appr opr iatelyt hel anguageofnecessar yandsuf f
icientcondi tions, todeal wit
har gumentf orms
andar gument scont ainingsy mbol s,todet ermi newhet heri nv i
rtueofanar gument ’sf ormi ts
concl usi onf ollowsnecessar i
lyf rom i t
spr emi sses, tor easonwi t
hl ogical lycompl ex
proposi ti
ons, andt oappl yt her ul esandpr ocedur esofdeduct ivel ogi c.I nferential abi li
tiesare
recogni zedascr i
t i
cal thinkingabi li
ti
esbyGl aser( 1941: 6) ,
Faci one( 1990a: 9),Enni s( 1991: 9),
Fisher&Scr i
v en( 1997: 99, 111) , andHal pern( 1998: 452) .It
emst est i
ngi nferent i
al abilit
ies
const itutet wooft hef ivesubt est soft heWat sonGl aserCr i
ti
cal Thi nki ngAppr aisal (
Wat son&
Glaser1980a, 1980b, 1994) , t
wooft hef oursect i
onsi nt heCor nell Cr i
tical Thinki ngTestLev el X
(Ennis&Mi l
lman1971; Enni s,Mi llman, &Tomko1985, 2005) ,thr eeoft hesev ensect ionsi nthe
Cor nell Criti
cal Thi nkingTestLev el Z(Enni s&Mi l
lman1971; Enni s, Mi llman, &Tomko1985,
2005) ,
11oft he34i t
emsonFor msAandBoft heCal ifor niaCr it
ical Thi nkingSki ll
sTest
(Facione1990b, 1992) ,andahi ghbutv ariablepr opor t
ionoft he25sel ect ed-responsequest ions
i
nt heCol l
egi ateLear ningAssessment( Counci l forAi dt oEducat ion2017) .

Experiment ingabi lit

ies: Knowinghowt odesi gnandexecut eanexper imenti simpor tantnotj ust
i
nsci entif
icr esear chbutal soi nev ery dayl ife,asinRash.Deweydev ot edawhol echapt erofhis
HowWeThi nk( 1910: 145–156; 1933: 190–202)t ot hesuperiori
tyofexper imentati
onov er
observat i
oni nadv ancingknowl edge.Exper iment i
ngabi l
it
iescomei nt opl ayatoner emov ein
appraisingr eportsofsci entif
icst udies.Ski l
l i
ndesigningandexecut ingexper imentsi ncludes
theacknowl edgedabi l
iti
estoappr aiseev idence( Glaser1941: 6),t
ocar ryoutexper i
ment sand
toappl yappr opriatest atist
icalinferencet echni ques( Faci
one1990a: 9),tojudgeinduct i
onst o
anexpl anator yhy pothesi s(Ennis1991: 9) ,andt orecognizetheneedf oranadequat el
yl arge
sampl esize( Hal pern1998) .TheCor nellCr iti
calThinkingTestLev elZ( Ennis&Mi ll
man1971;
Ennis,Mi l
lman, &Tomko1985, 2005)i ncl udesf ouritems( outof52)onexper i
ment aldesign.
TheCol legiateLear ningAssessment( Counci lforAidt oEducation2017)makesr oom for
appraisalofst udydesi gninbothi t
sper formancet askandi tsselected- responsequest ions.
Consul tingabi l
it
ies:
Ski l
latconsul ti
ngsour cesofi nf
or mat i
oncomesi nt
opl aywhenoneseeks
i
nf ormat iont ohel presolveapr oblem, asi nCandidate.Abi l
it
yt of i
ndandappr aiseinformation
i
ncl udesabi l
itytogat herandmar shal perti
nentinfor
mat ion( Glaser1941:6),tojudgewhet hera
statementmadebyanal l
egedaut horit
yi sacceptable(Ennis1962: 84)
,toplanasear chfor
desi redi nf ormat i
on(Facione1990a: 9),andtojudget hecr edibil
it
yofasour ce( Ennis1991: 9)
.
Abi l
itytoj udget hecr edi
bil
it
yofst atement sistestedby24i tems( outof76)i ntheCor nel
l
Criti
cal Thi nkingTestLev elX( Enni s&Mi l
lman1971; Enni s,Mill
man, &Tomko1985, 2005)and
byf ouri tems( outof52)int heCor nel l
Cr i
ti
calThinki
ngTestLev elZ(Ennis&Mi l
lman1971;
Enni s, Mi l
lman, &Tomko1985, 2005) .TheCol l
egeLear ningAssessment ’
sper formancet ask
requi resev aluationofwhet herinfor mationindocument siscr edibl
eorunr el
iable(Councilfor
Aidt oEducat ion2017) .

Argumentanalysisabili
ties:Theabili
tytoi dentif
yandanal yzear gument scontri
butestot he
processofsurveyi
ngar gument sonani ssuei nor dert
of or
m one’ sownr easonedjudgment ,as
i
nCandi dat
e.Theabi li
tyt odetectandanal y zeargumentsisr ecogni zedasacr i
ti
calthinki
ng
skil
lbyFaci
one( 1990a: 7–8) ,
Ennis(1991: 9)andHal pern(1998) .Fiveitems( outof34)ont he
Cali
forni
aCrit
icalThinkingSkillsTest(Faci one1990b, 1992)t estskillatargumentanal ysis.The
Coll
egeLearningAssessment( CouncilforAi dtoEducation2017)i ncorpor at
esargument
analysi
sini
tsselected-responset est
sofcr iti
calreadi
ngandev aluat i
onandofcr i
ti
quingan
argument.

Judgi
ngskill
sanddeci
dingski
ll
s:Ski
l
l atj
udginganddecidi
ngisskil
latrecogni
zi
ngwhat
j
udgmentordecisi
ontheavail
abl
eevidenceandar gumentsuppor
ts,andwithwhatdegr
eeof
confi
dence.I
tist
husacomponentoft heinf
erent
ialski
l
lsalr
eadydiscussed.

Li
stsandtest
sofcri
ti
calthi
nki
ngabi
l
iti
esoft
enincl
udet womor
eabi
l
iti
es:
ident
if
ying
assumpti
onsandconstr
ucti
ngandeval
uat
ingdefi
nit
ions.

10.Requi
redKnowl
edge

Inaddi
ti
ontodisposi
ti
onsandabil
it
ies,
cri
ti
cal
thinki
ngneedsknowledge:ofcrit
ical
thi
nki
ng
concept
s,ofcr
iti
calt
hinki
ngpr
inci
ples,
andofthesubject
-mat
terofthethi
nking.

Wecanderi
veashortl
istofconceptswhoseunderstandi
ngcontr
ibut
estocri
ti
calt
hinkingf
rom
t
hecri
ti
cal
thinki
ngabi
l
iti
esdescribedi
ntheprecedingsecti
on.Obser
vat
ional
abil
i
tiesrequi
re
anunder standingoft hedi f
ferencebet weenobser vati
onandi nference.Quest ioni ngabi l
it
ies
requireanunder standi ngoft heconcept sofambi gui
tyandv agueness.I nferent i
al abil
iti
es
requireanunder standi ngoft hedi ff
erencebet weenconcl usiveanddef easibleinf erence
(tr
aditionally,betweendeduct i
onandi nducti
on) ,
aswel lasoft hedifferencebet weennecessar y
andsuf f
icientcondi ti
ons.Exper i
ment ingabili
ti
esr equireanunder standingoft heconcept sof
hypot hesis,nullhypot hesis,assumpt i
onandpr edicti
on,aswel lasoft heconceptofst ati
sti
cal
signifi
canceandofi tsdi ff
erencef rom impor t
ance.Theyal sor equireanunder st andingoft he
differ
encebet weenanexper i
mentandanobser vati
onal study ,
andi npar t
icularoft hediffer
ence
bet weenar andomi zedcont roll
edt r
ial,aprospect i
vecor relati
onalstudyandar etrospective
(case-cont rol
)study .Ar gumentanal ysisabil
it
iesr equi
reanunder standi ngoft heconcept sof
argument ,premiss, assumpt i
on, conclusionandcount er-considerati
on.Addi tional cr
it
ical
thinki
ngconcept sar epr oposedbyBai li
netal.(1999b: 293) ,
Fisher&Scr i
ven( 1997: 105–106),
Black( 2012) ,andBl air(2021) .

Accor dingt oGl aser( 1941: 25) ,abili

tyt ot hinkcr iticall
yr equi resknowl edgeoft hemet hodsof
l
ogi cal inqui ryandr easoni ng.I fwer ev i
ewt hel i
stofabi l
itiesi nt hepr ecedi ngsect i
on, howev er,
wecanseet hatsomeoft hem canbeacqui redandexer cisedmer elyt hr oughpr acti
ce, possibly
guidedi naneducat ional set ting,followedbyf eedback.Sear chingi ntelligent lyforacausal
expl anat ionofsomephenomenonorev entr equir est hatoneconsi deraf ullrangeofpossi ble
causal cont ri
but or s, buti tseemsmor ei mpor tantt hatonei mpl ement st hispr i
ncipleinone’ s
pract icet hant hatonei sabl et oar ti
cul at eit .Whati simpor tanti s“ oper at ional knowl edge”oft he
standar dsandpr inci plesofgoodt hinki ng( Bai li
netal .1999b: 291–293) .Butt hedev el opmentof
suchcr i
tical thinki ngabi l
i
tiesasdesi gni nganexper imentorconst ructinganoper ational
def i
ni ti
oncanbenef itf r
om l ear ningt hei runder l
yingt heor y .Fur t
her ,expl icitknowl edgeofqui rks
ofhumant hinkingseemsusef ulasacaut i
onar ygui de.Humanmemor yi snotj ustfallibleabout
det ails,aspeopl el ear nf r
om t heirownexper iencesofmi sremember i
ng, buti ssomal leablethat
adet ailed, clearandv i
vidrecol lecti
onofanev entcanbeat otal fabr icat ion( Loftus2017) .
Peopl eseekori nter pr etev idencei nway st hatar epar ti
al tot hei rexi stingbel i
efsand
expect ations, oftenunconsci ousoft hei r“ conf ir
mat ionbi as”( Ni cker son1998) .Notonl yare
peopl esubj ectt ot hi sandot hercogni tivebi ases( Kahneman2011) ,ofwhi cht heyar et ypi
cally
unawar e,buti tmaybecount er-product ivef oronet omakeonesel fawar eoft hem andt ry
consci ousl yt ocount eractt hem ort ocount er actsoci albiasessuchasr aci alorsexual
ster eoty pes( Keny on&Beaul ac2014) .Iti shel pful tobeawar eoft hesef act sandoft hesuper ior
effect ivenessofbl ocki ngt heoper ationofbi ases—f orexampl e, bymaki ngani mmedi ater ecord
ofone’ sobser vat i
ons, ref
rai ningf rom f or mi ngapr eliminar yexpl anat or yhy pothesis, blind
refer eeing, doubl e- blindr andomi zedt rial s,andbl i
ndgr adi ngofst udent s’ wor k.Itisalsohel pful
tobeawar eoft hepr ev alenceof“ noise”( unwant edunsy st emat i
cv ariabi li
tyofj udgment s),of
howt odet ectnoi se( throughanoi seaudi t), andofhowt or educenoi se: makeaccur acyt hegoal ,
thinkst atistically, breakapr ocessofar rivingataj udgmenti ntoi ndependentt asks, r
esi st
premat ur ei ntuitions, inagr oupgeti ndependentj udgment sf i
rst, favourcompar ati
vej udgment s
andscales(Kahneman,Sibony,&Sunst ein2021).I
tishel
pfulaswell
tobeawareoftheconcept
of“boundedrati
onal
it
y”indecision-makingandoft herel
ateddi
sti
ncti
onbet
ween“sati
sfi
cing”
andoptimizi
ng(Simon1956; Gigerenzer2001).

Crit
icalthinki
ngaboutani ssuer equiressubstant i
veknowl edgeoft hedomai ntowhi cht he
i
ssuebel ongs.Cr i
ti
calthinkingabi l
iti
esarenotamagi celixirt
hatcanbeappl i
edtoanyi ssue
what everbysomebodywhohasnoknowl edgeoft hef act
sr elevanttoexpl oringthati ssue.For
exampl e,thestudenti
nBubbl esneededt oknowt hatgasesdonotpenet r
at esol i
dobj ectslikea
glass,thatairexpandswhenheat ed,thatthev olumeofanencl osedgasv ariesdirectlywi t
hi t
s
temper atureandinver
sel ywi t
hitspr essure,andt hathotobj ectswi l
lspont aneouslycool down
totheambi enttemperatureoft heirsurroundingsunl esskepthotbyi nsul
at i
onorasour ceof
heat.Cr i
ti
calthi
nkersthusneedar ichfundofsubj ect-
mat terknowl edgerel evanttot hev ari
ety
ofsituati
onst heyencount er.Thisfactisr ecognizedint heinclusionamongcr it
icalthinking
dispositi
onsofaconcer nt obecomeandr emaingener all
ywel linformed.

11.Educat
ional
met
hods

Experi
mentaleducati
onalint
ervent
ions,wi
thcontr
olgr
oups,hav
eshownt hateducat
ioncan
i
mpr ovecr
it
icalt
hinkingskil
l
sanddi sposi
ti
ons,
asmeasuredbystandar
dizedtest
s.For
i
nformati
onaboutt hesetests,
seetheSupplementonAssessment.

Whateducat ionalmet hodsar emostef fecti

veatdev el
opi ngthedi spositi
ons,abili
ti
esand
knowledgeofacr it
icalthi
nker ?Inacompr ehensi
v emet a-analysi
sofexper i
ment alandquasi -
experi
ment alstudiesofst rat
egi esforteachingstudentst othinkcr it
ical
ly,
Abrami etal .(2015)
foundthatdialogue, anchoredi nstruct
ion,andment ori
ngeachi ncr easedtheeffectivenessof
theeducational i
nterventi
on,andt hatt
heywer emostef fectiv
ewhencombi ned.Theyal sof ound
thati
nthesest udi
esacombi nat ionofsepar at
einstr
uctioni ncriti
cal thi
nki
ngwi thsubj ect-
mat t
erinstr
uct i
oninwhi chst udent sareencouragedt othi nkcrit
icall
ywasmor eef f
ect i
v ethan
eit
herbyi t
self.Howev er,thedifferencewasnotst at
ist
ical l
ysignifi
cant ;
thati
s,itmi ghthav e
ari
senbychance.

Mostoft hesestudi
eslackt
helongit
udinalf
oll
ow- upr equi
redtodeter
minewhetherthe
obser
veddi ff
erenti
ali
mprovementsi
ncr i
ti
calthinkingabili
ti
esordi
sposi
ti
onscontinueover
ti
me,forexampl eunti
lhi
ghschoolorcoll
egegr aduation.Fordet
ail
sonstudi
esofmet hodsof
devel
opingcriti
calt
hinki
ngski
ll
sanddisposit
ions, seetheSupplementonEducati
onalMethods.
12.Cont
rov
ersi
es

Schol
arshavedeni
edthegeneral
izabil
it
yofcrit
ical
thi
nki
ngabi
li
ti
esacrosssubjectdomai
ns,
haveall
egedbiasi
ncri
ti
calt
hinki
ngt heoryandpedagogy
,andhavei
nvesti
gatedtherel
ati
onshi
p
ofcri
ti
calt
hinki
ngtoot
herki
ndsoft hinki
ng.

12.
1TheGener
ali
zabi
l
ityofCr
it
ical
Thi
nki
ng

McPeck( 1981)at tackedt het hinkingski ll

smov ementoft he1970s, includi ngt hecr i
ti
cal
thi
nki ngmov ement .Hear guedt hatt herear enogener al t
hi nkingski l
ls, sincet hi nkingi salway s
thi
nki ngaboutsomesubj ect-mat ter.Itisfut i
le,heclai
med, forschool sandcol legest ot each
thi
nki ngasi fitwer easepar atesubj ect.Rat her, t
eacher sshoul dleadt hei rpupi l
st obecome
autonomoust hinker sbyt eachi ngschool subjectsinawayt hatbr i
ngsoutt hei rcogni tive
structur eandt hatencour agesandr ewar dsdi scussionandar gument .Assomeofhi scr it
ics
(e.
g. ,Paul 1985; Si
egel 1985)poi ntedout ,McPeck’ scent ral argumentneedsel abor ation,sinceit
hasobv i
ouscount er -exampl esi nwr iti
ngandspeaki ng, f
orwhi ch( upt oacer tainl evelof
compl exit
y)ther ear eteachabl egener al abil
iti
esev ent hought heyar eal way saboutsome
subj ect-matter.Tomakehi sargumentconv incing,McPeckneedst oexpl ainhowt hinking
dif
f ersf r
om wr iti
ngandspeaki ngi nawayt hatdoesnotper mi tusef ul abst ractionofi ts
component sfrom t hesubj ect-mat terswi t
hwhi chitdeals.Hehasnotdoneso.Nev ertheless,his
posi ti
ont hatthedi sposi t
ionsandabi lit
iesofacr it
icalthinkerar ebestdev elopedi nthecont ext
ofsubj ect
-mat teri
nst r
uctionisshar edbymanyt heori
st sofcr it
icalthinki ng, i
ncl udingDewey
(1910, 1933) ,Glaser( 1941) ,Passmor e(1980) ,
Wei nstein( 1990) ,Baili
netal .( 1999b) ,
and
Willingham ( 2019).

McPeck’ schal lengepr ompt edref l

ectionont heext entt owhi chcr i
ti
cal t hinkingi ssubj ect-
specific.McPeckar guedf orast rongsubj ect -specifi
citythesi s,accordingt owhi chi ti
sa
concept ual tr
utht hatal lcrit
icalthinkingabi li
tiesar especi fictoasubj ect .(Hedi dnothowev er
extendhi ssubj ect -
speci fi
citythesist ocr itical thi
nkingdi sposi ti
ons.Inpar ticular,het ookt he
disposit i
ont osuspendj udgmenti nsituat ionsofcogni t
ivedi ssonancet obeagener al
disposit i
on. )Concept ual subject-specificityissubj ectt oobv i
ouscount er -exampl es,suchast he
gener al abili
tytor ecogni zeconf usionofnecessar yandsuf fi
cientcondi tions.Amor emodest
thesis,al soendor sedbyMcPeck, i
sepi stemol ogi
cal subject -
specifi
ci ty
, accor dingt owhi chthe
nor msofgoodt hinki ngv aryfrom onef ieldt oanot her .Epistemol ogical subj ect -
speci f
icity
clearl
yhol dst oacer t
ainext ent;forexampl e,t heprinciplesi naccordancewi thwhi chonesol v
es
adi ff
erent ialequat i
onar equi tedi f
ferentf rom t heprinciplesi naccor dancewi thwhi chone
det er
mi neswhet herapai ntingisagenui nePi casso.Butt het hesissuf fers, asEnni s(1989)
pointsout ,from v aguenessoft heconceptofaf i
eldorsubj ectandf rom t heobv i
ousexi stence
ofinter-fieldpr i
nci ples,howev erbroadl yt heconceptofaf i
eldi sconst r
ued.Forexampl e, t
he
principlesofhy pot het i
co-deduct ivereasoni nghol df oral lthev ari
edf iel
dsi nwhi chsuch
reasoningoccurs.Athi
rdkindofsubject-
speci
fi
cit
yisempiri
calsubj
ect-
specif
ici
ty,accordi
ngto
whi chasamat terofempir
icall
yobservabl
efactapersonwitht
heabili
ti
esanddi sposit
ionsofa
cri
ticalt
hinkeri
nonear eaofinvest
igat
ionwil
lnotnecessar
il
yhavethem inanotherareaof
i
nv esti
gati
on.

Thethesisofempi ri
cal subject-
speci f
ici
tyrai
sest hegener al pr
oblem oftransfer.Ifcritical
thi
nki
ngabi li
ti
esanddi sposi ti
onshav etobedev elopedi ndependent lyineachschool subject,
howar etheyofanyusei ndeal i
ngwi t
hthepr obl
emsofev er ydayli
feandt hepolitical andsocial
i
ssuesofcont empor arysoci ety,mostofwhi chdonotf i
tintot heframewor kofat raditional
schoolsubject?Proponent sofempi ri
calsubject
-speci fi
cit
yt endt oarguet hattr
ansf eri smor e
l
ikel
ytooccuri fther
ei scrit
ical thi
nkinginstr
uctioni nav arietyofdomai ns, wi
thexpl icit
att
enti
ont odisposit
ionsandabi lit
iesthatcutacr ossdomai ns.Butev idencefort hiscl aimis
scanty
.Ther eisaneedf orwel l
-designedempi ri
cal studiest hatinvesti
gatethecondi t
ionst hat
maket r
ansfermor elikely.

I
tiscommongr oundindebat esaboutthegenerali
tyorsubject-specif
ici
tyofcr
it
icalthi
nking
di
spositi
onsandabi li
ti
est hatcrit
ical
thi
nki
ngaboutanyt opicr equiresbackgr
oundknowl edge
aboutthetopic.Forexampl e,themostsophist
icatedunderstandi ngofthepri
ncipl
esof
hypot
hetico-deducti
vereasoni ngisofnohel
punl essaccompani edbysomeknowl edgeofwhat
mightbepl ausi
bleexplanationsofsomephenomenonunderi nv est
igati
on.

12.
2Bi
asi
nCr
it
ical
Thi
nki
ngTheor
yandPedagogy

Cri
ti
cshav eobjectedtobi asinthetheory,pedagogyandpr acti
ceofcrit
icalt
hinki
ng.
Comment ators(e.g.
,Alston1995; Enni
s1998)hav enot edthatanyonewhot akesaposi t
ionhas
abiasintheneut r
alsenseofbei ngincli
nedi nonedir
ect i
onratherthanother
s.Thecriti
cs,
however,areobjecti
ngt obiasinthepejorati
vesenseofanunj ust
ifi
edfavori
ngofcertai
nway s
ofknowingov erothers,fr
equentlyall
egi
ngt hattheunjustl
yfavouredway sarethoseofa
dominantsexorcul ture(Bail
i
n1995) .Theseway sfavour:

r
einf
orcementofegocentri
candsoci
ocentr
icbi
asesov
erdi
alect
ical
engagementwi
thopposi
ng
worl
d-vi
ews(Paul1981,1984;War
ren1998)

di
stanci
ngf
rom t
heobj
ectofi
nqui
ryov
ercl
osenesst
oit(
Mar
ti
n1992;
Thay
er-
Bacon1992)

i
ndi
ff
erencet
othesi
tuat
ionofot
her
sov
ercar
efort
hem (
Mar
ti
n1992)

or
ient
ati
ont
othoughtov
eror
ient
ati
ont
oact
ion(
Mar
ti
n1992)
bei
ngr
easonabl
eov
ercar
ingt
ounder
standpeopl
e’
sideas(
Thay
er-
Bacon1993)

bei
ngneut
ral
andobj
ect
iveov
erbei
ngembodi
edandsi
tuat
ed(
Thay
er-
Bacon1995a)

doubt
ingov
erbel
i
evi
ng(
Thay
er-
Bacon1995b)

r
easonov
eremot
ion,
imagi
nat
ionandi
ntui
ti
on(
Thay
er-
Bacon2000)

sol
i
tar
ythi
nki
ngov
ercol
l
abor
ati
vet
hinki
ng(
Thay
er-
Bacon2000)

wr
it
tenandspokenassi
gnment
sov
erot
herf
ormsofexpr
essi
on(
Alst
on2001)

att
ent
iont
owr
it
tenandspokencommuni
cat
ionsov
erat
tent
iont
ohumanpr
obl
ems(
Alst
on
2001)

wi
nni
ngdebat
esi
nthepubl
i
cspher
eov
ermaki
ngandunder
standi
ngmeani
ng(
Alst
on2001)

Acommont hreadi nthissmor gasbor dofaccusat ionsi sdissat i

sfactionwi thfocusingont he
l
ogicalanal ysisandev al
uat i
onofr easoni ngandar gument s.Whi letheseaut hor sacknowl edge
thatsuchanal ysi
sandev aluationispar tofcr it
icalthinkingandshoul dbepar tofits
conceptualizationandpedagogy ,
theyinsi stthatitisonl yapar t
.Paul (1981) ,f
orexampl e,
bemoanst het endencyofat omi sti
cteachi ngofmet hodsofanal yzingandev al
uatingargument s
toturnstudent sintomor eabl esophi st
s, adeptatf indingf aultwi t
hposi tionsandar gument s
withwhicht heydi sagr eebutev enmor eent renchedi nt heegocent ri
candsoci ocentri
cbi ases
withwhicht heybegan.Mar t
in(1992)andThay er-Bacon( 1992)ci tewi t
happr ov alt
hesel f-
report
edint i
macywi t
ht heirsubject-mat t
erofl eadingr esear chersinbi ologyandmedi ci
ne, an
i
ntimacyt hatconf lict
swi ththedi stancingal l
egedl yrecommendedi nst andardconcept ionsand
pedagogyofcr i
ti
cal t
hinking.Thay er-
Bacon( 2000)cont rastst heembodi edandsoci ally
embeddedl ear ni
ngofherel ement aryschool student sinaMont essorischool ,whousedt heir
i
magi nati
on, intui
tionandemot ionsaswel last heirreason, withconcept i
onsofcr iti
calthinking
as

thi
nkingt
hati
susedtocr
it
iqueargument
s,offerj
usti
fi
cat
ions,
andmakej udgment
saboutwhat
arethegoodr
easons,
ort
her i
ghtanswer
s.(Thayer-
Bacon2000:127–128)

Alston(2001)report
st hatherstudentsi
nawomen’sst udi
escl asswereabletoseetheflawsin
theCinderel
lamy ththatpervadesmuchr omanti
cfi
ctionbutint hei
rownromanticr
elati
onships
stil
lact
edasi fall
fai
lureswer ethewoman’sfaul
tandst i
llacceptedthenot
ionsofl
ov eatfi
rst
sightandliv
inghappilyeverafter.St
udent
s,shewri
tes,should

beabl
etoconnectt
hei
rint
ell
ect
ual
cri
ti
quet
oamor
eaf
fect
ive,
somat
ic,
andet
hical
accountof
maki ngr i
skychoicesthathav esexist,
racist
,classist
,famili
al,
sexual,orotherconsequences
forthemsel vesandt hosebothnearandf ar…crit
icalthi
nkingthatreadsargument s,t
exts,or
practicesmer el
yont hesurfacewi t
houtconnect ionstofeeli
ng/desiri
ng/doingoracti
onl acks
anet hicaldepththatshoul
di nfusethediffer
encebet weenmer ecogniti
veactivi
tyand
somet hi
ngwewantt ocallcri
tical
thinki
ng.(Alston2001: 34)

Somecr it
icsportr
aysuchbi asesasunfai
rtowomen.Thay er-
Bacon( 1992),forexample,has
chargedmoder ncriti
calthinki
ngtheorywithbei ngsexist,onthegr oundthatitseparatesthe
selffr
om theobjectandcausesonet oloset ouchwi thone’ si
nnerv oi
ce,andt husstigmati
zes
women, who( sheasser ts)li
nkselft
oobjectandl istentot hei
rinnervoice.Herchargedoesnot
i
mpl ythatwomenasagr oupareonaveragel essabl ethanment oanalyzeandev aluate
arguments.Facione( 1990c)foundnodifferencebysexi nperformanceonhi sCalif
orniaCri
tical
Thinki
ngSkill
sTest .Kuhn( 1991:280–281)f oundnodi ff
erencebysexi neitherthedisposit
ion
orthecompet encet oengagei nargumentativethinking.

Thecrit
icsproposeav ar
ietyofremediesforthebiasesthattheyall
ege.I
ngeneral,theydonot
proposetoeliminateordownpl aycri
ti
calthi
nkingasaneducat ionalgoal
.Rat
her,theypropose
toconceptuali
zecriti
calthinki
ngdif
ferent
lyandt ochangeitspedagogyaccordi
ngly.Their
pedagogicalproposalsariselogi
cal
lyfrom t
heirobject
ions.Theycanbesummar izedasf ol
lows:

Focusonar gumentnetworkswit
hdialect
icalexchangesrefl
ecti
ngcontest
ingpoint
sofvi
ew
ratherthanonatomicargument
s,soast odev el
op“strongsense”cr
it
icalt
hinki
ngthat
transcendsegocent
ri
candsociocentr
icbiases(Paul1981,1984).

Fost
ercl
osenesstot
hesubject
-mat
terandf
eel
i
ngconnect
edt
oot
her
sinor
dert
oinf
orma
humanedemocracy(
Marti
n1992).

Devel
op“const
ructi
vethi
nking”asasocialact
ivi
tyi
nacommuni tyofphysi
cal
l
yembodi
edand
soci
all
yembeddedinquir
erswithpersonalvoi
ceswhovaluenotonlyr
easonbutal
so
i
maginati
on,i
ntui
ti
onandemot i
on(Thayer
-Bacon2000)
.

I
ndevel
opingcr
it
icalt
hinki
nginschool
subject
s,tr
eatasi
mpor
tantnei
therski
l
lsnor
di
sposi
ti
onsbutopeni
ngwor l
dsofmeaning(Alst
on2001)
.

Att
endtothedevelopmentofcri
ti
cal
thi
nkingdi
sposit
ionsaswellasski
l
ls,
andadoptt
he
“cr
it
ical
pedagogy”pract
isedandadv
ocatedbyFrei
re(1968[1970]
)andhooks(
1994)(
Dalgl
eish,
Gir
ard,&Davi
es2017) .

Acommont
hreadi
nthesepr
oposal
sist
reat
mentofcr
it
ical
thi
nki
ngasasoci
al,
int
eract
ive,
personal l
yengagedact ivitylikethatofaqui lti
ngbeeorabar n-raising(Thayer-
Bacon2000)
ratherthanasani ndividual ,soli
tary,di stancedact i
vitysymbol izedbyRodi n’
sTheThi nker .One
cangetav i
v i
ddescr iptionofeducat ionwi tht hef ormert ypeofgoal fr
om thewr iti
ngsofbel l
hooks( 1994,2010) .Cr i
tical thi
nkingf orheri sopen- mindeddi alect i
calexchangeacr oss
opposi ngst andpointsandf rom mul t
ipl eper spect ives,aconcept ionsimilartoPaul ’s“st rong
sense”cr iti
calthinking( Paul 1981) .Sheabandonst hest r
uct ureofdomi nati
onint het raditi
onal
classroom.I nani ntroduct orycour seonbl ackwomenwr i
ters, forexampl e,sheassi gns
student stowr iteanaut obiogr aphical par agr aphaboutanear l
yr acialmemor y,thent or eadit
aloudast heot herslisten, thusaf fir
mi ngt heuni quenessandv alueofeachv oi
ceandcr eati
nga
communal awar enessoft hedi versit
yoft hegr oup’sexper iences( hooks1994: 84) .Her
“engagedpedagogy ”i st hussi mi l
artot he“ f
reedom undergui dance”i mplement edi nJohn
Dewey ’sLabor atorySchool ofChicagoi nt helate1890sandear l
y1900s.I ti
ncor porat est he
dialogue, anchoredi nstruct ion,andment oringt hatAbr ami (2015)f oundtobemostef fectivei
n
i
mpr ovingcr i
ti
cal t
hinkingski ll
sanddi sposi ti
ons.

12.
3Rel
ati
onshi
pofCr
it
ical
Thi
nki
ngt
oOt
herTy
pesofThi
nki
ng

Whati stherelationshipofcrit
icalthinkingtoproblem solving, decision-maki ng,
higher -order
thi
nking,creati
vet hinki
ng,andot herr ecogni
zedt y
pesoft hinking?One’ sanswert ot hisquest i
on
obviouslydependsonhowonedef i
nest hetermsusedi nthequest ion.Ifcrit
icalthinkingi s
conceivedbr oadlytocov eranycar efulthi
nkingaboutanyt opicf oranypur pose,thenpr oblem
solvi
nganddeci sionmaki ngwi l
lbeki ndsofcrit
icalthinki
ng, iftheyar edonecar efull
y.
Hist
or i
call
y,‘
crit
ical thi
nki
ng’and‘ problem solvi
ng’wer etwonamesf orthesamet hing.Ifcrit
ical
thi
nkingisconcei vedmor enarrowlyasconsi sti
ngsol elyofappr aisal ofintel
lect
ual product s,
thenitwillbedisjointwithproblem sol vi
nganddeci sionmaki ng,whi char econst r
uct i
ve.

Bloom’staxonomyofeducat i
onalobj ecti
vesusedt hephr ase“ intel
lectual abi
li
ti
esandskills”for
whathadbeenl abeled“crit
icalt
hinking”bysome, “r
eflectivethinking”byDeweyandot hers,and
“probl
em solving”byst i
llot
hers(Bl oom etal.1956:38) .Thus, theso- call
ed“ hi
gher
-order
thi
nkingskil
ls”att hetaxonomy ’
st opl ev
elsofanalysis, synthesisandev aluati
onarejustcrit
ical
thi
nkingskil
ls,althoughtheydonotcomewi thgeneral cri
teriafortheirassessment( Ennis
1981b).Ther evisedversionofBloom’ staxonomy( Ander sonetal .2001)l i
kewiset
reatscriti
cal
thi
nkingascut tingacrossthoset ypesofcogni ti
veprocesst hatinv ol
v emor ethanremember ing
(Andersonetal .2001:269–270) .Fordet ail
s,seetheSuppl ementonHi story.

Astocreati
vet
hinki
ng,i
tover
lapswi
thcrit
icalt
hinking(Bail
in1987,1988)
.Thi
nki
ngaboutthe
expl
anati
onofsomephenomenonorev ent,asinFer r
yboat,r
equir
escreat
ivei
maginat
ioni
n
const
ruct
ingpl
ausibl
eexpl
anator
yhypotheses.Likewise,t
hinki
ngaboutapoli
cyquesti
on,
asin
Candi
dat
e,requi
rescreat
ivi
tyi
ncomi ngupwit
hopti
ons.Conv
ersely
,cr
eat
ivi
tyinanyfi
eldneeds
tobebal
ancedbycrit
icalappr
aisal
ofthedr
aftpai
nti
ngornovelormat
hematicalt
heor
y.

Bi
bli
ogr
aphy

Abrami,
Phil
ipC.,RobertM.Ber nard,
EugeneBor okhov ski
, Dav
idI.Waddingt
on,C.AnneWade,
andTonjePerson,2015,“
StrategiesforTeachi
ngSt udent stoThinkCri
ti
call
y:AMeta-anal
ysi
s”,
ReviewofEducati
onalResearch, 85(
2):275–314.doi:10.3102/0034654314551063

Aiki
n,Wil
for
dM. ,1942,
TheSt
oryoftheEight-
yearStudy,
withConcl
usi
onsand
Recommendat i
ons,Vol
umeIofAdventur
einAmer icanEducat
ion,
NewYorkandLondon:
Harper&Brother
s.[Ai
ki
n1942avai
l
ableonline]

Alst
on,Kal
,1995,“
Beggi
ngtheQuest
ion:
IsCri
ti
calThi
nki
ngBi
ased?
”,Educat
ional
Theor
y,45(
2):
225–233.doi
:10.
1111/
j.
1741-
5446.
1995.
00225.x

–––,2001,“Re/
Thi
nkingCri
ti
cal
Thinki
ng:TheSeduct
ionsofEvery
dayLif
e”,
Studi
esi
n
Phi
losophyandEducati
on,
20(1)
:27–40.doi
:10.
1023/
A:1005247128053

AmericanEducat ional
ResearchAssociati
on,2014,St
andardsf
orEducat i
onaland
PsychologicalTesti
ng/Amer icanEducati
onalResear
chAssociat
ion,Amer i
canPsychologi
cal
Associati
on, Nat
ionalCounci
lonMeasur ementinEducati
on,Washington,DC:American
EducationalResearchAssoci
at i
on.

Anderson,Lori
nW.,DavidR.Kr
athwohl,Pet
erW.Air
iasi
an,Kathl
eenA.Crui
kshank,
RichardE.
Mayer,PaulR.Pint
ri
ch,JamesRaths,andMerl
inC.Witt
rock,2001,
ATaxonomyf orLearni
ng,
TeachingandAssessing:ARevi
sionofBloom’
sTaxonomyofEducat i
onalObj
ecti
ves,NewYork:
Longman, complet
eediti
on.

Bail
i
n, Shar
on,1987,
“Cr
it
ical
andCr
eat
iveThi
nki
ng”
,Inf
ormal
Logi
c,9(
1):
23–30.[
Bai
l
in1987
avai
lableonl
ine]

–––,1988,Achievi
ngExt
raor
dinar
yEnds:
AnEssayonCr
eat
ivi
ty,
Dor
drecht
:Kl
uwer
.
doi
:
10.1007/978-94-
009-
2780-
3

–––,1995,“
IsCrit
icalThinki
ngBiased?Cl
ari
fi
cati
onsandI
mpl
i
cat
ions”
,Educat
ional
Theor
y,
45(
2):191–197.doi:
10.1111/j
.1741-
5446.
1995.00191.
x

Bai
li
n,SharonandMarkBat t
ersby,2009,
“Inqui
ry:
ADial
ecti
cal
Approacht
oTeachi
ngCri
ti
cal
Thi
nking”
,inJuhoRit
ola(ed.
),ArgumentCultur
es:Pr
oceedi
ngsofOSSA09,CD-
ROM (
pp.1–10)
,
Windsor,
ON: OSSA.[
Bail
i
n&Bat ter
sby2009av ai
l
abl
eonli
ne]

–––,2016a,
“Fost
eri
ngt
heVi
rt
uesofI
nqui
ry”
,Topoi
,35(
2):
367–374.doi
:
10.
1007/
s11245-
015-
9307-
6
–––,2016b,Reasonint
heBal
ance:
AnI
nqui
ryAppr
oacht
oCr
it
ical
Thi
nki
ng,
Indi
anapol
i
s:
Hacket
t,2ndedit
ion.

–––,2021,“I
nquir
y:TeachingforReasonedJudgment
”,inDani
el Fasko,
Jr.andFr
ankFai
r(eds.
),
Cri
ti
calThi
nkingandReasoning:Theory,Devel
opment
,Inst
ruct
ion,andAssessment,
Lei
den:Bri
l
l,
pp.31–46.doi:
10.1163/9789004444591_003

Bail
in,
Sharon,Rol
andCase,JerroldR.Coombs,andLeroiB.Dani
els,1999a,“Common
Misconcepti
onsofCri
ti
calThinking”
,Jour
nalofCurr
icul
um Studi
es,31(3):269–283.
doi:
10.1080/
002202799183124

–––,1999b,
“Concept
uali
zi
ngCrit
ical
Thi
nki
ng”
,Jour
nal
ofCur
ri
cul
um St
udi
es,
31(
3):
285–302.
doi
:
10.1080/
002202799183133

Bl
air
,J.Ant
hony,2021,Studi
esinCri
tical
Thinki
ng,Windsor,
ON: WindsorStudi
esi
n
Ar
gumentati
on,2ndediti
on.[
Avail
ableonli
neat
ht
tps:
//wi
ndsor
.schol
arsport
al.
inf
o/omp/ i
ndex.
php/wsia/
catal
og/book/106]

Berman, Al
anM. ,
SethJ.Schwartz,Wi
ll
iam M.Kur
ti
nes,andStev
enL.Ber
man, 2001,“
The
ProcessofExplorat
ioninI
denti
tyFormati
on:TheRol
eofSt y
leandCompetence”
,Journal
of
Adolescence,
24(4):513–528.doi:
10.
1006/j
ado.
2001.
0386

Bl
ack,Beth(
ed.)
,2012,
AnAt
oZofCr
it
ical
Thi
nki
ng,
London:
Cont
inuum I
nter
nat
ional
Publ
ishi
ngGroup.

Bl
oom,BenjaminSamuel,MaxD.Engel
hart
,EdwardJ.Furst
,WalterH.Hil
l
,andDav
idR.
Krat
hwohl
,1956,TaxonomyofEducati
onal
Object
ives.HandbookI:Cogni
ti
veDomain,
NewYor
k:
Davi
dMcKay .

Boar
dman,Frank,
NancyM.Cavender,
andHowardKahane,2018,Logi
candCont
empor
ary
Rhet
ori
c:TheUseofReasoni
nEv er
ydayLi
fe,
Bost
on:Cengage,13thedi
ti
on.

Browne,M.NeilandStuartM.Keeley
,2018,Aski
ngt
heRi
ghtQuest
ions:
AGui
det
oCr
it
ical
Thinki
ng,Hoboken,NJ:Pearson,
12thedit
ion.

Centerf
orAssessment&I mprovementofLearni
ng,2017,
Cri
ti
cal
Thi
nki
ngAssessmentTest
,
Cookevi
ll
e,TN:TennesseeTechnologi
calUni
versi
ty.

Cleghorn,Paul.2021.“
Cr i
ti
calThi
nkingintheElementarySchool:Pr
acti
calGuidancef
orBui
lding
aCul t
ureofThi nki
ng”,
inDanielFasko,Jr.andFrankFair(
eds.)
,Crit
ical
Thinki
ngandReasoning:
Theory,Development,Inst
ruct
ion,andAssessment ,Lei
den:Bri
l
l,pp.150–167.doi:
10.1163/9789004444591_ 010

Cohen,Jacob,1988,
Stat
isti
cal
PowerAnalysi
sfort
heBehav
ior
alSci
ences,
Hil
l
sdal
e,NJ:
LawrenceErl
baum Associat
es,2ndedi
ti
on.
Col
l
egeBoard,
1983,AcademicPrepar
ati
onforColl
ege.WhatSt
udentsNeedtoKnowandBe
Abl
etoDo,NewYork:Col
legeEnt
ranceExaminat
ionBoard,
ERICdocumentED232517.

CommissionontheRelati
onofSchoolandCol
l
egeoftheProgr
essi
veEducati
onAssoci
ati
on,
1943,
Thirt
ySchoolsTellThei
rSt
ory,
VolumeVofAdventur
einAmericanEducat
ion,
NewYork
andLondon:Har
per&Br other
s.

Council
forAidtoEducat
ion,2017,
CLA+St udentGuide.Avai
l
ableat
htt
p:/
/cae.
org/i
mages/uploads/
pdf/CLA_
Student_Guide_I
nst
it
uti
on.
pdf
;lastaccessed202207
16.

Dal
gleish,Adam,Patri
ckGi
rard,andMar
eeDavies,
2017,“
Cri
ti
calThinki
ng,Bi
asandFemini
st
Phi
l
osophy :
Buil
dingaBett
erFrameworkthr
oughColl
abor
ati
on”,
InformalLogi
c,37(
4):
351–369.
[
Dalgleishetal
.avail
abl
eonli
ne]

Dewey
,John,
1910,
HowWeThi
nk,
Bost
on:
D.C.Heat
h.[
Dewey1910av
ail
abl
eonl
i
ne]

–––,1916,
DemocracyandEducat
ion:
AnI
ntr
oduct
iont
othePhi
l
osophyofEducat
ion,
New
Yor
k:Macmill
an.

–––,1933,HowWeThi
nk:
ARestatementoft
heRel
ati
onofRef
lect
iveThi
nki
ngt
otheEducat
ive
Pr
ocess,Lexi
ngt
on,
MA:D.
C.Heat
h.

–––,1936,“
TheTheor
yoft
heChi
cagoExper
iment
”,Appendi
xIIofMay
hew&Edwar
ds1936:
463–477.

–––,
1938,
Logi
c:TheTheor
yofI
nqui
ry,
NewYor
k:Henr
yHol
tandCompany
.

Dominguez,Carol
i
ne(coord.)
, 2018a,AEuropeanCollect
ionoftheCri
ti
calThinki
ngSki
l
lsand
Di
sposit
ionsNeededinDifferentProfessi
onalFi
eldsforthe21stCent
ury,
VilaReal,
Por
tugal
:
UTAD.Av ai
l
ableatht
tp:
//bit.
ly/CRITHINKEDUO1;lastaccessed20220716.

–––( coor
d.)
,2018b,AEuropeanRevi
ewonCr i
ti
cal
Thinki
ngEducati
onalPr
act
icesinHigher
Educati
onInst
it
uti
ons,Vi
laReal:UTAD.Av
ail
abl
eathtt
p://
bit
.l
y/CRI
THINKEDUO2;lastaccessed
20220716.

–––(coord.)
,2018c,TheCRITHINKEDUEuropeanCourseonCri
ti
cal
Thinki
ngEducat
ionf
or
Uni
versi
tyTeachers:
From Concepti
ontoDeli
ver
y,Vi
laReal
:UTAD.Avai
l
ableat
ht
tp:
/bit
.l
y/CRITHI
NKEDU03; l
astaccessed20220716.

Domi nguezCarol
i
neandRi taPayan-Car
reir
a(eds.)
,2019,Pr
omoti
ngCr i
ti
calThi
nki
ngin
EuropeanHigherEducati
onInsti
tut
ions:TowardsanEducati
onal
Protocol,
Vil
aReal:UTAD.
Avail
ableathtt
p:/
bit
.l
y/CRITHINKEDU04; l
astaccessed20220716.

Enni
s,Rober
tH.,1958,
“AnApprai
sal
oftheWatson-
GlaserCrit
icalThi
nkingApprai
sal”
,The
Jour
nalofEducati
onal
Resear
ch,52(
4):
155–158.doi
:10.1080/00220671.1958.
10882558
–––,1962,
“AConceptofCri
ti
cal
Thinking:APr
oposedBasisf
orResearchontheTeachi
ngand
Eval
uat
ionofCr
it
ical
Thinki
ngAbil
it
y”,
Har v
ardEducat
ional
Revi
ew,32(1):
81–111.

–––,1981a,“
AConcept
ionofDeduct
iveLogi
cal
Compet
ence”
,Teachi
ngPhi
l
osophy
,4(
3/4)
:
337–385.doi
:
10.
5840/t
eachphi
l
198143/429

–––,1981b,“
EightFallaci
esinBloom’sTaxonomy”,i
nC.J.B.Macmi l
lan(ed.
),Phil
osophyof
Educat
ion1980:ProceedingsoftheThirt
y-sev
ent
hAnnual Meet
ingoft hePhi
losophyof
Educat
ionSoci
ety,Bloomington,
IL:Phil
osophyofEducat
ionSociet
y,pp.269–273.

–––,1984,
“ Pr
obl
emsinTest
ingI
nformal
Logic,
Cri
ti
cal
Thi
nki
ng,
Reasoni
ngAbi
l
ity
”,I
nfor
mal
Logi
c,6(
1):3–9.[
Enni
s1984avai
l
ableonl
ine]

–––, 1987,“ATaxonomyofCrit
icalThinki
ngDisposi
ti
onsandAbi
li
ti
es”,
inJoanBoy
koffBar
on
andRober tJ.St
ernber
g(eds.
),TeachingThinki
ngSkil
ls:
Theor
yandPracti
ce,
NewYork:W.H.
Freeman,pp.9–26.

–––,1989,“Cr
it
icalThi
nkingandSubjectSpeci
fi
cit
y:Clar
if
icat
ionandNeededResear
ch”
,
Educat
ional
Researcher,
18(3):4–10.doi
:10.
3102/0013189X018003004

–––,1991,“
Crit
ical
Thinki
ng:AStr
eaml
i
nedConcept
ion”
,Teachi
ngPhi
l
osophy
,14(
1):
5–24.
doi
:
10.5840/t
eachphil
19911412

–––,1996,“
Crit
ical
Thinki
ngDisposi
ti
ons:
TheirNat
ureandAssessabi
l
ity
”,I
nfor
mal
Logi
c,
18(
2–3):165–182.[Enni
s1996avail
abl
eonli
ne]

–––,1998,“
IsCri
ti
calThi
nki
ngCul
tur
all
yBi
ased?
”,Teachi
ngPhi
l
osophy
,21(
1):
15–33.
doi
:
10.5840/t
eachphi
l
19982113

–––,2011,“Cr
it
icalThinki
ng:Refl
ecti
onandPer specti
vePartI”
,Inqui
ry:
Cri
ti
cal
Thi
nki
ngacr
oss
theDi
scipl
i
nes,26(1):4–18.doi:
10.5840/
inqui
ryctnews20112613

–––,2013,“
Cri
ti
cal
Thi
nkingacrosstheCurr
icul
um: TheWisdom CTACPr ogram”,I
nqui
ry:
Cr
it
icalThi
nki
ngacr
osstheDisci
pli
nes,28(
2):25–45.doi
:
10.5840/i
nqui
ryct20132828

–––,2016, “
Defi
nit
ion:AThr ee-
DimensionalAnal
ysiswithBeari
ngonKeyConcept s”,i
nPatri
ck
BondyandLaur aBenacquista(eds.)
,Argumentat
ion,Object
ivi
ty,
andBias:Proceedingsofthe
11thInternati
onalConferenceoftheOnt ar
ioSoci
etyfortheStudyofArgument at
ion(OSSA) ,
18–21May2016, Wi ndsor,ON:OSSA, pp.1–19.Avail
ableat
htt
p:/
/ scholar
.uwi
ndsor.ca/ossaarchi
ve/OSSA11/papersandcommentari
es/105;lastaccessed
20220716.

–––,2018,“
Cr i
ti
calThinkingAcr
osst
heCur
ri
cul
um:
AVi
sion”
,Topoi
,37(
1):
165–184.
doi
:
10.1007/s11245-016-9401-
4

Enni
s,Rober
tH.
,andJasonMi
l
lman,
1971,
Manual
forCor
nel
lCr
it
ical
Thi
nki
ngTest
,Lev
elX,
andCornel
lCr
it
ical
Thi
nki
ngTest
,Lev
elZ,
Urbana,
IL:
Cri
ti
cal
Thi
nki
ngPr
oject
,Uni
ver
sit
yof
I
ll
inoi
s.

Enni
s,Rober
tH.
,JasonMil
l
man,andThomasNorber
tTomko,1985,
Cornel
lCr
it
icalThi
nki
ng
Test
sLevelX&LevelZ:
Manual
,Paci
fi
cGrov
e,CA:MidwestPubl
i
cati
on,3r
dedi
tion.

–––,2005,
Cor
nel
lCri
ti
cal
Thinki
ngTest
sLev
elX&Lev
elZ:
Manual
,Seasi
de,
CA:
Cri
ti
cal
Thi
nki
ngCompany,
5thedi
ti
on.

Ennis,RobertH.andEri
cWeir
,1985,
TheEnnis-Wei
rCr
it
ical
Thinki
ngEssayTest:
Test
,Manual
,
Cri
teria,
ScoringSheet
:AnI
nstr
umentforTeachi
ngandTesti
ng,Paci
fi
cGrove,
CA: Mi
dwest
Publicat
ions.

Faci
one,Pet
erA.,
1990a,Cri
ti
calThinking:AStat
ementofExpertConsensusforPurposesof
Educat
ional
AssessmentandInstr
uction,Resear
chFindi
ngsandRecommendat i
onsPr epar
ed
fort
heCommi t
teeonPre-Col
legePhilosophyoftheAmericanPhi
losophi
calAssoci
ation,ERI
C
DocumentED315423.

–––,1990b,
Cali
for
niaCr
it
ical
Thi
nki
ngSki
l
lsTest
,CCTST–For
m A,
Mil
l
brae,
CA:
TheCal
i
for
nia
AcademicPr
ess.

–––,1990c,TheCal
if
orniaCr
it
icalThinki
ngSkil
l
sTest-
-Col
legeLevel
.Techni
cal
Report#3.
Gender
,Ethni
cit
y,Maj
or,CTSelf
-Esteem,andtheCCTST,ERICDocumentED326584.

–––,1992,Cali
for
niaCr
it
ical
Thi
nki
ngSki
l
lsTest
:CCTST–For
m B,
Mil
l
brae,
CA:
TheCal
i
for
nia
AcademicPress.

–––,2000,
“TheDi
sposit
ionTowardCrit
icalThi
nking:I
tsChar
acter
,Measurement,
and
Rel
ati
onshi
ptoCri
ti
calThinki
ngSki
ll
”,I
nformalLogic,
20(1)
:61–84.[Faci
one2000avai
l
abl
e
onl
i
ne]

Faci
one,PeterA.andNoreenC.Faci
one,
1992,
CCTDI
:ADi
sposi
ti
onI
nvent
ory
,Mi
l
lbr
ae,
CA:
The
Cali
for
niaAcademicPress.

Facione,
PeterA.
,Nor
eenC.Facione,
andCarolAnnF.Gi
ancarl
o,2001,Cal
i
for
niaCrit
ical
Thinki
ngDisposi
ti
onI
nvent
ory:
CCTDI :I
nvent
oryManual
,Mil
lbr
ae,CA:TheCal
ifor
niaAcademi
c
Press.

Facione,
PeterA.,Carol
A.Sánchez,andNoreenC.Faci
one,1994,AreCol
l
egeStudent
s
DisposedtoThink?,Mil
lbr
ae,
CA: TheCal
if
orniaAcademicPress.ERI
CDocumentED368311.

Fi
sher
,Al
ec,
andMi chael
Scriv
en,1997,
Cr i
ti
calThinki
ng:I
tsDefi
nit
ionandAssessment
,
Norwi
ch:
Centr
eforResearchinCri
ti
calThi
nking,Univ
ersi
tyofEastAngl
ia.

Fr
eir
e,Paul
o,1968[
1970]
,Pedagogi
adoOpri
mido.Tr
anslat
edasPedagogyoft
heOppr
essed,
MyraBergmanRamos(tr
ans.
),NewYor
k:Conti
nuum,1970.
Giger
enzer
,Gerd,
2001,“
TheAdapti
veToolbox”
,inGer
dGiger
enzerandRei
nhardSel
ten(
eds.
),
BoundedRati
onal
ity
:TheAdapt
iveTool
box,Cambri
dge,MA:MITPress,
pp.37–50.

Glaser
,EdwardMay nar
d,1941,AnExper
imenti
ntheDevel
opmentofCr
it
ical
Thi
nki
ng,
NewYor
k:
BureauofPubli
cat
ions,Teacher
sColl
ege,Col
umbiaUni
ver
sit
y.

Groarke,
LeoA.andChr
ist
opherW.Ti
ndale,
2012,GoodReasoni
ngMat t
ers!AConst
ruct
ive
ApproachtoCr
it
ical
Thi
nking,
DonMil
ls,
ON: Oxf
ordUniv
ersi
tyPress,
5thedit
ion.

Halpern,
DianeF.,1998,“
TeachingCr i
ti
calThinki
ngforTransf
erAcrossDomains:Di
sposi
ti
on,
Ski
lls,
Struct
ureTraini
ng,andMet acognit
iveMonitor
ing”
,AmericanPsychol
ogi
st,
53(4)
:
449–455.doi:10.
1037/0003-066X.53.
4.449

–––,2016,Manual
:Halper
nCr i
ti
cal
ThinkingAssessment
,Mödli
ng,Aust
ri
a:Schuhf
ri
ed.
Avai
l
ableathtt
ps:/
/pdf
coffee.
com/hct
a-test-
manual-
pdf
-f
ree.
html
;l
astaccessed20220716.

Hamby,
Benj
amin,2014,TheVi
rt
uesofCri
ti
cal
Thinker
s,Doct
oral
disser
tat
ion,
Phi
l
osophy
,
McMast
erUni
versi
ty.[
Hamby2014avai
labl
eonli
ne]

–––,2015,“
Wi l
l
ingnesst oInqui
re:TheCar
dinal
Cri
ti
calThi
nkingVi
rtue”,i
nMar t
inDavi
esand
RonaldBar
nett(eds.
),ThePal gr
aveHandbookofCri
ti
calThi
nkingi
nHi gherEducat
ion,
New
York:
Palgr
aveMacmi llan,pp.77–87.

Haran, Ur
iel
,I
lanaRi
tov,
andBarbaraA.Meller
s,2013,
“TheRol
eofActi
velyOpen-
mi nded
ThinkinginI
nformat
ionAcqui
sit
ion,Accur
acy,andCal
ibr
ati
on”
,JudgmentandDecisionMaki
ng,
8(3):188–201.

Hatcher
,DonaldandKevinPossin,2021,“
Commentary
: Thi
nkingCrit
ical
l
yaboutCrit
ical
Thi
nkingAssessment”,i
nDanielFasko,Jr
.andFr
ankFair(eds.)
,Cri
ti
calThi
nkingandReasoni
ng:
Theory,
Devel
opment ,
Instr
uct
ion,andAssessment,
Leiden:Bri
ll
,pp.298–322.doi
:
10.
1163/9789004444591_017

Haynes,Ada,Eli
zabet
hLisic,
KevinHarr
is,Kati
eLemi ng,Ky
leShanks,andBarryStei
n,2015,
“Usi
ngtheCriti
calThi
nkingAssessmentTest( CAT)asaModel f
orDesigni
ngWi t
hin-
Course
Assessments:ChangingHowFacultyAssessSt udentLear
ning”,I
nqui
ry:Cr
it
ical
Thinki
ng
AcrosstheDisci
pli
nes,30(
3):38–48.doi:
10.5840/i
nquir
yct201530316

Haynes,AdaandBar ryStein,
2021,“
Observat
ionsf
rom aLong-Term Ef
for
ttoAssessand
I
mpr oveCr i
ti
calThi
nking”,
inDani
elFasko,Jr
.andFrankFai
r(eds.)
,Cri
ti
calThinki
ngand
Reasoning:Theory,
Dev el
opment,I
nstr
ucti
on,andAssessment,Lei
den:Br
il
l,pp.231–254.doi
:
10.
1163/ 9789004444591_014

Hiner,AmandaL.2021.“ Equi
ppi
ngStudent
sforSuccessi
nCollegeandBeyond:Pl
acingCri
ti
cal
ThinkingI
nstr
uctionattheHeartofaGener
alEducati
onProgr
am” ,
inDani
elFasko,Jr
.andFrank
Fair(eds.
),Cr
it
icalThi
nkingandReasoni
ng:Theor
y,Devel
opment,I
nstr
uct
ion,andAssessment,
Lei
den:
Bri
l
l,pp.188–208.doi
:10.
1163/
9789004444591_
012

Hitchcock,Davi
d,2017,
“Cri
ti
calThinki
ngasanEducat
ionalI
deal
”,inhi
sOnReasoningand
Argument :
EssaysinInf
ormalLogicandonCri
ti
calThi
nking,
Dordrecht
:Spr
inger
,pp.477–497.
doi:10.
1007/978-3-
319-
53562-3_
30

–––,2021,“SevenPhil
osophicalI
mpli
cati
onsofCrit
icalThi
nking:
Themes,Vari
ati
ons,
I
mpl i
cat
ions”,
inDanielFasko,Jr
.andFrankFai
r(eds.)
,Cri
ti
calThinki
ngandReasoni
ng:Theor
y,
Devel
opment ,
Inst
ructi
on,andAssessment,Lei
den:Bri
ll
,pp.9–30.doi:
10.
1163/9789004444591_ 002

hooks,bel
l,
1994,Teachi
ngt
oTr
ansgr
ess:
Educat
ionast
hePr
act
iceofFr
eedom,
NewYor
kand
London:Routl
edge.

–––,
2010,
Teachi
ngCr
it
ical
Thi
nki
ng:
Pract
ical
Wisdom,
NewYor
kandLondon:
Rout
ledge.

Johnson,
RalphH.
,1992,
“TheProblem ofDef
ini
ngCri
ti
calThi
nki
ng”,
inStephenP, Nor
ri
s(ed.
),
TheGeneral
i
zabi
li
tyofCr
it
ical
Thinking,
NewYor k:
Teacher
sColl
egePress,pp.38–53.

Kahane,
Howard,
1971,
LogicandCont
empor
aryRhet
ori
c:TheUseofReasoni
nEv
ery
dayLi
fe,
Bel
mont,CA:
Wadsworth.

Kahneman,
Dani
el,
2011,
Thi
nki
ng,
FastandSl
ow,
NewYor
k:Far
rar
,St
rausandGi
roux.

Kahneman,Daniel
,Oli
vi
erSi
bony
,&CassR.Sunst
ein,
2021,
Noi
se:
AFl
awi
nHumanJudgment
,
NewYork:Li
ttl
e,BrownSpar
k.

Kenyon,Ti
m, andGui
ll
aumeBeaul
ac,2014,“
Cri
ti
calThinki
ngEducat
ionandDebasi
ng”
,Inf
ormal
Logi
c,34(4)
:341–363.[Keny
on&Beaulac2014avai
lableonl
i
ne]

Kr
athwohl,
Dav i
dR.,BenjaminS.Bl
oom,andBer
tram B.Masi
a,1964,
TaxonomyofEducat
ional
Obj
ecti
ves,HandbookII:
Af f
ect
iveDomai
n,NewYork:Davi
dMcKay .

Kuhn,Deanna,
1991,TheSkil
lsofAr
gument
,NewYor
k:Cambr
idgeUni
ver
sit
yPr
ess.
doi
:10.
1017/CBO9780511571350

–––,2019,“
Crit
icalThi
nki
ngasDi
scour
se”
,HumanDev
elopment
,62(
3):
146–164.
doi
:
10.1159/000500171

Lipman,
Matt
hew,1987,“
Crit
ical
Thi
nki
ng–WhatCanI
tBe?
”,Anal
yti
cTeachi
ng,
8(1)
:5–12.
[Li
pman1987avai
l
ableonli
ne]

–––,
2003,
Thi
nki
ngi
nEducat
ion,
Cambr
idge:
Cambr
idgeUni
ver
sit
yPr
ess,
2ndedi
ti
on.

Lof
tus,El
i
zabet
hF.,2017,“Eavesdroppi
ngonMemor
y”,
Annual
Rev
iewofPsy
chol
ogy
,68:
1–18.
doi
:10.
1146/
annur
ev -
psych-010416-044138
Makaiau,
AmberSt rong,2021,“
TheGoodThi nker’
sTool Ki
t:HowtoEngageCrit
icalThinki
ng
andReasoninginSecondaryEducati
on”,i
nDaniel Fasko,Jr.andFr
ankFair(
eds.),
Crit
ical
Thi
nkingandReasoning:Theory,Devel
opment,Instruct
ion,andAssessment
,Leiden:Bril
l
,pp.
168–187.doi:
10.1163/9789004444591_011

Mart
in,
JaneRoland,1992,“Cr
iti
calThinki
ngf
oraHumaneWor l
d”,i
nSt
ephenP.Nor r
is(ed.
),
TheGener
ali
zabi
li
tyofCrit
icalThi
nking,NewYor
k:Teacher
sCol
legePr
ess,pp.163–180.

Mayhew,Kather
ineCamp, andAnnaCampEdwar ds,
1936,TheDeweySchool:
TheLabor
ator
y
Schooloft
heUniv ersi
tyofChicago,
1896–1903,
NewYor k:
Applet
on-
Centur
y.[May
hew&
Edwards1936av ail
ableonli
ne]

McPeck,
JohnE.
,1981,
Cri
ti
cal
Thi
nki
ngandEducat
ion,
NewYor
k:St
.Mar
ti
n’
sPr
ess.

Moore,
BrookeNoel
andRi
char
dPar
ker
,2020,
Cri
ti
cal
Thi
nki
ng,
NewYor
k:McGr
aw-
Hil
l
,13t
h
edi
ti
on.

Nicker
son,Ray
mondS.,1998,“
Confi
rmati
onBias:
AUbi qui
tousPhenomenoni
nManyGui
ses”
,
ReviewofGeneral
Psy
chology
,2(2)
:175–220.doi
:10.
1037/1089-
2680.
2.2.
175

Nieto,
AnaMar ia,
andJor geValenzuel
a,2012,“
AStudyoftheInt
ernalStr
uctureofCr
it
ical
Thinki
ngDi sposit
ions”,I
nquir
y:Cri
ti
calThi
nkingacr
osstheDisci
pli
nes,27(1)
:31–38.
doi:
10.5840/inqui
ryct20122713

Norri
s,StephenP.,1985,“Cont
rol
li
ngforBackgr
oundBel i
efsWhenDev el
opingMult
ipl
e-choi
ce
Cri
ti
cal Thi
nkingTests”
,Educati
onalMeasurement
:IssuesandPract
ice,7(3):
5–11.
doi
:10.1111/j
.1745-
3992.1988.
tb00437.
x

Nor
ri
s,St
ephenP.andRober
tH.Enni
s,1989,
Evaluati
ngCri
ti
cal
Thinki
ng(ThePr
act
it
ioner
s’
Gui
detoTeachi
ngThi
nki
ngSeri
es),
Pacif
icGrov
e, CA:Mi
dwestPubli
cat
ions.

Nor
ri
s,StephenP.andRuthEli
zabet
hKing,
1983,TestonAppr
aisingObser
vati
ons,
St.John’s,
NL:
Inst
it
uteforEducat
ional
ResearchandDevel
opment,MemorialUni
ver
sit
yofNewfoundland.

–––,1984,TheDesi
gnofaCrit
ical
Thi
nki
ngTestonAppr
aisi
ngObservati
ons,
St.John’
s,NL:
I
nsti
tut
eforEducat
ional
Resear
chandDevel
opment,
Memor i
alUni
ver
sityofNewfoundl
and.
ERI
CDocumentED260083.

–––,1985,
TestonAppr
aisi
ngObservat
ions:Manual
,St
.John’
s,NL:I
nst
it
utef
orEducat
ional
Resear
chandDevel
opment,
Memor i
alUniver
sit
yofNewfoundl
and.

–––,1990a,
TestonAppr
aisi
ngObservat
ions,
St.John’
s,NL:I
nst
itut
eforEducat
ional
Resear
ch
andDevel
opment,Memor
ialUni
ver
sit
yofNewf oundl
and,2ndedi
ti
on.

–––,1990b,
TestonAppr
aisi
ngObservat
ions:Manual
,St
.John’
s,NL:I
nsti
tuteforEducat
ional
Resear
chandDevel
opment,Memori
alUniver
sit
yofNewfoundl
and,2ndedi
tion.
OCR[Oxford,
CambridgeandRSAExami nat
ions]
,2011,
AS/ALev el
GCE: Crit
icalThi
nki
ng–
H052,H452,Cambri
dge:OCR.Pastpapersavail
abl
eathtt
ps:
//pastpaper
s.co/ocr/?
dir
=A-
Lev
el/
Crit
ical
-Thi
nki
ng-H052-
H452;l
astaccessed20220716.

Ontar
ioMinist
ryofEducati
on,2013,TheOntar
ioCurr
icul
um Grades9to12:Soci
alSciencesand
Humanit
ies.Avai
labl
eat
htt
p:/
/www.edu.gov.
on.ca/
eng/curr
icul
um/secondar
y/ssci
ences9t
o122013.
pdf;
lastaccessed
20220716.

Passmor
e,JohnAr
thur
,1980,
ThePhi
l
osophyofTeachi
ng,
London:
Duckwor
th.

Paul
,Ri
chardW.,1981,“
Teachi
ngCrit
ical
Thinki
ngi
nthe‘Str
ong’Sense:AFocusonSelf
-
Decept
ion,Worl
dViews,andaDial
ect
icalModeofAnal
ysis”
,Inf
ormalLogi
c,4(
2):2–7.[
Paul
1981avail
abl
eonli
ne]

–––,1984,“
Cri
ti
calThi
nki
ng:
Fundament
alt
oEducat
ionf
oraFr
eeSoci
ety
”,Educat
ional
Leader
shi
p,42(
1):4–14.

–––,
1985,
“McPeck’
sMi
stakes”
,Inf
ormal
Logi
c,7(
1):
35–43.[
Paul
1985av
ail
abl
eonl
i
ne]

Paul
,Ri
chardW.andLi
ndaElder
,2006,TheMiniat
ureGuidet
oCrit
ical
Thi
nki
ng:
Concept
sand
Tool
s,Di
ll
onBeach,
CA:Foundat
ionforCri
ti
calThi
nking,
4thedi
ti
on.

Payett
e,Patri
cia,andEdnaRoss,2016,“MakingaCampus-WideCommi t
menttoCri
ti
cal
Thinki
ng:Insi
ghtsandPr omisi
ngPract
icesUtil
izi
ngt
hePaul-El
derAppr
oachattheUni
ver
sit
yof
Louisv
ill
e”,I
nquir
y :
Crit
ical
Thinki
ngAcrosstheDisci
pli
nes,
31(1):
98–110.
doi
:10.5840/i
nquiryct
20163118

Possi
n,Kevi
n,2008,“
AFieldGui
detoCri
tical
-Thi
nki
ngAssessment
”,Teachi
ngPhi
l
osophy
,31(
3):
201–228.doi
:10.
5840/t
eachphi
l
200831324

–––,
2013a,“
SomePr obl
emswitht
heHalpernCri
ti
calThi
nki
ngAssessment(HCTA)Test”,
I
nqui
ry:
Cri
ti
calThi
nki
ngacrosst
heDisci
pli
nes,
28(3):
4–12.doi
:
10.5840/
inqui
ryct
201328313

–––,2013b,“
ASer i
ousFlawint
heColl
egi
ateLear
ningAssessment(
CLA)Test
”,I
nfor
mal
Logi
c,
33(
3):390–405.[
Possin2013bavai
l
abl
eonli
ne]

–––,2013c,
“AFat
alFl
awi
ntheCol
l
egi
ateLear
ningAssessmentTest
”,AssessmentUpdat
e,25
(1)
:8–12.

–––,2014,“
Crit
iqueoftheWatson-
GlaserCri
ti
calThi
nki
ngApprai
sal
Test
:TheMoreYouKnow,
theLowerYourScore”
,Inf
ormalLogi
c,34(4)
:393–416.[
Possi
n2014avai
l
ableonl
i
ne]

–––, 2020,“
CATScan: ACr i
ti
calRevi
ewoftheCri
ti
cal-
Thi
nkingAssessmentTest
”,I
nfor
mal
Logic,40(3)
:489–508.[Avail
abl
eonlineat
htt
ps://i
nfor
mall
ogic.
ca/index.
php/i
nformal
_l
ogi
c/ar
ti
cle/
view/6243]
Rawl
s,John,
1971,
ATheor
yofJust
ice,
Cambr
idge,
MA:
Har
var
dUni
ver
sit
yPr
ess.

Rear
,David,
2019,“OneSi
zeFit
sAll?TheLimit
ati
onsofStandar
disedAssessmenti
nCr
it
ical
Thi
nking”
,Assessment&Eval
uati
oninHigherEducat
ion,
44(5):
664–675.doi:
10.
1080/02602938.
2018.
1526255

Rousseau,
Jean-
Jacques,
1762,
Émi
l
e,Amst
erdam:
JeanNéaul
me.

Schef
fl
er,
Isr
ael
,1960,
TheLanguageofEducat
ion,
Spr
ingf
iel
d,I
L:Char
lesC.Thomas.

Scri
ven,
Michael
,andRichardW.Paul ,1987,Defini
ngCr it
icalThinking,Draftst
atementwri
tt
en
fort
heNati
onalCouncilforExcel
lenceinCri
ticalThinki
ngI nstr
uction.Av ai
labl
eat
htt
p:/
/www.cri
ti
cal
thi
nking.or
g/pages/defi
ning-cri
ti
cal-
thinki
ng/766; lastaccessed20220716.

Sheff
iel
d,Clar
enceBurtonJr.
,2018,“
Promoti
ngCr i
ti
calThi
nkingi
nHigherEducati
on:My
Experi
encesastheInaugural
EugeneH.Fram Chairi
nAppli
edCr i
ti
cal
ThinkingatRochest
er
I
nstit
uteofTechnol
ogy”,Topoi,
37(1)
:155–163.doi:
10.
1007/s11245-
016-9392-
1

Siegel
,Har v
ey,1985,“McPeck,I
nformalLogi
candt heNatureofCri
ticalThi
nki
ng”,i
nDavid
Ny ber
g( ed.
),Phi
losophyofEducati
on1985:ProceedingsoftheFort
y -
Fir
stAnnualMeeti
ngof
thePhilosophyofEducati
onSociety,Nor
mal,I
L:PhilosophyofEducationSoci
ety,
pp.61–72.

–––,
1988,
Educat
ingReason:
Rat
ional
i
ty,
Cri
ti
cal
Thi
nki
ng,
andEducat
ion,
NewYor
k:Rout
ledge.

–––,1999,“
What( Good)AreThinki
ngDisposi
ti
ons?
”,Educat
ional
Theor
y,49(
2):
207–221.
doi
:
10.1111/j
.1741-
5446.1999.
00207.x

Si
mon,Her
bertA.
,1956,“
Rati
onalChoiceandtheSt
ruct
ureoft
heEnv
ironment
”,Psy
chol
ogi
cal
Revi
ew,
63(2)
:129–138.doi
:10.
1037/h0042769

Si
mpson,Eli
zabet
h,1966–67,“
TheClassi
fi
cati
onofEducat
ionalObj
ect
ives:
Psy
chomotor
Domain”
,Il
l
inoi
sTeacherofHomeEconomi cs,
10(
4):110–144,ERI
CdocumentED0103613.
[
Simpson1966–67av ai
l
ableonl
ine]

Skolv
erket,2018,Curri
culum fortheCompulsorySchool,
PreschoolCl
assandSchool-age
Educare,Stockhol
m: Skolverket
,revi
sed2018.Avail
abl
eat
htt
ps://www. skol
ver
ket.se/download/18.
31c292d516e7445866a218f
/1576654682907/pdf
398
4.
pdf;lastaccessed20220715.

Smith,
B.Othanel
,1953,
“TheI
mpr
ovementofCr
it
ical
Thi
nki
ng”
,Pr
ogr
essi
veEducat
ion,
30(
5):
129–134.

Smith,EugeneRandolph, Ral
phWi nf
redTyl
er,
andt heEval
uat
ionSt
aff
,1942,Appr
aisi
ngand
RecordingStudentProgress,Vol
umeI I
IofAdvent
ureinAmeri
canEducat
ion,
NewYor kand
London: Har
per&Br others.

Spl
i
tter
,Laur
anceJ.
,1987,
“Educat
ional
Ref
ormt
hroughPhi
l
osophyf
orChi
l
dren”
,Thi
nki
ng:
The
Jour
nal
ofPhi
l
osophyf
orChi
l
dren,
7(2)
:32–39.doi
:
10.
5840/
thi
nki
ng1987729

Stanovi
chKeithE.,
andPaul aJ.Stanovich,
2010,“AFrameworkforCri
ti
cal
Thi nki
ng,Rati
onal
Thinki
ng,andInt
ell
igence”,i
nDav i
dD.Pr ei
ssandRobertJ.St
ernber
g(eds),
Innov at
ionsin
Educati
onalPsychology:Perspect
ivesonLearni
ng,Teachi
ngandHumanDev elopment,New
York:Spr
ingerPubli
shing,pp195–237.

StanovichKeithE.
,Ri
chardF.West ,andMaggi
eE.Toplak,2011,
“Int
ell
i
genceandRati
onal
it
y”,
in
RobertJ.Sternber
gandScot tBarr
yKaufman(eds.
),Cambr i
dgeHandbookofInt
ell
i
gence,
Cambr i
dge:Cambr i
dgeUniversi
tyPress,
3rdedi
ti
on,pp.784–826.
doi:
10.1017/CBO9780511977244.040

Tankersl
ey,Karen,
2005,Li
ter
acyStr
ategi
esforGrades4–12:
Reinfor
cingt
heThreadsof
Reading,
Alexandri
a,VA:
Associat
ionforSuper
visi
onandCurr
icul
um Devel
opment.

Thayer-
Bacon,Barbar
aJ.,1992,
“IsModer
nCrit
ical
Thinki
ngTheorySexi
st?
”,I
nqui
ry:
Cri
ti
cal
Thi
nkingAcrosstheDisci
pli
nes,10(
1):
3–7.doi
:10.
5840/i
nqui
ryct
news199210123

–––,1993,“Cari
ngandI t
sRel
ati
onshi
ptoCri
ti
calThi
nki
ng”
,Educat
ional
Theor
y,43(
3):
323–340.doi:
10.1111/
j.
1741-
5446.
1993.
00323.
x

–––,
1995a,
“Const
ruct
iveThi
nki
ng:
Per
sonal
Voi
ce”
,Jour
nal
ofThought
,30(
1):
55–70.

–––,1995b,
“Doubti
ngandBel i
eving:
BothareImport
antforCr
it
icalThi
nki
ng”,
Inqui
ry:
Cri
ti
cal
Thi
nki
ngacrosstheDisci
pli
nes,15(2)
:59–66.doi
:10.
5840/i
nqui
ryct
news199515226

–––,2000,
Transf
ormi
ngCr
it
ical
Thi
nki
ng:
Thi
nki
ngConst
ruct
ivel
y,NewYor
k:Teacher
sCol
l
ege
Pr
ess.

Toulmin,
StephenEdel
ston,
1958,
TheUsesofAr
gument
,Cambr
idge:
Cambr
idgeUni
ver
sit
y
Press.

Tur
ri,
John, MarkAlfano,andJohnGr eco,2017,“Vi
rtueEpistemology
”,i
nEdwar
dN.Zal
ta(
ed.
),
TheStanfordEncycl
opedi aofPhi
losophy( Wint
er2017Edit i
on).URL=
<ht
tps:
//plat
o.st
anford.edu/ar
chi
ves/win2017/entr
ies/epi
stemology-
vir
tue/
>

Vincent -
Lancr
in,Stéphan,Carl
osGonzález-Sancho,Mathi
asBouckaer
t,FedericodeLuca,
Mer i
txellFer
nández- Bar
rerr
a,GwénaëlJacotin,Joaqui
nUrgel
,andQuenti
nVi dal,
2019,
FosteringStudents’Creati
vi
tyandCrit
icalThinking:
WhatItMeansinSchool.Educati
onal
Resear chandInnov ati
on,Pari
s:OECDPubl i
shing.

Warren,
KarenJ.1988.“
Cri
ti
cal
Thi
nki
ngandFemi
nism”
,Inf
ormal
Logi
c,10(
1):
31–44.[
War
ren
1988avail
abl
eonli
ne]

Watson,
Goodwi
n,andEdwar
dM.Glaser
,1980a,Wat
son-
GlaserCr
it
ical
Thi
nki
ngAppr
aisal
,
For
m A,SanAnt
onio,
TX:Psy
chol
ogi
calCorpor
ati
on.
–––,1980b,Watson-
GlaserCr
it
ical
Thi
nki
ngAppr
aisal
:For
msAandB;
Manual
,SanAnt
oni
o,TX:
Psy
chologi
calCorpor
ation,

–––,1994,Wat
son-
GlaserCr
it
ical
Thi
nki
ngAppr
aisal
,For
m B,
SanAnt
oni
o,TX:
Psy
chol
ogi
cal
Cor
porati
on.

Weinst
ein,Mar
k,1990,“Towar
dsaResear
chAgendaforI
nfor
mal Logi
candCr
it
ical
Thi
nki
ng”
,
I
nformalLogi
c,12(
3):121–143.[
Wei
nstei
n1990avai
l
ableonl
ine]

–––,
2013,
Logi
c,Tr
uthandI
nqui
ry,
London:
Col
l
egePubl
i
cat
ions.

Wi l
l
ingham, Daniel T.,
2019,“Howt oTeachCr i
ti
calThinking”,Educat
ion:
FutureFr
ontier
s,1:
1–17.[ Avai
lableonl i
neathttps:
//prod65.
educati
on.nsw.gov.au/cont
ent/dam/main-
educat i
on/t
eachi ng-and-
learni
ng/educati
on-
for-
a-changing-world/
media/documents/
How- t
o-
teach-cri
ti
cal-
thinking-Wi
lli
ngham.pdf.]

Zagzebski
,LindaTr
inkaus,
1996,Vi
rtuesoftheMind:
AnInqui
ryi
ntotheNatureofVi
rt
ueandt
he
Ethi
calFoundati
onsofKnowledge,
Cambr i
dge:Cambri
dgeUni
versi
tyPress.
doi:
10.
1017/CBO9781139174763

Academi
cTool
s

sepmani
con Howt
oci
tet
hisent
ry.

sepmani
con Pr
evi
ewt
hePDFv
ersi
onoft
hisent
ryatt
heFr
iendsoft
heSEPSoci
ety
.

i
nphoicon Lookupt opicsandt
hinker
srel
atedt
othi
sent
ryatt
heI
nter
netPhi
l
osophy
Ont
ologyPr
oject(
InPhO).

phi
lpaper
sicon Enhancedbi
bli
ogr
aphyf
ort
hisent
ryatPhi
l
Paper
s,wi
thl
i
nkst
oit
s
dat
abase.

Ot
herI
nter
netResour
ces

Associ
ati
onf
orI
nfor
mal
Logi
candCr
it
ical
Thi
nki
ng(
AILACT)

Cr
it
ical
Thi
nki
ngAcr
osst
heEur
opeanHi
gherEducat
ionCur
ri
cul
a(CRI
THI
NKEDU)

Cr
it
ical
Thi
nki
ngDef
ini
ti
on,
Inst
ruct
ion,
andAssessment
:ARi
gor
ousAppr
oach

Cr
it
ical
Thi
nki
ngResear
ch(
RAI
L)

Foundat
ionf
orCr
it
ical
Thi
nki
ng

I
nsi
ghtAssessment

Par
tner
shi
pfor21stCent
uryLear
ning(
P21)
TheCr
it
ical
Thi
nki
ngConsor
ti
um

TheNatur
eofCri
ti
cal
Thi
nki
ng:
AnOut
li
neofCr
it
ical
Thi
nki
ngDi
sposi
ti
onsandAbi
l
iti
es,
by
Rober
tH.Enni
s

Rel
atedEnt
ri
es

abi
li
ti
es|bias,
implici
t|chi
l
dren,phi
losophyfor|ci
vi
ceducati
on|deci
sion-maki
ngcapaci
ty|
Dewey,John|disposi
ti
ons|educati
on,phil
osophyof|epi
stemol
ogy:vi
rtue|l
ogic:
inf
ormal

Copy
right©2022by

Dav
idHi
tchcock<hi
tchckd@mcmast
er.
ca>

Openaccesst
otheSEPi
smadepossi
blebyawor
ld-
widef
undi
ngi
nit
iat
ive.

Pl
easeReadHowYouCanHel
pKeept
heEncy
clopedi
aFr
ee

Br
owse

Tabl
eofCont
ent
s

What
'sNew

Random Ent
ry

Chr
onol
ogi
cal

Ar
chi
ves

About

Edi
tor
ial
Inf
ormat
ion

Aboutt
heSEP

Edi
tor
ial
Boar
d

Howt
oCi
tet
heSEP

Speci
alChar
act
ers

Adv
ancedTool
s
Cont
act

Suppor
tSEP

Suppor
ttheSEP

PDFsf
orSEPFr
iends

MakeaDonat
ion

SEPI
AforLi
brar
ies

Mi
rr
orSi
tes

Vi
ewt
hissi
tef
rom anot
herser
ver
:

USA(
Mai
nSi
te)

Phi
l
osophy
,St
anf
ordUni
ver
sit
y

TheStanf
ordEncy
clopedi
aofPhil
osophyiscopy
right©2022byTheMet
aphy
sicsResear
chLab,
Depar
tmentofPhi
losophy
,St
anfordUniv
ersi
ty

Li
brar
yofCongr
essCat
alogDat
a:I
SSN1095-
5054