Deficient Critical Thinking Skills among College Graduates Implications for leadership

Educational Philosophy and Theory
ISSN: 0013-1857 (Print) 1469-5812 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rept20
Deficient Critical Thinking Skills among College

Graduates: Implications for leadership
KEVIN L. FLORES , GINA S. MATKIN , MARK E. BURBACH , COURTNEY E.

QUINN & HEATH HARDING
To cite this article: KEVIN L. FLORES , GINA S. MATKIN , MARK E. BURBACH , COURTNEY
E. QUINN & HEATH HARDING (2012) Deficient Critical Thinking Skills among College Graduates:
Implications for leadership, Educational Philosophy and Theory, 44:2, 212-230, DOI: 10.1111/
j.1469-5812.2010.00672.x
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-5812.2010.00672.x
Published online: 09 Jan 2013.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 1764
View related articles
Citing articles: 23 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rept20
Educational Philosophy and Theory,Vol. 44, No. 2, 2012
doi: 10.1111/j.1469-5812.2010.00672.x
Deficient Critical Thinking Skills among

College Graduates: Implications
for leadership epat_672 212..230
Kevin L. Flores, Gina S. Matkin, Mark E. Burbach,

Courtney E. Quinn & Heath Harding
University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Abstract
Although higher education understands the need to develop critical thinkers, it has not lived up
to the task consistently. Students are graduating deficient in these skills, unprepared to think
critically once in the workforce. Limited development of cognitive processing skills leads to less
effective leaders. Various definitions of critical thinking are examined to develop a general
construct to guide the discussion as critical thinking is linked to constructivism, leadership, and
education. Most pedagogy is content-based built on deep knowledge. Successful critical thinking
pedagogy is moving away from this paradigm, teaching students to think complexly. Some of the
challenges faced by higher education moving to a critical thinking curricula are discussed, and
recommendations are offered for improving outcomes.
Keywords: critical thinking, leadership, constructivism
Introduction
In 1597 Francis Bacon penned the now famous phrase ‘scientia potentia est’. These
words have since been paraphrased into ‘knowledge is power’. Knowledge as perceived
by some is a static concept. The essence of knowledge has been the subject of debate for
millennia. Knowledge encompasses the collection of facts and information pertinent
to a specific subject. Halpern (1996) suggests that knowledge is not static but rather
dynamic as current knowledge builds on old knowledge, which in turn generates new
knowledge. Knowledge has always been valued by society. A report produced by the U.
S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Services (2008) indicated that the
United States has more educated people than at any time in the past. In 1910 only 2.7%
of the population over the age of 25 had a four-year degree. This number has increased
every year with that number climbing to 29.6% in 2007. A college degree has become the
currency of the job application process. Those without degrees need not apply. With so
many educated people why do we still witness behaviors and thoughts that are ill-
conceived, making one shake one’s head in disbelief? ‘Although Americans today are
more highly educated than ever before, they are not necessarily better educated’ (Tsui,
2002, p. 740). Mere education does not necessarily lead to better thinkers. Tsui (2002)
© 2010 The Authors

Educational Philosophy and Theory © 2010 Philosophy of Education Society of Australasia
Published by Blackwell Publishing, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UK and
350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA
Deficient Critical Thinking Skills among College Graduates 213
Constructivism Critical Thinking
Education Constructivism
Leadership
Education Leadership
Figure 1: Relationship of critical thinking to constructivism, education, and leadership
differentiates between teaching students what to think (highly educated) and teaching
them how to think (better educated). What appears to be lacking is the ability to take
knowledge and transform it into uses that benefit not only the individual, but more
importantly, society as a whole. In this sense, thinking then becomes the application of
knowledge.
That we as humans think is often taken for granted. It is a process so natural that we fail
to realize how it is accomplished. Much of what we think is based on rote and requires no
special application of thinking.We apply knowledge when we do simple math or compose
a grammatically correct sentence. Decisions are made in these examples but these actions
happen almost without thought. This thinking is vastly different from understanding
why we hold certain values. The ability to see beyond simple facts, to think at a more
comprehensive level, is critical thinking. Paul (2005) suggested that ‘critical thinking is
the art of thinking about thinking in an intellectually disciplined manner’ (p. 28). This
definition goes beyond merely giving thought to something; it involves intentional
consideration. The definition is elegant in its simplicity, but it may not capture the entire
essence of critical thinking. Over the years there have been several theories dealing with
critical thinking. Understanding critical thinking is essential since it touches many aspects
of our lives, and many of these aspects are interrelated. Merging ideas from constructivism,
education, and leadership within the theme of critical thinking will prove informative.
Figure 1 shows the relationship of critical thinking to constructivism, education, and
leadership. Education and leadership are encapsulated within the constructivist frame-
work from a thinking frame of reference. Constructivism helps us understand how we
develop as adults, how we learn in the educational system, and ultimately how we perform
in leadership positions. Leadership is then built upon this knowledge base and experience
as one integrates critical thinking with formal education within a constructivist develop-
ment framework.Viewing these interrelationships through a critical thinking lens will help
develop a more comprehensive perspective of critical thinking. By examining critical
thinking within these constructs it is also hoped that we can move from a theoretical
understanding to being able to operationalize critical thinking.
If critical thinking skills are not well-developed through the educational system, there
are ramifications to our ability to make meaning in the workforce. If our ability to make
meaning is limited by deficient critical thinking, it will have an impact on our ability to
lead. Leaders without the full scope of leadership attributes (including higher cognitive
processing) are less effective (Drath, 1990). Leadership mistakes can be costly and hard
© 2010 The Authors

214 K. L. Flores, G. S. Matkin, M. E. Burbach, C. E. Quinn & H. Harding
to overcome.The purpose of this paper will be to examine the implications on leadership

of students graduating with deficient critical thinking skills. Deficient critical thinking
skills are manifested by the inability to integrate multiple perspectives with a multiplicity
of facts and determine the best course of action.The epistemology of critical thinking has
taken a circuitous and sometimes disjointed path. From the varied perspectives, a usable
general construct will be formed to guide the remainder of the paper. One aspect of the
educational system is preparing students for the workforce and subsequently, leadership,
which in turn drives the economy and positioning within the global marketplace. Under-
standing the relationship between critical thinking and education will help determine
what changes, if any, need to be made to the current educational system that will allow
the development of more effective leaders. There will be a discussion of the relationship
between critical thinking and constructive adult development since the two are so closely
linked that critical thinking skills may indeed determine the developmental stage from
which one operates. Different approaches to teaching critical thinking in higher educa-
tion will be examined for efficacy. The impact of critical thinking on leadership and the
future needs of employers will also be considered. Lastly, the future challenges of the
educational system will be addressed.
Overview of Critical Thinking
What is Critical Thinking?

If knowledge is possessing facts, and thinking is the application of knowledge, critical
thinking, in the simplest of terms, becomes the application of knowledge in more
complex ways. This simple statement belies the complexity of critical thinking as there
are other aspects of critical thinking that go beyond the discerning of facts. Robert Ennis
(1962) developed a foundational theory suggesting that ‘critical thinking is taken to be the
correct assessing of statements’ (p. 83). His theory was based on skills as he developed a
comprehensive list of twelve aspects of critical thinking. His critical thinking paradigm
contains three skill-based aspects: logical, criterial, and pragmatic.This early definition is
limiting as it does not fully consider the reflective or aporetic elements of later constructs.
Paul (1984) later developed a skills-based dichotomous view of critical thinking and
described the two components as weak sense critical thinking and strong sense critical
thinking. In the weak sense, critical thinking skills are seen as extraneous to the person,
which can serve as an adjunct to other learning. Strong sense critical thinking skills allow
one to view their cognitive processes. These viewpoints frame the technicist perspective.
Technicists argue that skills form the basis for critical thinking with the emphasis on
task accomplishment and effectiveness through purposeful and strategic performance
(Papastephanou & Angeli, 2007). Rationalists oppose this viewpoint as they argue for
logic and evidence forming the basis for critical thinking (Papastephanou & Angeli,
2007). As a rationalist, Siegel (1980) posits that critical thinking is inextricably conjoined
to rationality. To him logic, empirical evidence, and principled thought guide the critical
thinker. Halpern (1996) would agree with this assessment. For her, the word ‘critical’
implies an appraisal element in critical thinking, so that one judges the consequences of
his or her thought process. Papastephanou and Angeli (2007) propose a contextually
© 2010 The Authors

sensitive approach that lies between the rationalists and technicists in which the ‘aporetic
urges the thinking subject to wonder not only about problematic situations but also
about what is usually taken for granted, and to wander in alternative and as yet unexplored
cognitive paths’ (p. 616). Burbules (1995) espouses a pedagogical approach which
teaches students to think ‘differently’ by considering alternative perspectives and being
open to the unexpected. He suggests a dialogical approach to knowledge aimed at
producing new understanding where learners are allowed to construct personal meaning
based on these alternative perspectives (Burbules, 1993).
Another dichotomous framework of critical thinking posits that there are generalists
and specifists (Davies, 2006). Generalists hold that critical thinking is a universal skill,
while specifists believe that in order to think critically one must possess deep knowledge
of a subject area. McPeck (1990) argues that critical thinking must be domain specific
and that there are sparse general thinking skills. To be a critical thinker, McPeck believes
one must possess profound knowledge of a subject area. Only after mastery can one
become a critical thinker, but critical thinking is then limited to the content mastered.
Davies (2006) finds fault in the forced dichotomy of this framework and suggests an
‘infusion’ approach that utilizes concepts from both paradigms. Mason (2007) takes a
completely different path, as he believes that critical thinking is driven by moral impera-
tives that lead to a more humane world. As moral values are introduced into the milieu
of critical thinking, one is forced to be reflective through introspection.
Defining Critical Thinking

The goal of this paper is to discuss the implications on leadership of students graduating
with deficient critical thinking skills. To develop a definitive parsimonious definition of
critical thinking is beyond the scope of this paper given the range of viewpoints that exist.
However, there are salient aspects of several definitions that will prove informative to the
remainder of this paper. Facione (2006) extols the definition developed by the Delphi
Method, which ‘understands critical thinking to be purposeful, self-regulatory judgment
which results in interpretation, analysis, evaluation, and inference, as well as explanation
of the evidential, conceptual, methodological, criteriological, or contextual consider-
ations upon which that judgment is based’ (p. 21). This comprehensive model is based
on six core critical thinking skills and seven dispositions. The six core critical thinking
skills are analysis, inference, interpretation, explanation, self-regulation, and evaluation.
The seven critical thinking dispositions are inquisitive, systematic, judicious, truthseek-
ing, analytical, open-minded, and confident in reasoning. Facione believes that linking
these core thinking skills with the dispositions leads to critical thinking. Lipman (1988)
believed that critical thinking needed to be enmeshed within the educational system. He
thought education existed to transmit knowledge and to propagate wisdom as he defined
critical thinking as ‘skillful, responsible thinking that facilitates good judgment because it (1)
relies upon criteria, (2) is self-correcting, and (3) is sensitive to context’ (p. 39).
With this in mind, the focus of education should be shifting from teaching content to
teaching students how to become critical thinkers. Given the complexity of and philo-
sophical difference between content learning and critical thinking this will not be an easy
task. Students will need to be challenged to articulate why they hold to certain beliefs
© 2010 The Authors

through a process of self-reflection as they consider alternative positions. Halpern (1996)

defined critical thinking as ‘the use of those cognitive skills or strategies that increase the
probability of a desirable outcome’ (p. 5). Mazer et al. (2007) said critical thinking is ‘the
ability to construct meaning and articulate and evaluate arguments, as well as evaluate
sources and support’ (p. 176). Ricketts and Rudd (2005) developed a model of critical
thinking which posited that by combining a high critical thinking disposition with
knowledge and high critical thinking skills the outcome is higher quality critical thinking.
Rudd and his colleagues offered the following definition, ‘critical thinking is a reasoned,
purposive, and introspective approach to solving problems or addressing questions,
with incomplete evidence and information, and for which an incontrovertible solution is
unlikely’ (Rudd et al., 2000, p. 5).
These varied theories give evidence of two issues when trying to define critical
thinking. There is no universal definition of critical thinking, and many frameworks
define critical thinking in terms of a model containing polar opposites (e.g. generalists
versus specifists). Despite this, there are still common aspects that overlap some of the
models that inform the development of a general construct. To think critically one must
be able to process new information without undue influence from prior beliefs
(Papastephanou & Angeli, 2007; West et al., 2008; Paul & Elder, 2001; Van Gelder,
2005). This requires the suspension of biases shaped by past experiences. Biases are an
inherent part of our development. To suspend these biases seems to run counterintuitive
to how we are programmed to think, requiring a repudiation of the past, making this a
formidable undertaking. West et al. (2008) further offer that critical thinking is thinking
logically when logic does not match prior beliefs. They capture the substance of critical
thinking by referring to it as ‘non-egocentric processing’ (p. 938). Rudd (2007) offers a
more concise definition years after his original definition appeared. He defines critical
thinking as ‘reasoned, purposive, and reflective thinking used to make decisions, solve
problems, and master concepts’ (p. 14).
The concept of critical thinking is too complex to be limited to a narrowly defined
construct. Neither should it be viewed as situated in one extreme of dichotomous
constructs. Thinking critically about critical thinking should allow one to process the
dialectic nature of various constructs into a more integrative whole.The authors propose
that salient elements of a general critical thinking construct should include skills, ratio-
nality, openness to alternative viewpoints, suspension of prior constructions, introspec-
tive reflection, and non-egocentric processing.
Constructivism and Critical Thinking

The path from infancy to productive member of society represents a different journey for
each individual. Two people can experience the same inputs but construct different
interpretations. The reason for the difference lies in how we make sense of our experi-
ences and environment. How individuals make meaning has a profound effect on one’s
ability to think critically. This does not mean that individuals at lower levels of meaning-
making do not think, or are not capable of making decisions; it means that when they do
make decisions, their thought process is different. This information processing is neither
good nor bad from a constructivist standpoint. ‘Our meanings are not so much some-
© 2010 The Authors

thing we have, as something we are’ (Kegan & Lahey, 1983, p. 202). There are no value
judgments made based on how one constructs meaning. From the standpoint of the
individual, their personal meaning-making is the only reality they know. It does, however,
have implications for critical thinking and the quality of those decisions. If critical
thinking has become such a valued commodity in today’s chaotic world, one may need
to consider the developmental stage of individuals as one looks for ways to enhance
critical thinking (Barbuto, 2000).
Constructivism should be considered when examining education and leadership devel-
opment, since developmental stages are directly tied to critical thinking abilities. The
ability to think in new ways and arrange knowledge in new patterns lies at the heart of adult
development. Adult development theory suggests that all people travel through different
stages of development as they mature. The differentiation between stages lies in how
people make meaning (construct) their reality. A person’s meaning-making process serves
as the constraint for personal development at any given stage making modification of one’s
construction paradigm necessarily evolutionary as ‘people use their mental powers to
analyze and test ideas in their minds’ (Raskin, 2008, p. 6). This meaning-making process
becomes more important than acquiring specific knowledge and skills (Lutz & Huitt,
2004). Puolimatka (2003) linked constructivism to critical thinking by asserting that
‘critical thinking is self-correcting, because it is subject to constant evaluation in the
framework of objective criteria’ (p. 10). Similarly, non-egocentric processing calls for
understanding the needs of the situation as it relates to others (society).When decisions are
no longer driven by the desire to satisfy ego needs, one can consider the implications of any
decision on others and incorporate other worldviews as one’s personal viewpoint becomes
one of many.To be able to examine information from this perspective requires one to have
a worldview that allows for more complex meaning-making.
Kegan (1982) developed a well-known model of adult development based on con-
structivism. In his model people take an active role in organizing their experiences into
meaning (Erikson, 2006) and can journey through six stages throughout their lives. The
six stages are: incorporative-embedded in reflexes; impulsive-embedded in impulse and
perception; imperial-embedded in enduring disposition, needs, interests, and wishes;
interpersonal-embedded in mutuality and interpersonal concordance; institutional-
embedded in personal autonomy and self-system identity; and interindividual-embedded
in interpenetration of systems. Each successive stage calls for more evolved meaning-
making. People advance through the stages as their worldviews change. ‘The essence of
developmental movement is the shifting between what is perceived as subject (self) and
what is perceived as object (other)’ (Drath, 1990, p. 486). Those at lower stages would
tend to view the world from a very self-centered perspective (egocentric), making it
highly improbable that they could consider the needs of others in their decision-making
process, thus calling into question their ability to be effective critical thinkers.
Fisher et al. (1987) describe the same developmental requirement in their four-stage
model of adult development. Mezirow’s (2003) model of adult learning theory was
labeled transformational learning and was rooted in metacognitive reasoning. ‘The goal
of transformational learning is independent thinking’ (Merriam, 2004, p. 61). Indepen-
dent thinking is the critical evaluation of information. Two core elements of transforma-
tional learning are critical reflection and rational/reflective discourse. Through the
© 2010 The Authors

process of reflective discourse, the assumptions one holds must be critically assessed
against new information.There is no sacredness to things taken for granted, even though
these beliefs may form the foundation of our identity. To critically question what one
believes can be an extremely difficult exercise. This model also presupposes one must be
at an advanced developmental level to think critically. Put in adult development terms,
one must be at a higher meaning-making stage to enact transformational learning.
McCauley et al. (2006) examined constructive development in relation to leadership
as they developed a taxonomy of constructive development. Their model takes the
work of Kegan (1982), Torbert (1987), and Kohlberg (1969), and overlays a three-stage
schema. The three stages of development are dependent, independent, and inter-
independent. Key characteristics of their model are: people actively construct ways of
understanding and making sense of themselves; there are stages, or identifiable patterns
of meaning-making shared by people; these stages unfold in specific unchangeable
sequences; people do not regress to lower stages; each stage is more complex than the
previous stage; movement from one stage to the next is driven by the limitations in the
current stage of constructing meaning; and the stage one operates from influences what
they can be aware of and notice. In the dependent stage individuals depend on others to
construct reality. In the independent stage individuals understand themselves as an
independent self-possessed entity. In the inter-independent stage the self is now under-
stood as a mercurial entity capable of multiple forms in response to life’s contingencies.
Based on this model, it can be conjectured that individuals at the dependent stage are
incapable of critical thinking because they are so self-centered it would be implausible for
them to think beyond their ego needs. ‘One of the most important abilities a thinker can
have is the ability to monitor and assess his or her own thinking while processing the
thinking of others’ (Paul, 2005, p. 32). To process information in a non-egocentric way,
one would necessarily have to reside in at least the independent stage.
Leadership and Critical Thinking

Leaders deal with complex problems that require complex solutions, thus leaders who can
think critically will be more effective given these parameters. Unfortunately, most leaders
operate from an egocentric world view and lack well-developed critical thinking skills
(Rooke & Torbert, 2005). Drath (1990) found that many managers operate from Kegan’s
institutional stage thereby limiting their ability to form interdependent relationships.
Fisher et al. (1987) also found in three studies of the developmental stages of managers
that very few develop beyond the institutional stage. Leaders by virtue of their positions are
assumed to possess special talents. However, it does not automatically follow that all
leaders are critical thinkers. As the definition of leadership continues to evolve, the ‘great
man’ [sic] theories referenced in leadership literature have been replaced by more
integrative theories and emerging frameworks. ‘Great man’ theories were based on the
attributes associated with well known leaders. Newer theories focus on other concepts
such as transformational leadership (Bass, 1996) servant leadership (Greenleaf, 1977)
authentic leadership (Avolio & Gardner, 2005) leadership from a sense-making perspec-
tive (Weick, 1995), holistic leadership (Quatro et al., 2007), and emotional leadership
(Riggio & Lee, 2007). All of these theories have an ethical, moral, or reflective component
© 2010 The Authors

that can be enhanced by critical thinking.The new demands of leadership require ethical
behavior, the ability to work with diverse populations, and the ability to think from a
systems perspective.
There is no shortage of stories involving ethical lapses by leaders in the news. Social
learning theory suggests that individuals learn to become ethical by observing leaders who
exhibit ethical behaviors (Brown et al., 2005). We can create more ethical leaders by
instilling critical thinking in the leadership ranks. Brown et al. (2005) suggest that leaders
must discern the norms in operation based on contextual clues, a skill that requires one to
understand and interpret organizational and interpersonal dynamics. Servant leadership
(Greenleaf, 1977) proposes that decisions that benefit only the leader serve no valid
purpose. Leaders need to be seen as altruistic and creating just work environments (Brown
et al., 2005), necessitating the ability to understand the needs of followers and society.
Due to the changing nature of the demographic make up of the workforce, leaders must
be able to lead diverse groups of people, such as women, or ethnic and racial minorities,
who may be underrepresented, to be most effective. However, there continues to be bias
against members of these groups (Duehr & Bono, 2006; Greenhaus et al., 1990) as the
white male is still viewed as the prototypical leader (Chung-Herrera & Lankau, 2005).This
is important as diverse organizations make better decisions (Page, 2007) calling into
question the old leadership paradigm. Leadership based on a homogeneous followership
will no longer work. Since leaders tend to surround themselves with like-minded people
(Giberson et al., 2005) it will require a different kind of thinking to break the cycle. Critical
thinking can provide the means for moving beyond these self-imposed limitations.
Critical thinking from a leadership perspective entails the ability to think complexly.
Senge (1990) discussed systems thinking that he referred to as the ‘fifth discipline’.
Although he uses different language to define systems thinking, as he operationalizes
systems thinking, the outcome is critical thinking, as leaders must be able to see the big
picture and assemble all the new and disparate pieces of information into a meaningful
whole. Organizations that will thrive in the future will have leaders that can discern ways
to address the consequences of a changing workforce by imagining people in roles different
than traditionally experienced. For instance, critical thinking leads to more accepting
attitudes of women (Loo & Thorpe, 2005). One can then conjecture that higher critical
thinking skills might also lead to more accepting views of other minorities as well.
Leadership in the global economy also dictates new competencies (Hoppe, 2007).The
world now exists as a global market with lines of demarcation becoming fuzzy at best.
The ability to understand the influences that culture plays in these types of interactions
is key to long-term success in the global economy (Teagarden, 2007). Individuals would
need to be at least at the independent level to be effective (McCauley et al., 2006). The
consideration and acceptance of difference must happen outside the egocentric sphere of
dependent stage leaders. Since it has already been posited that global leaders must
operate from the independent stage (be able to consider the viewpoint of others), one
could also postulate that effective global leadership requires critical thinking.
Leadership is not inert; it is a very dynamic endeavor. Leaders must remain relevant
(Wyche, 2008) by overcoming the shortcomings associated with moving up the corporate
ladder (Drath, 1990). Leaders must give credence to the emotional and mental aspects
of leadership by spending time in introspection and making careful observation of the
© 2010 The Authors

environment through such things as reflection and self-awareness. These represent new
competencies for leaders. Wyche (2008) posits that this type of learning goes beyond the
formal educational system and content based-knowledge. Organizations must recognize
that leaders in different stages of their career possess different skills and have different
critical thinking needs. Executive coaching, based on career development stage, has been
found to increase critical thinking (Axelrod, 2005).
If employers want critical thinkers, and colleges and universities want to produce
critical thinkers, but both agree the current wave of students is deficient in this area, ‘the
question becomes who is responsible for imparting critical thinking?’ Employers over-
whelmingly believe the responsibility is with the four-year colleges and universities (The
Conference Board, 2006). Of those who responded, 68.4% thought it was the respon-
sibility of four-year educational systems to equip the next generation of leaders with
critical thinking skills. How has higher education performed to date given this mandate?
Education and Critical Thinking

In recent decades the idea of critical thinking has become ingrained in the educational
system although the concept of educating students to think critically is not particularly
new. As early as the 1930s Osborne (1934) stated that one of the major goals of
education should be to develop ‘thought power’ in students. Siegel (1980) was more
forceful in suggesting that ‘we ought to teach in accordance with the critical manner
because, simply put, it would be immoral to teach in any other way’ (p. 13). Developing
critical thinking in students remains one of the main goals of college education (Van
Gelder, 2005). As bastions of knowledge, colleges and universities clearly understand the
impetus to develop students with content specific knowledge. Furthermore, they under-
stand the philosophical need to teach students to be independent thinkers capable of
thinking complexly across different dimensions. Facione (2006) summed it up concisely
when he stated ‘teach people to make good decisions and you equip them to improve
their own futures’ (p. 1). Many institutions of higher learning have made intentional
attempts at incorporating critical thinking into their curricula (Barnes, 2005; Elder,
2005; Tiwari et al., 2006). What has been uneven is the methodology, training, and
administrative support, and concomitantly, the results of these programs.
Thinking as information processing has been at the core of thinking pedagogy since
the inception of formal education (McGuiness, 1993). Teachers possessed a list of items
students needed to know by the end of the class. Learning was short-term, based
primarily on rote memorization and emphasis was on teaching content and expanding
one’s knowledge base. Given the traditional goals of teaching throughout history, the
methods were not only appropriate, they were effective. To this end, students have been
graduating with increasingly deep knowledge bases. To the extent the needs of society
were congruent with deep content knowledge there was general acceptance of the output
of the educational system. As we have developed into a knowledge society, with global,
ethical, and moral problems unprecedented in their scope and nature, the goal of simply
imparting knowledge may no longer serve society well. Luckily, much of the recent
educational focus has shifted away from this ‘brain as processor’ model (McGuiness,
1993) to teaching general thinking skills.
© 2010 The Authors

The general consensus is that the educational system has not performed well in
consistently producing critical thinkers (Barbuto, 2000; Burbach et al., 2004; del Bueno,
2005; Lizzio & Wilson, 2007; Paul, 2005; Pithers & Soden 2000). Paul (2005) offers
three reasons for this discrepancy. He believes the majority of teachers do not understand
the concept of critical thinking. One cannot effectively teach what one does not under-
stand. He further posits that most teachers do not realize they operate from this deficit
position. Lastly, he blames the continued use of traditional teaching techniques such as
memorization and lectures. Evidence suggests that traditional formal classroom instruc-
tion rarely leads to critical thinking (Lizzio & Wilson, 2007). These methods fail to
emotionally engage students and do not require them to examine their assumptions.
Without this self-reflection aspect, it is difficult for students to develop critical thinking
skills. There is an egocentric component that is necessary before students can move to a
different meaning-making stage. Students must experience the limitations of an egocen-
tric worldview before they can advance. If the educational system is not graduating
critical thinkers there is a need for the re-evaluation of current curricula.
Current Critical Thinking Approaches in Education

Despite the previous findings suggesting that teachers as a whole are not equipped to teach
critical thinking, there have been promising results from those who are teaching to a critical
thinking model. These approaches can be viewed as non-traditional, incorporating the
latest research. Learning Partnership Models link learning with self-authorship—the
journey into self-discovery based on increasing intellect (Baxter Magolda, 2007).The idea
of a cognitive apprenticeship based on processing, judgments, and sense-making, supplies
students with access to experts in their daily roles, who in turn provide direct feedback to
students about their performance (McGuiness, 1993).This situated learning also provides
coaching and support to the neophyte in the early stages of their career development.
Using peers as coaches in formal programs also leads to better critical thinking (Ladysh-
ewsky, 2006). Others have echoed the need for reflection as a key component of teaching
students critical thinking (Grossman, 2009; Lizzio & Wilson, 2007). Grossman (2009)
identified four levels of reflection: content-based reflection, metacognitive reflection,
self-authorship reflection, and transformative and intensive reflection. Content-based
reflection considers experience relative to specific learning goals. Metacognitive reflection
is knowing that one thinks, and applying the known to solve complex problems. Self-
authorship understands how one is the self-author of one’s thoughts and feelings.
Transforming and intensive reflection is knowing why you think what you think. Lizzio and
Wilson (2007) further expound on reflection by introducing three practices for the
development of reflective thinking: challenge students to understand that they make
meaning based on their internal assumptions, challenge students to understand that these
assumptions must be continually evaluated, and have students take responsibility for their
decisions based on their reflections. This then allows one to consider evidence from
multiple perspectives in keeping with a critical thinking approach.
In a longitudinal study, higher order thinking skills led to enhanced critical thinking
(Miri et al., 2007). ‘Higher order thinking can be conceptualized as non-algorithmic mode
of thinking that often generates multiple solutions’ (p. 355).Teachers used cases that dealt
© 2010 The Authors

with real world issues, open ended classroom discussions, and inquiry-based experi-
ments. Likewise, nursing students provided a curriculum structured on problem-based
learning theory utilizing context based knowledge with real world inputs demonstrated
increased critical thinking compared to those who experienced traditional classroom
lectures (Tiwari et al., 2006). Problem-based learning requires objective and critical
analysis of all pertinent information and merges real life problems with content knowl-
edge (Maudsley & Strivens, 2000; Hannon et al., 2004). This experiential learning
enhances critical thinking, professional knowledge acquisition, problem solving, and
life-long learning. This model places value on the student’s previous knowledge and
experience. Problem-based learning facilitates learning rather than directing learning. A
similar approach suggests that courses with a community service component foster
critical thinking (Beckman, 1997; Burbach et al., 2004). Work-based learning also uti-
lizes experiential learning (Brodie & Irving, 2007). In this teaching model the applica-
tion of learning theory guides critical reflection, which in turn leads to development of
capability. Students must have, or develop, a disposition to understand when a particu-
lar skill is needed and the willingness to invoke the skill (Halpern, 1996). Active learning
which includes journal writing, service learning projects, small group participation, case
studies, and questioning in combination has also been found to lead to better critical
thinking (Burbach et al., 2004).
Peters (2007) argues that these different approaches indicate the need for educators to
be open to different kinds of thinking and styles of reasoning. He argues that cognitive
development does not operate in a vacuum and therefore needs to recognize the histori-
cal and cultural ties to thinking. He uses the typology developed by Heidegger (1966) to
illustrate his point. Heidegger sees kinds of thinking as: opinion, representing, reason-
ing, problem-solving, conceiving, practical judgment, the meaning of being, and post-
meta-physical being. There are also styles of reasoning driven by ‘thought collectives’.
These collectives develop uniform application of thought processes to define scientific
facts. New members are normalized in the existing thought process. Only through new
collectives can non-conforming thought processes thrive. It is in these discrepancies
(between old and new collectives) that critical thinking and innovation thrives.
Students who were taught a course using dialogue as the heuristic for processing ideas
in the classroom advanced the development of critical thinking (Mayo, 2002). Dialogue
was found to elicit creative thinking in college students. Students were required to attribute
anonymous statements to famous philosophers and explain their rationale in writing. In
addition, each was required to orally defend their reasoning. Dialogue leads to conceptual
understanding of frameworks and actively involves the student in the learning process
(Burbules, 1993; Pithers & Soden, 2000). This teaching model is rooted in the social
component of learning. Teachers need to be mindful that practice produces proficiency
and that their role should be as participant rather than director to be most effective.
Still another approach suggests that the key to teaching critical thinking is teaching to
the developmental stage of the student (Barbuto, 2000).The developmental stage should
be assessed using Kegan’s (1982) construct to determine the student’s meaning-making
worldview. Once this is known, the instructor can decide on the appropriate teaching
methods based on the objectives of the instructor. The outcomes need to be evaluated
continually and be used to guide future decisions. This approach recognizes that
© 2010 The Authors

students are at different developmental stages, and as a result, cannot all be taught in the
same manner.
Implications for Leaders in the Workforce

Organizations are continually seeking well-trained individuals that possess not only the
technical skills to fulfill their roles, but more importantly, the thinking skills to be effective
in a constantly changing environment. Managers who are simply good at a specific job will
not meet the needs of tomorrow’s workforce. A recent survey of over 400 companies in
the United States by the Conference Board indicated that ‘the future U. S. workforce
is here—and it is woefully ill-prepared for the demands of today’s (and tomorrow’s)
workplace’ (The Conference Board, 2006, p. 9). The report details four areas that
employers feel are most important for new entrants to the workforce to master. They are
professionalism/work ethic, communication skills, teamwork/collaboration, and critical
thinking skills. Respondents were also asked to list skills that were ‘very important’ to
success for four-year graduates. Ninety-two percent of the respondents believed critical
thinking was very important. Offsetting this belief were the respondents who expressed
concerns that only 27.6% of four-year graduates come with excellent skills in this area.
This leaves about three out of four students with perceived critical thinking deficits.
Del Bueno (2005) found that only 35% of registered nurse graduates were capable of
critical thinking once in the work setting based on results from the Performance Based
Development System (PBDS) assessment.The PBDS is a competency assessment used by
hospitals to evaluate a nurse’s ability to do their job by examining critical thinking,
inter-personal relations, and technical skills.The PBDS has been shown to be a valid and
reliable instrument for testing critical thinking (del Bueno, 1990). Nowhere is critical
thinking more imperative than in the life and death world of nursing care.Without critical
thinking patients can be mismanaged, leading to adverse outcomes. In the business setting,
failure to think critically can result in missed opportunities, faulty decisions, inefficiencies,
and ineffectiveness. As the pace of change and the complexity of problems in the business
world become more compressed and convoluted, the failure to think critically has
far-reaching implications that come with financial, social, and personal costs.
Never before has the need for good leaders in the workforce been more indispensable.
The downfall of many organizations can be tied directly to faulty leadership (Carroll &
Mui, 2008; Spreier et al., 2006). Is faulty leadership then tied to critical thinking deficits?
Lord and Hall (2005) advanced a theory of leadership development that suggests that
leaders’ identities emerge from an egocentric emphasis to a collective emphasis as they
progress from novice to intermediate to expert with qualitative differences in information
processing at each level. They posit that leaders need to develop new thinking that
goes beyond the acquiring of surface skills (knowledge). The theory proposes that skill
domains such as task understanding, emotional development, social development, meta-
cognitive processes, identity development, and value orientation are more developed in
expert leaders.These more developed attributes correlate well with the qualities a critical
thinker needs to possess. Leaders operating from less than an expert orientation may not
possess the full complement of thinking skills necessary to effectively guide organiza-
tions, leading to poor decisions.
© 2010 The Authors

How leaders make decisions impacts the quality of their decisions. The process of
thinking involves making sense of current issues in light of historical experiences.To avoid
distortion in this process one needs to be able to think critically. It may be that we can only
limit distortion given this parameter. Paul and Elder (2001) advanced a construct that
explains how the mind processes information. Inert information is learned information
that the thinker thinks they understand when in actuality they do not. This leads to
activated ignorance, or the use of inert information to guide thinking. Because activated
ignorance takes no special effort and is the apparent thing to do, it is easy for leaders to rely
erroneously on this type of thinking. Without critical thinking and reflection one will
naturally tend to use inert information. Critical thinkers can look past inert information to
develop activated knowledge, which in turns helps develop more knowledge, and better
decisions.
Future Challenges for the Educational System

According to the Conference Board report (2006), the educational system needs to do a
better job of producing critical thinkers. There are several obstacles to instituting critical
thinking in colleges and universities that have become deeply entrenched in the academic
system.To change the outcomes, it will be necessary to change how the educational system
views the process of ‘teaching’ students and the desired outputs. Critical thinking should
become part of most classes,not a stand-alone class.By limiting critical thinking instruction
to a specific class, students may have a difficult time operationalizing this type of thinking
across all areas of their lives.Mazer et al.(2007) found that teachers who were provided with
specific training in critical thinking were better able to transfer this knowledge in the
classroom.There can no longer be solutions based upon making changes within the existing
system; the entire paradigm itself must be evaluated and subject to change.
To redesign the current system will also require double loop learning (Argyris, 1976).
Double-loop learning is the ability to consider alternative frameworks, as opposed to
merely changes within a framework. Change agents must look beyond the constraints of
the current system and develop new paradigms from which to operate. The traditional
educational model is built upon knowledge acquisition. In the process of imparting
knowledge is the educational system focusing on complicated thinking as opposed to
complex thinking? Complicated thinking implies making thinking harder. Thinking
harder does not necessarily result in thinking more complexly. Senge (1990) refers to
detail complexity and dynamic complexity. Detail complexity (complicated thinking)
involves thinking through many variables. Dynamic complexity involves the subtle effects
of the relationship between cause and effect. It also encompasses a time aspect where
effects may not be readily discernable. The dynamics of organizational life make for very
complicated situations, calling for increasingly complex thinking.
Standardized professional testing is an example of a very traditional approach to
assessing competency in certain professions. Credentialing based on a static knowledge
base is counterproductive to producing leaders with good critical thinking skills (English,
2006). English (2006) suggests that professional credentialing that relies on static knowl-
edge bases create narrow thinking students who perform to the ‘test’. Professional testing
should be based on dynamic knowledge which takes into account the requirements of the
© 2010 The Authors

environment. ‘The function of a university based graduate preparation program is not to

reproduce the status quo but to advance the field’ (p. 468). Without changing how
success is defined for graduates, it will be virtually impossible to change the output.
This calls into the question the essence and goals of education at the highest levels.
Historically, the highest degree afforded is the PhD—the doctor of philosophy. As
initially introduced, the PhD was bestowed on those individuals who were capable of
philosophically discoursing on a certain subject area in a deep and thoughtful manner.
These individuals were masters of thinking. A philosopher is one who offers profound
viewpoints through the application of wisdom. Wisdom is the application of judgment,
discernment, and insight.These are all elements of critical thinking.The degrees of today
too often seem based on deep knowledge of content but may be lacking in teaching
students to philosophize (Miri et al., 2007). Perhaps a return to genesis of the thinking
that guided the development of the PhD would benefit the educational system.
Many schools have developed programmatic approaches to teaching critical thinking.
To be successful in the future, these programs will require a shift in mindset of the
teachers (Barnes, 2005). The system needs to move away from the traditional model of
knowledge transfer to imbuing students with the ability to think critically. Barnes (2005)
believes that for teachers to be effective they will need support from administration. He
goes on to say that successful programs have been built upon three important elements:
a critical thinking champion, cross-discipline penetration, and the means to measure
success beyond the classroom. This entails the willingness to adopt a completely new
paradigm for establishing curricula in the school setting.
Implicit in programs to increase critical thinking among its students is the assumption
that teachers possess the ability to teach critical thinking. To a large extent teachers do
not understand critical thinking well enough to teach it to others (Paul, 2005). This
should come as no surprise, since this is the group that was indoctrinated in the
traditional approach to instruction. These teachers were inculcated with teaching and
learning from the old content-based paradigms. Some of these approaches actually have
negative relationships to critical thinking (Tsui, 1999). Changes in teacher preparation
will not come easily or without additional problems (Dickerson, 2005; Vick, 2006).
Schools will need to provide ongoing training for its instructional staff. This professional
development should have as its focus critical thinking (Elder, 2005). Schools will need to
develop critical thinking cultures that form social networks of support.
Recommendations
The information reviewed sheds light on the need to be more intentional in developing
critical thinkers. The onus to develop critical thinking leaders rests with higher educa-
tion. There are five recommendations for higher education that result from this critical
thinking overview. Education needs to redefine their ultimate goal so that critical think-
ing becomes a component of this newly defined success. This represents a move away
from purely content-based instruction and more importantly, represents a philosophical
shift. Critical thinking needs to move from being a ‘program’ to being part of the culture.
Formalizing training for teachers and creating specific classroom expectations will help
to develop this culture where critical thinking becomes embedded within the fabric of the
© 2010 The Authors

teaching community. Curricula would need to be revised to include critical thinking.

Schools should adequately equip and prepare instructors to teach critical thinking (Tsui,
2002), and make sure they understand the concepts and foundational basis of critical
thinking (Browne & Meuti, 1999). This will require initial and ongoing developmental
opportunities. Schools will need to develop infrastructure to support the new paradigm.
This may require new people in new roles and new roles altogether. Support must come
from the top and permeate the entire organization. This necessitates more than a paper
statement of support: it requires the allocation of resources to meet the new challenge.
Administration should establish clear and elevating goals for schools engaged in critical
thinking curricula that speak to how schools will know if they are successful. This will
require collaboration with the employer community as employers want individuals who
can be effective, regardless of their test scores. Once established, these goals should be
monitored and assessed continuously (Peach et al., 2007), making programmatic cor-
rections as necessary. Lastly, reward those teachers who perform well. Create an envi-
ronment that embraces critical thinking as a core value, where individuals strive to
become more rounded teachers by incorporating critical skills teaching approaches. By
integrating the suggested changes, the educational system will begin to consistently
produce students capable of entering the workforce with material critical thinking skills.
Future Research
The ability to think critically will become more necessary in the future. History has taught
us that the world around us only increases in complexity with each passing year.There will
never be a return to the ‘easy (less complicated) life’ we perceive to have existed in the past.
Being able to create thinking relationships in a meaningful way will bring significant value,
calling for continued research into different aspects of critical thinking.
Teaching critical thinking to kindergarten through age-12 students is ripe for investi-
gation. Are the techniques used for higher education transferable to lower grades? Does
critical thinking look different for children and pre-adolescents (Cuypers & Haji, 2006)
compared to college students? For that matter, can individuals at different stages of
development think critically? Certainly, as one changes the definition of critical thinking,
individuals at lower developmental levels can think critically. Perhaps, the answer is much
more complex and has to do more with how critical thinking manifests itself in different
developmental stages. Lastly, critical thinking has been examined from the narrow
perspective of the individual. Could it be that we have reached a time in our history, given
the complexity of issues, that true critical thinking cannot take place within one indi-
vidual? It has been suggested that we may need to revise our image of leadership as
belonging to individuals and move to thinking of leadership as something we do together
(Hoppe, 2007). Perhaps the same logic applies to critical thinking. In the future might we
define critical thinking as a collective phenomenon that is the synergistic product of a
group of people?
Conclusions
Critical thinking as a concept has far reaching implications. Critical thinking encom-
passes the application of knowledge after careful and measured examination of all
© 2010 The Authors

information and view points, to make decisions that are non-egocentric in nature.
Constructive adult development helps frame critical thinking within meaning-making.
It can be postulated that the ability to make meaning in more complex ways is directly
related to one’s developmental stage. At higher levels of meaning-making, leaders
become more effective. When leaders are more effective, organizations perform better.
Although higher education has been tasked with producing critical thinkers, the results
have been unsatisfactory to date. The repercussions are students entering the workforce
with deficient critical thinking skills. This in turn, has a direct impact on the ability to
remain competitive in a global marketplace. Higher education needs to realize their
current system is not fostering critical thinking. Changing to a critical thinking model
will be a prodigious, but necessary, undertaking.
References
Argyris, C. (1976) Single-loop and Double-loop Models in Research on Decision Making, Admin-
istrative Science Quarterly, 21:3, pp. 363–375.
Avolio, B. J. & Gardner, W. L. (2005) Authentic Leadership Development: Getting to the root of
positive forms of leadership, The Leadership Journal, 16:3, pp. 315–338.
Axelrod, S. D. (2005) Executive Growth Along the Adult Development Curve, Consulting Psychol-
ogy Journal: Practice and Research, 57:2, pp. 118–125.
Barbuto, J. E. (2000) Developing a Leadership Perspective in the Classroom, Journal of Adult
Development, 7:3, pp. 161–169.
Barnes, C. A. (2005) Critical Thinking Revisited: Its past, present, and future, New Directions for
Community Colleges, 130, pp. 5–13.
Bass, B. M. (1996) Is there Universality in the Full Range Model of Leadership? International
Journal of Public Administration, 19:6, pp. 731–761.
Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2007) Self-authorship:The foundation for twenty-first-century education,
New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 109, pp. 69–83.
Beckman, M. (1997) Learning in Action, College Teaching, 45:2, pp. 72–76.
Brodie, P. & Irving, K. (2007) Assessment in Work-based Learning: Investigating a pedagogical
approach to enhance student learning, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 32:1,
pp. 11–19.
Brown, M. E., Trevino, L. K. & Harrison, D. A. (2005) Ethical Leadership: A social learning
perspective for construct development and testing, Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 97:2, pp. 117–134.
Browne, M. N. & Meuti, M. D. (1999) Teaching How to Teach Critical Thinking, College Student
Journal, 33:2, pp. 162–171.
Burbach, M. E., Matkin, G. S. & Fritz, S. M. (2004) Teaching Critical Thinking in an Introductory
Leadership Course Utilizing Active Learning Strategies: A confirmatory study, College
Student Journal, 38:3, pp. 482–493.
Burbules, N. C. (1993) Dialogue in Teaching: Theory and practice (New York, Teachers College
Press).
Burbules, N. C. (1995) Forms of Ideology-critique: A pedagogical perspective, in: P. McLaren &
J. Giarelli (eds), Critical theory and educational research (Albany, NY, State University of New
York Press).
Carroll, P. B. & Mui, C. (2008) 7 Ways To Fail Big, Harvard Business Review, 86:9, pp. 82–91.
Chung-Herrera, B. G. & Lankau, M. J. (2005) Are We There Yet? An assessment of fit between
stereotypes of minority managers and the successful-manager prototype, Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 35:10, pp. 2029–2056.
Cuypers, S. E. & Haji, I. (2006) Education for Critical Thinking: Can it be non-indoctrinative?
Educational Philosophy and Theory, 38:6, pp. 723–743.
© 2010 The Authors

Davies, W. M. (2006) An ‘Infusion’ Approach to Critical Thinking: Moore on the critical thinking
debate, Higher Education Research & Development, 25:2, pp. 179–193.
del Bueno, D. J. (1990) Experience, Education, and Nurses’ Ability to Make Clinical Judgments,
Nursing & Health Care, 11:6, pp. 290–294.
del Bueno, D. (2005) A Crisis in Critical Thinking, Nursing Education Perspectives, 26:5, pp.
278–282.
Dickerson, P. S. (2005) Nurturing Critical Thinkers, The Journal of Continuing Education in
Nursing, 36:2, pp. 68–72.
Drath, W. H. (1990) Managerial Strengths and Weaknesses as Functions of the Development of
Personal Meaning, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 26:4, pp. 483–499.
Duehr, E. E. & Bono, J. E. (2006) Men, Women, and Managers: Are stereotypes finally changing?
Personnel Psychology, 59:4, pp. 815–846.
Elder, L. (2005) Critical Thinking as the Key to the Learning College: A professional development
model, New Directions for Community Colleges, 130, pp. 39–48.
English, F. W. (2006) The Unintended Consequences of a Standardized Knowledge Base in
Advancing Educational Leadership Preparation, Educational Administration Quarterly, 42:3,
pp. 461–472.
Ennis, R. H. (1962) A Concept of Critical Thinking, Harvard Educational Review, 32:1, pp.
81–111.
Erikson, K. (2006) The Constructive Developmental Theory of Robert Kegan, The Family Journal,
14:3, pp. 290–298.
Facione, P. A. (2006) Critical Thinking: What it is and why it counts (Millbrae, CA, California
Academic Press).
Fisher, D., Merron, K. & Torbert, W. R. (1987) Human Development and Managerial Effective-
ness, Group & Organizational Studies, 12:3, pp. 257–273.
Giberson, T. R., Resick, C. J. & Dickson, M. W. (2005) Embedding Leader Characteristics: An
examination of homogeneity of personality and values in organizations, Journal of Applied
Psychology, 90:5, pp. 1002–1010.
Greenhaus, J. H., Parasuraman, S. & Wormley, W. M. (1990) Effects of Race on Organizational
Experiences, Job Performance Evaluations, and Career Outcomes, Academy of Management
Journal, 33:1, pp. 64–86.
Greenleaf, R. K. (1977) Servant Leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power and greatness
(Mahwah, NJ, Paulist Press).
Grossman, R. (2009) Structures for Facilitating Student Reflection, College Teaching, 57:1, pp.
15–22.
Halpern, D. F. (1996) Thought and Knowledge: An introduction to critical thinking 3rd edn. (Mahwah,
NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates).
Hannon, S., McBride, H. & Burns, B. (2004) Developing Creative and Critical Thinking Abilities
in Business Graduates, Industry & Higher Education, 18:2, pp. 95–100.
Heidegger, M. (1966) Discourse on Thinking, J. M. Anderson & E. H. Freund, trans. of Gelassenheit
(New York, Harper Torchbooks).
Hoppe, M. H. (2007) Adult Development Theory May Boost Global Leadership, Leadership in
Action, 27:3, pp. 21–22.
Kegan, R. (1982) The Evolving Self: Problem and process in human development (Cambridge, MA,
Harvard University Press).
Kegan, R. & Lahey, L. L. (1983) Adult Leadership and Adult Development: A constructionist
view, in: B. Kellerman (ed.), Leadership: Multidisciplinary perspectives (Upper Saddle River,
NJ, Prentice Hall).
Kohlberg, L. (1969) Stage and Sequence: The cognitive developmental approach to socialization,
in: D. Goslin (ed.), Handbook of Socialization: Theory and research (Chicago, IL, McNally).
Ladyshewsky, R. K. (2006) Peer Coaching: A constructivist methodology for enhancing critical
thinking in postgraduate business education, Higher Education Research & Development, 25:1,
pp. 67–84.
© 2010 The Authors

Lipman, M. (1988) Critical Thinking—What Can It Be? Educational Leadership, 46:1, pp.
38–43.
Lizzio, A. & Wilson, K. (2007) Developing Critical Professional Judgment: The efficacy of a
self-managed reflective process, Studies in Continuing Education, 29:3, pp. 277–293.
Loo, R. & Thorpe, K. (2005) Relationships Between Critical Thinking and Attitudes Toward
Women’s Roles in Society, The Journal of Psychology, 139:1, pp. 47–55.
Lord, R. G. & Hall, R. J. (2005) Identity, deep structure and the development of leadership skill,
The Leadership Quarterly, 16:4, pp. 591–615.
Lutz, S. T. & Huitt, W. G. (2004) Connecting Cognitive Development and Constructivism:
Implications from theory for instruction and assessment, Constructivism in the Human
Sciences, 9:1, pp. 67–90.
Mason, M. (2007) Critical Thinking and Learning, Educational Philosophy and Theory, 39:4, pp.
339–349.
Maudsley, G. & Strivens, J. (2000) Promoting Professional Knowledge, Experiential Learning and
Critical Thinking for Medical Students, Medical Education, 34:7, pp. 535–544.
Mayo, J. A. (2002) Dialogue as Constructivist Pedagogy: Probing the minds of psychology’s
greatest contributors, Journal of Constructive Psychology, 15, pp. 291–304.
Mazer, J. P., Hunt, S. K. & Kuznekoff, J. H. (2007) Revising General Education: Assessing a
critical thinking instructional model in the basic communication course, The Journal of
General Education, 56:3–4, pp. 173–199.
McCauley, C. D., Drath, W. H., Palus, C.J., O’Connor, P. M. G. & Baker, B. A. (2006) The Use
of Constructive-Developmental Theory to Advance the Understanding of Leadership, The
Leadership Quarterly, 17:6, pp. 634–653.
McGuiness, C. (1993) Teaching Thinking: New signs for theories of cognition, Educational
Psychology, 13:3/4, pp. 305–316.
McPeck, J. E. (1990) Critical Thinking and Subject Specificity: A reply to Ennis, Educational
Researcher, 19:4, pp. 10–12.
Merriam, S. B. (2004) The Role of Cognitive Development in Mezirow’s Transformational
Learning Theory, Adult Education Quarterly, 55:1, pp. 60–68.
Mezirow, J. (2003) Transformative Learning as Discourse, Journal of Transformative Education, 1:1,
pp. 58–63.
Miri, B., David, B. & Uri, Z. (2007) Purposely Teaching for the Promotion of Higher-Order
Thinking Skills: A case of critical thinking, Research in Science Education, 37:4, pp. 353–
369.
Osborne, W. J. (1934) Testing Thinking, Journal of Educational Research, 27:1, p. 402.
Page, S. E. (2007) Making the Difference: Applying a logic of diversity, Academy of Management
Perspectives, 21:4, pp. 6–20.
Papastephanou, M. & Angeli, C. (2007) Critical Thinking Beyond Skill, Educational Philosophy and
Theory, 39:6, pp. 604–621.
Paul, R. (1984) Critical Thinking: Fundamental to education for a free society, Educational
Leadership, 42:1, pp. 4–14.
Paul, R. (2005) The State of Critical Thinking Today, New Directions for Community Colleges, 130,
pp. 27–38.
Paul, R. & Elder, L. (2001) Critical Thinking: Inert information, activated ignorance, and activated
knowledge, Journal of Developmental Education, 25:2, pp. 36–37.
Peach, B. E., Mukherjee, A. & Hornyak, M. (2007) Assessing Critical Thinking: A college’s
journey and lessons learned, Journal of Education for Business, 82:6, pp. 313–320.
Peters, M. A. (2007) Kinds of Thinking, Styles of Reasoning, Educational Philosophy and Theory,
39:4, pp. 350–363.
Pithers, R. T. & Soden, R. (2000) Critical Thinking in Education: A review, Educational Research,
42:3, pp. 237–249.
Puolimatka, T. (2003) Constructivism and Critical Thinking, Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across
Disciplines, 22:4, pp. 5–12.
© 2010 The Authors

Quatro, S. A., Waldman, D. A. & Galvin, B. M. (2007) Developing Holistic Leaders: Four domains
for leadership development and practice, Human Resources Management Review, 17:4, pp.
427–441.
Raskin, J. D. (2008) The Evolution of Constructivism, Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 21:1,
pp.1–24.
Ricketts, J. C. & Rudd, R. D. (2005) Critical Thinking Skills of Selected Youth Leaders: The
efficacy of critical thinking, dispositions, leadership, and academic performance, Journal of
Agricultural Education, 46:1, pp. 32–43.
Riggio, R. E. & Lee, J. (2007) Emotional and Interpersonal Competencies and Leader Develop-
ment, Human Resource Management Review, 17:4, pp. 418–426.
Rooke, D. & Torbert, W. R. (2005) Transformations of Leadership, Harvard Business Review, 83:4,
pp. 67–76.
Rudd, R. D. (2007) Defining Critical Thinking, Techniques, October, 46–47. Available at: http://
www.acteonline.org/uploadedFiles/Publications_and_E-Media/files/files-techniques-2007/
Oct07ResearchReport.pdf
Rudd, R. D., Baker, M.T. & Hoover, T. S. (2000) Undergraduate Agriculture Student Learning
Styles and Critical Thinking Abilities: Is there a relationship? Journal of Agricultural Educa-
tion, 41:3, pp. 2–12.
Senge, P. M. (1990) The Fifth Discipline:The art and practice of the learning organization (New York,
Doubleday).
Siegel, H. (1980) Critical Thinking as an Educational Ideal. Paper presented at the Annual
meeting of the American Educational Research Association, April, Boston, MA.
Spreier, S. W., Fontaine, M. H. & Malloy, R. L. (2006) Leadership Run Amok, Harvard Business
Review, 84:6, pp. 72–82.
Teagarden, M. B. (2007) Best Practices in Cross-cultural Leadership, in: J. A. Conger, R. E. Riggio
& B. M. Bass (eds), The Practice of Leadership (San Francisco, CA, Jossey-Bass).
The Conference Board (2006) Are They Ready to Work? Employers’ perspectives on the basic
knowledge and applied skills of new entrants to the 21st century US workforce (BED-06-
Workforce). New York: Jill Casner-Lotto & Linda Barrington.
Tiwari, A., Lai, P., So, M. & Yuen, K. (2006) A Comparison of the Effects of Problem-Based
Learning and Lecturing on the Development of Students’ Critical Thinking, Medical
Education, 40:6, pp. 547–554.
Torbert, W. R. (1987) Managing the Corporate Dream: Restructuring for long-term success
(Homewood, IL, Dow Jones-Irwin).
Tsui, L. (1999) Courses and Instruction Affecting Critical Thinking, Research in Higher Education,
40:2, pp.185–200.
Tsui, L. (2002) Fostering Critical Thinking Through Effective Pedagogy: Evidence from four
institutional case studies, The Journal of Higher Education, 73:6, pp. 740–763.
U. S. Department of Education (March 2008) Mini-digest of education statistics, 2008. Available
at: http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d07/tables/dt07_008.asp?referrer=list (accessed 15
March 2009).
Van Gelder, T. (2005) Teaching Critical Thinking, College Teaching, 53:1, pp. 41–46.
Vick, M. (2006) ‘It’s a Difficult Matter’: Historical perspectives on the enduring problem of the
practicum in teacher preparation, Asia-Pacific Journal ofTeacher Education, 34:2, pp. 181–198.
Weick, K. E. (1995) Seven Properties of Sensemaking, in: Sensemaking in Organizations (Thousand
Oaks, CA, Sage Publications).
West, R. F., Toplak, M. E. & Stanovich, K. E. (2008) Heuristics and Biases as Measures of Critical
Thinking: Associations with cognitive ability and thinking dispositions, Journal of Educational
Psychology, 100:4, pp. 930–941.
Wyche, K. R. (2008) Preparation: The key to great leadership, Leader to Leader, 50, pp. 11–14.
© 2010 The Authors


Deficient Critical Thinking Skills among College Graduates Implications for leadership

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Deficient Critical Thinking Skills among College Graduates Implications for leadership

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Educational Philosophy and Theory

ISSN: 0013-1857 (Print) 1469-5812 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rept20

Deficient Critical Thinking Skills among College

KEVIN L. FLORES , GINA S. MATKIN , MARK E. BURBACH , COURTNEY E.

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-5812.2010.00672.x

Published online: 09 Jan 2013.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1764

View related articles

Citing articles: 23 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

Deficient Critical Thinking Skills among

Kevin L. Flores, Gina S. Matkin, Mark E. Burbach,

Keywords: critical thinking, leadership, constructivism

© 2010 The Authors

Constructivism Critical Thinking

Figure 1: Relationship of critical thinking to constructivism, education, and leadership

© 2010 The Authors

to overcome.The purpose of this paper will be to examine the implications on leadership

Overview of Critical Thinking

What is Critical Thinking?

© 2010 The Authors

Defining Critical Thinking

© 2010 The Authors

through a process of self-reflection as they consider alternative positions. Halpern (1996)

Constructivism and Critical Thinking

© 2010 The Authors

© 2010 The Authors

Leadership and Critical Thinking

© 2010 The Authors

© 2010 The Authors

Education and Critical Thinking

© 2010 The Authors

Current Critical Thinking Approaches in Education

© 2010 The Authors

© 2010 The Authors

Implications for Leaders in the Workforce

© 2010 The Authors

Future Challenges for the Educational System

© 2010 The Authors

environment. ‘The function of a university based graduate preparation program is not to

© 2010 The Authors

teaching community. Curricula would need to be revised to include critical thinking.

© 2010 The Authors

© 2010 The Authors

© 2010 The Authors

© 2010 The Authors

© 2010 The Authors

You might also like