Advertisement

Educational Psychology Review

, Volume 26, Issue 4, pp 477–493 | Cite as

The Nature and Development of Critical-Analytic Thinking

  • James P. Byrnes
  • Kevin N. Dunbar
Review Article

Abstract

In this article, we attempt to provide an overview of the features of the abilities, aptitudes, and frames of minds that are attributed to critical thinking and provide the broad outlines of the development of critical-analytic thinking (CAT) abilities. In addition, we evaluate the potential viability of three main hypotheses regarding the reasons for developmental trends in CAT and address problems of achieving the ideal of a critical-analytic thinker at all age levels. The first hypothesis is that standard instruction in disciplines such as the sciences and social sciences, couch findings, and theories as matters of choice rather than as inferences is being more warranted than others. The second hypothesis is that there are developmental constraints on the expression of CAT that would limit the efficacy of instruction seeking to promote increased appreciation for inferential warrants and the idea of progress in disciplines. These constraints could be tied to the acquisition of knowledge, development of expertise, and brain development. The third hypothesis pertains to motivational reasons for not exerting the time and effort required to engage in CAT. We conclude by proposing a research agenda to investigate these hypotheses, as the first step in understanding the kinds of interventions that might be needed to increase the level of CAT expressed in high school and college graduates.

Keywords

Critical thinking Analytic thinking Rationality 

References

  1. Alexander, P. A. (2014). Thinking critically-analytically about critical-analytic thinking: an introduction. Educational Psychology Review.Google Scholar
  2. American Nursing Association. (2010). Nursing: scope and standards of practice (2nd ed.). MD: Silver Spring.Google Scholar
  3. Baltes, B., & Staudinger, U. M. (2000). Wisdom: a metaheuristic (pragmatic) to orchestrate mind and virtue toward excellence. American Psychologist, 55, 122–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baron, J. (2007). Thinking and deciding (4th ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bassok, M., & Novick, L. R. (2012). Problem solving. In K. J. Holyoak & R. G. Morrison (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 413–432). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Baum, L. A., Danovich, J. H., & Keil, F. C. (2008). Children’s sensitivity to circular explanations. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 100, 146–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Berliner, D. C. (1993). The 100-year journey of educational psychology: from interest, to disdain, to respect for practice. In T. K. Fagan & G. R. VandenBos (Eds.), Exploring applied psychology: origins and critical analyses (pp. 37–78). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  8. Bloom, P. (2000). How children learn the meaning of words. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  9. Brookfield, S. D. (2012). Teaching for critical thinking: tools and techniques to help students question their assumptions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  10. Byrnes (2008). Cognitive development in instructional contexts (3rd ed.). Needham Hts: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  11. Capstick, S. B. & Pidgeon, N. F. (2014). What is climate change scepticism? Examination of the concept using a mixed methods study of the UK public. Global Environmental Change, 24, 389–401.Google Scholar
  12. Chi, M. T. H., Feltovich, P., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5, 121–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dewey, J. D. (1933). How we think, a restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process. Boston: D. C. Heath.Google Scholar
  14. Diamond, A. (2012). Activities and programs that improve children’s executive functions. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21, 335–341.Google Scholar
  15. Dumas, D., Alexander, P., Baker, L.M., Jablansky, S., & Dunbar, K. N. (2014). Clinical relations: how relational reasoning supports medical education and practice. Educational Psychology. First published online May 8.Google Scholar
  16. Dunbar, K. (2002). Science as category: implications of InVivo science for theories of cognitive development, scientific discovery, and the nature of science. In S. Stich & P. Carruthers (Eds.), Cognitive models of science (pp. 154–170). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Dunbar, K., Fugelsang, J., & Stein, C. (2007). Do naive theories ever go away? Using brain and behavior to understand changes in concepts. In M. Lovett & P. Shah (Eds.), Thinking with data (pp. 193–206). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  18. Dunbar, K. N., & Klahr, D. (2012). Scientific thinking and reasoning. In K. J. Holyoak & R. G. Morrison (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 701–718). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Ennis, R. H. (1987). A taxonomy of critical thinking dispositions and abilities. In J. B. Baron & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Teaching thinking skills: theory and practice (pp. 9–26). New York: W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar
  20. Ericsson, K. A. (2013). Exceptional memory and expert performance: from Simon and Chase’s theory of expertise to skilled memory and beyond. In J. J. Staszewski (Ed.), Expertise and skill acquisition: the impact of William G. Chase (pp. 201–228). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  21. Evans, J. S. B. T. (2012). Dual process theories of deductive reasoning: facts and fallacies. In K. J. Holyoak & R. G. Morrison (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 115–133). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Evans, J. S. B. T., & Stanovich, K. E. (2013). Dual-process theories of higher cognition: advancing the debate. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(223–241), 263–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fugelsang, J.A., & Dunbar, K. N. (2005). Brain-based mechanisms underlying complex causal thinking. Neuropsychologia, 43, 1204–1213.Google Scholar
  24. Glaser, E. (1941). An experiment in the development of critical thinking. New York: J. J. Little and Ives Company.Google Scholar
  25. Green, A. E., & Dunbar, K. N. (2012). Mental function as genetic expression: emerging insights from cognitive neurogenetics. In K. J. Holyoak & R. G. Morrison (Eds.), Oxford handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 90–114). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Halpern, D. F. (2014). Thought and knowledge: an introduction to critical thinking (5th ed.). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  27. Harris, P. J. (2002). What do children learn from testimony? In P. Carruthers, S. P. Stich, & M. Siegal (Eds.), The cognitive basis of science (pp. 316–334). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1980). Mental models in cognitive science. Cognitive Science, 4, 71–115.Google Scholar
  29. Kahan, D. M. (2013). Ideology, motivated reasoning, and cognitive reflection. Judgment and Decision Making, 8, 407–424.Google Scholar
  30. Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.Google Scholar
  31. Karmiloff-Smith, A., & Farran, E. K. (2012). Theoretical and empirical directions within a neuroconstructivist framework. In E. K. Farran & A. Karmiloff-Smith (Eds.), Neurodevelopmental disorders across the lifespan: a neuroconstructivist approach (pp. 363–372). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Mulvey, K. L., Hitti, A., & Killen, M. (2013). Morality, intentionality, and exclusion: how children navigate the social world. In M. Banaji & S. Gelman (Eds.), Navigating the social world: a developmental perspective (pp. 377–384). New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Klaczinski, P. A., & Lavallee, K. L. (2005). Domain-specific identity, epistemic regulation, and intellectual ability as predictors of belief-based reasoning: a dual-process perspective. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 92, 1–24.Google Scholar
  34. Klaczynski, P. A., & Robinson, B. (2000). Personal theories, intellectual ability and epistemological beliefs: adult age differences in everyday reasoning biases. Psychology and Aging, 15, 400–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kuhl, P. K. (2006). A new view of language acquisition. In H. Luria, D, M, Seymour & T. Smoke (Eds.), Language and linguistics in context: readings and applications for teachers (pp. 29–42). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.Google Scholar
  36. Kuhn, D. (1999). A developmental model of critical thinking. Educational Researcher, 28, 16–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kuhn, D. (2011). What people may do versus can do. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 343, 83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kuhn, D., & Crowell, A. (2011). Dialogic argumentation as a vehicle for developing young adolescents’ reasoning. Psychological Science, 22, 545–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lehrer, R., Schauble, L., & Lucas, D. (2008). Supporting development of the epistemology of inquiry. Cognitive Development, 23, 512–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lombrozo, T. (2012). Explanation and abductive inference. In K. J. Holyoak & R. G. Morrison (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 260–276). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Maggioni, L., VanSledright, B., & Alexander, P. A. (2009). Walking on the borders: a measure of epistemic cognition in history. Journal of Experimental Education, 77, 187–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Mercier, H. (2011). Reasoning serves argumentation in children. Cognitive Development, 26, 177–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Mercier, H., & Sperber, D. (2011). Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34, 57–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Mills, C. M. (2012). Knowing when to doubt: developing a critical stance when learning from others. Developmental Psychology, 49, 404–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Moore, T. J. (2011). Critical thinking and language: the challenge of generic skills and disciplinary discourse. New York: Continuum International Publishing Group.Google Scholar
  46. Nandagopal, K., & Ericsson, K. A. (2012). Enhancing students’ performance in traditional education: implications from the expert–performance approach and deliberate practice. In K. R. Harris, S. Graham, & T. Urdan (Eds.), Educational psychology handbook. Volume 1: theories, constructs, and critical issues (pp. 257–293). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  47. Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  48. Rosch, E. (1975). Cognitive representations of semantic categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 104, 192–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Schraw, G., & Gutierrez, A. (2012). Assessment of thinking skills. In M. F. Shaughnessy (Ed.), Critical thinking and higher order thinking: a current perspective (pp. 191–203). Hauppague: Nova Science Publishers.Google Scholar
  50. Smith, E. E., & Medin, D. L. (1981). Categories and concepts. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Stanovich, K. E. (2012). On the distinction between rationality and intelligence: implications for understanding individual differences in reasoning. In K. J. Holyoak & R. G. Morrison (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 433–455). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (2008). On the relative independence of thinking biases and cognitive ability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 672–695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Stanovich, K. E., West, R. F., & Toplak, M. E. (2013). Myside bias, rational thinking, and intelligence. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22, 259–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Sternberg, R. J., Jarvin, L., Birney, D. P., Naples, A., Stemler, S. E., Newman, T., Otterbach, R., Parish, C., Randi, J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2014). Testing the theory of successful intelligence in teaching grade 4 language arts, mathematics, and science. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106, 881–899.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Swanson, H. L., & Alloway, T. P. (2012). Working memory, learning, and academic achievement. In K. R. Harris, S. Graham, & T. Urdan (Eds.), Educational psychology handbook. Volume 1: theories, constructs, and critical issues (pp. 327–366). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  56. Tenenbaum, J. B., Kemp, C., Griffiths, T. L., & Goodman, N. D. (2011). How to grow a mind: statistics, structure, and abstraction. Science, 331(6022), 1279–1285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Toplak, M. E., West, R. F., & Stanovich, K. E. (2014). Rational thinking and cognitive sophistication: development, cognitive abilities, and thinking dispositions. Developmental Psychology, 50, 1037–1048.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Thompson, V., & Evans, J. S. B. T. (2012). Belief bias in informal reasoning. Thinking and Reasoning, 18, 278–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Willingham, W. T. (2008). Critical thinking: why is it so hard to teach? Arts Education Policy Review, 109, 21–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical investigations. (Anscombe, G.E.M., trans.). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  61. Wong, S. L., & Hodson, D. (2009). From the horse’s mouth: what scientists say about scientific investigation and scientific knowledge. Science Education, 93, 109–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of EducationTemple UniversityPhiladelphiaUSA
  2. 2.Department of Human Development, Measurement and Statistics, College of EducationUniversity of MarylandCollege ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations