Skip to main content

Critical Thinking as an Educational Ideal

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
On Reasoning and Argument

Part of the book series: Argumentation Library ((ARGA,volume 30))

Abstract

Critical thinking arrives at a judgment on a question by looking back in a reasonable way at the relevant evidence; it is “reasonable reflective thinking focused on deciding what to believe or do” (Ennis). Its key component skills are those of clarifying meaning, analyzing arguments, evaluating evidence, judging whether a conclusion follows, and drawing warranted conclusions. An ideal “critical thinker” is open-minded and fair-minded, searches for evidence, tries to be well-informed, is attentive to others’ views and their reasons, proportions belief to the evidence, and is willing to consider alternatives and revise beliefs. The process of thinking critically involves problem identification and analysis, clarification of meaning, gathering the evidence, assessing the evidence, inferring conclusions, considering other relevant information, and making an overall judgment. Critical thinking differs from the logical appraisal of arguments in extending beyond a single argument, having a creative component, and involving critical assessment of evidence. Any educational system should aim to teach the knowledge, develop the skills, and foster the attitudes and dispositions of a critical thinker: someone who thinks critically when it is appropriate to do so, and who does so well. It can do so either by infusion in subject-matter courses or through a stand-alone course. Each method has advantages and disadvantages; a combination is theoretically better, but hard to achieve. In a stand-alone course, one should adapt to one’s situation, communicate the course goals, motivate one’s students, use a checklist as a course framework, foster a critical spirit, prefer depth to breadth, use bridging, take advantage of salient issues, use real or realistic examples, pick one’s examples with care, give students lots of guided practice with feedback, check for understanding, encourage meta-cognition, think about context, watch for empty use of technical terms, and design multiple-choice items carefully if one uses them.

Bibliographical note: This chapter was presented at a conference on critical thinking at Qiming College of Huazhong University of Science and Technology in Wuhan, China, in June 2011, and subsequently published in Chinese translation in 高等教育研究 [gāodĕng jiàoyù yánjiū, Journal of Higher Education] 33/11 (November 2012), 54–63. The first two sections of the chapter incorporate and adapt material from Chap. 4 of Evidence-based practice: Logic and critical thinking in medicine, co-authored by Milos Jenicek , MD, and myself, and published in 2005 by American Medical Association (AMA) Press (Jenicek and Hitchcock 2005); material used with permission.

The original version of this chapter was revised: Author corrections have been updated completely. The erratum to this chapter is available at 10.1007/978-3-319-53562-3_33

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Black, Max. 1946. Critical thinking: An introduction to logic and scientific method. New York: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruff, Derek. 2009. Teaching with classroom response systems: Creating active learning environments. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, John. 1910 How we think. Boston, New York and Chicago: D. C. Heath.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dumke, Glenn S. 1980. Chancellor’s executive order 338. Long Beach, CA: Chancellor’s Office, California State University. Available at https://www.calstate.edu/eo/EO-338.pdf; accessed 2016 08 02.

  • Ennis, Robert H. 1962. A concept of critical thinking: a proposed basis for research in the teaching and evaluation of critical thinking ability. Harvard Educational Review 32: 81–111.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ennis, Robert H. 1985. A logical basis for measuring critical thinking skills. Educational Leadership 43(2): 44–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ennis, Robert H. 1987. A taxonomy of critical thinking dispositions and abilities. In Teaching thinking skills: Theory and practice, ed. Joan Boykoff Baron and Robert J. Steinberg, 9–26. New York: W. H. Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ennis, Robert H. 1991. Critical thinking: a streamlined conception. Teaching Philosophy 14: 5–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ennis, Robert H. 1996. Critical thinking. Upper Saddle River: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ennis, Robert H. 2011a. Critical thinking: reflection and perspective, part I. Inquiry 26(1): 4–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ennis, Robert H. 2011b. Critical thinking: reflection and perspective, part II. Inquiry 26(2): 5–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ennis, Robert H., and Jason Millman. 2005. Cornell critical thinking test, Level Z. Seaside, CA: The Critical Thinking Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Facione, Peter A. 1990. Critical thinking: A statement of expert consensus for purposes of educational assessment and instruction. Research findings and recommendations prepared for the Committee on Pre-College Philosophy of the American Philosophical Association. ED 315423. ERIC Document. Available at http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED315423; accessed 2016 08 05.

  • Facione, Peter A. 1998. California Critical Thinking Skills Test, Forms A and B. Millbrae, CA: California Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Facione, Peter A. 2000. California critical thinking skills test - 2000. Millbrae, CA: California Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, Alec. 2001. Critical thinking. An introduction. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, Alec, and Michael Scriven 1997. Critical thinking: Its definition and assessment. Point Reyes, CA: Edgepress and Norwich, UK: Centre for Research in Critical Thinking, University of East Anglia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, Edward M. 1941. An experiment in the development of critical thinking. New York: Advanced School of Education at Teachers College, Columbia University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hitchcock, David. 1983. Critical thinking. A guide to evaluating information. Toronto: Methuen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hitchcock, David. 2004. The effectiveness of computer-assisted instruction in critical thinking. Informal Logic 24: 183–221.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jenicek, Milos, and David Hitchcock 2005. Evidence-based practice: Logic and critical thinking in medicine. Chicago: AMA Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipman, Matthew. 1988. Critical thinking: what can it be? Analytic Teaching 8: 5–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • McPeck, John. 1981. Critical thinking and education. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norris, Stephen P., and Robert H. Ennis. 1989. Evaluating critical thinking. Pacific Grove, CA: Midwest Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oxford, Cambridge and RSA Examinations. 2011. AS/A Level GCE Critical Thinking - H052, H452. Cambridge: OCR. Information available at http://www.ocr.org.uk/qualifications/as-a-level-gce-critical-thinking-h052-h452/; accessed 2016 08 02.

  • Pascarella, Ernest T., and Patrick T. Terenzini 2005. How college affects students revisited: Research from the decade of the 1990s. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paul, Richard W. 1982. Teaching critical thinking in the “strong” sense: A focus on self-deception, world-views, and a dialectical mode of analysis. Informal Logic Newsletter 4(2): 2–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paul, Richard W. 1989. Critical thinking in North America: A new theory of knowledge, learning and literacy. Argumentation 3: 197–235.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paul, Richard W. 1993. Critical thinking: What every person needs to survive in a rapidly changing world, revised third edition. Santa Rosa, CA: Foundation for Critical Thinking.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siegel, Harvey. 1988. Educating reason: Rationality, critical thinking and education. New York and London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, B. Othanel. 1953. The improvement of critical thinking. Progressive Education 30: 129–134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swartz, Robert J., and David N. Perkins 1990. Teaching thinking: Issues and approaches. Pacific Grove, CA: Midwest Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toulmin, Stephen Edelston. 1958. The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Updated edition 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watson, Goodwin, and Edward M. Glaser. 2009. Watson-Glaser II critical thinking appraisal. San Antonio, TX: Pearson Assessment.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David Hitchcock .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Hitchcock, D. (2017). Critical Thinking as an Educational Ideal. In: On Reasoning and Argument. Argumentation Library, vol 30. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-53562-3_30

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics