Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Effectiveness of Instruction in Critical Thinking

  • Chapter
The Palgrave Handbook of Critical Thinking in Higher Education

Abstract

Undergraduate instruction in critical thinking is supposed to improve skills in critical thinking and to foster the dispositions (i.e., behavioral tendencies) of an ideal critical thinker. Students receiving such instruction already have these skills and dispositions to some extent, and their manifestation does not require specialized technical knowledge. Hence it is not obvious that the instruction actually does what it is supposed to do.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
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

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Abrami, P. C., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Wade, A., Surkes, M. A., Tamim, R., and Zhang, D. 2008. “Instructional Interventions Affecting Critical Thinking Skills and Dispositions: A Stage 1 Meta-Analysis.” Review of Educational Research 78 (4): 1102–1134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abrami, P. C., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Waddington, D. I., Wade, C. A., and Persson, T. 2014. “Strategies for Teaching Students to Think Critically: A Meta-Analysis.” Review of Educational Research. Advance online publication retrieved from http://rer.sagepub.com. doi:10.3102/0034654314551063.

  • American Philosophical Association. 1990. “Critical Thinking: A Statement of Expert Consensus for Purposes of Educational Assessment and Instruction.” ED 315423. ERIC Document.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bertil, R. Athena Standard, Software accessed August 16, 2013 2005. Available from http://theguide.ntic.org/display_lo.php?oai_id=oai%3Aeureka.ntic.org%3A4c991765e30281.68868667.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. 1988. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. (second edition). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donohue, A., van Gelder, T. J., Cumming, G., and Bissett, M. 2002. “Reason! Project Studies 1999–2002 (Reason! Project Technical Report 2002/1).” Melbourne. August 18, 2013. http://www.kritischdenken.nl/Rationale/Tutorials/Overview/ReasonProjectReport2002_1.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ennis, R. 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, R. H. 1987. “A Taxonomy of Critical Thinking Dispositions and Abilities.” In Teaching Thinking Skills: Theory and Practice, edited by J. B. Baron and R. J. Sternberg. New York: W. H. Freeman and Company. 9–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ennis, R. H. 1989. “Critical Thinking and Subject Specificity: Clarification and Needed Research.” Educational Researcher 18 (3): 4–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ennis, R. H. 1991. “Critical Thinking: A Streamlined Conception.” Teaching Philosophy 14 (1): 5–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Facione, P. 1990a. “The California Critical Thinking Skills Test: College Level, Technical Report #1: Experimental Validation and Content Validity.” ED 327549. ERIC Document.

    Google Scholar 

  • Facione, P. 1990b. “The California Critical Thinking Skills Test: College Level, Technical Report #2: Factors Predictive of CT Skills.” ED 327550. ERIC Document.

    Google Scholar 

  • Facione, P. 1990c. “The California Critical Thinking Skills Test: College Level, Technical Report #3: Gender, Ethnicity, Major, CT Self-Esteem and the CCTST.” ED 326584. ERIC Document.

    Google Scholar 

  • Facione, P. 1990d. “The California Critical Thinking Skills Test: College Level, Technical Report #4: Interpreting the CCTST, Group Norms and Sub-Scores.” ED 327566. ERIC Document.

    Google Scholar 

  • Facione, P. A., Facione, N. C., Blohm, S. W., Howard, K., and Giancarlo, C. F. 1998. Test Manual: The California Critical Thinking Skills Test (revised edition). Millbrae: California Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, A., and Scriven, D. 1997. Critical Thinking: Its Definition and Assessment. Point Reyes, CA: Edgepress.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hatcher, D. 1999. “Why Critical Thinking Should Be Combined with Written Composition.” Informal Logic 19: 171–183.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hatcher, D. 2001. “Why Percy Can’t Think: A Response to Bailin.” Informal Logic 21: 171–181.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hitchcock, D. 2004. “The Effectiveness of Computer Assisted Instruction in Critical Thinking.” Informal Logic 24 (3): 183–217.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, S. S. 1995. “Technical Characteristics and Some Correlates of the California Critical Thinking Skills Test, Forms A and B.” Research in Higher Education 36: 89–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, S. S. 1999. “The Equivalence of Forms A and B of the California Critical Thinking Skills Test.” Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development 31: 211–222.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larkin, J. H., and Chabay, R. W. 1989. “Research on Teaching Scientific Thinking: Implications for Computer-Based Instruction.” In Toward the Thinking Curriculum: Current Cognitive Research, edited by L. B. Resnick and L. E. Klopfer. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. 150–172.

    Google Scholar 

  • LeBlanc, J. 1998a. LEMUR (Logical Evaluation Makes Understanding Real) to Accompany Thinking Clearly. New York: W. W. Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • LeBlanc, J. 1998b. Thinking Clearly: A Guide to Critical Reasoning. New York: W. W. Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lepper, M. R., and Greene, J. A. 1978. The Hidden Costs of Reward: New Perspectives on the Psychology of Human Motivation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norman, G. R., Sloan, J. A., and Wyrwich, K. W. 2003. “Interpretation of Changes in Health-Related Quality of Life: The Remarkable Universality of Half a Standard Deviation.” Medical Care 41: 582–592.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pascarella, E., and Terenzini, P. 2005. How College Affects Students: Findings and Insights from Twenty Years of Research. Vol. 2: A Third Decade of Research. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reed, C., and Rowe, G. 2012. Araucaria 3.1 August 16. Available from http://araucaria.computing.dundee.ac.uk/doku.php.

    Google Scholar 

  • Twardy, C. R. 2004. “Argument Maps Improve Critical Thinking.” Teaching Philosophy 27: 95–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Gelder, T. 2001. “How to Improve Critical Thinking Using Educational Technology.” In Meeting at the Crossroads: Proceedings of the 18th Annual Conference of the Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education, edited by G. Kennedy, M. Keppell, C. McNaught and T. Petrovic. University of Melbourne. 539–548.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Gelder, T. J. 2000. “Learning to Reason: A Reason! Able Approach.” In Cognitive Science in Australia 2000: Proceedings of the Fifth Australasian Cognitive Science Society, edited by C. Davis, T. J. van Gelder, and R. Wales. Adelaide: Causal.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Gelder, T. J. 2013. Rationale 2.0.10. August 16. Available from http://rationale.austhink.com/download.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. David Hitchcock
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Martin Davies Ronald Barnett

Copyright information

© 2015 Martin Davies and Ronald Barnett

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Hitchcock, D. (2015). The Effectiveness of Instruction in Critical Thinking. In: Davies, M., Barnett, R. (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Critical Thinking in Higher Education. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137378057_18

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation