value education critical thinking

Home News & Diary School Blog

The Role of Critical Thinking in Values Education

24 Sep 2019

Uncategorized

Jonathan Beale, Researcher-in-Residence, CIRL

24 September 2019

It is essential that the student acquire an understanding of and a lively feeling for values.  … It is also vital to a valuable education that independent critical thinking be developed in the young human being… 

Albert Einstein, ‘Education for Independent Thought’ (1952) [1]

How should we teach values? This blog post outlines three approaches towards teaching values and argues that each plays an important role in values education. The third approach, which is this blog’s focus, concerns the role of critical thinking within values education.

• Values and character

Addressing the question of what constitutes the best way to teach values takes us to a perennial philosophical question addressed by Plato: ‘Can virtue be taught?’. This is the guiding question of Plato’s Meno and is also addressed in his Protagoras . [2] This article assumes that virtue can be taught but emphasizes how difficult it is and draws connections between the development of virtue and the teaching of values. These are perhaps best addressed through discussion not of the ideas of Plato but of Aristotle, at the core of whose moral philosophy are the questions of what constitutes the most virtuous life and how to reach it.

In his Nicomachean Ethics and Eudemian Ethics , Aristotle offers a conception of the good life – ‘ eudaimonia ’, meaning, roughly, human flourishing – centred around the aim of cultivating a virtuous character. [3] This requires rigorous practice, such that virtuous practices become habits. Through habituation, virtues can become character traits. As virtues come to constitute part of one’s character, one becomes a virtuous person. To be a tolerant person, for instance, one must rigorously practise being tolerant, through a variety of contexts over many years, learning from those whose characters manifest excellent examples of tolerance. Through such practice, tolerance becomes a habit; through habituation, tolerance can become a character trait and one thereby becomes a tolerant person.

Values are distinct from virtues; but the two are intimately connected. Virtues are not always a manifestation of values; someone could come across as polite, for instance, without endorsing the value of politeness. But values are often manifest as virtues and, for the truly virtuous person, their virtues reflect or are a manifestation of their values. A person is, therefore, more able to develop virtues with the corresponding or underlying values in place.

The ultimate objective of values education is to improve a person’s character such that they become virtuous (or more so) and their virtues reflect important values. When we educate students about values we are not aiming to simply teach them about values and their importance, but to inculcate values within them. Through inculcation, values education aims to cultivate virtuous persons. The teaching of values is, therefore, closely related to the teaching of virtue.

An important lesson we can learn from Aristotle is that teaching values requires far more than classroom lessons. To develop a character possessive of any value, a student is likely to need to practise activities indicative of the values to be learned, across various contexts over a long time. It helps significantly if the student is a participant in a culture embodying these values. The best environment to acquire the values to be learned and develop the virtues often reflective of such values includes people whose characters and ways of life manifest those values and virtues. Such conditions are among those that provide an environment in which one can become habituated into the virtues that make them a virtuous person.

To successfully teach values, in the sense that students do not merely understand them but they respect them and their characters reflect them, a school must, therefore, do much more than teach about values in lessons. Values have to be embedded within a school’s culture. Values need to be reflected in and intertwined within school activities, including teaching practices, assemblies, events, clubs and interpersonal attitudes among and between the staff and student cohorts. Values, when successfully embedded in school life, help with students’ character development and can help them to flourish, in the Aristotelian sense.

That is the approach towards teaching values most likely to achieve the objective of cultivating virtuous persons. It is also the most difficult to achieve, because it requires the support of a school’s entire culture: its ethos, environment, activities, and the encouragement of staff and students. Various efforts are made by schools to achieve this. For instance, through the embedment of values education in a school’s ‘Social, Moral, Spiritual and Cultural’ programme; through the ‘Core Values’ many schools endorse; and through annual values some schools promote. These are some of the ways that help to achieve this first and most important approach towards the teaching of values.

• Direct values education

The second approach towards teaching values I will discuss is what might seem to be the more straightforward approach of classroom teaching about values. The major limitation facing this is that the teaching of values is far from straightforward. That values require practice and the development of skills does not make values a pedagogically unique field; all disciplines require practice and the development of skills. What makes values a distinctive pedagogical category is that values are things in which one believes, manifested through one’s character and way of life, often taking the form of fundamental principles which guide one’s conduct and in which one’s worldview is rooted. Values education therefore requires a more holistic pedagogy, central to which is the first approach towards teaching values. This takes values education far beyond the classroom.

What we might call ‘direct’ values education in schools – i.e., where the subject matter of a lesson is values and the primary lesson objective is to understand a particular value – often takes place within tutor group lessons. Such lessons face significant hurdles in meeting the aim of cultivating virtues, such as: little time; no homework requirements; few means of assessing the extent to which values have been learned; the teacher often not having specific expertise in values education; and the lessons often functioning as part of a mixed programme of various topics the tutor is required to teach over the year.

It is extremely unlikely that direct values education, if taken as the only or predominant approach towards teaching values, can fulfil what we might call the ‘Aristotelian objective’ of cultivating virtuous persons. By contrast, I would argue that the first approach can fulfil the Aristotelian objective, even if it is the only approach taken towards teaching values. In other words, values can be taught and virtues can be cultivated without direct values education.

Notwithstanding the limitations facing direct values education, this is an important part of values education. It is of the utmost importance to teach students what, for example, democracy is and why it matters, and to engage in discussion about its strengths and weaknesses. But this approach towards values education plays a supporting role to the first way of teaching values, since the ultimate aim is to cultivate virtuous persons.

• The role of critical thinking in values education

The third approach towards teaching values I will discuss concerns the role of critical thinking within values education. An important component of not only a good values education but a good education in general is developing the skillset to make rational, independent, critical judgements about values and beliefs. This is an area where philosophy plays an important role. Axiology is part of philosophy’s subject matter; and the field of philosophy sometimes referred to as ‘critical thinking’ can be used to provide students with this skillset.

Critical thinking is the elementary study of arguments and reasoning, fundamentally concerned with the way arguments are structured and produced. It aims to develop skills in extracting, analysing, constructing and evaluating arguments. It involves studying the following areas, among others:

• the distinction between arguments, rants, explanations, and information;
• the structure of an argument, its constituent parts and their roles (premises, conclusions and intermediate conclusions);
• extracting an argument using indicator words and phrases to identify premises (e.g. ‘because’, ‘as’, ‘since’) and conclusions (e.g., ‘so’, ‘therefore’, ‘hence’);
• joint and independent reasoning;
• evaluating arguments by identifying informal fallacies, appeals (e.g., to tradition or popularity), and identifying uses of loaded language in arguments;
• necessary and sufficient conditions;
• the concepts of consistency and inconsistency, and a contradiction;
• identifying assumptions and enthymemes;
• assessing the credibility of sources in terms of whether the evidence in question is reliable;
• developing and responding to arguments, by counterarguing and constructing counterexamples;
• argument mapping.

Critical thinking is sometimes referred to by other names, such as ‘thinking and reasoning skills’. Most or all of the above would be among the areas of a course in informal logic. There is debate over the distinction between informal logic and critical thinking. [4] ‘Critical thinking’ is sometimes the name given to courses more elementary than those in informal logic. Understood in this way, where such courses are offered in secondary schools, the courses offered would typically be critical thinking rather than informal logic.

A course in critical thinking needs subject matter to use for applying the skills learned. This subject matter could come from anywhere. It is pedagogically beneficial to show how the skills learned can be applied to arguments found in the media, to illustrate how such skills can be applied usefully in everyday life and to train students to be more critically engaged with what they encounter in the media. It is also often easier to engage students with critical thinking when they are shown how the skills it teaches can be applied to what they encounter in their day-to-day lives. That is an important and effective way of teaching critical thinking, in terms of applying learning to real life and eliciting student engagement.

Critical thinking can support values education because it offers a means of teaching students how to critically assess which beliefs are, inter alia , ill-founded, inconsistent, or unethical. Most importantly, it teaches students how to do this independently. That is especially important when we are concerned with values. Values often take the form of principles that guide one’s conduct and often play a constitutive role within worldviews.

Many people have pernicious values. For example, an individual might acquire prejudicial beliefs as a result of upbringing or cultural surroundings, and such beliefs might play a fundamental role in their worldview. The most fruitful way to address pernicious or potentially pernicious beliefs is to equip a student with the skills to reach their own independent critical judgements about such beliefs. If a prejudicial belief is among those beliefs that are partly constitutive of a person’s identity or worldview, teaching someone that the belief is prejudicial without at the same time equipping them with the skills to independently identify and critically evaluate why it is so is likely to be futile, if the ultimate aim is for them to see this for themselves and to no longer assent to the belief or to the form of prejudice underlying it. Logic and critical thinking offer perhaps the best skillset we can provide for individuals to independently critically assess which beliefs are rationally defensible.

• Integrating critical thinking with the subjects where we most often encounter values

To best utilise critical thinking to support values education, it should take as its subject matter those fields where the values and beliefs that underpin worldviews and influence the ways in which people live are most often acquired. The clearest examples of such fields are religious studies and politics. One way to utilise critical thinking to support values education, then, is to integrate it within the study of these fields.

To illustrate, here’s two examples of how critical thinking could be integrated within religious studies. A course on Christianity might involve studying some of the major contributions to Christian theology and the philosophy of religion of St Augustine of Hippo. Students might learn about Augustine’s contributions to three Christian doctrines, by reference to Augustine’s City of God : the church and sacraments; grace; and the Trinity. [5] They might study Augustine’s attempt to reconcile a literal interpretation of Genesis with the evil in the world, in his theodicy arguing that evil is the privation of good.

Concomitantly, students could engage in a philosophical analysis of the problem of evil, learning about the concepts of consistency and inconsistency, specifically through the context of the inconsistency argued to arise between the divine attributes of omnipotence, omniscience, and supreme goodness, on the one hand, and the existence of evil, on the other. [6] Students could develop their skills in counterarguing by studying responses to Augustine’s theodicy.

A course on Islam might involve an introduction to key Islamic theologians, including al-Ghazālī (Abū Hāmid Muhammad ibn Muhammad al-Ghazālī) and Averroes (Ibn Rushd). Among the topics covered in lessons over those weeks could be the roles and significance in Islamic scholastic theology (‘Kalām’) of al-Ghazālī and Averroes, such as al-Ghazālī’s contributions to Sufism and Averroes’ historical significance in the perception of Islam in the medieval Christian West. Among the topics covered during the philosophy lessons over those same weeks could be a philosophical analysis of the Kalām cosmological argument as it was proposed by al-Ghazālī, [7] and the ‘omnipotence paradox’ facing God’s purported omnipotence, as it was addressed by Averroes.

Concomitantly, students could study the structure of the arguments and learn about the concepts employed, such as those of a paradox, a contradiction, a self-contradiction and an infinite regress. Students could consolidate their understanding of concepts learned throughout religious studies, such as the divine attributes, including omnipotence and divine perfection.

Concluding remarks

An important component of values education is providing students with the best tools and methods available to enable them to form independent critical judgements about their beliefs. This can be achieved by providing an education in critical thinking and applying it to those fields where the values and beliefs that underpin worldviews and influence the ways in which people live are most often acquired.

Teaching values is extremely difficult. Less difficult is equipping students with the conceptual tools and methods to independently critically assess their values and beliefs. Although less difficult, this is, arguably, no less important. It provides students with skills to make independent, rational, critical judgements about beliefs and values. This, I would argue, is an important part of what we should aim to offer through values education.

This post excerpts from Jonathan Beale’s chapter on values education in Ralph Leighton (ed.), Establishing Citizenship Education: Teachers’ Perspectives (Routledge, forthcoming). That article includes an example of a teaching methodology that integrates critical thinking with religious studies. For the penultimate draft, see here . CIRL would like to thank Ralph Leighton for permission to excerpt from that publication.

[1] Albert Einstein, ‘Education for Independent Thoughts’, originally published in the  New York Times , October 5th, 1952, reprinted in  Ideas and Opinions (based on Mein Weltbild , edited by Carl Seelig, and other sources; new translations and revisions by Sonja Bargmann) (New York, NY: Crown Publishers, 1954), pp. 66-67.

[2] Plato, Meno [ Μένων , c. 380-385 BCE] and Protagoras [ Πρωταγόρας , c. 380 BCE], translated by Adam Beresford and introduced by Lesley Brown (London: Penguin Classics, 2005).

[3] Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics [Ηθικά Νικομάχεια , c. 350 BCE], translated by W. D. Ross, revised by J. O. Urmson, in The Complete Works of Aristotle, the Revised Oxford Translation, Vol. 2 , edited by Jonathan Barnes (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1984). Aristotle, Eudemian Ethics [ Ηθικά Εὐδήμεια ], edited and translated by Anthony Kenny (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011).

[4] For a useful overview of the similarities and differences between informal logic and critical thinking, and a discussion of the purpose of a course in either of these within education (beyond the function of a course in logic as a staple part of a university education in philosophy), see Jan Sobocan, ‘Teaching Informal Logic and Critical Thinking’, Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation , 5, 2003.

[5] St Augustine of Hippo, Concerning the City of God against the Pagans [ De Civitate Dei contra Paganos , c. 426-7], translated by Henry Bettenson with a new introduction by G. R. Evans (London: Penguin Books, 2003).

[6] Inconsistency can be illustrated between the divine attributes and the existence of evil without including omniscience. In his seminal paper on the problem of evil, ‘Evil and Omnipotence’, J. L. Mackie argued that we cannot consistently endorse the three propositions ‘God is omnipotent; God is wholly good; and yet evil exists’ (Mackie 1955, 200).

[7] This has been popularized in contemporary philosophy of religion through the work of William Lane Craig. See Craig’s The Kalām Cosmological Argument (London: Macmillan Press, 1979); on al-Ghazālī therein, see pp. 42-50.

The Teaching and Learning Summit

About the Centre

Our Research

Developing Critical Thinking

• Posted January 10, 2018
• By Iman Rastegari

In a time where deliberately false information is continually introduced into public discourse, and quickly spread through social media shares and likes, it is more important than ever for young people to develop their critical thinking. That skill, says Georgetown professor William T. Gormley, consists of three elements: a capacity to spot weakness in other arguments, a passion for good evidence, and a capacity to reflect on your own views and values with an eye to possibly change them. But are educators making the development of these skills a priority?

"Some teachers embrace critical thinking pedagogy with enthusiasm and they make it a high priority in their classrooms; other teachers do not," says Gormley, author of the recent Harvard Education Press release The Critical Advantage: Developing Critical Thinking Skills in School . "So if you are to assess the extent of critical-thinking instruction in U.S. classrooms, you’d find some very wide variations." Which is unfortunate, he says, since developing critical-thinking skills is vital not only to students' readiness for college and career, but to their civic readiness, as well.

"It's important to recognize that critical thinking is not just something that takes place in the classroom or in the workplace, it's something that takes place — and should take place — in our daily lives," says Gormley.

In this edition of the Harvard EdCast, Gormley looks at the value of teaching critical thinking, and explores how it can be an important solution to some of the problems that we face, including "fake news."

About the Harvard EdCast

The Harvard EdCast is a weekly series of podcasts, available on the Harvard University iT unes U page, that features a 15-20 minute conversation with thought leaders in the field of education from across the country and around the world. Hosted by Matt Weber and co-produced by Jill Anderson, the Harvard EdCast is a space for educational discourse and openness, focusing on the myriad issues and current events related to the field.

An education podcast that keeps the focus simple: what makes a difference for learners, educators, parents, and communities

Related Articles

Helping Children Succeed

Reading and the common core, roots of the school gardening movement.

• Table of Contents
• Random Entry
• Chronological
• Editorial Information
• About the SEP
• Editorial Board
• How to Cite the SEP
• Special Characters
• Advanced Tools
• Support the SEP
• PDFs for SEP Friends
• Make a Donation
• SEPIA for Libraries
• Entry Contents

Bibliography

Academic tools.

• Friends PDF Preview
• Author and Citation Info
• Back to Top

Critical Thinking

Critical thinking is a widely accepted educational goal. Its definition is contested, but the competing definitions can be understood as differing conceptions of the same basic concept: careful thinking directed to a goal. Conceptions differ with respect to the scope of such thinking, the type of goal, the criteria and norms for thinking carefully, and the thinking components on which they focus. Its adoption as an educational goal has been recommended on the basis of respect for students’ autonomy and preparing students for success in life and for democratic citizenship. “Critical thinkers” have the dispositions and abilities that lead them to think critically when appropriate. The abilities can be identified directly; the dispositions indirectly, by considering what factors contribute to or impede exercise of the abilities. Standardized tests have been developed to assess the degree to which a person possesses such dispositions and abilities. Educational intervention has been shown experimentally to improve them, particularly when it includes dialogue, anchored instruction, and mentoring. Controversies have arisen over the generalizability of critical thinking across domains, over alleged bias in critical thinking theories and instruction, and over the relationship of critical thinking to other types of thinking.

2.1 Dewey’s Three Main Examples

2.2 dewey’s other examples, 2.3 further examples, 2.4 non-examples, 3. the definition of critical thinking, 4. its value, 5. the process of thinking critically, 6. components of the process, 7. contributory dispositions and abilities, 8.1 initiating dispositions, 8.2 internal dispositions, 9. critical thinking abilities, 10. required knowledge, 11. educational methods, 12.1 the generalizability of critical thinking, 12.2 bias in critical thinking theory and pedagogy, 12.3 relationship of critical thinking to other types of thinking, other internet resources, related entries.

Use of the term ‘critical thinking’ to describe an educational goal goes back to the American philosopher John Dewey (1910), who more commonly called it ‘reflective thinking’. He defined it as

active, persistent and careful consideration of any belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the grounds that support it, and the further conclusions to which it tends. (Dewey 1910: 6; 1933: 9)

and identified a habit of such consideration with a scientific attitude of mind. His lengthy quotations of Francis Bacon, John Locke, and John Stuart Mill indicate that he was not the first person to propose development of a scientific attitude of mind as an educational goal.

In the 1930s, many of the schools that participated in the Eight-Year Study of the Progressive Education Association (Aikin 1942) adopted critical thinking as an educational goal, for whose achievement the study’s Evaluation Staff developed tests (Smith, Tyler, & Evaluation Staff 1942). Glaser (1941) showed experimentally that it was possible to improve the critical thinking of high school students. Bloom’s influential taxonomy of cognitive educational objectives (Bloom et al. 1956) incorporated critical thinking abilities. Ennis (1962) proposed 12 aspects of critical thinking as a basis for research on the teaching and evaluation of critical thinking ability.

Since 1980, an annual international conference in California on critical thinking and educational reform has attracted tens of thousands of educators from all levels of education and from many parts of the world. Also since 1980, the state university system in California has required all undergraduate students to take a critical thinking course. Since 1983, the Association for Informal Logic and Critical Thinking has sponsored sessions in conjunction with the divisional meetings of the American Philosophical Association (APA). In 1987, the APA’s Committee on Pre-College Philosophy commissioned a consensus statement on critical thinking for purposes of educational assessment and instruction (Facione 1990a). Researchers have developed standardized tests of critical thinking abilities and dispositions; for details, see the Supplement on Assessment . Educational jurisdictions around the world now include critical thinking in guidelines for curriculum and assessment.

For details on this history, see the Supplement on History .

2. Examples and Non-Examples

Before considering the definition of critical thinking, it will be helpful to have in mind some examples of critical thinking, as well as some examples of kinds of thinking that would apparently not count as critical thinking.

Dewey (1910: 68–71; 1933: 91–94) takes as paradigms of reflective thinking three class papers of students in which they describe their thinking. The examples range from the everyday to the scientific.

Transit : “The other day, when I was down town on 16th Street, a clock caught my eye. I saw that the hands pointed to 12:20. This suggested that I had an engagement at 124th Street, at one o’clock. I reasoned that as it had taken me an hour to come down on a surface car, I should probably be twenty minutes late if I returned the same way. I might save twenty minutes by a subway express. But was there a station near? If not, I might lose more than twenty minutes in looking for one. Then I thought of the elevated, and I saw there was such a line within two blocks. But where was the station? If it were several blocks above or below the street I was on, I should lose time instead of gaining it. My mind went back to the subway express as quicker than the elevated; furthermore, I remembered that it went nearer than the elevated to the part of 124th Street I wished to reach, so that time would be saved at the end of the journey. I concluded in favor of the subway, and reached my destination by one o’clock.” (Dewey 1910: 68–69; 1933: 91–92)

Ferryboat : “Projecting nearly horizontally from the upper deck of the ferryboat on which I daily cross the river is a long white pole, having a gilded ball at its tip. It suggested a flagpole when I first saw it; its color, shape, and gilded ball agreed with this idea, and these reasons seemed to justify me in this belief. But soon difficulties presented themselves. The pole was nearly horizontal, an unusual position for a flagpole; in the next place, there was no pulley, ring, or cord by which to attach a flag; finally, there were elsewhere on the boat two vertical staffs from which flags were occasionally flown. It seemed probable that the pole was not there for flag-flying.

“I then tried to imagine all possible purposes of the pole, and to consider for which of these it was best suited: (a) Possibly it was an ornament. But as all the ferryboats and even the tugboats carried poles, this hypothesis was rejected. (b) Possibly it was the terminal of a wireless telegraph. But the same considerations made this improbable. Besides, the more natural place for such a terminal would be the highest part of the boat, on top of the pilot house. (c) Its purpose might be to point out the direction in which the boat is moving.

“In support of this conclusion, I discovered that the pole was lower than the pilot house, so that the steersman could easily see it. Moreover, the tip was enough higher than the base, so that, from the pilot’s position, it must appear to project far out in front of the boat. Moreover, the pilot being near the front of the boat, he would need some such guide as to its direction. Tugboats would also need poles for such a purpose. This hypothesis was so much more probable than the others that I accepted it. I formed the conclusion that the pole was set up for the purpose of showing the pilot the direction in which the boat pointed, to enable him to steer correctly.” (Dewey 1910: 69–70; 1933: 92–93)

Bubbles : “In washing tumblers in hot soapsuds and placing them mouth downward on a plate, bubbles appeared on the outside of the mouth of the tumblers and then went inside. Why? The presence of bubbles suggests air, which I note must come from inside the tumbler. I see that the soapy water on the plate prevents escape of the air save as it may be caught in bubbles. But why should air leave the tumbler? There was no substance entering to force it out. It must have expanded. It expands by increase of heat, or by decrease of pressure, or both. Could the air have become heated after the tumbler was taken from the hot suds? Clearly not the air that was already entangled in the water. If heated air was the cause, cold air must have entered in transferring the tumblers from the suds to the plate. I test to see if this supposition is true by taking several more tumblers out. Some I shake so as to make sure of entrapping cold air in them. Some I take out holding mouth downward in order to prevent cold air from entering. Bubbles appear on the outside of every one of the former and on none of the latter. I must be right in my inference. Air from the outside must have been expanded by the heat of the tumbler, which explains the appearance of the bubbles on the outside. But why do they then go inside? Cold contracts. The tumbler cooled and also the air inside it. Tension was removed, and hence bubbles appeared inside. To be sure of this, I test by placing a cup of ice on the tumbler while the bubbles are still forming outside. They soon reverse” (Dewey 1910: 70–71; 1933: 93–94).

Dewey (1910, 1933) sprinkles his book with other examples of critical thinking. We will refer to the following.

Weather : A man on a walk notices that it has suddenly become cool, thinks that it is probably going to rain, looks up and sees a dark cloud obscuring the sun, and quickens his steps (1910: 6–10; 1933: 9–13).

Disorder : A man finds his rooms on his return to them in disorder with his belongings thrown about, thinks at first of burglary as an explanation, then thinks of mischievous children as being an alternative explanation, then looks to see whether valuables are missing, and discovers that they are (1910: 82–83; 1933: 166–168).

Typhoid : A physician diagnosing a patient whose conspicuous symptoms suggest typhoid avoids drawing a conclusion until more data are gathered by questioning the patient and by making tests (1910: 85–86; 1933: 170).

Blur : A moving blur catches our eye in the distance, we ask ourselves whether it is a cloud of whirling dust or a tree moving its branches or a man signaling to us, we think of other traits that should be found on each of those possibilities, and we look and see if those traits are found (1910: 102, 108; 1933: 121, 133).

Suction pump : In thinking about the suction pump, the scientist first notes that it will draw water only to a maximum height of 33 feet at sea level and to a lesser maximum height at higher elevations, selects for attention the differing atmospheric pressure at these elevations, sets up experiments in which the air is removed from a vessel containing water (when suction no longer works) and in which the weight of air at various levels is calculated, compares the results of reasoning about the height to which a given weight of air will allow a suction pump to raise water with the observed maximum height at different elevations, and finally assimilates the suction pump to such apparently different phenomena as the siphon and the rising of a balloon (1910: 150–153; 1933: 195–198).

Diamond : A passenger in a car driving in a diamond lane reserved for vehicles with at least one passenger notices that the diamond marks on the pavement are far apart in some places and close together in others. Why? The driver suggests that the reason may be that the diamond marks are not needed where there is a solid double line separating the diamond lane from the adjoining lane, but are needed when there is a dotted single line permitting crossing into the diamond lane. Further observation confirms that the diamonds are close together when a dotted line separates the diamond lane from its neighbour, but otherwise far apart.

Rash : A woman suddenly develops a very itchy red rash on her throat and upper chest. She recently noticed a mark on the back of her right hand, but was not sure whether the mark was a rash or a scrape. She lies down in bed and thinks about what might be causing the rash and what to do about it. About two weeks before, she began taking blood pressure medication that contained a sulfa drug, and the pharmacist had warned her, in view of a previous allergic reaction to a medication containing a sulfa drug, to be on the alert for an allergic reaction; however, she had been taking the medication for two weeks with no such effect. The day before, she began using a new cream on her neck and upper chest; against the new cream as the cause was mark on the back of her hand, which had not been exposed to the cream. She began taking probiotics about a month before. She also recently started new eye drops, but she supposed that manufacturers of eye drops would be careful not to include allergy-causing components in the medication. The rash might be a heat rash, since she recently was sweating profusely from her upper body. Since she is about to go away on a short vacation, where she would not have access to her usual physician, she decides to keep taking the probiotics and using the new eye drops but to discontinue the blood pressure medication and to switch back to the old cream for her neck and upper chest. She forms a plan to consult her regular physician on her return about the blood pressure medication.

Candidate : Although Dewey included no examples of thinking directed at appraising the arguments of others, such thinking has come to be considered a kind of critical thinking. We find an example of such thinking in the performance task on the Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA+), which its sponsoring organization describes as

a performance-based assessment that provides a measure of an institution’s contribution to the development of critical-thinking and written communication skills of its students. (Council for Aid to Education 2017)

A sample task posted on its website requires the test-taker to write a report for public distribution evaluating a fictional candidate’s policy proposals and their supporting arguments, using supplied background documents, with a recommendation on whether to endorse the candidate.

Immediate acceptance of an idea that suggests itself as a solution to a problem (e.g., a possible explanation of an event or phenomenon, an action that seems likely to produce a desired result) is “uncritical thinking, the minimum of reflection” (Dewey 1910: 13). On-going suspension of judgment in the light of doubt about a possible solution is not critical thinking (Dewey 1910: 108). Critique driven by a dogmatically held political or religious ideology is not critical thinking; thus Paulo Freire (1968 [1970]) is using the term (e.g., at 1970: 71, 81, 100, 146) in a more politically freighted sense that includes not only reflection but also revolutionary action against oppression. Derivation of a conclusion from given data using an algorithm is not critical thinking.

What is critical thinking? There are many definitions. Ennis (2016) lists 14 philosophically oriented scholarly definitions and three dictionary definitions. Following Rawls (1971), who distinguished his conception of justice from a utilitarian conception but regarded them as rival conceptions of the same concept, Ennis maintains that the 17 definitions are different conceptions of the same concept. Rawls articulated the shared concept of justice as

a characteristic set of principles for assigning basic rights and duties and for determining… the proper distribution of the benefits and burdens of social cooperation. (Rawls 1971: 5)

Bailin et al. (1999b) claim that, if one considers what sorts of thinking an educator would take not to be critical thinking and what sorts to be critical thinking, one can conclude that educators typically understand critical thinking to have at least three features.

• It is done for the purpose of making up one’s mind about what to believe or do.
• The person engaging in the thinking is trying to fulfill standards of adequacy and accuracy appropriate to the thinking.
• The thinking fulfills the relevant standards to some threshold level.

One could sum up the core concept that involves these three features by saying that critical thinking is careful goal-directed thinking. This core concept seems to apply to all the examples of critical thinking described in the previous section. As for the non-examples, their exclusion depends on construing careful thinking as excluding jumping immediately to conclusions, suspending judgment no matter how strong the evidence, reasoning from an unquestioned ideological or religious perspective, and routinely using an algorithm to answer a question.

If the core of critical thinking is careful goal-directed thinking, conceptions of it can vary according to its presumed scope, its presumed goal, one’s criteria and threshold for being careful, and the thinking component on which one focuses. As to its scope, some conceptions (e.g., Dewey 1910, 1933) restrict it to constructive thinking on the basis of one’s own observations and experiments, others (e.g., Ennis 1962; Fisher & Scriven 1997; Johnson 1992) to appraisal of the products of such thinking. Ennis (1991) and Bailin et al. (1999b) take it to cover both construction and appraisal. As to its goal, some conceptions restrict it to forming a judgment (Dewey 1910, 1933; Lipman 1987; Facione 1990a). Others allow for actions as well as beliefs as the end point of a process of critical thinking (Ennis 1991; Bailin et al. 1999b). As to the criteria and threshold for being careful, definitions vary in the term used to indicate that critical thinking satisfies certain norms: “intellectually disciplined” (Scriven & Paul 1987), “reasonable” (Ennis 1991), “skillful” (Lipman 1987), “skilled” (Fisher & Scriven 1997), “careful” (Bailin & Battersby 2009). Some definitions specify these norms, referring variously to “consideration of any belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the grounds that support it and the further conclusions to which it tends” (Dewey 1910, 1933); “the methods of logical inquiry and reasoning” (Glaser 1941); “conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication” (Scriven & Paul 1987); the requirement that “it is sensitive to context, relies on criteria, and is self-correcting” (Lipman 1987); “evidential, conceptual, methodological, criteriological, or contextual considerations” (Facione 1990a); and “plus-minus considerations of the product in terms of appropriate standards (or criteria)” (Johnson 1992). Stanovich and Stanovich (2010) propose to ground the concept of critical thinking in the concept of rationality, which they understand as combining epistemic rationality (fitting one’s beliefs to the world) and instrumental rationality (optimizing goal fulfillment); a critical thinker, in their view, is someone with “a propensity to override suboptimal responses from the autonomous mind” (2010: 227). These variant specifications of norms for critical thinking are not necessarily incompatible with one another, and in any case presuppose the core notion of thinking carefully. As to the thinking component singled out, some definitions focus on suspension of judgment during the thinking (Dewey 1910; McPeck 1981), others on inquiry while judgment is suspended (Bailin & Battersby 2009, 2021), others on the resulting judgment (Facione 1990a), and still others on responsiveness to reasons (Siegel 1988). Kuhn (2019) takes critical thinking to be more a dialogic practice of advancing and responding to arguments than an individual ability.

In educational contexts, a definition of critical thinking is a “programmatic definition” (Scheffler 1960: 19). It expresses a practical program for achieving an educational goal. For this purpose, a one-sentence formulaic definition is much less useful than articulation of a critical thinking process, with criteria and standards for the kinds of thinking that the process may involve. The real educational goal is recognition, adoption and implementation by students of those criteria and standards. That adoption and implementation in turn consists in acquiring the knowledge, abilities and dispositions of a critical thinker.

Conceptions of critical thinking generally do not include moral integrity as part of the concept. Dewey, for example, took critical thinking to be the ultimate intellectual goal of education, but distinguished it from the development of social cooperation among school children, which he took to be the central moral goal. Ennis (1996, 2011) added to his previous list of critical thinking dispositions a group of dispositions to care about the dignity and worth of every person, which he described as a “correlative” (1996) disposition without which critical thinking would be less valuable and perhaps harmful. An educational program that aimed at developing critical thinking but not the correlative disposition to care about the dignity and worth of every person, he asserted, “would be deficient and perhaps dangerous” (Ennis 1996: 172).

Dewey thought that education for reflective thinking would be of value to both the individual and society; recognition in educational practice of the kinship to the scientific attitude of children’s native curiosity, fertile imagination and love of experimental inquiry “would make for individual happiness and the reduction of social waste” (Dewey 1910: iii). Schools participating in the Eight-Year Study took development of the habit of reflective thinking and skill in solving problems as a means to leading young people to understand, appreciate and live the democratic way of life characteristic of the United States (Aikin 1942: 17–18, 81). Harvey Siegel (1988: 55–61) has offered four considerations in support of adopting critical thinking as an educational ideal. (1) Respect for persons requires that schools and teachers honour students’ demands for reasons and explanations, deal with students honestly, and recognize the need to confront students’ independent judgment; these requirements concern the manner in which teachers treat students. (2) Education has the task of preparing children to be successful adults, a task that requires development of their self-sufficiency. (3) Education should initiate children into the rational traditions in such fields as history, science and mathematics. (4) Education should prepare children to become democratic citizens, which requires reasoned procedures and critical talents and attitudes. To supplement these considerations, Siegel (1988: 62–90) responds to two objections: the ideology objection that adoption of any educational ideal requires a prior ideological commitment and the indoctrination objection that cultivation of critical thinking cannot escape being a form of indoctrination.

Despite the diversity of our 11 examples, one can recognize a common pattern. Dewey analyzed it as consisting of five phases:

• suggestions , in which the mind leaps forward to a possible solution;
• an intellectualization of the difficulty or perplexity into a problem to be solved, a question for which the answer must be sought;
• the use of one suggestion after another as a leading idea, or hypothesis , to initiate and guide observation and other operations in collection of factual material;
• the mental elaboration of the idea or supposition as an idea or supposition ( reasoning , in the sense on which reasoning is a part, not the whole, of inference); and
• testing the hypothesis by overt or imaginative action. (Dewey 1933: 106–107; italics in original)

The process of reflective thinking consisting of these phases would be preceded by a perplexed, troubled or confused situation and followed by a cleared-up, unified, resolved situation (Dewey 1933: 106). The term ‘phases’ replaced the term ‘steps’ (Dewey 1910: 72), thus removing the earlier suggestion of an invariant sequence. Variants of the above analysis appeared in (Dewey 1916: 177) and (Dewey 1938: 101–119).

The variant formulations indicate the difficulty of giving a single logical analysis of such a varied process. The process of critical thinking may have a spiral pattern, with the problem being redefined in the light of obstacles to solving it as originally formulated. For example, the person in Transit might have concluded that getting to the appointment at the scheduled time was impossible and have reformulated the problem as that of rescheduling the appointment for a mutually convenient time. Further, defining a problem does not always follow after or lead immediately to an idea of a suggested solution. Nor should it do so, as Dewey himself recognized in describing the physician in Typhoid as avoiding any strong preference for this or that conclusion before getting further information (Dewey 1910: 85; 1933: 170). People with a hypothesis in mind, even one to which they have a very weak commitment, have a so-called “confirmation bias” (Nickerson 1998): they are likely to pay attention to evidence that confirms the hypothesis and to ignore evidence that counts against it or for some competing hypothesis. Detectives, intelligence agencies, and investigators of airplane accidents are well advised to gather relevant evidence systematically and to postpone even tentative adoption of an explanatory hypothesis until the collected evidence rules out with the appropriate degree of certainty all but one explanation. Dewey’s analysis of the critical thinking process can be faulted as well for requiring acceptance or rejection of a possible solution to a defined problem, with no allowance for deciding in the light of the available evidence to suspend judgment. Further, given the great variety of kinds of problems for which reflection is appropriate, there is likely to be variation in its component events. Perhaps the best way to conceptualize the critical thinking process is as a checklist whose component events can occur in a variety of orders, selectively, and more than once. These component events might include (1) noticing a difficulty, (2) defining the problem, (3) dividing the problem into manageable sub-problems, (4) formulating a variety of possible solutions to the problem or sub-problem, (5) determining what evidence is relevant to deciding among possible solutions to the problem or sub-problem, (6) devising a plan of systematic observation or experiment that will uncover the relevant evidence, (7) carrying out the plan of systematic observation or experimentation, (8) noting the results of the systematic observation or experiment, (9) gathering relevant testimony and information from others, (10) judging the credibility of testimony and information gathered from others, (11) drawing conclusions from gathered evidence and accepted testimony, and (12) accepting a solution that the evidence adequately supports (cf. Hitchcock 2017: 485).

Checklist conceptions of the process of critical thinking are open to the objection that they are too mechanical and procedural to fit the multi-dimensional and emotionally charged issues for which critical thinking is urgently needed (Paul 1984). For such issues, a more dialectical process is advocated, in which competing relevant world views are identified, their implications explored, and some sort of creative synthesis attempted.

If one considers the critical thinking process illustrated by the 11 examples, one can identify distinct kinds of mental acts and mental states that form part of it. To distinguish, label and briefly characterize these components is a useful preliminary to identifying abilities, skills, dispositions, attitudes, habits and the like that contribute causally to thinking critically. Identifying such abilities and habits is in turn a useful preliminary to setting educational goals. Setting the goals is in its turn a useful preliminary to designing strategies for helping learners to achieve the goals and to designing ways of measuring the extent to which learners have done so. Such measures provide both feedback to learners on their achievement and a basis for experimental research on the effectiveness of various strategies for educating people to think critically. Let us begin, then, by distinguishing the kinds of mental acts and mental events that can occur in a critical thinking process.

• Observing : One notices something in one’s immediate environment (sudden cooling of temperature in Weather , bubbles forming outside a glass and then going inside in Bubbles , a moving blur in the distance in Blur , a rash in Rash ). Or one notes the results of an experiment or systematic observation (valuables missing in Disorder , no suction without air pressure in Suction pump )
• Feeling : One feels puzzled or uncertain about something (how to get to an appointment on time in Transit , why the diamonds vary in spacing in Diamond ). One wants to resolve this perplexity. One feels satisfaction once one has worked out an answer (to take the subway express in Transit , diamonds closer when needed as a warning in Diamond ).
• Wondering : One formulates a question to be addressed (why bubbles form outside a tumbler taken from hot water in Bubbles , how suction pumps work in Suction pump , what caused the rash in Rash ).
• Imagining : One thinks of possible answers (bus or subway or elevated in Transit , flagpole or ornament or wireless communication aid or direction indicator in Ferryboat , allergic reaction or heat rash in Rash ).
• Inferring : One works out what would be the case if a possible answer were assumed (valuables missing if there has been a burglary in Disorder , earlier start to the rash if it is an allergic reaction to a sulfa drug in Rash ). Or one draws a conclusion once sufficient relevant evidence is gathered (take the subway in Transit , burglary in Disorder , discontinue blood pressure medication and new cream in Rash ).
• Knowledge : One uses stored knowledge of the subject-matter to generate possible answers or to infer what would be expected on the assumption of a particular answer (knowledge of a city’s public transit system in Transit , of the requirements for a flagpole in Ferryboat , of Boyle’s law in Bubbles , of allergic reactions in Rash ).
• Experimenting : One designs and carries out an experiment or a systematic observation to find out whether the results deduced from a possible answer will occur (looking at the location of the flagpole in relation to the pilot’s position in Ferryboat , putting an ice cube on top of a tumbler taken from hot water in Bubbles , measuring the height to which a suction pump will draw water at different elevations in Suction pump , noticing the spacing of diamonds when movement to or from a diamond lane is allowed in Diamond ).
• Consulting : One finds a source of information, gets the information from the source, and makes a judgment on whether to accept it. None of our 11 examples include searching for sources of information. In this respect they are unrepresentative, since most people nowadays have almost instant access to information relevant to answering any question, including many of those illustrated by the examples. However, Candidate includes the activities of extracting information from sources and evaluating its credibility.
• Identifying and analyzing arguments : One notices an argument and works out its structure and content as a preliminary to evaluating its strength. This activity is central to Candidate . It is an important part of a critical thinking process in which one surveys arguments for various positions on an issue.
• Judging : One makes a judgment on the basis of accumulated evidence and reasoning, such as the judgment in Ferryboat that the purpose of the pole is to provide direction to the pilot.
• Deciding : One makes a decision on what to do or on what policy to adopt, as in the decision in Transit to take the subway.

By definition, a person who does something voluntarily is both willing and able to do that thing at that time. Both the willingness and the ability contribute causally to the person’s action, in the sense that the voluntary action would not occur if either (or both) of these were lacking. For example, suppose that one is standing with one’s arms at one’s sides and one voluntarily lifts one’s right arm to an extended horizontal position. One would not do so if one were unable to lift one’s arm, if for example one’s right side was paralyzed as the result of a stroke. Nor would one do so if one were unwilling to lift one’s arm, if for example one were participating in a street demonstration at which a white supremacist was urging the crowd to lift their right arm in a Nazi salute and one were unwilling to express support in this way for the racist Nazi ideology. The same analysis applies to a voluntary mental process of thinking critically. It requires both willingness and ability to think critically, including willingness and ability to perform each of the mental acts that compose the process and to coordinate those acts in a sequence that is directed at resolving the initiating perplexity.

Consider willingness first. We can identify causal contributors to willingness to think critically by considering factors that would cause a person who was able to think critically about an issue nevertheless not to do so (Hamby 2014). For each factor, the opposite condition thus contributes causally to willingness to think critically on a particular occasion. For example, people who habitually jump to conclusions without considering alternatives will not think critically about issues that arise, even if they have the required abilities. The contrary condition of willingness to suspend judgment is thus a causal contributor to thinking critically.

Now consider ability. In contrast to the ability to move one’s arm, which can be completely absent because a stroke has left the arm paralyzed, the ability to think critically is a developed ability, whose absence is not a complete absence of ability to think but absence of ability to think well. We can identify the ability to think well directly, in terms of the norms and standards for good thinking. In general, to be able do well the thinking activities that can be components of a critical thinking process, one needs to know the concepts and principles that characterize their good performance, to recognize in particular cases that the concepts and principles apply, and to apply them. The knowledge, recognition and application may be procedural rather than declarative. It may be domain-specific rather than widely applicable, and in either case may need subject-matter knowledge, sometimes of a deep kind.

Reflections of the sort illustrated by the previous two paragraphs have led scholars to identify the knowledge, abilities and dispositions of a “critical thinker”, i.e., someone who thinks critically whenever it is appropriate to do so. We turn now to these three types of causal contributors to thinking critically. We start with dispositions, since arguably these are the most powerful contributors to being a critical thinker, can be fostered at an early stage of a child’s development, and are susceptible to general improvement (Glaser 1941: 175)

8. Critical Thinking Dispositions

Educational researchers use the term ‘dispositions’ broadly for the habits of mind and attitudes that contribute causally to being a critical thinker. Some writers (e.g., Paul & Elder 2006; Hamby 2014; Bailin & Battersby 2016a) propose to use the term ‘virtues’ for this dimension of a critical thinker. The virtues in question, although they are virtues of character, concern the person’s ways of thinking rather than the person’s ways of behaving towards others. They are not moral virtues but intellectual virtues, of the sort articulated by Zagzebski (1996) and discussed by Turri, Alfano, and Greco (2017).

On a realistic conception, thinking dispositions or intellectual virtues are real properties of thinkers. They are general tendencies, propensities, or inclinations to think in particular ways in particular circumstances, and can be genuinely explanatory (Siegel 1999). Sceptics argue that there is no evidence for a specific mental basis for the habits of mind that contribute to thinking critically, and that it is pedagogically misleading to posit such a basis (Bailin et al. 1999a). Whatever their status, critical thinking dispositions need motivation for their initial formation in a child—motivation that may be external or internal. As children develop, the force of habit will gradually become important in sustaining the disposition (Nieto & Valenzuela 2012). Mere force of habit, however, is unlikely to sustain critical thinking dispositions. Critical thinkers must value and enjoy using their knowledge and abilities to think things through for themselves. They must be committed to, and lovers of, inquiry.

A person may have a critical thinking disposition with respect to only some kinds of issues. For example, one could be open-minded about scientific issues but not about religious issues. Similarly, one could be confident in one’s ability to reason about the theological implications of the existence of evil in the world but not in one’s ability to reason about the best design for a guided ballistic missile.

Facione (1990a: 25) divides “affective dispositions” of critical thinking into approaches to life and living in general and approaches to specific issues, questions or problems. Adapting this distinction, one can usefully divide critical thinking dispositions into initiating dispositions (those that contribute causally to starting to think critically about an issue) and internal dispositions (those that contribute causally to doing a good job of thinking critically once one has started). The two categories are not mutually exclusive. For example, open-mindedness, in the sense of willingness to consider alternative points of view to one’s own, is both an initiating and an internal disposition.

Using the strategy of considering factors that would block people with the ability to think critically from doing so, we can identify as initiating dispositions for thinking critically attentiveness, a habit of inquiry, self-confidence, courage, open-mindedness, willingness to suspend judgment, trust in reason, wanting evidence for one’s beliefs, and seeking the truth. We consider briefly what each of these dispositions amounts to, in each case citing sources that acknowledge them.

• Attentiveness : One will not think critically if one fails to recognize an issue that needs to be thought through. For example, the pedestrian in Weather would not have looked up if he had not noticed that the air was suddenly cooler. To be a critical thinker, then, one needs to be habitually attentive to one’s surroundings, noticing not only what one senses but also sources of perplexity in messages received and in one’s own beliefs and attitudes (Facione 1990a: 25; Facione, Facione, & Giancarlo 2001).
• Habit of inquiry : Inquiry is effortful, and one needs an internal push to engage in it. For example, the student in Bubbles could easily have stopped at idle wondering about the cause of the bubbles rather than reasoning to a hypothesis, then designing and executing an experiment to test it. Thus willingness to think critically needs mental energy and initiative. What can supply that energy? Love of inquiry, or perhaps just a habit of inquiry. Hamby (2015) has argued that willingness to inquire is the central critical thinking virtue, one that encompasses all the others. It is recognized as a critical thinking disposition by Dewey (1910: 29; 1933: 35), Glaser (1941: 5), Ennis (1987: 12; 1991: 8), Facione (1990a: 25), Bailin et al. (1999b: 294), Halpern (1998: 452), and Facione, Facione, & Giancarlo (2001).
• Self-confidence : Lack of confidence in one’s abilities can block critical thinking. For example, if the woman in Rash lacked confidence in her ability to figure things out for herself, she might just have assumed that the rash on her chest was the allergic reaction to her medication against which the pharmacist had warned her. Thus willingness to think critically requires confidence in one’s ability to inquire (Facione 1990a: 25; Facione, Facione, & Giancarlo 2001).
• Courage : Fear of thinking for oneself can stop one from doing it. Thus willingness to think critically requires intellectual courage (Paul & Elder 2006: 16).
• Open-mindedness : A dogmatic attitude will impede thinking critically. For example, a person who adheres rigidly to a “pro-choice” position on the issue of the legal status of induced abortion is likely to be unwilling to consider seriously the issue of when in its development an unborn child acquires a moral right to life. Thus willingness to think critically requires open-mindedness, in the sense of a willingness to examine questions to which one already accepts an answer but which further evidence or reasoning might cause one to answer differently (Dewey 1933; Facione 1990a; Ennis 1991; Bailin et al. 1999b; Halpern 1998, Facione, Facione, & Giancarlo 2001). Paul (1981) emphasizes open-mindedness about alternative world-views, and recommends a dialectical approach to integrating such views as central to what he calls “strong sense” critical thinking. In three studies, Haran, Ritov, & Mellers (2013) found that actively open-minded thinking, including “the tendency to weigh new evidence against a favored belief, to spend sufficient time on a problem before giving up, and to consider carefully the opinions of others in forming one’s own”, led study participants to acquire information and thus to make accurate estimations.
• Willingness to suspend judgment : Premature closure on an initial solution will block critical thinking. Thus willingness to think critically requires a willingness to suspend judgment while alternatives are explored (Facione 1990a; Ennis 1991; Halpern 1998).
• Trust in reason : Since distrust in the processes of reasoned inquiry will dissuade one from engaging in it, trust in them is an initiating critical thinking disposition (Facione 1990a, 25; Bailin et al. 1999b: 294; Facione, Facione, & Giancarlo 2001; Paul & Elder 2006). In reaction to an allegedly exclusive emphasis on reason in critical thinking theory and pedagogy, Thayer-Bacon (2000) argues that intuition, imagination, and emotion have important roles to play in an adequate conception of critical thinking that she calls “constructive thinking”. From her point of view, critical thinking requires trust not only in reason but also in intuition, imagination, and emotion.
• Seeking the truth : If one does not care about the truth but is content to stick with one’s initial bias on an issue, then one will not think critically about it. Seeking the truth is thus an initiating critical thinking disposition (Bailin et al. 1999b: 294; Facione, Facione, & Giancarlo 2001). A disposition to seek the truth is implicit in more specific critical thinking dispositions, such as trying to be well-informed, considering seriously points of view other than one’s own, looking for alternatives, suspending judgment when the evidence is insufficient, and adopting a position when the evidence supporting it is sufficient.

Some of the initiating dispositions, such as open-mindedness and willingness to suspend judgment, are also internal critical thinking dispositions, in the sense of mental habits or attitudes that contribute causally to doing a good job of critical thinking once one starts the process. But there are many other internal critical thinking dispositions. Some of them are parasitic on one’s conception of good thinking. For example, it is constitutive of good thinking about an issue to formulate the issue clearly and to maintain focus on it. For this purpose, one needs not only the corresponding ability but also the corresponding disposition. Ennis (1991: 8) describes it as the disposition “to determine and maintain focus on the conclusion or question”, Facione (1990a: 25) as “clarity in stating the question or concern”. Other internal dispositions are motivators to continue or adjust the critical thinking process, such as willingness to persist in a complex task and willingness to abandon nonproductive strategies in an attempt to self-correct (Halpern 1998: 452). For a list of identified internal critical thinking dispositions, see the Supplement on Internal Critical Thinking Dispositions .

Some theorists postulate skills, i.e., acquired abilities, as operative in critical thinking. It is not obvious, however, that a good mental act is the exercise of a generic acquired skill. Inferring an expected time of arrival, as in Transit , has some generic components but also uses non-generic subject-matter knowledge. Bailin et al. (1999a) argue against viewing critical thinking skills as generic and discrete, on the ground that skilled performance at a critical thinking task cannot be separated from knowledge of concepts and from domain-specific principles of good thinking. Talk of skills, they concede, is unproblematic if it means merely that a person with critical thinking skills is capable of intelligent performance.

Despite such scepticism, theorists of critical thinking have listed as general contributors to critical thinking what they variously call abilities (Glaser 1941; Ennis 1962, 1991), skills (Facione 1990a; Halpern 1998) or competencies (Fisher & Scriven 1997). Amalgamating these lists would produce a confusing and chaotic cornucopia of more than 50 possible educational objectives, with only partial overlap among them. It makes sense instead to try to understand the reasons for the multiplicity and diversity, and to make a selection according to one’s own reasons for singling out abilities to be developed in a critical thinking curriculum. Two reasons for diversity among lists of critical thinking abilities are the underlying conception of critical thinking and the envisaged educational level. Appraisal-only conceptions, for example, involve a different suite of abilities than constructive-only conceptions. Some lists, such as those in (Glaser 1941), are put forward as educational objectives for secondary school students, whereas others are proposed as objectives for college students (e.g., Facione 1990a).

The abilities described in the remaining paragraphs of this section emerge from reflection on the general abilities needed to do well the thinking activities identified in section 6 as components of the critical thinking process described in section 5 . The derivation of each collection of abilities is accompanied by citation of sources that list such abilities and of standardized tests that claim to test them.

Observational abilities : Careful and accurate observation sometimes requires specialist expertise and practice, as in the case of observing birds and observing accident scenes. However, there are general abilities of noticing what one’s senses are picking up from one’s environment and of being able to articulate clearly and accurately to oneself and others what one has observed. It helps in exercising them to be able to recognize and take into account factors that make one’s observation less trustworthy, such as prior framing of the situation, inadequate time, deficient senses, poor observation conditions, and the like. It helps as well to be skilled at taking steps to make one’s observation more trustworthy, such as moving closer to get a better look, measuring something three times and taking the average, and checking what one thinks one is observing with someone else who is in a good position to observe it. It also helps to be skilled at recognizing respects in which one’s report of one’s observation involves inference rather than direct observation, so that one can then consider whether the inference is justified. These abilities come into play as well when one thinks about whether and with what degree of confidence to accept an observation report, for example in the study of history or in a criminal investigation or in assessing news reports. Observational abilities show up in some lists of critical thinking abilities (Ennis 1962: 90; Facione 1990a: 16; Ennis 1991: 9). There are items testing a person’s ability to judge the credibility of observation reports in the Cornell Critical Thinking Tests, Levels X and Z (Ennis & Millman 1971; Ennis, Millman, & Tomko 1985, 2005). Norris and King (1983, 1985, 1990a, 1990b) is a test of ability to appraise observation reports.

Emotional abilities : The emotions that drive a critical thinking process are perplexity or puzzlement, a wish to resolve it, and satisfaction at achieving the desired resolution. Children experience these emotions at an early age, without being trained to do so. Education that takes critical thinking as a goal needs only to channel these emotions and to make sure not to stifle them. Collaborative critical thinking benefits from ability to recognize one’s own and others’ emotional commitments and reactions.

Questioning abilities : A critical thinking process needs transformation of an inchoate sense of perplexity into a clear question. Formulating a question well requires not building in questionable assumptions, not prejudging the issue, and using language that in context is unambiguous and precise enough (Ennis 1962: 97; 1991: 9).

Imaginative abilities : Thinking directed at finding the correct causal explanation of a general phenomenon or particular event requires an ability to imagine possible explanations. Thinking about what policy or plan of action to adopt requires generation of options and consideration of possible consequences of each option. Domain knowledge is required for such creative activity, but a general ability to imagine alternatives is helpful and can be nurtured so as to become easier, quicker, more extensive, and deeper (Dewey 1910: 34–39; 1933: 40–47). Facione (1990a) and Halpern (1998) include the ability to imagine alternatives as a critical thinking ability.

Inferential abilities : The ability to draw conclusions from given information, and to recognize with what degree of certainty one’s own or others’ conclusions follow, is universally recognized as a general critical thinking ability. All 11 examples in section 2 of this article include inferences, some from hypotheses or options (as in Transit , Ferryboat and Disorder ), others from something observed (as in Weather and Rash ). None of these inferences is formally valid. Rather, they are licensed by general, sometimes qualified substantive rules of inference (Toulmin 1958) that rest on domain knowledge—that a bus trip takes about the same time in each direction, that the terminal of a wireless telegraph would be located on the highest possible place, that sudden cooling is often followed by rain, that an allergic reaction to a sulfa drug generally shows up soon after one starts taking it. It is a matter of controversy to what extent the specialized ability to deduce conclusions from premisses using formal rules of inference is needed for critical thinking. Dewey (1933) locates logical forms in setting out the products of reflection rather than in the process of reflection. Ennis (1981a), on the other hand, maintains that a liberally-educated person should have the following abilities: to translate natural-language statements into statements using the standard logical operators, to use appropriately the language of necessary and sufficient conditions, to deal with argument forms and arguments containing symbols, to determine whether in virtue of an argument’s form its conclusion follows necessarily from its premisses, to reason with logically complex propositions, and to apply the rules and procedures of deductive logic. Inferential abilities are recognized as critical thinking abilities by Glaser (1941: 6), Facione (1990a: 9), Ennis (1991: 9), Fisher & Scriven (1997: 99, 111), and Halpern (1998: 452). Items testing inferential abilities constitute two of the five subtests of the Watson Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal (Watson & Glaser 1980a, 1980b, 1994), two of the four sections in the Cornell Critical Thinking Test Level X (Ennis & Millman 1971; Ennis, Millman, & Tomko 1985, 2005), three of the seven sections in the Cornell Critical Thinking Test Level Z (Ennis & Millman 1971; Ennis, Millman, & Tomko 1985, 2005), 11 of the 34 items on Forms A and B of the California Critical Thinking Skills Test (Facione 1990b, 1992), and a high but variable proportion of the 25 selected-response questions in the Collegiate Learning Assessment (Council for Aid to Education 2017).

Experimenting abilities : Knowing how to design and execute an experiment is important not just in scientific research but also in everyday life, as in Rash . Dewey devoted a whole chapter of his How We Think (1910: 145–156; 1933: 190–202) to the superiority of experimentation over observation in advancing knowledge. Experimenting abilities come into play at one remove in appraising reports of scientific studies. Skill in designing and executing experiments includes the acknowledged abilities to appraise evidence (Glaser 1941: 6), to carry out experiments and to apply appropriate statistical inference techniques (Facione 1990a: 9), to judge inductions to an explanatory hypothesis (Ennis 1991: 9), and to recognize the need for an adequately large sample size (Halpern 1998). The Cornell Critical Thinking Test Level Z (Ennis & Millman 1971; Ennis, Millman, & Tomko 1985, 2005) includes four items (out of 52) on experimental design. The Collegiate Learning Assessment (Council for Aid to Education 2017) makes room for appraisal of study design in both its performance task and its selected-response questions.

Consulting abilities : Skill at consulting sources of information comes into play when one seeks information to help resolve a problem, as in Candidate . Ability to find and appraise information includes ability to gather and marshal pertinent information (Glaser 1941: 6), to judge whether a statement made by an alleged authority is acceptable (Ennis 1962: 84), to plan a search for desired information (Facione 1990a: 9), and to judge the credibility of a source (Ennis 1991: 9). Ability to judge the credibility of statements is tested by 24 items (out of 76) in the Cornell Critical Thinking Test Level X (Ennis & Millman 1971; Ennis, Millman, & Tomko 1985, 2005) and by four items (out of 52) in the Cornell Critical Thinking Test Level Z (Ennis & Millman 1971; Ennis, Millman, & Tomko 1985, 2005). The College Learning Assessment’s performance task requires evaluation of whether information in documents is credible or unreliable (Council for Aid to Education 2017).

Argument analysis abilities : The ability to identify and analyze arguments contributes to the process of surveying arguments on an issue in order to form one’s own reasoned judgment, as in Candidate . The ability to detect and analyze arguments is recognized as a critical thinking skill by Facione (1990a: 7–8), Ennis (1991: 9) and Halpern (1998). Five items (out of 34) on the California Critical Thinking Skills Test (Facione 1990b, 1992) test skill at argument analysis. The College Learning Assessment (Council for Aid to Education 2017) incorporates argument analysis in its selected-response tests of critical reading and evaluation and of critiquing an argument.

Judging skills and deciding skills : Skill at judging and deciding is skill at recognizing what judgment or decision the available evidence and argument supports, and with what degree of confidence. It is thus a component of the inferential skills already discussed.

Lists and tests of critical thinking abilities often include two more abilities: identifying assumptions and constructing and evaluating definitions.

In addition to dispositions and abilities, critical thinking needs knowledge: of critical thinking concepts, of critical thinking principles, and of the subject-matter of the thinking.

We can derive a short list of concepts whose understanding contributes to critical thinking from the critical thinking abilities described in the preceding section. Observational abilities require an understanding of the difference between observation and inference. Questioning abilities require an understanding of the concepts of ambiguity and vagueness. Inferential abilities require an understanding of the difference between conclusive and defeasible inference (traditionally, between deduction and induction), as well as of the difference between necessary and sufficient conditions. Experimenting abilities require an understanding of the concepts of hypothesis, null hypothesis, assumption and prediction, as well as of the concept of statistical significance and of its difference from importance. They also require an understanding of the difference between an experiment and an observational study, and in particular of the difference between a randomized controlled trial, a prospective correlational study and a retrospective (case-control) study. Argument analysis abilities require an understanding of the concepts of argument, premiss, assumption, conclusion and counter-consideration. Additional critical thinking concepts are proposed by Bailin et al. (1999b: 293), Fisher & Scriven (1997: 105–106), Black (2012), and Blair (2021).

According to Glaser (1941: 25), ability to think critically requires knowledge of the methods of logical inquiry and reasoning. If we review the list of abilities in the preceding section, however, we can see that some of them can be acquired and exercised merely through practice, possibly guided in an educational setting, followed by feedback. Searching intelligently for a causal explanation of some phenomenon or event requires that one consider a full range of possible causal contributors, but it seems more important that one implements this principle in one’s practice than that one is able to articulate it. What is important is “operational knowledge” of the standards and principles of good thinking (Bailin et al. 1999b: 291–293). But the development of such critical thinking abilities as designing an experiment or constructing an operational definition can benefit from learning their underlying theory. Further, explicit knowledge of quirks of human thinking seems useful as a cautionary guide. Human memory is not just fallible about details, as people learn from their own experiences of misremembering, but is so malleable that a detailed, clear and vivid recollection of an event can be a total fabrication (Loftus 2017). People seek or interpret evidence in ways that are partial to their existing beliefs and expectations, often unconscious of their “confirmation bias” (Nickerson 1998). Not only are people subject to this and other cognitive biases (Kahneman 2011), of which they are typically unaware, but it may be counter-productive for one to make oneself aware of them and try consciously to counteract them or to counteract social biases such as racial or sexual stereotypes (Kenyon & Beaulac 2014). It is helpful to be aware of these facts and of the superior effectiveness of blocking the operation of biases—for example, by making an immediate record of one’s observations, refraining from forming a preliminary explanatory hypothesis, blind refereeing, double-blind randomized trials, and blind grading of students’ work. It is also helpful to be aware of the prevalence of “noise” (unwanted unsystematic variability of judgments), of how to detect noise (through a noise audit), and of how to reduce noise: make accuracy the goal, think statistically, break a process of arriving at a judgment into independent tasks, resist premature intuitions, in a group get independent judgments first, favour comparative judgments and scales (Kahneman, Sibony, & Sunstein 2021). It is helpful as well to be aware of the concept of “bounded rationality” in decision-making and of the related distinction between “satisficing” and optimizing (Simon 1956; Gigerenzer 2001).

Critical thinking about an issue requires substantive knowledge of the domain to which the issue belongs. Critical thinking abilities are not a magic elixir that can be applied to any issue whatever by somebody who has no knowledge of the facts relevant to exploring that issue. For example, the student in Bubbles needed to know that gases do not penetrate solid objects like a glass, that air expands when heated, that the volume of an enclosed gas varies directly with its temperature and inversely with its pressure, and that hot objects will spontaneously cool down to the ambient temperature of their surroundings unless kept hot by insulation or a source of heat. Critical thinkers thus need a rich fund of subject-matter knowledge relevant to the variety of situations they encounter. This fact is recognized in the inclusion among critical thinking dispositions of a concern to become and remain generally well informed.

Experimental educational interventions, with control groups, have shown that education can improve critical thinking skills and dispositions, as measured by standardized tests. For information about these tests, see the Supplement on Assessment .

What educational methods are most effective at developing the dispositions, abilities and knowledge of a critical thinker? In a comprehensive meta-analysis of experimental and quasi-experimental studies of strategies for teaching students to think critically, Abrami et al. (2015) found that dialogue, anchored instruction, and mentoring each increased the effectiveness of the educational intervention, and that they were most effective when combined. They also found that in these studies a combination of separate instruction in critical thinking with subject-matter instruction in which students are encouraged to think critically was more effective than either by itself. However, the difference was not statistically significant; that is, it might have arisen by chance.

Most of these studies lack the longitudinal follow-up required to determine whether the observed differential improvements in critical thinking abilities or dispositions continue over time, for example until high school or college graduation. For details on studies of methods of developing critical thinking skills and dispositions, see the Supplement on Educational Methods .

12. Controversies

Scholars have denied the generalizability of critical thinking abilities across subject domains, have alleged bias in critical thinking theory and pedagogy, and have investigated the relationship of critical thinking to other kinds of thinking.

McPeck (1981) attacked the thinking skills movement of the 1970s, including the critical thinking movement. He argued that there are no general thinking skills, since thinking is always thinking about some subject-matter. It is futile, he claimed, for schools and colleges to teach thinking as if it were a separate subject. Rather, teachers should lead their pupils to become autonomous thinkers by teaching school subjects in a way that brings out their cognitive structure and that encourages and rewards discussion and argument. As some of his critics (e.g., Paul 1985; Siegel 1985) pointed out, McPeck’s central argument needs elaboration, since it has obvious counter-examples in writing and speaking, for which (up to a certain level of complexity) there are teachable general abilities even though they are always about some subject-matter. To make his argument convincing, McPeck needs to explain how thinking differs from writing and speaking in a way that does not permit useful abstraction of its components from the subject-matters with which it deals. He has not done so. Nevertheless, his position that the dispositions and abilities of a critical thinker are best developed in the context of subject-matter instruction is shared by many theorists of critical thinking, including Dewey (1910, 1933), Glaser (1941), Passmore (1980), Weinstein (1990), Bailin et al. (1999b), and Willingham (2019).

McPeck’s challenge prompted reflection on the extent to which critical thinking is subject-specific. McPeck argued for a strong subject-specificity thesis, according to which it is a conceptual truth that all critical thinking abilities are specific to a subject. (He did not however extend his subject-specificity thesis to critical thinking dispositions. In particular, he took the disposition to suspend judgment in situations of cognitive dissonance to be a general disposition.) Conceptual subject-specificity is subject to obvious counter-examples, such as the general ability to recognize confusion of necessary and sufficient conditions. A more modest thesis, also endorsed by McPeck, is epistemological subject-specificity, according to which the norms of good thinking vary from one field to another. Epistemological subject-specificity clearly holds to a certain extent; for example, the principles in accordance with which one solves a differential equation are quite different from the principles in accordance with which one determines whether a painting is a genuine Picasso. But the thesis suffers, as Ennis (1989) points out, from vagueness of the concept of a field or subject and from the obvious existence of inter-field principles, however broadly the concept of a field is construed. For example, the principles of hypothetico-deductive reasoning hold for all the varied fields in which such reasoning occurs. A third kind of subject-specificity is empirical subject-specificity, according to which as a matter of empirically observable fact a person with the abilities and dispositions of a critical thinker in one area of investigation will not necessarily have them in another area of investigation.

The thesis of empirical subject-specificity raises the general problem of transfer. If critical thinking abilities and dispositions have to be developed independently in each school subject, how are they of any use in dealing with the problems of everyday life and the political and social issues of contemporary society, most of which do not fit into the framework of a traditional school subject? Proponents of empirical subject-specificity tend to argue that transfer is more likely to occur if there is critical thinking instruction in a variety of domains, with explicit attention to dispositions and abilities that cut across domains. But evidence for this claim is scanty. There is a need for well-designed empirical studies that investigate the conditions that make transfer more likely.

It is common ground in debates about the generality or subject-specificity of critical thinking dispositions and abilities that critical thinking about any topic requires background knowledge about the topic. For example, the most sophisticated understanding of the principles of hypothetico-deductive reasoning is of no help unless accompanied by some knowledge of what might be plausible explanations of some phenomenon under investigation.

Critics have objected to bias in the theory, pedagogy and practice of critical thinking. Commentators (e.g., Alston 1995; Ennis 1998) have noted that anyone who takes a position has a bias in the neutral sense of being inclined in one direction rather than others. The critics, however, are objecting to bias in the pejorative sense of an unjustified favoring of certain ways of knowing over others, frequently alleging that the unjustly favoured ways are those of a dominant sex or culture (Bailin 1995). These ways favour:

• reinforcement of egocentric and sociocentric biases over dialectical engagement with opposing world-views (Paul 1981, 1984; Warren 1998)
• distancing from the object of inquiry over closeness to it (Martin 1992; Thayer-Bacon 1992)
• indifference to the situation of others over care for them (Martin 1992)
• orientation to thought over orientation to action (Martin 1992)
• being reasonable over caring to understand people’s ideas (Thayer-Bacon 1993)
• being neutral and objective over being embodied and situated (Thayer-Bacon 1995a)
• doubting over believing (Thayer-Bacon 1995b)
• reason over emotion, imagination and intuition (Thayer-Bacon 2000)
• solitary thinking over collaborative thinking (Thayer-Bacon 2000)
• written and spoken assignments over other forms of expression (Alston 2001)
• attention to written and spoken communications over attention to human problems (Alston 2001)
• winning debates in the public sphere over making and understanding meaning (Alston 2001)

A common thread in this smorgasbord of accusations is dissatisfaction with focusing on the logical analysis and evaluation of reasoning and arguments. While these authors acknowledge that such analysis and evaluation is part of critical thinking and should be part of its conceptualization and pedagogy, they insist that it is only a part. Paul (1981), for example, bemoans the tendency of atomistic teaching of methods of analyzing and evaluating arguments to turn students into more able sophists, adept at finding fault with positions and arguments with which they disagree but even more entrenched in the egocentric and sociocentric biases with which they began. Martin (1992) and Thayer-Bacon (1992) cite with approval the self-reported intimacy with their subject-matter of leading researchers in biology and medicine, an intimacy that conflicts with the distancing allegedly recommended in standard conceptions and pedagogy of critical thinking. Thayer-Bacon (2000) contrasts the embodied and socially embedded learning of her elementary school students in a Montessori school, who used their imagination, intuition and emotions as well as their reason, with conceptions of critical thinking as

thinking that is used to critique arguments, offer justifications, and make judgments about what are the good reasons, or the right answers. (Thayer-Bacon 2000: 127–128)

Alston (2001) reports that her students in a women’s studies class were able to see the flaws in the Cinderella myth that pervades much romantic fiction but in their own romantic relationships still acted as if all failures were the woman’s fault and still accepted the notions of love at first sight and living happily ever after. Students, she writes, should

be able to connect their intellectual critique to a more affective, somatic, and ethical account of making risky choices that have sexist, racist, classist, familial, sexual, or other consequences for themselves and those both near and far… critical thinking that reads arguments, texts, or practices merely on the surface without connections to feeling/desiring/doing or action lacks an ethical depth that should infuse the difference between mere cognitive activity and something we want to call critical thinking. (Alston 2001: 34)

Some critics portray such biases as unfair to women. Thayer-Bacon (1992), for example, has charged modern critical thinking theory with being sexist, on the ground that it separates the self from the object and causes one to lose touch with one’s inner voice, and thus stigmatizes women, who (she asserts) link self to object and listen to their inner voice. Her charge does not imply that women as a group are on average less able than men to analyze and evaluate arguments. Facione (1990c) found no difference by sex in performance on his California Critical Thinking Skills Test. Kuhn (1991: 280–281) found no difference by sex in either the disposition or the competence to engage in argumentative thinking.

The critics propose a variety of remedies for the biases that they allege. In general, they do not propose to eliminate or downplay critical thinking as an educational goal. Rather, they propose to conceptualize critical thinking differently and to change its pedagogy accordingly. Their pedagogical proposals arise logically from their objections. They can be summarized as follows:

• Focus on argument networks with dialectical exchanges reflecting contesting points of view rather than on atomic arguments, so as to develop “strong sense” critical thinking that transcends egocentric and sociocentric biases (Paul 1981, 1984).
• Foster closeness to the subject-matter and feeling connected to others in order to inform a humane democracy (Martin 1992).
• Develop “constructive thinking” as a social activity in a community of physically embodied and socially embedded inquirers with personal voices who value not only reason but also imagination, intuition and emotion (Thayer-Bacon 2000).
• In developing critical thinking in school subjects, treat as important neither skills nor dispositions but opening worlds of meaning (Alston 2001).
• Attend to the development of critical thinking dispositions as well as skills, and adopt the “critical pedagogy” practised and advocated by Freire (1968 [1970]) and hooks (1994) (Dalgleish, Girard, & Davies 2017).

A common thread in these proposals is treatment of critical thinking as a social, interactive, personally engaged activity like that of a quilting bee or a barn-raising (Thayer-Bacon 2000) rather than as an individual, solitary, distanced activity symbolized by Rodin’s The Thinker . One can get a vivid description of education with the former type of goal from the writings of bell hooks (1994, 2010). Critical thinking for her is open-minded dialectical exchange across opposing standpoints and from multiple perspectives, a conception similar to Paul’s “strong sense” critical thinking (Paul 1981). She abandons the structure of domination in the traditional classroom. In an introductory course on black women writers, for example, she assigns students to write an autobiographical paragraph about an early racial memory, then to read it aloud as the others listen, thus affirming the uniqueness and value of each voice and creating a communal awareness of the diversity of the group’s experiences (hooks 1994: 84). Her “engaged pedagogy” is thus similar to the “freedom under guidance” implemented in John Dewey’s Laboratory School of Chicago in the late 1890s and early 1900s. It incorporates the dialogue, anchored instruction, and mentoring that Abrami (2015) found to be most effective in improving critical thinking skills and dispositions.

What is the relationship of critical thinking to problem solving, decision-making, higher-order thinking, creative thinking, and other recognized types of thinking? One’s answer to this question obviously depends on how one defines the terms used in the question. If critical thinking is conceived broadly to cover any careful thinking about any topic for any purpose, then problem solving and decision making will be kinds of critical thinking, if they are done carefully. Historically, ‘critical thinking’ and ‘problem solving’ were two names for the same thing. If critical thinking is conceived more narrowly as consisting solely of appraisal of intellectual products, then it will be disjoint with problem solving and decision making, which are constructive.

Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives used the phrase “intellectual abilities and skills” for what had been labeled “critical thinking” by some, “reflective thinking” by Dewey and others, and “problem solving” by still others (Bloom et al. 1956: 38). Thus, the so-called “higher-order thinking skills” at the taxonomy’s top levels of analysis, synthesis and evaluation are just critical thinking skills, although they do not come with general criteria for their assessment (Ennis 1981b). The revised version of Bloom’s taxonomy (Anderson et al. 2001) likewise treats critical thinking as cutting across those types of cognitive process that involve more than remembering (Anderson et al. 2001: 269–270). For details, see the Supplement on History .

As to creative thinking, it overlaps with critical thinking (Bailin 1987, 1988). Thinking about the explanation of some phenomenon or event, as in Ferryboat , requires creative imagination in constructing plausible explanatory hypotheses. Likewise, thinking about a policy question, as in Candidate , requires creativity in coming up with options. Conversely, creativity in any field needs to be balanced by critical appraisal of the draft painting or novel or mathematical theory.

• Abrami, Philip C., Robert M. Bernard, Eugene Borokhovski, David I. Waddington, C. Anne Wade, and Tonje Person, 2015, “Strategies for Teaching Students to Think Critically: A Meta-analysis”, Review of Educational Research , 85(2): 275–314. doi:10.3102/0034654314551063
• Aikin, Wilford M., 1942, The Story of the Eight-year Study, with Conclusions and Recommendations , Volume I of Adventure in American Education , New York and London: Harper & Brothers. [ Aikin 1942 available online ]
• Alston, Kal, 1995, “Begging the Question: Is Critical Thinking Biased?”, Educational Theory , 45(2): 225–233. doi:10.1111/j.1741-5446.1995.00225.x
• –––, 2001, “Re/Thinking Critical Thinking: The Seductions of Everyday Life”, Studies in Philosophy and Education , 20(1): 27–40. doi:10.1023/A:1005247128053
• American Educational Research Association, 2014, Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing / American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, National Council on Measurement in Education , Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
• Anderson, Lorin W., David R. Krathwohl, Peter W. Airiasian, Kathleen A. Cruikshank, Richard E. Mayer, Paul R. Pintrich, James Raths, and Merlin C. Wittrock, 2001, A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives , New York: Longman, complete edition.
• Bailin, Sharon, 1987, “Critical and Creative Thinking”, Informal Logic , 9(1): 23–30. [ Bailin 1987 available online ]
• –––, 1988, Achieving Extraordinary Ends: An Essay on Creativity , Dordrecht: Kluwer. doi:10.1007/978-94-009-2780-3
• –––, 1995, “Is Critical Thinking Biased? Clarifications and Implications”, Educational Theory , 45(2): 191–197. doi:10.1111/j.1741-5446.1995.00191.x
• Bailin, Sharon and Mark Battersby, 2009, “Inquiry: A Dialectical Approach to Teaching Critical Thinking”, in Juho Ritola (ed.), Argument Cultures: Proceedings of OSSA 09 , CD-ROM (pp. 1–10), Windsor, ON: OSSA. [ Bailin & Battersby 2009 available online ]
• –––, 2016a, “Fostering the Virtues of Inquiry”, Topoi , 35(2): 367–374. doi:10.1007/s11245-015-9307-6
• –––, 2016b, Reason in the Balance: An Inquiry Approach to Critical Thinking , Indianapolis: Hackett, 2nd edition.
• –––, 2021, “Inquiry: Teaching for Reasoned Judgment”, in Daniel Fasko, Jr. and Frank Fair (eds.), Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Theory, Development, Instruction, and Assessment , Leiden: Brill, pp. 31–46. doi: 10.1163/9789004444591_003
• Bailin, Sharon, Roland Case, Jerrold R. Coombs, and Leroi B. Daniels, 1999a, “Common Misconceptions of Critical Thinking”, Journal of Curriculum Studies , 31(3): 269–283. doi:10.1080/002202799183124
• –––, 1999b, “Conceptualizing Critical Thinking”, Journal of Curriculum Studies , 31(3): 285–302. doi:10.1080/002202799183133
• Blair, J. Anthony, 2021, Studies in Critical Thinking , Windsor, ON: Windsor Studies in Argumentation, 2nd edition. [Available online at https://windsor.scholarsportal.info/omp/index.php/wsia/catalog/book/106]
• Berman, Alan M., Seth J. Schwartz, William M. Kurtines, and Steven L. Berman, 2001, “The Process of Exploration in Identity Formation: The Role of Style and Competence”, Journal of Adolescence , 24(4): 513–528. doi:10.1006/jado.2001.0386
• Black, Beth (ed.), 2012, An A to Z of Critical Thinking , London: Continuum International Publishing Group.
• Bloom, Benjamin Samuel, Max D. Engelhart, Edward J. Furst, Walter H. Hill, and David R. Krathwohl, 1956, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Handbook I: Cognitive Domain , New York: David McKay.
• Boardman, Frank, Nancy M. Cavender, and Howard Kahane, 2018, Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric: The Use of Reason in Everyday Life , Boston: Cengage, 13th edition.
• Browne, M. Neil and Stuart M. Keeley, 2018, Asking the Right Questions: A Guide to Critical Thinking , Hoboken, NJ: Pearson, 12th edition.
• Center for Assessment & Improvement of Learning, 2017, Critical Thinking Assessment Test , Cookeville, TN: Tennessee Technological University.
• Cleghorn, Paul. 2021. “Critical Thinking in the Elementary School: Practical Guidance for Building a Culture of Thinking”, in Daniel Fasko, Jr. and Frank Fair (eds.), Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Theory, Development, Instruction, and Assessmen t, Leiden: Brill, pp. 150–167. doi: 10.1163/9789004444591_010
• Cohen, Jacob, 1988, Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences , Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2nd edition.
• College Board, 1983, Academic Preparation for College. What Students Need to Know and Be Able to Do , New York: College Entrance Examination Board, ERIC document ED232517.
• Commission on the Relation of School and College of the Progressive Education Association, 1943, Thirty Schools Tell Their Story , Volume V of Adventure in American Education , New York and London: Harper & Brothers.
• Council for Aid to Education, 2017, CLA+ Student Guide . Available at http://cae.org/images/uploads/pdf/CLA_Student_Guide_Institution.pdf ; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• Dalgleish, Adam, Patrick Girard, and Maree Davies, 2017, “Critical Thinking, Bias and Feminist Philosophy: Building a Better Framework through Collaboration”, Informal Logic , 37(4): 351–369. [ Dalgleish et al. available online ]
• Dewey, John, 1910, How We Think , Boston: D.C. Heath. [ Dewey 1910 available online ]
• –––, 1916, Democracy and Education: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Education , New York: Macmillan.
• –––, 1933, How We Think: A Restatement of the Relation of Reflective Thinking to the Educative Process , Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath.
• –––, 1936, “The Theory of the Chicago Experiment”, Appendix II of Mayhew & Edwards 1936: 463–477.
• –––, 1938, Logic: The Theory of Inquiry , New York: Henry Holt and Company.
• Dominguez, Caroline (coord.), 2018a, A European Collection of the Critical Thinking Skills and Dispositions Needed in Different Professional Fields for the 21st Century , Vila Real, Portugal: UTAD. Available at http://bit.ly/CRITHINKEDUO1 ; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• ––– (coord.), 2018b, A European Review on Critical Thinking Educational Practices in Higher Education Institutions , Vila Real: UTAD. Available at http://bit.ly/CRITHINKEDUO2 ; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• ––– (coord.), 2018c, The CRITHINKEDU European Course on Critical Thinking Education for University Teachers: From Conception to Delivery , Vila Real: UTAD. Available at http:/bit.ly/CRITHINKEDU03; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• Dominguez Caroline and Rita Payan-Carreira (eds.), 2019, Promoting Critical Thinking in European Higher Education Institutions: Towards an Educational Protocol , Vila Real: UTAD. Available at http:/bit.ly/CRITHINKEDU04; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• Ennis, Robert H., 1958, “An Appraisal of the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal”, The Journal of Educational Research , 52(4): 155–158. doi:10.1080/00220671.1958.10882558
• –––, 1962, “A Concept of Critical Thinking: A Proposed Basis for Research on the Teaching and Evaluation of Critical Thinking Ability”, Harvard Educational Review , 32(1): 81–111.
• –––, 1981a, “A Conception of Deductive Logical Competence”, Teaching Philosophy , 4(3/4): 337–385. doi:10.5840/teachphil198143/429
• –––, 1981b, “Eight Fallacies in Bloom’s Taxonomy”, in C. J. B. Macmillan (ed.), Philosophy of Education 1980: Proceedings of the Thirty-seventh Annual Meeting of the Philosophy of Education Society , Bloomington, IL: Philosophy of Education Society, pp. 269–273.
• –––, 1984, “Problems in Testing Informal Logic, Critical Thinking, Reasoning Ability”, Informal Logic , 6(1): 3–9. [ Ennis 1984 available online ]
• –––, 1987, “A Taxonomy of Critical Thinking Dispositions and Abilities”, in Joan Boykoff Baron and Robert J. Sternberg (eds.), Teaching Thinking Skills: Theory and Practice , New York: W. H. Freeman, pp. 9–26.
• –––, 1989, “Critical Thinking and Subject Specificity: Clarification and Needed Research”, Educational Researcher , 18(3): 4–10. doi:10.3102/0013189X018003004
• –––, 1991, “Critical Thinking: A Streamlined Conception”, Teaching Philosophy , 14(1): 5–24. doi:10.5840/teachphil19911412
• –––, 1996, “Critical Thinking Dispositions: Their Nature and Assessability”, Informal Logic , 18(2–3): 165–182. [ Ennis 1996 available online ]
• –––, 1998, “Is Critical Thinking Culturally Biased?”, Teaching Philosophy , 21(1): 15–33. doi:10.5840/teachphil19982113
• –––, 2011, “Critical Thinking: Reflection and Perspective Part I”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking across the Disciplines , 26(1): 4–18. doi:10.5840/inquiryctnews20112613
• –––, 2013, “Critical Thinking across the Curriculum: The Wisdom CTAC Program”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking across the Disciplines , 28(2): 25–45. doi:10.5840/inquiryct20132828
• –––, 2016, “Definition: A Three-Dimensional Analysis with Bearing on Key Concepts”, in Patrick Bondy and Laura Benacquista (eds.), Argumentation, Objectivity, and Bias: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA), 18–21 May 2016 , Windsor, ON: OSSA, pp. 1–19. Available at http://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive/OSSA11/papersandcommentaries/105 ; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• –––, 2018, “Critical Thinking Across the Curriculum: A Vision”, Topoi , 37(1): 165–184. doi:10.1007/s11245-016-9401-4
• Ennis, Robert H., and Jason Millman, 1971, Manual for Cornell Critical Thinking Test, Level X, and Cornell Critical Thinking Test, Level Z , Urbana, IL: Critical Thinking Project, University of Illinois.
• Ennis, Robert H., Jason Millman, and Thomas Norbert Tomko, 1985, Cornell Critical Thinking Tests Level X & Level Z: Manual , Pacific Grove, CA: Midwest Publication, 3rd edition.
• –––, 2005, Cornell Critical Thinking Tests Level X & Level Z: Manual , Seaside, CA: Critical Thinking Company, 5th edition.
• Ennis, Robert H. and Eric Weir, 1985, The Ennis-Weir Critical Thinking Essay Test: Test, Manual, Criteria, Scoring Sheet: An Instrument for Teaching and Testing , Pacific Grove, CA: Midwest Publications.
• Facione, Peter A., 1990a, 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, ERIC Document ED315423.
• –––, 1990b, California Critical Thinking Skills Test, CCTST – Form A , Millbrae, CA: The California Academic Press.
• –––, 1990c, The California Critical Thinking Skills Test--College Level. Technical Report #3. Gender, Ethnicity, Major, CT Self-Esteem, and the CCTST , ERIC Document ED326584.
• –––, 1992, California Critical Thinking Skills Test: CCTST – Form B, Millbrae, CA: The California Academic Press.
• –––, 2000, “The Disposition Toward Critical Thinking: Its Character, Measurement, and Relationship to Critical Thinking Skill”, Informal Logic , 20(1): 61–84. [ Facione 2000 available online ]
• Facione, Peter A. and Noreen C. Facione, 1992, CCTDI: A Disposition Inventory , Millbrae, CA: The California Academic Press.
• Facione, Peter A., Noreen C. Facione, and Carol Ann F. Giancarlo, 2001, California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory: CCTDI: Inventory Manual , Millbrae, CA: The California Academic Press.
• Facione, Peter A., Carol A. Sánchez, and Noreen C. Facione, 1994, Are College Students Disposed to Think? , Millbrae, CA: The California Academic Press. ERIC Document ED368311.
• Fisher, Alec, and Michael Scriven, 1997, Critical Thinking: Its Definition and Assessment , Norwich: Centre for Research in Critical Thinking, University of East Anglia.
• Freire, Paulo, 1968 [1970], Pedagogia do Oprimido . Translated as Pedagogy of the Oppressed , Myra Bergman Ramos (trans.), New York: Continuum, 1970.
• Gigerenzer, Gerd, 2001, “The Adaptive Toolbox”, in Gerd Gigerenzer and Reinhard Selten (eds.), Bounded Rationality: The Adaptive Toolbox , Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 37–50.
• Glaser, Edward Maynard, 1941, An Experiment in the Development of Critical Thinking , New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University.
• Groarke, Leo A. and Christopher W. Tindale, 2012, Good Reasoning Matters! A Constructive Approach to Critical Thinking , Don Mills, ON: Oxford University Press, 5th edition.
• Halpern, Diane F., 1998, “Teaching Critical Thinking for Transfer Across Domains: Disposition, Skills, Structure Training, and Metacognitive Monitoring”, American Psychologist , 53(4): 449–455. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.53.4.449
• –––, 2016, Manual: Halpern Critical Thinking Assessment , Mödling, Austria: Schuhfried. Available at https://pdfcoffee.com/hcta-test-manual-pdf-free.html; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• Hamby, Benjamin, 2014, The Virtues of Critical Thinkers , Doctoral dissertation, Philosophy, McMaster University. [ Hamby 2014 available online ]
• –––, 2015, “Willingness to Inquire: The Cardinal Critical Thinking Virtue”, in Martin Davies and Ronald Barnett (eds.), The Palgrave Handbook of Critical Thinking in Higher Education , New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 77–87.
• Haran, Uriel, Ilana Ritov, and Barbara A. Mellers, 2013, “The Role of Actively Open-minded Thinking in Information Acquisition, Accuracy, and Calibration”, Judgment and Decision Making , 8(3): 188–201.
• Hatcher, Donald and Kevin Possin, 2021, “Commentary: Thinking Critically about Critical Thinking Assessment”, in Daniel Fasko, Jr. and Frank Fair (eds.), Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Theory, Development, Instruction, and Assessment , Leiden: Brill, pp. 298–322. doi: 10.1163/9789004444591_017
• Haynes, Ada, Elizabeth Lisic, Kevin Harris, Katie Leming, Kyle Shanks, and Barry Stein, 2015, “Using the Critical Thinking Assessment Test (CAT) as a Model for Designing Within-Course Assessments: Changing How Faculty Assess Student Learning”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines , 30(3): 38–48. doi:10.5840/inquiryct201530316
• Haynes, Ada and Barry Stein, 2021, “Observations from a Long-Term Effort to Assess and Improve Critical Thinking”, in Daniel Fasko, Jr. and Frank Fair (eds.), Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Theory, Development, Instruction, and Assessment , Leiden: Brill, pp. 231–254. doi: 10.1163/9789004444591_014
• Hiner, Amanda L. 2021. “Equipping Students for Success in College and Beyond: Placing Critical Thinking Instruction at the Heart of a General Education Program”, in Daniel Fasko, Jr. and Frank Fair (eds.), Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Theory, Development, Instruction, and Assessment , Leiden: Brill, pp. 188–208. doi: 10.1163/9789004444591_012
• Hitchcock, David, 2017, “Critical Thinking as an Educational Ideal”, in his On Reasoning and Argument: Essays in Informal Logic and on Critical Thinking , Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 477–497. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-53562-3_30
• –––, 2021, “Seven Philosophical Implications of Critical Thinking: Themes, Variations, Implications”, in Daniel Fasko, Jr. and Frank Fair (eds.), Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Theory, Development, Instruction, and Assessment , Leiden: Brill, pp. 9–30. doi: 10.1163/9789004444591_002
• hooks, bell, 1994, Teaching to Transgress: Education as the Practice of Freedom , New York and London: Routledge.
• –––, 2010, Teaching Critical Thinking: Practical Wisdom , New York and London: Routledge.
• Johnson, Ralph H., 1992, “The Problem of Defining Critical Thinking”, in Stephen P, Norris (ed.), The Generalizability of Critical Thinking , New York: Teachers College Press, pp. 38–53.
• Kahane, Howard, 1971, Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric: The Use of Reason in Everyday Life , Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
• Kahneman, Daniel, 2011, Thinking, Fast and Slow , New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
• Kahneman, Daniel, Olivier Sibony, & Cass R. Sunstein, 2021, Noise: A Flaw in Human Judgment , New York: Little, Brown Spark.
• Kenyon, Tim, and Guillaume Beaulac, 2014, “Critical Thinking Education and Debasing”, Informal Logic , 34(4): 341–363. [ Kenyon & Beaulac 2014 available online ]
• Krathwohl, David R., Benjamin S. Bloom, and Bertram B. Masia, 1964, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook II: Affective Domain , New York: David McKay.
• Kuhn, Deanna, 1991, The Skills of Argument , New York: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511571350
• –––, 2019, “Critical Thinking as Discourse”, Human Development, 62 (3): 146–164. doi:10.1159/000500171
• Lipman, Matthew, 1987, “Critical Thinking–What Can It Be?”, Analytic Teaching , 8(1): 5–12. [ Lipman 1987 available online ]
• –––, 2003, Thinking in Education , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2nd edition.
• Loftus, Elizabeth F., 2017, “Eavesdropping on Memory”, Annual Review of Psychology , 68: 1–18. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-010416-044138
• Makaiau, Amber Strong, 2021, “The Good Thinker’s Tool Kit: How to Engage Critical Thinking and Reasoning in Secondary Education”, in Daniel Fasko, Jr. and Frank Fair (eds.), Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Theory, Development, Instruction, and Assessment , Leiden: Brill, pp. 168–187. doi: 10.1163/9789004444591_011
• Martin, Jane Roland, 1992, “Critical Thinking for a Humane World”, in Stephen P. Norris (ed.), The Generalizability of Critical Thinking , New York: Teachers College Press, pp. 163–180.
• Mayhew, Katherine Camp, and Anna Camp Edwards, 1936, The Dewey School: The Laboratory School of the University of Chicago, 1896–1903 , New York: Appleton-Century. [ Mayhew & Edwards 1936 available online ]
• McPeck, John E., 1981, Critical Thinking and Education , New York: St. Martin’s Press.
• Moore, Brooke Noel and Richard Parker, 2020, Critical Thinking , New York: McGraw-Hill, 13th edition.
• Nickerson, Raymond S., 1998, “Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises”, Review of General Psychology , 2(2): 175–220. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175
• Nieto, Ana Maria, and Jorge Valenzuela, 2012, “A Study of the Internal Structure of Critical Thinking Dispositions”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking across the Disciplines , 27(1): 31–38. doi:10.5840/inquiryct20122713
• Norris, Stephen P., 1985, “Controlling for Background Beliefs When Developing Multiple-choice Critical Thinking Tests”, Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice , 7(3): 5–11. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3992.1988.tb00437.x
• Norris, Stephen P. and Robert H. Ennis, 1989, Evaluating Critical Thinking (The Practitioners’ Guide to Teaching Thinking Series), Pacific Grove, CA: Midwest Publications.
• Norris, Stephen P. and Ruth Elizabeth King, 1983, Test on Appraising Observations , St. John’s, NL: Institute for Educational Research and Development, Memorial University of Newfoundland.
• –––, 1984, The Design of a Critical Thinking Test on Appraising Observations , St. John’s, NL: Institute for Educational Research and Development, Memorial University of Newfoundland. ERIC Document ED260083.
• –––, 1985, Test on Appraising Observations: Manual , St. John’s, NL: Institute for Educational Research and Development, Memorial University of Newfoundland.
• –––, 1990a, Test on Appraising Observations , St. John’s, NL: Institute for Educational Research and Development, Memorial University of Newfoundland, 2nd edition.
• –––, 1990b, Test on Appraising Observations: Manual , St. John’s, NL: Institute for Educational Research and Development, Memorial University of Newfoundland, 2nd edition.
• OCR [Oxford, Cambridge and RSA Examinations], 2011, AS/A Level GCE: Critical Thinking – H052, H452 , Cambridge: OCR. Past papers available at https://pastpapers.co/ocr/?dir=A-Level/Critical-Thinking-H052-H452; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• Ontario Ministry of Education, 2013, The Ontario Curriculum Grades 9 to 12: Social Sciences and Humanities . Available at http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/curriculum/secondary/ssciences9to122013.pdf ; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• Passmore, John Arthur, 1980, The Philosophy of Teaching , London: Duckworth.
• Paul, Richard W., 1981, “Teaching Critical Thinking in the ‘Strong’ Sense: A Focus on Self-Deception, World Views, and a Dialectical Mode of Analysis”, Informal Logic , 4(2): 2–7. [ Paul 1981 available online ]
• –––, 1984, “Critical Thinking: Fundamental to Education for a Free Society”, Educational Leadership , 42(1): 4–14.
• –––, 1985, “McPeck’s Mistakes”, Informal Logic , 7(1): 35–43. [ Paul 1985 available online ]
• Paul, Richard W. and Linda Elder, 2006, The Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking: Concepts and Tools , Dillon Beach, CA: Foundation for Critical Thinking, 4th edition.
• Payette, Patricia, and Edna Ross, 2016, “Making a Campus-Wide Commitment to Critical Thinking: Insights and Promising Practices Utilizing the Paul-Elder Approach at the University of Louisville”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines , 31(1): 98–110. doi:10.5840/inquiryct20163118
• Possin, Kevin, 2008, “A Field Guide to Critical-Thinking Assessment”, Teaching Philosophy , 31(3): 201–228. doi:10.5840/teachphil200831324
• –––, 2013a, “Some Problems with the Halpern Critical Thinking Assessment (HCTA) Test”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking across the Disciplines , 28(3): 4–12. doi:10.5840/inquiryct201328313
• –––, 2013b, “A Serious Flaw in the Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA) Test”, Informal Logic , 33(3): 390–405. [ Possin 2013b available online ]
• –––, 2013c, “A Fatal Flaw in the Collegiate Learning Assessment Test”, Assessment Update , 25 (1): 8–12.
• –––, 2014, “Critique of the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal Test: The More You Know, the Lower Your Score”, Informal Logic , 34(4): 393–416. [ Possin 2014 available online ]
• –––, 2020, “CAT Scan: A Critical Review of the Critical-Thinking Assessment Test”, Informal Logic , 40 (3): 489–508. [Available online at https://informallogic.ca/index.php/informal_logic/article/view/6243]
• Rawls, John, 1971, A Theory of Justice , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Rear, David, 2019, “One Size Fits All? The Limitations of Standardised Assessment in Critical Thinking”, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education , 44(5): 664–675. doi: 10.1080/02602938.2018.1526255
• Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, 1762, Émile , Amsterdam: Jean Néaulme.
• Scheffler, Israel, 1960, The Language of Education , Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
• Scriven, Michael, and Richard W. Paul, 1987, Defining Critical Thinking , Draft statement written for the National Council for Excellence in Critical Thinking Instruction. Available at http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/defining-critical-thinking/766 ; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• Sheffield, Clarence Burton Jr., 2018, “Promoting Critical Thinking in Higher Education: My Experiences as the Inaugural Eugene H. Fram Chair in Applied Critical Thinking at Rochester Institute of Technology”, Topoi , 37(1): 155–163. doi:10.1007/s11245-016-9392-1
• Siegel, Harvey, 1985, “McPeck, Informal Logic and the Nature of Critical Thinking”, in David Nyberg (ed.), Philosophy of Education 1985: Proceedings of the Forty-First Annual Meeting of the Philosophy of Education Society , Normal, IL: Philosophy of Education Society, pp. 61–72.
• –––, 1988, Educating Reason: Rationality, Critical Thinking, and Education , New York: Routledge.
• –––, 1999, “What (Good) Are Thinking Dispositions?”, Educational Theory , 49(2): 207–221. doi:10.1111/j.1741-5446.1999.00207.x
• Simon, Herbert A., 1956, “Rational Choice and the Structure of the Environment”, Psychological Review , 63(2): 129–138. doi: 10.1037/h0042769
• Simpson, Elizabeth, 1966–67, “The Classification of Educational Objectives: Psychomotor Domain”, Illinois Teacher of Home Economics , 10(4): 110–144, ERIC document ED0103613. [ Simpson 1966–67 available online ]
• Skolverket, 2018, Curriculum for the Compulsory School, Preschool Class and School-age Educare , Stockholm: Skolverket, revised 2018. Available at https://www.skolverket.se/download/18.31c292d516e7445866a218f/1576654682907/pdf3984.pdf; last accessed 2022 07 15.
• Smith, B. Othanel, 1953, “The Improvement of Critical Thinking”, Progressive Education , 30(5): 129–134.
• Smith, Eugene Randolph, Ralph Winfred Tyler, and the Evaluation Staff, 1942, Appraising and Recording Student Progress , Volume III of Adventure in American Education , New York and London: Harper & Brothers.
• Splitter, Laurance J., 1987, “Educational Reform through Philosophy for Children”, Thinking: The Journal of Philosophy for Children , 7(2): 32–39. doi:10.5840/thinking1987729
• Stanovich Keith E., and Paula J. Stanovich, 2010, “A Framework for Critical Thinking, Rational Thinking, and Intelligence”, in David D. Preiss and Robert J. Sternberg (eds), Innovations in Educational Psychology: Perspectives on Learning, Teaching and Human Development , New York: Springer Publishing, pp 195–237.
• Stanovich Keith E., Richard F. West, and Maggie E. Toplak, 2011, “Intelligence and Rationality”, in Robert J. Sternberg and Scott Barry Kaufman (eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 3rd edition, pp. 784–826. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511977244.040
• Tankersley, Karen, 2005, Literacy Strategies for Grades 4–12: Reinforcing the Threads of Reading , Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
• Thayer-Bacon, Barbara J., 1992, “Is Modern Critical Thinking Theory Sexist?”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines , 10(1): 3–7. doi:10.5840/inquiryctnews199210123
• –––, 1993, “Caring and Its Relationship to Critical Thinking”, Educational Theory , 43(3): 323–340. doi:10.1111/j.1741-5446.1993.00323.x
• –––, 1995a, “Constructive Thinking: Personal Voice”, Journal of Thought , 30(1): 55–70.
• –––, 1995b, “Doubting and Believing: Both are Important for Critical Thinking”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking across the Disciplines , 15(2): 59–66. doi:10.5840/inquiryctnews199515226
• –––, 2000, Transforming Critical Thinking: Thinking Constructively , New York: Teachers College Press.
• Toulmin, Stephen Edelston, 1958, The Uses of Argument , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Turri, John, Mark Alfano, and John Greco, 2017, “Virtue Epistemology”, in Edward N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2017 Edition). URL = < https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2017/entries/epistemology-virtue/ >
• Vincent-Lancrin, Stéphan, Carlos González-Sancho, Mathias Bouckaert, Federico de Luca, Meritxell Fernández-Barrerra, Gwénaël Jacotin, Joaquin Urgel, and Quentin Vidal, 2019, Fostering Students’ Creativity and Critical Thinking: What It Means in School. Educational Research and Innovation , Paris: OECD Publishing.
• Warren, Karen J. 1988. “Critical Thinking and Feminism”, Informal Logic , 10(1): 31–44. [ Warren 1988 available online ]
• Watson, Goodwin, and Edward M. Glaser, 1980a, Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal, Form A , San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
• –––, 1980b, Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal: Forms A and B; Manual , San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation,
• –––, 1994, Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal, Form B , San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
• Weinstein, Mark, 1990, “Towards a Research Agenda for Informal Logic and Critical Thinking”, Informal Logic , 12(3): 121–143. [ Weinstein 1990 available online ]
• –––, 2013, Logic, Truth and Inquiry , London: College Publications.
• Willingham, Daniel T., 2019, “How to Teach Critical Thinking”, Education: Future Frontiers , 1: 1–17. [Available online at https://prod65.education.nsw.gov.au/content/dam/main-education/teaching-and-learning/education-for-a-changing-world/media/documents/How-to-teach-critical-thinking-Willingham.pdf.]
• Zagzebski, Linda Trinkaus, 1996, Virtues of the Mind: An Inquiry into the Nature of Virtue and the Ethical Foundations of Knowledge , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139174763

How to cite this entry . Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society . Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO). Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers , with links to its database.

• Association for Informal Logic and Critical Thinking (AILACT)
• Critical Thinking Across the European Higher Education Curricula (CRITHINKEDU)
• Critical Thinking Definition, Instruction, and Assessment: A Rigorous Approach
• Critical Thinking Research (RAIL)
• Foundation for Critical Thinking
• Insight Assessment
• Partnership for 21st Century Learning (P21)
• The Critical Thinking Consortium
• The Nature of Critical Thinking: An Outline of Critical Thinking Dispositions and Abilities , by Robert H. Ennis

abilities | bias, implicit | children, philosophy for | civic education | decision-making capacity | Dewey, John | dispositions | education, philosophy of | epistemology: virtue | logic: informal

Copyright © 2022 by David Hitchcock < hitchckd @ mcmaster . ca >

• Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

• Info about mirror sites

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is copyright © 2024 by The Metaphysics Research Lab , Department of Philosophy, Stanford University

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

Classroom Q&A

With larry ferlazzo.

In this EdWeek blog, an experiment in knowledge-gathering, Ferlazzo will address readers’ questions on classroom management, ELL instruction, lesson planning, and other issues facing teachers. Send your questions to [email protected]. Read more from this blog.

Integrating Critical Thinking Into the Classroom

• Share article

(This is the second post in a three-part series. You can see Part One here .)

The new question-of-the-week is:

What is critical thinking and how can we integrate it into the classroom?

Part One ‘s guests were Dara Laws Savage, Patrick Brown, Meg Riordan, Ph.D., and Dr. PJ Caposey. Dara, Patrick, and Meg were also guests on my 10-minute BAM! Radio Show . You can also find a list of, and links to, previous shows here.

Today, Dr. Kulvarn Atwal, Elena Quagliarello, Dr. Donna Wilson, and Diane Dahl share their recommendations.

‘Learning Conversations’

Dr. Kulvarn Atwal is currently the executive head teacher of two large primary schools in the London borough of Redbridge. Dr. Atwal is the author of The Thinking School: Developing a Dynamic Learning Community , published by John Catt Educational. Follow him on Twitter @Thinkingschool2 :

In many classrooms I visit, students’ primary focus is on what they are expected to do and how it will be measured. It seems that we are becoming successful at producing students who are able to jump through hoops and pass tests. But are we producing children that are positive about teaching and learning and can think critically and creatively? Consider your classroom environment and the extent to which you employ strategies that develop students’ critical-thinking skills and their self-esteem as learners.

Development of self-esteem

One of the most significant factors that impacts students’ engagement and achievement in learning in your classroom is their self-esteem. In this context, self-esteem can be viewed to be the difference between how they perceive themselves as a learner (perceived self) and what they consider to be the ideal learner (ideal self). This ideal self may reflect the child that is associated or seen to be the smartest in the class. Your aim must be to raise students’ self-esteem. To do this, you have to demonstrate that effort, not ability, leads to success. Your language and interactions in the classroom, therefore, have to be aspirational—that if children persist with something, they will achieve.

Use of evaluative praise

Ensure that when you are praising students, you are making explicit links to a child’s critical thinking and/or development. This will enable them to build their understanding of what factors are supporting them in their learning. For example, often when we give feedback to students, we may simply say, “Well done” or “Good answer.” However, are the students actually aware of what they did well or what was good about their answer? Make sure you make explicit what the student has done well and where that links to prior learning. How do you value students’ critical thinking—do you praise their thinking and demonstrate how it helps them improve their learning?

Learning conversations to encourage deeper thinking

We often feel as teachers that we have to provide feedback to every students’ response, but this can limit children’s thinking. Encourage students in your class to engage in learning conversations with each other. Give as many opportunities as possible to students to build on the responses of others. Facilitate chains of dialogue by inviting students to give feedback to each other. The teacher’s role is, therefore, to facilitate this dialogue and select each individual student to give feedback to others. It may also mean that you do not always need to respond at all to a student’s answer.

Teacher modelling own thinking

We cannot expect students to develop critical-thinking skills if we aren’t modeling those thinking skills for them. Share your creativity, imagination, and thinking skills with the students and you will nurture creative, imaginative critical thinkers. Model the language you want students to learn and think about. Share what you feel about the learning activities your students are participating in as well as the thinking you are engaging in. Your own thinking and learning will add to the discussions in the classroom and encourage students to share their own thinking.

Metacognitive questioning

Consider the extent to which your questioning encourages students to think about their thinking, and therefore, learn about learning! Through asking metacognitive questions, you will enable your students to have a better understanding of the learning process, as well as their own self-reflections as learners. Example questions may include:

• Why did you choose to do it that way?
• When you find something tricky, what helps you?
• How do you know when you have really learned something?

‘Adventures of Discovery’

Elena Quagliarello is the senior editor of education for Scholastic News , a current events magazine for students in grades 3–6. She graduated from Rutgers University, where she studied English and earned her master’s degree in elementary education. She is a certified K–12 teacher and previously taught middle school English/language arts for five years:

Critical thinking blasts through the surface level of a topic. It reaches beyond the who and the what and launches students on a learning journey that ultimately unlocks a deeper level of understanding. Teaching students how to think critically helps them turn information into knowledge and knowledge into wisdom. In the classroom, critical thinking teaches students how to ask and answer the questions needed to read the world. Whether it’s a story, news article, photo, video, advertisement, or another form of media, students can use the following critical-thinking strategies to dig beyond the surface and uncover a wealth of knowledge.

A Layered Learning Approach

Begin by having students read a story, article, or analyze a piece of media. Then have them excavate and explore its various layers of meaning. First, ask students to think about the literal meaning of what they just read. For example, if students read an article about the desegregation of public schools during the 1950s, they should be able to answer questions such as: Who was involved? What happened? Where did it happen? Which details are important? This is the first layer of critical thinking: reading comprehension. Do students understand the passage at its most basic level?

Ask the Tough Questions

The next layer delves deeper and starts to uncover the author’s purpose and craft. Teach students to ask the tough questions: What information is included? What or who is left out? How does word choice influence the reader? What perspective is represented? What values or people are marginalized? These questions force students to critically analyze the choices behind the final product. In today’s age of fast-paced, easily accessible information, it is essential to teach students how to critically examine the information they consume. The goal is to equip students with the mindset to ask these questions on their own.

Strike Gold

The deepest layer of critical thinking comes from having students take a step back to think about the big picture. This level of thinking is no longer focused on the text itself but rather its real-world implications. Students explore questions such as: Why does this matter? What lesson have I learned? How can this lesson be applied to other situations? Students truly engage in critical thinking when they are able to reflect on their thinking and apply their knowledge to a new situation. This step has the power to transform knowledge into wisdom.

Adventures of Discovery

There are vast ways to spark critical thinking in the classroom. Here are a few other ideas:

• Critical Expressionism: In this expanded response to reading from a critical stance, students are encouraged to respond through forms of artistic interpretations, dramatizations, singing, sketching, designing projects, or other multimodal responses. For example, students might read an article and then create a podcast about it or read a story and then act it out.
• Transmediations: This activity requires students to take an article or story and transform it into something new. For example, they might turn a news article into a cartoon or turn a story into a poem. Alternatively, students may rewrite a story by changing some of its elements, such as the setting or time period.
• Words Into Action: In this type of activity, students are encouraged to take action and bring about change. Students might read an article about endangered orangutans and the effects of habitat loss caused by deforestation and be inspired to check the labels on products for palm oil. They might then write a letter asking companies how they make sure the palm oil they use doesn’t hurt rain forests.
• Socratic Seminars: In this student-led discussion strategy, students pose thought-provoking questions to each other about a topic. They listen closely to each other’s comments and think critically about different perspectives.
• Classroom Debates: Aside from sparking a lively conversation, classroom debates naturally embed critical-thinking skills by asking students to formulate and support their own opinions and consider and respond to opposing viewpoints.

Critical thinking has the power to launch students on unforgettable learning experiences while helping them develop new habits of thought, reflection, and inquiry. Developing these skills prepares students to examine issues of power and promote transformative change in the world around them.

‘Quote Analysis’

Dr. Donna Wilson is a psychologist and the author of 20 books, including Developing Growth Mindsets , Teaching Students to Drive Their Brains , and Five Big Ideas for Effective Teaching (2 nd Edition). She is an international speaker who has worked in Asia, the Middle East, Australia, Europe, Jamaica, and throughout the U.S. and Canada. Dr. Wilson can be reached at [email protected] ; visit her website at www.brainsmart.org .

Diane Dahl has been a teacher for 13 years, having taught grades 2-4 throughout her career. Mrs. Dahl currently teaches 3rd and 4th grade GT-ELAR/SS in Lovejoy ISD in Fairview, Texas. Follow her on Twitter at @DahlD, and visit her website at www.fortheloveofteaching.net :

A growing body of research over the past several decades indicates that teaching students how to be better thinkers is a great way to support them to be more successful at school and beyond. In the book, Teaching Students to Drive Their Brains , Dr. Wilson shares research and many motivational strategies, activities, and lesson ideas that assist students to think at higher levels. Five key strategies from the book are as follows:

• Facilitate conversation about why it is important to think critically at school and in other contexts of life. Ideally, every student will have a contribution to make to the discussion over time.
• Begin teaching thinking skills early in the school year and as a daily part of class.
• As this instruction begins, introduce students to the concept of brain plasticity and how their brilliant brains change during thinking and learning. This can be highly motivational for students who do not yet believe they are good thinkers!
• Explicitly teach students how to use the thinking skills.
• Facilitate student understanding of how the thinking skills they are learning relate to their lives at school and in other contexts.

Below are two lessons that support critical thinking, which can be defined as the objective analysis and evaluation of an issue in order to form a judgment.

Mrs. Dahl prepares her 3rd and 4th grade classes for a year of critical thinking using quote analysis .

During Native American studies, her 4 th grade analyzes a Tuscarora quote: “Man has responsibility, not power.” Since students already know how the Native Americans’ land had been stolen, it doesn’t take much for them to make the logical leaps. Critical-thought prompts take their thinking even deeper, especially at the beginning of the year when many need scaffolding. Some prompts include:

• … from the point of view of the Native Americans?
• … from the point of view of the settlers?
• How do you think your life might change over time as a result?
• Can you relate this quote to anything else in history?

Analyzing a topic from occupational points of view is an incredibly powerful critical-thinking tool. After learning about the Mexican-American War, Mrs. Dahl’s students worked in groups to choose an occupation with which to analyze the war. The chosen occupations were: anthropologist, mathematician, historian, archaeologist, cartographer, and economist. Then each individual within each group chose a different critical-thinking skill to focus on. Finally, they worked together to decide how their occupation would view the war using each skill.

For example, here is what each student in the economist group wrote:

• When U.S.A. invaded Mexico for land and won, Mexico ended up losing income from the settlements of Jose de Escandon. The U.S.A. thought that they were gaining possible tradable land, while Mexico thought that they were losing precious land and resources.
• Whenever Texas joined the states, their GDP skyrocketed. Then they went to war and spent money on supplies. When the war was resolving, Texas sold some of their land to New Mexico for $10 million. This allowed Texas to pay off their debt to the U.S., improving their relationship.
• A detail that converged into the Mexican-American War was that Mexico and the U.S. disagreed on the Texas border. With the resulting treaty, Texas ended up gaining more land and economic resources.
• Texas gained land from Mexico since both countries disagreed on borders. Texas sold land to New Mexico, which made Texas more economically structured and allowed them to pay off their debt.

This was the first time that students had ever used the occupations technique. Mrs. Dahl was astonished at how many times the kids used these critical skills in other areas moving forward.

Thanks to Dr. Auwal, Elena, Dr. Wilson, and Diane for their contributions!

Please feel free to leave a comment with your reactions to the topic or directly to anything that has been said in this post.

Consider contributing a question to be answered in a future post. You can send one to me at [email protected] . When you send it in, let me know if I can use your real name if it’s selected or if you’d prefer remaining anonymous and have a pseudonym in mind.

You can also contact me on Twitter at @Larryferlazzo .

Education Week has published a collection of posts from this blog, along with new material, in an e-book form. It’s titled Classroom Management Q&As: Expert Strategies for Teaching .

Just a reminder; you can subscribe and receive updates from this blog via email (The RSS feed for this blog, and for all Ed Week articles, has been changed by the new redesign—new ones won’t be available until February). And if you missed any of the highlights from the first nine years of this blog, you can see a categorized list below.

• This Year’s Most Popular Q&A Posts
• Race & Racism in Schools
• School Closures & the Coronavirus Crisis
• Classroom-Management Advice
• Best Ways to Begin the School Year
• Best Ways to End the School Year
• Student Motivation & Social-Emotional Learning
• Implementing the Common Core
• Facing Gender Challenges in Education
• Teaching Social Studies
• Cooperative & Collaborative Learning
• Using Tech in the Classroom
• Student Voices
• Parent Engagement in Schools
• Teaching English-Language Learners
• Reading Instruction
• Writing Instruction
• Education Policy Issues
• Differentiating Instruction
• Math Instruction
• Science Instruction
• Advice for New Teachers
• Author Interviews
• Entering the Teaching Profession
• The Inclusive Classroom
• Learning & the Brain
• Administrator Leadership
• Teacher Leadership
• Relationships in Schools
• Professional Development
• Instructional Strategies
• Best of Classroom Q&A
• Professional Collaboration
• Classroom Organization
• Mistakes in Education
• Project-Based Learning

I am also creating a Twitter list including all contributors to this column .

The opinions expressed in Classroom Q&A With Larry Ferlazzo are strictly those of the author(s) and do not reflect the opinions or endorsement of Editorial Projects in Education, or any of its publications.

Sign Up for EdWeek Update

Edweek top school jobs.

Sign Up & Sign In

VALUE Rubrics - Critical Thinking

The VALUE rubrics were developed by teams of faculty experts representing colleges and universities across the United States through a process that examined many existing campus rubrics and related documents for each learning outcome and incorporated additional feedback from faculty. The rubrics articulate fundamental criteria for each learning outcome, with performance descriptors demonstrating progressively more sophisticated levels of attainment. The rubrics are intended for institutional-level use in evaluating and discussing student learning, not for grading. The core expectations articulated in all 16 of the VALUE rubrics can and should be translated into the language of individual campuses, disciplines, and even courses. The utility of the VALUE rubrics is to position learning at all undergraduate levels within a basic framework of expectations such that evidence of learning can by shared nationally through a common dialog and understanding of student success.

The Critical Thinking VALUE Rubric is available for free download in Word and PDF formats.

Preview the Critical Thinking VALUE Rubric:

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Recommended Articles
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

The value of critical thinking in higher education and the labour market: the voice of stakeholders.

1. Introduction

2. the embeddedness of critical thinking in higher education and the labour market, 2.1. what is critical thinking, 2.2. the relevance of critical thinking in higher education, 2.3. critical thinking in the labour market, 3. methodology, 3.1. participants, 3.2. data collection, 3.3. research data analysis methods, 3.4. research ethics, 4.1. views regarding the manifestation and development of critical thinking, 4.2. attitude toward the importance of critical thinking skills in the modern labour market, 4.3. attitudes toward critical thinking dispositions of importance in the modern labour market, 4.4. attitude regarding who is responsible for developing critical thinking, 5. discussion, 6. conclusions, author contributions, institutional review board statement, informed consent statement, data availability statement, conflicts of interest.

• Abed, Soheila, Amir Hosein Mohammad Davoudi, and Davoud Hoseinzadeh. 2015. The effect of synectics pattern on increasing the level of problem solving and critical thinking skills in students of alborz province. WALIA Journal 31: 110–18. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ahrari, Seyedali, Bahaman Abu Samah, Md Salleh Hj Bin Hassan, Nor Wahiza Abdul Wahat, and Zeinab Zaremohzzabieh. 2016. Deepening Critical Thinking Skills through Civic Engagement in Malaysian Higher Education. Thinking Skills & Creativity 22: 121–28. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Aliakbari, Mohammad, and Akram Sadeghdaghighi. 2013. Teachers’ perception of the barriers to critical thinking. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences 70: 1–5. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• AMA. 2012. Critical Skills Survey. Available online: https://docplayer.net/23395874-Critical-skills-survey.html (accessed on 16 June 2021).
• Andrews, Jane, and Helen Higson. 2008. Graduate Employability, ‘Soft Skills’ Versus ‘Hard’ Business Knowledge: A European Study. Higher Education in Europe 33: 411–22. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Andrews, Richard. 2007. Argumentation, Critical Thinking and the Postgraduate Dissertation. Educational Review 59: 1–18. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Apple, Michael W. 1995. Education and Power . New York and London: Routledge. [ Google Scholar ]
• Apple, Michael W. 2006. Educating the “Right” Way: Markets, Standards, God, and Inequality . New York: Routledge. [ Google Scholar ]
• Asia Society, and OECD. 2018. Teaching for Global Competence in a Rapidly Changing World. Available online: https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/9789264289024-en.pdf?expires=1623860695&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=D5F315E3A2FA9E279C1F96F9792B370F (accessed on 16 June 2021).
• Barnett, Ronald. 2005. Recapturing the Universal in the University. Educational Philosophy & Theory 37: 785–97. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Barnett, Ronald. 2015. A Curriculum for Critical Being. In The Palgrave Handbook of Critical Thinking in Higher Education . Edited by Martin Davies and Ronald Barnett. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 63–76. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bassham, Gregory, William Irwin, Henry Nardone, and James M. Wallace. 2013. Critical Thinking: A Student’s Introduction , 5th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bermingham, Merinda. 2015. Clearing up “Critical Thinking”: Its Four Formidable Features. Creative Education 6: 421–27. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Bezanilla, María José, Donna Fernández-Nogueira, Manuel Poblete, and Hector Galindo-Domínguez. 2019. Methodologies for Teaching-Learning Critical Thinking in Higher Education: The Teacher’s View. Thinking Skills & Creativity 33. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bowell, Tracy, and Justine Kingsbury. 2015. Virtue and Inquiry: Bridging the Transfer Gap. In The Palgrave Handbook of Critical Thinking in Higher Education . Edited by Martin Davies and Ronald Barnett. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 233–245. [ Google Scholar ]
• Brookfield, Stephen. 2005. The Power of Critical theory: Liberating Adult Learning and Teaching . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. [ Google Scholar ]
• Brookfield, Stephen. 2012. Teaching for Critical Thinking. Tools and Techniques to Help Students Question Their Assumptions . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. [ Google Scholar ]
• Burbach, Mark E., Gina S. Matkin, and Susan M. Fritz. 2004. Teaching Critical Thinking in an Introductory Leadership Course Utilizing Active Learning Strategies: A Confirmatory Study. College Student Journal 38: 482–93. [ Google Scholar ]
• Candy, Philip C. 1991. Self-Direction for Lifelong Learning . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. [ Google Scholar ]
• Christensen, Jonas, Nils Ekelund, Margareta Melin, and Pär Widén. 2021. The Beautiful Risk of Collaborative and Interdisciplinary Research. A Challenging Collaborative and Critical Approach toward Sustainable Learning Processes in Academic Profession. Sustainability 13: 4723. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Council of the European Union. 2018. Council Recommendation on Key Competences for Lifelong Learning. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CONSIL:ST_9009_2018_INIT&froM=EN (accessed on 16 June 2021).
• Creswell, John W., and J. David Creswell. 2021. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches . Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publishing. [ Google Scholar ]
• Creswell, John W., and Timothy C. Guetterman. 2019. Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research . Boston: Pearson. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dall’Alba, Gloria, and Robyn Barnacle. 2007. An Ontological Turn for Higher Education. Studies in Higher Education 32: 679–91. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Davitch, James M., and Robert D. Folker Jr. 2017. Operationalizing Air Force Critical Thinking. Air & Space Power Journal 31: 62–68. [ Google Scholar ]
• Desai, Mayur S., Bruce D. Berger, and Roger Higgs. 2016. Critical Thinking Skills for Business School Graduates as Demanded by Employers: A Strategic Perspective and Recommendations. The Academy of Educational Leadership Journal 20: 10–31. [ Google Scholar ]
• Devlin, Marcia. 2002. Taking Responsibility for Learning Isn’t Everything: A Case for Developing Tertiary Students’ Conceptions of Learning. Teaching in Higher Education 7: 125–38. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dominguez, Caroline, and Rita Payan-Carreira, eds. 2019. Promoting Critical Thinking in European Higher Education Institutions: Towards an Educational Protocol . Vila Real: Universidade de Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dunne, Gerry. 2015. Beyond Critical Thinking to Critical Being: Criticality in Higher Education and Life. International Journal of Educational Research 71: 86–99. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dwyer, Christopher, Michael Hogan, Owen Harney, and Caroline Kavanagh. 2017. Facilitating a Student-Educator Conceptual Model of Dispositions towards Critical Thinking through Interactive Management. Educational Technology Research & Development 65: 47–73. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Elicor, Peter Paul E. 2017. Critical Thinking and Community of Inquiry within Professional Organizations in the Developing World. Journal of Human Values 23: 13–20. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ennis, Robert Hugh. 2015. Critical Thinking: A Streamlined Conception. In The Palgrave Handbook of Critical Thinking in Higher Education . Edited by Martin Davies and Ronald Barnett. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 31–47. [ Google Scholar ]
• European Commission. 2016. Review of the 2006 Recommendation on Key Competences for Lifelong Learning. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/education/initiatives/key-competences-framework-review-2017_en (accessed on 16 June 2021).
• European Commission. 2020. Relevant and High-Quality Higher Education. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/education/policies/higher-education/relevant-and-high-quality-higher-education_en (accessed on 16 June 2021).
• Facione, Peter A., Noreen C. Facione, and Carol A. F. Giancarlo. 1997. Professional Judgement and the Disposition toward Critical Thinking . Millbrae: California Academic Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Facione, Peter. 1990. Critical Thinking: A Statement of Expert Consensus for Purposes of Educational Assessment and Instruction. Research Findings and Recommendations . Fullerton: California State University. [ Google Scholar ]
• Facione, Peter. 2013. Critical Thinking: What It Is and Why It Counts . Oakland: The California Academic Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fahim, Mansoor, and Nima Shakouri Masouleh. 2012. Critical Thinking in Higher Education: A Pedagogical Look. Theory & Practice in Language Studies 2: 1370–75. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Felix, Sara Maria Camacho. 2016. Fostering Criticality within Neoliberal Higher Education: A Critical Action Research Study with First Year Students in Kazakhstan. Available online: http://search.ebscohost.com.skaitykla.mruni.eu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ddu&AN=1F5F606674E8CCBB&site=ehost-live (accessed on 16 June 2021).
• Fong, Carlton J., Yughi Kim, Coreen W. Davis, Theresa Hoang, and Young Won Kim. 2017. A Meta-Analysis on Critical Thinking and Community College Student Achievement. Thinking Skills & Creativity 26: 71–83. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Fung, Dennis. 2014. The Influence of Ground Rules on Chinese Students’ Learning of Critical Thinking in Group Work: A Cultural Perspective. Pedagogy, Culture & Society 22: 337–68. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ghazivakili, Zohre, Roohangiz Norouzi Nia, Faride Panahi, Mehrdad Karimi, Hayede Gholsorkhi, and Zarrin Ahmadi. 2014. The Role of Critical Thinking Skills and Learning Styles of University Students in Their Academic Performance. Journal of Advances in Medical Education & Professionalism 2: 95–102. [ Google Scholar ]
• Halpern, Diane F., and Dana S. Dunn. 2021. Critical Thinking: A Model of Intelligence for Solving Real-World Problems. Journal of Intelligence 9: 22. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Halpern, Diane F. 2014. Thought and Knowledge: An Introduction to Critical Thinking , 5th ed. New York: Psychology Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hassan, Karma El, and Ghida Madhum. 2007. Validating the Watson Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal. Higher Education: The International Journal of Higher Education and Educational Planning 54: 361–83. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Healey, Ruth L. 2012. The Power of Debate: Reflections on the Potential of Debates for Engaging Students in Critical Thinking about Controversial Geographical Topics. Journal of Geography in Higher Education 36: 239–57. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Helsdingen, Anne, Tamara van Gog, and Jeroen van Merrienboer. 2011. The Effects of Practice Schedule and Critical Thinking Prompts on Learning and Transfer of a Complex Judgment Task. Journal of Educational Psychology 103: 383–98. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Hsu, Yi-Chu. 2021. An Action Research in Critical Thinking Concept Designed Curriculum Based on Collaborative Learning for Engineering Ethics Course. Sustainability 13: 2621. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Indrašienė, Valdonė, Violeta Jegelevičienė, Odeta Merfeldaitė, Daiva Penkauskienė, Jolanta Pivorienė, Asta Railienė, Justinas Sadauskas, and Natalija Valavičienė. 2019. What Critical Thinking and for What? Social Welfare Interdisciplinary Approach 9: 24–38. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jiang, Jing, Ang Gao, and Baiyin Yang. 2018. Employees’ Critical Thinking, Leaders’ Inspirational Motivation, and Voice Behavior: The Mediating Role of Voice Efficacy. Journal of Personnel Psychology 17: 33–41. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Johnson, Ralph H., and Benjamin Hamby. 2015. A meta-level approach to the problem of defining “Critical Thinking”. Argumentation 29: 417–430. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jones, Julie Scott. 2015. Research Ethics. Context and Practice . Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publishing. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kincheloe, Joe L., and Shirley R. Steinberg. 1993. A Tentative Description of Post-Formal Thinking: The Critical Confrontation with Cognitive Theory. Harvard Educational Review 63: 296. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• King, Patricia M., and Karen Strohm Kitchener. 2004. Reflective Judgment: Theory and Research on the Development of Epistemic Assumptions through Adulthood. Educational Psychologist 39: 5–18. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kreitzberg, Anne Pauker, and Charlie B. Kreitzberg. 2011. The Business Case for Critical Thinking. Mworld 10: 23–26. [ Google Scholar ]
• Krstikj, Aleksandra. 2021. Social Innovation in the Undergraduate Architecture Studio. Societies 11: 26. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kumar, R. Renjith, and Rajani James. 2015. Evaluation of Critical Thinking in Higher Education in Oman. International Journal of Higher Education 4: 33–43. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Lauder, Hugh, and Ken Mayhew. 2020. Higher Education and the Labour Market: An Introduction. Oxford Review of Education 46: 1–9. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Lipman, Matthew. 1988. Critical Thinking—What Can It Be? Educational Leadership 46: 38. [ Google Scholar ]
• Magrabi, Syed Abdur Rauf, Moghal Irfan Pasha, and Moghal Yaseen Pasha. 2018. Classroom Teaching to Enhance Critical Thinking and Problem-Solving Skills for developing IOT Applications. Journal of Engineering Education Transformations 31: 152–57. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Maloney, Stephen, Joanna Hong-Meng Tai, Kristin Lo, Elizabeth Molloy, and Dragan Ilic. 2013. Honesty in Critically Reflective Essays: An Analysis of Student Practice. Advances in Health Sciences Education 18: 617–26. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Marton, Ference, Gloria Dall’Alba, and Elizabeth Beaty. 1993. Conceptions of learning. International Journal of Educational Research 19: 277–300. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mathias, John. 2015. Thinking Like a Social Worker: Examining the Meaning of Critical Thinking in Social Work. Journal of Social Work Education 51: 457–74. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• McLaren, Peter. 2016. Pedagogy of Insurrection: From Resurrection to Revolution . New York: Peter Lang. [ Google Scholar ]
• Niu, Lian, Linda S. Behar-Horenstein, and Cyndi W. Garvan. 2013. Do Instructional Interventions Influence College Students’ Critical Thinking Skills? A Meta-Analysis. Educational Research Review 9: 114–28. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Official Statistics Portal. n.d. Available online: https://osp.stat.gov.lt/temines-lenteles7 (accessed on 16 June 2021).
• Panter, Abigail T., and Sonya K. Sterba. 2011. Handbook of Ethics in Quantitative Methodology . New York: Routledge. [ Google Scholar ]
• Paul, Richard, and Linda Elder. 2012. Critical Thinking: Tools for Taking Charge of your Learning and Your Life . Boston: Pearson. [ Google Scholar ]
• Penkauskienė, Daiva, Asta Railienė, and Gonçalo Cruz. 2019. How Is Critical Thinking Valued by the Labour Market? Employer Perspectives from Different European Countries. Studies in Higher Education 44: 804–15. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Phan, Huy P. 2011. Deep Processing Strategies and Critical Thinking: Developmental Trajectories Using Latent Growth Analyses. Journal of Educational Research 104: 283–94. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Phillips, Denis Charles, and Nicholas C. Burbules. 2000. Postpositivism and Educational Research . Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield. [ Google Scholar ]
• Piawa, Chua Yan. 2010. Building a test to assess creative and critical thinking simultaneously. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences 2: 551–59. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Pithers, Robert T., and Rebecca Soden. 2000. Critical thinking in education: A review. Educational Research 42: 237–49. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pollard, Vikki. 2014. An Ontological Turn in Critical Thinking in Higher Education. In Research and Development in Higher Education: Higher Education in a Globalized World . Edited by Anna Kwan, Eva Wong, Theresa Kwong, Sam Lau and Allan Goody. Hong Kong: Herdsa, vol. 37, pp. 266–73. [ Google Scholar ]
• Power, John B. 2016. Has This Begun to Change the Way They Think? Moving Undergraduate Learners’ Level of Reflection from Where It Is to Where It Needs to Be. Teaching in Higher Education 21: 235–48. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Powley, Edward H., and Scott N. Taylor. 2014. Pedagogical Approaches to Develop Critical Thinking and Crisis Leadership. Journal of Management Education 38: 560–85. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Puig, Blanca, Paloma Blanco-Anaya, Inés M. Bargiela, and Beatriz Crujeiras-Pérez. 2019. A Systematic Review on Critical Thinking Intervention Studies in Higher Education across Professional Fields. Studies in Higher Education 44: 860–69. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rave, Jorge Iván Pérez, Rafael Fernández Guerrero, and Juan Carlos Correa Morales. 2020. Critical thinking and continuous improvement: A scientific text mining approach. Total Quality Management . [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Redding, Gordon. 2017. Critical Thinking, University Autonomy, and Societal Evolution; Thoughts on a Research Agenda . Centre for Global Higher Education Working Paper No. 11. London: UCL Institute of Education. [ Google Scholar ]
• Reed, Lynette. 2018. Building Critical Thinking Skills to Solve Problems at Work. Available online: https://www.business.com/articles/building-critical-thinking-skills-at-work/ (accessed on 16 June 2021).
• Resnick, Lauren B., and National Research Council. 1987. Education and Learning to Think . Washington, DC: National Academies Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rodzalana, Shazaitul Azreen, and Maisarah Mohamed Saat. 2015. The Perception of Critical Thinking and Problem-Solving Skill among Malaysian Undergraduate Students. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences 172: 725–32. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Rogoff, Irit. 2006. “Smuggling”—An Embodied Criticality. Available online: https://xenopraxis.net/readings/rogoff_smuggling.pdf (accessed on 16 June 2021).
• Ruutmann, Tiia. 2019. Development of Critical Thinking and Reflection. In Linear and Nonlinear Programming January . Edited by Michael Auer and Thrasyvoulos Tsiatsos. Cham: Springer, pp. 895–906. [ Google Scholar ]
• Saha, Ayesha, and Samridhi Ahuja. 2017. Critical Existential Thinking, Search for Meaning and Life Satisfaction. Journal of Psychosocial Research 12: 187–95. [ Google Scholar ]
• Salkind, Neil J. 2010. Encyclopedia of Research Design . Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Schraagen, Jan Maarten, and Josine G. M. van de Ven. 2008. Improving Decision Making in Crisis Response through Critical Thinking Support. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making 2: 311–27. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sigurðsson, Geir. 2017. Transformative Critique: What Confucianism Can Contribute to Contemporary Education. Studies in Philosophy & Education 36: 131–46. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sousa, Maria José, and Daniela Wilks. 2018. Sustainable Skills for the World of Work in the Digital Age. Systems Research & Behavioral Science 35: 399–405. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Stupnisky, Robert H., Robert D. Renaud, Lia M. Daniels, Tara L. Haynes, and Raymond P. Perry. 2008. The Interrelation of First-Year College Students’ Critical Thinking Disposition, Perceived Academic Control, and Academic Achievement. Research in Higher Education 49: 513–30. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Subramanian, Kalpathy Ramaiyer. 2020. Organizational aspirations and Critical Thinking of Managers. Journal of Advances in Social Science and Humanities 6: 1173–82. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• The State Social Insurance Fund Board SODRA. n.d. Available online: https://www.sodra.lt/ (accessed on 16 June 2021).
• Tripathy, Mitashree. 2020. Dimensions of Critical Thinking in Workplace Management & Personal Development: A Conceptual Analysis. Multidisciplinary Journal for Education Social and Technological Sciences 7: 1–19. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ünsar, Agah Sinan, and Ediz Engin. 2013. A case study to determine critical thinking skills of university students. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences 75: 563–69. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Wang, Xiaoli, and Huibin Zheng. 2016. Reasoning Critical Thinking: Is It Born or Made? Theory & Practice in Language Studies 6: 1223–31. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Whiting, Kate. 2020. These Are the Top 10 Job Skills of Tomorrow—And How Long It Takes to Learn Them. Available online: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/10/top-10-work-skills-of-tomorrow-how-long-it-takes-to-learn-them/ (accessed on 16 June 2021).
• Wolcott, Susan K. 2006. College Faculty Handbook: Steps for Better Thinking. A Classroom Model for Teaching, Learning and Assessing Higher Order Thinking Skills . Bellevue: Wolcott Lynch Associates. [ Google Scholar ]
• World Economic Forum. 2020. The Future of Jobs Report 2020. Available online: http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Future_of_Jobs_2020.pdf (accessed on 16 June 2021).
• Yanchar, Stephen C., Brent D. Slife, and Russell Warne. 2008. Critical Thinking as Disciplinary Practice. Review of General Psychology 12: 265–281. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Yuan, Yu-His, Chia-Hui Liu, and Szu-Sheng Kuang. 2021. An Innovative and Interactive Teaching Model for Cultivating Talent’s Digital Literacy in Decision Making, Sustainability, and Computational Thinking. Sustainability 13: 5117. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhang, Nan. 2020. On the Cultivation of Critical thinking ability in College English Class. International Journal of English, Literature and Social Sciences (IJELS) 5: 183–85. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]

Share and Cite

Indrašienė, V.; Jegelevičienė, V.; Merfeldaitė, O.; Penkauskienė, D.; Pivorienė, J.; Railienė, A.; Sadauskas, J.; Valavičienė, N. The Value of Critical Thinking in Higher Education and the Labour Market: The Voice of Stakeholders. Soc. Sci. 2021 , 10 , 286. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci10080286

Indrašienė V, Jegelevičienė V, Merfeldaitė O, Penkauskienė D, Pivorienė J, Railienė A, Sadauskas J, Valavičienė N. The Value of Critical Thinking in Higher Education and the Labour Market: The Voice of Stakeholders. Social Sciences . 2021; 10(8):286. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci10080286

Indrašienė, Valdonė, Violeta Jegelevičienė, Odeta Merfeldaitė, Daiva Penkauskienė, Jolanta Pivorienė, Asta Railienė, Justinas Sadauskas, and Natalija Valavičienė. 2021. "The Value of Critical Thinking in Higher Education and the Labour Market: The Voice of Stakeholders" Social Sciences 10, no. 8: 286. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci10080286

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

By providing an email address. I agree to the Terms of Use and acknowledge that I have read the Privacy Policy .

Nurturing character and critical thinking through values education

In a time of swift technological progress and changing international environments, values education plays a critical role in forming the leaders of the future. A well-rounded education is increasingly seen to emphasize character development and critical thinking abilities above the conventional emphasis on academic success. This letter examines the ability of values education to change people and how it shapes them into morally upright, accountable leaders who can successfully negotiate the challenges of the contemporary world.

The moral compass that helps people make good decisions and cultivate healthy relationships is values education. Beyond merely dispensing knowledge, it invites students to consider their attitudes, behaviors, and beliefs. The foundation for a cooperative and mutually understanding society is laid by educators through the instillation of fundamental values like empathy, respect, integrity, and accountability.

Individual character development is one of values education’s main goals. Students are encouraged to develop a strong sense of right and wrong by being exposed to situations that force them to consider moral decisions. By using dynamic and captivating activities, educators can foster conversations that encourage introspection and the formation of a moral compass.

Values education encourages students to critically examine their own values as well as those of others, rather than forcing a set of views on them. Students learn how to assess events, weigh opposing ideas, and make well-informed judgments by looking at other points of view. In a society where creative solutions are required to solve complicated challenges, these critical thinking abilities are extremely valuable.

Applying values education outside of the classroom is where it really gets tested. Students ought to be given the means by which they can put their moral principles into practice and benefit both their local communities and the global community. The practical relevance of education is reinforced when students are given the opportunity to apply the ideals they have learned in real-world settings through service-learning projects, community outreach, and collaborative activities.

The teachings acquired via values education help students become moral leaders as they advance in their schooling. These leaders have the integrity and compassion needed to lead with empathy and make moral decisions, in addition to the knowledge and abilities needed for success.

It is impossible to overstate the importance of values education in a society that is changing quickly. Teachers have a crucial role in forming the future leaders of society by developing critical thinking abilities and character. A brighter, more compassionate future is firmly rooted in values education, as we work to create a society that values ethics, empathy, and accountability.

Elsie M. Pinero

Subscribe to our daily newsletter

Fearless views on the news

Disclaimer: Comments do not represent the views of INQUIRER.net. We reserve the right to exclude comments which are inconsistent with our editorial standards. FULL DISCLAIMER

© copyright 1997-2024 inquirer.net | all rights reserved.

We use cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. By continuing, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. To find out more, please click this link.

Last updated 20/06/24: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings .

Login Alert

• > Education in the Moral Domain
• > Integrating Values Education into the Curriculum: A Domain Approach

Book contents

• Frontmatter
• Foreword by Elliot Turiel
• Acknowledgments
• Introduction
• PART ONE THE NATURE OF MORALITY AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF SOCIAL VALUES
• PART TWO CLASSROOM APPLICATIONS
• 8 Creating a Moral Atmosphere
• 9 Integrating Values Education into the Curriculum: A Domain Approach
• 10 Fostering the Moral Self
• Conclusion: Keeping Things in Perspective
• Additional Resources
• Index of Names
• Index of Subjects

9 - Integrating Values Education into the Curriculum: A Domain Approach

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 November 2009

In this chapter, we will explore some suggestions for incorporating the development of children's conceptions of morality, convention, and personal issues into the existing academic curriculum. The goal is to provide teachers with some guidance for how to engage in domain-appropriate moral education that will complement, rather than compete with, teachers' more general academic aims. The suggestions and examples provided here are not meant to serve as a curriculum per se but, rather, as a template for teachers to use in adapting their course materials and syllabi for moral education.

The purposes of this curricular approach are (1) to stimulate the development of students' moral conceptions of fairness, human welfare, and rights, and (2) to develop their conceptions of societal convention and social organization so that they may (3) participate as constructive citizens and moral beings and (4) develop a critical moral orientation toward their own conduct and the norms and mores of society.

The first three stated purposes of this curricular approach are noncontroversial in that they are resonant with the goals of virtually all traditional forms of values education. In and of themselves, however, those three goals fall short of what is required of a genuinely moral person. In the absence of the capacity to employ one's moral and social judgments in a critical manner, an individual cannot reflect upon the possibility that his or her own moral perspective within certain situations is at odds with what is most fair and right. As we saw in Chapter 5, the dynamics among morality, convention, and informational assumptions are such that they may form a conceptual framework with immoral consequences.

Access options

Save book to kindle.

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle .

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service .

• Integrating Values Education into the Curriculum: A Domain Approach
• Larry P. Nucci , University of Illinois, Chicago
• Book: Education in the Moral Domain
• Online publication: 12 November 2009
• Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511605987.011

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox .

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive .

Search form

• Editorial Group
• International Editorial Board
• Ethics and Malpractice Statement
• Submission Guidelines
• Publications

Promoting Democratic Values in Initial Teacher Education: Findings from a Self-Study Action Research Project

Development Education and Democracy

Abstract: Democracy and global education are intrinsically linked in their shared commitment to debate and the opportunity to evaluate multiple perspectives and make informed decisions on topics that impact the world around us.  A focus on critical thinking within education offers the opportunity to teach students the skills necessary to question the status quo, develop informed opinions and contribute to the preservation and promotion of democracy in society.  This article explores a self-study action research project which took place across three academic years which aimed to identify effective approaches for incorporating critical thinking into initial teacher education.  Research was undertaken with students in their second year of study and data sources included ongoing personal reflections, critical conversations with two colleagues who acted as critical friends, alongside a variety of data collection approaches undertaken with students. This research project was undertaken in response to an identified gap between students perceived levels of criticality and the skills they would demonstrate during class time or within assessments. Consequently, this research project focused on identifying strategies to successfully support students to both demonstrate criticality and to understand and identify core critical thinking approaches relevant to global education.  Findings indicated that students had the capacity to become critical thinkers and develop an understanding of the potential impact for their future teaching.  A focus on providing opportunities to practice critical thinking in a supported setting was key for students’ skill development.  The consistent incorporation of active, engaged opportunities to share ideas and work collaboratively supported students to develop core critical thinking skills.

Key words: Critical Thinking; Democracy and Global Education; Initial Teacher Education; Self-Study; Dialogical Approach.

Introduction

This article aims to highlight the impact that a focus on critical thinking can have on promoting democracy within the context of global education. Through examination of the relevant literature this article begins by presenting the argument that fostering criticality within global education is crucial to nurturing democratic citizens.  The article continues on to present the methodology and findings from a self-study action research project which took place within initial teacher education (ITE) in Ireland.  The study was undertaken with student teachers in the second year of their degrees, and explored approaches to support their development of critical thinking skills. Findings from this study demonstrate the potential for a focus on nurturing critical thinking skills within ITE to promote democratic values amongst students. The study found that participative dialogical teaching approaches worked effectively to provide students with opportunities to practice their critical thinking in a supportive and structured setting.

Global education and democracy

In the recent Dublin Declaration, the Global Education Network Europe (GENE) (2022: 2) defined global education as:

“education that enables people to reflect critically on the world and their place in it; to open their eyes, hearts and minds to the reality of the world at local and global level.  It empowers people to understand, imagine, hope and act to bring about a world of social and climate justice, peace, solidarity, equity and equality, planetary sustainability, and international understanding. It involves respect for human rights and diversity, inclusion, and a decent life for all, now and into the future”. 

One of the key challenges global education has faced as an educational approach grounded in its commitment to social justice, human rights and equity, is the rising support internationally for political parties and perspectives with narrow nationalist agendas (GENE, 2020: 6) and the increase in xenophobic populism and hate speech in societies (Council of Europe, 2018).  Westheimer (2019) cites the election of Donald Trump and the Brexit votes in 2016 as two examples with significant global consequences in which the winning parties employed right-wing nationalism to rally supporters against the common enemy of ‘foreigners’, promoting racism and bigotry in politics.  McCartney (2019) cautions that populism, such as these examples, enables the erosion of democracy and democratic values. 

Democracy is commonly thought of as ‘power of the people’ due to the Greek origin of the word.  While there are varied approaches to democratic governing around the world, the Council of Europe (no date) states that:

“properly understood, democracy should not even be ‘rule of the majority’, if that means that minorities' interests are ignored completely.  A democracy, at least in theory, is government on behalf of all the people, according to their ‘will’”.

Consequently, democracy, by definition, should value multiple perspectives and afford genuine opportunities for opposing sides to be heard, to share knowledge based in lived-experiences and factual balanced research, ultimately enabling citizens to make informed choices and navigate compromises.

McCartney (2019) maintains that democracy is being lost through the rising support for narrow nationalist politics and that education must answer the call of John Dewey (1910) in ensuring that democracy is born new and fostered in every generation to counteract and challenge passivity in society.  Where democratic values are under threat in society, so too can global education be pushed to the margins in favour of more passive approaches to education focused on compliance rather than debate and dialogue.  Westheimer (2019: 9) declares that the waning trust in democratic values and the ‘toxic mix of ideological polarisation’ currently seen in countries across the world makes it critical that education should ask learners to imagine more just societies, should provide learners with multiple perspectives on controversial issues, and should actively teach them to be critical.  He believes that centring education on democratic values and promoting critical thinking is crucial to counteract rising xenophobic populism (Ibid.).

Through education which is focused on the ideals of democracy and committed to social justice, students learn to question and become critical thinkers.  Like Dewey, hooks (2010: 14) proposes that democracy must be reborn in every generation so that freedoms can be maintained, or where necessary, fought for.  This article proposes that where criticality, curiosity, and creativity are not fostered in education, it is not possible to nurture active democratic citizens committed to challenging injustice and acting to change society.  In this way, the promotion of democratic values in society and the teaching of critical thinking in schools are inextricably linked.

What is critical thinking?

Dewey (1910: 6), seen by many as the father of critical thinking in education, defines reflective thinking, widely accepted to be synonymous with critical thinking, as ‘active, persistent, and careful consideration of any belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the grounds that support it, and the further conclusions to which it tends’.  Critical thinking theorists have often mirrored Dewey’s contention that critical thinkers must employ persistent effort and knowledge, skills, and attitudes that ensure they are disposed to examining beliefs and ideas.

However, critical thinking is not inherently concerned with social change.  Indeed, Linskens (2010) asserts that while critical thinking focuses on identifying and examining falsehoods in ideas, it is not innately concerned with rectifying the consequences of these falsehoods.  It is in its connection to critical pedagogy that critical thinking offers an opportunity to contribute to the transformation of society and a focus on democratic values. Freire (1970) positioned critical thinking as a fundamental component of critical pedagogy, asserting that we must not simply critically reflect upon existence but critically act upon it. Commenting on Pedagogy of the Oppressed (Ibid.), Giroux (2010: 16) proposes that for Freire, critical thinking was ‘a tool for self-determination and civic engagement’ in presenting a way of breaking the cycles of history by ‘entering into a critical dialogue with history and imagining a future that would not merely reproduce the present’.  Critical pedagogy is, by definition, attentive to social change and justice through theoretical, political, social, and cultural framings (Giroux, 2011).  Critical thinking was the core skill advocated by Freire (1970) to enable learners to challenge orthodoxies and imagine and work towards alternative futures. 

Critical thinking and global education

Critical thinking and global education share a commitment to unravelling and analysing varied perspectives and experiences and in doing so encourage learners to challenge orthodoxies and imagine alternative futures.  A focus on critical thinking within global education provides a counter approach to the educational direction seen in many countries around the world tending towards high stakes testing which usually rewards recall over criticality.  This passive approach to education runs counter to the aims of democracy and the dialogical approach which is fundamental to democratic education.

Furthermore, the promotion and development of critical thinking within the context of global education is central to supporting learners to navigate the challenging nature of global education topics.  It is commonly cited (Andreotti, 2006; Shah and Brown, 2010) that many of the issues that global education is concerned with are contested and necessitate engagement in discussion and exploration of multiple perspectives to support a broader awareness of issues and challenge dominant discourses.  MacCallum (2014: 39) contends that global learning is a process of ‘realized critical thinking’ which allows for consideration of social, cultural, economic, political and environmental issues from multiple perspectives.  Global education learners should come to understand that knowledge is not a fixed state but needs constant critical evaluation as they engage with new perspectives and experiences.

The research study which this article explores identified a set of core critical thinking skills relevant to the context of global education.  These skills were identified through an extensive literature review and finalised in conjunction with empirical research findings.  The identified skills include developing and using a global learning knowledge base, learning to question orthodoxies, engaging in self-reflection, and using a values-based lens when exploring global justice issues. 

The centrality of Initial Teacher Education

While education has the potential to uphold and reignite democratic values within society, this will not happen without a focus on teacher preparation.  To pass on critical thinking skills within their future classrooms, teachers must first learn to become critical thinkers themselves (Maphalala and Mpofu, 2017; Pithers and Soden, 2000; Taşkaya and Çavuşoğlu, 2017; Williams, 2005; Sezer, 2008).  ITE is a crucial space for ensuring that teachers are prepared for and committed to doing this work in their future classrooms. Indeed, Williams (2005) highlights that it is unlikely that classroom teachers will become skilled critical thinkers if critical thinking is not emphasised and fostered in ITE.

While critical thinking is often positioned as a core outcome of higher education (Lederer, 2007; Stupple et al., 2017), students often arrive with limited experience of critical thinking from their primary and secondary school educational experiences (Ghanizadeh, 2017).  This can be correlated with the strong, and in some countries increasing, focus on standardised, high-stakes testing internationally and the consequent rote learning which permeates much formal education.  Furthermore, limited exposure to criticality prior to entering higher education can mean that stereotypes and orthodoxies have become strongly engrained.  ITE is an important space to challenge these pervasive, and often incorrect or dangerous, viewpoints prior to teachers entering classrooms through a focus on open discussion of competing viewpoints guided by a values-based lens (Williams, 2005).

Methodology

This article explores the outcomes of a self-study action research project which took place across three academic years within ITE in Ireland.  As a teacher educator focused on the field of global education, I was motivated to inquire into my own practice and identify strategies to best support learners to develop their critical thinking skills.  Prior to beginning the research project, I had found that students often self-identified as critical thinkers but I rarely saw the evidence of this in their class work or assessments.  I undertook this research to explore this gap between their perceived and demonstrated skill levels and to ascertain what elements of my own teaching could either support or hinder them in developing and demonstrating the critical thinking skills I was looking for.

I undertook a three-cycle self-study action research process across three academic years.  The main participants in this study were B.Ed. students in the second year of their degrees.  I collected data during one of their core modules, social studies, which included global education as one-third of the module.  Due to large cohort sizes on the B.Ed., students were taught in groups of roughly sixty on this module, with the same session being repeated seven times with different groups.  During cycle one, just one of the seven groups took part in the study, during cycles two and three there were two groups who participated.  Students were invited to participate and data was collected only from those who had given both written and verbal consent to participate. Table 1 details the structure of each cycle along with participant numbers and relevant module related details.

Table 1: Details of Action Research Cycles

The focus of the study was on examining my own teaching practices and the impact they had on students’ learning outcomes.  During the first cycle I taught as I had done prior to the research project and reflected on what was and was not working.  Using emerging findings from cycle one alongside the critical thinking skills identified through literature, I designed teaching interventions and made changes for cycle two, and then tweaked these again for cycle three in response to findings from cycle two.  Changes included altering elements of my questioning style, including additional displays and adopting a new seating arrangement within the physical learning environment, introduction of new interactive teaching approaches alongside larger changes to my overall approach to teaching.  Larger scale changes focused on the student experience and addressing the balance between content delivery and active, engaged learning opportunities.  Just as the literature review shaped and informed my teaching and the interventions designed, so too did the emerging findings shape the structure of the skillset identified.

I adopted a self-study action research methodological approach which is commonly utilised by practitioners interested in studying and improving their practice and sharing the outcomes.  Self-study research places the researcher at the centre of the inquiry they are exploring rather than investigating a topic in the abstract (Samaras, 2011).  Although the motivation for the study related to my students’ learning outcomes, the research focus remained on my practice as an educator and its impact on their learning.  As outlined by Roche (2016: 29):

“my pupils could be the mirror in which I saw my practise reflected, but I needed to see that I was researching ‘me’: my thoughts, my ideas, my solutions to problems, my actions, decisions and plans”.

While the research design suited the enquiry, there are recognised limitations to the self-study approach, particularly the generalisability of results.  The nature of self-study research means that it is small-scale and findings are therefore context bound and cannot be generalised or applied beyond the context from which they emerged.  I was conscious of this challenge throughout and worked to mitigate against it by offering my findings as an example for other educators to consider in light of their own contexts.  Critically, the findings from this research respond to the need identified by Bourn (2020: 5) for ’research and evidence to demonstrate its [global education and learning] effectiveness, importance, and impact’ as this study demonstrates that it was possible for students to develop their critical thinking skills within the context of global education.  

Although by its very nature self-study entails examining the self, it is not a purely introspective practice, but necessitates collaboration and drawing on sources of knowledge beyond the self (Samaras, 2011).  Self-study legitimises the knowledge that educators can generate based on their own practices, however, this knowledge is the result of consultation and critical conversations with other relevant parties (Russell, 2008).  The inquiry process I undertook in this project included support and engagement from my students, critical friends, and colleagues.  Consequently, a variety of data collection approaches were employed across all three cycles.  This included multiple means of data collection with students (see Table 1 below) alongside ongoing personal reflections and critical conversations with two colleagues who acted as critical friends.

I engaged in reflection in a number of ways throughout the three cycles of data collection.  At the outset, I developed a set of simple questions to guide my reflections and narrow the focus of what I recorded to ensure it was relevant to the overall project.  However, as time went on, I became more comfortable with the process and was better able to identify the moments or ideas of value without the aid of the guiding questions.  I captured both written and audio reflections throughout the research process.  When engaging with critical friends, data was gathered through recorded critical conversations, written feedback after observation sessions, and written reflections offered by the critical friends after our conversations or in response to particular problems or scenarios.

Table 2: Data Sources

The numbers of students involved in individual data collection methods varied based on students’ individual circumstances.  While some data collection methods, such as surveys, Most Significant Change Stories (MSCSs), and evidence from class work were collected during class time, not all students within each group chose to contribute their class work as data, or chose to complete the surveys. Additionally, as focus group interviews took place outside of class time, participation from students was dependent on their interest in the research project and availability at the interview times.  There was an effort made in all cycles to provide opportunities for participation at times which were suitable for students interested in taking part.  Although there was variety in terms of participant numbers in different methods, all students in each group took part in at least one method.  The variety of data collection methods helped to capture not only what was happening in the classroom but also included layers of interpretation through the multiple lenses of students sharing their own experiences and perspectives, my own reflections, and the considerations of critical friends who both observed me teaching and engaged in teaching the same materials themselves.  

Following each cycle, interviews were transcribed and analysed and the emergent findings were used to inform and shape ongoing data collection.  Quantitative data from surveys and MSCSs was minimal and was organised using excel which was then used to compare data and generate graphs which represented quantitative findings from each cycle. The purpose of the quantitative data was to offer side-by-side comparison (Creswell and Plano Clark, 2007) with the qualitative data findings and reveal where one set of data supported or contradicted the other.  The qualitative data analysis employed within this study followed the steps for reflexive thematic analysis outlined by Braun and Clarke (2020). There was a significant quantity of qualitative data to be analysed across all data sources and so the programme Nvivo was used to organise data and facilitate the process of analysis.  Reflexive thematic analysis involved systematic data coding, both deductive and inductive.  Themes were then developed and refined from the codes.  All data sources were revisited at the conclusion of the three cycles and codes and themes were revised where relevant in light of new information from other cycles.  Thematic maps were then created and used to structure the findings.

Both ethical approval and institutional approval were sought and granted at the outset of this research project.  This ensured that the methodology was in line with best practice ethically, and that the institution where the research took place had approved the approach taken. Participants in the study were identified through purposive sampling. I had access to students through my post as a teacher educator and selected groups for inclusion in the project based on group composition in terms of student diversity to ensure a variety of student experiences and perspectives would be included.  Written consent was gathered at the outset of each module and verbal consent was negotiated on an ongoing basis with students.  Critical friends were identified and invited as a result of their professional relationship with me and connection to the relevant modules.  Other ethical considerations which shaped the project included the potential impact of practitioner bias and the dependent relationship between my students and me as their lecturer.  These considerations are typical in practitioner self-study research.  The potential impact of bias was mitigated through open and ongoing discussions with participants and colleagues within academia.  I addressed the dependent relationship by consistently reassuring students both verbally and through my actions that involvement in the study would not impact on the student-lecturer relationship.  Additionally, I adopted a flexible and responsive approach to data collection which aimed at all times to be mindful of student wellbeing.

When sharing excerpts from the data, the source for each quote has been labelled following the structure outlined in Figure 1 below.  This key has been used for focus group interviews (FG), surveys and MSCSs.

Figure 1: Key for identifying data sources

Although the findings from self-study research are not generalisable, they do present observations which have significance for others working within similar contexts (Sullivan et al., 2016).  The findings presented here are the result of three cycles of data collection within modules that were shaped and modified in response to analysis and emerging findings from previous cycles.  Throughout cycle one, I taught the module as I had done previously and focused the analysis of data on what was working well and where there were areas for improvement in relation to supporting students to develop their critical thinking skills.  Based on analysis of data from cycle one the following changes were made within cycle two:

• Division of content across two modules allowing for focus on personal development prior to focus on teaching approaches;
• New assignment created that allowed for focus on understanding concepts, making connections between different concepts, and self-reflection;
• Re-envisaged specific sessions to include more interactive methodologies;
• Provide ongoing opportunities for feedback and questions;
• Introduced a baseline measure to gauge understanding of development and prior critical thinking experiences;
• Ensured that each topic had a variety of support materials in different formats online;
• Focus on asking questions of students – many of the first semester sessions were previously delivered to large groups so when used with smaller groups in cycle two, an effort to include more questioning was made.

While changes were made to teaching between the two cycles, findings from both cycles remained similar.  Despite the changes, findings from both cycles show that while some students demonstrate an increased commitment to and engagement with criticality, many did not.  Many students expressed a perception that they were being critical, but in practice I was still seeing many examples of uncritical work such as lack of reflection or an absence of questioning stereotypical interpretations of justice issues.

Following analysis of data from cycle two, and acknowledging the limited progression between the first two cycles I developed a two-part conceptual framework which was implemented in cycle three. The first part of the framework took the form of a model for teaching critical global learning, which was grounded in literature and informed by findings from cycles one and two.  The model included a framework of core skills to be developed in the classroom alongside pedagogical considerations within the context of ITE.  The second part of the conceptual framework was a planning tool which aimed to mitigate against challenges faced in the first two cycles.  The planning tool included four lesson elements to be included in all sessions to ensure a consistent focus on the development of critical thinking skills.  The elements included: a focus on presenting challenging content through indirect and direct teaching; opportunities to honour all voices through group work; ensuring that issues were personalised through individual work; and a sustained focus on collective responsibility through whole-class work.  The combination of these lesson elements, which would range in time from just a few minutes to a more sustained focus depending on the session, led to the development of what one student described as a ‘discussion culture’ in the classroom.

The following findings focus on data from cycle three as this cycle was the culmination of the project and reflects all changes implemented as a result of analysis of data from cycles one and two.  Consequently, the findings from cycle three offer the most significant learning from the research project in terms of factors which contributed to students’ acquisition of critical thinking skills.  The findings showed that it was possible for these students to develop critical thinking skills within the context of global education and that a focus on dialogical approaches had a significant impact on their acquisition and demonstration of those skills.  By the conclusion of the project, I saw a marked improvement in the gap between students perceived and demonstrated skill levels.  Not only were students demonstrating critical thinking skills, but they were more aware of what critical thinking looks like in the context of global education. Although there was also an acknowledgement from students that the process of developing critical thinking skills was challenging due to their prior experiences.  Describing the transition from post-primary to higher education, one student stated that ‘I know when I first went to university, when I left secondary school, I hadn't a clue about how to be able to think critically’ (C3GDFG1).  This feeling was mirrored by other students who described having to adapt to ‘a totally different mindset’ and the struggle to adjust to a new way of thinking and learning.  Students recalled the process of learning about critical thinking on entering higher education.  One student described the experience as follows:

“everyone was talking about critical thinking and it’s so important but we never knew what it was or like … we never came across it before, but it’s kind of like we're developing it now, we're developing the skill” (C3GDFG2).

This was mirrored in other conversations at the end of each cycle where students shared that they were starting to find it easier to think critically now that they had the opportunity to practice the skills in class.  The absence of critical thinking within student’s post-primary education was exacerbated by conservative family backgrounds for some, and by exposure to narratives within the media which do not encourage criticality or exposure to diverging perspectives.  It was helpful to me to reflect on the transition that students were going through in their learning styles and to be mindful of this when considering my expectations for them.

Findings highlighted that one of the most transformational approaches utilised during the modules was affording students regular opportunities to practice critical thinking in a scaffolded way.  As a result of the structure of the planning tool, students were provided with multiple opportunities during all sessions to share their ideas, experiences, to hear from classmates, and to work together to interpret and analyse information and external perspectives shared with them.  Students felt that the opportunity to contribute during classes in multiple and diverse ways was very important to their learning and skill development, as captured by one student:

“I think we get to do so much interactive and group work and it's not all just sit there and put up your hand with an answer or … I feel like a lot of people are given opportunities if they didn't want to talk in front of the whole class, they still have an opportunity to get their opinion across.  The different methodologies have already made it open to a lot of different learners and styles” (C3GDFG3).

Students also shared that the sustained focus on opportunities to practice sharing their perspectives across multiple classes in different ways helped them to develop and build their confidence and skill levels over time.  One student highlighted this by stating that 'If you keep doing it like, you get more comfortable with it' (C3GEFG1). Group work opportunities were strongly highlighted by students across all three cycles as critical to building confidence in stating personal opinions or perspectives. Students indicated that when they had the opportunity to discuss topics in small groups of familiar peers first, this supported them to have the confidence to then offer opinions in front of the whole class.

When students engaged in group work, whole class work or individual work it always took place following a focus on knowledge development which was approached in a variety of ways from direct teaching using a PowerPoint presentation to student-guided learning using prompts, videos or readings.  At the conclusion of each module students were asked to identify what the most significant change they experienced in relation to their criticality was, many students cited their increased knowledge-base, naming ‘being informed/educated in the module’, ‘the content from lectures’, and ‘my awareness on the topic’ (C3GDMSCSs) as catalysts for changes to their levels of criticality.

The final focus within the identified critical thinking skills and the lesson elements which were set up to facilitate learning those skills is self-reflection and personalising issues. Data analysis revealed that students appreciated opportunities to reflect during each session. Indeed, seventy-six per cent of students in cycle three reported that the most significant change they had experienced as a result of the module was that they were now more aware of their own opinions and values.  Furthermore, not only were students indicating that the module supported them to become more aware of their own opinions, but that they appreciated that being given opportunities to engage in reflection also taught them that their perspectives were authentically valued in the classroom as they were given time and space.  The following excerpt from a focus group interview highlights the importance of ensuring students feel that their perspectives are valued in the classroom:

Student 3: ‘To know that it's a safe environment where you can have your own opinion and not that you're going to be judged’.

Bighid: ‘And how do you know it’s a safe environment?’.

Student 3: ‘Because the lecturers are willing to hear what you say’ (C3GDFG2).

Opportunities to contribute and engage in activities through the lesson elements were accompanied by a focus on classroom atmosphere and a commitment to the ground rules within the approach ‘Open Space for Dialogue and Enquiry’ (Andreotti et al., 2006).  This enabled me to ensure that I valued all contributions given, but that students knew I was also committed to questioning them.  I regularly challenged students’ contributions and encouraged them to think about issues in different ways.  In adopting this approach, I endeavoured to model the approach to critical thinking that I wanted students to engage in themselves.  This approach appeared to deepen their self-reflection, and from my observations, did not hamper engagement as students continued to contribute diverse views.

Not only was there evidence of students demonstrating critical thinking, but students also showed an understanding of the significance of this new skill for them.  Students were consistently conscious of their future roles in the classroom and the impact that their teaching could have.  When discussing how they would integrate critical thinking into their own teaching practices during a focus group, one student stated that ‘you’re not forcing your own opinion then on other people and especially on children like, because they need to form their own opinion and thinking as well’ (C3GDFG2).  Students showed an appreciation for different perspectives and a commitment to honouring multiple voices in their own classrooms.

Conclusions

Amongst the many lessons learned from this project was the importance of explicitly teaching critical thinking.  This includes setting clear expectations for students in terms of what critical thinking looks like alongside providing opportunities for them to practice their criticality in a scaffolded manner in the classroom.  The research project identified teaching strategies to counteract the passivity and tendency towards compliance evident amongst many students during this study and perpetuated by the media.  The findings from this research highlight the potential transformative impact of dialogical approaches in the classroom in raising students' critical consciousness.

This article explored the impact that a focus on critical thinking can have in promoting democratic values in education.  Critical thinking offers opportunities to counteract passivity and promote engagement in debate, encouraging citizens to make informed decisions, thus honouring the democratic focus on dialogue.

Andreotti, V (2006) ‘Soft versus critical global citizenship education’, Policy and Practice: A Development Education Review, Vol. 3, Autumn, pp. 40-51.

Andreotti, V, Barker, L and Newell-Jones, K (2006) Open Space for Dialogue and Enquiry Methodology: Critical Literacy in Global Citizenship Education. Professional Development Resource Pack, Derby: Centre for the Study of Social and Global Justice.

Bourn, D (2020) ‘Introduction’ in D Bourn (ed.) The Bloomsbury Handbook of Global Education and Learning , London: Bloomsbury Academic, pp.1-9.

Braun, V and Clarke, V (2020) ‘One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis?’, Qualitative Research in Psychology , 18(3), pp. 1-25.

Council of Europe (no date) Democracy, Strasbourg: Council of Europe, available: https://www.coe.int/en/web/compass/democracy#:~:text=The%20word%20democracy%20comes%20from,the%20will%20of%20the%20people (accessed 24 February 2023).

Council of Europe (2018) Unrelenting rise in xenophobic populism, resentment, hate speech in Europe in 2017 , Strasbourg: Council of Europe, available: https://www.coe.int/en/web/portal/-/unrelenting-rise-in-xenophobic-populism-resentment-hate-speech-in-europe-in-2017 (accessed 20 October 2020).

Creswell, J W and Plano Clarke, V L (2007) Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research, California: Sage Publications.

Dewey, J (1910) How We think, Boston, D. C.: Heath and Co. Publishers.

Freire, P (1970) Pedagogy of the Oppressed , New York, Continuum.

Ghanizadeh, A (2017) ‘The interplay between reflective thinking, critical thinking, self-monitoring, and academic achievement in higher education’, Higher Education, 74, pp. 101-114.

Giroux, H A (2010) ‘Rethinking education as the practice of freedom: Paulo Freire and the promise of critical pedagogy’, Policy Futures in Education, 8, pp. 715-721.

Giroux, H A (2011) On Critical Pedagogy, New York: Bloomsbury Publishing USA.

Global Education Network Europe (GENE) (2020) The State of Global Education in Europe 2019 , Dublin: GENE, available: https://www.gene.eu/publications (accessed 11 August 2021).

Global Education Network Europe (GENE) (2022) The European Declaration on Global Education to 2050. The Dublin Declaration. A Strategy Framework for Improving and Increasing Global Education in Europe to 2050 , Dublin: GENE

hooks, b (2010) Teaching Critical Thinking: Practical Wisdom, New York, Routledge.

Lederer, J M (2007) ‘Dispositions toward critical thinking among occupational therapy students’, American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 61, 519-526.

Linskens, C A (2010) ‘What Critiques Have Been Made of the Socratic Method in Legal Education: The Socratic Method in Legal Education: Uses, Abuses and Beyond’, The European Journal of Law Reform, 12, p. 340.

MacCallum, C S (2014) ‘Sustainable Livelihoods to Adaptive Capabilities: A global learning journey in a small state, Zanzibar’, Doctoral Dissertation, University College London.

Maphalala, M C and Mpofu, N (2017) ‘Fostering critical thinking in initial teacher education curriculums: a comprehensive literature review’, Gender & Behaviour, 15(2), pp. 9226-9236.

McCartney, A R M (2019) ‘The rise of populism and teaching for democracy: our professional obligations’, European Political Science, 19(2), pp. 236-245.

Pithers, R T and Soden, R (2000) ‘Critical thinking in education: a review’, Educational Research (Windsor), 42(3), pp. 237-249.

Roche, M (2016) ‘What is action research?’ in B Sullivan, M Glenn, M Roche and C McDonagh (eds.) Introduction to Critical Reflection and Action for Teacher Researchers, Oxon: Routledge.

Russell, T (2008) ‘How 20 Years of Self-Study Changed my Teaching’ in C Kosnik, C Beck, A E Freese, and A P Samaras (eds.) Making a Difference in Teacher Education Through Self-Study: Studies of Personal, Professional and Program Renewal , Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

Samaras, A P (2011) Self-Study Teacher Research: Improving your Practice through Collaborative Inquiry, California: Sage.

Sezer, R (2008) ‘Integration of critical thinking skills into elementary school teacher education courses in mathematics’, Education (Chula Vista), 128(3), pp. 349-363.

Shah, H and Brown, K (2010) ‘Critical Thinking in the Context of Global Learning’ in T Wisely, I Barr, A Britton, and B King (eds.) Education in a Global Space , Edinburgh: IDEAS.

Stupple, E J, Maratos, F A, Elander, J, Hunt, T E, Cheung, K Y and Aubeeluck, A V (2017) 'Development of the Critical Thinking Toolkit (CriTT): A measure of student attitudes and beliefs about critical thinking', Thinking Skills and Creativity, 23, pp. 91-100.

Sullivan, B, Glenn, M, Roche, M, and McDonagh, C (2016) Introduction to Critical Reflection and Action for Teacher Researchers, Oxon: Routledge.

Taşkaya, A and Çavuşoğlu, F (2017) ‘Developing the Critical Thinking Skills in Pre-Service Primary School Teachers: Application of School and Teacher-Themed Movies’, International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 9(3), pp. 842-861.

Westheimer, J (2019) ‘Civic education and the rise of populist nationalism’, Peabody Journal of Education, 94(1), pp. 4-16.

Williams, R L (2005) ‘Targeting critical thinking within teacher education: The potential impact on society’, The Teacher Educator, 40(3), pp. 163-187.

Brighid Golden is a lecturer in global education at Mary Immaculate College, Limerick, and a member of the national Development and Intercultural Education (DICE) project network.  Brighid is a trained primary school teacher with experience working in Ireland, England and India.  Brighid has a Master’s in International Approaches to Education with International Development from the University of Birmingham, and a PhD in Education from the University of Glasgow which focused on global education within initial teacher education.  She also has experience designing and developing teaching resources for primary and post-primary settings in relation to human rights.

Course details

Problem solving and critical thinking.

The ability to problem solve and think critically has never been more important. As the speed of decision making and the accuracy of information vary across both personal and organisational life, having the chance to problem solve is difficult. Thinking critically is hugely important to balance longer term consequences with current day action, avoiding the ramifications of poor decision making in an instant. 

Critical Thinking is therefore a vital skill to learn, practice and refresh.

By following a disciplined process, understanding what critical thinking is and why it can be so difficult, this interactive day event will allow you to raise issues or challenges you currently have and use new tools to think these through from an unbiased perspective.

Please note: this event will close to enrolments at 23:59 UTC on 26 February 2025.

Programme details

10.15am Registration at Rewley House reception

10.30am Problem solving: what is a problem and how to define it?

11.45am Tea/coffee

12.15pm Problem solving: tools and tips

1.30pm Lunch

2.30pm Critical thinking: how we as humans think and process information 

3.45pm Tea/coffee

4.15pm Critical thinking: tools and tips to improve 

5.30pm End of day

Recommended reading

Conn, C., Bulletproof Problem-Solving  (Wiley March, 2019) 

Atkinson, I., The Creative Problem Solver  (Pearson Business, 2014)

Kahneman, D., Thinking, Fast and Slow (Penguin, 2012)

If you are in receipt of a UK state benefit or are a full-time student in the UK you may be eligible for a reduction of 50% of tuition fees.

Concessionary fees for short courses

Sean Heneghan

Sean runs his own HR/Coaching Consultancy individuals, teams and organisations to identify and develop their potential. 

Prior to establishing his HR/Coaching Consultancy, Sean worked as an operations manager within one of the UK’s largest retailers. After taking his MSc in Organisational Psychology and then his degree in Coaching, Sean worked with a leading Training and Development organisation. Sean was able to utilise his skills in psychometric testing, leadership and development before working with this organisation in Europe and Asia at a senior level with directors and senior teams.     

Since 2003, Sean has worked across private, public and voluntary sectors helping them to transmit ideas into actions. He has trained/coached and worked alongside managers and directors within all three sectors enabling them to recognise/work with and be aware of working practices at the highest level. This has enabled them to improve within their area of operation and own performance.

Application

Please use the 'Book' button on this page. Alternatively, please  contact us  to obtain an application form.

Accommodation

Accommodation is not included in the price, but if you wish to stay with us the night before the course, then please contact our Residential Centre.

Accommodation in Rewley House - all bedrooms are modern, comfortably furnished and each room has tea and coffee making facilities, Freeview television, and Free WiFi and private bath or shower rooms.  Please contact our Residential Centre on +44 (0) 1865 270362 or email  [email protected]  for details of availability and discounted prices.

Terms & conditions for applicants and students

Information on financial support

Translate this page from English...

*Machine translated pages not guaranteed for accuracy. Click Here for our professional translations.

Defining Critical Thinking

More From Forbes

5 Questions For Ambitious Leaders Driving Change In Education

• Share to Facebook
• Share to Twitter
• Share to Linkedin

The education system traditionally operates as a finite game.

In his book Finite and Infinite Games , the American academic James Carse explains that finite games have fixed rules, clear objectives and defined endpoints. But infinite games are ongoing, evolving and focused on continuous play.

The education system exemplifies a finite game. It is driven by standardized tests and obsessed with end-point examinations. To transform it, we must reframe it as an infinite game that encourages long-term sustainability, adaptability and a love for lifelong learning.

The Finite Game Of Education

In the current system students, teachers, administrators and policymakers are the key players in the finite game. Each player has defined roles and responsibilities. The boundaries of this game are set by rigid curriculum guidelines, fixed school years and standardized testing protocols. Success is measured by a grade point average. The focus is often on short-term achievements and memorization. This turns education into a competition among students and schools.

As James Carse explained, “A finite game is played for the purpose of winning, an infinite game for the purpose of continuing the play.”

The current system's finite nature drives a win-lose mentality where the ultimate goal is to succeed in exams and move on. This provides structure and clear goals. But it has huge drawbacks. It can stifle creativity, discourage critical thinking and create immense pressure on students to perform well on tests rather than truly understand the material. It fails to prepare students for the unpredictable and rapidly changing world beyond school.

Best High-Yield Savings Accounts Of 2024

Best 5% interest savings accounts of 2024, the infinite game of education.

Transforming education into an infinite game requires a new strategy. The focus must move from achieving short-term results to fostering lifelong learning, critical thinking and adaptability. Creating a system that continuously evolves and improves is now an imperative. Encouraging students to develop a love for learning that lasts a lifetime is the new mark of success.

In the infinite game of education, the players are an expanding community that includes not only students and educators but also parents, employers and society at large. Participants change and evolve over time, contributing to a dynamic and inclusive educational ecosystem. As Carse notes, “Finite players play within boundaries; infinite players play with boundaries.” The boundaries of this game are flexible, with curricula that adapt to the needs and interests of students and societal changes.

The duration of the infinite game of education is endless. Learning continues throughout life, beyond formal schooling. Success is measured not by grades or test scores but by the ability to think critically, solve problems, adapt to new challenges and contribute positively to society. The focus is on personal growth and societal contribution rather than competition and definitive outcomes.

Implications For Transforming Education

Curriculum flexibility:.

To foster an infinite game mindset, curricula must be adaptable and responsive to the changing needs of students and society. This involves encouraging interdisciplinary learning and critical thinking rather than rote memorization. Subjects should be integrated, showing students the connections between different areas of knowledge and how they apply to real-world problems. As Carse insightfully states, “Only that which can change can continue.”

Assessment Methods:

Moving beyond standardized tests is crucial. Diverse forms of assessment, such as project-based learning, peer reviews, and self-assessments, can provide a more comprehensive view of a student’s abilities. These methods encourage deep understanding and application of knowledge rather than superficial memorization.

Lifelong Learning:

Promoting the idea that education does not end with graduation is essential. Lifelong learning can be encouraged through professional development opportunities, community learning initiatives, and online courses. By fostering a culture of continuous improvement, individuals remain adaptable and skilled in a rapidly changing world.

Inclusive Participation:

Involving a broader range of stakeholders in the educational process ensures the system remains relevant and effective. This includes input from students, parents, industry leaders, and community members. By considering diverse perspectives, education can better meet the needs of all learners and society as a whole.

Focus On Skills For The Future:

Prioritizing the development of skills such as critical thinking, emotional intelligence, digital literacy, and adaptability is crucial. These skills prepare students for the uncertainties of the future and equip them to navigate complex challenges.

A Fundamental Shift

Viewing education as an infinite game requires a fundamental shift from short-term achievement to long-term growth and adaptability. By adopting this perspective, we can create an education system that not only prepares individuals for specific tasks or tests but also equips them with the skills and mindset necessary to thrive in an ever-evolving world. This transformation is essential for fostering a society that values continuous learning, innovation and collective well-being.

As we embrace the infinite game of education, we open the door to endless possibilities, where learning is a lifelong journey and the goal is not just to win but to keep playing, growing and contributing to a better future for all.

5 Game Changing Questions

• How can we shift our focus from winning (e.g., achieving high test scores) to continuing the play, ensuring education is a lifelong journey of discovery and growth?
• In what ways can we play with boundaries instead of within them by creating a more flexible and adaptive curriculum that evolves with the needs of our students and society?
• How can we cultivate a learning culture that values ongoing change and adaptation, recognizing that 'only that which can change can continue'?
• What new and innovative assessment methods can we introduce to measure not just what students know but also how they think, solve problems and adapt to new challenges?
• How can we ensure that our educational practices and policies are not just preparing students to win in the short term, but equipping them with the skills and mindset to thrive in an infinite game?

• Editorial Standards
• Reprints & Permissions

Join The Conversation

One Community. Many Voices. Create a free account to share your thoughts. 

Forbes Community Guidelines

Our community is about connecting people through open and thoughtful conversations. We want our readers to share their views and exchange ideas and facts in a safe space.

In order to do so, please follow the posting rules in our site's  Terms of Service.   We've summarized some of those key rules below. Simply put, keep it civil.

Your post will be rejected if we notice that it seems to contain:

• False or intentionally out-of-context or misleading information
• Insults, profanity, incoherent, obscene or inflammatory language or threats of any kind
• Attacks on the identity of other commenters or the article's author
• Content that otherwise violates our site's  terms.

User accounts will be blocked if we notice or believe that users are engaged in:

• Continuous attempts to re-post comments that have been previously moderated/rejected
• Racist, sexist, homophobic or other discriminatory comments
• Attempts or tactics that put the site security at risk
• Actions that otherwise violate our site's  terms.

So, how can you be a power user?

• Stay on topic and share your insights
• Feel free to be clear and thoughtful to get your point across
• ‘Like’ or ‘Dislike’ to show your point of view.
• Protect your community.
• Use the report tool to alert us when someone breaks the rules.

Thanks for reading our community guidelines. Please read the full list of posting rules found in our site's  Terms of Service.

• Advanced Search

Enhancing English writing and higher-order thinking skills through computational thinking

New citation alert added.

This alert has been successfully added and will be sent to:

You will be notified whenever a record that you have chosen has been cited.

To manage your alert preferences, click on the button below.

New Citation Alert!

Please log in to your account

Information & Contributors

Bibliometrics & citations, view options, recommendations, capturing students' critical thinking skills in english for academic writing course: a case in information system students.

Writing has been regarded as the most difficult language skills since students in Indonesia were not familiar with this skill in the early and middle education level. On the other hand, in higher education level the students should produce a thesis to ...

Thinking about Computational Thinking: Lessons from Education Research

Computational thinking (CT) is a means to help learners engage in authentic disciplinary and problem-solving practices of computer science (CS). For CS classrooms, CT is considered "thinking like a computer scientist". CT is believed to be an important ...

Fostering creative thinking skills through computer programming: Explicit or integrated teaching?

Teaching programming skills has attracted a great deal of attention for more than a decade. One potential reason behind this is that the explicit teaching of computer programming can improve higher-order thinking skills, such as creativity. ...

Information

Published in.

Elsevier Science Ltd.

United Kingdom

Publication History

Author tags.

• 21 st -century abilities
• Adult learning
• Improving classroom teaching
• Teaching/learning strategies
• Research-article

Contributors

Other metrics, bibliometrics, article metrics.

• 0 Total Citations
• 0 Total Downloads
• Downloads (Last 12 months) 0
• Downloads (Last 6 weeks) 0

View options

Login options.

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Share this publication link.

Copying failed.

Share on social media

Affiliations, export citations.

• Please download or close your previous search result export first before starting a new bulk export. Preview is not available. By clicking download, a status dialog will open to start the export process. The process may take a few minutes but once it finishes a file will be downloadable from your browser. You may continue to browse the DL while the export process is in progress. Download
• Download citation
• Copy citation

We are preparing your search results for download ...

We will inform you here when the file is ready.

Your file of search results citations is now ready.

Your search export query has expired. Please try again.

By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies and similar tracking technologies described in our privacy policy .

Supporting Educators & Students

Teaching & learning.

As part of its broad-based teaching mission, the AHA develops and shares resources for educators and students. From regional teaching conferences and online programs to pathbreaking research projects, AHA initiatives foster a community grounded in our shared commitment to understanding the past. We support and convene people who share a love of history and historical thinking.

Resources for Educators & Students

K–12 Education

The AHA strives to ensure that every K–12 student has access to high quality history instruction. We create resources for the classroom, advise on state and federal policy, and advocate for the vital importance of history in public education.

Undergraduate Education

Teaching and learning are at the foundation of the AHA’s mission to promote historical thinking in public life. What do students learn in undergraduate history courses? How and why are history majors so successful in a variety of careers?

Graduate Education

Many historians will pursue graduate training at some stage in their career. To meet the needs of both students and graduate programs, the AHA creates resources, provides platforms, and convenes conversations about student success from application to completion.

For Academic Departments

History department chairs are on the front lines of the discipline, defending historians’ work and supporting their professional lives at all stages of their academic careers. The AHA strives to strengthen this work and provide resources and opportunities that make chairs’ work easier and valued. The AHA provides resources and hosts a variety of events and opportunities to benefit department chairs and build community, including webinars, sessions at the annual meeting, and an in-person workshop.

Current Events in Historical Context

Essential, carefully researched resources by historians providing context for conversations about current events.

Regional Conferences on Introductory History Courses

What do students learn in introductory history courses? How can historical thinking support student learning and success across the curriculum? Our regional conferences endeavor to strengthen the community of practice focused on introductory history courses, both in secondary and higher education.

Standards & Guidelines

June 10, 2024

Guidelines for Academic Tenure-Track Job Offers in History

June 9, 2024

Statement on Age Discrimination

Aha historical collections.

The AHA has made primary sources available for research purposes, along with AHA archival reports and documents.

Vetted Resources

Vetted Resources compiles in a central location materials and tools that have been professionally vetted by historians, offering instructors access to high-quality materials that meet professional standards

AHA Resource Library

June 20, 2024

16 Months to Sumter: Newspaper Editorials on the Path to Secession

June 16, 2024

The History of Racism and Racist Violence: International Contexts and Comparisons

The history of racism and racist violence: monuments and museums, join the aha.

The AHA brings together historians from all specializations and all work contexts, embracing the breadth and variety of activity in history today.

Effectiveness of artificial intelligence integration in design-based learning on design thinking mindset, creative and reflective thinking skills: An experimental study

• Open access
• Published: 22 June 2024

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Mustafa Saritepeci 1 &
• Hatice Yildiz Durak   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-5689-1805 1  

116 Accesses

Explore all metrics

Integrating Artificial Intelligence (AI) into learning activities is an essential opportunity to develop students' varied thinking skills. On the other hand, design-based learning (DBL) can more effectively foster creative design processes with AI technologies to overcome real-world challenges. In this context, AI-supported DBL activities have a significant potential for teaching and developing thinking skills. However, there is a lack of experimental interventions in the literature examining the effects of integrating AI into learner-centered methods on active engagement and thinking skills. The current study aims to explore the effectiveness of AI integration as a guidance and collaboration tool in a DBL process. In this context, the effect of the experimental application on the participants’ design thinking mindset, creative self-efficacy (CSE), and reflective thinking (RT) self-efficacy levels and the relationship between them were examined. The participants used ChatGPT and Midjourney in the digital story development process as part of the experimental treatment. The only difference between the control and experimental groups in the digital storytelling process is the AI applications used in the experimental treatment (ChatGPT and Midjourney). In this quasi-experimental method study, participants were randomly assigned to treatment, an AI integration intervention, at the departmental level. 87 participants (undergraduate students) in the experimental group and 99 (undergraduate students) in the control group. The implementation process lasted five weeks. Partial Least Squares (PLS), Structural Equation Modeling (SEM), and Multi-Group Analysis (MGA) were made according to the measurements made at the T0 point before the experiment and at the T1 point after the experiment. According to the research result, the intervention in both groups contributed to the creative self-efficacy, critical reflection, and reflection development of the participants. On the other hand, the design thinking mindset levels of both groups did not show a significant difference in the comparison of the T0 point and the T1 point.

Similar content being viewed by others

Examining Science Education in ChatGPT: An Exploratory Study of Generative Artificial Intelligence

Effects of higher education institutes’ artificial intelligence capability on students' self-efficacy, creativity and learning performance

Understanding Cognitive Load in Digital and Online Learning: a New Perspective on Extraneous Cognitive Load

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

1 Introduction

Developments such as artificial intelligence are followed by theoretical and applied studies on integrating these new technologies into learning processes (Aksu Dünya & Yıldız Durak, 2023 ; Durak & Onan, 2023 ). Technological developments change how businesses do (Kandlhofer et al., 2016 ) and the ways of learning and teaching. Chatbot platforms have components that will profoundly affect learning-teaching processes, including various threats and opportunities (Yildiz Durak, 2023a ). Although preparing student homework through such environments is a threat, these environments have essential advantages, such as accessing information in the learning-teaching process and providing integration of favorable aspects with methods that support various student activities and creativity. There is a lack of experimental intervention in the literature examining the effects of the integration of artificial intelligence into learner-centered methods on learner active participation and creativity (Lund & Wang, 2023 ). In this context, this study includes an experimental intervention to address the shortcomings mentioned in the literature.

Design thinking is a skill teachers should have for the effective use of technology in education (Beckwith, 1988 ; Tsai & Chai, 2012 ). Teachers’ lack of design thinking skills is defined as one obstacle in technology integration. These barriers are classified in the literature as primary, secondary, and tertiary (Ertmer, 1999 ; Ertmer et al., 2012 ; Tsai & Chai, 2012 ). Primary barriers are related to a lack of infrastructure, training, and support (Snoeyink & Ertmer, 2001 ). Secondary barriers generally include teachers’ affective perceptions (e.g., belief, openness to change, self-confidence, and attitude) toward technology integration (Ertmer et al., 2012 ; Keengwe et al., 2008 ). Removing primary and secondary barriers does not guarantee that technology integration will provide meaningful learning (Saritepeci, 2021 ; Yildiz Durak, 2021 ). Tsai and Chai ( 2012 ) explained this situation with tertiary barriers. The learning process is not static; it is dynamic and constantly changing. Therefore, teachers need to have design thinking skills to transform this variable nature of the learning process (Tsai & Chai, 2012 ; Yildiz Durak et al., 2023 ). Overcoming tertiary barriers significantly facilitates the effective use of technology in education. Beckwith’s ( 1988 ) Educational Technology III perspective, which expresses the most effective form of technology use in education, is a flexible structure to provide learners with more meaningful experiences instead of following a systematic process strictly dependent on instructional design, methods, and techniques in educational environments. The Educational Technology III perspective refers to design-based learning practices.

The dizzying developments that occur with technological innovations in today’s business, social, and economic life make our predictions about what kind of job a K12 student will do in the future (Darling-Hammond, 2000 ; Saritepeci, 2021 ). In this case, removing the educational technology III perspective and the tertiary barriers to technology integration is essential. Teachers and pre-service teachers should have the skills to be successful in the coming years, which are uncertain in many ways, and to create opportunities to support these learners. The design-based learning approach has remarkable importance in developing the design-oriented thinking skills of the pre-service teacher. In this context, a structure in which artificial intelligence applications are integrated into the digital storytelling method application processes, one of the most effective applications of the design-based learning approach in learning processes, will support the design-oriented thinking skills of pre-service teachers.

2 Related works

Studies on the use of artificial intelligence in education focus on various areas such as intelligent tutoring system (ITS), (Chen, 2008 ; Rastegarmoghadam & Ziarati, 2017 ), personalized learning (Chen & Hsu, 2008 ; Narciss et al., 2014 ; Zhou et al., 2018 ), assessment-feedback (Cope et al., 2021 ; Muñoz-Merino et al., 2018 ; Ramnarain-Seetohul et al., 2022 ; Ramesh & Sanampudi, 2022 ; Samarakou et al., 2016 ; Wang et al., 2018 ), educational data mining (Chen & Chen, 2009 ; Munir et al., 2022 ) and adaptive learning (Arroyo et al., 2014 ; Wauters et al., 2010 ; Kardan et al., 2015 ). These studies aim to improve the quality of the learning-teaching process by providing individualized learning experiences and increasing the effectiveness of teaching methods.

The intelligent tutoring system is the most prominent study subject in studies on the use of AI in education (Tang et al., 2021 ). ITS focuses on using AI to provide learners with personalized and automated feedback and guide them through the learning process. Indeed, there is evidence in the literature that using ITS in various teaching areas can improve learning outcomes. Huang et al. ( 2016 ) reported that using ITS in mathematics teaching reduces the gaps between advantaged and disadvantaged learners.

Personalized learning environments, another prominent use of AI in education, aim to provide an experience where the learning process is shaped within the framework of learner characteristics. In addition, supporting the learning of individuals who are disadvantaged in subjects such as learning disabilities is a promising field of study. Indeed, Walkington ( 2013 ) noted that personalized learning experience provides more positive and robust learning outcomes. Similarly, Ku et al. ( 2007 ) investigated the effect of a personalized learning environment on solving math problems. The study results show that the experimental group learners, especially those with lower-level mathematics knowledge, performed better than the control group.

Assessment and feedback, one of the forms of AI in education, is another area where the number of studies on the COVID-19 epidemic has increased (Ahmad et al., 2022 ; Hooda et al., 2022 ). Ahmad et al. ( 2022 ) compared artificial intelligence and machine learning techniques for assessment, grading, and feedback and found that accuracy rates ranged from 71 to 84%. Shermis and Burstein ( 2016 ) stated that the automatic essay evaluation system gave similar scores to student work with human evaluators, but the system had difficulties in studies that were different in terms of creativity and structure organization. Accordingly, more development and research should be done to help AI systems produce more effective results in assessment and grading. In another study, AI-supported constructive and personalized feedback on the texts created by learners effectively improved reflective thinking skills (Liu et al., 2023 ). In the same study, this intervention reduced the cognitive load of the learners in the experimental group and improved self-efficacy and self-regulated learning levels.

The use of AI in educational data mining and machine learning has been increasing in recent years to discover patterns in students’ data, such as navigation and interaction in online learning environments, to predict their future performance or to provide a personalized learning experience (Baker et al., 2016 ; Munir et al., 2022 ; Rienties et al., 2020 ). Sandra et al. ( 2021 ) conducted a literature review of machine learning algorithms used to predict learner performance and they examined 285 studies published in the IEEE Access and Science Direct databases between 2019–2021. The study results show that the most frequently used machine learning algorithm to predict learner performance is the classification machine learning algorithm, followed by NN, Naïve Bayes, Logistic Regression, SVM, and Decision Tree algorithms.

The main purpose of artificial intelligence studies in the field of AI is to create an independent learning environment by reducing the supervision and control of any pedagogical entity by providing learners with a personalized learning process within the framework of the learner and subject area characteristics (Cui, 2022 ; Zhe, 2021 ). To achieve this, system designs for predicting learner behaviors with intelligent systems, providing automatic assessment, feedback, and personalized learning experiences, and intervention studies examining their effectiveness come first. This study develops a different perspective and experiences of the learner’s create-to-learn process in collaboration with AI. There are predictions in various studies that AI and collaborative learning processes can support the creativity of learners (Kafai & Burke, 2014 ; Kandlhofer et al., 2016 ; Lim & Leinonen, 2021 ; Marrone et al., 2022 ). In this regard, Lund and Wang ( 2023 ) emphasized that the focus should be on developing creativity and critical thinking skills by enabling learners to use AI applications in any learning task (Fig.  1 ).

Proposed structural model. * T0: Time 0 (pretest), T1: Time 1 (posttest). * CSE: Creative self-efficacy, RT_R: Reflective thinking- Reflection, RT_CR: Reflective thinking- Critical reflection, DTM: Design thinking mindset

3 Focus of study

This study investigates the effectiveness of artificial intelligence integration (Chat GPT and Midjourney application) as a guidance and collaboration tool in the design-based process integrated into educational environments in a design-based learning process. In this context, whether the experimental application was effective in the design thinking mindset levels of the participants and their relationship with creative, reflective thinking self-efficacy was examined.

Participants were tasked with developing a digital story in a design-based process. In the context of experimental treatment, participants were systematically encouraged to use Chat GPT and Midjourney as guidance tools in the digital story development process. Apart from this treatment, the design-based learning process of the control group is very similar to the experimental group.

Therefore, all participants were exposed to the same environment at the university where the application was made, and they did not enroll in any additional technology education courses. This pretest–posttest experimental method study with a control group continued for four weeks, during which the student-produced an active product in design-based learning. In the current research context, the following research questions were addressed:

RQ1: Is the integration of artificial intelligence in a design-based learning process effective on the levels of design thinking mindset, and creative and reflective thinking self-efficacy?

RQ2: Do the relationships between design thinking mindset and creative and reflective thinking self-efficacy levels differ in the context of the experimental process?

In line with these research questions, the following hypotheses were tested:

H1a. Creative self-efficacy for 5 weeks is greater for the experimental group.

H1b. Influence of creative self-efficacy on the design thinking mindset is similar for two groups.

H1c. Influence of creative self-efficacy after 5 weeks on the design thinking mindset is similar for two groups.

H1d. Influence of creative self-efficacy after 5 weeks on the design thinking mindset is greater for the experimental group.

H2a . Influence of critical reflection on the design thinking mindset is similar for two groups.

H2b Influence of critical reflection on the design thinking mindset after 5 weeks is greater for the experimental group.

H2c. Critical reflection for 5 weeks is greater for the experimental group.

H2d. Influence of critical reflection after 5 weeks on the design thinking mindset is greater for the experimental group.

H3a . Influence of reflection on the design thinking mindset is similar for two groups.

H3b. Influence of reflection on the design thinking mindset after 5 weeks is greater for the experimental group.

H3c. Reflection for 5 weeks is greater for the experimental group.

H3d. Influence of reflection after 5 weeks on the design thinking mindset is greater for the experimental group.

H4. Design thinking mindset for 5 weeks is greater for the experimental group.

4.1 Research design

This study is a quasi-experimental method study with the pretest–posttest control group (Fig.  2 ). In this experimental methodology study, participants were randomly assigned to treatment, an AI integration intervention, at the departmental level. There were 87 (46.8%) participants in the experimental group and 99 (53.2%) participants in the control group. The participants were pre-service teachers studying in the undergraduate program of the faculty of education.

Implementation Process

The treatment in this study also served the purposes of the educational technology course as the application of design-based learning activity as an important tool in educational technology that participants (pre-service teachers) might consider using in their future teaching careers.

In addition, all participants have been exposed to the same opportunities regarding the use of digital technologies in education and none of them attended an additional course. Therefore, the prior knowledge of both groups was similar. Participation in the surveys is completely voluntary. For this reason, although 232 and 260 participants participated in the pretest and posttest, respectively, 186 students who filled in both questionnaires and participated in the application were included in the study. However, both groups were given the same input on design-based learning activities and tasks. Therefore, there is no learning loss for the control group.

4.2 Participants

The participants were 186 pre-service teachers studying at a state university in Turkey. All participants are enrolled in an undergraduate instructional technology course and study in five different departments. The ages of the participants vary between 17–28 years, with an average age of 19.12. 74.2% of the participants were female and 25.8% were male. The high rate of women is because the education faculties in Turkey have a similar demographic structure. The majority of the participants are first-year and second-year students.

The daily use of social technology (social media, etc.) is 3.89 (in hours). Technology usage time for entertainment (watching movies and series, listening to music, etc.) is 2.7 h. While the daily use of technology for gaming (mobile, computer, console games, etc.) is 0.81, the period of use of technology for educational purposes is 1.74. The participants use technology primarily for social and entertainment purposes.

4.3 Procedure

4.3.1 experimental group.

In this group, students performed the DST task as a DBL activity using ChatGPT and MidJourney artificial intelligence applications. These tasks include selecting topics, collaborative story writing with ChatGPT, scripting, creating scripted scenes with MidJourney, and voice acting, as well as integrating them. Examples of multimedia items prepared by the students in this group are shown in Fig.  3 .

Experimental group student products-screenshot

The artificial intelligence applications they will use in this task were introduced one week before the application. Students did various free activities with these applications. In the first week of the application, students were asked to choose a topic within a specific context. The students researched their chosen topic and chatted with ChatGPT to deepen their knowledge. The students created the stories within the steps of the instruction presented by the instructor in collaboration with ChatGPT. (1) ChatGPT should be asked three questions while creating the story setup. Each question should contribute to the formation of the story. (2) A story should be created by organizing ChatGPT's answers. (3) At least 20% and a maximum of 50% of the story must belong to the student. To assess whether the students executed these three steps accurately and to offer feedback when needed, they shared the link to the page containing their conversations with the questions and answers they used to create their stories with the course instructor. The instructor compared the text accessed from this page with the final text of the student's story. He scanned the final versions of the student stories on Turnitin to check if the student's contribution to the story creation was no more than 50%.

In the next stage (weeks 2 and 3), students created each scene using MidJourney artificial intelligence bots in line with the storyboards they created by scripting their stories. The most important challenge for the students was to ensure continuity in interrelated and successive scenes using MidJourney bots, and they created the audio files by voicing the texts related to each scene. In the fourth week, students combined elements such as scenarios, scenes, and sound recordings using digital story development tools (Canva, Animaker, etc.). The final version of the digital stories was shared on the Google Classroom platform.

Learners sent the product they created for each application step and information about the process from the activity links on the Google Classroom course page. The course instructor reviewed these posts and provided corrective feedback to the students.

4.3.2 Control group

In this group, students were tasked with preparing a digital story on a topic as DBL activities. This task includes choosing a subject, writing a story, scripting, preparing multimedia elements, and integrating them. Products such as storyboards and videos produced by students in DBL activities carried out in this group are shown in Fig.  4 .

Control group student products-screenshot

In the first week of the application, the participants were asked to choose a topic within a context, as in the experimental group. The students researched the determined topic, created a story related to the subject, then scripted the story and prepared the storyboards. In the second and third weeks of the application, the students created the audio files by vocalizing the texts related to each scene (according to the scenario) in line with the storyboard. Furthermore, pictures, backgrounds, and characters were created in line with the scenario (usually compiled from ready-made pictures and characters). In the fourth week, digital story development tools combined scenarios, pictures, backgrounds, sound recordings, and characters. The final version of the stories was shared on the Google Classroom platform.

4.4 Data collection and analysis

Data were collected at two-time points via the online form. Personal Information Form and three different data collection tools were used in this study.

4.4.1 Instrumentation

Self-description form.

There are 8 questions in the personal information form. These were created to collect information about gender, age, department, class, and total hours spent using digital technologies for different purposes.

Design Thinking Mindset Scale

The scale was developed by Ladachart et al. ( 2021 ) and consists of six sub-dimensions: being comfortable with problems, user empathy, mindfulness of the process, collaborative working with diversity, orientation to learning, and creative confidence. The rating is in a 5-point Likert type. The validity and reliability values of the scale are presented in Sect. 5.

Reflective Thinking Scale

Kember et al. ( 2000 ) developed this scale to measure students’ belief in their ability to be creative; the Turkish adaptation of this scale was created by Başol and Evin Gencel ( 2013 ). Although the scale consists of four sub-dimensions, two were included in the study because they were suitable for the study, and the rating is in a 5-point Likert type. The validity and reliability values of the scale are presented in Sect. 5.

Creative Self-Efficacy Scale

The original scale, developed by Tierney and Farmer ( 2011 ) to measure their belief in their ability to be creative, was adapted into Turkish by Atabek ( 2020 ). The scale consists of three items, and the rating is a 7-point Likert type. In the context of this study, the data before the analysis was converted into a 5-point Likert structure, and the validity and reliability values of the scale are presented in Sect. 5.

4.4.2 Analysis

The effect of design-based learning activities integrated with artificial intelligence as a teaching intervention was tried to be measured by repeated measurement. Data collection tools were applied in the first week (T0) and the fifth week (T1) in the experimental and control groups. For analysis, only the responses (survey data) provided by students who fully participated in the application and answered the data collection tools at both T0 and T1 points were included. Partial Least Squares-Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) was used to analyze the data and test the hypotheses. SmartPLS 4 was used in the analysis (Ringle et al., 2022 ). The PLS-SEM method allowed the parameters of complex models to be estimated without making any distribution assumptions on the data. In addition, the differences between the experimental and control groups were examined using the Multiple Group Analysis (MGA) features in PLS-SEM, and it was tested whether there was a significant difference between MGA and group-specific external loads and path coefficients.

In the first stage, the measurement model was tested. In the second stage, the structural model was evaluated in the context of MGA.

5.1 Measurement model

When the measurement and structural models were evaluated, the indicator loads were higher than the recommended value of 0.7 (See Appendix Table 7 ).

Internal consistency reliability is represented by Cronbach’s alpha, composite reliability (CR), and rho_a (See Table  1 ). All values are above the threshold value of 0.70 by default. For convergent validity, the average variance extracted (AVE) value is used and this value is expected to be above 0.5. The values in the model were found to be higher than this threshold value.

Heterotrait-monotrait ratio (HTMT) and the Fornell-Larcker criterion were used for discriminant validity. The values found indicate that discriminant validity has been achieved, as seen in Tables 2 and 3 .

Considering all the data obtained, the measurement model of the proposed model is suitable for testing hypotheses.

The structural model of the PLS-SEM was examined as it provides the measurement model assumptions. PLS-SEM was run using 1000 bootstrapping. The significant differences in the path coefficients of the assumed relationships between design thinking mindset levels and creative and reflective thinking self-efficacy between the experimental and control groups were examined, and the findings are presented in Table  4 .

According to Table  4 , the structural model was examined in terms of significant differences in the path coefficients of the assumed relationships to test the research hypotheses, and the creative self-efficacy and reflective thinking dimensions for the students in the experimental and control groups differed after the treatment process.

R2 values indicate the explanatory power of the structural model and these values show moderate to significant power (See Table  5 ).

To examine whether there is a significant difference between the path coefficients for the experimental and control groups, the PLS-MGA Parametric test values were examined and the results are presented in Table  6 .

According to Table  6 , the findings show that there is no significant difference in the effect of creative self-efficacy, and reflective thinking on design thinking mindset between the two groups. After the treatment process, there is no significant difference in the relationships between creative self-efficacy, reflective thinking, and design thinking mindset. The significance levels of the path coefficients showed that the hypotheses were not supported.

6 Discussion and conclusion

This study examined the effect of AI integration, which is integrated into the digital storytelling process, a design-based learning method, on design thinking mindset and whether it is effective in its relations with creative, reflective thinking self-efficacy. The participants used ChatGPT and Midjourney applications in the digital story development process as part of the experimental treatment. The only difference in the digital storytelling process between the control and experimental groups is the AI applications used in the experimental treatment. The experimental intervention covers four weeks. Data were collected from the participants before (T0) and after the application (T1) with data collection tools. There is a significant difference at the T1 point compared to the T0 point in both groups' creative self-efficacy, critical reflection, and reflection levels. Accordingly, the intervention in both groups contributed to the participants' creative self-efficacy, critical reflection, and reflection development. On the other hand, the design thinking mindset levels of both groups did not show a significant difference in the comparison of the T0 point and the T1 point.

According to the multigroup comparison of the creative self-efficacy level at T0 and T1 points, there was no significant difference between the groups. When compared to T0 at the T1 point, creative self-efficacy improvement was achieved in both groups. This is valuable as it shows that the creative self-efficacy contribution of intensive use of AI support in a design-based learning environment is similar. Indeed, creativity, recognized as one of the core competencies in education, is part of CSE, which includes the belief that an individual is capable of producing creative results (Yildiz Durak, 2023b ). There are predictions in various studies that AI and collaborative learning processes can support the creativity of learners (Kafai & Burke, 2014 ; Kandlhofer et al., 2016 ; Lim & Leinonen, 2021 ; Marrone et al., 2022 ). Marrone et al. ( 2022 ) provided eight-week training sessions on creativity and AI to middle school students. In their subsequent interviews with the students, the most dominant opinion was that AI support had a crucial role in supporting their creativity. In support of this, the experimental treatment in our study requires various creative interventions from the students: (1) Students asked at least three questions to ChatGPT while creating a story. (2) Each question contained abstracting from the previous AI answer and directions on how to continue. (3) they also created their constructs by creating connecting sentences and paragraphs to gather the answers given by ChatGPT. In addition, the second part where creativity came into play was creating scenes related to the story in the Midjourney environment. (4) While creating these scenes, the student had to plan scenes by abstracting the story he had created in collaboration with AI, create those scenes, and provide detailed parameters to the Midjourney bot to ensure continuity between the scenes. It may be that, relatively, in the expectation control group, the realization of this whole process by the students through various creative practices will further support creativity and self-efficacy. Regarding this situation, Riedl and O’Neill ( 2009 ) highlighted that although these tools (Canva, Animaker, etc.) make it possible to develop creative content, the user may not get significant results. In this context, they pose an essential question: “Can an intelligent system augment non-expert creative ability?”. Lim and Leinonen ( 2021 ) argued that AI-powered structures can effectively support creativity and that humans and machines can learn from each other to produce original works. Taking this one step further, AI will contribute to students’ creativity in learning and teaching processes (Kafai & Burke, 2014 ). Indeed, Wang et al. ( 2023 ) found a significant relationship between students' AI capability levels and their creativity, explaining 28.4% of the variance in creativity.

According to the research findings, all ways between reflective thinking scale sub-dimensions critical reflection and reflection and design thinking mindset are insignificant (H2a, H2b, H2d, H3a, H3b, H3d). In addition, there is no significant difference between the groups according to the multi-group comparison at T0—T1 points for reflection and critical reflection. On the other hand, there is a significant improvement in the critical reflection and reflection levels at the T1 point of both groups compared to the T0 point. Accordingly, AI collaboration has a similar effect to the process in the control group on the learners’ reflective thinking levels in the design-based learning process. In support of this, we have evidence that incorporating AI in various forms in educational processes has essential outcomes for reflective thinking. Indeed, Liu et al. ( 2023 ) reported that an intervention involving incorporating AI into the learning process as a feedback tool to support reflective thinking in foreign language teaching resulted in remarkable improvements in learning outcomes and student self-efficacy.

DBL involves learners assimilating new learning content to overcome authentic problems and creating innovative products and designs to showcase this learning in the simplest way possible. In this study, DST processes, which allow the application of DBL to different learning areas, are included in both interventions. In the literature, DST helps learners reflect on what they have learned (Ivala et al., 2014 ; Jenkins & Lonsdale, 2007 ; Nam, 2017 ; Robin, 2016 ; Sandars and Murray, 2011 ) and develop reflective thinking skills (Durak, 2018 ; Durak, 2020 ; Malita & Martin, 2010 ; Sadik, 2008 ; Sarıtepeci, 2017 ) is a method with critical elements. The critical implication here is that all processes of AI collaboration on reflection and critical reflection have a similar effect as the DST process planned by the learners. The similar effect of AI collaboration allowed learners to understand the benefits of AI in the DST process and to develop in-depth learning by combining their thought processes with AI and finding creative ways to reflect on their learning. Indeed, Shum and Lucas ( 2020 ) claims that AI can help individuals think more deeply about challenging experiences. The DST process includes stages (story writing, scenario creation, planning scenes, etc.) that allow learners to embody their reflections on their learning (Ohler, 2006 ; Sarıtepeci, 2017 ).

The multi-group analysis results of the road between the design thinking mindset T0 – T1 points are insignificant (H4). In addition, there was no significant improvement in design thinking mindset scores in both groups compared to T0 at the T1 point. Accordingly, the effect of the design-based learning process carried out in the experimental and control groups on the learners’ design thinking mindset scores was limited. The study’s expectation was the development of the design thinking levels of the learners and, as a result, meaningful improvements in the design thinking mindset levels. This result may be because the application process is not long enough to develop versatile skills such as design thinking. Razzouk and Shute ( 2012 ) emphasized that design thinking is challenging to acquire in a limited context. However, they argue that students can learn to design thinking skills together with scaffolding, feedback, and sufficient practice opportunities. The DST process included scaffolding and feedback processes in both groups. Although there are different stages for acquiring and developing design thinking skills during the application process, the similar characteristics of the design thinking mindset level may indicate the need for more extended practice. However, the fact that the design thinking mindset is a self-reporting tool limits our predictions about individuals' design thinking skill acquisition and development in the process.

7 Conclusion

In conclusion, the intensive use of AI support in a design-based learning environment similarly impacts the development of participants' creative self-efficacy, reflective thinking, and design thinking mindset levels. The AI collaboration process showed a similar effect to the planned design-based learning process by allowing learners to understand the benefits of AI in the design thinking mindset and to develop in-depth learning by combining their thought processes with AI. However, it is essential to note that the study's expectation of meaningful improvements in the design thinking mindset levels was unmet. This suggests that more extended practice periods and more support and feedback processes may be necessary to effectively develop versatile skills such as design thinking.

The research contributes to our understanding of the impact of AI collaboration on learners' levels of creative self-efficacy, reflective thinking, and design thinking mindset. Further studies with extended practice periods and additional scaffolding and feedback processes could provide valuable insights into the effective development of design thinking skills in AI-supported design-based learning environments.

Data availability

The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Ahmad, S. F., Alam, M. M., Rahmat, M., Mubarik, M. S., & Hyder, S. I. (2022). Academic and administrative role of artificial intelligence in education. Sustainability, 14 (3), 1101.

Article   Google Scholar  

Aksu Dünya, B., & Yıldız Durak, H. (2023). Hi! Tell me how to do it: Examination of undergraduate students’ chatbot-integrated course experiences. Quality & Quantity , 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-023-01800-x

Atabek, O. (2020). Adaptation of creative self-efficacy scale into Turkish language. WOrld Journal on Educational Technology: Current Issues., 12 (2), 084–097.

Google Scholar  

Arroyo, I., Woolf, B. P., Burelson, W., Muldner, K., Rai, D., & Tai, M. (2014). A multimedia adaptive tutoring system for mathematics that addresses cognition, metacognition and affect. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 24 , 387–426.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-014-0023-y#Sec17

Baker, R. S., Martin, T., & Rossi, L. M. (2016). Educational data mining and learning analytics. The Wiley handbook of cognition and assessment: Frameworks, methodologies, and applications , 379–396. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118956588.ch16

Başol, G., & Evin Gencel, İ. (2013). Yansıtıcı düşünme düzeyini belirleme ölçeği: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Kuram Ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri, 13 (2), 929–946.

Beckwith, D. (1988). The future of educational technology. Canadian Journal of Educational Comunication 17 (1), 3–20.

Chen, C. M. (2008). Intelligent web-based learning system with personalized learning path guidance. Computers & Education, 51 (2), 787–814. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2007.08.004

Chen, C. M., & Hsu, S. H. (2008). Personalized intelligent mobile learning system for supportive effective English learning. Educational Technology and Society Journal, 11 (3), 153–180.

Chen, C. M., & Chen, M. C. (2009). Mobile formative assessment tool based on data mining techniques for supporting web-based learning. Computers & Education, 52 (1), 256–273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.08.005

Cope, B., Kalantzis, M., & Searsmith, D. (2021). Artificial intelligence for education: Knowledge and its assessment in AI-enabled learning ecologies. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 53 (12), 1229–1245. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2020.1728732

Cui, K. (2022). Artificial intelligence and creativity: Piano teaching with augmented reality applications. Interactive Learning Environments, 31 (10), 7017–7028. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2022.2059520

Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8 , 1.

Durak, H. Y. (2018). Digital story design activities used for teaching programming effect on learning of programming concepts, programming self-efficacy, and participation and analysis of student experiences. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 34 (6), 740–752.

Durak, H. Y. (2020). The effects of using different tools in programming teaching of secondary school students on engagement, computational thinking and reflective thinking skills for problem solving. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 25 (1), 179–195.

Durak, H.Y. & Onan, A. (2023). Adaptation of behavioral intention to use and learn chatbot in education scale into Turkish. Ahmet Keleşoğlu Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi (AKEF) Dergisi , 5(2), 1162-1172.

Ertmer, P. A. (1999). Addressing first-and second-order barriers to change: Strategies for technology integration. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47 (4), 47–61.

Ertmer, P. A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., Sadik, O., Sendurur, E., & Sendurur, P. (2012). Teacher beliefs and technology integration practices: A critical relationship . Computers & Education, 59 (2), 423–435.

Hooda, M., Rana, C., Dahiya, O., Rizwan, A., & Hossain, M. S. (2022). Artificial intelligence for assessment and feedback to enhance student success in higher education. Mathematical Problems in Engineering,  1–19. https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/5215722

Huang, X., Craig, S. D., Xie, J., Graesser, A., & Hu, X. (2016). Intelligent tutoring systems work as a math gap reducer in 6th grade after-school program. Learning and Individual Differences, 47 , 258–265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2016.01.012

Ivala, E., Gachago, D., Condy, J., & Chigona, A. (2014). Digital Storytelling and Reflection in Higher Education: A Case of Pre-Service Student Teachers and Their Lecturers at a University of Technology. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 2 (1), 217–2273. https://doi.org/10.11114/jets.v2i1.286

Jenkins, M., & Lonsdale, J. (2007). Evaluating the effectiveness of digital storytelling for student reflection. ASCILITE conference (pp. 440–444). Singapore.

Kardan, A. A., Aziz, M., & Shahpasand, M. (2015). Adaptive systems: A content analysis on technical side for e-learning environments. Artificial Intelligence Review, 44 (3), 365–391. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-015-9430-1

Kafai, Y. B., & Burke, Q. (2014). Connected Code: Why Children Need to Learn Programming . MIT Press.

Book   Google Scholar  

Kandlhofer, M., Steinbauer, G., Hirschmugl-Gaisch, S., & Huber, P. (2016). Artificial intelligence and computer science in education: From kinder-garten to university. In IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference  (pp. 1–9). https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2016.7757570

Keengwe, J., Onchwari, G., & Wachira, P. (2008). Computer technology integration and student learning: Barriers and promise. JOurnal of Science Education and Technology, 17 (6), 560–565.

Kember, D., Leung, D. Y., Jones, A., Loke, A. Y., McKay, J., Sinclair, K., ... & Yeung, E. (2000). Development of a questionnaire to measure the level of reflective thinking. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 25 (4), 381–395.

Ku, H. Y., Harter, C. A., Liu, P. L., Thompson, L., & Cheng, Y. C. (2007). The effects of individually personalized computer-based instructional program on solving mathematics problems. Computers in Human Behavior, 23 (3), 1195–1210.

Ladachart, L., Ladachart, L., Phothong, W., & Suaklay, N. (2021, March). Validation of a design thinking mindset questionnaire with Thai elementary teachers. In Journal of physics: conference series (vol. 1835, No. 1, p. 012088). IOP Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1835/1/012088

Lim, J., & Leinonen, T. (2021). Creative peer system an experimental design for fostering creativity with artificial intelligence in multimodal and sociocultural learning environments. In CEUR workshop proceedings (vol. 2902, pp. 41–48). RWTH Aachen University. https://research.aalto.fi/en/publications/creative-peer-system-an-experimental-design-for-fostering-creativ

Liu, C., Hou, J., Tu, Y. F., Wang, Y., & Hwang, G. J. (2023). Incorporating a reflective thinking promoting mechanism into artificial intelligence-supported English writing environments. Interactive Learning Environments, 31 (9), 5614–5632. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2021.2012812

Lund, B. D., & Wang, T. (2023). Chatting about ChatGPT: How may AI and GPT impact academia and libraries? Library Hi Tech News, 40 (3), 26–29.

Malita, L., & Martin, C. (2010). Digital storytelling as web passport to success in the 21st century. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2 (2), 3060–3064.

Marrone, R., Taddeo, V., & Hill, G. (2022). Creativity and Artificial Intelligence—A Student Perspective. Journal of Intelligence, 10 (3), 65. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence10030065

Munir, H., Vogel, B., & Jacobsson, A. (2022). Artificial intelligence and machine learning approaches in digital education: A systematic revision. Information, 13 (4), 203. https://doi.org/10.3390/info13040203

Muñoz-Merino, P. J., Novillo, R. G., & Kloos, C. D. (2018). Assessment of skills and adaptive learning for parametric exercises combining knowledge spaces and item response theory. Applied Soft Computing, 68 , 110–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2018.03.045

Nam, C. W. (2017). The effects of digital storytelling on student achievement, social presence, and attitude in online collaborative learning environments. Interactive Learning Environments, 25 (3), 412–427. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2015.1135173

Narciss, S., Sosnovsky, S., Schnaubert, L., Andrès, E., Eichelmann, A., Goguadze, G., & Melis, E. (2014). Exploring feedback and student characteristics relevant for personalizing feedback strategies. Computers & Education, 71 , 56–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.09.011

Ohler, J. (2006). The world of digital storytelling. Educational Leadership, 63 (4), 44–47.

Ramesh, D., & Sanampudi, S. K. (2022). An automated essay scoring systems: A systematic literature review. Artificial Intelligence Review, 55 (3), 2495–2527. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-021-10068-2

Ramnarain-Seetohul, V., Bassoo, V., & Rosunally, Y. (2022). Similarity measures in automated essay scoring systems: A ten-year review. Education and Information Technologies, 27 (4), 5573–5604. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10838-z

Rastegarmoghadam, M., & Ziarati, K. (2017). Improved modeling of intelligent tutoring systems using ant colony optimization. Education and Information Technologies, 22 (10), 67–1087. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-016-9472-2

Razzouk, R., & Shute, V. (2012). What is design thinking and why is it important? Review of Educational Research, 82 (3), 330–348.

Riedl, M. O., & O’Neill, B. (2009). Computer as audience: A strategy for artificial intelligence support of human creativity. In Proc. CHI workshop of computational creativity support . https://www.academia.edu/download/35796332/riedl.pdf

Rienties, B., Køhler Simonsen, H., & Herodotou, C. (2020). July). Defining the boundaries between artificial intelligence in education, computer-supported collaborative learning, educational data mining, and learning analytics: A need for coherence. Frontiers in Education, 5 , 1–5. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2020.00128

Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., & Becker, J.-M. (2022). SmartPLS 4. Oststeinbek: SmartPLS GmbH, http://www.smartpls.com .

Robin, B. R. (2016). The power of digital storytelling to support teaching and learning. Digital Education Review, 30 , 17–29.

Sadik, A. (2008). Digital storytelling: A meaningful technology-integrated approach for engaged student learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56 , 487–506. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-008-9091-8

Samarakou, M., Fylladitakis, E. D., Karolidis, D., Früh, W. G., Hatziapostolou, A., Athinaios, S. S., & Grigoriadou, M. (2016). Evaluation of an intelligent open learning system for engineering education. Knowledge Management & E-Learning, 8 (3), 496.

Sandars, J., & Murray, C. (2011). Digital storytelling to facilitate reflective learning in medical students. Medical Education, 45 (6), 649–649. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2011.03991.x

Sandra, L., Lumbangaol, F., & Matsuo, T. (2021). Machine learning algorithm to predict student’s performance: a systematic literature review. TEM Journal, 10 (4), 1919–1927. https://doi.org/10.18421/TEM104-56

Sarıtepeci, M. (2017). An experimental study on the investigation of the effect of digital storytelling on reflective thinking ability at middle school level. Bartın University Journal of Faculty of Education, 6 (3), 1367–1384. https://doi.org/10.14686/buefad.337772

Saritepeci, M. (2021). Students’ and parents’ opinions on the use of digital storytelling in science education. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 26 (1), 193–213. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-020-09440-y

Shermis, M. D., & Burstein, J. (2016). Handbook of Automated Essay Evaluation: Current applications and new directions . Routledge.

Shum, S. B., & Lucas, C. (2020). Learning to reflect on challenging experiences: An AI mirroring approach. In Proceedings of the CHI 2020 workshop on detection and design for cognitive biases in people and computing systems .

Snoeyink, R., & Ertmer, P. A. (2001). Thrust into technology: How veteran teachers respond. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 30 (1), 85–111. https://doi.org/10.2190/YDL7-XH09-RLJ6-MTP1

Tang, K. Y., Chang, C. Y., & Hwang, G. J. (2021). Trends in artificial intelligence-supported e-learning: A systematic review and co-citation network analysis (1998–2019). Interactive Learning Environments , 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2021.1875001 .

Tierney, P., & Farmer, S. M. (2011). Creative self-efficacy development and creative performance over time. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96 (2), 277–293. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020952

Tsai, C.-C., & Chai, C. S. (2012). The” third”-order barrier for technology-integration instruction: Implications for teacher education. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology , 28 (6). https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.810 .

Walkington, C. A. (2013). Using adaptive learning technologies to personalize instruction to student interests: The impact of relevant contexts on performance and learning outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105 (4), 932–945. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031882

Wang, Z., Liu, J., & Dong, R. (2018). Intelligent auto-grading system. In 2018 5th IEEE international conference on cloud computing and intelligence systems (CCIS) (pp. 430–435). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/CCIS.2018.8691244

Wang, S., Sun, Z., & Chen, Y. (2023). Effects of higher education institutes’ artificial intelligence capability on students’ self-efficacy, creativity and learning performance. EDucation and Information Technologies, 28 (5), 4919–4939. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11338-4#Sec2

Wauters, K., Desmet, P., & Van Den Noortgate, W. (2010). Adaptive item-based learning environments based on the item response theory: Possibilities and challenges. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26 (6), 549–562. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00368.x

Yildiz Durak, H. (2021). Preparing pre-service teachers to integrate teaching technologies into their classrooms: Examining the effects of teaching environments based on open-ended, hands-on and authentic tasks. Education and Information Technologies, 26 (5), 5365–5387.

Yildiz Durak, H. (2023a). Conversational agent-based guidance: Examining the effect of chatbot usage frequency and satisfaction on visual design self-efficacy, engagement, satisfaction, and learner autonomy. Education and Information Technologies, 28 , 471–488. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11149-7

Yildiz Durak, H. (2023b). Examining various variables related to authentic learning self-efficacy of university students in educational online social networks: Creative self-efficacy, rational experiential thinking, and cognitive flexibility. Current Psychology, 42 (25), 22093–22102.

Yildiz Durak, H., Atman Uslu, N., Canbazoğlu Bilici, S., & Güler, B. (2023). Examining the predictors of TPACK for integrated STEM: Science teaching self-efficacy, computational thinking, and design thinking. Education and Information Technologies, 28 (7), 7927–7954.

Zhe, T. (2021). Research on the model of music sight-singing guidance system based on artificial intelligence. Complexity, 2021 , 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/3332216

Zhou, Y., Huang, C., Hu, Q., Zhu, J., & Tang, Y. (2018). Personalized learning full-path recommendation model based on LSTM neural networks. Information Sciences, 444 , 135–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2018.02.053

Download references

Open access funding provided by the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Türkiye (TÜBİTAK).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Eregli Faculty of Education, Department of Educational Sciences, Necmettin Erbakan University, Konya, Turkey

Mustafa Saritepeci & Hatice Yildiz Durak

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hatice Yildiz Durak .

Ethics declarations

Access of data.

Our data are not yet available online in any institutional database. However, we will send the whole data package by request. The request should be sent to Assoc. Professor [email protected].

Ethical statement

The research was conducted in a school in Turkey and approved by the school administration. Participation was voluntary and anonymous. Informed consent was obtained from all participants.

Conflict of interests

We have not received any funding or other support to present the views expressed in this paper. The authors declare no conflicts of interest with respect to the authorship or the publication of this paper.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Saritepeci, M., Yildiz Durak, H. Effectiveness of artificial intelligence integration in design-based learning on design thinking mindset, creative and reflective thinking skills: An experimental study. Educ Inf Technol (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12829-2

Download citation

Received : 21 November 2023

Accepted : 28 May 2024

Published : 22 June 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12829-2

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Artificial intelligence
• Design-based learning activities
• ChatGPT, Design thinking mindset
• Thinking skills
• Storytelling
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research