Montclair State University: Teaching and Learning Resource Center

The term "critical thinking" has been linked to many movements in education, but what exactly is critical thinking by itself? Critical thinking generally refers to the ability to think about one's own thinking process. Individuals need to be able to recognize strengths and weaknesses of their thinking, and then rethink their thinking in an improved form. This is a never-ending process, as new information leads to new thinking and tools for analysis.

Critical Thinking Defined

Paul defines critical thinking as the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action.

Two Forms of Critical Thinking

Critical thinking can be selfish in nature, or it can be open and fair-minded. Both forms of critical thinking can occur in the thinking of a given task. The thinker needs to be able to determine which of these two modes of thinking to use (Paul, On-line, 1).

What Critical Thinking is Not

Critical thinking is not the compiling of facts, figures, formulas, and answers as education has traditionally expected learners to do in the educational process. The learner will acquire skills, information, and knowledge as they have done in the past, but critical thinking involves a deeper part of this learning process (Paul, On-line, 2).

The learner is not using critical thinking if the areas mentioned above are not placed into use, and then this very use examined and rethought. The process of critical thinking requires continual growth by the individual and a logical means of seeking and handling information. The learner must become a thinker and evaluate even the use of the skills used in the learning (thinking) process; therefore, critical thinking is not universal to the individual, and no one is a critical thinker through-and-through (Paul, On-line, 3). Everyone has some area of his or her thinking to improve, and this then leads to more areas of revision. This makes the development of critical thinking a lifelong process (Paul, On-line, 4). Thus, can the process of critical thinking be taught, or at least the process involved in the development of this higher level of thinking?

What Causes Thinking in Students?

Thinking is a process that is generated through appropriate questioning. It is unreasonable to expect high order thinking to occur if questions are not used to start the process. Without proper questioning students merely respond with rote memorized facts and do not engage in the process of thinking (Paul, On-line, 2). The questions of the teacher must lead students to develop and answer further questions in order for thinking to occur. Once thinking has developed in the learning process, the process of thinking critically can be explored and developed in conjunction with it. One will not occur without the other. This is not the tradition in education, as rote facts have been the traditional outcome of formal education. The process of thinking requires different teaching methods from the educator (Paul, On-line, 3). What are some examples of these methods (Paul, On-line, 2)?

What Are the Attributes of a Critical Thinker?

Critical thinkers must be able to apply the knowledge they have learned and/or possess to any given situation. Critical thinkers must be able to use their knowledge and thinking to determine a logical response to the activity or situation they are engaging in. While this is occurring the critical thinker must determine bias, recognize illogical thinking and reasoning, avoid stereotyping of group members, avoid propaganda, and base conclusions on solid evidence (Paul, On-line, 5).

This is a large task for any individual to accomplish. These skills must be taught to the individual, and the skills will continue to develop over the course of a lifetime.

Reasoning, Intellectual Standards, and Traits

As we evaluate our reasoning skills, we must look at two vital areas of reasoning: 1. the elements of reasoning which we encourage students to use, and 2. universal intellectual standards through which we evaluate student ability to reason.

The first step on the road to thinking critically lies in considering the eight elements of reasoning as they apply to the problems which we are attempting to resolve. These are the building blocks of thinking (Paul 1993).

Eight Elements of Reasoning

Purpose, goal, or end in view is what we are attempting to accomplish as we reason. When we reason we are working to satisfy some desire or fulfill some need. The purpose, goal, or end in our thinking is something our mind must actively create.
Question at issue represents the problem which we are attempting to solve. Reasoners must have clear in their minds how the question relates to the basic goal, this then, serves as the purpose.
Ideas or concepts are present in all reasoning, and all reasoning uses one set of ideas or concepts. One must learn the concepts and vocabulary in a given subject in order to discuss its ideas. These are essential in the process of organized thinking.
Assumptions are the ideas we take for granted. All reasoning must begin somewhere and must take some things for granted. The starting point of reasoning is based on our existing assumptions.
Information, data, and facts all play a crucial role in reasoning. It is vital to know the source and accuracy of the information, data, and facts which we are using. Reasoners must interpret the information on a given subject and then give it meaning.
Inferences and interpretations are what reasoners create from the concepts and assumptions they bring into a reasoning situation.Making an inference requires one to think as follows: "Because this is so, that also is so (or probably is so)" (Paul 1993, pg. 115). As we reason, we interpret the information based on prior knowledge and experience and determine for ourselves what we deduce.
Conclusions are drawn when we have interpreted the information at hand and made a decision regarding our own point of view. Conclusions are a result of information we have received, assumptions and inferences we have made, and the way in which we have interpreted it as a whole.
Consequences and Implications result when you reach a stopping point on a given topic at a specific time. Reasoning can potentially go on forever. Once we have arrived at a satisfying stopping point we can then consider the consequences and implications at hand. "All reasoning has implications or consequences beyond those the reasoner has considered" (Paul 1993, pg. 116).

Universal Intellectual Standards

As students self-assess, they can use these elements to evaluate their own thinking. In evaluating ourselves as critical thinkers, our evaluation should be based on some set of intellectual standards. Provided below are seven of the most crucial and widely-accepted intellectual standards used in critical thinking (Elder and Paul '95; Paul 1995, Tape 2):

Clarity: A statement which is unclear is very difficult to understand. Reasoners are able to determine very little about a statement if they are not certain of what it is saying. They are unable to determine whether it is accurate or relevant because of the uncertain message being conveyed. General probing questions which will encourage clarity in statements might include the following: "Could you elaborate further on that point?" or "Could you express that in another way?"
Accuracy: You can make a statement which has clarity but is not accurate, such as, "Most dogs are over 300 pounds in weight." In probing for accuracy in a statement you might ask, "What are your reasons for saying that?" or "How could we go about finding out whether that is true?"
Precision: A statement can be both clear and accurate yet lack precision. "Jack is overweight," doesn't give us enough information about Jack. Is Jack one pound overweight or five-hundred pounds overweight? To probe for precision in a statement, you might ask, "Can you give more details?" or "Can you be more specific?"
Relevance: A statement might have precision, accuracy and clarity, but not be relevant to the issue in question. If a statement is not relevant to the issue one might ask, "How is that connected to the question?" or "How does that bear on the issue?"
Depth: A statement can contain all the above mentioned qualities but still lack depth. If the statement does not have depth to it, then we view it as superficial. An excellent example of this is the slogan, "Just Say No." This is a statement used frequently to discourage children and teens from using drugs. Although the statement has many wonderful qualities, as does the idea behind it, it lacks depth. It treats an extremely complex issue, drug use among young people, superficially. It fails to deal with the complexities of the issue itself. In your probing for depth in a statement, questions such as this might be used: "How does your answer address the complexities in the question?" or "Is that dealing with the most significant factors?"
Breadth: In looking for breadth in a line of reasoning, we are going for a more global view. We are searching for the consideration of as many points of view as possible on a given issue, rather than just the "all or nothing" lines of thinking. "Do we need to consider another point of view?" or "Is there another way to look at this question?" would be questions helpful in a search for breadth.
Logic: As we pull our thoughts, assumptions, and conclusions together on an issue, we should ask ourselves, "Is it logical?" Are there contradictions within the framework of what we have concluded? If there aren't contradictions, then we know it is a logical conclusion. In searching for logic in an issue we might ask, "Does this really make sense?" or "Does that follow from what you said before" (Elder and Paul 1995: Paul 1995, Tape 2)?

Intellectual Traits and Virtues

As students practice the elements of reasoning in their learning to be critical thinkers and evaluate themselves by the standards discussed in this paper, they should begin to attain new intellectual traits and virtues. These traits, as discussed by Richard Paul in his book Critical Thinking, should begin to develop almost immediately as the reasoners practice their newly-acquired thinking skills. Below are the seven intellectual traits most desired in the arena of critical thinking (Paul 1993):

Intellectual Humility is based on recognizing that reasoners should not claim to know more than they actually know. This includes their showing sensitivity to acquired bias, prejudice, and limitations in their points of view.
Intellectual Courage requires reasoners to challenge what they learn rather than to accept it at face value. They need to look more deeply into viewpoints that they have negative feelings towards and recognize underlying rationales and justifications for them. This trait asks that reasoners have the courage to be true to their own ways of thinking, but be willing to listen to others.
Intellectual Empathy demands that the reasoner think where someone else has thought. Reasoners must also have the strength to admit and review times when they were wrong but were convinced they were right. It requires us to admit to having been deceived at one time or another by some idea or principle only to find out our original position was unjustified.
Intellectual Integrity requires reasoners to hold the same intellectual standards for themselves which they hold for others. One must be able to look at opposing points of view using the same standards they would use for their own point of view. They also have to be able to admit that their own thoughts and actions have displayed inconsistencies at one time or another.
Intellectual Perseverance obligates the reasoner to endure the search for truth and understanding despite obstacles or confusions that may arise. If they feel unsettled about questioning being presented to them by opposing viewpoints, can they take the heat?
Faith in Reason stipulates that in the "bigger picture" we will do best, as a society, if we are given the freedom to think for ourselves. We accept that people will draw their own conclusions, can learn to think for themselves, and can persuade each other in a reasonable manner. This requires us to persevere when serious obstacles attempt to threaten our ideas.
Fair-mindedness deals with the ability of reasoners to put their own feelings and viewpoints aside in order to listen to others. Reasoners must be willing to listen and hear the other side of many coins and accept them without worrying about how they might personally be affected by the other viewpoints (Paul 1993).

A Point of Consideration

One major implication teachers need to address as they endeavor to teach critical thinking is this--if we want to change the students of today and help them to become critical thinkers, we too then must make changes. We must immerse ourselves in, and develop deeper understandings of these elements of reasoning, the standards employed to measure them, and the intellectual virtues necessary to become critical thinkers ourselves. As we would teach the students, so must we develop these crucial intellectual standards within ourselves.

Teaching Thinking

Now that we have discussed the necessary components of critical thinking we move to the application of the process. How can a teacher incorporate these elements of reasoning, intellectual standards, and intellectual traits into their classrooms? How can teachers maximize student learning and application of these reasoning processes? And, moreover, how can teachers effectively use these same standards to assess student work and student abilities to appropriately apply these standards?

There has been much research into, theories put forth, and programs published about how best to incorporate critical thinking into the classroom. Most researchers agree that it is possible to teach some aspects of critical thinking at all levels of learning. The complexity of the elements of critical thinking can be adjusted where necessary to fit student abilities. Furthermore, teachers can modify any such lessons for students with special needs. Most importantly, teachers must decide what is appropriate and in the best interest of their students (Cabrera 1992; Chance 1986; Sternberg 1987).

The four models for teaching critical thinking that Chance puts forth are as follows: the incidental model, the discipline-specific model, the direct model, and the interactive model. Although some educators see the direct model as being too didactic, its instruction programmatic, and its list of skills unrelated; there does seem to be some consensus among most educators that the direct model is comparatively easy to understand and to apply in the classroom. Additionally, most advocates of the direct model, with its skills-centered approach and specific set of logical operations, assert that this model is easily utilized and has immediate and clear implications for the critical thinking classroom (Cabrera 1992; Chance 1986). Paul's list of intellectual elements, standards, and traits, as stated previously in this paper are an example of this direct model.

For these reasons the discussion will be limited to the direct model and three teacher strategies that can be particularly fruitful in terms of fostering students' critical thinking: 1. how to use Socratic questioning, 2. how to incorporate practicing intellectual standards into assignments, and 3. how to use these standards to assess student thinking (Paul 1989 (b); 1985). However, neither is it claimed that the direct model is the only accepted model, nor is it stated that these three areas of applying the direct model are the only ones. Interested teachers should further investigate alternate strategies that might best fit their students' needs. Additionally, the discussion of the application of these three strategies is limited to an area of instruction that almost every teacher in every subject area needs to address--writing instruction.

Socratic Questioning

Socratic questioning is questioning aimed at increasing students' ability to improve and appraise their thinking by making it explicit. This questioning allows for students to slow down their thinking, test that thinking, and gain understanding of its strengths and weaknesses. Additionally, Socratic questioning may be employed in many different ways including discussions that are teacher or student led, large group, small group, one-on-one, and directed to one's self. Discussions can be spontaneous, exploratory, or focused. No matter how it is employed, however, good Socratic questioning results in students' thinking processes being developed as a result of the questions asked (Paul 1989 (b), 1995). This way of addressing issues with probing questions is similar to looking at "magic eye" puzzles where the artist obscures the picture of an ordinary object behind complex visual patterns. The puzzle requires being looked at from many views until the nature of the obscured object is seen and appreciated for what it really is. The more you practice looking at the puzzles, the easier it becomes to see the nature of new ones. In a similar way students need to exert considerable thought while practicing the discipline of responding to Socratic questions.

The role of the teacher in Socratic questioning is that of an analytical model. As a model critical thinker the teacher respects students' points of view and shows interest in their thinking. By the teacher's voicing their own wonderings and questions for the students, teachers provide a model for student thinking. Eventually, students should come to practice these same wonderings and questions on their own. Additionally, the teacher works to create an intellectual classroom environment that supports student thinking and creates student enthusiasm in the critical thinking process. The teacher facilitates, clarifies, summarizes, probes, and moves the students' thinking along (Paul 1989 (b), 1995).

Together the teacher and student utilize the previously enumerated intellectual elements, standards, and traits as their source for Socratic questions and intellectual moves (Paul 1989 (b), 1995). The following are a few examples of Socratic questions taken directly from Paul and Binker (1989 (b); 1990):

Questions of Clarification

What do you mean by ________?
What is your main point?
Could you give me an example?
What do you think the main issue is here?

Questions that Probe Assumptions

What are you assuming?
What could we assume instead?
How would you justify taking this for granted?
Is this always the case?

Questions that Probe Reasons and Evidence

What would be an example?
Could you explain your reasons to us?
Are those reasons adequate?
Do you have any evidence for that?

Questions about Viewpoints or Perspectives

How would other groups of people respond? Why?
How could you answer the objection that _______ would make?
Can anyone see this another way?
What would someone who disagrees say?

Questions that Probe Implications and Consequences

What are you implying by that?
What effect would that have?
What is an alternative?
If this is the case, then what else must be true?

Questions About the Question

How can we find out?
Can we break this question down at all?
What does this question assume?
Why is this question important?

Socratic discussions implementing these questions can be directed towards the problems students face in writing. A teacher could use a discussion to clarify a writing assignment, get students thinking about an issue as a prewriting activity, and help students evaluate their own or each other's writing. Without clear thinking there can be no clear writing, so students need to learn to exercise intellectual discipline and constraint on both their thinking and their writing. To do so, they must be taught directly about the elements of critical thinking and exercise this thinking within the constraints of logic (Paul 1993, Tape 9). Socratic questioning epitomizes the elements of reasoning.

Writing Assignment Design

Although it would be a gross simplification to say that the writing task involves reasoning only, Paul views clear reasoning as the crux of good writing. It is possible to have witty, entertaining, creative writing without clear reasoning; however, he states that it is not good writing without good reasoning. Writers should strive for clarity in their thought first (Paul 1993, Tape 3; Scardamalia and Bereiter 1986).

Writing is thinking and reasoned writing is reasoned thinking. Writing assignments, therefore, should be designed to foster critical thinking. Furthermore, students write and produce what they think. One obvious aim of creating writing assignments for students is to get students thinking. Thinking about content. Thinking about issues. Thinking about questions surrounding the content. Another important aspect of critical thought is that it is thinking that assesses itself; therefore, your writing assignments should additionally be designed in a manner that allows students to assess their own and each other's writing (Paul 1993, Tape 3 and Tape 9).

What are the to most important factors teachers need to include in writing assignments to foster students' critical thinking? First, according to Paul successful assignments are those that are designed with the eight dimensions of reasoning in mind. It is not necessary to use all eight dimensions in every assignment, but every assignment should require students to address at least one or more of these dimensions (Paul 1993, Tape 9):

Make sure students understand the purpose of their assignment, and both you and they should be able to relate the purpose of the assignment back to the purpose of the course. Students need a purpose to reason.
Assignments should be problem based and require the student to solve at least one problem. More importantly, the students should know what it is they are required to figure out.
Assignment problems should be such that students should have the information they need to solve the problem. Where are they going to get the information, and what information do they need?
Since this information has to be interpreted by the students, teachers need to make sure that the students understand the concepts involved in the problem.
Assignments should require students to become aware of their own assumptions. The assumptions or givens are the student's starting point for the assignment.
Students should be encouraged to draw inferences from the information. A teacher could ask students to come to some conclusion about any aspect of the assignment.
Students should be asked to state their point of view and how it led them to a particular conclusion.
Design your assignments so students are aware of their conclusion's implications. If they conclude _____, what are the implications of this conclusion?

Second, teachers need to consider the demands of the logic of the content itself, the logic of reasoning, and the logic of the student. A teacher's considering the logic of the content implies that teachers should address the questions of the content. For instance, in a history course students could be asked to look at history from someone else's point of view, or in a language arts class students could be asked to explore the implications and consequences of a reading (Paul 1993, Tape 9; Paul 1989). To consider the logic of the student, a teacher should design lessons that start from a student's logic and extends them into their wanting to reason about the problem. The student's logic is what the teachers use to "hook" students into wanting to reason about a problem in the assignment. You have to give them some way of relating to the assignment from where they already are (Paul 1993, Tape 9). When teachers use the logic of reasoning in the assignments they create, they need to remember that students are not used to disciplined reasoning. Students won't want to use this reasoning at first. It won't be comfortable for them because it is so demanding. Nonetheless, make sure that all assignments require the student to reason (Paul 1993, Tape 9).

Assessing Student Thinking

To continue to promote intellectual standards, teachers must measure student progress by the yardstick of the elements of reasoning: purpose, question, ideas, assumptions, information, inferences, conclusions, and consequences. Your assessing students by other means, such as how well their work is written or how much they wrote, confounds your purpose of teaching reasoning [Paul 1994 (b)].

One way teachers can help students develop their reasoning is by providing students with a set of universal assessment criteria, such as the elements of reasoning. The criteria should be presented to students early in the course, and they should learn how to apply this criteria to all of their thinking and work, no matter what the task (Paul, On-line, 5).

Since critical thinking is thinking that assesses itself, an important aspect of assessing student reasoning is the teacher's encouraging and requiring students to assess themselves. One way to fail at teaching critical thinking is to continue to rely on one-right-answer-only and teacher graded methods of assessment. Teachers should discard the notion that everything must be graded by the teacher according to product orientation. Critical thinking is a process not a product. Therein lies the challenge. Both teachers and students have to adjust to this new way of assessing student work (Sternberg 1987; Paul 1993, Tape 4 and Tape 5).

What are some approaches to student assessment teachers can use to get students thinking about their own writing (Paul 1993, Tape 4 and Tape 5)?

Start with the student's logic. Students need to justify their learning efforts. Have students state their understanding of the purpose of the assessment activity.
Act as an intellectual model of what you want them to accomplish. Put a students writing example on the overhead. Model your assessment of the paper. Vocalize your questions, moves, and process of assessment until students are ready to take over the modeling for you.
Design authentic performances and authentic assessments. Either relate their learning to what adults are doing in the real world, or have students do it themselves as an activity.
To check student progress in the critical thinking process, teachers should design daily reasoning challenges. Frequently have students write reasoned responses to cues and questions of content, or have students assess their own class participation (Paul 1993, Tape 4 and Tape 5).

In summary, no matter how teachers decide to include critical thinking in their classrooms, it is crucial that they apply the elements of reasoning consistently. These elements should be integrated into all aspects of the classroom environment--classroom discussions, student assignments, student writing, and student assessment. More importantly, the elements of reasoning apply equally to both students and teachers.

Conclusion

The process of thinking critically is developed by individuals over the course of their lifetimes. Educators need to develop their own skills that are required in this process, and then practice applying these skills with their students. This is not an easy task, and it contradicts traditional education. Educators need to ask questions that lead to more questions (Paul, On-line, 2). This will cause thinking to begin, and then the process of thinking critically may be developed.

Critical thinking processes, goals, and levels will vary among individuals and with various situations for each individual. Critical thinking is not an exact science, as all thinkers are not complete critical thinkers. Everyone who is thinking critically is also refining his or her thinking, and thus the critical thinking process is always a changing one (Paul, On-line ,1).

Educators should make it a priority to promote and develop reasoning and critical thinking skills in their students. This is a challenge, but it can be accomplished through the use of Socratic questioning. Educators and students need to be stimulated to think critically as often as possible, as this skill is one that is invaluable. Independent thinkers are needed, and the only way to produce them is to help students use reasoning, then evaluate and develop the process. This is the practice known as teaching critical thinking.

Works Cited

Cabrera, George A. "A Framework for Evaluating the Teaching of Critical Thinking." Education. 113, Fall 1992:59-64.

Chance, Paul. Thinking in the Classroom: A Survey of Programs. NY:Teachers College Press. 1986.

Chiras, Daniel D. "Teaching Critical Thinking Skills in the Biology and Environmental Science Classrooms." The American Biology Teacher. 54, Nov./Dec. 1992:464-68.

Elder, Linda, and Richard Paul. Universal Intellectual Standards. Santa Rosa, CA. Center for Critical Thinking and Moral Critique. 1995.

How to Teach Through Socratic Questioning. Video Tape Series, Tapes 1-3. Dr. Richard Paul presenting. Foundation for Critical Thinking. 1995.

How to Teach Students to Write Well. Video Tape Series, Tape 3. Dr. Richard Paul presenting. Foundation for Critical Thinking. 1993.

How to Teach Students to Assess Their Own Work: The Foundation. Video Tape Series, Tape 4. Dr. Richard Paul presenting. Foundation for Critical Thinking. 1993.

How to Teach Students to Assess Their Own Work: The Tactics. Video Tape Series, Tape 5. Dr. Richard Paul presenting. Foundation for Critical Thinking. 1993.

How To Devise Assignments and Activities Requiring Reasoning Students Are Capable of Doing. videotape Series, Tape 9. Dr. Richard Paul presenting. Foundation for Critical Thinking. 1993.

Nickerson, Raymond S. "Reasoning" Chpt 10. Cognition and Instruction. Ed. Ronna F. Dillon and Robert J. Sternberg. NY:Academic Press, 1986. 343-73.

Paul, Richard, A. J. A. Binker, Karen Jensen, and Heidi Kreklau. Critical Thinking Handbook: 4th-6th Grades. Rohnert Park, CA. Center for Critical Thinking and Moral Critique. 1989(a).

Paul, Richard, A. J. A. Binker, Karen Jensen, and Heidi Kreklau. Critical Thinking Handbook: High School. Rohnert Park, CA. Center for Critical Thinking and Moral Critique. 1989(b).

Paul, Richard, and A. J. A. Binker. "Socratic Questioning" Chpt. 19. What Every Person Needs to Survive in a Rapily Changing World. Center for Critical Thinking and Moral Critique, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, CA. 1990.

Paul, Richard. Critical Thinking: What Every Person Needs to Survive in a Rapidly Changing World. Center for Critical Thinking and Moral Critique, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, CA. 1993.

---. "The Elements of Thought in Reasoning." Critical Thinking Workshops. Center for Critical Thinking and Moral Critique, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, CA. 1994(a).

---. "Using Intellectual Standards to Assess Student Reasoning." Critical Thinking Workshops. Center for Critical Thinking and Moral Critique, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, CA. 1994(b).

---. "Valuable Intellectual Traits." Critical Thinking Workshops. Center for Critical Thinking and Moral Critique, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, CA. 1994(c).

---. Socratic Questioning and Role-playing. Center for Critical Thinking and Moral Critique, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, CA. 1995.

---. On-line

(1) http://www.sonoma.edu/cthink/definect.html

(2) http://www.sonoma.edu/cthink/FResource/Faculty/roleofquest.html

(3) http://www.sonoma.edu/cthink/FResource/Oconcept.html

(4) http://www.sonoma.edu/cthink/FResource/Faculty/Defining.html

(5) http://www.sonoma.edu/cthink/

Scardamalia, Marlene and Carl Bereiter. "Writing" Chpt. 3. Cognition and Instruction. Ed. Ronna F. Dillon and Robert J. Sternberg. NY:Academic Press, 1986. 343-73.

Sternberg, Robert. "Teaching Critical Thinking: Eight Easy Ways to Fail Before You Begin." Phi Delta Kappan. Feb. 1987:456-459.

Tredway, Lynda. "Socratic Seminars: Engaging Students in Intellectual Discourse." Educational Leadership. Sept. 1995:26-29.