analytic and critical thinking

Mind by Design

Critical thinking vs analytical thinking: The differences and similarities

The ability to think clearly and make informed decisions is paramount to life. This article delves deep into the realms of analytical thinking and critical thinking, shedding light on their differences and how they complement each other. By understanding these thinking styles, you’ll be better equipped to tackle complex problems, evaluate information, and make well-informed decisions. Let’s dive in!

Introduction to Analytical and Critical Thinking

Analytical and critical thinking are two skills essential for solving problems and making decisions in various aspects of life. While both involve the use of logic and reasoning, they differ in their approach and outcomes. Analytical thinking involves breaking down complex information into smaller parts, while critical thinking involves taking a holistic view and evaluating information from different angles. Analytical thinking involves the ability to dissect a problem or situation into its individual components and examining each part separately. It requires careful observation and the ability to identify patterns and relationships. This type of thinking is essential for tasks such as data analysis, problem-solving, and troubleshooting.

Critical thinking, on the other hand, involves the ability to assess information objectively, evaluate its credibility, and make logical judgments. It involves questioning assumptions, examining evidence, and considering different perspectives. Critical thinking is crucial for making informed decisions, weighing pros and cons, and avoiding biases and fallacies.

Both analytical and critical thinking complement each other and are necessary for effective problem-solving and decision-making. Analytical thinking provides a structured and systematic approach to understanding complex problems , while critical thinking helps evaluate different options and make sound judgments.

Developing analytical and critical thinking skills can greatly benefit individuals in various aspects of life. In academia, these skills are necessary for understanding and interpreting complex subjects, conducting research, and writing analytical essays. In the workplace, analytical and critical thinking skills are highly valued by employers as they enable employees to solve problems efficiently and make informed decisions. In daily life, these skills are essential for evaluating information, distinguishing between fact and opinion, and making rational choices.

There are various ways to improve analytical and critical thinking skills. Engaging in activities that require logical reasoning, such as puzzles, brain teasers, and mathematical problems, can help develop analytical thinking abilities. Reading diverse sources of information, questioning assumptions, and actively seeking different perspectives can enhance critical thinking skills . Additionally, engaging in debates, discussions, and problem-solving exercises can promote both analytical and critical thinking.

Analytical and critical thinking skills are essential for problem-solving and decision-making in various aspects of life. They involve breaking down complex information and evaluating it from different angles. Developing these skills can lead to more effective problem-solving, informed decision-making, and overall improved cognitive abilities. 

Traits of an Analytical Thinker

An analytical thinker is one who is adept at breaking down complex problems into smaller parts. This type of thinking is linear and involves analyzing cause and effect relationships. Analytical thinking uses logic and reasoning to come to a conclusion, often relying on data and facts. Some key traits of an analytical thinker include:

• The ability to dissect complex information into smaller pieces.
• A knack for recognizing patterns and relationships.
• A methodical approach to problem-solving.

What Does It Mean to Think Critically?

Critical thinking, on the other hand, is a type of higher-order thinking that requires a more holistic approach. Critical thinkers are often skeptical, questioning the validity of information before accepting it. They are adept at evaluating information from various sources and are not easily swayed by outside information. Key aspects of critical thinking include :

• The ability to form an opinion based on evidence.
• Considering multiple perspectives before making a decision.
• Recognizing biases and challenging one’s own assumptions.

Analytical Thinking vs Critical Thinking: The Major Differences

While both analytical and critical thinking are essential for solving problems, they differ in several key ways:

• Approach : Analytical thinking is more linear and focuses on breaking down complex information into smaller parts. Critical thinking, however, is holistic and looks at the bigger picture.
• Use of Information : Analytical thinkers rely heavily on facts and data, while critical thinkers use facts in conjunction with other pieces of information and perspectives.
• Outcome : Analytical thinking often leads to a single logical conclusion, whereas critical thinking might result in multiple potential solutions or outcomes.

The Processes: Analytical Thinking Process vs Critical Thinking Process

Both styles of thinking have distinct processes:

• Analytical Thinking Process : Starts with gathering data, followed by breaking down complex problems, analyzing the cause and effect relationships, and finally drawing a conclusion.
• Critical Thinking Process : Begins with gathering diverse pieces of information, evaluating their validity, considering various perspectives, and finally forming an opinion or decision.

Using Analytical and Critical Thinking in Real Life Scenarios

In real-life scenarios, these thinking styles can be applied in various ways. For instance, when faced with a business decision, an analytical thinker might focus on the numbers and statistics, while a critical thinker might consider the potential impact on employees, company culture, and external stakeholders.

Analytical thinking can be particularly useful when analyzing financial data and making data-driven decisions. For example, a business owner might use analytical thinking to analyze the company’s financial statements and determine the profitability and financial health of the business. They might examine key financial ratios, such as return on investment or gross profit margin, to assess the efficiency and effectiveness of various business operations.

On the other hand, critical thinking can be applied when evaluating different options and considering the potential consequences of each option. For example, when considering a potential business expansion, a critical thinker may explore the potential impact on existing employees, the company’s culture, and the external stakeholders. They may assess the potential risks and benefits of the expansion, considering factors such as increased competition, resource allocation, and market demand.

Analytical and critical thinking can also be applied in personal decision-making. For example, when considering a major life decision such as buying a house or changing careers, analytical thinking can help weigh the financial implications, such as the monthly mortgage payments or future earning potential. Critical thinking can help evaluate the potential impact on personal goals, values, and overall satisfaction.

In everyday life, analytical thinking can be useful when evaluating product options or making purchasing decisions. For example, comparing different phone models based on features, specifications, and customer reviews can help individuals make an informed choice. Critical thinking can be applied when assessing the potential consequences of a decision, such as considering the long-term environmental impact of a product or the ethical practices of a particular company.

Both analytical and critical thinking are valuable skills in problem-solving. They can help individuals identify the root causes of a problem, analyze potential solutions, and evaluate their effectiveness. Whether it’s troubleshooting a technical issue, resolving a conflict, or devising strategies to improve personal or professional performance, these thinking styles can be instrumental in finding effective solutions. 

Analytical and Critical Thinking in Problem-Solving

Problem-solving requires a combination of both analytical and critical thinking. Analytical thinking helps break the problem into manageable parts, while critical thinking helps in evaluating potential solutions and considering their implications.

The Importance of Combining Both Thinking Styles

While both styles are powerful on their own, combining analytical and critical thinking skills can lead to more robust solutions. This combination allows for a thorough analysis of a problem while also considering the broader implications and potential consequences of a decision.

Mistakes to Avoid: Misconceptions about Analytical and Critical Thinking

Many assume that analytical thinking and critical thinking are one and the same, but this is a misconception. It’s important to recognize their distinct differences and strengths. Another common mistake is over-relying on one style and neglecting the other, leading to potential oversights in decision-making.

Key Takeaways: The Future of Analytical and Critical Thinking

In summary, here are the most important things to remember:

• Distinct yet Complementary : While analytical and critical thinking have distinct processes and outcomes, they are complementary and can be used together for more effective decision-making.
• Real-world Applications : Both styles are essential in various aspects of life, from business decisions to personal choices.
• Continuous Learning : As the world becomes more complex, honing both analytical and critical thinking skills will be crucial for success.

Embrace both styles of thinking and watch as your decision-making skills, problem-solving abilities, and overall understanding of complex situations improve dramatically.

Q: What is the difference between critical thinking and analytical thinking?

A: Critical thinking and analytical thinking are similar thinking skills, but there are some differences between the two. Critical thinking involves gathering information, evaluating and interpreting it, and then making a judgment or decision based on that information. Analytical thinking, on the other hand, focuses more on breaking down complex problems into smaller components, analyzing the relationships between these components, and coming up with solutions based on this analysis. So while both skills involve a logical and systematic approach to thinking, critical thinking is more focused on making judgments and decisions, whereas analytical thinking is more focused on problem-solving and analysis.

Q: How do I use critical thinking in everyday life?

A: Critical thinking is a valuable skill that can be applied in various aspects of everyday life. To use critical thinking, you need to approach situations and problems with an open and questioning mind. This involves challenging your own assumptions and beliefs, gathering and evaluating information from different sources, considering alternative perspectives, and making informed decisions based on evidence and logical reasoning. By using critical thinking, you can enhance your problem-solving skills, improve your decision-making abilities , and think more creatively and independently.

Q: How do I use analytical thinking in my professional life?

A: Analytical thinking is an important skill in many professional fields. To use analytical thinking, you need to be able to break down complex problems or tasks into smaller parts, analyze the relationships between these parts, and come up with logical and well-reasoned solutions. This involves gathering and evaluating relevant data, identifying patterns or trends, and using logical reasoning to draw conclusions. By using analytical thinking, you can improve your problem-solving and decision-making abilities, demonstrate a logical and organized approach to your work, and effectively communicate your analysis and solutions to others.

Q: Can critical thinking and analytical thinking be used together?

A: Yes, critical thinking and analytical thinking are complementary skills that can be used together. Both skills involve a systematic and logical approach to thinking, and they can reinforce each other in problem-solving and decision-making processes. Critical thinking provides the framework for evaluating and interpreting information, while analytical thinking provides the tools for breaking down complex problems and finding solutions. By using both skills together, you can enhance your ability to think critically and analytically, make more informed decisions, and solve problems more effectively.

Q: What are the differences between analytical reasoning and critical thinking?

A: Analytical reasoning and critical thinking are related skills that involve a logical and systematic approach to thinking. However, there are some differences between the two. Analytical reasoning is more focused on the process of breaking down complex problems or arguments, identifying logical relationships between different elements, and drawing conclusions based on this analysis. Critical thinking, on the other hand, is a broader skill that involves evaluating and interpreting information, questioning assumptions and biases, and making judgments or decisions based on evidence and logical reasoning. While analytical reasoning is an important part of critical thinking, critical thinking encompasses a wider range of cognitive processes and skills.

Q: How can I develop and improve my analytical thinking skills?

A: To develop and improve your analytical thinking skills, you can engage in activities that stimulate your logical and problem-solving abilities. This may involve practicing with puzzles and brainteasers, analyzing case studies or real-life scenarios, participating in debates or discussions, learning and applying different analytical frameworks or models, and seeking feedback on your analytical thinking from others. Additionally, you can also cultivate your analytical thinking skills by staying curious, asking thoughtful questions, and continuously seeking new knowledge and perspectives. With practice and perseverance, you can enhance your analytical thinking abilities and become a more effective problem solver and decision maker.

Q: How can I become a critical thinker?

A: Becoming a critical thinker requires a conscious effort to develop and refine your thinking skills. Here are some steps you can take to become a critical thinker : 1. Cultivate intellectual humility and open-mindedness: Be willing to consider alternative viewpoints and challenge your own assumptions and beliefs. 2. Develop strong analytical and reasoning skills: Learn to gather and evaluate evidence, identify logical fallacies, and draw logical and well-supported conclusions. 3. Practice active listening and effective communication: Listen attentively to others’ perspectives, ask thoughtful questions, and communicate your own ideas clearly and persuasively. 4. Seek out diverse sources of information: Expose yourself to different perspectives and viewpoints to broaden your understanding and avoid bias. 5. Reflect and evaluate your own thinking: Regularly reflect on your own thinking processes, identify any biases or logical gaps, and work on improving your critical thinking skills.

Q: What role does critical thinking play in problem-solving?

A: Critical thinking is a fundamental skill in problem-solving. It helps you approach problems with a logical and systematic mindset, evaluate potential solutions, and make informed decisions. Critical thinking allows you to gather and analyze relevant information, identify patterns or trends, consider different perspectives or alternatives, weigh the pros and cons, and choose the most effective solution. By using critical thinking in problem-solving, you can enhance your ability to find creative and innovative solutions, overcome obstacles, and make well-informed decisions that are based on sound reasoning and evidence.

Q: Why is critical thinking important?

A: Critical thinking is important because it enables you to think independently, make informed decisions, solve problems effectively, and evaluate information and arguments critically. In a rapidly changing and complex world, critical thinking allows you to navigate through information overload, identify biases or misinformation, and make sense of a wide range of conflicting information. It also helps you develop a deep understanding of concepts and ideas, construct well-reasoned arguments, and communicate your thoughts effectively. In both personal and professional contexts, critical thinking is a valuable skill that empowers you to be a more effective and successful individual.

Q: How does analytical thinking contribute to problem-solving?

A: Analytical thinking is a key component of problem-solving. It involves breaking down complex problems into smaller components, analyzing the relationships between these components, and identifying patterns or trends. Analytical thinking helps you understand the underlying causes of problems, explore different possible solutions, and evaluate their feasibility and effectiveness. By using analytical thinking, you can approach problems in a structured and systematic way, make well-informed decisions, and find creative and innovative solutions. Analytical thinking provides a solid foundation for problem-solving, enabling you to effectively address challenges and find solutions in various domains.

Similar Posts

What is a growth mindset?

A growth mindset is a belief that intelligence can be developed through hard work, education and learning. This is in contrast to a fixed mindset which assumes intelligence is not changeable. These limiting beliefs can stunt children’s growth and learning, leading to underachievement. According to research, around 4% of the general population have a growth…

The Science behind Growth Mindset

Carol Dweck and her colleagues developed an interest in the students’ perspectives on failing over a period of more than three decades. They observed that some kids were able to recover from even the most minor of setbacks, while other pupils appeared to be completely crushed by even the most minor of setbacks. Dr. Carol…

50 Self-confidence affirmations and how to use them

Everyone needs to build up a certain amount of self-confidence in their life. It can be difficult, but it’s important that you work on yourself. A large part of this is through affirmations, which are verbal statements that can help with building up confidence and feelings of happiness. Therefore, knowing these self-confidence affirmations is important….

10 Tips if you are tired of being fat but have no motivation

If you’ve been struggling with being overweight, and you’re just not quite sure how to break the cycle there are some things that can help. Being in such a rut can be tough as you need the motivation to get things moving. We have compiled our best tips if you are tired of being fat…

Where is the best place to live a simple life?

I’m sorry to let you down, but this piece will not provide a list of places where you may live a simple life like some generic list. There is no one correct solution to the question of where one should live to in order to have a more straightforward and simple life. The good news…

What is the opposite of stoicism?

The opposite of stoicism is the belief that feeling emotions are a natural, healthy, and important part of life. Stoicism emphasizes emotional control with the goal to eliminate negative emotions such as anger or fear. It is an unemotional state of mind. In contrast to stoicism, positive psychology’s approach to emotions is based on the…

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Terms and Conditions - Privacy Policy

Critical Thinking vs Analytical Thinking: What’s the Difference?

What is critical thinking, what is analytical thinking, traits of critical thinkers, traits of analytical thinkers, for example, why are critical thinking and analytical skills important, how to develop a critical thinking and analytical mind , critical thinking vs analytical thinking faqs.

Other Related Blogs

• Curious:  They possess a natural curiosity and an insatiable desire to learn and understand. They constantly ask questions and seek deeper knowledge.
• Structured Problem-Solving :  Analytical thinkers approach problems systematically. They break down complex issues into smaller, manageable components for thorough analysis.
• Data-driven:  They rely on data and evidence to support their conclusions. Data analysis is a key aspect of their decision-making process.
• Critical Evaluation:  They critically assess the quality and reliability of information sources. They are discerning about the credibility of data.
• Logical Reasoning:  They employ logical reasoning to connect facts and deduce insights. Their arguments are based on sound logic.

• Questioning Attitude:  Critical thinkers question assumptions, statements, and conventional wisdom. They challenge ideas to seek deeper understanding.
• Open-Minded:  They maintain an open mind, considering multiple perspectives and being receptive to new information.
• Problem-Solving:  Critical thinkers approach problems by examining all angles, evaluating evidence, and identifying the best possible solutions.
• Inquisitive:  They have a natural curiosity and an appetite for knowledge. They are motivated to dig deeper into subjects.
• Emotional Intelligence :  They are attuned to emotions, both their own and those of others. This awareness helps them understand human behavior and reactions.

Critical Thinking vs Analytical Thinking for Managers

• A retail store manager might use analytical thinking skills to analyze sales data to identify patterns and trends. For example, they might examine sales data to determine which products are selling well and at what times of day or year. They might then use this information to adjust inventory levels, schedule staff, or develop marketing campaigns to capitalize on trends. 
• A manager might use analytical thinking skills to analyze financial data to identify cost savings or revenue growth opportunities. For example, they might analyze expense data to identify areas where costs are higher than expected and develop strategies to reduce them. They might also analyze sales data to identify opportunities to expand into new markets or increase revenue from existing customers. 
• A manager might use critical thinking skills to evaluate competing proposals for a new project. For example, they might consider each proposal based on feasibility, cost, the potential impact on the organization, and alignment with its strategic goals. They might then use this evaluation to make an informed decision about which proposal to pursue. 
• A manager might use critical thinking skills to evaluate the performance of individual employees or teams. For example, they might evaluate employee performance based on factors such as productivity, quality of work, and adherence to company policies and procedures. They might then use this evaluation to decide on promotions, training, development, or disciplinary action. 
• How Do Managers Impact Employee Wellness?
• The 10 Best Decision Making Techniques in Management
• Executive Communication Coach: When And How To Choose
• 5 Top Learning And Development Manager Skills And How To Foster Them
• 5 Top Examples of Knowledge Management Systems for 2023
• 31 Powerful Affirmations For Stress At Work With Tips For Using Them
• 11 Reasons Why Decision-Making is Important in Management
• 7 Warning Signs Your Team is Feeling Underappreciated at Work
• 6 Must Read Growth Mindset Books For People Managers
• What Does A Learning And Development Team (L&D) Do?
• Effective problem-solving: Critical thinking and analytical skills are essential for identifying, analyzing, and solving complex problems. By breaking down problems into smaller parts and evaluating each part objectively, individuals can develop effective solutions to complex problems .
• Improved decision-making: Critical thinking and analytical skills help individuals make well-informed decisions by evaluating and synthesizing information from multiple sources. By objectively assessing information, individuals can make decisions based on evidence rather than biases or emotions.
• Increased creativity: Analytical thinking skills can help individuals identify patterns and connections between seemingly unrelated pieces of information, leading to creative problem-solving and innovative solutions.
• Better communication: Critical thinking skills help individuals evaluate the quality of arguments and evidence presented by others, leading to more transparent and effective communication .
• Success in the workplace: Employers value critical thinking and analytical skills because they enable individuals to be more effective problem-solvers and decision-makers, leading to better business outcomes and increased success.

• Ask questions: Ask questions to clarify information, evaluate evidence, and challenge assumptions. This helps you better understand the information and think more critically about it.
• Seek out diverse perspectives: Engage with people who have different backgrounds and experiences from your own. This helps you to see problems from different angles and gain new insights.
• Evaluate sources: Practice evaluating the credibility of sources, such as news articles or research studies. This helps you develop a critical eye and avoid being swayed by false information.
• Practice active listening: When engaging in conversation, try to listen to others and truly understand their perspectives. This helps you to evaluate information objectively and avoid making assumptions.
• Practice problem-solving: Regularly engage in problem-solving activities like puzzles or brain teasers. This helps you to develop your analytical skills and practice thinking creatively.
• Practice analyzing data: Analyze data from different sources and identify patterns or trends. This helps you to develop your analytical skills and practice thinking critically about information.
• Reflect on your thinking: Regularly reflect on your thinking processes and evaluate how you approach problems or make decisions. This helps you identify improvement areas and develop better critical thinking habits.
• Seek feedback: Ask for feedback from others on your critical thinking and analytical skills. This helps you to identify areas where you can improve and develop new strategies for thinking more critically.
• Practice decision-making: Practice decision making based on evidence and logical reasoning rather than emotions or biases. This helps you to develop more effective decision-making skills.
• Engage in a debate: Participate in debates or discussions where you are challenged to defend your position and evaluate opposing arguments. This helps you to practice critical thinking and develop more effective communication skills.

Test your critical thinking skills for free!

Start the free critical thinking skills assessment for managers .

Is analyzing a critical thinking skill?

Can you be both an analytical and critical thinker, how can i be critical and analytical .

Critical Thinking Training For Managers Simplified

6 steps to beat common critical thinking barriers at work, how to develop the 8 conceptual skills every manager needs, 7 ways to develop critical thinking skills as a manager.

• Find a Course
• For Business
• For Educators
• Product News

Analytical thinking: what it is and why it matters more than ever

January 30, 2024

Welcome back to our high-impact workplace skills series. We really enjoyed the conversations happening in the comments section of last week’s top skills of 2023 issue, so be sure to check those out for perspectives and insights from fellow members of our Career Chat community.

One comment that’s been on our mind came from Kendra Vivian Lewis , who asked some thoughtful questions about the comparative importance of workplace and technical skills and if there’s a way to forecast which skills will be important in the coming years. This week’s topic—analytical thinking, the number one skill on the list—is a great example as we explore both questions. Be sure to read to the end to discover a special offer that we’re running on Coursera Plus subscriptions through September 21.

What it means to think analytically

Analytical thinking involves using data to understand problems, identify potential solutions, and suggest the solution that’s most likely to have the desired impact. It’s similar to critical thinking skills , which are the skills you use to interpret information and make decisions.

In order to succeed as a strong analytical thinker, you also need to have strong technical skills in your field. Remember: technical skills describe the things you do, while workplace skills describe how you do them. So your workplace skills, used effectively, enhance your technical skills. That’s why we consider them to be high-impact—they stand to make your work more impactful than it would have been had you only used your technical skills.

To illustrate, suppose you just started a job as a data analyst for a think tank focused on climate change, and you’ve been tasked with raising community engagement in future climate action efforts.

You might start with your technical data analysis skills as you gather data from a few sources. Then, you’ll use your analytical thinking skills to determine the validity of each data source. Perhaps you’ll discard one source when you learn the research was funded by a firm with a financial stake in fossil fuel consumption. Your technical skills lead again as you clean data, and then you’ll return to your analytical thinking skills to analyze and interpret your findings, ultimately leading to your recommendation to start a transparency campaign to display water and energy use in the community.

Tell us in the comments: How do you use your analytical skills alongside your technical skills in your day-to-day work?

Why analytical skills top the list

To develop the skills list, the World Economic Forum surveyed 800+ global employers on their views of skills and jobs over the next five years, so this list is forward-looking. According to the Future of Jobs Report , employers believe analytical thinking skills will grow in importance by 72 percent in this timeframe.

The reason employers are keen to hire employees with strong analytical thinking skills is informed by trends in automation and technological advancements. While technical data analysis becomes easier with automation, reasoning and decision-making automation is advancing at a much slower pace—meaning employers anticipate that, within the next five years, we’ll have a wealth of data at our fingertips and too few people to interpret what that data means.

Where to begin

For a crash course in critical thinking, try the University of California, Davis’s Critical Thinking Skills for the Professional course. You can finish this beginner-level course in about 7 hours.

For a more comprehensive exploration into analytical thinking , try Duke University’s Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking Specialization . Over four courses, you’ll learn how to effectively argue and reason using logic.

For a technical process to guide your analytical thinking, try Google’s Data Analytics Professional Certificate . Ground your analytical thinking skills in technical know-how in this eight-course series.

Interested in multiple programs? Don’t miss this special offer!

Through September 21, we’re offering $100 off annual Coursera Plus subscriptions for new subscribers. With this offer, you’ll pay less than $25 per month for one year of access to 6,100 courses, Specializations, and Professional Certificates with flexibility to start new courses and move between programs at your pace.

This offer is a great choice if you are frequently tempted to enroll in multiple courses at once or plan to complete a Specialization or Professional Certificate within the next year. If that sounds like you, take a closer look at the offer and the Coursera Plus course catalog.

That’s all for this week! Join us next week to talk about motivation and self-awareness skills.

Keep reading

• Good with money? Add that skill to your resume
• A skill you’ll use your entire career: Writing
• Data analytics tips from a University of Michigan professor

How it works

Transform your enterprise with the scalable mindsets, skills, & behavior change that drive performance.

Explore how BetterUp connects to your core business systems.

We pair AI with the latest in human-centered coaching to drive powerful, lasting learning and behavior change.

Build leaders that accelerate team performance and engagement.

Unlock performance potential at scale with AI-powered curated growth journeys.

Build resilience, well-being and agility to drive performance across your entire enterprise.

Transform your business, starting with your sales leaders.

Unlock business impact from the top with executive coaching.

Foster a culture of inclusion and belonging.

Accelerate the performance and potential of your agencies and employees.

See how innovative organizations use BetterUp to build a thriving workforce.

Discover how BetterUp measurably impacts key business outcomes for organizations like yours.

Daring Leadership Institute: a groundbreaking partnership that amplifies Brené Brown's empirically based, courage-building curriculum with BetterUp’s human transformation platform.

• What is coaching?

Learn how 1:1 coaching works, who its for, and if it's right for you.

Accelerate your personal and professional growth with the expert guidance of a BetterUp Coach.

Types of Coaching

Navigate career transitions, accelerate your professional growth, and achieve your career goals with expert coaching.

Enhance your communication skills for better personal and professional relationships, with tailored coaching that focuses on your needs.

Find balance, resilience, and well-being in all areas of your life with holistic coaching designed to empower you.

Discover your perfect match : Take our 5-minute assessment and let us pair you with one of our top Coaches tailored just for you.

Find your coach

Research, expert insights, and resources to develop courageous leaders within your organization.

Best practices, research, and tools to fuel individual and business growth.

View on-demand BetterUp events and learn about upcoming live discussions.

The latest insights and ideas for building a high-performing workplace.

• BetterUp Briefing

The online magazine that helps you understand tomorrow's workforce trends, today.

Innovative research featured in peer-reviewed journals, press, and more.

Founded in 2022 to deepen the understanding of the intersection of well-being, purpose, and performance

We're on a mission to help everyone live with clarity, purpose, and passion.

Join us and create impactful change.

Read the buzz about BetterUp.

Meet the leadership that's passionate about empowering your workforce.

For Business

For Individuals

How to develop critical thinking skills

Jump to section

What are critical thinking skills?

How to develop critical thinking skills: 12 tips, how to practice critical thinking skills at work, become your own best critic.

A client requests a tight deadline on an intense project. Your childcare provider calls in sick on a day full of meetings. Payment from a contract gig is a month behind. 

Your day-to-day will always have challenges, big and small. And no matter the size and urgency, they all ask you to use critical thinking to analyze the situation and arrive at the right solution. 

Critical thinking includes a wide set of soft skills that encourage continuous learning, resilience , and self-reflection. The more you add to your professional toolbelt, the more equipped you’ll be to tackle whatever challenge presents itself. Here’s how to develop critical thinking, with examples explaining how to use it.

Critical thinking skills are the skills you use to analyze information, imagine scenarios holistically, and create rational solutions. It’s a type of emotional intelligence that stimulates effective problem-solving and decision-making . 

When you fine-tune your critical thinking skills, you seek beyond face-value observations and knee-jerk reactions. Instead, you harvest deeper insights and string together ideas and concepts in logical, sometimes out-of-the-box , ways. 

Imagine a team working on a marketing strategy for a new set of services. That team might use critical thinking to balance goals and key performance indicators , like new customer acquisition costs, average monthly sales, and net profit margins. They understand the connections between overlapping factors to build a strategy that stays within budget and attracts new sales. 

Looking for ways to improve critical thinking skills? Start by brushing up on the following soft skills that fall under this umbrella: 

• Analytical thinking: Approaching problems with an analytical eye includes breaking down complex issues into small chunks and examining their significance. An example could be organizing customer feedback to identify trends and improve your product offerings. 
• Open-mindedness: Push past cognitive biases and be receptive to different points of view and constructive feedback . Managers and team members who keep an open mind position themselves to hear new ideas that foster innovation . 
• Creative thinking: With creative thinking , you can develop several ideas to address a single problem, like brainstorming more efficient workflow best practices to boost productivity and employee morale . 
• Self-reflection: Self-reflection lets you examine your thinking and assumptions to stimulate healthier collaboration and thought processes. Maybe a bad first impression created a negative anchoring bias with a new coworker. Reflecting on your own behavior stirs up empathy and improves the relationship. 
• Evaluation: With evaluation skills, you tackle the pros and cons of a situation based on logic rather than emotion. When prioritizing tasks , you might be tempted to do the fun or easy ones first, but evaluating their urgency and importance can help you make better decisions. 

There’s no magic method to change your thinking processes. Improvement happens with small, intentional changes to your everyday habits until a more critical approach to thinking is automatic. 

Here are 12 tips for building stronger self-awareness and learning how to improve critical thinking: 

1. Be cautious

There’s nothing wrong with a little bit of skepticism. One of the core principles of critical thinking is asking questions and dissecting the available information. You might surprise yourself at what you find when you stop to think before taking action. 

Before making a decision, use evidence, logic, and deductive reasoning to support your own opinions or challenge ideas. It helps you and your team avoid falling prey to bad information or resistance to change .

2. Ask open-ended questions

“Yes” or “no” questions invite agreement rather than reflection. Instead, ask open-ended questions that force you to engage in analysis and rumination. Digging deeper can help you identify potential biases, uncover assumptions, and arrive at new hypotheses and possible solutions. 

3. Do your research

No matter your proficiency, you can always learn more. Turning to different points of view and information is a great way to develop a comprehensive understanding of a topic and make informed decisions. You’ll prioritize reliable information rather than fall into emotional or automatic decision-making. 

4. Consider several opinions

You might spend so much time on your work that it’s easy to get stuck in your own perspective, especially if you work independently on a remote team . Make an effort to reach out to colleagues to hear different ideas and thought patterns. Their input might surprise you.

If or when you disagree, remember that you and your team share a common goal. Divergent opinions are constructive, so shift the focus to finding solutions rather than defending disagreements. 

5. Learn to be quiet

Active listening is the intentional practice of concentrating on a conversation partner instead of your own thoughts. It’s about paying attention to detail and letting people know you value their opinions, which can open your mind to new perspectives and thought processes.

If you’re brainstorming with your team or having a 1:1 with a coworker , listen, ask clarifying questions, and work to understand other peoples’ viewpoints. Listening to your team will help you find fallacies in arguments to improve possible solutions.

6. Schedule reflection

Whether waking up at 5 am or using a procrastination hack, scheduling time to think puts you in a growth mindset . Your mind has natural cognitive biases to help you simplify decision-making, but squashing them is key to thinking critically and finding new solutions besides the ones you might gravitate toward. Creating time and calm space in your day gives you the chance to step back and visualize the biases that impact your decision-making. 

7. Cultivate curiosity

With so many demands and job responsibilities, it’s easy to seek solace in routine. But getting out of your comfort zone helps spark critical thinking and find more solutions than you usually might.

If curiosity doesn’t come naturally to you, cultivate a thirst for knowledge by reskilling and upskilling . Not only will you add a new skill to your resume , but expanding the limits of your professional knowledge might motivate you to ask more questions. 

You don’t have to develop critical thinking skills exclusively in the office. Whether on your break or finding a hobby to do after work, playing strategic games or filling out crosswords can prime your brain for problem-solving. 

9. Write it down

Recording your thoughts with pen and paper can lead to stronger brain activity than typing them out on a keyboard. If you’re stuck and want to think more critically about a problem, writing your ideas can help you process information more deeply.

The act of recording ideas on paper can also improve your memory . Ideas are more likely to linger in the background of your mind, leading to deeper thinking that informs your decision-making process. 

10. Speak up

Take opportunities to share your opinion, even if it intimidates you. Whether at a networking event with new people or a meeting with close colleagues, try to engage with people who challenge or help you develop your ideas. Having conversations that force you to support your position encourages you to refine your argument and think critically. 

11. Stay humble

Ideas and concepts aren’t the same as real-life actions. There may be such a thing as negative outcomes, but there’s no such thing as a bad idea. At the brainstorming stage , don’t be afraid to make mistakes.

Sometimes the best solutions come from off-the-wall, unorthodox decisions. Sit in your creativity , let ideas flow, and don’t be afraid to share them with your colleagues. Putting yourself in a creative mindset helps you see situations from new perspectives and arrive at innovative conclusions. 

12. Embrace discomfort

Get comfortable feeling uncomfortable . It isn’t easy when others challenge your ideas, but sometimes, it’s the only way to see new perspectives and think critically.

By willingly stepping into unfamiliar territory, you foster the resilience and flexibility you need to become a better thinker. You’ll learn how to pick yourself up from failure and approach problems from fresh angles. 

Thinking critically is easier said than done. To help you understand its impact (and how to use it), here are two scenarios that require critical thinking skills and provide teachable moments. 

Scenario #1: Unexpected delays and budget

Imagine your team is working on producing an event. Unexpectedly, a vendor explains they’ll be a week behind on delivering materials. Then another vendor sends a quote that’s more than you can afford. Unless you develop a creative solution, the team will have to push back deadlines and go over budget, potentially costing the client’s trust. 

Here’s how you could approach the situation with creative thinking:

• Analyze the situation holistically: Determine how the delayed materials and over-budget quote will impact the rest of your timeline and financial resources . That way, you can identify whether you need to build an entirely new plan with new vendors, or if it’s worth it to readjust time and resources. 
• Identify your alternative options: With careful assessment, your team decides that another vendor can’t provide the same materials in a quicker time frame. You’ll need to rearrange assignment schedules to complete everything on time. 
• Collaborate and adapt: Your team has an emergency meeting to rearrange your project schedule. You write down each deliverable and determine which ones you can and can’t complete by the deadline. To compensate for lost time, you rearrange your task schedule to complete everything that doesn’t need the delayed materials first, then advance as far as you can on the tasks that do. 
• Check different resources: In the meantime, you scour through your contact sheet to find alternative vendors that fit your budget. Accounting helps by providing old invoices to determine which vendors have quoted less for previous jobs. After pulling all your sources, you find a vendor that fits your budget. 
• Maintain open communication: You create a special Slack channel to keep everyone up to date on changes, challenges, and additional delays. Keeping an open line encourages transparency on the team’s progress and boosts everyone’s confidence. 

Scenario #2: Differing opinions 

A conflict arises between two team members on the best approach for a new strategy for a gaming app. One believes that small tweaks to the current content are necessary to maintain user engagement and stay within budget. The other believes a bold revamp is needed to encourage new followers and stronger sales revenue. 

Here’s how critical thinking could help this conflict:

• Listen actively: Give both team members the opportunity to present their ideas free of interruption. Encourage the entire team to ask open-ended questions to more fully understand and develop each argument. 
• Flex your analytical skills: After learning more about both ideas, everyone should objectively assess the benefits and drawbacks of each approach. Analyze each idea's risk, merits, and feasibility based on available data and the app’s goals and objectives. 
• Identify common ground: The team discusses similarities between each approach and brainstorms ways to integrate both idea s, like making small but eye-catching modifications to existing content or using the same visual design in new media formats. 
• Test new strategy: To test out the potential of a bolder strategy, the team decides to A/B test both approaches. You create a set of criteria to evenly distribute users by different demographics to analyze engagement, revenue, and customer turnover. 
• Monitor and adapt: After implementing the A/B test, the team closely monitors the results of each strategy. You regroup and optimize the changes that provide stronger results after the testing. That way, all team members understand why you’re making the changes you decide to make.

You can’t think your problems away. But you can equip yourself with skills that help you move through your biggest challenges and find innovative solutions. Learning how to develop critical thinking is the start of honing an adaptable growth mindset. 

Now that you have resources to increase critical thinking skills in your professional development, you can identify whether you embrace change or routine, are open or resistant to feedback, or turn to research or emotion will build self-awareness. From there, tweak and incorporate techniques to be a critical thinker when life presents you with a problem.

Understand Yourself Better:

Big 5 Personality Test

Elizabeth Perry, ACC

Elizabeth Perry is a Coach Community Manager at BetterUp. She uses strategic engagement strategies to cultivate a learning community across a global network of Coaches through in-person and virtual experiences, technology-enabled platforms, and strategic coaching industry partnerships. With over 3 years of coaching experience and a certification in transformative leadership and life coaching from Sofia University, Elizabeth leverages transpersonal psychology expertise to help coaches and clients gain awareness of their behavioral and thought patterns, discover their purpose and passions, and elevate their potential. She is a lifelong student of psychology, personal growth, and human potential as well as an ICF-certified ACC transpersonal life and leadership Coach.

How divergent thinking can drive your creativity

What’s convergent thinking how to be a better problem-solver, 8 creative solutions to your most challenging problems, critical thinking is the one skillset you can't afford not to master, 17 memorization techniques to sharpen your memory & recall, can dreams help you solve problems 6 ways to try, how emotions affect learning: the impact of emotions, what is lateral thinking 7 techniques to encourage creative ideas, how different learning styles make a difference at work, betterup named a 2019 “cool vendor” in human capital management: enhancing employee experience by gartnerup your game: a new model for leadership, 7 critical teamwork skills and how to develop them, what is creative thinking and how can i improve, 6 big picture thinking strategies that you'll actually use, what are analytical skills examples and how to level up, stay connected with betterup, get our newsletter, event invites, plus product insights and research..

3100 E 5th Street, Suite 350 Austin, TX 78702

• Platform Overview
• Integrations
• Powered by AI
• BetterUp Lead™
• BetterUp Manage™
• BetterUp Care®
• Sales Performance
• Diversity & Inclusion
• Case Studies
• Why BetterUp?
• About Coaching
• Find your Coach
• Career Coaching
• Communication Coaching
• Personal Coaching
• News and Press
• Leadership Team
• Become a BetterUp Coach
• BetterUp Labs
• Center for Purpose & Performance
• Leadership Training
• Business Coaching
• Contact Support
• Contact Sales
• Privacy Policy
• Acceptable Use Policy
• Trust & Security
• Cookie Preferences

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Working with sources
• What Is Critical Thinking? | Definition & Examples

What Is Critical Thinking? | Definition & Examples

Published on May 30, 2022 by Eoghan Ryan . Revised on May 31, 2023.

Critical thinking is the ability to effectively analyze information and form a judgment .

To think critically, you must be aware of your own biases and assumptions when encountering information, and apply consistent standards when evaluating sources .

Critical thinking skills help you to:

• Identify credible sources
• Evaluate and respond to arguments
• Assess alternative viewpoints
• Test hypotheses against relevant criteria

Table of contents

Why is critical thinking important, critical thinking examples, how to think critically, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about critical thinking.

Critical thinking is important for making judgments about sources of information and forming your own arguments. It emphasizes a rational, objective, and self-aware approach that can help you to identify credible sources and strengthen your conclusions.

Critical thinking is important in all disciplines and throughout all stages of the research process . The types of evidence used in the sciences and in the humanities may differ, but critical thinking skills are relevant to both.

In academic writing , critical thinking can help you to determine whether a source:

• Is free from research bias
• Provides evidence to support its research findings
• Considers alternative viewpoints

Outside of academia, critical thinking goes hand in hand with information literacy to help you form opinions rationally and engage independently and critically with popular media.

Don't submit your assignments before you do this

The academic proofreading tool has been trained on 1000s of academic texts. Making it the most accurate and reliable proofreading tool for students. Free citation check included.

Try for free

Critical thinking can help you to identify reliable sources of information that you can cite in your research paper . It can also guide your own research methods and inform your own arguments.

Outside of academia, critical thinking can help you to be aware of both your own and others’ biases and assumptions.

Academic examples

However, when you compare the findings of the study with other current research, you determine that the results seem improbable. You analyze the paper again, consulting the sources it cites.

You notice that the research was funded by the pharmaceutical company that created the treatment. Because of this, you view its results skeptically and determine that more independent research is necessary to confirm or refute them. Example: Poor critical thinking in an academic context You’re researching a paper on the impact wireless technology has had on developing countries that previously did not have large-scale communications infrastructure. You read an article that seems to confirm your hypothesis: the impact is mainly positive. Rather than evaluating the research methodology, you accept the findings uncritically.

Nonacademic examples

However, you decide to compare this review article with consumer reviews on a different site. You find that these reviews are not as positive. Some customers have had problems installing the alarm, and some have noted that it activates for no apparent reason.

You revisit the original review article. You notice that the words “sponsored content” appear in small print under the article title. Based on this, you conclude that the review is advertising and is therefore not an unbiased source. Example: Poor critical thinking in a nonacademic context You support a candidate in an upcoming election. You visit an online news site affiliated with their political party and read an article that criticizes their opponent. The article claims that the opponent is inexperienced in politics. You accept this without evidence, because it fits your preconceptions about the opponent.

There is no single way to think critically. How you engage with information will depend on the type of source you’re using and the information you need.

However, you can engage with sources in a systematic and critical way by asking certain questions when you encounter information. Like the CRAAP test , these questions focus on the currency , relevance , authority , accuracy , and purpose of a source of information.

When encountering information, ask:

• Who is the author? Are they an expert in their field?
• What do they say? Is their argument clear? Can you summarize it?
• When did they say this? Is the source current?
• Where is the information published? Is it an academic article? Is it peer-reviewed ?
• Why did the author publish it? What is their motivation?
• How do they make their argument? Is it backed up by evidence? Does it rely on opinion, speculation, or appeals to emotion ? Do they address alternative arguments?

Critical thinking also involves being aware of your own biases, not only those of others. When you make an argument or draw your own conclusions, you can ask similar questions about your own writing:

• Am I only considering evidence that supports my preconceptions?
• Is my argument expressed clearly and backed up with credible sources?
• Would I be convinced by this argument coming from someone else?

If you want to know more about ChatGPT, AI tools , citation , and plagiarism , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

• ChatGPT vs human editor
• ChatGPT citations
• Is ChatGPT trustworthy?
• Using ChatGPT for your studies
• What is ChatGPT?
• Chicago style
• Paraphrasing

 Plagiarism

• Types of plagiarism
• Self-plagiarism
• Avoiding plagiarism
• Academic integrity
• Consequences of plagiarism
• Common knowledge

Scribbr Citation Checker New

The AI-powered Citation Checker helps you avoid common mistakes such as:

• Missing commas and periods
• Incorrect usage of “et al.”
• Ampersands (&) in narrative citations
• Missing reference entries

Critical thinking refers to the ability to evaluate information and to be aware of biases or assumptions, including your own.

Like information literacy , it involves evaluating arguments, identifying and solving problems in an objective and systematic way, and clearly communicating your ideas.

Critical thinking skills include the ability to:

You can assess information and arguments critically by asking certain questions about the source. You can use the CRAAP test , focusing on the currency , relevance , authority , accuracy , and purpose of a source of information.

Ask questions such as:

• Who is the author? Are they an expert?
• How do they make their argument? Is it backed up by evidence?

A credible source should pass the CRAAP test  and follow these guidelines:

• The information should be up to date and current.
• The author and publication should be a trusted authority on the subject you are researching.
• The sources the author cited should be easy to find, clear, and unbiased.
• For a web source, the URL and layout should signify that it is trustworthy.

Information literacy refers to a broad range of skills, including the ability to find, evaluate, and use sources of information effectively.

Being information literate means that you:

• Know how to find credible sources
• Use relevant sources to inform your research
• Understand what constitutes plagiarism
• Know how to cite your sources correctly

Confirmation bias is the tendency to search, interpret, and recall information in a way that aligns with our pre-existing values, opinions, or beliefs. It refers to the ability to recollect information best when it amplifies what we already believe. Relatedly, we tend to forget information that contradicts our opinions.

Although selective recall is a component of confirmation bias, it should not be confused with recall bias.

On the other hand, recall bias refers to the differences in the ability between study participants to recall past events when self-reporting is used. This difference in accuracy or completeness of recollection is not related to beliefs or opinions. Rather, recall bias relates to other factors, such as the length of the recall period, age, and the characteristics of the disease under investigation.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

Ryan, E. (2023, May 31). What Is Critical Thinking? | Definition & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved September 4, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/working-with-sources/critical-thinking/

Is this article helpful?

Eoghan Ryan

Other students also liked, student guide: information literacy | meaning & examples, what are credible sources & how to spot them | examples, applying the craap test & evaluating sources, get unlimited documents corrected.

✔ Free APA citation check included ✔ Unlimited document corrections ✔ Specialized in correcting academic texts

Critical Thinking Definition, Skills, and Examples

• Homework Help
• Private School
• College Admissions
• College Life
• Graduate School
• Business School
• Distance Learning

• Indiana University, Bloomington
• State University of New York at Oneonta

Critical thinking refers to the ability to analyze information objectively and make a reasoned judgment. It involves the evaluation of sources, such as data, facts, observable phenomena, and research findings.

Good critical thinkers can draw reasonable conclusions from a set of information, and discriminate between useful and less useful details to solve problems or make decisions. These skills are especially helpful at school and in the workplace, where employers prioritize the ability to think critically. Find out why and see how you can demonstrate that you have this ability.

Examples of Critical Thinking

The circumstances that demand critical thinking vary from industry to industry. Some examples include:

• A triage nurse analyzes the cases at hand and decides the order by which the patients should be treated.
• A plumber evaluates the materials that would best suit a particular job.
• An attorney reviews the evidence and devises a strategy to win a case or to decide whether to settle out of court.
• A manager analyzes customer feedback forms and uses this information to develop a customer service training session for employees.

Why Do Employers Value Critical Thinking Skills?

Employers want job candidates who can evaluate a situation using logical thought and offer the best solution.

Someone with critical thinking skills can be trusted to make decisions independently, and will not need constant handholding.

Hiring a critical thinker means that micromanaging won't be required. Critical thinking abilities are among the most sought-after skills in almost every industry and workplace. You can demonstrate critical thinking by using related keywords in your resume and cover letter and during your interview.

How to Demonstrate Critical Thinking in a Job Search

If critical thinking is a key phrase in the job listings you are applying for, be sure to emphasize your critical thinking skills throughout your job search.

Add Keywords to Your Resume

You can use critical thinking keywords (analytical, problem solving, creativity, etc.) in your resume. When describing your work history, include top critical thinking skills that accurately describe you. You can also include them in your resume summary, if you have one.

For example, your summary might read, “Marketing Associate with five years of experience in project management. Skilled in conducting thorough market research and competitor analysis to assess market trends and client needs, and to develop appropriate acquisition tactics.”

Mention Skills in Your Cover Letter

Include these critical thinking skills in your cover letter. In the body of your letter, mention one or two of these skills, and give specific examples of times when you have demonstrated them at work. Think about times when you had to analyze or evaluate materials to solve a problem.

Show the Interviewer Your Skills

You can use these skill words in an interview. Discuss a time when you were faced with a particular problem or challenge at work and explain how you applied critical thinking to solve it.

Some interviewers will give you a hypothetical scenario or problem, and ask you to use critical thinking skills to solve it. In this case, explain your thought process thoroughly to the interviewer. He or she is typically more focused on how you arrive at your solution rather than the solution itself. The interviewer wants to see you analyze and evaluate (key parts of critical thinking) the given scenario or problem.

Of course, each job will require different skills and experiences, so make sure you read the job description carefully and focus on the skills listed by the employer.

Top Critical Thinking Skills

Keep these in-demand skills in mind as you refine your critical thinking practice —whether for work or school.

Part of critical thinking is the ability to carefully examine something, whether it is a problem, a set of data, or a text. People with analytical skills can examine information, understand what it means, and properly explain to others the implications of that information.

• Asking Thoughtful Questions
• Data Analysis
• Interpretation
• Questioning Evidence
• Recognizing Patterns

Communication

Often, you will need to share your conclusions with your employers or with a group of classmates or colleagues. You need to be able to communicate with others to share your ideas effectively. You might also need to engage in critical thinking in a group. In this case, you will need to work with others and communicate effectively to figure out solutions to complex problems.

• Active Listening
• Collaboration
• Explanation
• Interpersonal
• Presentation
• Verbal Communication
• Written Communication

Critical thinking often involves creativity and innovation. You might need to spot patterns in the information you are looking at or come up with a solution that no one else has thought of before. All of this involves a creative eye that can take a different approach from all other approaches.

• Flexibility
• Conceptualization
• Imagination
• Drawing Connections
• Synthesizing

Open-Mindedness

To think critically, you need to be able to put aside any assumptions or judgments and merely analyze the information you receive. You need to be objective, evaluating ideas without bias.

• Objectivity
• Observation

Problem-Solving

Problem-solving is another critical thinking skill that involves analyzing a problem, generating and implementing a solution, and assessing the success of the plan. Employers don’t simply want employees who can think about information critically. They also need to be able to come up with practical solutions.

• Attention to Detail
• Clarification
• Decision Making
• Groundedness
• Identifying Patterns

More Critical Thinking Skills

• Inductive Reasoning
• Deductive Reasoning
• Noticing Outliers
• Adaptability
• Emotional Intelligence
• Brainstorming
• Optimization
• Restructuring
• Integration
• Strategic Planning
• Project Management
• Ongoing Improvement
• Causal Relationships
• Case Analysis
• Diagnostics
• SWOT Analysis
• Business Intelligence
• Quantitative Data Management
• Qualitative Data Management
• Risk Management
• Scientific Method
• Consumer Behavior

Key Takeaways

• Demonstrate you have critical thinking skills by adding relevant keywords to your resume.
• Mention pertinent critical thinking skills in your cover letter, too, and include an example of a time when you demonstrated them at work.
• Finally, highlight critical thinking skills during your interview. For instance, you might discuss a time when you were faced with a challenge at work and explain how you applied critical thinking skills to solve it.

University of Louisville. " What is Critical Thinking ."

American Management Association. " AMA Critical Skills Survey: Workers Need Higher Level Skills to Succeed in the 21st Century ."

• 18 Ways to Practice Spelling Words
• The 16 SEC Schools
• Sample Appeal Letter for an Academic Dismissal
• List of Supplies for High School Students
• Higher-Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) in Education
• How to Find the Main Idea
• Understanding Very Big Numbers
• 100 Persuasive Speech Topics for Students
• Introduction to Critical Thinking
• Foreign Language Requirement for College Admissions
• Fostering Cultural Diversity in Your School
• GRE Text Completion Examples
• Controversial Speech Topics
• ACT Science Reasoning Information
• Free Online Computer Classes
• Undergraduate Courses That Are Recommended for Law School

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

Critical Thinking Is About Asking Better Questions

• John Coleman

Six practices to sharpen your inquiry.

Critical thinking is the ability to analyze and effectively break down an issue in order to make a decision or find a solution. At the heart of critical thinking is the ability to formulate deep, different, and effective questions. For effective questioning, start by holding your hypotheses loosely. Be willing to fundamentally reconsider your initial conclusions — and do so without defensiveness. Second, listen more than you talk through active listening. Third, leave your queries open-ended, and avoid yes-or-no questions. Fourth, consider the counterintuitive to avoid falling into groupthink. Fifth, take the time to stew in a problem, rather than making decisions unnecessarily quickly. Last, ask thoughtful, even difficult, follow-ups.

Are you tackling a new and difficult problem at work? Recently promoted and trying to both understand your new role and bring a fresh perspective? Or are you new to the workforce and seeking ways to meaningfully contribute alongside your more experienced colleagues? If so, critical thinking — the ability to analyze and effectively break down an issue in order to make a decision or find a solution — will be core to your success. And at the heart of critical thinking is the ability to formulate deep, different, and effective questions.

• JC John Coleman is the author of the HBR Guide to Crafting Your Purpose . Subscribe to his free newsletter, On Purpose , or contact him at johnwilliamcoleman.com . johnwcoleman

Partner Center

• 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

Translate this page from English...

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

Defining Critical Thinking

The Peak Performance Center

The pursuit of performance excellence, critical thinking.

Critical thinking refers to the process of actively analyzing, assessing, synthesizing, evaluating and reflecting on information gathered from observation, experience, or communication. It is thinking in a clear, logical, reasoned, and reflective manner to solve problems or make decisions. Basically, critical thinking is taking a hard look at something to understand what it really means.

Critical Thinkers

Critical thinkers do not simply accept all ideas, theories, and conclusions as facts. They have a mindset of questioning ideas and conclusions. They make reasoned judgments that are logical and well thought out by assessing the evidence that supports a specific theory or conclusion.

When presented with a new piece of new information, critical thinkers may ask questions such as;

“What information supports that?”

“How was this information obtained?”

“Who obtained the information?”

“How do we know the information is valid?”

“Why is it that way?”

“What makes it do that?”

“How do we know that?”

“Are there other possibilities?”

Combination of Analytical and Creative Thinking

Many people perceive critical thinking just as analytical thinking. However, critical thinking incorporates both analytical thinking and creative thinking. Critical thinking does involve breaking down information into parts and analyzing the parts in a logical, step-by-step manner. However, it also involves challenging consensus to formulate new creative ideas and generate innovative solutions. It is critical thinking that helps to evaluate and improve your creative ideas.

Elements of Critical Thinking

Critical thinking involves:

• Gathering relevant information
• Evaluating information
• Asking questions
• Assessing bias or unsubstantiated assumptions
• Making inferences from the information and filling in gaps
• Using abstract ideas to interpret information
• Formulating ideas
• Weighing opinions
• Reaching well-reasoned conclusions
• Considering alternative possibilities
• Testing conclusions
• Verifying if evidence/argument support the conclusions

Developing Critical Thinking Skills

Critical thinking is considered a higher order thinking skills, such as analysis, synthesis, deduction, inference, reason, and evaluation. In order to demonstrate critical thinking, you would need to develop skills in;

Interpreting : understanding the significance or meaning of information

Analyzing : breaking information down into its parts

Connecting : making connections between related items or pieces of information.

Integrating : connecting and combining information to better understand the relationship between the information.

Evaluating : judging the value, credibility, or strength of something

Reasoning : creating an argument through logical steps

Deducing : forming a logical opinion about something based on the information or evidence that is available

Inferring : figuring something out through reasoning based on assumptions and ideas

Generating : producing new information, ideas, products, or ways of viewing things.

Blooms Taxonomy

Bloom’s Taxonomy Revised

Mind Mapping

Chunking Information

Brainstorming

Copyright © 2024 | WordPress Theme by MH Themes

• Business Essentials
• Leadership & Management
• Credential of Leadership, Impact, and Management in Business (CLIMB)
• Entrepreneurship & Innovation
• Digital Transformation
• Finance & Accounting
• Business in Society
• For Organizations
• Support Portal
• Media Coverage
• Founding Donors
• Leadership Team

• Harvard Business School →
• HBS Online →
• Business Insights →

Business Insights

Harvard Business School Online's Business Insights Blog provides the career insights you need to achieve your goals and gain confidence in your business skills.

• Career Development
• Communication
• Decision-Making
• Earning Your MBA
• Negotiation
• News & Events
• Productivity
• Staff Spotlight
• Student Profiles
• Work-Life Balance
• AI Essentials for Business
• Alternative Investments
• Business Analytics
• Business Strategy
• Business and Climate Change
• Creating Brand Value
• Design Thinking and Innovation
• Digital Marketing Strategy
• Disruptive Strategy
• Economics for Managers
• Entrepreneurship Essentials
• Financial Accounting
• Global Business
• Launching Tech Ventures
• Leadership Principles
• Leadership, Ethics, and Corporate Accountability
• Leading Change and Organizational Renewal
• Leading with Finance
• Management Essentials
• Negotiation Mastery
• Organizational Leadership
• Power and Influence for Positive Impact
• Strategy Execution
• Sustainable Business Strategy
• Sustainable Investing
• Winning with Digital Platforms

4 Ways to Improve Your Analytical Skills

• 07 Jan 2021

Data is ubiquitous. It’s collected at every purchase made, flight taken, ad clicked, and social media post liked—which means it’s never been more crucial to understand how to analyze it.

“Never before has so much data about so many different things been collected and stored every second of every day,” says Harvard Business School Professor Jan Hammond in the online course Business Analytics .

The volume of data you encounter can be overwhelming and raise several questions: Can I trust the data’s source? Is it structured in a way that makes sense? What story does it tell, and what actions does it prompt?

Data literacy and analytical skills can enable you to answer these questions and not only make sense of raw data, but use it to drive impactful change at your organization.

Here’s a look at what it means to be data literate and four ways to improve your analytical skills.

Access your free e-book today.

What Is Data Literacy?

Data literacy is the ability to analyze, interpret, and question data. A dataset is made up of numerous data points that, when viewed together, tell a story.

Before conducting an analysis, it’s important to ensure your data’s quality and structure is in accordance with your organization’s needs.

“In order to transform data into actionable information, you first need to evaluate its quality,” says Professor Dustin Tingley in the Harvard Online course Data Science Principles . “But evaluating the quality of your data is just the first step. You’ll also need to structure your data. Without structure, it’s nearly impossible to extract any information.”

When you’re able to look at quality data, structure it, and analyze it, trends emerge. The next step is to reflect on your analysis and take action.

Tingley shares several questions to ask yourself once you’ve analyzed your dataset: “Did all the steps I took make sense? If so, how should I respond to my analysis? If not, what should I go back and improve?”

For example, you may track users who click a button to download an e-book from your website.

After ensuring your data’s quality and structuring it in a way that makes sense, you begin your analysis and find that a user’s age is positively correlated with their likelihood to click. What story does this trend tell? What does it say about your users, product offering, and business strategy?

To answer these questions, you need strong analytical skills, which you can develop in several ways.

Related: Business Analytics: What It Is & Why It’s Important

How to Improve Your Analytical Skills

Analysis is an important skill to have in any industry because it enables you to support decisions with data, learn more about your customers, and predict future trends.

Key analytical skills for business include:

• Visualizing data
• Determining the relationship between two or more variables
• Forming and testing hypotheses
• Performing regressions using statistical programs, such as Microsoft Excel
• Deriving actionable conclusions from data analysis

If you want to provide meaningful conclusions and data-based recommendations to your team, here are four ways to bolster your analytical skills.

Related: How to Learn Business Analytics Without A Business Background

1. Consider Opposing Viewpoints

While engaging with opposing viewpoints can help you expand your perspective, combat bias, and show your fellow employees their opinions are valued, it can also be a useful way to practice analytical skills.

When analyzing data, it’s crucial to consider all possible interpretations and avoid getting stuck in one way of thinking.

For instance, revisit the example of tracking users who click a button on your site to download an e-book. The data shows that the user’s age is positively correlated with their likelihood to click the button; as age increases, downloads increase, too. At first glance, you may interpret this trend to mean that a user chooses to download the e-book because of their age.

This conclusion, however, doesn’t take into consideration the vast number of variables that change with age. For instance, perhaps the real reason your older users are more likely to download the e-book is their higher level of responsibility at work, higher average income, or higher likelihood of being parents.

This example illustrates the need to consider multiple interpretations of data, and specifically shows the difference between correlation (the trending of two or more variables in the same direction) and causation (when a trend in one variable causes a trend to occur in one or more other variables).

“Data science is built on a foundation of critical thinking,” Tingley says in Data Science Principles . “From the first step of determining the quality of a data source to determining the accuracy of an algorithm, critical thinking is at the heart of every decision data scientists—and those who work with them—make.”

To practice this skill, challenge yourself to question your assumptions and ask others for their opinions. The more you actively engage with different viewpoints, the less likely you are to get stuck in a one-track mindset when analyzing data.

2. Play Games or Brain Teasers

If you’re looking to sharpen your skills on a daily basis, there are many simple, enjoyable ways to do so.

Games, puzzles, and stories that require visualizing relationships between variables, examining situations from multiple angles, and drawing conclusions from known data points can help you build the skills necessary to analyze data.

Some fun ways to practice analytical thinking include:

• Crossword puzzles
• Mystery novels
• Logic puzzles
• Strategic board games or card games

These options can supplement your analytics coursework and on-the-job experience. Some of them also allow you to spend time with friends or family. Try engaging with one each day to hone your analytical mindset.

Related: 3 Examples of Business Analytics in Action

3. Take an Online Analytics Course

Whether you want to learn the basics, brush up on your skills, or expand your knowledge, taking an analytics course is an effective way to improve. A course can enable you to focus on the content you want to learn, engage with the material presented by a professional in the field, and network and interact with others in the data analytics space.

For a beginner, courses like Harvard Online's Data Science Principles can provide a foundation in the language of data. A more advanced course, like Harvard Online's Data Science for Business , may be a fit if you’re looking to explore specific facets of analytics, such as forecasting and machine learning. If you’re interested in hands-on applications of analytical formulas, a course like HBS Online's Business Analytics could be right for you. The key is to understand what skills you hope to gain, then find a course that best fits your needs.

If you’re balancing a full-time job with your analytics education, an online format may be a good choice . It offers the flexibility to engage with course content whenever and wherever is most convenient for you.

An online course may also present the opportunity to network and build relationships with other professionals devoted to strengthening their analytical skills. A community of like-minded learners can prove to be an invaluable resource as you learn and advance your career.

Related: Is An Online Business Analytics Course Worth It?

4. Engage With Data

Once you have a solid understanding of data science concepts and formulas, the next step is to practice. Like any skill, analytical skills improve the more you use them.

Mock datasets—which you can find online or create yourself—present a low-risk option for putting your skills to the test. Import the data into Microsoft Excel, then explore: make mistakes, try that formula you’re unsure of, and ask big questions of your dataset. By testing out different analyses, you can gain confidence in your knowledge.

Once you’re comfortable, engage with your organization’s data. Because these datasets have inherent meaning to your business's financial health, growth, and strategic direction, analyzing them can produce evidence and insights that support your decisions and drive change at your organization.

Investing in Your Data Literacy

As data continues to be one of businesses’ most valuable resources, taking the time and effort to build and bolster your analytical skill set is vital.

“Much more data are going to be available; we’re only seeing the beginning now,” Hammond says in a previous article . “If you don’t use the data, you’re going to fall behind. People that have those capabilities—as well as an understanding of business contexts—are going to be the ones that will add the most value and have the greatest impact.”

Are you interested in furthering your data literacy? Download our Beginner’s Guide to Data & Analytics to learn how you can leverage the power of data for professional and organizational success.

About the Author

Critical thinking definition

Critical thinking, as described by Oxford Languages, is the objective analysis and evaluation of an issue in order to form a judgement.

Active and skillful approach, evaluation, assessment, synthesis, and/or evaluation of information obtained from, or made by, observation, knowledge, reflection, acumen or conversation, as a guide to belief and action, requires the critical thinking process, which is why it's often used in education and academics.

Some even may view it as a backbone of modern thought.

However, it's a skill, and skills must be trained and encouraged to be used at its full potential.

People turn up to various approaches in improving their critical thinking, like:

• Developing technical and problem-solving skills
• Engaging in more active listening
• Actively questioning their assumptions and beliefs
• Seeking out more diversity of thought
• Opening up their curiosity in an intellectual way etc.

Is critical thinking useful in writing?

Critical thinking can help in planning your paper and making it more concise, but it's not obvious at first. We carefully pinpointed some the questions you should ask yourself when boosting critical thinking in writing:

• What information should be included?
• Which information resources should the author look to?
• What degree of technical knowledge should the report assume its audience has?
• What is the most effective way to show information?
• How should the report be organized?
• How should it be designed?
• What tone and level of language difficulty should the document have?

Usage of critical thinking comes down not only to the outline of your paper, it also begs the question: How can we use critical thinking solving problems in our writing's topic?

Let's say, you have a Powerpoint on how critical thinking can reduce poverty in the United States. You'll primarily have to define critical thinking for the viewers, as well as use a lot of critical thinking questions and synonyms to get them to be familiar with your methods and start the thinking process behind it.

Are there any services that can help me use more critical thinking?

We understand that it's difficult to learn how to use critical thinking more effectively in just one article, but our service is here to help.

We are a team specializing in writing essays and other assignments for college students and all other types of customers who need a helping hand in its making. We cover a great range of topics, offer perfect quality work, always deliver on time and aim to leave our customers completely satisfied with what they ordered.

The ordering process is fully online, and it goes as follows:

• Select the topic and the deadline of your essay.
• Provide us with any details, requirements, statements that should be emphasized or particular parts of the essay writing process you struggle with.
• Leave the email address, where your completed order will be sent to.
• Select your prefered payment type, sit back and relax!

With lots of experience on the market, professionally degreed essay writers , online 24/7 customer support and incredibly low prices, you won't find a service offering a better deal than ours.

The Nature and Development of Critical-Analytic Thinking

• Review Article
• Published: 12 October 2014
• Volume 26 , pages 477–493, ( 2014 )

Cite this article

• James P. Byrnes 1 &
• Kevin N. Dunbar 2  

3475 Accesses

52 Citations

3 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

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

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

Access this article

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

The role and sources of individual differences in critical-analytic thinking: a capsule overview.

Critical Thinking Across the Curriculum: A Vision

Bringing case in from the cold: the teaching and learning of thinking, explore related subjects.

• Artificial Intelligence

Alexander, P. A. (2014). Thinking critically-analytically about critical-analytic thinking: an introduction. Educational Psychology Review.

American Nursing Association. (2010). Nursing: scope and standards of practice (2nd ed.). MD: Silver Spring.

Google Scholar  

Baltes, B., & Staudinger, U. M. (2000). Wisdom: a metaheuristic (pragmatic) to orchestrate mind and virtue toward excellence. American Psychologist, 55 , 122–136.

Article   Google Scholar  

Baron, J. (2007). Thinking and deciding (4th ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Bassok, M., & Novick, L. R. (2012). Problem solving. In K. J. Holyoak & R. G. Morrison (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 413–432). New York: Oxford University Press.

Baum, L. A., Danovich, J. H., & Keil, F. C. (2008). Children’s sensitivity to circular explanations. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 100 , 146–155.

Berliner, D. C. (1993). The 100-year journey of educational psychology: from interest, to disdain, to respect for practice. In T. K. Fagan & G. R. VandenBos (Eds.), Exploring applied psychology: origins and critical analyses (pp. 37–78). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Bloom, P. (2000). How children learn the meaning of words . Cambridge: MIT Press.

Brookfield, S. D. (2012). Teaching for critical thinking: tools and techniques to help students question their assumptions . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Byrnes (2008). Cognitive development in instructional contexts (3rd ed.). Needham Hts: Allyn & Bacon.

Capstick, S. B. & Pidgeon, N. F. (2014). What is climate change scepticism? Examination of the concept using a mixed methods study of the UK public. Global Environmental Change, 24 , 389–401.

Chi, M. T. H., Feltovich, P., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5 , 121–152.

Dewey, J. D. (1933). How we think, a restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process . Boston: D. C. Heath.

Diamond, A. (2012). Activities and programs that improve children’s executive functions. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21 , 335–341.

Dumas, D., Alexander, P., Baker, L.M., Jablansky, S., & Dunbar, K. N. (2014). Clinical relations: how relational reasoning supports medical education and practice. Educational Psychology. First published online May 8.

Dunbar, K. (2002). Science as category: implications of InVivo science for theories of cognitive development, scientific discovery, and the nature of science. In S. Stich & P. Carruthers (Eds.), Cognitive models of science (pp. 154–170). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Dunbar, K., Fugelsang, J., & Stein, C. (2007). Do naive theories ever go away? Using brain and behavior to understand changes in concepts. In M. Lovett & P. Shah (Eds.), Thinking with data (pp. 193–206). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Dunbar, K. N., & Klahr, D. (2012). Scientific thinking and reasoning. In K. J. Holyoak & R. G. Morrison (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 701–718). New York: Oxford University Press.

Ennis, R. H. (1987). A taxonomy of critical thinking dispositions and abilities. In J. B. Baron & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Teaching thinking skills: theory and practice (pp. 9–26). New York: W. H. Freeman.

Ericsson, K. A. (2013). Exceptional memory and expert performance: from Simon and Chase’s theory of expertise to skilled memory and beyond. In J. J. Staszewski (Ed.), Expertise and skill acquisition: the impact of William G. Chase (pp. 201–228). New York: Psychology Press.

Evans, J. S. B. T. (2012). Dual process theories of deductive reasoning: facts and fallacies. In K. J. Holyoak & R. G. Morrison (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 115–133). New York: Oxford University Press.

Evans, J. S. B. T., & Stanovich, K. E. (2013). Dual-process theories of higher cognition: advancing the debate. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8 (223–241), 263–271.

Fugelsang, J.A., & Dunbar, K. N. (2005). Brain-based mechanisms underlying complex causal thinking. Neuropsychologia, 43 , 1204–1213.

Glaser, E. (1941). An experiment in the development of critical thinking . New York: J. J. Little and Ives Company.

Green, A. E., & Dunbar, K. N. (2012). Mental function as genetic expression: emerging insights from cognitive neurogenetics. In K. J. Holyoak & R. G. Morrison (Eds.), Oxford handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 90–114). New York: Oxford University Press.

Halpern, D. F. (2014). Thought and knowledge: an introduction to critical thinking (5th ed.). New York: Psychology Press.

Harris, P. J. (2002). What do children learn from testimony? In P. Carruthers, S. P. Stich, & M. Siegal (Eds.), The cognitive basis of science (pp. 316–334). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1980). Mental models in cognitive science. Cognitive Science, 4, 71–115.

Kahan, D. M. (2013). Ideology, motivated reasoning, and cognitive reflection. Judgment and Decision Making, 8 , 407–424.

Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow . New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.

Karmiloff-Smith, A., & Farran, E. K. (2012). Theoretical and empirical directions within a neuroconstructivist framework. In E. K. Farran & A. Karmiloff-Smith (Eds.), Neurodevelopmental disorders across the lifespan: a neuroconstructivist approach (pp. 363–372). New York: Oxford University Press.

Mulvey, K. L., Hitti, A., & Killen, M. (2013). Morality, intentionality, and exclusion: how children navigate the social world. In M. Banaji & S. Gelman (Eds.), Navigating the social world: a developmental perspective (pp. 377–384). New York: Oxford University Press.

Klaczinski, P. A., & Lavallee, K. L. (2005). Domain-specific identity, epistemic regulation, and intellectual ability as predictors of belief-based reasoning: a dual-process perspective. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 92 , 1–24.

Klaczynski, P. A., & Robinson, B. (2000). Personal theories, intellectual ability and epistemological beliefs: adult age differences in everyday reasoning biases. Psychology and Aging, 15 , 400–416.

Kuhl, P. K. (2006). A new view of language acquisition. In H. Luria, D, M, Seymour & T. Smoke (Eds.), Language and linguistics in context: readings and applications for teachers (pp. 29–42). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Kuhn, D. (1999). A developmental model of critical thinking. Educational Researcher, 28 , 16–26.

Kuhn, D. (2011). What people may do versus can do. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 343 , 83.

Kuhn, D., & Crowell, A. (2011). Dialogic argumentation as a vehicle for developing young adolescents’ reasoning. Psychological Science, 22 , 545–552.

Lehrer, R., Schauble, L., & Lucas, D. (2008). Supporting development of the epistemology of inquiry. Cognitive Development, 23 , 512–529.

Lombrozo, T. (2012). Explanation and abductive inference. In K. J. Holyoak & R. G. Morrison (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 260–276). New York: Oxford University Press.

Maggioni, L., VanSledright, B., & Alexander, P. A. (2009). Walking on the borders: a measure of epistemic cognition in history. Journal of Experimental Education, 77 , 187–213.

Mercier, H. (2011). Reasoning serves argumentation in children. Cognitive Development, 26 , 177–191.

Mercier, H., & Sperber, D. (2011). Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34 , 57–111.

Mills, C. M. (2012). Knowing when to doubt: developing a critical stance when learning from others. Developmental Psychology, 49 , 404–418.

Moore, T. J. (2011). Critical thinking and language: the challenge of generic skills and disciplinary discourse . New York: Continuum International Publishing Group.

Nandagopal, K., & Ericsson, K. A. (2012). Enhancing students’ performance in traditional education: implications from the expert–performance approach and deliberate practice. In K. R. Harris, S. Graham, & T. Urdan (Eds.), Educational psychology handbook. Volume 1: theories, constructs, and critical issues (pp. 257–293). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human problem solving . Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

Rosch, E. (1975). Cognitive representations of semantic categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 104 , 192–233.

Schraw, G., & Gutierrez, A. (2012). Assessment of thinking skills. In M. F. Shaughnessy (Ed.), Critical thinking and higher order thinking: a current perspective (pp. 191–203). Hauppague: Nova Science Publishers.

Smith, E. E., & Medin, D. L. (1981). Categories and concepts . Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Book   Google Scholar  

Stanovich, K. E. (2012). On the distinction between rationality and intelligence: implications for understanding individual differences in reasoning. In K. J. Holyoak & R. G. Morrison (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 433–455). New York: Oxford University Press.

Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (2008). On the relative independence of thinking biases and cognitive ability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94 , 672–695.

Stanovich, K. E., West, R. F., & Toplak, M. E. (2013). Myside bias, rational thinking, and intelligence. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22 , 259–264.

Sternberg, R. J., Jarvin, L., Birney, D. P., Naples, A., Stemler, S. E., Newman, T., Otterbach, R., Parish, C., Randi, J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2014). Testing the theory of successful intelligence in teaching grade 4 language arts, mathematics, and science. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106 , 881–899.

Swanson, H. L., & Alloway, T. P. (2012). Working memory, learning, and academic achievement. In K. R. Harris, S. Graham, & T. Urdan (Eds.), Educational psychology handbook. Volume 1: theories, constructs, and critical issues (pp. 327–366). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Tenenbaum, J. B., Kemp, C., Griffiths, T. L., & Goodman, N. D. (2011). How to grow a mind: statistics, structure, and abstraction. Science, 331 (6022), 1279–1285.

Toplak, M. E., West, R. F., & Stanovich, K. E. (2014). Rational thinking and cognitive sophistication: development, cognitive abilities, and thinking dispositions. Developmental Psychology, 50 , 1037–1048.

Thompson, V., & Evans, J. S. B. T. (2012). Belief bias in informal reasoning. Thinking and Reasoning, 18 , 278–310.

Willingham, W. T. (2008). Critical thinking: why is it so hard to teach? Arts Education Policy Review, 109 , 21–29.

Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical investigations. (Anscombe, G.E.M., trans.) . Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Wong, S. L., & Hodson, D. (2009). From the horse’s mouth: what scientists say about scientific investigation and scientific knowledge. Science Education, 93 , 109–130.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

College of Education, Temple University, 1301 Cecil B. Moore Ave, Philadelphia, PA, 19122, USA

James P. Byrnes

Department of Human Development, Measurement and Statistics, College of Education, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, 20742, USA

Kevin N. Dunbar

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to James P. Byrnes .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Byrnes, J.P., Dunbar, K.N. The Nature and Development of Critical-Analytic Thinking. Educ Psychol Rev 26 , 477–493 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-014-9284-0

Download citation

Published : 12 October 2014

Issue Date : December 2014

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-014-9284-0

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

• Critical thinking
• Analytic thinking
• Rationality
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

mySmowltech

Critical thinking: definition and how to improve its skills

Recruitment

Discover our proctoring plans

Receive an ebook on proctoring solutions. SMOWL is the most complete and customizable proctoring software.

Recent posts

Training vs teaching: differences and similarities

HR technology trends: the future landscapes

Ghosting after interviews: tips and ideas to avoid it

Critical thinking is based on the observation and analysis of facts and evidences to return rational, skeptical and unbiased judgments.   

This type of thinking involves a series of skills that can be created but also improved, as we will see throughout this article in which we will begin by defining the concept and end with tips to build and improve the skills related to critical thinking.

What is critical thinking?

Critical thinking is a discipline based on the ability of people to observe, elucidate and analyze information, facts and evidences in order to judge or decide if it is right or wrong.

It goes beyond mere curiosity, simple knowledge or analysis of any kind of fact or information.

People who develop this type of outlook are able to logically connect ideas and defend them with weighty opinions that ultimately help them make better decisions.

How to build and improve critical thinking skills?

Building and improving critical thinking skills involves focusing on a number of abilities and capacities .

To begin the critical thinking process all ideas must be open and all options must be understood as much as possible.

Even the dumbest or craziest idea can end up being the gateway to the most intelligent and successful conclusion.

The problem with having an open mind is that it is the most difficult path and often involves a greater challenge and effort. It is well known that the easy thing to do is to go with the obvious and the commonly accepted but this has no place in critical thinking.

By contrast, it is helpful not to make hasty decisions and to weigh the problem in its entirety after a first moment of awareness.

Finally, practicing active listening will help you to receive feedback from others and to understand other points of view that may help you as a reference.

Impartiality

An important point in the critical thinking process is the development of the ability to identify biases and maintain an impartial view in evaluations.

To improve this aspect it is advisable to have tools to be able to identify and recognize the prejudices and biases you have and try to leave them completely aside when thinking about the solution.

Subscribe today to SMOWL’s weekly newsletter!

Discover the latest trends in eLearning, technology, and innovation, alongside experts in assessment and talent management. Stay informed about industry updates and get the information you need.

Simply fill out the form and stay up-to-date with everything relevant in our field.

Observation

Observation allows you to see each and every detail , no matter how small, subtle or inconsequential they may be or seem to be.

Behind the superficial information hides a universe of data, sources and experiences that help you make the best decision.

One of the pillars of critical thinking is objectivity. This forces you to base your value judgments on established facts that you will have gathered after a correct research process. 

At this point in the process you should also be clear about the influencing factors to be taken into account and those that can be left out.

Remember that your research is not only about gathering a good amount of information that puts the maximum number of options, variables or situations on the table. 

For the information to be of quality, it must be based on reliable and trustworthy sources.

If the information you have to collect is based on the comments and opinions of third parties, try to exercise quality control but without interference. 

To do this, ask open-ended questions that bring all the nuances to the table and at the same time serve to sift out possible biases.

With the research process completed, it is time to analyze the sources and information gathered.

At this point, your analytical skills will help you to discard what does not conform to unconventional thinking, to prioritize among the information that is of value, to identify possible trends and to draw your own conclusions.

One of the skills that characterize a person with critical thinking is their ability to recognize patterns and connections between all the pieces of information they handle in their research.

This allows them to draw conclusions of great relevance on which to base their predictions with weighty foundations.

Analytical thinking is sometimes confused with critical thinking. The former only uses facts and data, while the latter incorporates other nuances such as emotions, experiences or opinions.

One of the problems with critical thinking is that it can be developed to infinity and beyond. You can always keep looking for new avenues of investigation and new lines of argument by stretching inference to limits that may not be necessary.

At this point it is important to clarify that inference is the process of drawing conclusions from initial premises or hypotheses.

Knowing when to stop the research and thinking process and move on to the next stage in which you put into practice the actions considered appropriate is necessary.

Communication

The information you collect in your research is not top secret material. On the contrary, your knowledge sharing with other people who are involved in the next steps of the process is so important.

Think that your analytical ability to extract the information and your conclusions can serve to guide others .

Problem solving

It is important to note at this point that critical thinking can be aimed at solving a problem but can also be used to simply answer questions or even to identify areas for improvement in certain situations. 

At Smowltech, our proctoring plans help with the creation of objective, respectful and innovative exchange and evaluation spaces.Request us a free demo in which we display all the remote supervision solutions we can offer you, as personalized and detailed reports on remote activities’ progress.

Download now!

8 interesting

about proctoring

Discover everything you need about online proctoring in this book to know how to choose the best software.

Fill out the form and download the guide now.

And subscribe to the weekly SMOWL newsletter to get exclusive offers and promotions .

You will discover all the trends in eLearning, technology, innovation, and proctoring at the hands of evaluation and talent management experts .

Discover how SMOWL works

• Register in mySmowltech indicating your LMS.
• Check your email and follow the steps to integrate the tool.
• Enjoy your free trial of 25 licenses.

Request a free demo with one of our experts

In addition to showing you how SMOWL works, we will guide and advise you at all times so that you can choose the plan that best suits your company or institution.

• Copyright © 2024 all rights reserved SMOWLTECH

Write below what you are looking for

• Our Mission

There has been an error with the video.

AI Tool Demo: Creative Uses for ChatGPT in History and ELA

Assistant editor Daniel Leonard shares a few interesting applications of ChatGPT that teachers have adopted to drive critical thinking and deeper analysis.

Open AI’s large language model chatbot, ChatGPT , took the world by storm when it was launched in November 2022—and, nearly two years later, teachers are still finding creative, new ways to use the tool in their classrooms. 

There continues to be much debate: While some educators are concerned that the chatbot stifles learning by automatically outputting responses with no thought required on the part of the user, others are more optimistic about the tool. In fact, we’ve heard from a number of teachers who are using ChatGPT for critical thinking activities that help their students hone their analytical skills—and reckon with the limitations of the tool itself—in a fun and engaging way.

History teachers , for example, are getting ChatGPT to role play as historical figures, from Cleopatra to Einstein. Their students interact with these digital imitations of figures from history, asking them questions and learning more about their lives. Then, students are asked to cross-reference ChatGPT’s output (which is often error-prone) with reliable external sources, fact-checking the AI and better understanding its tendency to “hallucinate” answers.

There are a multitude of ways to use the tool in English class, too. While some English teachers are also trying out chatbots (of fictional characters) , or using ChatGPT in writing lessons , others are having the tool output text that can be compared to famous works of literature—like Shakespeare’s sonnets or Lincoln’s speeches—so that students can better analyze the unique tone and style of various writers (and see how ChatGPT’s own tone tends to be quite bland in comparison).

Edutopia’s assistant editor Daniel Leonard walks through these teacher-tested ChatGPT use cases—showcasing some prompts to try out, the kinds of responses educators can expect to receive, and how to use them to drive critical thinking in the classroom.

To read about other creative ways teachers are leveraging AI tools in the classroom—from image-generators to language apps—check out Leonard’s feature for Edutopia, “ 9 Tips for Using AI for Learning (and Fun!) .”

Log in using your username and password

• Search More Search for this keyword Advanced search
• Latest content
• For authors
• Browse by collection
• BMJ Journals

You are here

• Volume 14, Issue 8
• Exploring the link of personality traits and tutors’ instruction on critical thinking disposition: a cross-sectional study among Chinese medical graduate students
• Article Text
• Article info
• Citation Tools
• Rapid Responses
• Article metrics

• LingYing Wang 1 ,
• WenLing Chang 2 ,
• http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1507-7890 HaiTao Tang 3 ,
• WenBo He 4 ,
• http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6682-8279 Yan Wu 3 , 5
• 1 Critical Care Medicine Department, West China Hospital, Sichuan University/West China School of Nursing, Sichuan University , Chengdu , China
• 2 School of Population Health & Environmental Sciences , King’s College London , London SE1 1UL , UK
• 3 Department of Postgraduate Students, West China School of Medicine/West China Hospital, Sichuan University , Chengdu , China
• 4 Institute of Hospital Management, West China Hospital, Sichuan University , Chengdu , Sichuan , China
• 5 College of Marxism, Sichuan University , Chengdu , China
• Correspondence to Yan Wu; wuyan{at}wchscu.cn

Objectives This study aimed to investigate the associations between critical thinking (CT) disposition and personal characteristics and tutors’ guidance among medical graduate students, which may provide a theoretical basis for cultivating CT.

Design A cross-sectional study was conducted.

Setting This study was conducted in Sichuan and Chongqing from November to December 2021.

Participants A total of 1488 graduate students from clinical medical schools were included in this study.

Data analysis The distribution of the study participants’ underlying characteristics and CT was described and tested. The Spearman rank correlation coefficient was used to evaluate the correlation between each factor and the CT score. The independent risk factors for CT were assessed using a logistic regression model.

Results The average total CT score was 81.79±11.42 points, and the proportion of CT (score ≥72 points) was 78.9% (1174/1488). Female sex (OR 1.405, 95% CI 1.042 to 1.895), curiosity (OR 1.847, 95% CI 1.459 to 2.338), completion of scientific research design with reference (OR 1.779, 95% CI 1.460 to 2.167), asking ‘why’ (OR 1.942, 95% CI 1.508 to 2.501) and team members’ logical thinking ability (OR 1.373, 95% CI 1.122 to 1.681) were positively associated with CT while exhaustion and burn-out (OR 0.721, 95% CI 0.526 to 0.989), inattention (OR 0.572, 95% CI 0.431 to 0.759), Following others’ opinions in decision-making (OR 0.425, 95% CI 0.337 to 0.534) and no allow of doubt to tutors (OR 0.674, 95% CI 0.561 to 0.809) had negative associations with the formation of CT disposition in the fully adjusted model.

Conclusions Factors associated with motivation and internal drive are more important in the educational practice of cultivating CT. Educators should change the reward mechanism from result-oriented to motivation-maintaining to cultivate students’ CT awareness.

• risk factors
• public health

Data availability statement

Data are available on reasonable request.

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See:  http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ .

https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2023-082461

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request permissions.

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THIS STUDY

Our study focused on postgraduate medical students, and the sample size was relatively large.

Previous research on critical thinking has focused primarily on Europe, the USA and Japan. Hence, researching critical thinking in Chinese populations is a valuable addition to this area.

Given the traditional limitations of cross-sectional studies, the findings of this study cannot be used as direct evidence of a causal relationship between potential influences and outcomes. Nevertheless, they can provide clues to reveal causal relationships.

Introduction

Critical thinking (CT) is reasoned, reflective thinking that decides what to believe or do. The emphasis is on reasonableness, reflection and decision-making. 1 CT is even more important in the medical field, where a lack of CT can lead to delayed or missed diagnoses, incorrect cognition and mismanagement. The centrality of CT is reflected in the competency framework of health professions and is a core skill of healthcare professionals. 2–6 Six crucial skills have been proposed to operationalise the definition of CT: interpretation, analysis, evaluation, inference, explanation and self-regulation. Specifically, interpretation involves comprehending the significance of information and conveying it effectively to others. Analysis requires piecing together fragmented data to decipher their intended purpose. Inference entails identifying and leveraging relevant information to formulate logical conclusions or hypotheses. Evaluation necessitates assessing the trustworthiness of a statement or information. Explanation aims to clarify shared information to ensure its comprehensibility to others. Finally, self-regulation pertains to regulating one’s thoughts, behaviours and emotions. 7–9

The role of CT in assisting medical students in navigating complex health scenarios and resolving clinical issues through sound decision-making is paramount. Extensive research has established positive correlations between CT and clinical proficiency, 10 11 academic excellence 12 and research capabilities. 13 Consequently, the Institute for International Medical Education has emphasised ‘CT and research’ as one of the seven crucial competencies that medical graduates must possess, as outlined in the Global Minimum Essential Requirements. 14 Similarly, the Ministry of Education in the People’s Republic of China has underscored the importance of ‘scientific attitude, innovation and CT’ as essential requirements for Chinese medical graduates. 15

Research on CT in medical students has been carried out to varying degrees in Western countries and many Asian countries. 16 17 Some scholars have pointed out that Western methods, including CT and clinical reasoning, are used in thinking skills education worldwide. However, there are significant differences between Chinese and Western culture, especially educational culture while cultural differences affect ways of thinking 17 18 ; therefore, previous research may not be able to reflect the actual situation of Chinese students and teaching methods may not apply to them. Most Western students tend to possess assimilating learning styles, enabling them to excel in student-centred learning environments. Conversely, Eastern students often exhibit accommodating learning styles that align more with teacher-centred instruction. 19 The discipline-based curriculum in China may not adequately foster the development of CT dispositions among Chinese medical students. This curriculum typically comprises isolated phases (theory, clerkship and internship), limited faculty–student interaction and a knowledge-focused evaluation system. 20

Previous research has suggested that a range of personal characteristics, including gender, major, blended learning methods, increased self-study hours, heightened self-efficacy in learning and performance, exposure to supportive environments and active participation in research activities, contribute to varying degrees of CT dispositions and skills. 21–24 A study conducted in Vietnam revealed that age, gender, ethnicity, educational level, health status, nursing experience, tenure at the current hospital, familiarity with ‘CT’ and job position all influence CT ability. 25 Furthermore, teacher support is paramount to learners’ mental and psychological development. This support encompasses educators’ empathy, compassion, commitment, reliability and warmth towards their students. 26 According to Tardy’s social support paradigm, 27 teacher support is defined as providing informational, instrumental, emotional or appraisal assistance to students, irrespective of their learning setting. Supportive teachers prioritise fostering personal relationships with their students and offering aid, assistance and guidance to those in need. 28 Practical teacher assistance can make students feel comfortable and inspired, motivating them to invest more effort in their studies, engage more actively in educational pursuits and achieve superior educational outcomes. 29

Current CT research on mainland Chinese medical students focuses on the impact of undergraduates’ experiences and classroom instruction. However, for postgraduates, their tutors play a more critical role in education and cultivation. According to Wosinski’s study, 30 tutors should be trained to effectively guide the teamwork of undergraduate nursing students during the problem-based learning (PBL) process to achieve their goals. There is no analysis of the influencing factors of CT focused on medical postgraduates.

Therefore, assessing the tutor’s effect on postgraduates’ CT disposition. This study investigated the associations between CT disposition and personal characteristics and tutors’ guidance among medical graduate students, which may provide a theoretical basis for cultivating CT.

Study design and participants

Study design.

This was a cross-sectional observational study. The project team sent 1525 electronic questionnaire links to WeChat groups of full-time medical graduate students in higher medical institutions in Sichuan and Chongqing between November and December 2021. After removing incomplete and duplicate questionnaires, a total of 1488 valid questionnaires were returned for an effective rate of 97.57%.

Sampling procedure

We employed a random sampling method to select medical graduate students carefully and used PASS V.15.0 software to calculate the sample size for different analyses and outcome scenarios. In the estimation of the sample size with the proportion of CT disposition as the primary outcome, we considered p=0.5, adopted the two-sided Z value under the significance level of a=0.05, and the sample size was the largest when the sampling error was 3%, which was 1067. Moreover, estimating of sample size with the correlation coefficient as the primary outcome, we considered r=0.1 according to the results from the prestudy, and the test power was 0.9; thus, we obtained n=1048. The sample size should be at least 1334 considering a 20% non-response rate.

The inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) full-time medical graduate students (clinical medicine, medicine technology, integrative Chinese and Western medicine, medical laboratory, nursing and so on) in higher medical institutions in Sichuan and Chongqing and (2) after reading the introduction to the research, participants voluntarily agreed to participate and electronically signed the study’s informed consent form. The exclusion criterion was a refusal to participate in the study.

Procedure and data collection

The electronic questionnaire we used consisted of a condensed version of the Critical Thinking Measurement Scale, which was used to evaluate participants’ scores on CT disposition and a Potential Influencing Factors Questionnaire, which investigated participants’ underlying information, personal factors and education-related factors. To increase the response rate, we told the students how long it might take to fill out this questionnaire when we sent the questionnaire link to WeChat groups. Moreover, our participants all had master’s degrees or above whose understanding ability and compliance were better. We also sent reminders to all invited participants three times, and the survey lasted approximately 1 month.

Critical Thinking Measurement Scale

We used the Chinese version of the short-form critical thinking disposition inventory (SF-CTDI-CV), which is based on the CTDI-CV reported by Huang. 31 The CTDI-CV includes seven subscales, namely Truth Seeking, Open-mindedness, Analyticity, Systematicity, Critical Thinking Self-confidence, Inquisitiveness and Cognitive Maturity, which have good reliability and validity (0.90 for the overall Cronbach’s alpha and 0.89 for the overall Content Validity Index). 32 Huang removed ineffective questions based on the CTDI-CV and obtained a simplified scale with 18 items of three factors, which increased the proportion of total explained variation and had better reliability and validity than the original version. Huang selected items according to important indicators in factor analysis, including factor loading and communality. Specifically, Huang removed items whose factor loading was less than 0.4 or whose commonality was less than 0.3. Each item of the SF-CTDI-CV has six options (Likert scale) from 1 to 6 (1 means complete agreement and 6 means disagree entirely); the higher the score is, the stronger the CT tendency. 31 The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) value for SF-CTDI-CV is 0.90 while the p value of Bartlett’s test is less than 0.05, indicating that this short-form inventory has ideal structural validity. A total score of 72 or more indicates a CT disposition, and all participants were divided into two groups according to whether they possessed essential characteristics of thinking.

Potential Influencing Factors Questionnaire

The Potential Influencing Factors Questionnaire was based on previous research and interviews. The interviewees including senior education practitioners and invited medical postgraduate students, focused on their experiences and feelings regarding medical education in China. We compiled an interview outline and invited a total of 22 professionals, including 9 doctoral candidates, 5 doctoral supervisors, 2 counsellors and 6 young backbone teachers, to participate in the interviews. The interview schedule is flexible, but to ensure efficiency, we controlled the interview duration for each participant to within 40 min. After the interviews, we used professional NVivo V.11.0 software to analyse the collected interview data thoroughly.

The Potential Influencing Factors Questionnaire consists of 10 questions in the essential information section, 35 questions in the influencing factors section and 3 flexible questions, for 48 valid entries. The essential information section includes gender, age, secondary education background, higher education major, level of education, type of degree, full-time work experience, type of household registration, the highest level of parental education and whether the respondent was from an only child family. The influencing factors section can be grouped into two main areas: ‘personal factors’ and ‘educational factors’, with personal factors including the individual characteristics section. The educational factors include the practice and training, tutor and team, and educational environment section. This study defines every potential factor as an ordinal variable, with greater rank, depth and frequency of the corresponding factors. For reliability, Cronbach’s alpha=0.795 indicates that the questionnaire’s reliability is good enough for investigation. The content validity of the questionnaire was tested to determine whether the content met the objectives and requirements of the study. Most of the items of the influencing factors questionnaire were selected from previous literature, and the content validity was good. The KMO values and p values for the Bartlett’s test of sphericity for every aspect indicate that the structural validity of the questionnaire is good (see more details in online supplemental table S1 ).

Supplemental material

In the questionnaire design process, we first formed a preliminary framework concerning previous qualitative and quantitative research. Then we conducted interviews with educators, doctoral supervisors and representatives of medical postgraduate students according to the initial framework to understand their work experience in the practice of medical postgraduate education in China. Then, the questionnaire was supplemented according to the frequently mentioned items in the interviews. Finally, a questionnaire focusing on whether personal and educational pathways influence the formation of CT disposition was developed, as well as the key points of CT cultivation.

Data collection and organisation

The project team designed the electronic questionnaire based on the Influencing Factors Questionnaire and Critical Thinking Measurement Scale. Excel 2019 collated the raw data exported from the electronic questionnaire platform. Using the electronic questionnaire platform, answer completion settings rule out the possibility of logical anomalies. Samples with missing answers on the Critical Thinking Inventory were eliminated. Participants who were missing other information were asked to fill in as much as possible through the telephone number they had left. Those who were unable to do so were eliminated. Each factor in the influencing factors section was assigned a value in steps of 1 from lowest to highest (eg, the four categorical variables were assigned values of 1, 2, 3, and 4; 1 for never and 4 for always).

Students and public involvement

Former students were involved in the preparatory phase of this study. They reviewed the informed consent form and provided feedback.

Statistical analysis

The data were analysed by using SPSS V.24.0 software. The distribution of the study participants’ underlying characteristics and CT were described and tested. Continuous variables are described as the mean±SD, and t-tests or one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) were used for hypothesis tests. Categorical variables are expressed as composition ratios and χ 2 tests are used for hypothesis tests. Correlation analysis: The Spearman rank correlation coefficient was used to evaluate the correlation between each factor and the CT score. Difference analysis: Trend ANOVA was used to test whether there was a trend change in CT scores at different levels of each potential influencing factor. A t-test was used to compare the differences in the levels of influencing factors between different CT trait groups. Factors with differences between groups were included in a multivariate unconditional logistic regression model. We fitted several multivariate logistic regression models to evaluate potential confounding variables. By comparing the χ 2 value, the −2-likelihood ratio, the Akaike information criterion, and the practical meanings of this study’s interesting factors, the final model in which X variables could explain most of the Y variables (CT scores) was chosen. The above tests were performed at 0.05, and a p<0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Essential characteristics

A total of 1488 medical graduate students were included in this study, with an average age of 26.63±3.72 years. Most of the participants had a science background in high school (96.84%), a higher education major in clinical medicine (78.43%) and had never participated in full-time work (71.91%). Most of the participants were female (65.93%), lived in urban areas (61.69%), had parents with junior school education or below (39.18%), were not the only child in the family (51.48%), scientific graduate students (51.61%) and had a master’s degree (55.51%). Among all the research subjects, the average total CT score was 81.79±11.42 points, and the proportion of CT (score ≥72 points) was 78.9% (1174/1488). The essential characteristics of the included subjects are shown in table 1 .

• View inline

Participants’ essential characteristics and the distribution of critical thinking dispositions

Distribution of CT disposition

Table 1 demonstrates the distribution of CT disposition among the study participants. For the essential CT scores, participants with urban residence, higher parental education, only-child families, a science background before admission, science-based graduates, longer full-time employment and higher education levels had significantly greater CT scores (p<0.05). According to the CT questionnaire used in this project, subjects with a score more excellent than 72 points were considered to have an apparent CT disposition. The results showed that among our participants, women (80.80% vs 75.10%), science students (79.50% vs 61.70%) and PhD students (81.60% vs 76.80%) had a more significant proportion of CT disposition (p<0.05).

CT scores are linearly correlated with impact factor scores

Table 2 shows the correlation between each factor and the CT scores. The Spearman correlation coefficients suggested that most terms related to personal factors were correlated with CT scores (p<0.001). Sense of achievement (r=0.324), curiosity (r=0.480) and following others’ opinions in decision-making (r=−0.292) were strongly correlated with CT scores. Regarding educational factors, all factors in the practice and training section, all factors in the tutor and team section, and most factors in the educational environment impacted CT scores (p<0.001). Factors in the tutor and team section were more strongly related to CT scores, such as teaching students according to their aptitude (r=0.247) and tutors asking heuristic questions (r=0.242). Only no allow of doubt to tutors hurt the CT scores (r=−0.179, p<0.001).

The correlation between the potential influencing factors and the score of critical thinking

Factors influencing CT disposition

Univariate analysis.

The influencing factors associated with CT disposition are presented in table 3 . Univariate analysis revealed that in terms of personal factors, a sense of achievement, curiosity and interpersonal skills were all possible facilitators of CT disposition (p<0.05), and the group with CT disposition had higher average scores. In contrast, fatigue and burn-out, inattention and following others’ opinions in decision-making were possible hindering factors. Regarding educational factors, most factors in the ‘practice and training’ section, all factors in the ‘tutor and team’ section, and some factors in the ‘educational environment’ section were impact factors on CT disposition. In the practice and traning section, academic performance (p<0.001), number of intensively reading (p<0.001), paper writing (p=0.001), participation in academic conferences (p=0.009), completion of scientific research design with reference (p<0.001), time for extracurricular reading (p=0.006), summarisation and reflection (p<0.001), asking ‘why’ (p<0.001) and knowledge of critical thinking (p<0.001) were all positively related to CT disposition. For the tutor and team section, participants with CT disposition had higher scores for the following factors (p<0.01): tutors sharing thinking methods, communicating learning and life with tutors, tutors asking heuristic questions, encouragement of using ‘possible’ and ‘potential’, advocation of logical thinking training and lifelong learning, teaching students according to their aptitude and team members’ logical thinking skills. No allow to doubt tutors hurt CT disposition (p<0.001). The use of multifunctional classrooms (p<0.001) and having active classes (TBL class, flipped class, p=0.006) in the educational environment section were also correlated with CT disposition.

Impact factors

Multivariate logistics regression analyses

Multivariate logistics regression analysis demonstrated that female (OR 1.405, 95% CI 1.042 to 1.895), curiosity (OR 1.847, 95% CI 1.459 to 2.338), completion of scientific research design with reference (OR 1.779, 95% CI 1.460 to 2.167), asking ‘why’ (OR 1.942, 95% CI 1.508 to 2.501) and team members’ logical thinking ability (OR 1.373, 95% CI 1.122 to 1.681) were the promoting factors for the development of CT disposition after adjusting for other confounding factors. However, exhaustion and burn-out (OR 0.721, 95% CI 0.526 to 0.989), inattention (OR 0.572, 95% CI 0.431 to 0.759) and following others’ opinions in decision-making (OR 0.425, 95% CI 0.337 to 0.534) and no allow of doubt to tutors (OR 0.674, 95% CI 0.561 to 0.809) may be hindering factors for the formation of CT disposition in the fully adjusted model ( table 4 , adjusted R 2 =0.323).

Multifactor regression model

This cross-sectional study explored the factors influencing the CT disposition of Chinese medical graduate students in terms of both personal and educational factors. A total of 78.9% of the participants in this study had positive CT dispositions (score ≥72, 1174/1488), and women were 40.5% more likely than men to have CT dispositions (OR 1.405, 95% CI 1.042 to 1.895). Multivariate logistics regression analysis revealed that among personal factors, curiosity was the promoting factor while exhaustion and burn-out, inattention and following others’ opinions in decision-making may be the hindering factors. For educational factors, completing the scientific research design with reference, asking ‘why’ and the high logical thinking ability of team members were associated with CT disposition. However, no allow of doubt to tutors may hinder the disposition of CT.

According to our demographic information, our study revealed a greater prevalence of CT disposition among women, aligning with Zhai’s findings. 22 Several factors may contribute to this observed gender disparity. A systematic review established that men tend to engage more with objects while women prefer interpersonal interactions. 33 Women are more inclined to engage in dialogue and foster their understanding through collaborative learning, often exhibiting a more receptive mindset. Second, a study using fractional anisotropy measures derived from diffusion tensor imaging in 425 participants, including 118 males, revealed that divergent thinking in females correlates positively with fractional anisotropy in the corpus callosum and the right superior longitudinal fasciculus. 34 Conversely, it correlates with fractional anisotropy in the right tapetum in males. Zhang et al ’s 34 research sheds light on the sex-specific structural connectivity within and between hemispheres that underpins divergent thinking. These gender differences in creativity may reflect the inherent diversity between males and females in society. However, Faramarzi and Khafri 35 reported contrasting results. They concluded that although the results differed between the sexes, the likely cause was females’ higher education level rather than a difference due to gender. Several studies concur that self-esteem is a principal determinant of CT. 22 35 Barkhordary et al , 36 in their study of 170 third-year and fourth-year nursing students in Yazd, identified a significant link between CT and self-esteem. Pilevarzadeh et al further demonstrated that students with higher self-esteem exhibit more robust CT skills. 37 Self-esteem is defined as ‘an individual’s overall subjective emotional assessment of their worth’. 38 Bleidorn et al 39 conducted a groundbreaking large-scale, cross-cultural study with an internet sample of 985 937 participants, examining gender and age differences in self-esteem across 48 nations. They discovered significant gender differences, with males consistently reporting higher self-esteem levels than females, which may influence their responses to negative feedback to some degree.

In the section on personal factors, the results of this study on personal internal and external environmental factors such as curiosity, burn-out and inattention are consistent with previous studies. 40–45 The relationship between these internal and external environmental factors and cognitive capacity has been described in cognitive load theory, 46 particularly the role of ‘working memory’, the capacity to process information. Specifically, researchers 47 reported on a consensus on CT teaching, assessment and faculty development compiled by a high-level team recommended by 32 medical schools across the USA. Learners’ personal attributes, characteristics, perspectives and behaviours are critical components of their motivation to prepare for and engage in deeper learning and laborious clinical reasoning. Distractions and interruptions, on the other hand, can reduce attention to important issues, affecting learners’ ability to engage in clinical reasoning and their CT skills. 48 Making decisions based on the opinions of others in this study may reflect the participants’ interdependent view of self, which was identified by Futami et al 49 as a negative factor for CT dispositions.

Regarding the educational factors, learning methods and research group membership characteristics were more strongly associated with CT disposition than learning frequency and learning form. Completing the scientific research design with reference and asking ‘why’ are learning methods that promote the formation of CT for medical graduate students. Research 50 suggests that CT requires a persistent effort to test any belief or supposed form of knowledge according to the evidence supporting it and the further conclusions it tends to help. Completing scientific research design with reference is the specific manifestation of evidence-based reasoning in the scientific research field, which may be why it affects the formation process of CT. Furthermore, similar to our research, much research has explored the crucial role that questioning or problem-based thinking plays in CT. 47 51–53 Our research also suggested that the teaching style of the group supervisor and the logical thinking ability of other group members also impacted CT dispositions. Although no previous research has explored the role-specific behaviours of subject mentors and peers in CT disposition from a quantitative perspective, Futami et al 49 reported higher CT scores for subjects who had connections with research experts, suggesting a positive influence of research mentors on CT. Self-esteem positively affects CT, and overbearing instructors may undermine students’ self-esteem and, thus, their CT disposition. Moreover, several authors 47 53 54 have argued that professors’ encouragement of students to express uncertainty, to question and assess the quality of knowledge learnt, and to improve team members’ logical thinking skills are all positively associated with CT, consistent with our findings.

The CT scores in our study were lower than those in several Western countries among medical students, 55 56 possibly because of differences in educational culture and methods. In China, medical education comprises three stages: primary medical education, clinical education and internships. Primary medical education introduces students to the medical world. The delivery of traditional courses used to be prescribed and even dull simply because teachers were accustomed to a conventional teaching style and were afraid of making changes to course delivery. 57 The strategies to develop reflective and CT in nursing students in eight countries indicated that reflexive CT was found in most curricula, although with diverse denominations. The principal learning strategies used were PBL, group dynamics, reflective reading, clinical practice and simulation laboratories. The evaluation methods are the knowledge test, case analysis and practical exam. 58

The importance of early clinical exposure is universally acknowledged, particularly in developing countries where its value is profoundly esteemed. For instance, the South African Health Professions Council has spearheaded educational reforms for medical professionals, enabling first-year medical students to participate in healthcare visits. These visits aim to enrich the comprehension of future professional environments and foster a more profound passion for medicine. 59 Notably, most students perceived these visits as invaluable learning experiences, leaving them better prepared for medical practice. Similarly, Chinese medical colleges offer comparable programmes spanning 1–2 weeks. A Peking University study using questionnaires and reports revealed that all students benefited from these activities, gaining perceptual knowledge of clinical work. Remarkably, 61.5% of students reported that their early clinical exposure had significantly assisted them. 60

Interestingly, there was a more significant proportion of PhD students with a CT disposition in our study. This may be because doctoral research is more in-depth and complex, requiring students to engage in more detailed, rigorous and innovative thinking based on their existing knowledge. During the research process, doctoral students must constantly question, analyse, evaluate and reconstruct knowledge, which undoubtedly exercises and enhances their CT abilities. 61 However, this does not imply that master’s students possess lower CT skills than doctoral students. The master’s programme also emphasises cultivating CT, although possibly differing in depth and breadth. Both stages have unique development paths and manifestations in terms of CT. Regardless of the stage, graduate students should focus on developing their CT skills to address challenges in academic research and life.

Our research revealed that factors influencing CT motivation appear to be more closely linked to CT tendencies in personal and educational components. Miele and Wigfield 50 suggested that the factors affecting students’ critical analytical thinking motivation can be divided into two aspects: quantity and quality, the quantitative relationship between motivation and CT, that is, whether students have sufficient motivation to make high-level spiritual efforts. This is reflected in our study regarding curiosity, burn-out, distraction, an interdependent self-view and influence by research team members. The qualitative relationship is the willingness of students to engage in CT, which corresponds to the desire to ask ‘why’ and to refer to existing evidence to complete a research design in this study. This suggests that internal motivation may play an essential role in CT and that educators should focus more on maintaining students’ motivation and building awareness than on the frequency of rigid external research training and curriculum formats. Students are actively promoted and encouraged to apply CT in practice. At the same time, the existing overly outcome-oriented reward mechanism is changed, and assessment criteria are enriched, for example, by including ‘whether you ask interesting questions’ as one of the criteria for classroom assessment to motivate people to become more proactive learners. Recently, medical education has garnered considerable attention and traditionally assumes that medical students are inherently motivated by their dedication to specialised training and a highly focused profession. However, motivation plays a crucial role in determining the quality of learning and ultimate success. Its absence may provide a plausible explanation for why teachers occasionally encounter medical students who appear discouraged, have lost interest or abandon their studies, feeling a sense of powerlessness or resignation. 62

To foster CT among medical students, educational reform should encompass several key aspects: (1) Encouraging active learning and exploration: Teachers must urge students to engage actively in the learning process, providing resources and guidance to kindle their intellectual curiosity. This will empower students to seek out challenges, pose inquiries and address them through a critical lens. 63 (2) Implementing heuristic learning and case studies: Educators should incorporate case studies, enabling students to hone their CT, discriminatory skills and decision-making abilities by analysing authentic or hypothetical scenarios. 64 65 (3) Stressing the mastery of professional knowledge: It is imperative to ensure that students grasp the fundamental theories and principles of the medical field, along with proficiency in practical medical skills. 66 (4) Nurturing teamwork skills: Group discussions, collaborative projects and similar activities should be used to cultivate teamwork among medical students. This teaches them to listen attentively, manage team dynamics, and allocate resources effectively, enhancing their CT and problem-solving capabilities. 67 (5) Providing clinical practical experience: Early exposure to clinical practice is crucial in developing students’ analytical and problem-solving skills through firsthand observation and participation in real-life case management. 68 (6) Shifting teachers’ roles: Educators must evolve into mentors and role models for CT, leading by example and inspiring students through their practices and teachings. 69 Collectively, these recommendations for educational reform will empower medical students to address intricate issues they may encounter in their future medical careers, ultimately increasing the quality and safety of healthcare services.

It is worth noting that our questionnaire incorporated many potential entries with high reliability. It mostly also showed differences between the two groups with or without CT disposition in univariate analysis but were not ultimately presented in the regression models. These factors are meaningful for the development of CT but taking into account the simplicity and informativeness of the model, other entries in the model may have represented them. Our model explained more of the variance in CT than regression models from previous studies. 49 70 71

Strengths and limitations

This study has particular strengths. First, the questionnaire for this study was scientific and practice based. The findings of previous studies on personal and educational factors were extensively referenced, and in-depth interviews were also conducted. Second, our study focused on postgraduate medical students and the sample size was relatively large. Postgraduate medical students are the key group for CT development, and the findings obtained among postgraduate medical students are more relevant and better reflect the thinking characteristics of postgraduate medical students. Research from China has considerably enriched the worldwide sample of CT influencing factors. It has been suggested that cultural context strongly influences CT, 72 but previous research on CT has mostly focused on Europe, the USA and Japan. Therefore, researching CT in Chinese populations is a valuable addition to this area. In addition, this study is the first to quantitatively explore the impact of tutor and team on CT disposition. For Chinese postgraduates, tutors and their scientific research teams are the people who have the most contact during their studies. In our previous interviews, educators, tutors and postgraduates all recognised the vital role of tutors in postgraduate education, especially in the cultivation of thinking. Based on interviews and literature extraction, we summarise the specific influence of tutors and teams and present them as numerical indicators to refine the influence of tutors on educational factors to make them more comprehensive and exact.

There are several limitations to our study. First, given the traditional constraints of cross-sectional studies, the findings of this study cannot be used as direct evidence of a causal relationship between potential influences and outcomes. Still, they can provide clues to reveal causal relationships. Second, some influencing factors, such as participation in project submissions, participation in CT courses, attempts at innovation and entrepreneurship, and exchange abroad may need to be revised when measured due to limited educational resources. The lack of opportunity for most students to participate in the projects mentioned above, even if they had the will to do so, may help obscure the correlation between CT and these factors. Our regression models did not include other factors of the same type with higher coverage, such as article writing. This suggests that specific formal factors do not significantly influence CT disposition and that bias may not affect the overall results. In addition, we did not use the CTDI-CV scale. Given the busy workload of postgraduate medical students and the fact that online surveys are challenging to monitor and quality control, to avoid as much as possible the impact of too many questions on the quality of the study and to increase the recall rate, we used a condensed version of the Critical Thinking Scale, which has a greater total explained variance than the CTDI-CV scale and has good reliability and validity.

Conclusions

In conclusion, this study provides a comprehensive scientific assessment of the factors influencing the CT disposition of Chinese medical postgraduates in terms of personal and educational factors. Being curious, completing the scientific research design with reference, asking ‘why’, and having high logical thinking ability among team members were positively associated with CT. Exhaustion and burn-out, inattention, following others’ opinions in decision-making and not allowing to doubt tutors were negatively associated with CT scores. These findings suggest that we pay more attention to factors related to motivation and internal drive in our educational practice, shift from an outcome-focused reward mechanism and focus on motivation maintenance to build students’ CT awareness.

Ethics statements

Patient consent for publication.

Not applicable.

Ethics approval

The research team collected data after obtaining their consent and signatures on the study’s informed consent form. The Ethics Committee of West China Hospital (tertiary), Sichuan University, approved the study in 2021 (Ethics No. 980).

Acknowledgments

The authors want to acknowledge the medical students who participated in this study.

• Westerdahl F ,
• Carlson E ,
• Wennick A , et al
• Diamond-Fox S ,
• Biesta GJJ ,
• van Braak M
• Barnes TA ,
• Kacmarek RM , et al
• Persky AM ,
• Medina MS ,
• Castleberry AN
• Kuo SH , et al
• Onwuegbuzie AJ
• Committee C
• Ministry of Education, Ministry of Health
• Christenson M ,
• Chandratilake M , et al
• Hodges BD ,
• Maniate JM ,
• Martimianakis MAT , et al
• Chuenjitwongsa S ,
• Bullock A ,
• Colucciello ML
• Nguyen TV ,
• Kuo S-Y , et al
• Liu J , et al
• Hung C-A , et al
• Van Nguyen T ,
• Hejazi SY ,
• Zhang H , et al
• Wosinski J ,
• Belcher AE ,
• Dürrenberger Y , et al
• Briley DA ,
• Wee CJM , et al
• Fan L , et al
• Faramarzi M ,
• Barkhordary M ,
• Jalalmanesh S ,
• Pilevarzadeh M ,
• Mashayekhi F ,
• Faramarzpoor M , et al
• Bleidorn W ,
• Arslan RC ,
• Denissen JJA , et al
• Jimenez J-M ,
• Castro M-J , et al
• Gershman SJ ,
• Ratcliffe T ,
• Picho K , et al
• Durning SJ ,
• Costanzo M ,
• Artino AR , et al
• Van Merrienboer J ,
• Durning S , et al
• Newman LR ,
• Schwartzstein RM
• Ratwani RM ,
• Puthumana JS , et al
• Noguchi-Watanabe M ,
• Mikoshiba N , et al
• Ghezzi JFSA ,
• Higa E de FR ,
• Lemes MA , et al
• Henderson KJ ,
• Coppens ER ,
• Richards JB ,
• Frederix GW ,
• Profetto-McGrath Joanne
• Cianelli R ,
• Valenzuela J , et al
• Yuan W , et al
• Cárdenas-Becerril L ,
• Jiménez-Gómez MA ,
• Bardallo-Porras MD , et al
• Wang H , et al
• Pelaccia T ,
• D’Isanto T ,
• Aliberti S ,
• Altavilla G , et al
• Kaluzeviciute Greta
• Sa YTR , et al
• De Prada E ,
• Mareque M ,
• Pino-Juste M
• Hughes LJ ,
• Wardrop R , et al
• Godoy-Pozo J , et al
• Zhang Y. Q ,
• Chen Y , et al

LW and WC contributed equally.

Contributors LW and WC were involved in designing the study, reviewing the literature, designing the protocol, developing the questionnaire, collecting the data, performing the statistical analysis and preparing the manuscript. TH and W-BH were involved in searching and collecting the data. YW was involved in interpreting the data and critically reviewed the manuscript. YW is responsible for the overall content as the guarantor . All the authors have read and approved the final manuscript.

Funding This study was supported by the Sichuan University Postgraduate Education Reform project (GSSCU2021038).

Competing interests None declared.

Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research. Refer to the Methods section for further details.

Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.

Read the full text or download the PDF:

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
• Author Biographies
• 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

How students learn during the pre-briefing and observation of facilitation in a high-fidelity patient simulation: a narrative analysis, 1. introduction, background and literature review, 2. materials and methods, 2.1. study design, 2.2. study aim and objectives, 2.3. sampling and study setting, 2.4. the structured hfps guidelines, 2.5. the instruments, 2.6. study procedure, 2.7. ethical considerations, 2.8. data analysis, 3.1. students’ demographhic characteristics, 3.2. student learning at pre-briefing and the period of being observers during facilitation, 3.3. learning at pre-briefing stage, 3.3.1. adequate learning resources to increase knowledge acquisition, 3.3.2. clear instruction and guidelines, 3.3.3. adequate time for preparation, 3.3.4. self-motivation for competence enhancement in knowledge and skills, 3.4. learning from observation of hfps, 3.4.1. performance of role-players with knowledge and skill applications, 3.4.2. comments on the performance by others, 3.4.3. discussion with other students who were observers, 3.5. in both sessions, 3.5.1. clear guiding questions and observation areas, 3.5.2. self-awareness and attentiveness, 3.5.3. active self-engagement, 4. discussion, 4.1. practical recommendations, 4.2. strengths and limitations, 5. conclusions, institutional review board statement, informed consent statement, data availability statement, conflicts of interest.

• Lee, J.; Lee, Y.; Lee, S.; Bae, J. Effects of high-fidelity patient simulation led clinical reasoning course: Focused on nursing core competencies, problem solving, and academic self-efficacy. Jpn. J. Nurs. Sci. 2016 , 13 , 20–28. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wong, F.M.F.; Wong, D.C.N. A Modified Guideline for High-Fidelity Patient Simulation to Improve Student Satisfaction and Self-Confidence in Learning: A Mixed Study. Nurs. Rep. 2023 , 13 , 1030–1039. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Li, Z.; Huang, F.F.; Chen, S.S.; Wang, A.; Guo, Y. The learning effectiveness of high-fidelity simulation teaching among Chinese nursing students: A mixed-methods study. J. Nurs. Res. 2021 , 29 , e141. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wong, F.M.F.; Chan, A.M.L.; Lee, N.P.M.; Luk, K.K.H. Can High-Fidelity Patient Simulation Be Used for Skill Development in Junior Undergraduate Students: A Quasi-Experimental Study. Healthcare 2023 , 11 , 2221. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yeo, J.Y.; Jang, M.S. Nursing students’ self-directed learning experiences in web-based virtual simulation: A qualitative study. Jpn. J. Nurs. Sci. 2022 , 20 , e12514. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yang, G.F.; Jiang, X.Y. Self-directed learning readiness and nursing competency among undergraduate nursing students in Fujian province of China. Int. J. Nurs. Sci. 2014 , 1 , 255–259. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Aljohani, A.S.; Karim, Q.; George, P. Students’ satisfaction with simulation learning environment in relation to self-confidence and learning achievement. J. Health Sci. 2016 , 4 , 228–235. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dalton, L.; Gee, T.; Levett-Jones, T. Using clinical reasoning and simulation-based education to ‘flip’ the enrolled nurse curriculum. Aust. J. Adv. Nurs. 2015 , 33 , 2–15. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gopalakrishnan, P.; Sethuraman, K.R.; Suresh, P. Efficacy of high-fidelity simulation in clinical problem-solving exercises—Feedback from teachers and learners. SBV J. Basic. Clin. Appl. Health Sci. 2018 , 2 , 14–22. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Welman, A.; Spies, C. High-fidelity simulation in nursing education: Considerations for meaningful learning. Trends Nurs. 2016 , 3 , 1–16. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• INACSL Standards Committee. Healthcare simulation standards of best practice—Prebriefing: Preparation and briefing. Clin. Simul. Nurs. 2021 , 58 , 9–13. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• INACSL Standards Committee. Healthcare simulation standards of best practice—Facilitation. Clin. Simul. Nurs. 2021 , 58 , 22–26. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tutticci, N.; Theobald, K.A.; Ramsbotham, J.; Johnston, S. Exploring the observer role and clinical reasoning in simulation: A scoping review. Nurse Educ. Pract. 2022 , 59 , 103301. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Harder, N.; Ross, C.J.M.; Paul, P. Student Perspective of Roles Assignment in High-Fidelity Simulation: An Ethnographic Study. Clin. Simul. Nurs. 2013 , 9 , e329–e334. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Henrique-Sanches, B.C.; Cecilio-Fernandes, D.; Costa, R.R.; Almeida, R.G.; Etchegoyen, F.F.; Mazzo, A. Implications of clinical simulation in motivation for learning: Scoping review. Einstein 2024 , 22 , eRW0792. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tekkol, I.A.; Demirel, M. An investigation of self-directed learning skills of undergraduate students. Front. Psychol. 2018 , 9 , 2324. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wu, H.; Zheng, J.; Li, S.; Guo, J. Does academic interest play a more important role in medical sciences than in other disciplines? A nationwide cross-sectional study in China. BMC Med. Educ. 2019 , 19 , 301. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chamberlain, J. The impact of simulation prebriefing on perceptions of overall effectiveness, learning, and self-confidence in nursing students. Nurs. Educ. Perspect. 2017 , 38 , 119–125. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Page-Cutrara, K. Prebriefing in nursing simulation: A concept analysis. Clin. Simul. Nurs. 2015 , 11 , 335–340. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Levett-Jones, T.; Andersen, P.; Reid-Searl, K.; Guinea, S.; McAllister, M.; Lapkin, S.; Palmer, L.; Niddrie, M. Tag team simulation: An innovative approach for promoting active engagement of participants and observers during group simulations. Nurse Educ. Pract. 2015 , 15 , 345–352. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Thidemann, I.J. Olle Söderhamn, High-fidelity simulation among bachelor students in simulation groups and use of different roles. Nurse Educ. Today 2013 , 33 , 1599–1604. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wong, F.M.F.; Tang, A.C.Y.; Cheng, W.L.S. Factors associated with self-directed learning among undergraduate nursing students: A systematic review. Nurse Educ. Today 2021 , 104 , 104998. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• London, M.; Sessa, V.L.; Shelley, L.A. Developing self-awareness: Learning process for self-and interpersonal growth. Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2023 , 10 , 261–288. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rasheed, S.P.; Sundus, A.; Younas, A.; Fakhar, J.; Inayat, S. Development and testing of a measure of self-awareness among nurses. West. J. Nurs. Res. 2021 , 4391 , 36–44. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lin, X.D.; Lin, Y.; Liu, X.Y.; Su, W.J.; Nie, R.J. The status of study engagement and its influencing factors among nursing arts undergraduates. Chin. J. Nurs. Educ. 2018 , 15 , 770–774. [ Google Scholar ]
• Jacobs, C.; Rigby, J.M. Developing measures of immersion and motivation for learning technologies in healthcare simulation: A pilot study. J. Adv. Med. Educ. Prof. 2022 , 10 , 163–171. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Abelsson, A.; Bisholt, B. Nurse students learning acute care by simulation—Focus on observation and debriefing. Nurse Educ. Pract. 2017 , 24 , 6–13. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chang, Y.; Brickman, P. When group work doesn’t work: Insights from students. CBE Life Sci. Educ. 2018 , 17 , ar52. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wighus, M.; Bjørk, I.T. An educational intervention to enhance clinical skills learning: Experiences of nursing students and teachers. Nurse Educ. Pract. 2018 , 29 , 143–149. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Alshehri, F.D.; Jone, S.; Harrison, D. The effectiveness of high-fidelity simulation on undergraduate nursing students’ clinical reasoning-related skills: A systematic review. Nurse Educ. Today 2023 , 121 , 105679. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kim-Godwin, Y.S.; Livsey, K.R.; Ezzell, D.; Highsmith, C. Home Visit Simulation Using a Standardized Patient. Clin. Simul. Nurs. 2013 , 9 , e55–e61. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wong, F.M.F. A phenomenological research study: Perspectives of student learning through small group work between undergraduate nursing students and educators. Nurse Educ. Today 2018 , 68 , 153–158. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hober, C.; Bonnel, W. Student Perceptions of the Observer Role in High-Fidelity Simulation. Clin. Simul. Nurs. 2014 , 10 , 507–514. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Connor Desai, S.; Reimers, S. Comparing the use of open and closed questions for Web-based measures of the continued-influence effect. Behav. Res. Methods 2019 , 51 , 1426–1440. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hyman, M.R.; Sierra, J.J. Open-versus close-ended survey questions. Bus. Outlook 2016 , 14 , 105. [ Google Scholar ]

Share and Cite

Wong, F.M.F. How Students Learn during the Pre-Briefing and Observation of Facilitation in a High-Fidelity Patient Simulation: A Narrative Analysis. Healthcare 2024 , 12 , 1761. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare12171761

Wong FMF. How Students Learn during the Pre-Briefing and Observation of Facilitation in a High-Fidelity Patient Simulation: A Narrative Analysis. Healthcare . 2024; 12(17):1761. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare12171761

Wong, Florence M. F. 2024. "How Students Learn during the Pre-Briefing and Observation of Facilitation in a High-Fidelity Patient Simulation: A Narrative Analysis" Healthcare 12, no. 17: 1761. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare12171761

Article Metrics

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

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals