paul elder framework of critical thinking elements of thought

Video Series

• Analyze the logic of a problem or issue
• Analyze the logic of an article, essay, or text
• Analyze the logic of any book of nonfiction
• Evaluate an Author’s Reasoning
• Analyze the logic of a character in a novel
• Analyze the logic of a profession, subject, or discipline
• Analyze the logic of a concept or idea
• Distinguishing Inferences and Assumptions
• Thinking Through Conflicting Ideas
• Could you elaborate further?
• Could you give me an example?
• Could you illustrate what you mean?
• How could we check on that?
• How could we find out if that is true?
• How could we verify or test that?
• Could you be more specific?
• Could you give me more details?
• Could you be more exact?
• How does that relate to the problem?
• How does that bear on the question?
• How does that help us with the issue?
• What factors make this a difficult problem?
• What are some of the complexities of this question?
• What are some of the difficulties we need to deal with?
• Do we need to look at this from another perspective?
• Do we need to consider another point of view?
• Do we need to look at this in other ways?
• Does all this make sense together?
• Does your first paragraph fit in with your last?
• Does what you say follow from the evidence?
• Is this the most important problem to consider?
• Is this the central idea to focus on?
• Which of these facts are most important?
• Do I have any vested interest in this issue?
• Am I sympathetically representing the viewpoints of others?

Everyone thinks; it is our nature to do so. But much of our thinking, left to itself, is biased, distorted, partial, uninformed, or downright prejudiced. If we want to think well, we must understand at least the udiments of thought, the most basic structures out of which all thinking is made. We must learn how to take thinking apart.

All Thinking Is Defined by the Eight Elements That Make It Up. Eight basic structures are present in all thinking: Whenever we think, we think for a purpose within a point of view based on assumptions leading to implications and consequences. We use concepts, ideas and theories to interpret data, facts, and experiences in order to answer questions, solve problems, and resolve issues.

• generates purposes
• raises questions
• uses information
• utilizes concepts
• makes inferences
• makes assumptions
• generates implications
• embodies a point of view
• What is your, my, their purpose in doing________?
• What is the objective of this assignment (task, job, experiment, policy, strategy, etc.)?
• Should we question, refine, modify our purpose (goal, objective, etc.)?
• What is the purpose of this meeting (chapter, relationship, action)?
• What is your central aim in this line of thought?
• What is the purpose of education?
• Why did you say…?
• Take time to state your purpose clearly.
• Distinguish your purpose from related purposes.
• Check periodically to be sure you are still on target.
• Choose significant and realistic purposes.
• What is the question I am trying to answer?
• What important questions are embedded in the issue?
• Is there a better way to put the question?
• Is this question clear? Is it complex?
• I am not sure exactly what question you are asking. Could you explain it?
• The question in my mind is this: How do you see the question?
• What kind of question is this? Historical? Scientific? Ethical? Political? Economic? Or…?
• What would we have to do to settle this question?
• State the question at issue clearly and precisely.
• Express the question in several ways to clarify its meaning.
• Break the question into sub-questions.
• Distinguish questions that have definitive answers from those that are a matter of opinion or that require multiple viewpoints.
• What information do I need to answer this question?
• What data are relevant to this problem?
• Do we need to gather more information?
• Is this information relevant to our purpose or goal?
• On what information are you basing that comment?
• What experience convinced you of this? Could your experience be distorted?
• How do we know this information (data, testimony) is accurate?
• Have we left out any important information that we need to consider?
• Restrict your claims to those supported by the data you have.
• Search for information that opposes your position as well as information that supports it.
• Make sure that all information used is clear, accurate and relevant.
• Make sure you have gathered sufficient information.
• What conclusions am I coming to?
• Is my inference logical?
• Are there other conclusions I should consider?
• Does this interpretation make sense?
• Does our solution necessarily follow from our data?
• How did you reach that conclusion?
• What are you basing your reasoning on?
• Is there an alternative plausible conclusion?
• Given all the facts what is the best possible conclusion?
• How shall we interpret these data?
• Infer only what the evidence implies.
• Check inferences for their consistency with each other.
• Identify assumptions underlying your inferences.
• What idea am I using in my thinking? Is this idea causing problems for me or for others?
• I think this is a good theory, but could you explain it more fully?
• What is the main hypothesis you are using in your reasoning?
• Are you using this term in keeping with established usage?
• What main distinctions should we draw in reasoning through this problem?
• What idea is this author using in his or her thinking? Is there a problem with it?
• Identify key concepts and explain them clearly.
• Consider alternative concepts or alternative definitions of concepts.
• Make sure you are using concepts with precision.
• What am I assuming or taking for granted?
• Am I assuming something I shouldn’t?
• What assumption is leading me to this conclusion?
• What is… (this policy, strategy, explanation) assuming?
• What exactly do sociologists (historians, mathematicians, etc.) take for granted?
• What is being presupposed in this theory?
• What are some important assumptions I make about my roommate, my friends, my parents, my instructors, my country?
• Clearly identify your assumptions and determine whether they are justifiable.
• Consider how your assumptions are shaping your point of view.
• If I decide to do “X”, what things might happen?
• If I decide not to do “X”, what things might happen?
• What are you implying when you say that?
• What is likely to happen if we do this versus that?
• Are you implying that…?
• How significant are the implications of this decision?
• What, if anything, is implied by the fact that a much higher percentage of poor people are in jail than wealthy people?
• Trace the implications and consequences that follow from your reasoning.
• Search for negative as well as positive implications.
• Consider all possible consequences.
• How am I looking at this situation? Is there another way to look at it that I should consider?
• What exactly am I focused on? And how am I seeing it?
• Is my view the only reasonable view? What does my point of view ignore?
• Have you ever considered the way ____(Japanese, Muslims, South Americans, etc.) view this?
• Which of these possible viewpoints makes the most sense given the situation?
• Am I having difficulty looking at this situation from a viewpoint with which I disagree?
• What is the point of view of the author of this story?
• Do I study viewpoints that challenge my personal beliefs?
• Identify your point of view.
• Seek other points of view and identify their strengths as well as weaknesses.
• Strive to be fairminded in evaluating all points of view.

The Elements of Thought

How we think….

Designorate

Design thinking, innovation, user experience and healthcare design

How to Apply Paul-Elder Critical Thinking Framework

The critical  thinking  framework provides an efficient method for designers, design students, and researchers to evaluate arguments and ideas through rational reasoning. As a result, we eliminate biases, distractions, and similar factors that negatively affect our decisions and judgments. We can use critical thinking to escape our current mindsets to reach innovative outcomes.

The  critical thinking framework  is based on three main stages; observe the problem to build rational knowledge, ask questions to analyze and evaluate data, and find answers to the questions that can be formulated into a solution. These stages are translated into six steps ( 6 Steps for Effective Critical Thinking ):

• Knowledge – Define the main topic that needs to be covered
• Comprehension – Understand the issue through researching the topic
• Application – Analyze the data and link between the collected data
• Analysis – Solve the problem, or the issue investigated
• Synthesis – Turn the solution into an implementable action plan
• Evaluate – test and evaluate the solution

Based on the above, the essential part of the critical thinking framework represents building clear, coherent reasoning for the problem, which will help ensure that the topic is addressed in the critical thinking stages.

Related articles:

Guide for Critical Thinking for Designers

• 6 Steps for Effective Critical Thinking
• The Six Hats of Critical Thinking and How to Use Them

The Paul-Elder Critical Thinking Framework

In 2001, Paul and Elder introduced the critical thinking framework that helps students to master their thinking dimensions through identifying the thinking parts and evaluating the usage of these parts. The framework aims to improve our reasoning by identifying its different elements through three main elements; elements of reasoning, intellectual standards, and intellectual traits.

Elements of Reasoning

Whenever we have a topic or argument to discuss, we tend to use a number of thinking models to understand the topic at hand (i.e.  Using Inductive Reasoning in User Experience Research ). These parts are known as the elements of thought or reasoning. Our minds may use these parts over the course to think about the idea:

Purpose  – This part of our thinking includes defining the topic’s goal or objective. For example, the goal may involve solving a problem or achieving a target. Attempt  – This part includes the attempts that previously addressed the topic or attempts to solve a problem. Assumption  – Before solving a problem, we don’t have much information about the topic. Therefore, we build assumptions to act as the base of our research about the issue. We usually start with inductive inferences. Then, we use the research data to validate these assumptions. For example, we assume that all apples are red and start to research the different types of trees to know that some apples are green and some are red. The point of View  includes the personal perspective we take while thinking about the topic. For instance, we can think about the product from the consumer perspective rather than the business perspective. Data, Information, and Evidence  – Here, we cover the data and information related to the topic. Also, here we have all the supportive evidence. Concepts and Ideas  – We have all the principles, models, and theories related to the topic. For example, this part may include all the views associated with applying a specific solution. Inferences and Interpretations  – The last part includes the concluded solutions based on the previous factors. The conclusion may consist of the suggested solution to a specific problem. Implications and Consequences  – All the reasons must lead to consequences resulting from implementing the results of the reasoning process.

Intellectual Standards

The above reasoning parts require a good quality benchmark to achieve its goals and ensure the accuracy of results. The intellectual standards are nine factors that can evaluate the equality of the reason parts mentioned above. These standards include clarity, accuracy, precision, relevance, depth, breadth, logic, significance, and fairness. Based on these standards, we can ask ourselves questions to evaluate the parts above. The below table provides examples of the questions that we can ask to assess the equality of our ideas.

The below two videos include Dr. Richard Paul’s lectures about the standards of thought and critical thinking.

Intellectual Traits

As a result of the application for the above reasoning parts and validating them using intellectual standards, The below characteristics are expected to evolve, known as the intellectual traits:

Intellectual Humility

This trait develops one’s ability to perceive the known limitation and the circumstances that may cause biases and self-deceptively. It depends on recognizing that one claims what one’s knows.

Intellectual Courage

Courage represents developing a consciousness to address ideas fairly regardless of its point of View or our negative emotions about it. Also, it helps us develop our ability to evaluate ideas regardless of our presumptions and perceptions about them.

Intellectual Empathy

Empathy is related to developing the ability to put ourselves in others’ shoes to understand them. Also, it forms how we can see the parts of reasoning of the others, such as the viewpoints, assumptions, and ideas.

Intellectual Integrity

This part is related to developing the ability to integrate with other intellectual reasoning and avoid the confusion of our reasoning. Unlike empathy, integrity focuses on the ability to others’ reasoning for the topic and integrate with it.

Intellectual Perseverance

Perseverance develops the need to have a proper insight about the situation regardless of the barriers faced against it, such as difficulties, frustration, and obstacles. This helps us to build rational reasoning despite what is standing against it.

Confidence in Reason

By applying the reasoning parts and encouraging people to develop their reasons, they build confidence in their reason and rational thinking.

Fair-mindedness

This trait develops the ability to start with a fair look at all the reasoning and traits of all the viewpoints, putting aside one’s feelings, raises, and interests.

The critical thinking framework can help us address topics and problems more rationally, contributing to building a clear understanding of topics. This can be achieved through having clear reasoning about the addressed topics. The Paul-Eder Critical Thinking Framework was introduced in 2001 to improve the critical thinking process by understanding the parts of the reasons and providing a method to evaluate it. You can learn more about the framework through the  Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking  published by the Foundation of Critical Thinking.

Understanding the thinking elements and how to evaluate our reasoning related to each part, we can improve our thoughts through time. Additionally, seven main advantages (intellectual traits) can be achieved.

Paul-Elder’s critical thinking framework identifies the thinking parts through eight elements of reasoning (purpose, attempt, assumption, point of view, data, concepts and ideas, and inference and interpretation). Nine benchmarks are used to evaluate the application of the above elements (clarity, accuracy, precision, relevance, depth, breadth, logic, significance and fairness).

What are the critical thinking framework  elements?

Define the main topic that needs to be covered

 Understand the issue through researching the topic

Analyze the data and link between the collected data

Solve the problem, or the issue investigated

Turn the solution into an implementable action plan

Test and evaluate the solution

The application of the Paul-Elder Critical Thinking Framework is based on identifying eight elements of reasoning: Purpose, Attempt, Assumption, Point of View, Data and Evidence, Concepts and Ideas, Inferences and Interpretations and Implications and Consequences.  

Dr Rafiq Elmansy

I'm an academic, author and design thinker, currently teaching design at the University of Leeds with a research focus on design thinking, design for health, interaction design and design for behaviour change. I developed and taught design programmes at Wrexham Glyndwr University, Northumbria University and The American University in Cairo. Additionally, I'm a published book author and founder of Designorate.com. I am a fellow for the Higher Education Academy (HEA), the Royal Society of Arts (FRSA), and an Adobe Education Leader. I write Adobe certification exams with Pearson Certiport. My design experience involves 20 years working with clients such as the UN, World Bank, Adobe, and Schneider. I worked with the Adobe team in developing many Adobe applications for more than 12 years.

You May Also Like

Design Thinking Tools and Methods Complete Guide

How Does Apple’s Design Process Work?

Critical Thinking as a Catalyst of Change in Design

What are Design Research Types and Applications?

Design Thinking Tools for Ideation

3 thoughts on “ how to apply paul-elder critical thinking framework ”.

it was really helpfull

Thank you for this helpful distillation, as well as including the videos.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

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

Sign me up for the newsletter!

• Archives & Special Collections home
• Art Library home
• Ekstrom Library home
• Kornhauser Health Sciences Library home
• Law Library home
• Music Library home
• University of Louisville Hospital home
• Interlibrary Loan
• Off-Campus Login
• Renew Books
• Cardinal Card
• My Print Center
• Business Ops
• Cards Career Connection

Search Site

Search catalog, critical thinking and academic research: intro.

• Information
• Point of View
• Assumptions
• Implications

Critical Thinking and Academic Research

Academic research focuses on the creation of new ideas, perspectives, and arguments. The researcher seeks relevant information in articles, books, and other sources, then develops an informed point of view within this ongoing "conversation" among researchers.

The research process is not simply collecting data, evidence, or "facts," then piecing together this preexisting information into a paper. Instead, the research process is about inquiry—asking questions and developing answers through serious critical thinking and thoughtful reflection.

As a result, the research process is recursive, meaning that the researcher regularly revisits ideas, seeks new information when necessary, and reconsiders and refines the research question, topic, or approach. In other words, research almost always involves constant reflection and revision.

This guide is designed to help you think through various aspects of the research process. The steps are not sequential, nor are they prescriptive about what steps you should take at particular points in the research process. Instead, the guide should help you consider the larger, interrelated elements of thinking involved in research.

Research Anxiety?

Research is not often easy or straightforward, so it's completely normal to feel anxious, frustrated, or confused. In fact, if you feel anxious, it can be a good sign that you're engaging in the type of critical thinking necessary to research and write a high-quality paper.

Think of the research process not as one giant, impossibly complicated task, but as a series of smaller, interconnected steps. These steps can be messy, and there is not one correct sequence of steps that will work for every researcher. However, thinking about research in small steps can help you be more productive and alleviate anxiety.

Paul-Elder Framework

This guide is based on the "Elements of Reasoning" from the Paul-Elder framework for critical thinking. For more information about the Paul-Elder framework, click the link below.

Some of the content in this guide has been adapted from The Aspiring Thinker's Guide to Critical Thinking (2009) by Linda Elder and Richard Paul.

• Next: Purpose >>
• Last Updated: Jul 10, 2023 11:50 AM
• Librarian Login

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Introduction to the Paul-Elder Model of Critical Thinking

Dr. sara rich .

Before choosing your own pseudoscience adventure to think critically through, let’s take a moment to explain our methodology. Namely, we have used the Paul-Elder Model of Critical Thinking to work through each question at issue and to arrive at a well-reasoned conclusion. This process has been made transparent for our readers: each section of each chapter represents one step of the Paul-Elder Model, which leads up to the written research component where all those steps are put together into a coherent argument. Each unit concludes with some critical thinking exercises pertaining to that particular pseudoscience, inspired by Gerald Nosich’s Learning to Think Things Through . This will help readers to further think and apply their learning to the pseudoscience of interest.

Step 1: Elements of Reasoning

The first step of the Paul-Elder Model is the Elements of Reasoning (Fig. 1). We start with the question at issue – identifying the key question that you have about a given topic. Why? All answers first require a question. Furthermore, starting with the question at issue also sets up the thinker with a sense of epistemic humility. In other words, with every question asked, there is an implicit recognition of a gap in knowledge. The questioner becomes like Socrates, who recognized all the things that he did not know. There are limits to human knowledge, and no one knows everything. Critical thinkers recognize the gaps in their knowledge and use ambition and curiosity to rectify them with integrity and responsibility.

Once the question at issue is established, the critical thinker should proceed around the wheel of the 8+ Elements of Reasoning (always considering the context that undergirds the problem as a whole and alternatives to each element), until finally arriving at conclusions and interpretations. Arriving at a conclusion or interpretation is arriving at a reasoned answer to the question at issue. To go one step further, the critical thinker may return to implications and consequences in order to understand the real-world effects of the conclusion drawn. Many pseudosciences, including science denialism and the conspiracy theories that inform them, are highly consequential on individual and societal scales.

Step 2: Disciplinary Lenses

To fine-tune this conclusion even further, the critical thinker should use relevant disciplinary lenses to think about the problem the way an expert would (Fig. 2).

To provide another example, if your question is about Atlantis, some relevant disciplinary lenses to think with would be history, geology, and archaeology. Using the disciplinary lenses is like taking on the point of view (one of the elements of reasoning) of unbiased experts in relevant fields of study. It also offers the opportunity think using different types of reasoning: namely inductive (history), deductive (geology), and abductive (archaeology). This practice will help ensure that final conclusions are drawn from all the relevant evidence (primary source documents, geological data, and archaeological excavations), that they are placed in context (historical, geological, and archaeological), and that they demonstrate a complete understanding of the most important related concepts (Platonism, plate tectonics, artifact typologies, etc.).

Step 3: Standards of Critical Thinking

Once the fine-tuned conclusion is reached, it should be self-evaluated using the Standards of Critical Thinking (Fig. 3). These standards can be used to evaluate any empirical claim and the evidence used to support it, but it again requires a certain level of epistemic humility to apply them to your own argument. How well an argument holds up against the standards is a good indicator of how well it has been reasoned.

All relevant empirical claims should also be inspected for weak inductive, deductive, or abductive reasoning. Relevant claims and arguments should also be scrutinized for logical fallacies. Psuedosciences and conspiracy theories are generally brimming with logical fallacies, and learning to identify them can even be a fun pastime for the critical thinker! To learn more about logical fallacies, we recommend the open-access textbooks by Matthew Van Cleave, Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking , and Andrew Lavin, Thinking Well .

Step 4: SEE-I Method

The SEE-I method is an outline for creating a complete and coherent argument (Fig. 4). The SEE-I method can consist of as few as four sentences, or an entire doctoral dissertation can be organized this way. Effectively, the thesis statement – or concise response to the research question – comes first, followed by further elaboration and explanation (provision of context, definition of key concepts, address of the counterargument, etc.). The next section of the argument consists of examples, each in support of the thesis statement. The final step is to illustrate the thesis statement by using an analogy.

Analogy drives home the purpose of the argument and leaves an unforgettable image in the mind of the audience. Analogies compare two dissimilar things in order to make a point; in this way, analogy is different from metaphor or simile, which often function to beautify or elaborate a concept. Composing strong analogies is difficult for many people because it works at the intersection of critical and creative thinking. But as with all things, with some practice, composing original and powerful analogies to illustrate your point will become second nature, and the quality of your arguments will increase as a result. However, always be wary of the false analogy, a common logical fallacy that bring into comparison two things that only share traits in common on a superficial level. Strong analogies still work even after digging deeper into the connections and commonalities between these two dissimilar things.

Step 5: Counterarguments

Now that the argument is structured, it should again be inspected for weak points. This step requires changing your point of view to that of an audience member hearing your argument. If you were presenting this argument at a professional conference, how might a naysayer in the audience counter your claims? If you were a lawyer presenting this argument in a court of law, what might the opposition point out in your argument to prove their own case? What would a skeptical reader find fault with about your argument? Make note of those weak points and counterarguments and address them.

Step 6: Composing the Final Argument

Combining all the above steps, the final step is writing out the complete argument in the form of a research paper (Fig. 5). All the relevant information and evidence has been gathered and evaluated. The argument has been reasoned through and outlined with the SEE-I model. The standards of critical thinking are upheld in every instance. Counterarguments and weak points have been addressed and rectified as needed. Now it’s time to communicate the answer to your research question and how you followed the evidence to arrive at that conclusion.

Embarking on a research project is like setting out on a journey to a place you’ve never been; you may have some idea of the destination, but the path will almost certainly change courses many times, with unexpected encounters along the way, and where you end up will almost certainly be a little different from the idea you first had in mind. So enjoy the adventure!

Science or Pseudoscience? Copyright © by Sara Rich. All Rights Reserved.

Share This Book

• Table of Contents
• New in this Archive
• Chronological
• Editorial Information
• About the SEP
• Editorial Board
• How to Cite the SEP
• Special Characters
• Support the SEP
• PDFs for SEP Friends
• Make a Donation
• SEPIA for Libraries
• Back to Entry
• Entry Contents
• Entry Bibliography
• Academic Tools
• Friends PDF Preview
• Author and Citation Info
• Back to Top

Supplement to Critical Thinking

Educational methods.

Experiments have shown that educational interventions can improve critical thinking abilities and dispositions, as measured by standardized tests. Glaser (1941) developed teaching materials suitable for senior primary school, high school and college students. To test their effectiveness, he developed with his sponsor Goodwin Watson the Watson-Glaser Tests of Critical Thinking, whose descendants are in widespread global use under the name “Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal” (Watson & Glaser 1980a, 1980b, 1994). He found that senior secondary school students receiving 10 weeks of instruction using these materials improved their scores on these tests more than other such students receiving the standard English curriculum during the 10 weeks, to a degree that was statistically significant (i.e., probably not due to chance). More recently, Abrami et al. (2015) summarized in a meta-analysis the best available evidence on the effectiveness of various strategies for teaching students to think critically. The meta-analysis used as a measure of effectiveness a modified version of a statistical measure known as “Cohen’s d”: the ratio of a difference in mean score to the statistical deviation (SD) of the scores in a reference group. A difference of 0.2 SD is a small effect, a difference of 0.5 SD is a moderate effect, and a difference of 0.8 is a large effect (Cohen 1988: 25–27). Abrami et al. (2015) found a weighted mean effect size of 0.30 among 341 effect sizes, with effect sizes ranging from −1 to +2. This methodologically careful meta-analysis provides strong statistical evidence that explicit instruction for critical thinking can improve critical thinking abilities and dispositions, as measured by standardized tests.

Although contemporary meta-analysis provides a more justified verdict on claims of causal effectiveness than other methods of investigation, it does not give the reader an intuitive grasp of what difference a particular intervention makes to the lives of those who receive it. To get an appreciation of this difference, it helps to read the testimony of the teachers and students in the Laboratory School of Chicago where Dewey’s ideas obtained concreteness. The history of the school, written by two of its former teachers in collaboration with Dewey, makes the following claim for the effects of its approach:

As a result of this guarding and direction of their freedom, the children retained the power of initiative naturally present in young children through their inquisitive interests. This spirit of inquiry was given plenty of opportunity and developed with most of the children into the habit of trying a thing out for themselves. Thus, they gradually became familiar with, and to varying degrees skilled in, the use of the experimental method to solve problems in all areas of their experience. (Mayhew & Edwards 1936: 402–403)

A science teacher in the school wrote:

I think the children did get the scientific attitude of mind. They found out things for themselves. They worked out the simplest problems that may have involved a most commonplace and everyday fact in the manner that a really scientific investigator goes to work. (Mayhew & Edwards 1936: 403)

An alumna of the school summed up the character of its former students as follows:

It is difficult for me to be restrained about the character building results of the Dewey School. As the years have passed and as I have watched the lives of many Dewey School children, I have always been astonished at the ease which fits them into all sorts and conditions of emergencies. They do not vacillate and flounder under unstable emotions; they go ahead and work out the problem in hand, guided by their positively formed working habits. Discouragement to them is non-existent, almost ad absurdum. For that very fact, accomplishment in daily living is inevitable. Whoever has been given the working pattern of tackling problems has a courage born of self-confidence and achieves. (Mayhew & Edwards 1936: 406–407)

In the absence of control groups, of standardized tests, and of statistical methods of controlling for confounding variables, such testimonies are weak evidence of the effectiveness of educational interventions in developing the abilities and dispositions of a critical thinker—in Dewey’s conception, a scientific attitude. But they give a vivid impression of what might be accomplished in an educational system that takes the development of critical thinking as a goal.

Dewey established the Laboratory School explicitly as an experiment to test his theory of knowledge, which

emphasized the part in the development of thought of problems which originated in active situations and also the necessity of testing thought by action if thought was to pass over into knowledge. (Dewey 1936: 464)

Hence the curriculum of the school started from situations familiar to children from their home life (such as preparing food and making clothing) and posed problems that the children were to solve by doing things and noting the consequences. This curriculum was adjusted in the light of its observed results in the classroom.

The school’s continued experimentation with the subject matter of the elementary curriculum proved that classroom results were best when activities were in accord with the child’s changing interests, his growing consciousness of the relation of means and ends, and his increasing willingness to perfect means and to postpone satisfactions in order to arrive at better ends…. The important question for those guiding this process of growth, and of promoting the alignment and cooperation of interest and effort, is this. What specific subject-matter or mode of skill has such a vital connection with the child’s interest, existing powers, and capabilities as will extend the one [the interest–DH] and stimulate, exercise, and carry forward the others [the powers and capabilities–DH] in a progressive course of action? (Mayhew & Edwards 1936: 420–421)

In an appendix to the history of the Laboratory School, Dewey (1936: 468–469) acknowledges that the school did not solve the problem of finding things in the child’s present experience out of which would grow more elaborate, technical and organized knowledge. Passmore (1980: 91) notes one difficulty of starting from children’s out-of-school experiences: they differ a lot from one child to another. More fundamentally, the everyday out-of-school experiences of a child provide few links to the systematic knowledge of nature and of human history that humanity has developed and that schools should pass on to the next generation. If children are to acquire such knowledge through investigation of problems, teachers must first provide information as a basis for formulating problems that interest them (Passmore 1980: 93–94).

More than a century has passed since Dewey’s experiment. In the interim, researchers have refined the methodology of experimenting with human subjects, in educational research and elsewhere. They have also developed the methodology of meta-analysis for combining the results of various experiments to form a comprehensive picture of what has been discovered. Abrami et al. (2015) report the results of such a meta-analysis of all the experimental and quasi-experimental studies published or archived before 2010 that used as outcome variables standardized measures of critical thinking abilities or dispositions of the sort enumerated in Facione 1990a and described in sections 8 and 9 of the main entry. By an experimental study, they mean one in which participants are divided randomly into two groups, one of which receives the educational intervention designed to improve critical thinking and the other of which serves as a control; they found few such experiments, because of the difficulty of achieving randomization in the classrooms where the studies were conducted. By a quasi-experiment, they mean a study with an intervention group that receives an educational intervention designed to improve critical thinking and a control group, but without random allocation to the two groups. Initially, they included also what they called “pre-experiments”, with single-group pretest-posttest designs, but decided at the analysis stage not to include these studies. By a standardized measure, they mean a test with norms derived from previous administration of the test, as set out in the test’s manual, such as the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal (Watson & Glaser 1980a, 1980b, 1994), the Cornell Critical Thinking Tests (Ennis & Millman 1971; Ennis, Millman, & Tomko 1985; 2005), the California Critical Thinking Skills Test (Facione 1990b, 1992) and the California Critical Thinking Dispositions Inventory (Facione & Facione 1992; Facione, Facione, & Giancarlo 2001). They included all such studies in which the educational intervention lasted at least three hours and the participants were at least six years old.

In these studies they found 341 effect sizes. They rated each educational intervention according to the degree to which it involved dialogue, anchored instruction, and mentoring. They found that each of these factors increased the effectiveness of the educational intervention, and that they were most effective when combined. They explained the three factors as follows.

Dialogue : In critical dialogue, which historically goes back to Socrates, individuals discuss a problem together. The dialogue can be oral or written, and cooperative or adversarial. It can take the form of asking questions, discussion, or debate. Some curricula designed to promote critical thinking establish “communities of inquiry” among the students. Such communities were a prominent feature of Dewey’s Laboratory School, incorporated as a means of promoting the primary moral objective of fostering a spirit of social cooperation among the children.

An important aspect of this conditioning process by means of the school’s daily practices was to aid each child in forming a habit of thinking before doing in all of his various enterprises. The daily classroom procedure began with a face-to-face discussion of the work of the day and its relation to that of the previous period. The new problem was then faced, analyzed, and possible plans and resources for its solution suggested by members of the group. The children soon grew to like this method. It gave both individual and group a sense of power to be intelligent, to know what they wanted to do before they did it, and to realize the reasons why one plan was preferred to another. It also enlisted their best effort to prove the validity of their judgment by testing the plan in action. Each member of the group thus acquired a habit of observing, criticizing, and integrating values in thought, in order that they should guide the action that would integrate them in fact. The value of thus previsioning consequences of action before they became fixed as fact was emphasized in the school’s philosophy. The social implication is evident. The conscious direction of his actions toward considered social ends became an unfailing index of the child’s progress toward maturity. (Mayhew & Edwards 1936: 423–424)

Communities of inquiry are also a feature of the Montessori method described by Thayer-Bacon (2000) and of the Philosophy for Children program developed by Matthew Lipman (Splitter 1987). Lipman (2003) examines theoretically what is involved in creating communities of inquiry. Hitchcock (2021) argues that the most obvious way for schools to develop critical thinking is to foster development of communities of inquiry.

Anchored instruction : In anchored instruction, whose advocacy goes back to Rousseau (1762) and Dewey (1910), there is an effort to present students with problems that make sense to them, engage them, and stimulate them to inquire. Simulations, role-playing and presentation of ethical or medical dilemmas are methods of anchoring.

Mentoring : Mentoring is a one-on-one relationship in which someone with more relevant expertise (the mentor) interacts with someone with less (the mentee). The mentor acts as a model and as a critic correcting errors by the mentee. Examples of mentoring are an advisor talking to a student, a physician modeling a procedure for a medical student, and an employee correcting an intern. Abrami et al. (2015) identified three kinds of mentoring in the studies that they analyzed: one-on-one teacher-student interaction, peer-led dyads, and internships.

Abrami et al. (2015) also compared educational interventions with respect to whether they were part of subject-matter instruction. For this purpose, they used a distinction among four types of intervention articulated by Ennis (1989). A general approach tries to teach critical thinking separately from subject-matter instruction. An infusion approach combines deep subject-matter instruction in which students are encouraged to think critically with explicit reference to critical thinking principles. An immersion approach provides deep subject-matter instruction with encouragement to think critically, but without explicit reference to critical thinking principles. A mixed approach combines the general approach with either the infusion or the immersion approach; students combine a separate thread or course aimed at teaching general critical thinking principles with deep subject-matter instruction in which they are encouraged to think critically about the subject-matter. Although the average effect size in the studies using a mixed intervention (+0.38) was greater than the average effect sizes in the studies using general (+0.26), infusion (+0.29) and immersion (+0.23) interventions, the difference was not statistically significant; in other words, it might have been due to chance.

Cleghorn (2021), Makaiau (2021), and Hiner (2021) make specific suggestions for fostering critical thinking respectively in elementary, secondary and post-secondary education. Vincent-Lancrin et al. (2019) report the results of a project of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development to develop with teachers and schools in 11 countries resources for fostering creativity and critical thinking in elementary and secondary schools.

Ennis (2013, 2018) has made a detailed proposal for a mixed approach to teaching critical thinking across the curriculum of undergraduate education. Attempts at implementing such an approach have faced difficulties. Weinstein (2013: 209–213) describes the attempt at Montclair State University in Montclair, New Jersey, from 1987 through the 1990s. He reports that the university’s requirement to include critical thinking in all general education courses led to the use of the concept in identifying topics and tasks in course syllabi, but without a unifying theoretical basis. The committee that approved courses as satisfying a general education requirement ignored the relation of curricular outcomes to critical thinking, and focused instead on work requirements with a prima facie relation to reflective thought: term papers, projects, group work, and dialogue. Sheffield (2018) reports similar difficulties encountered in his position from 2012 to 2015 as the inaugural Eugene H. Fram Chair in Applied Critical Thinking at Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT) in Rochester, New York. A cross-disciplinary faculty advisory group was not ready to accept RIT’s approved definition of critical thinking, but never reached a consensus on an alternative. Payette and Ross (2016), on the other hand, report widespread acceptance of the Paul-Elder framework, which involves elements of thought, intellectual standards, and intellectual virtues (Paul & Elder 2006). Sheffield (2018) reports that many colleges and universities in the United States have received funding for so-called “Quality Enhancement Plans” (QEPs) devoted to critical thinking, many of them written by Paul and Elder or developed in consultation with them. He faults the plans for having a typical time frame of five years, which he argues is probably too short for meaningful results, since lasting institutional change is often extremely slow.

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 © 2023 by The Metaphysics Research Lab , Department of Philosophy, Stanford University

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

Learning Meta Data

Content source, first published, learning topics, learning blockchain.

For more lessons on how to Improve Communication check out the free classes below.

You must be a member of the @lantis Learning Network to Add Classes, Lessons, Beliefs, Arguments, and other New Content.

The Paul & Elder Critical Thinking Framework is a common standard use to help us model how we think and how we can use that knowledge to help us make better decisions.

Critical thinking is that mode of thinking – about any subject, content, or problem — in which the thinker improves the quality of his or her thinking by skillfully taking charge of the structures inherent in thinking and imposing intellectual standards upon them. (Paul and Elder, 2001).

The Paul-Elder Critical Thinking Framework has three components:

• Elements of Reasoning
• Intellectual Standards applied to the elements of reasoning
• intellectual traits  associated with a cultivated critical thinker that result from the consistent and disciplined application of intellectual standards to the elements of thought

According to Paul and Elder (1997), there are two essential dimensions of thinking that decision-makers need to master in order to learn how to upgrade their thinking.

• They need to be able to identify the “parts” of their thinking
• They need to be able to assess their use of these parts of thinking

@lantis adds that Communication is important for the ‘parts” to exchange information effectively.

Elements of Thought (reasoning)

The “parts” or elements of thinking are as follows:

• All reasoning has a  purpose
• All reasoning is an attempt to  figure something out, to settle some question, to solve some problem
• All reasoning is based on  assumptions
• All reasoning is done from some  point of view
• All reasoning is based on  data, information, and evidence
• All reasoning is expressed through, and shaped by, l anguage, culture, concepts,  and  ideas
• All reasoning contains  inferences  or  interpretations  by which we draw  conclusions  and give meaning to data
• All reasoning leads somewhere or has  implications  and  consequences

Universal Intellectual Standards

The intellectual standards that are to these elements are used to determine the quality of reasoning. Good critical thinking requires having a command of these standards. According to Paul and Elder (1997, 2006), the ultimate goal is for the standards of reasoning to become infused in all thinking so as to become the guide to better and better reasoning. The intellectual standards include:

Clarity Could you elaborate? Could you illustrate what you mean? Could you give me an example? Accuracy How could we check on that? How could we find out if that is true? How could we verify or test that? Precision Could you be more specific? Could you give me more details? Could you be more exact? Relevance How does that relate to the problem? How does that bear on the question? How does that help us with the issue? Depth What factors make this difficult? What are some of the complexities of this question? What are some of the difficulties we need to deal with? Breadth Do we need to look at this from another perspective? Do we need to consider another point of view? Do we need to look at this in other ways? Logic Does all of this make sense together? Does your first paragraph fit in with your last one? Does what you say follow from the evidence? Significance Is this the most important problem to consider? Is this the central idea to focus on? Which of these facts are most important? Fairness Is my thinking justifiable in context? Am I taking into account the thinking of others? Is my purpose fair given the situation? Am I using my concepts in keeping with educated usage, or am I distorting them to get what I want?

Intellectual Traits

Consistent application of the standards of thinking to the elements of thinking result in the development of intellectual traits of:

• Intellectual Humility
• Intellectual Courage
• Intellectual Empathy
• Intellectual Autonomy
• Intellectual Integrity
• Intellectual Perseverance
• Confidence in Reason
• Fair-mindedness

Characteristics of a Well-Cultivated Critical Thinker

Habitual utilization of intellectual traits produces a well-cultivated critical thinker who is able to:

• Raise vital questions and problems, formulating them clearly and precisely
• Gather and assess relevant information, using abstract ideas to interpret it effectively
• Come to well-reasoned conclusions and solutions, testing them against relevant criteria and standards;
• Think open-mindedly within alternative systems of thought, recognizing and assessing, as need be, their assumptions, implications, and practical consequences; and
• Communicate effectively with others in figuring out solutions to complex problems

Paul, R. and Elder, L. (2010). The Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking Concepts and Tools. Dillon Beach: Foundation for Critical Thinking Press.

Being Critical is Not Thinking Critically

How you can protect yourself from misinformation

• Search Search Search …
• Search Search …

Mastering Your Thought Process Using Critical Thinking Frameworks

People live their days dealing with all sorts of problems, from the awfully mundane to the considerably urgent. Oftentimes, a sound decision-making process is required to come up with the most satisfying solution. While it makes sense to look back on your previous experiences and similar case studies to help you face your current situation, that may not always be the best strategy for solving your problems.

It may be true that some experiences are universal, but the tiny details that surround each situation will always be unique. Therefore, it is necessary to apply critical thinking skills when attacking a problem, even if you think that “it’s nothing new”. Besides, if you really claim to have learned anything at all, you shouldn’t even be dealing with the very same thing again.

Universal Intellectual Standards

The universal intellectual standards are the bread and butter of all critical thinking processes. These are used as basis for examining the quality of one’s thoughts and reasonings. The 9 basic ones are as follows:

• Clarity – Can this be understood?
• Can you please expound?
• Can you cite an example?
• Can you demonstrate what you’re saying?
• Accuracy – Is this factual?
• How do you check for errors?
• How can you verify its authenticity?
• How can you be sure of this?
• Precision – What are all the details?
• Can you tell me more about it?
• Can you make things more specific?
• Can you go through all of the particulars?
• Relevance – How are things connected?
• What is its relation to the situation?
• What is its bearing to the problem?
• How can this information help?
• Depth – How complex is this problem?
• What makes this issue difficult?
• What kind of complexities are you facing?
• What makes this a struggle?
• Breadth – What are the other angles?
• Do you have to change how you look at the problem?
• Do you have to take another perspective into account?
• Do you have to explore other possibilities?
• Logic – Does everything make sense?
• Does everything look in place?
• Does this part support all the other parts?
• Does your conclusion match the actual data?
• Significance – What are the things that really matter?
• What are the most important facts that you need to know?
• What factor trumps everything else?
• What should you really focus on?
• Fairness – Is this fair for all involved?
• Am I really doing this for the good of everyone?
• Am I just pushing my own agenda?
• What will each party get out of this?

Elements of Thought and Intellectual Traits

All of our thoughts are made up of 8 elements. They may not exactly arise in this exact order, but it’s a rough guide for learning how our thoughts come about. These are:

• Purpose – What is my goal?
• Questions – What am I trying to figure out?
• Information – What data, evidences, or facts do I have?
• Interpretations or inferences – What can I conclude based on facts?
• Concepts – What is the general idea behind my reasoning?
• Assumptions – What are my predetermined beliefs?
• Implications or consequences – What would happen if I make this choice?
• Point of view – What do I stand for? What is my focus?

When we consistently apply the universal intellectual standards to our thought formation, we further strengthen and solidify our intellectual traits. These traits include: humility, courage, empathy, autonomy, integrity, perseverance, confidence in reason, and fair-mindedness. As you may notice, most of these traits do not necessarily reflect the mind’s intellectual capacity on their own. However, putting them together allows an individual to cultivate a mind that is able to think beyond the present tangibles.  

The Paul-Elder Critical Thinking Framework: Putting It All Together

The various elements of thoughts or reasoning aim to help us understand what makes our thoughts the way they are. If we don’t choose to develop our intellectual traits and examine our intellectual standards, we may remain stuck in beliefs that are bad for us in the long run.

The great thing about critical thinkers is that they are able to accept that some of what they know are not built on solid ground. They may initially feel attacked when someone refutes a belief that they’ve poured their soul into, but once rationality kicks in, they are always eager to expand their views. They take the time to learn how to feel unashamed about changing their thoughts when they discover other valid perspectives. 

6-Step Critical Thinking Framework: Applying the Paul-Elder Model

Once we know the Paul-Elder Critical Thinking Framework by heart, it now becomes a lot easier to go about the critical thinking and decision-making process. It makes us more prepared to do the necessary steps in order to move our cause forward. These steps are:

• What is the issue that I need to solve?
• Why is a solution needed?
• Comprehension
• What are the facts of the matter?
• How do I understand the situation?
• Application
• How are things interrelated?
• How do I use my resources to address the facts?
• What are the hurdles that I need to face?
• What are the strongest and the weakest points of this whole issue?
• What kinds of effects are we dealing with / will be dealing with?
• Given all the data and analyses, how do I solve the problem?
• What are my options?
• How do I evaluate my options?
• How do I translate my final decision into actionable steps?
• How will I get things done?

In any situation, we can’t simply think that we already know what to do just because we’ve seen enough. While familiarity can help us strategize, each new problem has subtle nuances that sets it apart from all the others that came before it. We will need to constantly go after new information so that we can integrate them into an improved game plan that has a higher chance of success.

You may also like

Lateral Thinking in the Real World: Everyday Examples of Lateral Thinking.

The history of art, science, politics, warfare and business are full of examples of lateral thinking. Nelson’s famous victory at the Battle of […]

What is logical thinking

We observe many things in our life with intention or without. This is the usual tendency of all human beings from all […]

How Do Emotions Positively Influence Critical Thinking: Uncovering the Benefits

Emotions are typically viewed as obstacles to rational thought, but recent studies indicate that they can actually play a positive role in […]

Critical Thinking Models: A Comprehensive Guide for Effective Decision Making

Critical thinking models are valuable frameworks that help individuals develop and enhance their critical thinking skills. These models provide a structured approach […]

Added By: Ira Gorelick

July 11, 2019, learning subjects, for more lessons on how to improve communication check out the other classes below.  they are all free..

You must be a member of the @lantis Learning Network to Add Classes, Lessons, Beliefs, Arguments, and other New Content.

Critical thinking is that mode of thinking – about any subject, content, or problem — in which the thinker improves the quality of his or her thinking by skillfully taking charge of the structures inherent in thinking and imposing intellectual standards upon them. (Paul and Elder, 2001).

The paul-elder critical thinking framework has three components:.

• The  elements of thought  (reasoning)
• The  intellectual standards  that should be applied to the elements of reasoning
• The intellectual traits associated with a cultivated critical thinker that result from the consistent and disciplined application of the intellectual standards to the elements of thought

According to Paul and Elder (1997), there are two essential dimensions of thinking that decision-makers need to master in order to learn how to upgrade their thinking.

• They need to be able to identify the “parts” of their thinking
• They need to be able to assess their use of these parts of thinking

Elements of Thought (reasoning)

The “parts” or elements of thinking are as follows:

• All reasoning has a  purpose
• All reasoning is an attempt to  figure something out, to settle some question, to solve some problem
• All reasoning is based on  assumptions
• All reasoning is done from some  point of view
• All reasoning is based on  data, information, and evidence
• All reasoning is expressed through, and shaped by, l anguage, culture, concepts,  and  ideas
• All reasoning contains  inferences  or  interpretations  by which we draw  conclusions  and give meaning to data
• All reasoning leads somewhere or has  implications  and  consequences

Universal Intellectual Standards

The intellectual standards that are to these elements are used to determine the quality of reasoning. Good critical thinking requires having a command of these standards. According to Paul and Elder (1997, 2006), the ultimate goal is for the standards of reasoning to become infused in all thinking so as to become the guide to better and better reasoning. The intellectual standards include:

Intellectual Traits

Consistent application of the standards of thinking to the elements of thinking result in the development of intellectual traits of:

• Intellectual Humility
• Intellectual Courage
• Intellectual Empathy
• Intellectual Autonomy
• Intellectual Integrity
• Intellectual Perseverance
• Confidence in Reason
• Fair-mindedness

Characteristics of a Well-Cultivated Critical Thinker

Habitual utilization of intellectual traits produces a well-cultivated critical thinker who is able to:

• Raise vital questions and problems, formulating them clearly and precisely
• Gather and assess relevant information, using abstract ideas to interpret it effectively
• Come to well-reasoned conclusions and solutions, testing them against relevant criteria and standards;
• Think open-mindedly within alternative systems of thought, recognizing and assessing, as need be, their assumptions, implications, and practical consequences; and
• Communicate effectively with others in figuring out solutions to complex problems

Paul, R. and Elder, L. (2010). The Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking Concepts and Tools. Dillon Beach: Foundation for Critical Thinking Press.

Being Critical is Not Thinking Critically

How you can protect yourself from misinformation

Growth Tactics

Critical Thinking Frameworks: Your Path to Analytical Excellence

Last Updated on March 24, 2024 by Milton Campbell

Are you ready to dive deeper into the world of critical thinking? Today, we’ll focus on the essential concept of critical thinking frameworks. These frameworks provide us with a structured approach to analyzing information, solving problems, and making sound decisions. So, let’s explore the power of critical thinking frameworks and discover how they can enhance our thinking process.

Understanding Different Critical Thinking Frameworks

When it comes to critical thinking frameworks, there are various models and approaches to explore. In this section, we’ll examine some popular frameworks such as the Paul-Elder model, the RED model, and Bloom’s Taxonomy. Each framework brings its unique perspective and structure to guide our critical thinking journey. Get ready to unlock a wealth of knowledge!

The Paul-Elder Model: A Holistic Approach to Critical Thinking

At the core of the Paul-Elder model lies the belief that critical thinking is an active and intentional process, driven by disciplined thought. It provides us with a set of intellectual standards and dimensions to guide our thinking, ensuring that we’re thorough, accurate, and clear in our analysis. So, let’s explore the key components that make up this remarkable framework.

Clarity: Shining a Light on Our Thoughts

The first component of the Paul-Elder model is clarity. It’s all about expressing our thoughts and ideas in a clear and unambiguous manner. By striving for clarity, we ensure that our message is easily understood and that we’re able to communicate our thinking effectively. This involves being aware of our language, avoiding jargon, and using precise terminology to convey our ideas with precision.

Accuracy: Seeking Truth in All Its Forms

The pursuit of accuracy is crucial in critical thinking. It involves challenging assumptions, verifying facts, and seeking evidence to support our claims. By striving for accuracy, we aim to align our thinking with reality and separate the truth from falsehoods. This component encourages us to be meticulous in our research, to question sources, and to analyze information critically before accepting it as truth.

Relevance: Focusing on What Truly Matters

In a sea of information, it’s essential to determine what’s relevant to our thinking. The relevance component of the Paul-Elder model urges us to filter out the noise and focus on what truly matters. It requires us to identify the key elements, concepts, and ideas that are most significant to the task at hand. By embracing relevance, we can streamline our thought processes, saving time and energy for what truly counts.

Logic: Unraveling the Threads of Reasoning

Logical thinking forms the backbone of the Paul-Elder model. This component encourages us to analyze the coherence and consistency of our reasoning. It prompts us to identify any logical fallacies or inconsistencies that may weaken our arguments. By using logical reasoning as a guiding principle, we can build well-structured and sound arguments that carry weight and persuade others effectively.

Depth: Digging Beneath the Surface

Critical thinking is not just about skimming the surface; it’s about diving deep and exploring the underlying complexities. The depth component of the Paul-Elder model challenges us to go beyond the obvious, to question assumptions, and to explore alternative perspectives. By delving beneath the surface and seeking a profound understanding, we enrich our thinking and unlock valuable insights.

Fairness: Embracing Objectivity and Open-Mindedness

Fairness is an integral part of the Paul-Elder model and critical thinking as a whole. It involves approaching information and ideas with an open mind, free from bias or preconceived notions. Fairness recognizes the importance of considering multiple perspectives, including those that challenge our own beliefs. By fostering a fair and impartial mindset, we encourage intellectual growth and broaden our understanding of the world.

Putting the Paul-Elder Model into Action

Now that we understand the key components of the Paul-Elder model, it’s time to put it into action. By incorporating these elements into our thinking process, we can enhance our critical thinking skills and become more effective problem solvers. As we practice this holistic approach, we’ll find ourselves making better decisions, evaluating information more effectively, and communicating our thoughts with clarity and conviction.

In the journey toward mastering critical thinking, the Paul-Elder model serves as a guiding light, providing us with the tools to navigate the vast sea of information that surrounds us. By embracing clarity, accuracy, relevance, logic, depth, and fairness, we can cultivate a well-rounded thinking process that empowers us to tackle complex issues head-on.

The RED Model: Break it Down to Think Clearly

In this section, we’re diving into the world of the RED model, a powerful framework designed by the brilliant minds of Dr. Richard Paul and Dr. Linda Elder.

This model acts as a compass, guiding us to think critically and clearly by breaking down the thinking process into three simple steps: Recognize, Evaluate, and Draw Conclusions. So, let’s dig in and discover how the RED model can help us navigate the complexities of our thoughts.

Recognize: Shining a Light on Our Thinking Patterns

The first step of the RED model is all about recognizing and becoming aware of our thinking. It challenges us to examine the patterns, assumptions, and biases that shape our thoughts. By shining a light on our thinking process, we can identify any potential flaws or limitations. This step is crucial as it lays the foundation for unbiased and objective reasoning.

To recognize our thinking, we must pause and reflect. Are we making assumptions without solid evidence? Are we being influenced by personal biases? By being aware of these thought patterns, we can approach information with a more critical eye and open ourselves to new possibilities.

Evaluate: Putting Our Thinking Under the Microscope

Once we’ve recognized our thinking, it’s time to evaluate it with precision. This step involves analyzing the quality of our reasoning, the strength of the evidence, and the validity of our arguments. Are our claims supported by sound evidence? Are there any logical fallacies in our thinking? By evaluating our thoughts, we ensure that they’re built upon a solid foundation.

Evaluation also requires us to consider different perspectives and challenge our own assumptions. It’s about seeking out diverse viewpoints and weighing them against our own beliefs. This step allows us to build a more comprehensive understanding of the issue at hand.

Draw Conclusions: Illuminating the Path Forward

After recognizing and evaluating our thinking, it’s time to draw conclusions. This step is about making informed decisions based on our analysis. By drawing conclusions, we reach a point where we can confidently articulate our thoughts and take action.

Drawing conclusions involves synthesizing the information we’ve gathered, considering all relevant factors, and coming to a well-reasoned resolution. It’s about being clear and concise in our communication of ideas, ensuring that others can understand and engage with our thoughts effectively.

The Power of the RED Model in Action

By breaking down the thinking process into three simple steps, the RED model empowers us to think clearly and critically. It provides a structured framework that guides us through the complexities of our thoughts, helping us avoid jumping to conclusions or being swayed by bias.

The RED model encourages a disciplined and systematic approach to thinking. It prompts us to question our assumptions, evaluate evidence with care, and communicate our thoughts with clarity. Through practice and repetition, this model becomes ingrained in our thinking process, enabling us to make more informed decisions and solve problems effectively.

Applying the RED model in our daily lives

The beauty of the RED model is its versatility. We can apply it to various situations, from personal decision-making to problem-solving in our professional lives. Whether we’re analyzing an argument, evaluating a piece of information, or making a strategic choice, the RED model helps us approach these tasks with a clear and critical mindset.

As we embrace the RED model and make it a part of our thinking routine, we’ll notice a transformation in our analytical abilities. We’ll become more adept at recognizing our thinking patterns, evaluating evidence objectively, and drawing well-grounded conclusions. The RED model empowers us to think critically and make thoughtful decisions in an increasingly complex world.

Bloom’s Taxonomy: From Knowledge to Evaluation

Developed by educational psychologist Benjamin Bloom, this taxonomy provides a roadmap for mastering new concepts and deepening our understanding. So, let’s dive right in and explore how Bloom’s Taxonomy can fuel our learning adventures.

Building Blocks: Knowledge and Comprehension

At the foundation of Bloom’s Taxonomy lie two essential building blocks: knowledge and comprehension. Knowledge involves acquiring facts, terms, and basic concepts about a subject. It’s the starting point where we gather the essential information necessary to understand a topic. Once we have this knowledge, we can move on to comprehension.

Comprehension goes a step beyond knowledge. It’s about grasping the meaning of the information we’ve acquired. This phase involves interpreting, explaining, and summarizing concepts in our own words. Comprehension helps solidify our understanding and fuels our ability to analyze and apply knowledge effectively.

Putting Ideas into Practice: Application and Analysis

With a solid foundation of knowledge and comprehension, we’re ready to put our ideas into practice. The next two levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy, application, and analysis, take us into the realm of practicality and critical thinking.

Application invites us to take what we’ve learned and apply it to real-life situations. It’s about utilizing our knowledge and comprehension to solve problems, make connections, and demonstrate our understanding. This level of Bloom’s Taxonomy encourages us to think creatively and transfer our knowledge to new contexts.

Analysis takes our thinking a step further. It involves breaking down complex information, examining its parts, and understanding the relationships between them. Analysis challenges us to think critically, identify patterns, and draw conclusions based on evidence. This level hones our ability to delve deeper and unravel the complexities within a subject.

Reaching New Heights: Synthesis and Evaluation

As we ascend Bloom’s Taxonomy, we encounter the higher-order thinking skills of synthesis and evaluation. These levels push us to tap into our creativity, critical thinking, and judgment.

Synthesis prompts us to integrate various ideas, concepts, and information to create something new. It’s about putting the puzzle pieces together in a unique way and constructing a cohesive whole. Synthesis stretches our imagination and encourages us to think outside the box, fostering innovation and originality.

Finally, we reach the pinnacle of Bloom’s Taxonomy: evaluation. This level challenges us to make judgments, form opinions, and assess the value and effectiveness of ideas or arguments . Evaluation requires us to consider evidence, weigh different perspectives, and make informed decisions. It’s the critical thinking skill that empowers us to be discerning, reflective, and confident in our assessments.

Mastering Bloom’s Taxonomy for Lifelong Learning

By embracing the levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy, we unlock the power to become lifelong learners. This framework equips us with the tools to progress from knowledge to evaluation, building a solid foundation of understanding along the way. Whether we’re studying for exams, conducting research, or simply expanding our knowledge, Bloom’s Taxonomy serves as our trusty guide, motivating us to think critically and deeply explore the subjects we’re passionate about.

As we climb the ladder of Bloom’s Taxonomy, let’s embrace each level as an opportunity for growth and personal development. Let’s ask questions, seek answers, and challenge ourselves to reach new heights of understanding. By nurturing our curiosity and honing our thinking skills, we’ll become lifelong learners, continuously expanding our knowledge and making meaningful contributions in our chosen fields.

By focusing on critical thinking frameworks, you’ve equipped yourself with valuable tools for analyzing information and making informed decisions. Remember, applying these frameworks is a continuous journey of practice and refinement. Embrace the versatility of different frameworks, experiment with their integration, and be open to new perspectives.

Now, armed with this newfound knowledge, you’re ready to tackle complex challenges with confidence and precision. Whether you’re a student, professional, or lifelong learner, mastering critical thinking frameworks will empower you to navigate the world with analytical excellence.

Related posts:

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

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