critical thinking halpern

QEP - Thinking and Beyond

Diane halpern’s four-part model.

• What is Critical Thinking?
• William Perry Model
• The Delphi Report Model
• Visible Thinking Model
• Susan Wolcott’s Steps for Better Thinking
• Foundation for Critical Thinking Framework
• Information Literacy
• AVID: High Engagement Practice
• QEP Assessment
• Faculty Showcase
• Online Resources
• Further Reading

Halpern extensively describes the model in Thought and Knowledge: An Introduction to Critical Thinking , a text popular for use in stand-alone critical thinking courses at colleges and currently in its fifth edition.  Halpern embeds the four parts of the model within the definition she provides for critical thinking. Halpern defines critical thinking as “the use of those cognitive skills or strategies that increase the probability of a desirable outcome” and further labels critical thinking as “purposeful, reasoned…goal-directed” and “involved in solving problems, formulating inferences, calculating likelihoods, and making decisions” (8). The definition also stipulates that the thinker must be using appropriate skills for a particular “context” and “type of thinking task” (8). The four-part model then aligns with these definition components and elaborates upon them.

The model’s first part is the overt teaching and learning of specific critical thinking skills and is also delineated in the book’s appendix (Halpern 563-92).

The model’s part two, that “develop[ing] the disposition” of a critical thinker relates to essential “attitudes” such as the “willingness to plan…flexibility…persistence… [and] admit[ting] errors,” as well as “chang[ing] your mind when the evidence changes.” Halpern indicates these attitudes undergird all thinking that raises the chances of attaining goals and solving problems (18-25).

Halpern’s part three centers on student transfer of the critical skills. Along with teaching students specific critical thinking skills, instructors also need to teach students to identify circumstances that require those skills and which skills are necessary in a particular circumstance (Halpern 25-6). To transfer skills, Halpern argues that students must move past “the domain-specific surface characteristics” to identify the “structural aspects of the problem or argument” that “trigger the recall of the thinking skill” (25).

Finally, the fourth part requires students to use metacognition to track the effectiveness of their thinking (Halpern 27). Decisions, goals, and problem solving feature significantly in Halpern’s definition and model. Both the definition and model account for uncertainty in the decision-making process because the result of critical thinking skills need not be “a desirable outcome” but instead a higher chance of such an outcome (8).

Works Cited

Halpern, diane f.  thought and knowledge: an introduction to critical thinking.  5th edition, psychology press, 2014..

• << Previous: The Delphi Report Model
• Next: Visible Thinking Model >>
• Last Updated: Nov 3, 2023 10:08 AM
• URL: https://sjcd.libguides.com/QEP

https://www.sanjac.edu/library | Central Library: 281-476-1850 | Generation Park Campus: 281-998-6150 x8133 | North Library: 281-459-7116 | South Library: 281-998-6150 ext. 3306

We will keep fighting for all libraries - stand with us!

Internet Archive Audio

• This Just In
• Grateful Dead
• Old Time Radio
• 78 RPMs and Cylinder Recordings
• Audio Books & Poetry
• Computers, Technology and Science
• Music, Arts & Culture
• News & Public Affairs
• Spirituality & Religion
• Radio News Archive

• Flickr Commons
• Occupy Wall Street Flickr
• NASA Images
• Solar System Collection
• Ames Research Center

• All Software
• Old School Emulation
• MS-DOS Games
• Historical Software
• Classic PC Games
• Software Library
• Kodi Archive and Support File
• Vintage Software
• CD-ROM Software
• CD-ROM Software Library
• Software Sites
• Tucows Software Library
• Shareware CD-ROMs
• Software Capsules Compilation
• CD-ROM Images
• ZX Spectrum
• DOOM Level CD

• Smithsonian Libraries
• FEDLINK (US)
• Lincoln Collection
• American Libraries
• Canadian Libraries
• Universal Library
• Project Gutenberg
• Children's Library
• Biodiversity Heritage Library
• Books by Language
• Additional Collections

• Prelinger Archives
• Democracy Now!
• Occupy Wall Street
• TV NSA Clip Library
• Animation & Cartoons
• Arts & Music
• Computers & Technology
• Cultural & Academic Films
• Ephemeral Films
• Sports Videos
• Videogame Videos
• Youth Media

Search the history of over 866 billion web pages on the Internet.

Mobile Apps

• Wayback Machine (iOS)
• Wayback Machine (Android)

Browser Extensions

Archive-it subscription.

• Explore the Collections
• Build Collections

Save Page Now

Capture a web page as it appears now for use as a trusted citation in the future.

Please enter a valid web address

• Donate Donate icon An illustration of a heart shape

Thought and knowledge : an introduction to critical thinking

Bookreader item preview, share or embed this item, flag this item for.

• Graphic Violence
• Explicit Sexual Content
• Hate Speech
• Misinformation/Disinformation
• Marketing/Phishing/Advertising
• Misleading/Inaccurate/Missing Metadata

plus-circle Add Review comment Reviews

22,577 Views

99 Favorites

DOWNLOAD OPTIONS

For users with print-disabilities

IN COLLECTIONS

Uploaded by Sketch the Cow on December 16, 2015

SIMILAR ITEMS (based on metadata)

Diane F. Halpern, Ph.D.

Dean of social science at the minvera schools at keck graduate insitute, emerita mcelwee family professor of psychology at claremont mckenna college, emerita, 6th edition thought and knowledge: an introduction to critical thinking, diane f. halpern and dana s. dunn.

Thought and Knowledge apply theory and research from the learning sciences to teach students the thinking skills that they need to succeed in today's world. A rigorous academic grounding based on cognitive psychology is presented in a clear, humorous writing style and supported by numerous real-world, culturally relevant examples and anecdotes.

Critical thinking is needed now more than ever before: fake news, alternative facts, deep fakes, an army of bots, misinformation, disinformation, and post-truth. These terms signal new challenges to critical thinking. How can anyone decide what and whom to believe: when bombarded with a cacophony of voices (some with evil intent competing for our attention? Anyone with some internet savvy can spread any message on the internet. The 6th edition of Thought and Knowledge has a new focus on what and whom to believe and how to decide in a world where deliberate attempts to mislead can be found almost anywhere.

In addition, there is a growing anti-science sentiment that threatens: how we care for our collective health and well-being with the potential for worldwide disasters, such as the spread of COVID-19 and how we think about crucial science-related topics like climate change and vaccines.

Thought and Knowledge has an excellent website with separate sections for students (learning activities, quizzes) and instructors (PowerPoint slides, test bank) and much more.

Praise for the 6th Edition: 

“Thought and Knowledge is a superb introduction to logic, reasoning errors and analysis of evidence. The author is one of the world's most distinguished people studying how we think and how we can think more effectively.”

Richard E. Nisbett, Professor of Psychology Emeritus, University of Michigan 

“In the age of social media, all of us are victims of information warfare, and ordinary manipulation. For our own sanity and happiness, we must learn how our minds work and how they are hacked. Thought and Knowledge is a superb introduction to cognitive psychology with engaging writing about the world as it is today. The authors use psychology to teach psychology. This book will help you succeed in a complex informational landscape, and it will help all who read it to become better cognitive citizens.” 

Jonathan Haidt, Thomas Cooley Professor of Ethical Leadership, New York University—Stern School of Business, author of The Righteous Mind, Co-author of The Coddling of the American Mind

“This is a book for our times. It drills deeply into the nature and application of critical thinking and provides compelling illustrations and explanations of its various facets. If you want to think critically about critical thinking, this book is for you.” 

Stephen M. Kosslyn, Founding Dean and Chief Academic Officer of the Minerva Schools at KGI and John Lindsley Professor of Psychology in Memory of William James, Emeritus, Harvard University. 

“Halpern and Dunn have created a fascinating, scholarly (but accessible), and eminently useful book that not only introduces students to some of the best research on critical thinking, but does so in a delightful, engaging manner. This volume is full of attention-capturing exercises that students will resonate with and learn from. By the end of the book, students will have been exposed to the best of cognitive science, communicated by an extraordinarily talented team with the gravitas to definitively own and teach this topic.” Wendy M. Williams Professor and Director of the Cornell Institute for Women in Science, Department of Psychology, Cornell University

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

The Halpern Critical Thinking Assessment and real-world outcomes: Cross-national applications

2012, Thinking Skills and Creativity

Related Papers

Psychological Reports

Leandro Almeida

Critical thinking is a kind of “good” thinking that integrates a set of cognitive skills and dispositions to use those skills with knowledge to increase the chances of success in academic settings, job market, and daily life. The impact of critical thinking on life events, in face of everyday decisions and challenges, is still unclear, and further research is needed. In this exploratory study, a sample of 230 first-year students of a Bachelor’s Degree or a Master’s Degree in Portugal completed an experimental Portuguese version of the Real-World Outcomes, a self-report inventory measuring everyday negative life events that are mediated by a lack of critical thinking. Based on exploratory factor analysis results and theoretical premises, changes were made to the Portuguese version of the inventory that was administered, and items were aggregated into six dimensions, creating a new version that is more familiar to Portuguese young adults in college. This original proposal of the inven...

Education Research International

Ana Mª Nieto

Critical Thinking and Reasoning

Peter A Facione , Carol Ann Gittens

Anything that is valued is measured. Over the past three decades building critical thinking skills and a thinking mindset has moved from a theoretical academic discussion to a global concern for employers, educators, and those seeking to advance truth-seeking for the sake of democracy and the reasoned pursuit of our common good. This white paper supplies an overview of empirical research on efforts to improve critical thinking in educational and employment settings. The unifying factor in these papers is the data provided by scholars measuring critical thinking using instruments developed and validated by our research team, often in collaboration with international scholar colleagues and professional sector experts. Findings are organized under four broad questions: How do the critical thinking skills of today’s college students compare with earlier decades? How helpful is an assessment of critical thinking for graduate and professional program admissions and for prediction of transition to the workplace? What do the K-12 data tell us about the relationship between critical thinking and optimal childhood development? What is the business advantage of testing and training critical thinking?

Education Sciences

Dimitris Pnevmatikos

Thanita Lerdpornkulrat

Critical thinking is the ability to think clearly and rationally and focuses on deciding what to do or what to believe (Facione, 2000). It includes the ability to conceptualize, apply, analyze, synthesize, and/or evaluate the information gathered from observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication (Valenzuela, Nieto, & Saiz, 2011). Therefore, critical thinking has always been viewed as a goal of academic work of all successful students (Stupnisky, Renaud, Daniels, Haynes, & Perry, 2008).Educational researchers and theorists (e.g., Ennis, 1996; Halpern, 1998) posit that any conceptualization of critical thinking must include both skills (ability to interpret, analyze, and evaluate data, knowledge, and insight) and dispositions (tendency or willingness to use analytical thinking skills) (Bohlin, 2009; Facione, 1990; Perkins, Jay, & Tishman, 1993; Siegel, 1999). As the critical thinking is a mental process that connected to cognitive activity which is not activated au...

Assessing Writing

Secret Belanger , Emily Saxton

Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice

Pamela Moss

Anthony Petrosky

The diagnostic testing component of the Critical Thinking Project of the Pittsburgh schools is described and a rationale for the project&#39;s particular choice of testing procedures is provided. The purpose of the project was to help students develop skills for thinking critically and communicating critical thought through reading, discussion, and essay writing within the social studies curriculum. The project defined critical thinking as a dynamic process of questioning and reasoning that reflects a trusting, yet skeptical orientation toward the world. Critical thinking skills are interdependent emphasizing both oral and written expression. Because no existing tests suited the project&#39;s conceptualization of critical thinking or met its practical needs, the project developed a testing procedure that asked students to read passages relevant to their social studies curriculum and write essays in response to questions which asked them to do such tasks as evaluate or draw inference...

Journal of Veterinary Medical Education

Margaret Barr

RELATED PAPERS

African journal of reproductive health

Oyedunni Arulogun

Fertility and Sterility

Marita Pall

Corrosion prevention and Control

Julio Cesar de Souza

Journal of Biological Chemistry

Roseline Godbout

Economía UNAM

Jesús Lechuga Montenegro

Pesquisa Agropecuária Brasileira

Leopoldo Matsumoto

Jurnal Teknologi Pertanian Andalas

rahmi holinesti

Champa Sengupta-Gopalan

Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Education Science and Social Development (ESSD 2019)

Polina Shumilova

Doris Fischer

Medical Physics

BMC geriatrics

Politique et Sociétés

Mélanie Bourque

John Paulo Miña Musa

Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Social, Applied Science and Technology in Home Economics (ICONHOMECS 2017)

Nunung Nurjanah

University Heart Journal

Hasibul Hasan

Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira

arXiv (Cornell University)

Virginia Xiaojun He

Research Square (Research Square)

Modestus Okwu

Neurobiology of Pain

Olumide Ojo

Channels (Austin, Tex.)

Veronica Milesi

Hebron University Research Journal-B (Humanities) - (مجلة جامعة الخليل للبحوث- ب (العلوم الانسانيه

Études internationales

Elżbieta Jantoń-Drozdowska

Journal of Materials Science

ezio martuscelli

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

• 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

A Short Guide to Building Your Team’s Critical Thinking Skills

• Matt Plummer

Critical thinking isn’t an innate skill. It can be learned.

Most employers lack an effective way to objectively assess critical thinking skills and most managers don’t know how to provide specific instruction to team members in need of becoming better thinkers. Instead, most managers employ a sink-or-swim approach, ultimately creating work-arounds to keep those who can’t figure out how to “swim” from making important decisions. But it doesn’t have to be this way. To demystify what critical thinking is and how it is developed, the author’s team turned to three research-backed models: The Halpern Critical Thinking Assessment, Pearson’s RED Critical Thinking Model, and Bloom’s Taxonomy. Using these models, they developed the Critical Thinking Roadmap, a framework that breaks critical thinking down into four measurable phases: the ability to execute, synthesize, recommend, and generate.

With critical thinking ranking among the most in-demand skills for job candidates , you would think that educational institutions would prepare candidates well to be exceptional thinkers, and employers would be adept at developing such skills in existing employees. Unfortunately, both are largely untrue.

• Matt Plummer (@mtplummer) is the founder of Zarvana, which offers online programs and coaching services to help working professionals become more productive by developing time-saving habits. Before starting Zarvana, Matt spent six years at Bain & Company spin-out, The Bridgespan Group, a strategy and management consulting firm for nonprofits, foundations, and philanthropists.  

Partner Center

• 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

How can one assess, for purposes of instruction or research, the degree to which a person possesses the dispositions, skills and knowledge of a critical thinker?

In psychometrics, assessment instruments are judged according to their validity and reliability.

Roughly speaking, an instrument is valid if it measures accurately what it purports to measure, given standard conditions. More precisely, the degree of validity is “the degree to which evidence and theory support the interpretations of test scores for proposed uses of tests” (American Educational Research Association 2014: 11). In other words, a test is not valid or invalid in itself. Rather, validity is a property of an interpretation of a given score on a given test for a specified use. Determining the degree of validity of such an interpretation requires collection and integration of the relevant evidence, which may be based on test content, test takers’ response processes, a test’s internal structure, relationship of test scores to other variables, and consequences of the interpretation (American Educational Research Association 2014: 13–21). Criterion-related evidence consists of correlations between scores on the test and performance on another test of the same construct; its weight depends on how well supported is the assumption that the other test can be used as a criterion. Content-related evidence is evidence that the test covers the full range of abilities that it claims to test. Construct-related evidence is evidence that a correct answer reflects good performance of the kind being measured and an incorrect answer reflects poor performance.

An instrument is reliable if it consistently produces the same result, whether across different forms of the same test (parallel-forms reliability), across different items (internal consistency), across different administrations to the same person (test-retest reliability), or across ratings of the same answer by different people (inter-rater reliability). Internal consistency should be expected only if the instrument purports to measure a single undifferentiated construct, and thus should not be expected of a test that measures a suite of critical thinking dispositions or critical thinking abilities, assuming that some people are better in some of the respects measured than in others (for example, very willing to inquire but rather closed-minded). Otherwise, reliability is a necessary but not a sufficient condition of validity; a standard example of a reliable instrument that is not valid is a bathroom scale that consistently under-reports a person’s weight.

Assessing dispositions is difficult if one uses a multiple-choice format with known adverse consequences of a low score. It is pretty easy to tell what answer to the question “How open-minded are you?” will get the highest score and to give that answer, even if one knows that the answer is incorrect. If an item probes less directly for a critical thinking disposition, for example by asking how often the test taker pays close attention to views with which the test taker disagrees, the answer may differ from reality because of self-deception or simple lack of awareness of one’s personal thinking style, and its interpretation is problematic, even if factor analysis enables one to identify a distinct factor measured by a group of questions that includes this one (Ennis 1996). Nevertheless, Facione, Sánchez, and Facione (1994) used this approach to develop the California Critical Thinking Dispositions Inventory (CCTDI). They began with 225 statements expressive of a disposition towards or away from critical thinking (using the long list of dispositions in Facione 1990a), validated the statements with talk-aloud and conversational strategies in focus groups to determine whether people in the target population understood the items in the way intended, administered a pilot version of the test with 150 items, and eliminated items that failed to discriminate among test takers or were inversely correlated with overall results or added little refinement to overall scores (Facione 2000). They used item analysis and factor analysis to group the measured dispositions into seven broad constructs: open-mindedness, analyticity, cognitive maturity, truth-seeking, systematicity, inquisitiveness, and self-confidence (Facione, Sánchez, and Facione 1994). The resulting test consists of 75 agree-disagree statements and takes 20 minutes to administer. A repeated disturbing finding is that North American students taking the test tend to score low on the truth-seeking sub-scale (on which a low score results from agreeing to such statements as the following: “To get people to agree with me I would give any reason that worked”. “Everyone always argues from their own self-interest, including me”. “If there are four reasons in favor and one against, I’ll go with the four”.) Development of the CCTDI made it possible to test whether good critical thinking abilities and good critical thinking dispositions go together, in which case it might be enough to teach one without the other. Facione (2000) reports that administration of the CCTDI and the California Critical Thinking Skills Test (CCTST) to almost 8,000 post-secondary students in the United States revealed a statistically significant but weak correlation between total scores on the two tests, and also between paired sub-scores from the two tests. The implication is that both abilities and dispositions need to be taught, that one cannot expect improvement in one to bring with it improvement in the other.

A more direct way of assessing critical thinking dispositions would be to see what people do when put in a situation where the dispositions would reveal themselves. Ennis (1996) reports promising initial work with guided open-ended opportunities to give evidence of dispositions, but no standardized test seems to have emerged from this work. There are however standardized aspect-specific tests of critical thinking dispositions. The Critical Problem Solving Scale (Berman et al. 2001: 518) takes as a measure of the disposition to suspend judgment the number of distinct good aspects attributed to an option judged to be the worst among those generated by the test taker. Stanovich, West and Toplak (2011: 800–810) list tests developed by cognitive psychologists of the following dispositions: resistance to miserly information processing, resistance to myside thinking, absence of irrelevant context effects in decision-making, actively open-minded thinking, valuing reason and truth, tendency to seek information, objective reasoning style, tendency to seek consistency, sense of self-efficacy, prudent discounting of the future, self-control skills, and emotional regulation.

It is easier to measure critical thinking skills or abilities than to measure dispositions. The following eight currently available standardized tests purport to measure them: the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal (Watson & Glaser 1980a, 1980b, 1994), the Cornell Critical Thinking Tests Level X and Level Z (Ennis & Millman 1971; Ennis, Millman, & Tomko 1985, 2005), the Ennis-Weir Critical Thinking Essay Test (Ennis & Weir 1985), the California Critical Thinking Skills Test (Facione 1990b, 1992), the Halpern Critical Thinking Assessment (Halpern 2016), the Critical Thinking Assessment Test (Center for Assessment & Improvement of Learning 2017), the Collegiate Learning Assessment (Council for Aid to Education 2017), the HEIghten Critical Thinking Assessment (https://territorium.com/heighten/), and a suite of critical thinking assessments for different groups and purposes offered by Insight Assessment (https://www.insightassessment.com/products). The Critical Thinking Assessment Test (CAT) is unique among them in being designed for use by college faculty to help them improve their development of students’ critical thinking skills (Haynes et al. 2015; Haynes & Stein 2021). Also, for some years the United Kingdom body OCR (Oxford Cambridge and RSA Examinations) awarded AS and A Level certificates in critical thinking on the basis of an examination (OCR 2011). Many of these standardized tests have received scholarly evaluations at the hands of, among others, Ennis (1958), McPeck (1981), Norris and Ennis (1989), Fisher and Scriven (1997), Possin (2008, 2013a, 2013b, 2013c, 2014, 2020) and Hatcher and Possin (2021). Their evaluations provide a useful set of criteria that such tests ideally should meet, as does the description by Ennis (1984) of problems in testing for competence in critical thinking: the soundness of multiple-choice items, the clarity and soundness of instructions to test takers, the information and mental processing used in selecting an answer to a multiple-choice item, the role of background beliefs and ideological commitments in selecting an answer to a multiple-choice item, the tenability of a test’s underlying conception of critical thinking and its component abilities, the set of abilities that the test manual claims are covered by the test, the extent to which the test actually covers these abilities, the appropriateness of the weighting given to various abilities in the scoring system, the accuracy and intellectual honesty of the test manual, the interest of the test to the target population of test takers, the scope for guessing, the scope for choosing a keyed answer by being test-wise, precautions against cheating in the administration of the test, clarity and soundness of materials for training essay graders, inter-rater reliability in grading essays, and clarity and soundness of advance guidance to test takers on what is required in an essay. Rear (2019) has challenged the use of standardized tests of critical thinking as a way to measure educational outcomes, on the grounds that  they (1) fail to take into account disputes about conceptions of critical thinking, (2) are not completely valid or reliable, and (3) fail to evaluate skills used in real academic tasks. He proposes instead assessments based on discipline-specific content.

There are also aspect-specific standardized tests of critical thinking abilities. Stanovich, West and Toplak (2011: 800–810) list tests of probabilistic reasoning, insights into qualitative decision theory, knowledge of scientific reasoning, knowledge of rules of logical consistency and validity, and economic thinking. They also list instruments that probe for irrational thinking, such as superstitious thinking, belief in the superiority of intuition, over-reliance on folk wisdom and folk psychology, belief in “special” expertise, financial misconceptions, overestimation of one’s introspective powers, dysfunctional beliefs, and a notion of self that encourages egocentric processing. They regard these tests along with the previously mentioned tests of critical thinking dispositions as the building blocks for a comprehensive test of rationality, whose development (they write) may be logistically difficult and would require millions of dollars.

A superb example of assessment of an aspect of critical thinking ability is the Test on Appraising Observations (Norris & King 1983, 1985, 1990a, 1990b), which was designed for classroom administration to senior high school students. The test focuses entirely on the ability to appraise observation statements and in particular on the ability to determine in a specified context which of two statements there is more reason to believe. According to the test manual (Norris & King 1985, 1990b), a person’s score on the multiple-choice version of the test, which is the number of items that are answered correctly, can justifiably be given either a criterion-referenced or a norm-referenced interpretation.

On a criterion-referenced interpretation, those who do well on the test have a firm grasp of the principles for appraising observation statements, and those who do poorly have a weak grasp of them. This interpretation can be justified by the content of the test and the way it was developed, which incorporated a method of controlling for background beliefs articulated and defended by Norris (1985). Norris and King synthesized from judicial practice, psychological research and common-sense psychology 31 principles for appraising observation statements, in the form of empirical generalizations about tendencies, such as the principle that observation statements tend to be more believable than inferences based on them (Norris & King 1984). They constructed items in which exactly one of the 31 principles determined which of two statements was more believable. Using a carefully constructed protocol, they interviewed about 100 students who responded to these items in order to determine the thinking that led them to choose the answers they did (Norris & King 1984). In several iterations of the test, they adjusted items so that selection of the correct answer generally reflected good thinking and selection of an incorrect answer reflected poor thinking. Thus they have good evidence that good performance on the test is due to good thinking about observation statements and that poor performance is due to poor thinking about observation statements. Collectively, the 50 items on the final version of the test require application of 29 of the 31 principles for appraising observation statements, with 13 principles tested by one item, 12 by two items, three by three items, and one by four items. Thus there is comprehensive coverage of the principles for appraising observation statements. Fisher and Scriven (1997: 135–136) judge the items to be well worked and sound, with one exception. The test is clearly written at a grade 6 reading level, meaning that poor performance cannot be attributed to difficulties in reading comprehension by the intended adolescent test takers. The stories that frame the items are realistic, and are engaging enough to stimulate test takers’ interest. Thus the most plausible explanation of a given score on the test is that it reflects roughly the degree to which the test taker can apply principles for appraising observations in real situations. In other words, there is good justification of the proposed interpretation that those who do well on the test have a firm grasp of the principles for appraising observation statements and those who do poorly have a weak grasp of them.

To get norms for performance on the test, Norris and King arranged for seven groups of high school students in different types of communities and with different levels of academic ability to take the test. The test manual includes percentiles, means, and standard deviations for each of these seven groups. These norms allow teachers to compare the performance of their class on the test to that of a similar group of students.

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

A Crash Course in Critical Thinking

What you need to know—and read—about one of the essential skills needed today..

Posted April 8, 2024 | Reviewed by Michelle Quirk

• In research for "A More Beautiful Question," I did a deep dive into the current crisis in critical thinking.
• Many people may think of themselves as critical thinkers, but they actually are not.
• Here is a series of questions you can ask yourself to try to ensure that you are thinking critically.

Conspiracy theories. Inability to distinguish facts from falsehoods. Widespread confusion about who and what to believe.

These are some of the hallmarks of the current crisis in critical thinking—which just might be the issue of our times. Because if people aren’t willing or able to think critically as they choose potential leaders, they’re apt to choose bad ones. And if they can’t judge whether the information they’re receiving is sound, they may follow faulty advice while ignoring recommendations that are science-based and solid (and perhaps life-saving).

Moreover, as a society, if we can’t think critically about the many serious challenges we face, it becomes more difficult to agree on what those challenges are—much less solve them.

On a personal level, critical thinking can enable you to make better everyday decisions. It can help you make sense of an increasingly complex and confusing world.

In the new expanded edition of my book A More Beautiful Question ( AMBQ ), I took a deep dive into critical thinking. Here are a few key things I learned.

First off, before you can get better at critical thinking, you should understand what it is. It’s not just about being a skeptic. When thinking critically, we are thoughtfully reasoning, evaluating, and making decisions based on evidence and logic. And—perhaps most important—while doing this, a critical thinker always strives to be open-minded and fair-minded . That’s not easy: It demands that you constantly question your assumptions and biases and that you always remain open to considering opposing views.

In today’s polarized environment, many people think of themselves as critical thinkers simply because they ask skeptical questions—often directed at, say, certain government policies or ideas espoused by those on the “other side” of the political divide. The problem is, they may not be asking these questions with an open mind or a willingness to fairly consider opposing views.

When people do this, they’re engaging in “weak-sense critical thinking”—a term popularized by the late Richard Paul, a co-founder of The Foundation for Critical Thinking . “Weak-sense critical thinking” means applying the tools and practices of critical thinking—questioning, investigating, evaluating—but with the sole purpose of confirming one’s own bias or serving an agenda.

In AMBQ , I lay out a series of questions you can ask yourself to try to ensure that you’re thinking critically. Here are some of the questions to consider:

• Why do I believe what I believe?
• Are my views based on evidence?
• Have I fairly and thoughtfully considered differing viewpoints?
• Am I truly open to changing my mind?

Of course, becoming a better critical thinker is not as simple as just asking yourself a few questions. Critical thinking is a habit of mind that must be developed and strengthened over time. In effect, you must train yourself to think in a manner that is more effortful, aware, grounded, and balanced.

For those interested in giving themselves a crash course in critical thinking—something I did myself, as I was working on my book—I thought it might be helpful to share a list of some of the books that have shaped my own thinking on this subject. As a self-interested author, I naturally would suggest that you start with the new 10th-anniversary edition of A More Beautiful Question , but beyond that, here are the top eight critical-thinking books I’d recommend.

The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark , by Carl Sagan

This book simply must top the list, because the late scientist and author Carl Sagan continues to be such a bright shining light in the critical thinking universe. Chapter 12 includes the details on Sagan’s famous “baloney detection kit,” a collection of lessons and tips on how to deal with bogus arguments and logical fallacies.

Clear Thinking: Turning Ordinary Moments Into Extraordinary Results , by Shane Parrish

The creator of the Farnham Street website and host of the “Knowledge Project” podcast explains how to contend with biases and unconscious reactions so you can make better everyday decisions. It contains insights from many of the brilliant thinkers Shane has studied.

Good Thinking: Why Flawed Logic Puts Us All at Risk and How Critical Thinking Can Save the World , by David Robert Grimes

A brilliant, comprehensive 2021 book on critical thinking that, to my mind, hasn’t received nearly enough attention . The scientist Grimes dissects bad thinking, shows why it persists, and offers the tools to defeat it.

Think Again: The Power of Knowing What You Don't Know , by Adam Grant

Intellectual humility—being willing to admit that you might be wrong—is what this book is primarily about. But Adam, the renowned Wharton psychology professor and bestselling author, takes the reader on a mind-opening journey with colorful stories and characters.

Think Like a Detective: A Kid's Guide to Critical Thinking , by David Pakman

The popular YouTuber and podcast host Pakman—normally known for talking politics —has written a terrific primer on critical thinking for children. The illustrated book presents critical thinking as a “superpower” that enables kids to unlock mysteries and dig for truth. (I also recommend Pakman’s second kids’ book called Think Like a Scientist .)

Rationality: What It Is, Why It Seems Scarce, Why It Matters , by Steven Pinker

The Harvard psychology professor Pinker tackles conspiracy theories head-on but also explores concepts involving risk/reward, probability and randomness, and correlation/causation. And if that strikes you as daunting, be assured that Pinker makes it lively and accessible.

How Minds Change: The Surprising Science of Belief, Opinion and Persuasion , by David McRaney

David is a science writer who hosts the popular podcast “You Are Not So Smart” (and his ideas are featured in A More Beautiful Question ). His well-written book looks at ways you can actually get through to people who see the world very differently than you (hint: bludgeoning them with facts definitely won’t work).

A Healthy Democracy's Best Hope: Building the Critical Thinking Habit , by M Neil Browne and Chelsea Kulhanek

Neil Browne, author of the seminal Asking the Right Questions: A Guide to Critical Thinking, has been a pioneer in presenting critical thinking as a question-based approach to making sense of the world around us. His newest book, co-authored with Chelsea Kulhanek, breaks down critical thinking into “11 explosive questions”—including the “priors question” (which challenges us to question assumptions), the “evidence question” (focusing on how to evaluate and weigh evidence), and the “humility question” (which reminds us that a critical thinker must be humble enough to consider the possibility of being wrong).

Warren Berger is a longtime journalist and author of A More Beautiful Question .

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Psychiatrist
• Find a Support Group
• Find Teletherapy
• United States
• Brooklyn, NY
• Chicago, IL
• Houston, TX
• Los Angeles, CA
• New York, NY
• Portland, OR
• San Diego, CA
• San Francisco, CA
• Seattle, WA
• Washington, DC
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Relationships
• Child Development
• Therapy Center NEW
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

Understanding what emotional intelligence looks like and the steps needed to improve it could light a path to a more emotionally adept world.

• Coronavirus Disease 2019
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience