critical thinking meaning healthcare

The Value of Critical Thinking in Nursing

• How Nurses Use Critical Thinking
• How to Improve Critical Thinking
• Common Mistakes

Some experts describe a person’s ability to question belief systems, test previously held assumptions, and recognize ambiguity as evidence of critical thinking. Others identify specific skills that demonstrate critical thinking, such as the ability to identify problems and biases, infer and draw conclusions, and determine the relevance of information to a situation.

Nicholas McGowan, BSN, RN, CCRN, has been a critical care nurse for 10 years in neurological trauma nursing and cardiovascular and surgical intensive care. He defines critical thinking as “necessary for problem-solving and decision-making by healthcare providers. It is a process where people use a logical process to gather information and take purposeful action based on their evaluation.”

“This cognitive process is vital for excellent patient outcomes because it requires that nurses make clinical decisions utilizing a variety of different lenses, such as fairness, ethics, and evidence-based practice,” he says.

How Do Nurses Use Critical Thinking?

Successful nurses think beyond their assigned tasks to deliver excellent care for their patients. For example, a nurse might be tasked with changing a wound dressing, delivering medications, and monitoring vital signs during a shift. However, it requires critical thinking skills to understand how a difference in the wound may affect blood pressure and temperature and when those changes may require immediate medical intervention.

Nurses care for many patients during their shifts. Strong critical thinking skills are crucial when juggling various tasks so patient safety and care are not compromised.

Jenna Liphart Rhoads, Ph.D., RN, is a nurse educator with a clinical background in surgical-trauma adult critical care, where critical thinking and action were essential to the safety of her patients. She talks about examples of critical thinking in a healthcare environment, saying:

“Nurses must also critically think to determine which patient to see first, which medications to pass first, and the order in which to organize their day caring for patients. Patient conditions and environments are continually in flux, therefore nurses must constantly be evaluating and re-evaluating information they gather (assess) to keep their patients safe.”

The COVID-19 pandemic created hospital care situations where critical thinking was essential. It was expected of the nurses on the general floor and in intensive care units. Crystal Slaughter is an advanced practice nurse in the intensive care unit (ICU) and a nurse educator. She observed critical thinking throughout the pandemic as she watched intensive care nurses test the boundaries of previously held beliefs and master providing excellent care while preserving resources.

“Nurses are at the patient’s bedside and are often the first ones to detect issues. Then, the nurse needs to gather the appropriate subjective and objective data from the patient in order to frame a concise problem statement or question for the physician or advanced practice provider,” she explains.

Top 5 Ways Nurses Can Improve Critical Thinking Skills

We asked our experts for the top five strategies nurses can use to purposefully improve their critical thinking skills.

Case-Based Approach

Slaughter is a fan of the case-based approach to learning critical thinking skills.

In much the same way a detective would approach a mystery, she mentors her students to ask questions about the situation that help determine the information they have and the information they need. “What is going on? What information am I missing? Can I get that information? What does that information mean for the patient? How quickly do I need to act?”

Consider forming a group and working with a mentor who can guide you through case studies. This provides you with a learner-centered environment in which you can analyze data to reach conclusions and develop communication, analytical, and collaborative skills with your colleagues.

Practice Self-Reflection

Rhoads is an advocate for self-reflection. “Nurses should reflect upon what went well or did not go well in their workday and identify areas of improvement or situations in which they should have reached out for help.” Self-reflection is a form of personal analysis to observe and evaluate situations and how you responded.

This gives you the opportunity to discover mistakes you may have made and to establish new behavior patterns that may help you make better decisions. You likely already do this. For example, after a disagreement or contentious meeting, you may go over the conversation in your head and think about ways you could have responded.

It’s important to go through the decisions you made during your day and determine if you should have gotten more information before acting or if you could have asked better questions.

During self-reflection, you may try thinking about the problem in reverse. This may not give you an immediate answer, but can help you see the situation with fresh eyes and a new perspective. How would the outcome of the day be different if you planned the dressing change in reverse with the assumption you would find a wound infection? How does this information change your plan for the next dressing change?

Develop a Questioning Mind

McGowan has learned that “critical thinking is a self-driven process. It isn’t something that can simply be taught. Rather, it is something that you practice and cultivate with experience. To develop critical thinking skills, you have to be curious and inquisitive.”

To gain critical thinking skills, you must undergo a purposeful process of learning strategies and using them consistently so they become a habit. One of those strategies is developing a questioning mind. Meaningful questions lead to useful answers and are at the core of critical thinking .

However, learning to ask insightful questions is a skill you must develop. Faced with staff and nursing shortages , declining patient conditions, and a rising number of tasks to be completed, it may be difficult to do more than finish the task in front of you. Yet, questions drive active learning and train your brain to see the world differently and take nothing for granted.

It is easier to practice questioning in a non-stressful, quiet environment until it becomes a habit. Then, in the moment when your patient’s care depends on your ability to ask the right questions, you can be ready to rise to the occasion.

Practice Self-Awareness in the Moment

Critical thinking in nursing requires self-awareness and being present in the moment. During a hectic shift, it is easy to lose focus as you struggle to finish every task needed for your patients. Passing medication, changing dressings, and hanging intravenous lines all while trying to assess your patient’s mental and emotional status can affect your focus and how you manage stress as a nurse .

Staying present helps you to be proactive in your thinking and anticipate what might happen, such as bringing extra lubricant for a catheterization or extra gloves for a dressing change.

By staying present, you are also better able to practice active listening. This raises your assessment skills and gives you more information as a basis for your interventions and decisions.

Use a Process

As you are developing critical thinking skills, it can be helpful to use a process. For example:

• Ask questions.
• Gather information.
• Implement a strategy.
• Evaluate the results.
• Consider another point of view.

These are the fundamental steps of the nursing process (assess, diagnose, plan, implement, evaluate). The last step will help you overcome one of the common problems of critical thinking in nursing — personal bias.

Common Critical Thinking Pitfalls in Nursing

Your brain uses a set of processes to make inferences about what’s happening around you. In some cases, your unreliable biases can lead you down the wrong path. McGowan places personal biases at the top of his list of common pitfalls to critical thinking in nursing.

“We all form biases based on our own experiences. However, nurses have to learn to separate their own biases from each patient encounter to avoid making false assumptions that may interfere with their care,” he says. Successful critical thinkers accept they have personal biases and learn to look out for them. Awareness of your biases is the first step to understanding if your personal bias is contributing to the wrong decision.

New nurses may be overwhelmed by the transition from academics to clinical practice, leading to a task-oriented mindset and a common new nurse mistake ; this conflicts with critical thinking skills.

“Consider a patient whose blood pressure is low but who also needs to take a blood pressure medication at a scheduled time. A task-oriented nurse may provide the medication without regard for the patient’s blood pressure because medication administration is a task that must be completed,” Slaughter says. “A nurse employing critical thinking skills would address the low blood pressure, review the patient’s blood pressure history and trends, and potentially call the physician to discuss whether medication should be withheld.”

Fear and pride may also stand in the way of developing critical thinking skills. Your belief system and worldview provide comfort and guidance, but this can impede your judgment when you are faced with an individual whose belief system or cultural practices are not the same as yours. Fear or pride may prevent you from pursuing a line of questioning that would benefit the patient. Nurses with strong critical thinking skills exhibit:

• Learn from their mistakes and the mistakes of other nurses
• Look forward to integrating changes that improve patient care
• Treat each patient interaction as a part of a whole
• Evaluate new events based on past knowledge and adjust decision-making as needed
• Solve problems with their colleagues
• Are self-confident
• Acknowledge biases and seek to ensure these do not impact patient care

An Essential Skill for All Nurses

Critical thinking in nursing protects patient health and contributes to professional development and career advancement. Administrative and clinical nursing leaders are required to have strong critical thinking skills to be successful in their positions.

By using the strategies in this guide during your daily life and in your nursing role, you can intentionally improve your critical thinking abilities and be rewarded with better patient outcomes and potential career advancement.

Frequently Asked Questions About Critical Thinking in Nursing

How are critical thinking skills utilized in nursing practice.

Nursing practice utilizes critical thinking skills to provide the best care for patients. Often, the patient’s cause of pain or health issue is not immediately clear. Nursing professionals need to use their knowledge to determine what might be causing distress, collect vital information, and make quick decisions on how best to handle the situation.

How does nursing school develop critical thinking skills?

Nursing school gives students the knowledge professional nurses use to make important healthcare decisions for their patients. Students learn about diseases, anatomy, and physiology, and how to improve the patient’s overall well-being. Learners also participate in supervised clinical experiences, where they practice using their critical thinking skills to make decisions in professional settings.

Do only nurse managers use critical thinking?

Nurse managers certainly use critical thinking skills in their daily duties. But when working in a health setting, anyone giving care to patients uses their critical thinking skills. Everyone — including licensed practical nurses, registered nurses, and advanced nurse practitioners —needs to flex their critical thinking skills to make potentially life-saving decisions.

Meet Our Contributors

Crystal Slaughter, DNP, APRN, ACNS-BC, CNE

Crystal Slaughter is a core faculty member in Walden University’s RN-to-BSN program. She has worked as an advanced practice registered nurse with an intensivist/pulmonary service to provide care to hospitalized ICU patients and in inpatient palliative care. Slaughter’s clinical interests lie in nursing education and evidence-based practice initiatives to promote improving patient care.

Jenna Liphart Rhoads, Ph.D., RN

Jenna Liphart Rhoads is a nurse educator and freelance author and editor. She earned a BSN from Saint Francis Medical Center College of Nursing and an MS in nursing education from Northern Illinois University. Rhoads earned a Ph.D. in education with a concentration in nursing education from Capella University where she researched the moderation effects of emotional intelligence on the relationship of stress and GPA in military veteran nursing students. Her clinical background includes surgical-trauma adult critical care, interventional radiology procedures, and conscious sedation in adult and pediatric populations.

Nicholas McGowan, BSN, RN, CCRN

Nicholas McGowan is a critical care nurse with 10 years of experience in cardiovascular, surgical intensive care, and neurological trauma nursing. McGowan also has a background in education, leadership, and public speaking. He is an online learner who builds on his foundation of critical care nursing, which he uses directly at the bedside where he still practices. In addition, McGowan hosts an online course at Critical Care Academy where he helps nurses achieve critical care (CCRN) certification.

You are using an outdated browser

Unfortunately Ausmed.com does not support your browser. Please upgrade your browser to continue.

Cultivating Critical Thinking in Healthcare

Published: 06 January 2019

Critical thinking skills have been linked to improved patient outcomes, better quality patient care and improved safety outcomes in healthcare (Jacob et al. 2017).

Given this, it's necessary for educators in healthcare to stimulate and lead further dialogue about how these skills are taught , assessed and integrated into the design and development of staff and nurse education and training programs (Papp et al. 2014).

So, what exactly is critical thinking and how can healthcare educators cultivate it amongst their staff?

What is Critical Thinking?

In general terms, ‘ critical thinking ’ is often used, and perhaps confused, with problem-solving and clinical decision-making skills .

In practice, however, problem-solving tends to focus on the identification and resolution of a problem, whilst critical thinking goes beyond this to incorporate asking skilled questions and critiquing solutions .

Several formal definitions of critical thinking can be found in literature, but in the view of Kahlke and Eva (2018), most of these definitions have limitations. That said, Papp et al. (2014) offer a useful starting point, suggesting that critical thinking is:

‘The ability to apply higher order cognitive skills and the disposition to be deliberate about thinking that leads to action that is logical and appropriate.’

The Foundation for Critical Thinking (2017) expands on this and suggests that:

‘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 analysing, assessing, and reconstructing it.’

They go on to suggest that critical thinking is:

• Self-directed
• Self-disciplined
• Self-monitored
• Self-corrective.

Key Qualities and Characteristics of a Critical Thinker

Given that critical thinking is a process that encompasses conceptualisation , application , analysis , synthesis , evaluation and reflection , what qualities should be expected from a critical thinker?

In answering this question, Fortepiani (2018) suggests that critical thinkers should be able to:

• Formulate clear and precise questions
• Gather, assess and interpret relevant information
• Reach relevant well-reasoned conclusions and solutions
• Think open-mindedly, recognising their own assumptions
• Communicate effectively with others on solutions to complex problems.

All of these qualities are important, however, good communication skills are generally considered to be the bedrock of critical thinking. Why? Because they help to create a dialogue that invites questions, reflections and an open-minded approach, as well as generating a positive learning environment needed to support all forms of communication.

Lippincott Solutions (2018) outlines a broad spectrum of characteristics attributed to strong critical thinkers. They include:

• Inquisitiveness with regard to a wide range of issues
• A concern to become and remain well-informed
• Alertness to opportunities to use critical thinking
• Self-confidence in one’s own abilities to reason
• Open mindedness regarding divergent world views
• Flexibility in considering alternatives and opinions
• Understanding the opinions of other people
• Fair-mindedness in appraising reasoning
• Honesty in facing one’s own biases, prejudices, stereotypes or egocentric tendencies
• A willingness to reconsider and revise views where honest reflection suggests that change is warranted.

Papp et al. (2014) also helpfully suggest that the following five milestones can be used as a guide to help develop competency in critical thinking:

Stage 1: Unreflective Thinker

At this stage, the unreflective thinker can’t examine their own actions and cognitive processes and is unaware of different approaches to thinking.

Stage 2: Beginning Critical Thinker

Here, the learner begins to think critically and starts to recognise cognitive differences in other people. However, external motivation  is needed to sustain reflection on the learners’ own thought processes.

Stage 3: Practicing Critical Thinker

By now, the learner is familiar with their own thinking processes and makes a conscious effort to practice critical thinking.

Stage 4: Advanced Critical Thinker

As an advanced critical thinker, the learner is able to identify different cognitive processes and consciously uses critical thinking skills.

Stage 5: Accomplished Critical Thinker

At this stage, the skilled critical thinker can take charge of their thinking and habitually monitors, revises and rethinks approaches for continual improvement of their cognitive strategies.

Facilitating Critical Thinking in Healthcare

A common challenge for many educators and facilitators in healthcare is encouraging students to move away from passive learning towards active learning situations that require critical thinking skills.

Just as there are similarities among the definitions of critical thinking across subject areas and levels, there are also several generally recognised hallmarks of teaching for critical thinking . These include:

• Promoting interaction among students as they learn
• Asking open ended questions that do not assume one right answer
• Allowing sufficient time to reflect on the questions asked or problems posed
• Teaching for transfer - helping learners to see how a newly acquired skill can apply to other situations and experiences.

(Lippincott Solutions 2018)

Snyder and Snyder (2008) also make the point that it’s helpful for educators and facilitators to be aware of any initial resistance that learners may have and try to guide them through the process. They should aim to create a learning environment where learners can feel comfortable thinking through an answer rather than simply having an answer given to them.

Examples include using peer coaching techniques , mentoring or preceptorship to engage students in active learning and critical thinking skills, or integrating project-based learning activities that require students to apply their knowledge in a realistic healthcare environment.

Carvalhoa et al. (2017) also advocate problem-based learning as a widely used and successful way of stimulating critical thinking skills in the learner. This view is echoed by Tsui-Mei (2015), who notes that critical thinking, systematic analysis and curiosity significantly improve after practice-based learning .

Integrating Critical Thinking Skills Into Curriculum Design

Most educators agree that critical thinking can’t easily be developed if the program curriculum is not designed to support it. This means that a deep understanding of the nature and value of critical thinking skills needs to be present from the outset of the curriculum design process , and not just bolted on as an afterthought.

In the view of Fortepiani (2018), critical thinking skills can be summarised by the statement that 'thinking is driven by questions', which means that teaching materials need to be designed in such a way as to encourage students to expand their learning by asking questions that generate further questions and stimulate the thinking process. Ideal questions are those that:

• Embrace complexity
• Challenge assumptions and points of view
• Question the source of information
• Explore variable interpretations and potential implications of information.

To put it another way, asking questions with limiting, thought-stopping answers inhibits the development of critical thinking. This means that educators must ideally be critical thinkers themselves .

Drawing these threads together, The Foundation for Critical Thinking (2017) offers us a simple reminder that even though it’s human nature to be ‘thinking’ most of the time, most thoughts, if not guided and structured, tend to be biased, distorted, partial, uninformed or even prejudiced.

They also note that the quality of work depends precisely on the quality of the practitioners’ thought processes. Given that practitioners are being asked to meet the challenge of ever more complex care, the importance of cultivating critical thinking skills, alongside advanced problem-solving skills , seems to be taking on new importance.

Additional Resources

• The Emotionally Intelligent Nurse | Ausmed Article
• Refining Competency-Based Assessment | Ausmed Article
• Socratic Questioning in Healthcare | Ausmed Article
• Carvalhoa, D P S R P et al. 2017, 'Strategies Used for the Promotion of Critical Thinking in Nursing Undergraduate Education: A Systematic Review', Nurse Education Today , vol. 57, pp. 103-10, viewed 7 December 2018, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0260691717301715
• Fortepiani, L A 2017, 'Critical Thinking or Traditional Teaching For Health Professionals', PECOP Blog , 16 January, viewed 7 December 2018, https://blog.lifescitrc.org/pecop/2017/01/16/critical-thinking-or-traditional-teaching-for-health-professions/
• Jacob, E, Duffield, C & Jacob, D 2017, 'A Protocol For the Development of a Critical Thinking Assessment Tool for Nurses Using a Delphi Technique', Journal of Advanced Nursing, vol. 73, no. 8, pp. 1982-1988, viewed 7 December 2018, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jan.13306
• Kahlke, R & Eva, K 2018, 'Constructing Critical Thinking in Health Professional Education', Perspectives on Medical Education , vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 156-165, viewed 7 December 2018, https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40037-018-0415-z
• Lippincott Solutions 2018, 'Turning New Nurses Into Critical Thinkers', Lippincott Solutions , viewed 10 December 2018, https://www.wolterskluwer.com/en/expert-insights/turning-new-nurses-into-critical-thinkers
• Papp, K K 2014, 'Milestones of Critical Thinking: A Developmental Model for Medicine and Nursing', Academic Medicine , vol. 89, no. 5, pp. 715-720, https://journals.lww.com/academicmedicine/Fulltext/2014/05000/Milestones_of_Critical_Thinking___A_Developmental.14.aspx
• Snyder, L G & Snyder, M J 2008, 'Teaching Critical Thinking and Problem Solving Skills', The Delta Pi Epsilon Journal , vol. L, no. 2, pp. 90-99, viewed 7 December 2018, https://dme.childrenshospital.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Optional-_Teaching-Critical-Thinking-and-Problem-Solving-Skills.pdf
• The Foundation for Critical Thinking 2017, Defining Critical Thinking , The Foundation for Critical Thinking, viewed 7 December 2018, https://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/our-conception-of-critical-thinking/411
• Tsui-Mei, H, Lee-Chun, H & Chen-Ju MSN, K 2015, 'How Mental Health Nurses Improve Their Critical Thinking Through Problem-Based Learning', Journal for Nurses in Professional Development , vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 170-175, viewed 7 December 2018, https://journals.lww.com/jnsdonline/Abstract/2015/05000/How_Mental_Health_Nurses_Improve_Their_Critical.8.aspx

Anne Watkins View profile

Help and feedback, publications.

Ausmed Education is a Trusted Information Partner of Healthdirect Australia. Verify here .

• - Google Chrome

Intended for healthcare professionals

• Access provided by Google Indexer
• My email alerts
• BMA member login
• Username * Password * Forgot your log in details? Need to activate BMA Member Log In Log in via OpenAthens Log in via your institution

Search form

• Advanced search
• Search responses
• Search blogs
• News & Views
• Critical thinking in...

Critical Thinking in medical education: When and How?

Rapid response to:

Critical thinking in healthcare and education

• Related content
• Article metrics
• Rapid responses

Rapid Response:

Critical thinking is an essential cognitive skill for the individuals involved in various healthcare domains such as doctors, nurses, lab assistants, patients and so on, as is emphasized by the Authors. Recent evidence suggests that critical thinking is being perceived/evaluated as a domain-general construct and it is less distinguishable from that of general cognitive abilities [1].

People cannot think critically about topics for which they have little knowledge. Critical thinking should be viewed as a domain-specific construct that evolves as an individual acquires domain-specific knowledge [1]. For instance, most common people have no basis for prioritizing patients in the emergency department to be shifted to the only bed available in the intensive care unit. Medical professionals who could thinking critically in their own discipline would have difficulty thinking critically about problems in other fields. Therefore, ‘domain-general’ critical thinking training and evaluation could be non-specific and might not benefit the targeted domain i.e. medical profession.

Moreover, the literature does not demonstrate that it is possible to train universally effective critical thinking skills [1]. As medical teachers, we can start building up student’s critical thinking skill by contingent teaching-learning environment wherein one should encourage reasoning and analytics, problem solving abilities and welcome new ideas and opinions [2]. But at the same time, one should continue rather tapering the critical skills as one ascends towards a specialty, thereby targeting ‘domain-specific’ critical thinking.

For the benefit of healthcare, tools for training and evaluating ‘domain-specific’ critical thinking should be developed for each of the professional knowledge domains such as doctors, nurses, lab technicians and so on. As the Authors rightly pointed out, this humongous task can be accomplished only with cross border collaboration among cognitive neuroscientists, psychologists, medical education experts and medical professionals.

References 1. National Research Council. (2011). Assessing 21st Century Skills: Summary of a Workshop. J.A. Koenig, Rapporteur. Committee on the Assessment of 21st Century Skills. Board on Testing and Assessment, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. 2. Mafakheri Laleh M, Mohammadimehr M, Zargar Balaye Jame S. Designing a model for critical thinking development in AJA University of Medical Sciences. J Adv Med Educ Prof. 2016 Oct;4(4):179–87.

Competing interests: No competing interests

What is Critical Thinking in Nursing? (Explained W/ Examples)

Last updated on August 23rd, 2023

Critical thinking is a foundational skill applicable across various domains, including education, problem-solving, decision-making, and professional fields such as science, business, healthcare, and more.

It plays a crucial role in promoting logical and rational thinking, fostering informed decision-making, and enabling individuals to navigate complex and rapidly changing environments.

In this article, we will look at what is critical thinking in nursing practice, its importance, and how it enables nurses to excel in their roles while also positively impacting patient outcomes.

What is Critical Thinking?

Critical thinking is a cognitive process that involves analyzing, evaluating, and synthesizing information to make reasoned and informed decisions.

It’s a mental activity that goes beyond simple memorization or acceptance of information at face value.

Critical thinking involves careful, reflective, and logical thinking to understand complex problems, consider various perspectives, and arrive at well-reasoned conclusions or solutions.

Key aspects of critical thinking include:

• Analysis: Critical thinking begins with the thorough examination of information, ideas, or situations. It involves breaking down complex concepts into smaller parts to better understand their components and relationships.
• Evaluation: Critical thinkers assess the quality and reliability of information or arguments. They weigh evidence, identify strengths and weaknesses, and determine the credibility of sources.
• Synthesis: Critical thinking involves combining different pieces of information or ideas to create a new understanding or perspective. This involves connecting the dots between various sources and integrating them into a coherent whole.
• Inference: Critical thinkers draw logical and well-supported conclusions based on the information and evidence available. They use reasoning to make educated guesses about situations where complete information might be lacking.
• Problem-Solving: Critical thinking is essential in solving complex problems. It allows individuals to identify and define problems, generate potential solutions, evaluate the pros and cons of each solution, and choose the most appropriate course of action.
• Creativity: Critical thinking involves thinking outside the box and considering alternative viewpoints or approaches. It encourages the exploration of new ideas and solutions beyond conventional thinking.
• Reflection: Critical thinkers engage in self-assessment and reflection on their thought processes. They consider their own biases, assumptions, and potential errors in reasoning, aiming to improve their thinking skills over time.
• Open-Mindedness: Critical thinkers approach ideas and information with an open mind, willing to consider different viewpoints and perspectives even if they challenge their own beliefs.
• Effective Communication: Critical thinkers can articulate their thoughts and reasoning clearly and persuasively to others. They can express complex ideas in a coherent and understandable manner.
• Continuous Learning: Critical thinking encourages a commitment to ongoing learning and intellectual growth. It involves seeking out new knowledge, refining thinking skills, and staying receptive to new information.

Definition of Critical Thinking

Critical thinking is an intellectual process of analyzing, evaluating, and synthesizing information to make reasoned and informed decisions.

What is Critical Thinking in Nursing?

Critical thinking in nursing is a vital cognitive skill that involves analyzing, evaluating, and making reasoned decisions about patient care.

It’s an essential aspect of a nurse’s professional practice as it enables them to provide safe and effective care to patients.

Critical thinking involves a careful and deliberate thought process to gather and assess information, consider alternative solutions, and make informed decisions based on evidence and sound judgment.

This skill helps nurses to:

• Assess Information: Critical thinking allows nurses to thoroughly assess patient information, including medical history, symptoms, and test results. By analyzing this data, nurses can identify patterns, discrepancies, and potential issues that may require further investigation.
• Diagnose: Nurses use critical thinking to analyze patient data and collaboratively work with other healthcare professionals to formulate accurate nursing diagnoses. This is crucial for developing appropriate care plans that address the unique needs of each patient.
• Plan and Implement Care: Once a nursing diagnosis is established, critical thinking helps nurses develop effective care plans. They consider various interventions and treatment options, considering the patient’s preferences, medical history, and evidence-based practices.
• Evaluate Outcomes: After implementing interventions, critical thinking enables nurses to evaluate the outcomes of their actions. If the desired outcomes are not achieved, nurses can adapt their approach and make necessary changes to the care plan.
• Prioritize Care: In busy healthcare environments, nurses often face situations where they must prioritize patient care. Critical thinking helps them determine which patients require immediate attention and which interventions are most essential.
• Communicate Effectively: Critical thinking skills allow nurses to communicate clearly and confidently with patients, their families, and other members of the healthcare team. They can explain complex medical information and treatment plans in a way that is easily understood by all parties involved.
• Identify Problems: Nurses use critical thinking to identify potential complications or problems in a patient’s condition. This early recognition can lead to timely interventions and prevent further deterioration.
• Collaborate: Healthcare is a collaborative effort involving various professionals. Critical thinking enables nurses to actively participate in interdisciplinary discussions, share their insights, and contribute to holistic patient care.
• Ethical Decision-Making: Critical thinking helps nurses navigate ethical dilemmas that can arise in patient care. They can analyze different perspectives, consider ethical principles, and make morally sound decisions.
• Continual Learning: Critical thinking encourages nurses to seek out new knowledge, stay up-to-date with the latest research and medical advancements, and incorporate evidence-based practices into their care.

In summary, critical thinking is an integral skill for nurses, allowing them to provide high-quality, patient-centered care by analyzing information, making informed decisions, and adapting their approaches as needed.

It’s a dynamic process that enhances clinical reasoning , problem-solving, and overall patient outcomes.

What are the Levels of Critical Thinking in Nursing?

The development of critical thinking in nursing practice involves progressing through three levels: basic, complex, and commitment.

The Kataoka-Yahiro and Saylor model outlines this progression.

1. Basic Critical Thinking:

At this level, learners trust experts for solutions. Thinking is based on rules and principles. For instance, nursing students may strictly follow a procedure manual without personalization, as they lack experience. Answers are seen as right or wrong, and the opinions of experts are accepted.

2. Complex Critical Thinking:

Learners start to analyze choices independently and think creatively. They recognize conflicting solutions and weigh benefits and risks. Thinking becomes innovative, with a willingness to consider various approaches in complex situations.

3. Commitment:

At this level, individuals anticipate decision points without external help and take responsibility for their choices. They choose actions or beliefs based on available alternatives, considering consequences and accountability.

As nurses gain knowledge and experience, their critical thinking evolves from relying on experts to independent analysis and decision-making, ultimately leading to committed and accountable choices in patient care.

Why Critical Thinking is Important in Nursing?

Critical thinking is important in nursing for several crucial reasons:

Patient Safety:

Nursing decisions directly impact patient well-being. Critical thinking helps nurses identify potential risks, make informed choices, and prevent errors.

Clinical Judgment:

Nursing decisions often involve evaluating information from various sources, such as patient history, lab results, and medical literature.

Critical thinking assists nurses in critically appraising this information, distinguishing credible sources, and making rational judgments that align with evidence-based practices.

Enhances Decision-Making:

In nursing, critical thinking allows nurses to gather relevant patient information, assess it objectively, and weigh different options based on evidence and analysis.

This process empowers them to make informed decisions about patient care, treatment plans, and interventions, ultimately leading to better outcomes.

Promotes Problem-Solving:

Nurses encounter complex patient issues that require effective problem-solving.

Critical thinking equips them to break down problems into manageable parts, analyze root causes, and explore creative solutions that consider the unique needs of each patient.

Drives Creativity:

Nursing care is not always straightforward. Critical thinking encourages nurses to think creatively and explore innovative approaches to challenges, especially when standard protocols might not suffice for unique patient situations.

Fosters Effective Communication:

Communication is central to nursing. Critical thinking enables nurses to clearly express their thoughts, provide logical explanations for their decisions, and engage in meaningful dialogues with patients, families, and other healthcare professionals.

Aids Learning:

Nursing is a field of continuous learning. Critical thinking encourages nurses to engage in ongoing self-directed education, seeking out new knowledge, embracing new techniques, and staying current with the latest research and developments.

Improves Relationships:

Open-mindedness and empathy are essential in nursing relationships.

Critical thinking encourages nurses to consider diverse viewpoints, understand patients’ perspectives, and communicate compassionately, leading to stronger therapeutic relationships.

Empowers Independence:

Nursing often requires autonomous decision-making. Critical thinking empowers nurses to analyze situations independently, make judgments without undue influence, and take responsibility for their actions.

Facilitates Adaptability:

Healthcare environments are ever-changing. Critical thinking equips nurses with the ability to quickly assess new information, adjust care plans, and navigate unexpected situations while maintaining patient safety and well-being.

Strengthens Critical Analysis:

In the era of vast information, nurses must discern reliable data from misinformation.

Critical thinking helps them scrutinize sources, question assumptions, and make well-founded choices based on credible information.

How to Apply Critical Thinking in Nursing? (With Examples)

Here are some examples of how nurses can apply critical thinking.

Assess Patient Data:

Critical Thinking Action: Carefully review patient history, symptoms, and test results.

Example: A nurse notices a change in a diabetic patient’s blood sugar levels. Instead of just administering insulin, the nurse considers recent dietary changes, activity levels, and possible medication interactions before adjusting the treatment plan.

Diagnose Patient Needs:

Critical Thinking Action: Analyze patient data to identify potential nursing diagnoses.

Example: After reviewing a patient’s lab results, vital signs, and observations, a nurse identifies “ Risk for Impaired Skin Integrity ” due to the patient’s limited mobility.

Plan and Implement Care:

Critical Thinking Action: Develop a care plan based on patient needs and evidence-based practices.

Example: For a patient at risk of falls, the nurse plans interventions such as hourly rounding, non-slip footwear, and bed alarms to ensure patient safety.

Evaluate Interventions:

Critical Thinking Action: Assess the effectiveness of interventions and modify the care plan as needed.

Example: After administering pain medication, the nurse evaluates its impact on the patient’s comfort level and considers adjusting the dosage or trying an alternative pain management approach.

Prioritize Care:

Critical Thinking Action: Determine the order of interventions based on patient acuity and needs.

Example: In a busy emergency department, the nurse triages patients by considering the severity of their conditions, ensuring that critical cases receive immediate attention.

Collaborate with the Healthcare Team:

Critical Thinking Action: Participate in interdisciplinary discussions and share insights.

Example: During rounds, a nurse provides input on a patient’s response to treatment, which prompts the team to adjust the care plan for better outcomes.

Ethical Decision-Making:

Critical Thinking Action: Analyze ethical dilemmas and make morally sound choices.

Example: When a terminally ill patient expresses a desire to stop treatment, the nurse engages in ethical discussions, respecting the patient’s autonomy and ensuring proper end-of-life care.

Patient Education:

Critical Thinking Action: Tailor patient education to individual needs and comprehension levels.

Example: A nurse uses visual aids and simplified language to explain medication administration to a patient with limited literacy skills.

Adapt to Changes:

Critical Thinking Action: Quickly adjust care plans when patient conditions change.

Example: During post-operative recovery, a nurse notices signs of infection and promptly informs the healthcare team to initiate appropriate treatment adjustments.

Critical Analysis of Information:

Critical Thinking Action: Evaluate information sources for reliability and relevance.

Example: When presented with conflicting research studies, a nurse critically examines the methodologies and sample sizes to determine which study is more credible.

Making Sense of Critical Thinking Skills

What is the purpose of critical thinking in nursing.

The purpose of critical thinking in nursing is to enable nurses to effectively analyze, interpret, and evaluate patient information, make informed clinical judgments, develop appropriate care plans, prioritize interventions, and adapt their approaches as needed, thereby ensuring safe, evidence-based, and patient-centered care.

Why critical thinking is important in nursing?

Critical thinking is important in nursing because it promotes safe decision-making, accurate clinical judgment, problem-solving, evidence-based practice, holistic patient care, ethical reasoning, collaboration, and adapting to dynamic healthcare environments.

Critical thinking skill also enhances patient safety, improves outcomes, and supports nurses’ professional growth.

How is critical thinking used in the nursing process?

Critical thinking is integral to the nursing process as it guides nurses through the systematic approach of assessing, diagnosing, planning, implementing, and evaluating patient care. It involves:

• Assessment: Critical thinking enables nurses to gather and interpret patient data accurately, recognizing relevant patterns and cues.
• Diagnosis: Nurses use critical thinking to analyze patient data, identify nursing diagnoses, and differentiate actual issues from potential complications.
• Planning: Critical thinking helps nurses develop tailored care plans, selecting appropriate interventions based on patient needs and evidence.
• Implementation: Nurses make informed decisions during interventions, considering patient responses and adjusting plans as needed.
• Evaluation: Critical thinking supports the assessment of patient outcomes, determining the effectiveness of intervention, and adapting care accordingly.

Throughout the nursing process , critical thinking ensures comprehensive, patient-centered care and fosters continuous improvement in clinical judgment and decision-making.

What is an example of the critical thinking attitude of independent thinking in nursing practice?

An example of the critical thinking attitude of independent thinking in nursing practice could be:

A nurse is caring for a patient with a complex medical history who is experiencing a new set of symptoms. The nurse carefully reviews the patient’s history, recent test results, and medication list.

While discussing the case with the healthcare team, the nurse realizes that the current treatment plan might not be addressing all aspects of the patient’s condition.

Instead of simply following the established protocol, the nurse independently considers alternative approaches based on their assessment.

The nurse proposes a modification to the treatment plan, citing the rationale and evidence supporting the change.

This demonstrates independent thinking by critically evaluating the situation, challenging assumptions, and advocating for a more personalized and effective patient care approach.

How to use Costa’s level of questioning for critical thinking in nursing?

Costa’s levels of questioning can be applied in nursing to facilitate critical thinking and stimulate a deeper understanding of patient situations. The levels of questioning are as follows:

• 15 Attitudes of Critical Thinking in Nursing (Explained W/ Examples)
• Nursing Concept Map (FREE Template)
• Clinical Reasoning In Nursing (Explained W/ Example)
• 8 Stages Of The Clinical Reasoning Cycle
• How To Improve Critical Thinking Skills In Nursing? 24 Strategies With Examples
• What is the “5 Whys” Technique?
• What Are Socratic Questions?

Critical thinking in nursing is the foundation that underpins safe, effective, and patient-centered care.

Critical thinking skills empower nurses to navigate the complexities of their profession while consistently providing high-quality care to diverse patient populations.

Reading Recommendation

Potter, P.A., Perry, A.G., Stockert, P. and Hall, A. (2013) Fundamentals of Nursing

Comments are closed.

Medical & Legal Disclaimer

All the contents on this site are for entertainment, informational, educational, and example purposes ONLY. These contents are not intended to be used as a substitute for professional medical advice or practice guidelines. However, we aim to publish precise and current information. By using any content on this website, you agree never to hold us legally liable for damages, harm, loss, or misinformation. Read the  privacy policy  and  terms and conditions.

Privacy Policy

Terms & Conditions

© 2024 nurseship.com. All rights reserved.

What is Critical Thinking in Nursing? (With Examples, Importance, & How to Improve)

Successful nursing requires learning several skills used to communicate with patients, families, and healthcare teams. One of the most essential skills nurses must develop is the ability to demonstrate critical thinking. If you are a nurse, perhaps you have asked if there is a way to know how to improve critical thinking in nursing? As you read this article, you will learn what critical thinking in nursing is and why it is important. You will also find 18 simple tips to improve critical thinking in nursing and sample scenarios about how to apply critical thinking in your nursing career.

What Is Critical Thinking In Nursing?

4 reasons why critical thinking is so important in nursing, 1. critical thinking skills will help you anticipate and understand changes in your patient’s condition., 2. with strong critical thinking skills, you can make decisions about patient care that is most favorable for the patient and intended outcomes., 3. strong critical thinking skills in nursing can contribute to innovative improvements and professional development., 4. critical thinking skills in nursing contribute to rational decision-making, which improves patient outcomes., what are the 8 important attributes of excellent critical thinking in nursing, 1. the ability to interpret information:, 2. independent thought:, 3. impartiality:, 4. intuition:, 5. problem solving:, 6. flexibility:, 7. perseverance:, 8. integrity:, examples of poor critical thinking vs excellent critical thinking in nursing, 1. scenario: patient/caregiver interactions, poor critical thinking:, excellent critical thinking:, 2. scenario: improving patient care quality, 3. scenario: interdisciplinary collaboration, 4. scenario: precepting nursing students and other nurses, how to improve critical thinking in nursing, 1. demonstrate open-mindedness., 2. practice self-awareness., 3. avoid judgment., 4. eliminate personal biases., 5. do not be afraid to ask questions., 6. find an experienced mentor., 7. join professional nursing organizations., 8. establish a routine of self-reflection., 9. utilize the chain of command., 10. determine the significance of data and decide if it is sufficient for decision-making., 11. volunteer for leadership positions or opportunities., 12. use previous facts and experiences to help develop stronger critical thinking skills in nursing., 13. establish priorities., 14. trust your knowledge and be confident in your abilities., 15. be curious about everything., 16. practice fair-mindedness., 17. learn the value of intellectual humility., 18. never stop learning., 4 consequences of poor critical thinking in nursing, 1. the most significant risk associated with poor critical thinking in nursing is inadequate patient care., 2. failure to recognize changes in patient status:, 3. lack of effective critical thinking in nursing can impact the cost of healthcare., 4. lack of critical thinking skills in nursing can cause a breakdown in communication within the interdisciplinary team., useful resources to improve critical thinking in nursing, youtube videos, my final thoughts, frequently asked questions answered by our expert, 1. will lack of critical thinking impact my nursing career, 2. usually, how long does it take for a nurse to improve their critical thinking skills, 3. do all types of nurses require excellent critical thinking skills, 4. how can i assess my critical thinking skills in nursing.

• Ask relevant questions • Justify opinions • Address and evaluate multiple points of view • Explain assumptions and reasons related to your choice of patient care options

5. Can I Be a Nurse If I Cannot Think Critically?

Critical thinking in nursing clinical practice, education and research: From attitudes to virtue

Affiliations.

• 1 Department of Fundamental Care and Medical Surgital Nursing, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, School of Nursing, Consolidated Research Group Quantitative Psychology (2017-SGR-269), University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
• 2 Department of Fundamental Care and Medical Surgital Nursing, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, School of Nursing, Consolidated Research Group on Gender, Identity and Diversity (2017-SGR-1091), University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
• 3 Department of Fundamental Care and Medical Surgital Nursing, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, School of Nursing, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
• 4 Multidisciplinary Nursing Research Group, Vall d'Hebron Research Institute (VHIR), Vall d'Hebron Hospital, Barcelona, Spain.
• PMID: 33029860
• DOI: 10.1111/nup.12332

Critical thinking is a complex, dynamic process formed by attitudes and strategic skills, with the aim of achieving a specific goal or objective. The attitudes, including the critical thinking attitudes, constitute an important part of the idea of good care, of the good professional. It could be said that they become a virtue of the nursing profession. In this context, the ethics of virtue is a theoretical framework that becomes essential for analyse the critical thinking concept in nursing care and nursing science. Because the ethics of virtue consider how cultivating virtues are necessary to understand and justify the decisions and guide the actions. Based on selective analysis of the descriptive and empirical literature that addresses conceptual review of critical thinking, we conducted an analysis of this topic in the settings of clinical practice, training and research from the virtue ethical framework. Following JBI critical appraisal checklist for text and opinion papers, we argue the need for critical thinking as an essential element for true excellence in care and that it should be encouraged among professionals. The importance of developing critical thinking skills in education is well substantiated; however, greater efforts are required to implement educational strategies directed at developing critical thinking in students and professionals undergoing training, along with measures that demonstrate their success. Lastly, we show that critical thinking constitutes a fundamental component in the research process, and can improve research competencies in nursing. We conclude that future research and actions must go further in the search for new evidence and open new horizons, to ensure a positive effect on clinical practice, patient health, student education and the growth of nursing science.

Keywords: critical thinking; critical thinking attitudes; nurse education; nursing care; nursing research.

© 2020 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

• Attitude of Health Personnel*
• Education, Nursing / methods
• Nursing Process
• Nursing Research / methods

Grants and funding

• PREI-19-007-B/School of Nursing. Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences. University of Barcelona

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Med Sci Educ
• v.31(1); 2021 Feb

Teaching Critical Thinking and Problem-Solving Skills to Healthcare Professionals

Jessica a. chacon.

Department of Medical Education, Paul L Foster School of Medicine, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center El Paso, El Paso, TX USA

Herb Janssen

Associated data, introduction.

Determining approaches that improve student learning is far more beneficial than determining what can improve a professor’s teaching. As previously stated, “Lecturing is that mysterious process by which the contents of the note-book of the professor are transferred through the instrumentation of the fountain-pen to the note-book of the student without passing through the mind of either” [ 1 ]. This process continues today, except that the professor’s note-book has been replaced with a PowerPoint lecture and the student’s note-book is now a computer.

In 1910, the Flexner report noted that didactic lectures were antiquated and should be left to a time when “professors knew and students learned” [ 2 ]. Approximately 100 years later, the Liaison Committee on Medical Education (LCME) affirmed Flexner’s comment and suggested that student learning must involve active components [ 3 ]: It seems somewhat obscured that almost 100 years separated these two statements.

Our strategy requires the following: student engagement in the learning process; a curriculum that develops a foundation for each student’s knowledge acquisition; focusing primarily on student learning instead of professor teaching; helping enable students develop critical thinking skills; and encouraging students to develop “expertise” in their chosen discipline.

Six fundamental topics that play a role in the development of a health sciences student’s critical thinking ability will be described. In “Section I,” these topics will be discussed independently, highlighting the importance of each. In “Section II: Proposed Curriculum and Pedagogy to Improve Student Learning,” the topics will be united into a practical approach that can be used to improve student learning, curriculum, pedagogy, and assessment.

Foundation Knowledge

Students use mnemonics to provide a foundation for new information. Although mnemonics help students associate information that they want to remember with something they already know, students learn tads of information that is not placed into a practical, meaningful framework developed by the student [ 4 , 5 ]. This commentary highlights the problem of recalling facts when these facts are presented in isolation. The responsibility for this resides not with the student, but with a curriculum that teaches isolated facts, instead of integrated concepts.

A taxonomy for significant learning presented by Dr. Fink emphasizes the need to develop foundational knowledge before additional information can be learned in an effective manner [ 6 ]. He provides suggestions on developing specific learning goals in given courses. Two of his most important criteria are (1) the development of a foundation of knowledge and (2) helping students “learn how to learn” [ 6 ].

Learning Approaches and Abilities

Howard Gardner introduced the concept of multiple intelligences in the 1980s [ 7 ]. Gardner expanded this idea to include intelligence in the areas of (1) Verbal-linguistic, (2) Logical-mathematical, (3) Spatial-visual, (4) Bodily-kinesthetic, (5) Musical, (6) Interpersonal, (7) Intrapersonal personal, (8) Naturalist, and (9) Existential. He concluded that students gifted in certain areas will be drawn in that direction due to the ease with which they excel. While it is important to recognize these differences, it is crucial to not ignore the need for student development in areas where they are less gifted. For example, students gifted in mathematics who fail to develop intrapersonal and interpersonal skills will more likely become recluse, limiting their success in real-world situations [ 7 , 8 ]. Similar examples can also be found in the medical world [ 7 , 8 ].

Based on Gardner’s work, it seems evident that students admitted to our health sciences schools will arrive with different skills and abilities. Despite this, educators are required to produce graduates who have mastered the competencies required by the various accrediting agencies. Accomplishing this task demands sensitivity to the students’ different abilities. While the curriculum remains focused on the competencies students must demonstrate when training is complete. Creating this transition using a traditional lecture format is difficult, if not impossible.

Active Engagement

In 1910, Flexner suggested that didactic lecture is important; however, it should be limited only to the introduction or conclusion of a given topic [ 2 ]. Flexner stated that students should be given the opportunity to experience learning in a context that allowed them to use scientific principles rather than empirical observations [ 2 ]. Active engagement of the student in their learning process has been recently promoted by the LCME [ 3 ]. This reaffirmation of Flexner’s 1910 report highlights the incredibly slow pace at which education changes.

Critical Thinking

Critical thinking is an active process that, when applied appropriately, allows each of us to evaluate our own activities and achievements. Critical thinking also allows an individual to make minor, mid-course corrections in thinking, instead of waiting until disastrous outcomes are unavoidable.

Educators in Allied Health and Nursing have included critical thinking as part of their curriculum for many years [ 9 ]. Medical educators, on the other hand, have not fully integrated critical thinking as part of their curriculum [ 10 , 11 ].

Bloom’s taxonomy has often been used to define curriculum [ 12 ]. The usefulness and importance of Bloom’s taxonomy is not to be underestimated; however, its limitations must also be addressed. As Bloom and his colleagues clearly stated, their taxonomy describes behavioral outcomes and is incapable of determining the logical steps through which this behavior was developed [ 12 ]. Bloom highlights this shortcoming in his initial book on the cognitive domain. He described two students who solved the same algebra problem. One student does this by rote memory, having been exposed to the problem previously, while the other student accomplishes the task by applying mathematical principles. The observer has no way of knowing which approach was used unless they have prior knowledge of the students’ background [ 12 ]. The importance of this distinction becomes apparent in medical problem-solving.

Contextual Learning

Enabling students to learn in context is critical; however, trying to teach everything in context results in a double-edged sword [ 13 ]. On the one hand, learning material in context helps the student develop a solid foundation in which the new information can be built. On the other hand, the educator will find it impossible to duplicate all situations the student will encounter throughout his or her career as a healthcare provider. This dilemma again challenges the educator to develop a variety of learning situations that simulate real-world situations. It seems that “in context” can at best be developed by presenting a variety of patients in a variety of different situations.

In the clinical setting, the physician cannot use a strict hypothesis-driven study on each patient, but must treat patients using the best, most logical treatment selected based on his or her knowledge and the most reliable information.

Development of Expertise

Several researchers have studied the characteristics required of expert performance, the time required to obtain these traits, and the steps that are followed as an individual’s performance progresses from novice to expert.

Studies involving expert physicians have provided data that can be directly used in our attempt to improve curriculum and pedagogy in the healthcare profession. Patel demonstrated that medical students and entry-level residents can recall a considerable amount of non-relevant data while the expert cannot [ 14 ]. Conversely, the expert physician has a much higher level of relevant recall, suggesting they have omitted the non-relevant information and retained only relevant information that is useful in their practice. Using these methods, the expert physicians produce accurate diagnosis in almost 100% of cases, while the medical students can achieve only patricianly correct or component diagnosis only [ 14 ].

In the healthcare setting, both methods are used. The expert physicians will use forward reasoning when the accuracy of the data allows this rapid problem-solving method. When the patient’s conditions cannot be accurately described using known information, the expert diagnostician will resort to the slower hypothesis-driven, backward reasoning approach. In this manner, the highest probability of achieving an accurate diagnosis in the shortest time will be realized [ 14 ].

Section II: Proposed Curriculum and Pedagogy to Improve Student Learning

The following section will outline several distinct but interrelated approaches to accomplish the six educational principles discussed above. The topics will be highlighted as they apply to the specific topic and each section will be comprised of curriculum, pedagogy, and assessment.

Developing a Knowledge Base Using Active Learning Sensitive to Students’ Abilities

Students admitted into healthcare training programs come from various backgrounds. This is both a strength for the program and a challenge for the educator. The strength is recognized in the diversity the varied backgrounds bring to the class and ultimately the profession. The challenge for the educator is attempting to provide each student with the material and a learning approach that will fit their individual ability and knowledge level. The educator can provide prerequisite objectives that identify the basic knowledge required before the student attempts the more advanced curriculum. Scaffolding questions can also be provided that allow students to determine their mastery of these prerequisite objectives. Briefly, scaffolding questions are categorized based on complexity. Simple, factual questions are identified with a subscript “0” (i.e. 1. 0 , 2. 0 , etc.). Advanced questions have a subscript suggesting the estimated number of basic concepts that must be included/combined to derive the answer.

Using technology to provide these individual learning opportunities online allows each student to address his or her own potential deficits. Obviously, those who find their knowledge lacking will need to spend additional time learning this information; however, using technology, this can be accomplished without requiring additional class time. This approach will decrease learning gaps for students, while excluding unnecessarily repeating material known by others.

The curriculum is divided into two parts: (1) content and (2) critical thinking/problem-solving skills. The basic knowledge and factual content can be provided online. Students are expected to learn this by actively engaging the material during independent study. This saves classroom or small-group sessions for interaction where students can actively learn critical thinking/problem-solving skills.

The curriculum should be designed so that students can start at their own level of understanding. The more advanced students can identify the level appropriate for themselves and/or review the more rudimentary information as needed. As shown by previous investigators, experts omit non-relevant information so that they can focus on appropriate problem-solving. Requiring students to learn by solving problems or exploring case studies will be emphasized when possible.

Technology can be used to deliver the “content” portion of the curriculum. Voice-over PowerPoints and/or video clips made available online through WebCT or PodCast will allow each student to study separately or in groups at their own rate, starting at their own level of knowledge. The content delivered in this fashion will complement the handout and/or textbook information recommended to the students. This will provide the needed basic information that will be used as a foundation for the development of critical thinking and problem-solving. The flipped classroom and/or team-based learning can both be used to help facilitate this type of learning. [ 15 ]

Student Assessments

It is imperative for students to know whether they have mastered the material to the extent needed. This can be accomplished by providing online formative evaluations. These will not be used to determine student performance; however, the results will be provided to the educator to determine the class’s progress and evaluation of the curriculum.

Developing Critical Thinking Skills in the Classroom or Small-Group Setting

Critical thinking skills are essential to the development of well-trained healthcare professionals. These skills are not “taught” but must be “learned” by the student. The educator provides learning experiences through which the students can gain the needed skills and experience. Mastery of the content should be a responsibility placed on the student. Information and assistance are given to the students, but students are held accountable for learning the content. This does not indicate that the educator is freed from responsibility. In fact, the educator will most likely spend more time planning and preparing, compared to when didactic lectures were given; however, the spotlight will be placed on the student. Once the learning modules are developed, they can be readily updated, allowing the educators to improve their sessions with each evaluation.

Curriculum designed to help student students develop critical thinking/problem-solving skills should be learned in context. During the introductory portions of the training, this can be accomplished by providing problem-based scenarios similar to what will be expected in the later clinical setting. The transition to competency-based evaluation in many disciplines has made this a virtual necessity. Critical thinking/problem-solving skills should emphasize self-examination. It should teach an individual to accomplish this using a series of steps that progress in a logical fashion, stressing that critical thinking is a progression of logical thought, not an unguided process.

The methods of teaching critical thinking can be traced back to the dialectic methods used by Socrates. Helping the students learn by posing questions remains an effective tool. Accomplishing this in a group setting also provides each student with the opportunity to learn, not only from their mistakes and accomplishments, but from the mistakes and accomplishments of others. Scenario questions can be presented in a manner similar to those found in many board and licensure exams. This exposes students to material in a format relevant to the clinical setting and to future exams. In larger groups, PowerPoint presentation of scenario questions can be used. Team-based learning (TBL) is useful in encouraging individual self-assessment and peer-peer instruction, while also providing an opportunity for the development of critical thinking and problem-solving skills. After the Individual Readiness Assurance Test (iRAT) exam, students work together to answer the Group Readiness Assurance Test (gRAT). Following this, relevant material is covered by clinicians and basic scientists working together and questions asked using an audience response system. This has been useful in encouraging individual self-assessment and peer-peer instruction while also providing an opportunity for the development of critical thinking and problem-solving skills.

Formative assessment of the students will be given in the class session. This can be accomplished using an audience response system. This gives each individual a chance to determine their own critical thinking skill level. It will prevent the “Oh, I knew that” response from students who are in denial of their own inabilities. Summative assessment in the class will be based on the critical thinking skills presented in the classroom or small-group setting. As mentioned earlier, the students will be evaluated on their ability to think critically and to problem-solve. This will by necessity include evaluation of content knowledge—but only as it pertains to the critical thinking and problem-solving skills. This will be made clear through the use of objectives that describe both content and critical thinking.

Enhancing Critical Thinking Skills in Simulation Centers and Clinics

The development of critical thinking skills in healthcare is somewhat unique. In chess, students can start playing using the same tools employed by the experts (the chess board); however, in healthcare, allowing students to make medical decisions is ethically inappropriate and irresponsible. Simulations centers allow students to gain needed experience and confidence without placing patients at risk. Once the students have mastered simulation center experiences and acquired the needed confidence, they can participate in patient diagnosis under the watchful eye of the expert healthcare professional.

The student’s curriculum now becomes the entire knowledge base of each healthcare discipline. This includes textbooks and journal articles. Students are required to come well prepared to the clinics and/or hospital having developed and in-depth understanding of each patient in their care.

Each day, the expert healthcare provider, serving as a mentor, will provide formative evaluation of the student and his/her performance. Mentors will guide the student, suggesting changes in the skills needed to evaluate the patients properly. In addition, standardized patients provide an excellent method of student/resident evaluation.

Summative evaluation is in the form of subject/board exams. These test the student’s or resident’s ability to accurately describe and evaluate the patient. The objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) is used to evaluate the student’s ability to correctly assess the patient’s condition. Thinking aloud had been previously shown as an effective tool for evaluating expert performance in such settings [ 16 ]. Briefly, think aloud strategies require the student to explain verbally the logic they are using to combine facts to arrive at correct answers. This approach helps the evaluator to determine both the accuracy of the answer and if the correct thought process was followed by the student.

If the time required to develop an expert is a minimum of ten years, what influence can education have on the process?

Education can:

• Provide the student with a foundation of knowledge required for the development of future knowledge and skills.
• Introduce the student to critical thinking and problem-solving techniques.
• Require the student to actively engage the material instead of attempting to learn using rote memory only.
• Assess the performance of the student in a formative manner, allowing the lack of information of skills to be identified early, thus reducing the risk of failure when changes in study skills are more difficult and/or occur too late to help.
• Provide learning in a contextual format that makes the information meaningful and easier to remember.
• Provide training in forward reasoning and backward reasoning skills. It can relate these skills to the problem-solving techniques in healthcare.
• Help students develop the qualities of an expert healthcare provider.

Authors’ Contributions

The authors wrote and contributed to the final manuscript.

Data Availability

Compliance with ethical standards.

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note

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

How it works

For Business

Join Mind Tools

Article • 8 min read

Critical Thinking

Developing the right mindset and skills.

By the Mind Tools Content Team

We make hundreds of decisions every day and, whether we realize it or not, we're all critical thinkers.

We use critical thinking each time we weigh up our options, prioritize our responsibilities, or think about the likely effects of our actions. It's a crucial skill that helps us to cut out misinformation and make wise decisions. The trouble is, we're not always very good at it!

In this article, we'll explore the key skills that you need to develop your critical thinking skills, and how to adopt a critical thinking mindset, so that you can make well-informed decisions.

What Is Critical Thinking?

Critical thinking is the discipline of rigorously and skillfully using information, experience, observation, and reasoning to guide your decisions, actions, and beliefs. You'll need to actively question every step of your thinking process to do it well.

Collecting, analyzing and evaluating information is an important skill in life, and a highly valued asset in the workplace. People who score highly in critical thinking assessments are also rated by their managers as having good problem-solving skills, creativity, strong decision-making skills, and good overall performance. [1]

Key Critical Thinking Skills

Critical thinkers possess a set of key characteristics which help them to question information and their own thinking. Focus on the following areas to develop your critical thinking skills:

Being willing and able to explore alternative approaches and experimental ideas is crucial. Can you think through "what if" scenarios, create plausible options, and test out your theories? If not, you'll tend to write off ideas and options too soon, so you may miss the best answer to your situation.

To nurture your curiosity, stay up to date with facts and trends. You'll overlook important information if you allow yourself to become "blinkered," so always be open to new information.

But don't stop there! Look for opposing views or evidence to challenge your information, and seek clarification when things are unclear. This will help you to reassess your beliefs and make a well-informed decision later. Read our article, Opening Closed Minds , for more ways to stay receptive.

Logical Thinking

You must be skilled at reasoning and extending logic to come up with plausible options or outcomes.

It's also important to emphasize logic over emotion. Emotion can be motivating but it can also lead you to take hasty and unwise action, so control your emotions and be cautious in your judgments. Know when a conclusion is "fact" and when it is not. "Could-be-true" conclusions are based on assumptions and must be tested further. Read our article, Logical Fallacies , for help with this.

Use creative problem solving to balance cold logic. By thinking outside of the box you can identify new possible outcomes by using pieces of information that you already have.

Self-Awareness

Many of the decisions we make in life are subtly informed by our values and beliefs. These influences are called cognitive biases and it can be difficult to identify them in ourselves because they're often subconscious.

Practicing self-awareness will allow you to reflect on the beliefs you have and the choices you make. You'll then be better equipped to challenge your own thinking and make improved, unbiased decisions.

One particularly useful tool for critical thinking is the Ladder of Inference . It allows you to test and validate your thinking process, rather than jumping to poorly supported conclusions.

Developing a Critical Thinking Mindset

Combine the above skills with the right mindset so that you can make better decisions and adopt more effective courses of action. You can develop your critical thinking mindset by following this process:

Gather Information

First, collect data, opinions and facts on the issue that you need to solve. Draw on what you already know, and turn to new sources of information to help inform your understanding. Consider what gaps there are in your knowledge and seek to fill them. And look for information that challenges your assumptions and beliefs.

Be sure to verify the authority and authenticity of your sources. Not everything you read is true! Use this checklist to ensure that your information is valid:

• Are your information sources trustworthy ? (For example, well-respected authors, trusted colleagues or peers, recognized industry publications, websites, blogs, etc.)
• Is the information you have gathered up to date ?
• Has the information received any direct criticism ?
• Does the information have any errors or inaccuracies ?
• Is there any evidence to support or corroborate the information you have gathered?
• Is the information you have gathered subjective or biased in any way? (For example, is it based on opinion, rather than fact? Is any of the information you have gathered designed to promote a particular service or organization?)

If any information appears to be irrelevant or invalid, don't include it in your decision making. But don't omit information just because you disagree with it, or your final decision will be flawed and bias.

Now observe the information you have gathered, and interpret it. What are the key findings and main takeaways? What does the evidence point to? Start to build one or two possible arguments based on what you have found.

You'll need to look for the details within the mass of information, so use your powers of observation to identify any patterns or similarities. You can then analyze and extend these trends to make sensible predictions about the future.

To help you to sift through the multiple ideas and theories, it can be useful to group and order items according to their characteristics. From here, you can compare and contrast the different items. And once you've determined how similar or different things are from one another, Paired Comparison Analysis can help you to analyze them.

The final step involves challenging the information and rationalizing its arguments.

Apply the laws of reason (induction, deduction, analogy) to judge an argument and determine its merits. To do this, it's essential that you can determine the significance and validity of an argument to put it in the correct perspective. Take a look at our article, Rational Thinking , for more information about how to do this.

Once you have considered all of the arguments and options rationally, you can finally make an informed decision.

Afterward, take time to reflect on what you have learned and what you found challenging. Step back from the detail of your decision or problem, and look at the bigger picture. Record what you've learned from your observations and experience.

Critical thinking involves rigorously and skilfully using information, experience, observation, and reasoning to guide your decisions, actions and beliefs. It's a useful skill in the workplace and in life.

You'll need to be curious and creative to explore alternative possibilities, but rational to apply logic, and self-aware to identify when your beliefs could affect your decisions or actions.

You can demonstrate a high level of critical thinking by validating your information, analyzing its meaning, and finally evaluating the argument.

Critical Thinking Infographic

See Critical Thinking represented in our infographic: An Elementary Guide to Critical Thinking .

You've accessed 1 of your 2 free resources.

Get unlimited access

Discover more content

Book Insights

Credibility: How Leaders Gain and Lose It, Why People Demand It

James Kouzes and Barry Posner

Project Team Development

Understanding Phases of Team Development Can Help Them Attain Peak Performance Quickly

Add comment

Comments (1)

priyanka ghogare

Get 30% off your first year of Mind Tools

Great teams begin with empowered leaders. Our tools and resources offer the support to let you flourish into leadership. Join today!

Sign-up to our newsletter

Subscribing to the Mind Tools newsletter will keep you up-to-date with our latest updates and newest resources.

Subscribe now

Business Skills

Personal Development

Leadership and Management

Member Extras

Most Popular

Latest Updates

Starting a New Job

The Role of a Facilitator

Mind Tools Store

About Mind Tools Content

Discover something new today

Decision-making mistakes and how to avoid them.

Explore some common decision-making mistakes and how to avoid them with this Skillbook

Using Decision Trees

What decision trees are, and how to use them to weigh up your options

How Emotionally Intelligent Are You?

Boosting Your People Skills

Self-Assessment

What's Your Leadership Style?

Learn About the Strengths and Weaknesses of the Way You Like to Lead

Recommended for you

The program management team.

How a Program Management Organization is Formed and What is Involved in the Key Roles

Business Operations and Process Management

Strategy Tools

Customer Service

Business Ethics and Values

Handling Information and Data

Project Management

Knowledge Management

Self-Development and Goal Setting

Time Management

Presentation Skills

Learning Skills

Career Skills

Communication Skills

Negotiation, Persuasion and Influence

Working With Others

Difficult Conversations

Creativity Tools

Self-Management

Work-Life Balance

Stress Management and Wellbeing

Coaching and Mentoring

Change Management

Team Management

Managing Conflict

Delegation and Empowerment

Performance Management

Leadership Skills

Developing Your Team

Talent Management

Problem Solving

Decision Making

Member Podcast

• Critical Thinking and Decision Making

In this Critical Thinking module delegates discover that, with increased responsibility in an ever-changing world, they will need a toolkit to become more naturally empowered to form a sound judgement and make good decisions.

The key to this module is taking the most complex of subjects and making them simple. In just a few moves delegates will be able to cut through the fog and clearly see the problem, ask the right questions and make informed decisions from a simple trilogy of answers, helping you to form better judgements and decisions, both individually and collectively.

Who is it for?

Managers and any individual who is part of the decision-making process.

Course Objectives:

By the end of this programme, participants will be able to:

• Understand how individual and organisational character drive our reasoning and
• Improve ‘Judgement & Decision Making’ to drive the organization forward
• Learn how to influence others effectively and make good team decisions

Course Content:

• The Chemistry of Change
• The change curve – organizational and personal effects
• Problem and critical analysis
• Judgement and decision-making criteria – priorities and preferences
• Power of influence – taking people with you
• Actions, Summary & Close

Indicative Duration:

Get in touch.

Contact our Academy team today for a consultation to discuss your specific education and training needs.

Contact Academy team

• Academy Courses
• Introduction to Project Management
• Clinical Supervision Supervisor Training
• Introduction to Continence Care
• Introduction to Dementia
• Introduction to ECG
• Introduction to Venepuncture
• Introduction to Wound Management
• Managing Fluid Balance
• Pressure Ulcer Care
• Understanding Nutrition and Hydration
• Action Learning Set Facilitator Training
• Problem Solving Group Facilitation
• Simulation Facilitator Training
• Train the Trainer
• Healthcare Support Worker Development
• Care Planning
• Co-ordinated Care - A Multi-disciplinary approach
• Appraisals and Review Meetings
• Coaching Skills
• Developing Cultural Competence for Leaders
• Developing Your Team
• Management Essentials
• Managing Difficult Conversations
• Mastering Organisational Relationships
• System Leadership
• OSCE Preparation Training – Adult Acute
• OSCE Mental Health Programme - NEW
• OSCE Clinical Facilitator Programme - NEW
• OSCE Revision and Mock Assessment - NEW
• Developing an organisational 'Just Culture'
• Duty of Candour and Being Open Principles
• Incident Response
• Introduction to Complex Systems and Systems Thinking
• Introduction to Human Factors
• Investigator Preparation Training
• Just Culture
• Purpose of Patient Safety Incident Response
• Developing Your Confidence
• Effective Communication Persuasion and Influence
• Essential Writing Skills
• Giving and Receiving Feedback
• Presentations Skills
• Personal Development Courses
• Clinical Courses
• Education and Training Courses
• Integrated Care
• Management and Leadership Courses
• OSCE Preparation and Acclimatisation Courses
• Patient Safety Courses

Constructing critical thinking in health professional education

• Original Article
• Open access
• Published: 04 April 2018
• Volume 7 , pages 156–165, ( 2018 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Renate Kahlke   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4473-5039 1 &
• Kevin Eva 1  

8849 Accesses

31 Citations

6 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Introduction

Calls for enabling ‘critical thinking’ are ubiquitous in health professional education. However, there is little agreement in the literature or in practice as to what this term means and efforts to generate a universal definition have found limited traction. Moreover, the variability observed might suggest that multiplicity has value that the quest for universal definitions has failed to capture. In this study, we sought to map the multiple conceptions of critical thinking in circulation in health professional education to understand the relationships and tensions between them.

We used an inductive, qualitative approach to explore conceptions of critical thinking with educators from four health professions: medicine, nursing, pharmacy, and social work. Four participants from each profession participated in two individual in-depth semi-structured interviews, the latter of which induced reflection on a visual depiction of results generated from the first set of interviews.

Three main conceptions of critical thinking were identified: biomedical, humanist, and social justice-oriented critical thinking. ‘Biomedical critical thinking’ was the dominant conception. While each conception had distinct features, the particular conceptions of critical thinking espoused by individual participants were not stable within or between interviews.

Multiple conceptions of critical thinking likely offer educators the ability to express diverse beliefs about what ‘good thinking’ means in variable contexts. The findings suggest that any single definition of critical thinking in the health professions will be inherently contentious and, we argue, should be. Such debates, when made visible to educators and trainees, can be highly productive.

Similar content being viewed by others

Teachers’ Beliefs About Inclusive Education and Insights on What Contributes to Those Beliefs: a Meta-analytical Study

A Medical Science Educator’s Guide to Selecting a Research Paradigm: Building a Basis for Better Research

Ethical dilemmas and reflexivity in qualitative research

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

What this paper adds

‘Critical thinking’ is a term commonly used across health professional education, though there is little agreement on what this means in the literature or in practice. We depart from previous work, which most often attempts to create a common definition. Instead, we offer a description of the different conceptions of critical thinking held in health professional education, illustrate their dynamic use, and discuss the tensions and affordances that this diversity brings to the field. We argue that diversity in conceptions of critical thinking can allow educators to express unique and often divergent beliefs about what ‘good thinking’ means in their contexts.

Even though the term critical thinking is ubiquitous in educational settings, there is significant disagreement about what it means to ‘think critically’ [ 1 ]. Predominantly, authors have attempted to develop consensus definitions of critical thinking that would finally put these disagreements to rest (e. g. [ 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 ]). They define critical thinking variously, but tend to focus on a rational process involving (for example) ‘interpretation, analysis, evaluation, inference, explanation, and self-regulation’ [ 2 ]. Other authors have challenged this perspective by arguing that critical thinking is a more subjective process, emphasizing the role of emotion and relationships [ 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 ]. In the tradition of critical pedagogy, critical thinking has meant critiquing ideology [ 10 , 11 , 12 ]. Last, still others have argued that critical thinking is discipline or subject-specific, meaning that critical thinking is not universal, but does have a relatively stable meaning within different disciplines [ 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 ]. However, none of these attempts to clarify the ambiguity that surrounds critical thinking have led to agreement, suggesting that each of these perspectives offers, at best, a partial explanation for the persistence of disagreements.

This is problematic in health professional education (HPE) because professional programs are mandated to educate practitioners who have a defined knowledge base and skill set. When curriculum designers, educators, researchers, or policy-makers all agree that we should teach future professionals to ‘think critically’, resting on the assumption that they also agree on what that means, they may find themselves working at cross-purposes. Moreover, the focus on a stable meaning for critical thinking, whether within a discipline or across disciplines, cannot account for the potential value of the multiplicity of definitions that exist. That is, the availability of diverse conceptions of critical thinking likely enables educators to express diverse elements of and beliefs about their work, thereby suggesting a need to explore the conceptions of critical thinking held in HPE, and the contexts that inform those conceptions.

With the historical focus on developing broad definitions of critical thinking and delineating its component skills and dispositions, little has been done either to document the diverse conceptions of this term in circulation amongst active HPE practitioners or, perhaps more importantly, to illuminate the beliefs about what constitutes ‘good thinking’ that lie behind them and the relationships between them. Perhaps clarity in our understanding of critical thinking lies in the flexibility with which it is conceptualized. This study moves away from attempting to create universal definitions of critical thinking in order to explore the tensions that surround different, converging, and competing beliefs about what critical thinking means.

In doing so, we map out conceptions of critical thinking across four health professions along with the beliefs about professional practice that underpin those conceptions. Some of these beliefs may be tied to a profession’s socialization processes and many will be tied to beliefs about ‘good thinking’ that are shared across professions, since health professionals work within shared systems [ 19 ] toward the same ultimate task of providing patient care. It is the variety of ways in which critical thinking is considered by practitioners on the whole that we wanted to understand, not the formal pronouncements of what might be listed as competencies or components of critical thinking within any one profession.

Hence, with this study, we sought to ask:

How do educators in the health professions understand critical thinking?

What values or beliefs inform that understanding?

To explore these questions, we adopted a qualitative research approach that focuses on how people interpret and make meaning out of their experiences and actively construct their social worlds [ 20 ].

This study uses an emergent, inductive design in an effort to be responsive to the co-construction of new and unexpected meaning between participants and researchers. While techniques derived from constructivist grounded theory [ 21 ] were employed, methods like extensive theoretical sampling (that are common to that methodology) were not maintained because this study was intended to be broadly exploratory. This ‘borrowing’ of techniques offers the ability to capitalize on the open and broad approach offered by interpretive qualitative methodology [ 20 ] while engaging selectively with the more specific tools and techniques available from constructivist grounded theory [ 22 , 23 ].

The first author has a background in sociocultural and critical theory. Data collection and early analyses were carried out as part of her dissertation in Educational Policy Studies. As a result of her background in critical theory, there was a need for reflexivity focused on limiting predisposition toward participant interpretations of critical thinking that aligned with critical theory. The senior author was trained in cognitive psychology, and contributed to the questioning of results and discussion required to ensure this reflexivity. The first author’s dissertation supervisor also provided support in this way by questioning assumptions made during the initial stages of this work.

Participants were recruited through faculty or departmental listservs for educators. Senior administrators were consulted to ensure that they were aware of and comfortable with this research taking place in their unit. In some cases, administrators identified a few key individuals who were particularly interested in education. These educators were contacted directly by the first author to request participation.

The purposive sample includes four educators from each of four diverse health professional programs ( n  = 16 in total): medicine, nursing, pharmacy, and social work. All participants self-identified as being actively involved in teaching in their professional program and all were formally affiliated with either the University of Alberta (Medicine, Nursing, and Pharmacy) or the University of Calgary (Social Work). These four professions were selected to maximize diversity in approaches to critical thinking given that these professions have diverse perspectives and roles with respect to patient care. However, participants all worked in Alberta, Canada, within the same broad postsecondary education and healthcare contexts.

In addition, sampling priority was given to recruiting participants practising in a diverse range of specialties: primary care, geriatrics, paediatrics, mental health, critical care, and various consulting specialties. Specific specialties within each profession are not provided here in an effort to preserve participant anonymity. The goal was not to make conclusions about the perspective of any one group; rather, diversity in profession, practice context, gender, and years in practice was sought to increase the likelihood of illuminating diverse conceptions of critical thinking.

Data generation

Participants were invited to participate in two in-person semi-structured interviews conducted by the first author. All but one participant completed both interviews. Interviews were audio-recorded and interview guides are included in the online Electronic Supplementary Material. The first was about 1 hour in length and discussed how participants think about critical thinking in their teaching, professional practice, and other contexts. Participants were invited to bring a teaching artefact that represented how they teach critical thinking to the interview. Artefacts were used as a visual elicitation strategy to prompt discussion from a new angle [ 24 ]. Questions focused on what the participant thought about teaching critical thinking using the artefact and how they identified critical thinking (or lack thereof) in their students. Artefacts were not analyzed independently of the discussion they produced [ 25 ].

Interview 1 data were analyzed to produce a visual depiction of the aggregate terms, ideas, and relationships described by participants. The visual depiction took the form of a ‘mind map’ (see Appendix C of the Electronic Supplementary Material) that was generated using MindMup free online software [ 26 ]. In developing the mind map, we sought descriptions of participants’ views that remained as close to the data as possible, limiting interpretations and inferences. The ‘clusters’ that appear in the mind map (e. g., the cluster around ‘characteristics of the critical thinker’) represent relationships or categories commonly described when participants discussed those terms. Terms were not weighted or emphasized based on frequency of use (through font size or bolding) in an effort to allow individual participants to emphasize or deemphasize terms as they thought appropriate during the second interview.

Where there was no clear category or relationship, terms were left at the first level of the mind map, connected directly to ‘critical thinking’ at the centre. Including more connections and inferences would likely have improved the readability of the map for participants; however, we chose to include connections and exact language used by participants (even in cases where terms seemed similar) as often as possible, in an effort to limit researcher interpretation. That said, any attempt to aggregate data or to represent relationships is an act of interpretation and some inferences were made in the process, such as the distinction between descriptions about ‘characteristics’ of the critical thinker (the top left hand corner of the map) and ‘processes’ such as ‘reasoning’ or ‘examining assumptions’ (on the right side of the map). The second interview lasted approximately 45 minutes during which a visual elicitation approach invited participants to respond to the mind map.

Visual elicitation involves employing visual stimuli to generate verbal interview data. Participant-generated mind maps are often used in qualitative data collection [ 27 ], but the literature on using researcher-generated diagrams for visual elicitation is relatively thin [ 25 , 28 ]. In this study, using a researcher-generated mind map for visual elicitation offered several advantages. First, as with other forms of visual elicitation, diagrams of this kind can help participants develop candid responses and avoid rehearsed narratives [ 24 , 29 ]. For example, we used mind maps as one mechanism to reduce the tendency for participants who were familiar with the literature on critical thinking to get stuck on narrating seemingly rehearsed definitions of critical thinking. Second, we chose to use a mind map because it provided a social setting through which participants could react to language generated by others. Doing so does not allow the same degree of social negotiation inherent in focus groups, but it avoids the difficulty involved in attempts to disentangle individual from group views [ 30 ]. Third, the visual elicitation method was chosen because it offered a form of member check [ 31 ] that allowed researchers to understand the evolving nature of participants’ conceptions of critical thinking, rather than assuming that participants offer a single true conception during each and every discussion [ 32 ]. In other words, the mind map was used to prompt participants to elaborate their conception of critical thinking and locate it relative to other participants.

In interview 2, participants were asked to begin by discussing areas or terms on the mind map that resonated most with their own conception of critical thinking; they were then asked to discuss terms or concepts on the map that resonated less or with which they disagreed. They were also asked to comment on how relationships between ideas were represented through the map so that researchers could get a sense of the extent to which the relationships between the concepts depicted reflected the participants’ understanding of those relationships [ 28 ]. Participants were encouraged to disagree with portions of the map and most did actively disagree with some of the terms and relationships depicted, suggesting that the map did not come to dictate more than elicit individual interpretations [ 28 ]. Although participants were encouraged to ‘mark up’ the mind map, and the ‘marked up’ mind maps were treated as data, the primary data sources for this study were the audio-recorded interviews [ 25 ].

Participants were aware that the mind map represented aggregate data from the four health professions in the study, but were not initially told whether any of the responses came predominantly from any one profession; they did not generally seem to be attempting to associate terms with other professions. Nonetheless, interview 2 data are a mix of participants’ reactions to the ideas of others and their elaborations of their own understandings. Naturally, these data build on data generated in interview 1, and represent reactions to both the researcher interpretation of the data and to the conceptions of critical thinking offered by others. Interview 1 data tended to offer an initial, open impression of how participants think about critical thinking in their contexts. Because of these different approaches to data generation, quotes from interview 1 and 2 are labelled as ‘INT1’ or ‘INT2’, respectively.

Data analysis

Data were coded through an iterative cycle of initial and focused coding [ 33 ] with NVivo software. Initial line-by-line coding was used to develop codes that were close to the data, involving minimal abstraction. Initial codes were reviewed by the first author and dissertation supervisor to abstract categories (conceptions of critical thinking), sub-categories (features of those conceptions), and themes related to the relationships between those categories. Focused coding involved taking these categories and testing them against the data using constant comparison techniques derived from constructivist grounded theory [ 21 ]. Category development continued during the framing of this paper, and authors engaged in ongoing conversations to modify categories to better fit the data. In this process, we returned to the data to look for exceptions that did not fit any category, as well as contradictions and overlap between categories.

Interpretive sufficiency [ 34 ], in this study, occurred when no new features illustrating participants’ conceptions of critical thinking were identified. Memos were kept to track the development or elimination of initial insights or impressions. Institutional ethics approval was obtained from the University of Alberta.

Participant identities have been masked to preserve anonymity. The abbreviation ‘MD’ refers to educators in medical education, ‘NURS’ to nursing, ‘PHARM’ to pharmacy, and ‘SW’ to social work. Participants within each group were then assigned a number. For example, the code NURS3 is a unique identifier for a single participant.

Three main conceptions of critical thinking were identified, each of which will be elaborated in greater detail below: biomedical critical thinking, humanist critical thinking, and social justice-oriented critical thinking. It is important to note that these categories focus on the process and purpose of critical thinking, as defined by participants. Participant comments also spoke to the ‘characteristics’ or ‘dispositions’ of critical thinkers, such as ‘open-mindedness’ or ‘creativity’. The focus of this study, however, was on uncovering what critical thinking looks like as opposed to what a ‘critical thinker’ looks like.

The results below interweave responses from different professional groups in order to emphasize the way in which each of the three core conceptions that we have identified crosses professional boundaries. We then provide a brief discussion of the relationships between these three conceptions, emphasizing the limited extent to which these conceptions were profession-specific, and the tensions that we observed between these conceptions. In general, we also interweave results from both interviews because the discussion in interview 2 tended to reinforce the themes arising from interview 1, especially with respect to indications that different conceptions were used fluidly by individuals over time and dependent on the context being discussed. The interview from which data arose is marked after each quote and we have mentioned explicitly whenever a comment was made in specific response to the mind map presented during interview 2.

In this way, our data extend the literature on critical thinking by offering an appreciation of how each of these conceptions provide educators a different way of thinking, talking, and teaching about their work in HPE. We found that even individual participants’ conceptions of critical thinking shifted from time to time. That is, they often articulated more than one understanding of critical thinking over the course of an interview or between interviews 1 and 2. Some of these conceptions were shared by multiple participants but individual constellations of beliefs about what critical thinking means were unique and somewhat idiosyncratic. Thus, while participants’ conceptions of critical thinking were both idiosyncratic and common, they were also flexible and contextual; the meaning of critical thinking was continuously reconstructed and contested. In this way, critical thinking offered a window through which to explore how beliefs about what constitutes ‘good thinking’ in a profession are challenged in educational settings.

Biomedical critical thinking

Participants articulating a biomedical approach saw critical thinking and clinical reasoning as nearly synonymous. They emphasized a process that was rational, logical, and systematic. One participant articulated that critical thinking is ‘ to be able to reason logically’ (NURS4 INT1). Another related:

You have to kind of pull together data that’s relevant to the subject you’re dealing with. You have to interpret it, you have to analyse it, and you have to come up with some type of conclusions at the end as to how you deal with it. (PHARM3 INT1)

Participants discussing this approach agreed that critical thinking involved a systematic process of gathering and analyzing data: ‘I think [critical thinking and clinical reasoning] are the same. I think clinical reasoning is basically taking the data you have on a patient and interpreting it, and offering a treatment plan’ (MD1 INT1).

In keeping with an emphasis on the rational and logical, participants espousing this view often reacted negatively when they saw references to emotion on the mind map in interview 2: ‘as soon as you bring your emotions into the room, you’re no longer applying what I think is critical thinking’ (MD4 INT2). Participants also noted that decision-making was an important component of critical thinking: ‘ you have to make a decision. I think it’s a really important part of it’ (MD2 INT2).

For participants from pharmacy, in particular, critical thinking often meant departing from ‘rules’ that guide clinical practice in order to engage in reasoning and make situationally nuanced decisions. One pharmacist, describing a student not engaging in critical thinking, related that the student asked:

‘Have you ever seen Victoza given at 2.4   milligrams daily?’ … It’s very, you know, it’s very much yes or no. But at a deeper level, it’s actually missing things. … [There are] all these other factors that change the decision, right? … On paper there might be a regular set of values for the dose, … [but] without the rest of the background, that’s a very secondary thing. (PHARM4 INT1)

This perspective was identified as the dominant conception of critical thinking because the terms and concepts falling under this broad approach were most frequently discussed by participants; moreover, when participants discussed other conceptions of critical thinking, they were often explicitly drawing contrast to the biomedical view. While the biomedical perspective was dominant in all four groups (although primarily as a contrasting case for social workers), participants tended to occupy more than one perspective over the course of an interview. They might talk primarily about biomedical critical thinking, but also explicitly modify that perspective by drawing on the other two approaches identified: humanist critical and social justice-oriented critical thinking.

Humanist critical thinking

Participants, when adopting this view, described critical thinking as directed toward social good and oriented around positive human relationships. Humanist conceptions of critical thinking were often positioned as an alternative to the dominant biomedical perspective: ‘having to think of somebody else, at their most vulnerable, makes you know that knowledge alone, science alone, won’t get that patient to the place you want the patient to be. It won’t provide the best care’ (NURS1 INT1). In being so positioned, the humanist conception of critical thinking explicitly departed from the biomedical, which emphasized ‘setting aside’ emotion and de-emphasized the role of relationships in healthcare. In the humanist perspective, participants often discussed the purpose of critical thinking as:

Thinking about something for the betterment of yourself and the betterment of others. We’re social beings as human beings. … I think [critical thinking] has a higher purpose. … But I think that [if] critical thinking … [is] a human trait that we have or hope to have, then it has to have those components of what we are as humans. (NURS1 INT1)

Another participant emphasized that: ‘a great part of critical thinking is that human element and the consideration of ultimately what’s a good thing, a common good’ (NURS2 INT1).

In addressing the relational aspects of humanist critical thinking, participants argued that the focus on ‘hard’ sources of data, such as lab tests or imaging, in biomedical critical thinking was limiting. They were concerned that ‘hard data’ tend to be perceived as more objective and thus more important in biomedical critical thinking, compared with subjective patient narratives. They argued that the patient’s story is essential to critical thinking:

I think it doesn’t matter what kind of expert you are, you have to be able to think about patients in the context that they’re in and consider what the patient has to say, and really hear them. So I think that’s an important—that was a total lack of critical thinking in a totally, ‘I’m just going to get through this next patient to the next one’ . (MD1 INT1)

Taken together, these perspectives suggest that biomedical approaches to critical thinking fail to address the complex relational and psychosocial aspects of professional practice.

Social justice-oriented critical thinking

In social justice-oriented approaches to critical thinking participants articulated a process of examining the assumptions and biases embedded in their world. They often explicitly rejected biomedical conceptions of critical thinking as ‘ reductionistic ’ (SW3 INT1) because, in their view, these approaches fail to address the thinker’s own biases. Educators taking a social justice approach felt that: ‘critical thinking … is around things like … recognizing your own bias and recognizing the bias in the world’ (SW1 INT1). In this perspective, participants saw critical thinking as a process of analyzing and addressing the ways in which individual and societal assumptions limit possible actions and access to resources for individuals and social groups.

Unlike biomedical critical thinking and similar to the humanist view, participants articulating this conception tended to make the values and goals of critical thinking, as they conceived of it, explicit. They often contrasted their articulation of values in critical thinking with the ‘assumed’ and unarticulated values present in the biomedical perspective:

If you are not orientated in a social justice position, [critical thinking is] more about the mechanics, which is valuable as well, but … if we don’t understand the values associated with what we think, it seems to not be meaningless but there’s a piece missing or it’s assumed. The values are assumed. (SW3 INT1)

When taking this perspective, participants argued that it is necessary to understand social systems in order to think critically about individual patient cases. One educator questioned:

Why are there a disproportionate number of aboriginal inpatients than any other group? … When you start critically thinking about seeing the whole patient … there are issues related with all of society and that’s why people have more diabetes. (PHARM1 INT1)

Other participants had measured responses to this approach. One participant added to their primarily biomedical approach in order to accommodate perspectives encountered in the mind map, relating that behind their diagnostic work all physicians:

Certainly see a wide spectrum of social and economic status and cultures and things and recognizing that our system is kind of biased against certain groups as it is and knowing that but really not having a good sense of knowing even where to start deconstructing it. (MD2 INT2)

Relationships between conceptions of critical thinking

Results of this study suggest that critical thinking means a variety of things in different contexts and to different people. It might be tempting to see the three approaches outlined above as playing out along professional boundaries. Certainly, the social justice-oriented conception was more common among social work educators; the humanist approach was most common among participants from nursing; perspectives held by physician educators frequently aligned with dominant biomedical conceptions. In pharmacy, educators seemed to straddle all three perspectives, though they commonly emphasized a biomedical approach. Several participants suggested that their faculty or profession has a common understanding of critical thinking: ‘ critical thinking, for me and maybe for our faculty, is around things like … ’ (SW1 INT1).

However, while the disciplinary tendencies discussed above do appear in the data, these tendencies were not stable; participants often held more than one view on what critical thinking meant simultaneously, or shifted between perspectives. Participants also articulated approaches that were not common in their profession at certain moments, positioning themselves as ‘an outlier’, or positioning their specialty as having a different perspective than the profession as a whole, such that critical thinking might mean ‘thinking like a nurse’, or ‘thinking in geriatrics’. Further, participants’ perspectives shifted depending on the context in which they imagined critical thinking occurring.

This type of positioning and re-positioning occurred in both interviews, although they were particularly pronounced in interview 2, where participants were explicitly asked to react to different viewpoints by responding to the mind map. Examples of shifting perspectives in interview 1 occurred especially when participants from medicine shifted between biomedical and humanist conceptions. These shifts suggested a persistent tension and negotiation between characterizations of critical thinking as a rational process of data collection and analysis, and a more humanist approach that accounts for emotion and the relationship between professional and patient or family. Where participants sought to extend their notion of data beyond ‘hard data’ there is a sense of blending humanism with biomedical approaches to critical thinking. In the quote below, the participant brings together a call for a humanist relationship building with a need to gather and analyze all of the data, including important data about the patient’s experience:

I have colleagues who’ll say [to their patients]: ‘just say yes or no.’ … And it’s not very good and they’re missing stuff. So, critical thinking is—I guess it’s sort of dynamic in that you have to have time and you also have to have an interaction. (MD1 INT1)

While the participants described above negotiated between biomedical and humanist perspectives, participants primarily espousing a social justice-oriented conception of critical thinking responded to the ‘assumed’ values of the biomedical model. In talking about a problem solving-oriented biomedical approach, one participant argued that ‘ it’s important as well to have that, those foundational elements of how we think about what we think, but if we don’t understand the values associated … there’s a piece missing’ (SW3 INT1). Another stated that ‘critical thinking seems to be a neutral kind of process or—no, that can’t be true, can it?’ (SW1 INT2) with the mid-sentence shift indicating that two ways of conceptualizing critical thinking had come into conflict. This participant primarily discussed a social justice-oriented conception of critical thinking, which is not neutral, but at this moment also articulated a neutral, clinical reasoning-oriented or biomedical conception.

These relatively organic moments of negotiation certainly demonstrate a sense of conflicting values, of toggling between one perspective and another. However, they also suggest that there are ways in which these contradictions can be productively sustained. In negotiating between humanist and biomedical perspectives, educators effectively modify the dominant perspective.

In interview 2, when discussing the mind map, participants often encountered views that differed from their own. They responded either by making sense of and accommodating the new perspective, or by rejecting it. As an example of the former approach, one physician reacted to the ‘social justice-oriented’ corner of the mind map (specifically ‘examining assumptions’) by explaining how there are:

Assumptions in the background that come up for me all the time in terms of the different ways people live and want to live and how we run into it all the time … it’s always in the background and actually influencing you and until someone challenges the way you approached something, you don’t know what your assumptions are. (MD1 INT2)

As an example of a participant disagreeing with a perspective encountered in the mind map, one participant rejected social justice as an important component of critical thinking in medicine. They related that critical thinking has ‘got everything to do with reasoning, which makes sense. … Social justice has nothing to do with critical thinking’ (MD4 INT2). Interestingly, this participant also spoke at length about the link between social justice and critical thinking in the first interview, suggesting that a conception might seem ‘wrong’ when an individual is thinking and talking about it in one context, and entirely ‘right’ in another context.

Such results demonstrate that individual conceptions of critical thinking are multiple and flexible, not predetermined or stable. Educators bring certain values or perspectives into the foreground as they relate to the context under discussion, while others recede into the background. Though many participants seemed to have a primary perspective, multiple perspectives on critical thinking can co-exist and are actively negotiated by the individual.

In overview, the three broad conceptions of critical thinking offered here (biomedical, humanist, and social justice-oriented) echo approaches to critical thinking found in the critical thinking literature [ 11 , 35 , 36 , 37 ]. However, this study extends the literature in two key ways. First, our data point to ways in which different conceptions of critical thinking conflict and coalesce, within the field, within each profession, and even within individuals. Second, this tension offers an early empirical account of critical thinking in the health professions that suggests there may be benefits to maintaining flexibility in how one conceives of the concept.

The diverse conceptions of critical thinking identified all appear to have some value in HPE. It might be tempting to view each conception as a unique but stable perspective, reflecting thinking skills that are used within a particular context or value orientation. However, the multiplicity and flexibility of participants’ conceptions in this study offers some explanation as to why previous attempts to develop either generic (e. g. [ 2 , 3 , 5 ]) or discipline-specific [ 13 , 15 , 16 , 17 ] definitions and delineations of critical thinking have failed to stick.

Conceptions of critical thinking are not stable within a context or for a single educator. Educators’ conceptions of critical thinking shift within and between contexts as they navigate overlapping sets of values and beliefs. When educators take up different conceptions of critical thinking, the shifts they make are not just pragmatic; they actively negotiate the values and practices of the different communities in which they participate. Although we certainly saw hints of differences between professions, the strength of this study is that it captured the ways in which conceptions of critical thinking are not stably tied to any given profession. Critical thinking is connected to a broader idea of what ‘good thinking’—and, by extension, the ‘good professional’—looks like for each educator [ 38 ] within a given context or community.

These observations lead one to speculate about what purpose fluidity in conceptions of critical thinking might serve. Educators often have different values and goals for their profession, and, thus, it is not surprising that the meaning of critical thinking would be contested both within and across professions. Through their conceptions of critical thinking, participants contest ideas about what thinking is for in their profession—whether it should be focused on individual patient ‘problems’ or broader social issues, and the extent to which humanism is an important component of healthcare.

It is understandable that so much of the literature on critical thinking has sought to clarify a single ‘right’ definition; there is an argument for making a collective decision about what ‘good thinking’ means. Such a decision might offer clarity to interprofessional teaching and practice, or provide a foundation on which educational policy can be based. However, the critical thinking literature has long sought such a universal agreement and disagreements persist. Results of this study suggest a new approach, one that can account for multiple conceptions of critical thinking within and across health professions and practice contexts. The visual elicitation approach employed, asking participants to respond to the mind map, offered a unique perspective on the data that illuminated contradictions between conceptions held by individual participants, between participants, and between the conceptions themselves.

Such an approach offers a vehicle for thinking and talking about what kind of thinking is valued, both within and between professions. When conceptions of critical thinking are understood as flexible instead of stable, these acts of modification and contestation can be viewed as potential moments for critical self-reflection for individuals and for professional groups on the whole. Moreover, through their discussions of critical thinking, educators actively intervened to consider and assert what they value in their work.

These different conceptions might be complementary as often as they are incompatible. In fact, we would argue that ‘good thinking’ is inherently contentious (and should be) because it is such struggles over what ‘the good’ means in HPE that allow for challenges to the status quo. Advances at the heart of HPE and practice have been hard-won through deliberate reflection, discussion, action, and (often) conflict. For example, the ongoing movement toward relationship-oriented care has arguably occurred as a result of unexpected pushback regarding the limits of considering good healthcare as being entirely patient-centred. Thus, there is a need to bring unarticulated assumptions about important topics into the light so that the goals and values of educators and policy-makers can be openly discussed, even though they are unlikely to ever be fully resolved.

Strengths and limitations

This study offered a broad sample of educators from four different professions, who practised in a range of disciplinary contexts. Given that the sampling approach taken sought breadth rather than depth, the results explore a range of conceptions of critical thinking across HPE, rather than allowing strong claims about any one profession or context. The sample also focussed on conceptions of critical thinking within health professions education at specific institutions in Edmonton, Alberta. A multi-institutional study might build on these results to elaborate the extent to which each health profession has a core shared conception of critical thinking that translates across institutional settings. We expect that there may be significant differences between settings, given that what is meant by critical thinking seems to be highly contextual, even from moment to moment. Mapping aspects of context that impact how individuals and groups think about critical thinking would tell us much more about the values on which these conceptions are based.

Subsequent studies might also explore the extent to which conceptions of critical thinking among those identifying as ‘educators’ are comparable to those identifying as primarily ‘clinicians’. Although the boundary is definitely blurry, these groups engage in different kinds of work and participate in different communities, which we suspect may result in differences in how they conceive of critical thinking.

Conclusions

Rather than attempting to ‘solve’ the debate about what critical thinking should mean, this study maps the various conceptions of this term articulated by health professional educators. Educators took up biomedical, humanist, and social justice-oriented conceptions of critical thinking, and their conceptions often shifted from moment to moment or from context to context. The ‘mapping’ approach adopted to study this issue allowed for an appreciation of the ways in which educators actively modify and contest educational and professional values, even within their own thinking. Because critical thinking appears to be both value and context driven, arriving at a single right definition or taxonomy of critical thinking is unlikely to resolve deep tensions around what ‘good thinking’ in HPE means. Moreover, such an approach is unlikely to be productive. Such tensions produce challenges for shared understanding at the same time that they produce a productive space for discussion about core issues in HPE.

Abrami PC, Bernard RM, Borokhovski E, et al. Instructional interventions affecting critical thinking skills and dispositions: a stage 1 meta-analysis. Rev Educ Res. 2008;78:1102–34.

Article   Google Scholar  

Facione PA. Critical thinking: a statement of expert consensus for purposes of educational assessment and instruction. Millbrae: California Academic Press; 1990.

Google Scholar  

Black B. Critical thinking—a definition and taxonomy for Cambridge Assessment: supporting validity arguments about critical thinking assessments administered by Cambridge Assessment. 34 th IAEA Annual Conference; 09.9.2008; Cambridge; 2008.

Fischer SC, Spiker VA, Riedel SL. Critical thinking training for army officers volume two: a model of critical thinking. Arlington: US Army Research Institute; 2009.

Ennis RH. Critical thinking: a streamlined conception. In: Davies M, Barnett R, editors. The Palgrave handbook of critical thinking in higher education. New York: Palgrave MacMillan; 2015. pp. 31–47.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Thayer-Bacon B. Transforming critical thinking: thinking constructively. New York: Teachers College Press; 2000.

Thayer-Bacon B. Caring and its relationship to critical thinking. Educ Theory. 1993;43:323–40.

Walters KS. Critical thinking, rationality, and the vulcanization of students. In: Walters KS, editor. Re-thinking reason: new perspectives on critical thinking. Albany: State University of New York Press; 1994. pp. 61–80.

Warren KJ. Critical thinking and feminism. In: Walters KS, editor. Re-thinking reason: new perspectives on critical thinking. Albany: State University of New York Press; 1994. pp. 199–204.

Brookfield SD. Speaking truth to power: teaching critical thinking in the critical theory tradition. In: Davies M, Barnett R, editors. The Palgrave handbook of critical thinking in higher education. New York: Palgrave MacMillan; 2015. pp. 529–43.

McLaren PL. Forward: critical thinking as a political project. In: Walters KS, editor. Re-thinking reason: new perspectives on critical thinking. Albany: State University of New York Press; 1994. pp. ix–xv.

Giroux H. Toward a pedagogy of critical thinking. In: Walters KS, editor. Re-thinking reason: new perspectives on critical thinking. Albany: State University of New York Press; 1994. pp. 199–204.

McPeck JE. Critical thinking and the ‘Trivial Pursuit’ theory of knowledge. In: Walters KS, editor. Re-thinking reason: new perspectives on critical thinking. Albany: State University of New York Press; 1994. pp. 101–18.

Chan ZC. A systematic review of critical thinking in nursing education. Nurse Educ Today. 2013;33:236–40.

Scheffer BK, Rubenfeld MG. A consensus statement on critical thinking in nursing. J Nurs Educ. 2000;39:352–9.

Krupat E, Sprague JM, Wolpaw D, Haidet P, Hatem D, O’Brien B. Thinking critically about critical thinking: ability, disposition or both? Med Educ. 2011;45:625–35.

Jones A. A disciplined approach to critical thinking. In: Davies M, Barnett R, editors. The Palgrave handbook of critical thinking in higher education. New York: Palgrave MacMillan; 2015. pp. 169–82.

Papp KK, Huang GC, Lauzon Clabo LM, et al. Milestones of critical thinking: a developmental model for medicine and nursing. Acad Med. 2014;89:715–20.

Grace S, Innes E, Joffe B, East L, Coutts R, Nancarrow S. Identifying common values among seven health professions: an interprofessional analysis. J Interprof Care. 2017;31(3):1–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/13561820.2017.1288091 .

Merriam SB. Qualitative research: a guide to design and implementation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2009.

Charmaz K. Constructing grounded theory. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: SAGE; 2014.

Kahlke RM. Generic qualitative approaches: pitfalls and benefits of methodological mixology. Int J Qual Methods. 2014;13:37–52.

Varpio L, Martimianakis MA, Mylopoulos M. Qualitative research methodologies: embracing methodological borrowing, shifting and importing. In: Cleland J, Durning SJ, editors. Researching medical education. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons; 2015. pp. 245–55. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118838983.ch21 .

Wheeldon J. Is a picture worth a thousand words? Using mind maps to facilitate participant recall in qualitative research. Qual Rep. 2011;16:509–22.

Umoquit MJ, Tso P, Tünde V‑A, O’brien M, Wheeldon J. Diagrammatic elicitation: defining the use of diagrams in data collection. Qual Rep. 2013;18(60):1–12.

MindMup 2. Available from: https://www.mindmup.com/ . Accessed: 1 March 2018

Wheeldon J, Framing Experience FJ. Concept maps, mind maps, and data collection in qualitative research. Int J Qual Methods. 2009;8:68–83.

Crilly N, Blackwell A, Clarkson PJ. Graphic elicitation: using research diagrams as interview stimuli. Qual Res. 2006;6:341–66.

Hathaway AD, Atkinson M. Active interview techniques in research on public deviants: exploring the two-cop personas. Field methods. 2003;15:161–85.

Onwuegbuzie AJ, Dickinson WB, Leech NL, Zoran AG. A qualitative framework for collecting and analyzing data in focus group research. Int J Qual Methods. 2009;8:1–21.

Kinchin IM, Streatfield D, Hay DB. Using concept mapping to enhance the research interview. Int J Qual Methods. 2010;9:52–68.

Varpio L, Ajjawi R, Monrouxe L, O’Brien B, Rees C. Shedding the cobra effect: problematizing thematic emergence, triangulation, saturation and member checking. Med Educ. 2017;51:40–50.

Saldaña J. The coding manual for qualitative researchers. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: SAGE; 2013.

Christians CG. Ethics and politics in qualitative research. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS, editors. Handbook of qualitative research. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: SAGE; 2000. pp. 133–55.

Kahlke RM, White J. Critical thinking in health sciences education: considering ‘three waves’. Creat Educ. 2014;4:21–9.

Introduction WKS. beyond logicism in critical thinking. In: Walters KS, editor. Re-thinking reason: new perspectives on critical thinking. Albany: State University of New York Press; 1994. pp. 1–22.

Barnett R. A curriculum of critical being. In: Davies M, Barnett R, editors. The Palgrave handbook of critical thinking in higher education. New York: Palgrave MacMillan; 2015. pp. 63–76.

Pithers RT, Soden R. Critical thinking in education: a review. Educ Res. 2000;42:237–49.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Dr. Paul Newton for his contributions to the analysis of these data, in his role as supervisor of the dissertation work on which this manuscript is based. Thanks also to Dr. Dan Pratt for his help and support in developing this manuscript.

Support for this work was provided by the Government of Alberta (Queen Elizabeth II Graduate Scholarship), by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (Doctoral Fellowship), and by the University of British Columbia (Postdoctoral Fellowship).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Centre for Health Education Scholarship, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada

Renate Kahlke & Kevin Eva

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Renate Kahlke .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

R. Kahlke and K. Eva declare that they have no competing interests.

Caption Electronic Supplementary Material

Appendix a: interview guide for initial interview, appendix b: interview guide for second interview, appendix c: mind map, rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Kahlke, R., Eva, K. Constructing critical thinking in health professional education. Perspect Med Educ 7 , 156–165 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40037-018-0415-z

Download citation

Published : 04 April 2018

Issue Date : June 2018

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s40037-018-0415-z

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Critical thinking
• Clinical reasoning
• Health professions education
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• First Appointment Online Booking
• One To One Therapy
• Specialist in PTSD & Trauma Online Counselling
• Executive Coaching & Management Therapy
• Professional Patient Referral Therapy Services
• Bipolar Disorder Therapy
• Anger Management Therapy
• Anxiety Therapy
• Confidence Therapy
• Depression Therapy
• Marriage Therapy
• Panic Therapy
• Sex Therapy
• Trauma / PTSD Therapy
• Full List of Therapy Services
• How To Stress Less.
• How To Change Your Life.
• Hypnotherapy Audiobooks
• Meditation Audiobooks
• Audiobooks With Audible
• Audiobooks With iTunes
• Erectile Dysfunction Solutions
• Premature Ejaculation Solution
• Weight Loss Support
• Supplements For The Brain
• Recommended Brands
• Recommended Reading
• Training & Workshops For Your Business

The Science Behind Critical Thinking and Its Role in Mental Health

In the journey towards understanding and improving mental health, one cannot overlook the influence of a powerful cognitive tool known as critical thinking..

Here we will delve into the science underpinning critical thinking and shed light on its role in bolstering mental health. 

Exploring the Foundations of Critical Thinking 

The term 'critical thinking' encompasses a broad set of cognitive skills and dispositions aimed at objective analysis and evaluation of information. It involves thinking in a clear, logical, and reflective manner to make reasoned judgements. Critical thinking is not merely being critical in the negative sense, but rather, it's about engaging with information critically - questioning, analysing, and evaluating - to reach a sound, unbiased conclusion. 

The science behind critical thinking is rooted in various cognitive processes, including perception, memory, attention, and problem-solving. It involves the prefrontal cortex, the part of the brain associated with complex cognitive behaviour, decision-making, and social behaviour. A strong capacity for critical thinking implies that these cognitive processes and brain regions are functioning optimally. 

Critical Thinking and Mental Health: The Connection

The relationship between critical thinking and mental health is more intertwined than it might initially appear. Many mental health issues can be traced back to negative or distorted thinking patterns. These unhelpful thinking styles can lead to emotional distress and behavioural problems. It's here that critical thinking comes into play, as it equips individuals with the ability to identify, analyse, and ultimately challenge these negative thought patterns.

The Interplay of Perception and Critical Thinking 

Perception, the process of interpreting the information that we receive through our senses, plays a significant role in critical thinking. It shapes our understanding of the world around us and influences our reactions to various situations. However, perception can sometimes be biased or distorted, leading to misunderstandings or misconceptions. 

Critical thinking allows us to scrutinise our perceptions and question their accuracy. It encourages us to seek evidence and consider alternative perspectives, leading to a more accurate and comprehensive understanding of our experiences. This process can have a profound impact on our mental health, as it helps to challenge distorted perceptions that can fuel negative emotions or unhealthy behaviours.

Memory's Role in Critical Thinking

Memory, another key cognitive process, also intersects with critical thinking. Our memories of past experiences can shape our current thoughts, feelings, and behaviours. However, memories are not always accurate representations of reality. They can be influenced by our current mood, biases, and beliefs, leading to distorted recollections.

Critical thinking can help us evaluate our memories objectively. It prompts us to question the accuracy of our recollections and consider the influence of external factors. This reflective approach can prevent us from basing our beliefs or behaviours on distorted memories, thereby enhancing our mental health.

Attention and Its Influence on Critical Thinking

Attention, the cognitive process of selectively concentrating on one aspect while ignoring others, is crucial for critical thinking. It enables us to focus on relevant information and ignore irrelevant distractions. However, attention can be biased towards negative information, especially in individuals with mental health issues such as anxiety or depression.

Critical thinking skills can aid in managing attentional biases. It involves questioning why we are focusing on certain aspects and ignoring others, considering the impact of this focus, and making a conscious effort to direct our attention in a more balanced manner. This approach can reduce negative bias, improve emotional well-being, and enhance overall mental health. 

Problem-Solving: A Crucial Component of Critical Thinking

Problem-solving is an integral part of critical thinking. It involves identifying problems, generating potential solutions, and evaluating these solutions to make an informed decision. Individuals with strong problem-solving skills are often good critical thinkers, as they can analyse situations objectively, consider various solutions, and make reasoned decisions based on evidence. In the context of mental health, problem-solving skills can help manage stress, navigate life's challenges, and improve overall well-being. 

Cognitive Biases and Critical Thinking 

Cognitive biases, systematic errors in thinking that influence our judgements and decisions, can impede critical thinking. They can lead to distorted perceptions, irrational beliefs, and poor decision-making, which can negatively impact mental health. Common cognitive biases include confirmation bias, where we focus on information that confirms our pre-existing beliefs, and negativity bias, where we pay more attention to negative information.

Critical thinking can help us recognise and overcome these cognitive biases. It encourages us to question our biases, seek diverse perspectives, and make decisions based on objective evidence rather than biased perceptions. By mitigating the impact of cognitive biases, critical thinking can promote healthier thought patterns, better decision-making, and improved mental health.

The Impact of Critical Thinking on Emotional Intelligence 

Emotional intelligence, the ability to understand, use, and manage our own emotions in positive ways, can be enhanced through critical thinking. By critically analysing our emotional responses, we can gain insights into our emotional patterns, understand the triggers for certain emotions, and develop effective strategies to manage these emotions. This understanding can lead to improved emotional regulation, better interpersonal relationships, and enhanced mental health.

Critical Thinking and Resilience

Critical thinking also plays a significant role in building resilience, the ability to bounce back from adversity. Resilient individuals use critical thinking to understand the nature of the adversity, explore various coping strategies, and make informed decisions to overcome the challenge. This ability not only helps manage the immediate adversity but also fosters mental strength, which can safeguard against future challenges.

In conclusion, the science behind critical thinking and its role in mental health is a fascinating and integral area of exploration. By enhancing our cognitive processes, helping us navigate our emotions, and bolstering our resilience, critical thinking serves as a powerful tool for mental health.

At times, life can be overwhelming and leave us feeling lost, anxious, or depressed.

Counselling can provide the support and guidance needed to navigate difficult times and achieve mental well-being. We offer a safe and confidential space to explore your thoughts, feelings, and concerns. We believe that everyone deserves access to quality mental health care, and we strive to provide an inclusive and non-judgmental environment for all.

If you are struggling with mental health issues or feeling overwhelmed, we invite you to reach out to us for support. We are here to listen, guide, and empower you towards a healthier and happier life. Don't let mental health challenges hold you back from living your best life. Contact us today to schedule an appointment and take the first step towards better mental health.

• Augsburg.edu
• Inside Augsburg

Search Strommen Center for Meaningful Work

• Faculty & Staff
• Graduate Students
• First Generation
• International
• Students With Disabilities
• Undocumented
• Business & Finance
• Culture and Language
• Environmental Sustainability
• Government, Law & Policy
• Health Professions
• Human & Social Services
• Information Technology & Data
• Marketing, Media & Communications
• Resumes and Cover Letters
• Expand Your Network / Mentor
• Explore Your Interests / Self Assessment
• Negotiate an Offer
• Prepare for an Interview
• Prepare for Graduate School
• Search for a Job / Internship
• Job Fair Preparation
• Start Your Internship
• Choosing a Major
• Career Collaborative
• Travelers EDGE
• Meet the Team

Critical Thinking: A Simple Guide and Why It’s Important

• Share This: Share Critical Thinking: A Simple Guide and Why It’s Important on Facebook Share Critical Thinking: A Simple Guide and Why It’s Important on LinkedIn Share Critical Thinking: A Simple Guide and Why It’s Important on X

Critical Thinking: A Simple Guide and Why It’s Important was originally published on Ivy Exec .

Strong critical thinking skills are crucial for career success, regardless of educational background. It embodies the ability to engage in astute and effective decision-making, lending invaluable dimensions to professional growth.

At its essence, critical thinking is the ability to analyze, evaluate, and synthesize information in a logical and reasoned manner. It’s not merely about accumulating knowledge but harnessing it effectively to make informed decisions and solve complex problems. In the dynamic landscape of modern careers, honing this skill is paramount.

The Impact of Critical Thinking on Your Career

☑ problem-solving mastery.

Visualize critical thinking as the Sherlock Holmes of your career journey. It facilitates swift problem resolution akin to a detective unraveling a mystery. By methodically analyzing situations and deconstructing complexities, critical thinkers emerge as adept problem solvers, rendering them invaluable assets in the workplace.

☑ Refined Decision-Making

Navigating dilemmas in your career path resembles traversing uncertain terrain. Critical thinking acts as a dependable GPS, steering you toward informed decisions. It involves weighing options, evaluating potential outcomes, and confidently choosing the most favorable path forward.

☑ Enhanced Teamwork Dynamics

Within collaborative settings, critical thinkers stand out as proactive contributors. They engage in scrutinizing ideas, proposing enhancements, and fostering meaningful contributions. Consequently, the team evolves into a dynamic hub of ideas, with the critical thinker recognized as the architect behind its success.

☑ Communication Prowess

Effective communication is the cornerstone of professional interactions. Critical thinking enriches communication skills, enabling the clear and logical articulation of ideas. Whether in emails, presentations, or casual conversations, individuals adept in critical thinking exude clarity, earning appreciation for their ability to convey thoughts seamlessly.

☑ Adaptability and Resilience

Perceptive individuals adept in critical thinking display resilience in the face of unforeseen challenges. Instead of succumbing to panic, they assess situations, recalibrate their approaches, and persist in moving forward despite adversity.

☑ Fostering Innovation

Innovation is the lifeblood of progressive organizations, and critical thinking serves as its catalyst. Proficient critical thinkers possess the ability to identify overlooked opportunities, propose inventive solutions, and streamline processes, thereby positioning their organizations at the forefront of innovation.

☑ Confidence Amplification

Critical thinkers exude confidence derived from honing their analytical skills. This self-assurance radiates during job interviews, presentations, and daily interactions, catching the attention of superiors and propelling career advancement.

So, how can one cultivate and harness this invaluable skill?

✅ developing curiosity and inquisitiveness:.

Embrace a curious mindset by questioning the status quo and exploring topics beyond your immediate scope. Cultivate an inquisitive approach to everyday situations. Encourage a habit of asking “why” and “how” to deepen understanding. Curiosity fuels the desire to seek information and alternative perspectives.

✅ Practice Reflection and Self-Awareness:

Engage in reflective thinking by assessing your thoughts, actions, and decisions. Regularly introspect to understand your biases, assumptions, and cognitive processes. Cultivate self-awareness to recognize personal prejudices or cognitive biases that might influence your thinking. This allows for a more objective analysis of situations.

✅ Strengthening Analytical Skills:

Practice breaking down complex problems into manageable components. Analyze each part systematically to understand the whole picture. Develop skills in data analysis, statistics, and logical reasoning. This includes understanding correlation versus causation, interpreting graphs, and evaluating statistical significance.

✅ Engaging in Active Listening and Observation:

Actively listen to diverse viewpoints without immediately forming judgments. Allow others to express their ideas fully before responding. Observe situations attentively, noticing details that others might overlook. This habit enhances your ability to analyze problems more comprehensively.

✅ Encouraging Intellectual Humility and Open-Mindedness:

Foster intellectual humility by acknowledging that you don’t know everything. Be open to learning from others, regardless of their position or expertise. Cultivate open-mindedness by actively seeking out perspectives different from your own. Engage in discussions with people holding diverse opinions to broaden your understanding.

✅ Practicing Problem-Solving and Decision-Making:

Engage in regular problem-solving exercises that challenge you to think creatively and analytically. This can include puzzles, riddles, or real-world scenarios. When making decisions, consciously evaluate available information, consider various alternatives, and anticipate potential outcomes before reaching a conclusion.

✅ Continuous Learning and Exposure to Varied Content:

Read extensively across diverse subjects and formats, exposing yourself to different viewpoints, cultures, and ways of thinking. Engage in courses, workshops, or seminars that stimulate critical thinking skills. Seek out opportunities for learning that challenge your existing beliefs.

✅ Engage in Constructive Disagreement and Debate:

Encourage healthy debates and discussions where differing opinions are respectfully debated.

This practice fosters the ability to defend your viewpoints logically while also being open to changing your perspective based on valid arguments. Embrace disagreement as an opportunity to learn rather than a conflict to win. Engaging in constructive debate sharpens your ability to evaluate and counter-arguments effectively.

✅ Utilize Problem-Based Learning and Real-World Applications:

Engage in problem-based learning activities that simulate real-world challenges. Work on projects or scenarios that require critical thinking skills to develop practical problem-solving approaches. Apply critical thinking in real-life situations whenever possible.

This could involve analyzing news articles, evaluating product reviews, or dissecting marketing strategies to understand their underlying rationale.

In conclusion, critical thinking is the linchpin of a successful career journey. It empowers individuals to navigate complexities, make informed decisions, and innovate in their respective domains. Embracing and honing this skill isn’t just an advantage; it’s a necessity in a world where adaptability and sound judgment reign supreme.

So, as you traverse your career path, remember that the ability to think critically is not just an asset but the differentiator that propels you toward excellence.

Environmental study says building ‘critical’ St. George highway would spread weeds, cause fires and threaten tortoises

Washington county officials are threatening legal action if right-of-way for the highway is revoked.

(Jason Jones | Utah Division of Wildlife Resources) A desert tortoise in its native habitat in Washington County.

St. George • Building a major highway through a national conservation area in southwest Utah would increase the spread of noxious weeds, spark more wildfires and increase the risk to Mojave desert tortoises and other endangered species.

Those are some of the findings outlined in a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) the Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service released this week to assess the impacts of putting a four-lane highway through the Red Cliffs National Conservation Area (NCA), which is situated just north of St. George.

In January 2021, the Trump administration approved the right-of-way for the controversial North Corridor Highway. That triggered a lawsuit by Utah and national environmental groups who accused the U.S. Department of Interior and the BLM of violating federal law, including the Endangered Species Act and the National Historic Preservation Act.

Citing flaws with the original environmental impact statement, U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman put approval of the highway on hold in November to provide federal agencies an opportunity to reexamine its impact on the Mojave desert tortoise and conduct a supplemental EIS that would build on the original.

With the draft SEIS being published today in the Federal Register, the public has 45 days to comment and provide feedback. That will be followed by the release of a final SEIS and a decision regarding the proposed highway.

Fallout over report

While a final determination on the highway is likely several months down the road, fans and foes of the Northern Corridor are already weighing in on the findings in the SEIS.

“The Biden-led BLM’s approach on this important issue has been beyond frustrating,” Washington County officials stated today in a news release. “Rather than supporting the existing right-of-way, which has been amply studied, the BLM is promoting half-baked alternatives and concepts that will significantly harm the quality of life for Washington County’s human and Mojave desert tortoise populations alike.”

Added Washington County Commissioner Adam Snow: “We have been studying, planning, and fighting for this highway for over 15 years. The Northern Corridor is absolutely critical to our county. It must be built and it must be built the right way.”

Highway supporters argue the road will reduce traffic congestion in the St. George area by up to 15%. They are worried that the draft SEIS doesn’t name a preferred route for a northern corridor highway and puts four previously abandoned alternative routes back into play. Even more worrisome, they add, is that the document adds an option to revoke the right-of-the-way for a northern corridor highway.

“Obviously, the BLM’s preferred alternative is to undo the right-of-way for the highway,” Washington County Attorney Eric Clarke said, characterizing the SEIS as a subterfuge to reach a predetermined decision to kill the highway altogether.

Conversely, environmental and conservation groups see things differently. Todd Tucci, senior attorney for Advocates of the West, said the SEIS shows cheatgrass and wildfires are exploding in the NCS and that the original EIS underestimated the proposed road’s impact on tortoises, whose population density has declined in the core area of the NCA from about 30 to 10 adult tortoises per kilometer over the past 25 years.

“My big takeaway on the SEIS is that [federal officials have] erected a mountain of objective, scientific evidence that demonstrates the highway’s impact on the Mojave desert tortoise would be even greater than we thought before,” Tucci said.

Holly Snow Canada, executive director of Conserve Southwest Utah, argues building a major highway through a national conservation area is not the answer to easing traffic gridlock.

“There are better transportation options that exist than the Northern Corridor Highway route that serve our growing community needs while protecting wildlife and the scenic values that make our area such a special place …,” she said in a news release.

The Red Cliffs NCA is encompassed within the 69,000-acre Red Cliffs Desert Reserve, which was created in 1996 to recover desert tortoises threatened by development. The reserve is administered by the county in collaboration with federal agencies as part of a compromise that protects 61,000 acres of public lands for the Mojave desert tortoise. In exchange, the agreement opened up roughly 300,000 acres of tortoise habitat on private and public land outside the reserve for development.

Transportation alternatives

As currently proposed, the 4.5-mile North Corridor Highway would cut across the NCA and link Red Cliffs Parkway on the west with Washington Parkway near I-15 on the east. The SEIS lists two alternate routes that would also encroach into the conservation area.

One is the T-Bone Mesa alignment, a more northerly route that would connect Green Springs Drive on the east with Red Hills Parkway on the west just north of the Pioneer Hills trailhead. The other is an alignment near the NCA’s southern border that would link Green Springs Drive on the east with the Red Hills Parkway on the west just south of the Pioneer Hills trailhead.

According to the SEIS, all three of these northern corridor alternatives would destroy tortoise burrows and habitat and contribute to the spread of invasive plants, which would increase the probability of wildfires. That, in turn, would lead to even more noxious weeds and invasive species, thus accelerating the fire risk even further. In addition, all three Northern Corridor alternatives could have adverse impacts on a number of historic properties.

Another two alternatives the SEIS identified fall outside the NCA. One would convert Red Hills Parkway in St. George into an expressway between Interstate 15 and Bluff Street that would facilitate better east-west traffic flows in the area. A second route would convert St. George Blvd. and 100 South in St. George into one-way streets.

Both these non-Northern Corridor alternatives would not impact any additional tortoise habitat, but the Red Hills route could negatively affect vulnerable Virgin thistle plants and two historic properties, according to the document. If either St. George alternative or the option to terminate the Utah Department of Transportation’s right-of-way for the North Corridor Highway are selected, that could also pave the way for the loss of tortoise protections and habitat elsewhere.

In 2021, Zone 6 was added to the Red Cliffs Desert Reserve to offset the impact that would result from building the North Corridor Highway. The land — roughly 6,800 acres evenly split between the BLM and the Utah Trust Lands Administration — is located west of Bloomington and is separate from the rest of the reserve.

If a St. George or the termination alternative is selected, according to the SEIS, Zone 6 would be eliminated and the 3,338 acres that SITLA now owns could be opened up for development. That could not only have repercussions for the zone’s Mojave desert tortoises but also for Parry’s sandpaper and endangered dwarf bear-poppy plants in the area. It could also lead to damage from “unmanaged motorized” activities, a greater risk of wildfires and the complete loss of habitat from development.

Wishful thinking, weighing the options

Still, conservationists and environmentalists insist, the negative impacts of building a Northern Corridor road far outweigh any positives.

“This highway is an ill-conceived idea that needs to go away once and for all,” Desiree Sorensen-Groves, vice president of land and habitat conservation for Defenders of Wildlife, stated in the news release.

However, Clarke said that might be wishful thinking. He argues the Omnibus Public Management Act Congress enacted in 2009 authorized the construction of and allow the public east-west highway across the county. If the federal government nixes a North Corridor route, he doesn’t expect the county or the state to accept the outcome.

“We could wait till we have a friendly administration and reapply again. We obviously are also gearing up for a potential lawsuit.”

The BLM is taking public comment on the draft SEIS until June 24. It will also host a public meeting, at a time and place to be announced later, to give the public an opportunity to ask questions and provide feedback.

Editor’s note • This story is available to Salt Lake Tribune subscribers only. Thank you for supporting local journalism.

Donate to the newsroom now. The Salt Lake Tribune, Inc. is a 501(c)(3) public charity and contributions are tax deductible

S.L. County Mayor Jenny Wilson weighs in on Abravanel Hall. Here’s what she said.

Man charged in killing of santaquin police officer could face death penalty, former byu quarterback is transferring to another utah school, trump and biden host drag queen story hour and other hoax reports about utah’s trans bathroom ban, latter-day saint missionary serving in utah arrested on suspicion of rape, bagley cartoon: based mike lee, featured local savings.