CRITICAL THINKING
Goals for this class
Students will :
• learn about core critical thinking skills, and
• practice using those skills.
Discussion topic:
Critical thinking - What is it? What do we do when we think
“critically”?
1. Write down three key words or phrases that describe/explain
critical thinking for you
2. Compare your notes with your neighbour and discuss
Analysis
Analysis is most often given as a synonym for critical thinking.
It means
“dissecting, breaking up, and unpacking an idea/theory/reading” (Hart,
1998, p.111)
It includes
• a consideration of the strengths and weaknesses of the idea, and
• comparison with related ideas
A critical thinking tool: Socratic discussion (Paul,
1990)
Support, reasons,
evidence,
assumptions?
Origin or
source?
idea,
statement,
document…
Similarities /differences
of related ideas/facts?
Implications and
consequences?
We are going to do an exercise to analyse a definition
of critical thinking
Before we do that, we need to think about the
nature of a good definition. What are the
characteristics we expect of a “good definition”?
This will give us some criteria with which we can
analyse the definitions of critical thinking.
Analysis – group exercise
Each group will be given one of six published definitions of critical
thinking.
For the definition you are given
1. Consider the meaning and clarify any complex or difficult elements,
so that you can explain the definition to the class.
2. Consider the strengths and weaknesses of your definition. Use the
criteria for a good definition to help your analysis. Again you will be
explaining these insights to the class.
1. Critical thinking is active, persistent, and
careful consideration of a belief or supposed form
of knowledge in the light of the grounds which
support it and the further conclusions to which it
tends. (Dewey, 1933, p. 118)
2. Critical thinking is reasonable, reflective
thinking that is focused on deciding what to
believe or do. (Ennis, 2002, para. 1)
3. Critical thinking is skilled and active
interpretation and evaluation of observations and
communications, information and
argumentation. (Fisher & Scriven, 1997, p. 21)
4. Critical thinking is
a. an attitude of being disposed to consider in a
thoughtful way the problems and subjects
that come within the range of one’s
experience;
b. knowledge of the method of logical enquiry
and reasoning; and
c. some skill in applying those methods.
(Glaser, 1941, p. 5)
5. Critical thinking is the careful and deliberate
determination of whether to accept, reject, or
suspend judgment about a claim. (Moore &
Parker, 2007, p. 72)
6. 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 skilfully taking charge of the
structures inherent in thinking and imposing
intellectual standards upon them. (Paul & Elder,
2006, p. xix)
Comparative analysis
Now let’s compare these six definitions.
What are some of the similarities among these definitions? Eg similar
words and phrases used in two or more definitions.
What are some of the differences? Eg something that one definition
mentions that is not seen elsewhere.
Making judgements, Drawing conclusions
On the basis of your analysis:
• Would you throw out any of these definitions? How would you
justify doing so?
• Would you select one of these definitions as the ‘best’ definition?
How would you justify doing so?
• What overall conclusions do you draw from these definitions of
critical thinking?
Discuss these questions in your work group and try to come to an
agreement on your answers to the questions.
Explanation: Presenting an argument
Common mistake in assignments – lots of data/evidence (literature, for
example) and analysis but no final claim (position) telling the reader “what it
all means” and why it means that.
Writers can assume the facts will speak for themselves – but they don’t.
Therefore, in the academic context (essay, class discussion, etc) your ideas
are often presented in the form of an argument – otherwise known as your
position or your claim.
Toulmin’s (1958) model of an argument
backing
Reasoning
Data/
evidence
Claim
rebuttal
qualifier
Toulmin model: example
The past records of teams at the Cricket World Cup
since 1975 indicate that only a team that is really
strong in both batting and bowling can be considered
as a serious contender for the trophy. In international
cricket right now, the Australians have the strongest
and deepest squad in terms of both batting and
bowling. All their main rivals are relatively weak in
one area or another. Probably, therefore, unless the
team suffers a rash of serious injuries, the Australians
will be favourites to retain the Cricket World Cup in
2019.
(Adapted from Toulmin, Rieke & Janik, 1984, p. 125)
• Claim: the Australians will be favourites to retain the Cricket
World Cup in 2019
• Data: In international cricket right now, the Australians have
the strongest and deepest squad in terms of both batting and
bowling. All their main rivals are relatively weak in one area or
other.
• Reasoning: only a team that is really strong in both batting and
bowling can be considered as a serious contender for the
[CWC] trophy.
• Qualifier: Probably
• Rebuttal: unless the team suffers a rash of serious injuries
• Backing: The past records of teams at the Cricket World Cup
since 1975 indicate
What form of reasoning is being used here?
Where are the weaknesses in this argument?
Common forms of reasoning used in
argument (Note: they all have their pitfalls!)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Argument based on a generalisation
Argument based on an analogy
Argument via a sign or clue
Causal argument
Argument from authority
Argument from a principle or theory
(Purdue University, n.d.)
Question: which form of reasoning is most commonly used in academic
writing?
A different definition: Six core critical thinking skills (Facione,
2010)
1. Self-regulation (Reflecting on why and how I do what I do)
2. Interpretation (Understanding, clarifying, decoding ideas and texts)
3. Analysis (Investigating strengths, weaknesses, similarities,
differences)
4. Evaluation (Assessing and making judgements)
5. Inference (Drawing reasonable conclusions)
6. Explanation (Presenting ideas with clarity and with justifications)
Reflecting on why and how I do what I do
Self-regulation “is often simply defined as ‘thinking about thinking’”
(Livingston, 1997, para. 2). Also referred to as ‘metacognition’.
To finish this workshop, please take a moment to reflect on what you
have learned
Self-reflection
1. My strengths as a critical thinker are…
2. Areas where I can enhance my critical thinking are …
3. Things I can do differently this/next semester are…
4. The benefits I will gain if I make these changes will be….
Further reading
Critical thinking skills: Developing effective analysis and argument by
Stella Cottrell. Book available in the AUT library at 370.152 COT
A workbook for argument: A complete course in critical thinking by
David R. Morrow & Anthony Weston. e-book accessible through the
AUT library.
References
Dewey, J. (1933). How we think (2nd rev. ed.). Lexington, MA: Heath.
Ennis, R. (2002). A super-streamlined conception of critical thinking. Retrieved January 30, 2009, from
http://faculty.ed.uiuc.edu/rhennis/SSConcCTApr3.html
Facione, P. A. (2010). Critical thinking: What it is and why it counts. Retrieved from
http://www.insightassessment.com/pdf_files/what&why98.pdf
Fisher, A., & Scriven, M. (1997). Critical thinking: Its definition and assessment. Point Reyes, CA: Edgepress.
Glaser, E. M. (1941). An experiment in the development of critical thinking. New York, NY: Teachers College of Columbia University, Bureau of
Publication.
Hart, C. (1998). Doing a literature review: Releasing the social science research imagination. London, UK: Sage.
Livingston, J.A. (1997). Metacognition: An overview. Retrieved February 2, 2009, from
http://www.gse.buffalo.edu/fas/shuell/CEP564/Metacog.htm
Moore, B. N., & Parker, R. (2007). Critical thinking. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2006). Critical thinking: Learn the tools the best thinkers use (concise ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Purdue University. (n.d.). The Toulmin model. Retrieved from
http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~pbawa/421/THE%20TOLUMIN%20MODEL.htm
Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Toulmin, S., Rieke, R.D., & Janik, A. (1984). An introduction to reasoning. New York, NY: Macmillan.