
Critical thinking is, among other things, "thinking that analyzes itself, evaluates itself, and improves itself as a result."
In science classes, students should learn to think scientifically; in math classes, to think mathematically; in history
classes, to think historically; etc. Critical thinking is essential to this internalization. We internalize the logic of
scientific thinking when we can analyze, evaluate, and improve instances of it. We internalize the logic of
mathematical thinking when we can analyze, evaluate, and improve instances of it. We internalize the logic of
historical thinking when we can analyze, evaluate, and improve instances of it.
To teach a subject in a critical manner requires that students take ownership of the basic intellectual structures of the
discipline . It also requires that students internalize intellectual standards which they can use in assessing thinking for
its strengths and weaknesses (the standards of thought


o
Articles
Conference/Events
Critical Thinking Channel on YouTube
The National Council for Excellence in Critical Thinking
The goal of the NCECT is to articulate, preserve, and foster
intellectual standards in critical thinking research, scholarship,
and instruction. The NCECT is a creation of the Foundation for
Critical Thinking. The council presently consists of about 8,000
leading educators.
A Draft Statement of Principles
Founding Principles
1.
There is an intimate interrelation between knowledge and thinking.
2.
Knowing that something is so is not simply a matter of believing that it is so, it also entails being justified in that
belief (Definition: Knowledge is justified true belief).
3.
There are general, as well as domain-specific, standards for the assessment of thinking.
4.
To achieve knowledge in any domain, it is essential to think critically.
5.
Critical thinking is based on articulable intellectual standards and hence is intrinsically subject to assessment by
those standards.
6.
Criteria for the assessment of thinking in all domains are based on such general standards as: clarity, precision,
accuracy, relevance, significance, fairness, logic, depth, and breadth, evidentiary support, probability, predictive
or explanatory power. These standards, and others, are embedded not only in the history of the intellectual and
scientific communities, but also in the self-assessing behavior of reasonable persons in everyday life. It is
possible to teach all subjects in such a way as to encourage the use of these intellectual standards in both
professional and personal life.
7.
Instruction in critical thinking should increasingly enable students to assess both their own thought and action
and that of others by reference, ultimately, to standards such as those above. It should lead progressively, in
other words, to a disciplining of the mind and to a self-chosen commitment to a life of intellectual and moral
integrity.
8.
Instruction in all subject domains should result in the progressive disciplining of the mind with respect to the
capacity and disposition to think critically within that domain. Hence, instruction in science should lead to
disciplined scientific thinking; instruction in mathematics should lead to disciplined mathematical thinking;
instruction in history should lead to disciplined historical thinking; and in a parallel manner in every discipline and
domain of learning.
9.
Disciplined thinking with respect to any subject involves the capacity on the part of the thinker to recognize,
analyze, and assess the basic elements of thought: the purpose or goal of the thinking; the problem or question
at issue; the frame of reference or points of view involved; assumptions made; central concepts and ideas at
work; principles or theories used; evidence, data, or reasons advanced, claims made and conclusions drawn;
inferences, reasoning, and lines of formulated thought; and implications and consequences involved.
10. Critical reading, writing, speaking, and listening are academically essential modes of learning. To be developed
generally they must be systematically cultivated in a variety of subject domains as well as with respect to
interdisciplinary issues. Each are modes of thinking which are successful to the extent that they are disciplined
and guided by critical thought and reflection.
11. The earlier that children develop sensitivity to the standards of sound thought and reasoning, the more likely
they will develop desirable intellectual habits and become open-minded persons responsive to reasonable
persuasion.
12. Education - in contrast to training, socialization, and indoctrination - implies a process conducive to critical
thought and judgment. It is intrinsically committed to the cultivation of reasonability and rationality.
Elements of Thought
If teachers want their students to think well, they must help students understand at least the rudiments of thought, the
most basic structures out of which all thinking is made. In other words, students must learn how to take thinking apart.
All thinking is defined by the eight elements that make it up. Eight basic structures are present in all thinking.
Whenever we think, we think for a purpose within a point of view based on assumptions leading to implications and
consequences. We use concepts, ideas, and theories to interpret data, facts, and experiences in order to answer
questions, solve problems, and resolve issues. Thinking, then, generates purposes, raises questions, uses
information, utilizes concepts, makes inferences, makes assumptions, generates implications, and embodies a point
of view. Students should understand that each of these structures has implications for the others. If they change their
purpose or agenda, they change their questions and problems. If they change their questions and problems, they are
forced to seek new information and data, and so on. Students should regularly use the following checklist for
reasoning to improve their thinking in any discipline or subject area:
1.
2.
3.
4.
All reasoning has a purpose.
a.
State your purpose clearly.
b.
Distinguish your purpose from related purposes.
c.
Check periodically to be sure you are still on target.
d.
Choose significant and realistic purposes.
All reasoning is an attempt to figure something out, to settle some question, solve some problem.
a.
State the question at issue clearly and precisely.
b.
Express the question in several ways to clarify its meaning and scope.
c.
Break the question into sub-questions.
d.
Distinguish questions that have definitive answers from those that are a matter of opinion and from those
that require consideration of multiple viewpoints.
All reasoning is based on assumptions (beliefs you take for granted).
a.
Clearly identify your assumptions and determine whether they are justifiable.
b.
Consider how your assumptions are shaping your point of view.
All reasoning is done from some point of view.
a.
Identify your point of view.
5.
6.
7.
8.
b.
Seek other points of view and identify their strengths and weaknesses.
c.
Strive to be fair-minded in evaluating all points of view.
All reasoning is based on data, information, and evidence.
a.
Restrict your claims to those supported by the data you have.
b.
Search for information that opposes your position, as well as information that supports it.
c.
Make sure that all information used is clear, accurate, and relevant to the question at issue.
d.
Make sure you have gathered sufficient information.
All reasoning is expressed through, and shaped by, concepts and ideas.
a.
Identify key concepts and explain them clearly.
b.
Consider alternative concepts or alternative definitions of concepts.
c.
Make sure you are using concepts with care and precision.
All reasoning contains inferences or interpretations by which we draw conclusions and give meaning to data.
a.
Infer only what the evidence implies.
b.
Check inferences for their consistency with each other.
c.
Identify assumptions that lead you to your inferences.
All reasoning leads somewhere or has implications and consequences.
a.
Trace the implications and consequences that follow from your reasoning.
b.
Search for negative as well as positive implications.
c.
Consider all possible consequences.
Universal Intellectual Standards
Universal intellectual standards are standards which must be applied to thinking whenever one is interested in
checking the quality of reasoning about a problem, issue, or situation. To think critically entails having command of
these standards. To help students learn them, teachers should pose questions which probe student thinking,
questions which hold students accountable for their thinking, questions which, through consistent use by the teacher
in the classroom, become internalized by students as questions they need to ask themselves.
The ultimate goal, then, is for these questions to become infused in the thinking of students, forming part of their inner
voice, which then guides them to better and better reasoning. While there are a number of universal standards, the
following are the most significant:
The ultimate goal, then, is for these questions to become infused in the thinking of students, forming part of their
inner voice, which then guides them to better and better reasoning. While there are a number of universal standards,
the following are the most significant:
1.
Clarity - Could you elaborate further on that point? Could you express that point in another way? Could you give
me an illustration? Could you give me an example?
Clarity is the gateway standard. If a statement is unclear, we cannot determine whether it is accurate or
relevant. In fact, we cannot tell anything about it because we don’t yet know what it is saying. For example, the
question "What can be done about the education system in America?" is unclear. In order to address the
question adequately, we would need to have a clearer understanding of what the person asking the question is
considering the "problem" to be. A clearer question might be "What can educators do to ensure that students
learn the skills and abilities which help them function successfully on the job and in their daily decision-making?"
2.
Accuracy - Is that really true? How could we check that? How could we find out if that is true?
A statement can be clear but not accurate, as in "Most dogs are over 300 pounds in weight."
3.
Precision - Could you give more details? Could you be more specific?
A statement can be both clear and accurate, but not precise, as in "Jack is overweight." (We don’t know how
overweight Jack is, one pound or 500 pounds.)
4.
Relevance - How is that connected to the question? How does that bear on the issue?
A statement can be clear, accurate, and precise, but not relevant to the question at issue. For example, students
often think that the amount of effort they put into a course should be used in raising their grade in a course.
Often, however, the "effort" does not measure the quality of student learning, and when this is so, effort is
irrelevant to their appropriate grade.
5.
Depth - How does your answer address the complexities in the question? How are you taking into account the
problems in the question? Is that dealing with the most significant factors?
A statement can be clear, accurate, precise, and relevant, but superficial (that is, lacks depth). For example, the
statement "Just say No," which is often used to discourage children and teens from using drugs, is clear,
accurate, precise, and relevant. Nevertheless, it lacks depth because it treats an extremely complex issue, the
pervasive problem of drug use among young people, superficially. It fails to deal with the complexities of the
issue.
6.
Breadth - Do we need to consider another point of view? Is there another way to look at this question? What
would this look like from a conservative standpoint? What would this look like from the point of view of...?
A line of reasoning may be clear accurate, precise, relevant, and deep, but lack breadth (as in an argument from
either the conservative or liberal standpoint which gets deeply into an issue, but only recognizes the insights of
one side of the question.)
7.
Logic - Does this really make sense? Does that follow from what you said? How does that follow? But before
you implied this and now you are saying that; how can both be true?
When we think, we bring a variety of thoughts together into some order. When the combination of thoughts are
mutually supporting and make sense in combination, the thinking is "logical." When the combination is not
mutually supporting, is contradictory in some sense, or does not "make sense," the combination is not logical.
Valuable Intellectual Traits
Intellectual traits, or virtues, are interrelated intellectual habits that enable students to discipline and improve mental
functioning. Teachers need to keep in mind that critical thinking can be used to serve two incompatible ends: selfcenteredness or fair-mindedness. As students learn the basic intellectual skills that critical thinking entails, they can
begin to use those skills in either a selfish or in a fair-minded way. For example, when students are taught how to
recognize mistakes in reasoning (commonly called fallacies), most students readily see those mistakes in the
reasoning of others but do not see them so readily in their own reasoning. Often they enjoy pointing out others' errors
and develop some proficiency in making their opponents' thinking look bad, but they don't generally use their
understanding of fallacies to analyze and assess their own reasoning. It is thus possible for students to develop as
thinkers and yet not to develop as fair-minded thinkers. The best thinkers strive to be fair-minded, even when it
means they have to give something up. They recognize that the mind is not naturally fair-minded, but selfish. And
they understand that to be fair-minded, they must also develop particular traits of mind, traits such as intellectual
humility, intellectual courage, intellectual empathy, intellectual integrity, intellectual perseverance, faith in reason, and
fair-mindedness. Teachers should model and discuss the following intellectual traits as they help their students
become fair-minded, ethical thinkers.
1.
Intellectual Humility: Having a consciousness of the limits of one's knowledge, including a sensitivity to
circumstances in which one's native egocentrism is likely to function self-deceptively; sensitivity to bias,
prejudice and limitations of one's viewpoint. Intellectual humility depends on recognizing that one should not
claim more than one actually knows. It does not imply spinelessness or submissiveness. It implies the lack of
intellectual pretentiousness, boastfulness, or conceit, combined with insight into the logical foundations, or lack
of such foundations, of one's beliefs.
2.
Intellectual Courage: Having a consciousness of the need to face and fairly address ideas, beliefs or
viewpoints toward which we have strong negative emotions and to which we have not given a serious hearing.
This courage is connected with the recognition that ideas considered dangerous or absurd are sometimes
rationally justified (in whole or in part) and that conclusions and beliefs inculcated in us are sometimes false or
misleading. To determine for ourselves which is which, we must not passively and uncritically "accept" what we
have "learned." Intellectual courage comes into play here, because inevitably we will come to see some truth in
some ideas considered dangerous and absurd, and distortion or falsity in some ideas strongly held in our social
group. We need courage to be true to our own thinking in such circumstances. The penalties for non-conformity
can be severe.
3.
Intellectual Empathy: Having a consciousness of the need to imaginatively put oneself in the place of others in
order to genuinely understand them, which requires the consciousness of our egocentric tendency to identify
truth with our immediate perceptions of long-standing thought or belief. This trait correlates with the ability to
reconstruct accurately the viewpoints and reasoning of others and to reason from premises, assumptions, and
ideas other than our own. This trait also correlates with the willingness to remember occasions when we were
wrong in the past despite an intense conviction that we were right, and with the ability to imagine our being
similarly deceived in a case-at-hand.
4.
Intellectual Integrity: Recognition of the need to be true to one's own thinking; to be consistent in the
intellectual standards one applies; to hold one's self to the same rigorous standards of evidence and proof to
which one holds one's antagonists; to practice what one advocates for others; and to honestly admit
discrepancies and inconsistencies in one’s own thought and action.
5.
Intellectual Perseverance: Having a consciousness of the need to use intellectual insights and truths in spite of
difficulties, obstacles, and frustrations; firm adherence to rational principles despite the irrational opposition of
others; a sense of the need to struggle with confusion and unsettled questions over an extended period of time
to achieve deeper understanding or insight.
6.
Faith In Reason: Confidence that, in the long run, one's own higher interests and those of humankind at large
will be best served by giving the freest play to reason, by encouraging people to come to their own conclusions
by developing their own rational faculties; faith that, with proper encouragement and cultivation, people can
learn to think for themselves, to form rational viewpoints, draw reasonable conclusions, think coherently and
logically, persuade each other by reason and become reasonable persons, despite the deep-seated obstacles in
the native character of the human mind and in society as we know it.
7.
Fair-mindedness: Having a consciousness of the need to treat all viewpoints alike, without reference to one's
own feelings or vested interests, or the feelings or vested interests of one's friends, community or nation; implies
adherence to intellectual standards without reference to one's own advantage or the advantage of one's group.
The Elements of Thought from the Sonoma Institute for Critical Thinking
(The Essence of Part I of the Exam)
To understand content as a mode of thinking, we need to recognize that all content has a logic which is defined by
the same eight dimensions that define the thinking which produced and continue to produce it.
All content/thinking has been generated by organizing goals and purposes (that enable professionals to share in the
pursuit of common ends and projects).
All content/thinking is defined by the problems it defines and solves.
All content/thinking presupposes the gathering and use of information in professional performance and problem
solving.
All content/thinking requires the making of inferences from relevant data or information to interpretative conclusions
(rendering thereby the data of use to practitioners for guiding judgments).
All content/thinking is structured by concepts (theoretical constructs) that organize, shape, and "direct" it.
All content/ thinking proceeds from assumptions or presuppositions from which it logically proceeds (providing
"boundaries" for the field).
All content/thinking generates implications and consequences, that enable professionals to make predictions and test
theories, lines of reasoning, and hypotheses.
All content/thinking defines a frame of reference or point of view (which provide practitioners with a logical map of use
in considering the professional "moves" they will make).
The ICAT Exam Highlights The Interrelationship Between Content and Thinking
1. Question: Is the question at issue clear and unbiased? Does the expression of the question do justice to the
complexity of the matter at issue?
2. Purpose: Is the purpose well-stated or implied? Is it clear and justifiable? Are the question and purpose directly
relevant to each other?
3. Information: Is relevant evidence, experiences and/or information essential to the issue cited? Is the information
accurate? Are the complexities of the issue addressed?
4. Ideas (concepts): Are key ideas clarified when necessary? Are the concepts used justifiably?
5. Assumptions: Is there sensitivity to what is being taken for granted or assumed? Are questionable assumptions
being used without addressing problems which might be inherent in those assumptions (insofar as those assumptions
might reasonably be questioned)?
6. Conclusions: Is a line of reasoning well developed explaining the main conclusions? Are alternative conclusions
considered? Are there any apparent inconsistencies in the reasoning?
7. Point of View: Is sensitivity to alternative relevant points of view or lines of reasoning shown? Is consideration
given to objections framed from other relevant points of view? If so, were they responded to?
8. Implications: Is sensitivity shown to the implications and consequences of the position taken?
1.
Did the student clearly understand the key components in the thinking of the author, as exhibited in the
writing sample? (Identifying Purpose, Question at Issue, Information, Conclusions, Assumptions, Concepts,
Implications, Point of View).
2.
Was the student able to effectively evaluate the reasoning, as appropriate, in the original text and present
his/her assessment (i.e., point out the strengths and possible limitations and/or weaknesses of the reasoning
in the writing sample) effectively?