critical thinking que es

¿Qué es el pensamiento crítico y cómo desarrollarlo?

10 claves y consejos para potenciar tu capacidad de pensar racionalmente y siguiendo la lógica..

Oscar Castillero Mimenza

Podemos leer que el hombre llegó a la Luna o que nunca lo logró, observar el informe de los resultados de un experimento científico o podemos ver por televisión lo que creemos que puede ser una manifestación multitudinaria.

Podemos creer en ello o no hacerlo, teniendo en cuenta que lo que nos llega de los medios, lo que leemos, lo que nos cuentan… todo ello puede ser, producto de un error o deberse a intereses u opiniones sesgadas.

Hoy en día tenemos que ser capaces de dudar de todo, reflexionando y evaluando lo que percibimos y/o lo que nos comunica. Es por ello que podemos preguntarnos por la capacidad para realizar esta criba. ¿Qué es el pensamiento crítico y cómo desarrollarlo?

• Artículo relacionado: " Los 9 tipos de pensamiento y sus características "

Pensamiento crítico: definiendo el concepto

El pensamiento crítico es la capacidad manifestada por el ser humano para analizar y evaluar la información existente respecto a un tema o determinado, intentando esclarecer la veracidad de dicha información y alcanzar una idea justificada al respecto ignorando posibles sesgos externos.

Aplicamos el pensamiento crítico para intentar discernir la realidad de lo que nos dicen y percibimos a partir del análisis de los razonamientos empleados para explicarla . De una forma análoga a lo que proponía  Descartes , se trata de dudar de las informaciones, dogmas y axiomas absolutos que nos rodean hasta que nosotros mismos podemos darles veracidad o por lo contrario ignorarlas. Con ello, se busca tener una idea justificada de la realidad y no aceptar ciegamente lo que otros nos digan.

Este tipo de pensamiento, vinculado con el escepticismo , ayuda al ser humano a crear su propia identidad, apareciendo a lo largo del desarrollo y siendo especialmente visible en la adolescencia y a partir de ella. No se trata de llevar la contraria al mundo, sino de ser capaces de elaborar nuestro propio punto de vista en base a la comprobación y contrastación de datos. Lo que se pretende con el pensamiento crítico es eliminar falacias y sesgos que comprometen la objetividad de los datos investigados.

El pensamiento crítico está muy relacionado con otras capacidades tales como la creatividad, la lógica o la intuición, permitiéndonos elaborar nuevas estrategias y formas de ver y percibir las cosas. Tener buena capacidad de pensamiento crítico nos ayuda a evitar el conformismo y a avanzar como seres humanos, evitando que existe un único modo de ver el mundo.

Pensamiento crítico y no desiderativo

Antes hemos indicado que el pensamiento crítico nos sirve para no dejarnos llevar por la opinión de los demás y considerar esta algo totalmente cierto y correcto. Sin embargo, no hay que confundir el pensamiento crítico con actuar en base a nuestros impulsos.

Si bien ser crítico con lo que se da por cierto es de gran ayuda para superarnos y crear nuevos modos de ver el mundo, eso no quiere decir que tengamos que depender de lo que creamos sin más. Ello podría llevarnos a pensar que lo que deseamos o pensamos de algo es la verdad, lo que a su vez puede llevarnos a cometer sesgos cognitivos. 

Por ejemplo, una persona con depresión mayor puede creer que su estado no va a cambiar nunca y que todo aquello que intente no tiene la menor importancia. Ello no quiere decir que así sea, encontrando (sea solo o con ayuda profesional) en su vida cosas positivas que le ayudarán a mejorar su estado.

El pensamiento crítico en sí implica ser capaz de dejar de lado las diferentes falacias y sesgos para centrarse en buscar una verdad lo más justificada y razonable posible, buscando pruebas y evidencias respecto a que lo que se dice o hace sea verídico. Se basa en la búsqueda de la objetividad, obviando los elementos subjetivos y manipulativos que otras personas o incluso uno mismo puede introducir en el análisis de la información.

• Quizás te interese: " Los 10 tipos de falacias lógicas y argumentativas "

¿Qué habilidades implica tener pensamiento crítico?

Hemos hecho una descripción de lo que es pensamiento crítico. Sin embargo cabe preguntarse ¿qué es necesario exactamente para tenerlo? Tener un pensamiento crítico supone que el individuo que lo tiene posee en algún grado las siguientes habilidades o rasgos.

1. Capacidad de reflexión

Para ser capaz de tener una mentalidad crítica es necesario ser capaz de reflexionar sobre las cosas en términos abstractos . Es decir, ser capaz de asociar la información que nos llega con su significado a un nivel tanto superficial como profundo, así como las implicaciones que dicha información tiene con respecto al resto de la realidad.

2. Flexibilidad

El pensamiento crítico implica la capacidad de dudar de que lo que percibimos o creemos percibir sea cierto, aceptando la posibilidad de que existan otras alternativas diferentes de la o las propuestas. Así, es necesaria cierta flexibilidad mental que nos permita visualizar que otras perspectivas diferentes de la habitual pueden ser objetivas y producir los resultados buscados.

3. Lógica y detección de sesgos

La capacidad de visualizar la lógica o falta de ella en las cosas que analizamos, así como los posibles fallos y sesgos puedan tener las afirmaciones y pensamientos respecto a ellas, resulta fundamental en este aspecto. Si no somos capaces de detectar aspectos concretos de la argumentación que no se acaben de corresponder con la realidad o a los que les falte explicación, no es posible hacer una crítica fundada.

4. Teoría de la mente

Es necesario tener en cuenta que todas las afirmaciones y opiniones son elaboradas por seres humanos, que presentan sus opiniones en base a lo que ellos consideran correcto. Así pues, el conocimiento puede estar sesgado incluso a propósito , si se busca con su transmisión un objetivo.

• Artículo relacionado: " Teoría de la Mente: ¿qué es y qué nos explica sobre nosotros? "

5. Capacidad de dudar de las cosas

Para no aceptar cualquier explicación es necesario ser capaz de cuestionarse la veracidad de ésta. Sin embargo, es necesario que las dudas se circunscriban a lo razonable , pues de lo contrario se podría dudar de todo principio existente. Y si bien sería un tipo de pensamiento crítico, el escepticismo excesivo no llevaría a ninguna resolución.

6. Motivación y curiosidad

Para dudar de algo es de gran utilidad que aquello de lo que dudamos nos sea significativo. Podemos ser críticos con algo que no nos importe, pero la presencia de una motivación alta y de curiosidad respecto al tema o a los argumentos dados implica que se intentará buscar una solución veraz y justificable .

Métodos para potenciar el pensamiento crítico

El pensamiento crítico es una capacidad de gran utilidad y hoy en día muy buscada por la sociedad, tanto a nivel laboral como en otros aspectos de la vida. Por ello es de gran interés ser capaz de potenciarlo . Con este fin disponemos de diversas actividades y hábitos que nos pueden ser de utilidad.

1. Intenta mantener una mente abierta

Todos tenemos nuestras opiniones sobre lo que nos rodea. Sin embargo, para pensar de forma crítica es necesario tener en cuenta que la nuestra o la explicación que la sociedad ofrece puede no ser la única ni la más certera. Es más complicado de lo que parece , pero debemos permitir en nuestra mente la aceptación de otras posturas por muy diferentes que sean de la propia.

2. Intenta entrenar la empatía

Ser capaz de ponerse en el lugar de otros facilita entender cómo han llegado a las conclusiones a las que han llegado. Alguna actividad que puede facilitar la empatía es la realización de role-playings , el teatro, o la expresión y comunicación de las emociones y pensamientos a los demás.

3. Participa activamente en debates

La mejor forma de aumentar la competencia en una capacidad es ejercitarla. Por ello, la participación en foros y debates resulta de gran utilidad, al confrontarse en ellos las opiniones, creencias y datos encontrados por diferentes personas.

4. Analiza textos y vídeos

El análisis de diferentes materiales puede ayudar a mejorar la capacidad de pensamiento crítico. Resulta especialmente importante observar los posibles objetivos o los motivos que puede tener una persona para crear dicho material. Puede empezarse por material sencillo y claramente basado en elementos subjetivos , como las columnas de opinión o elementos publicitarios. Posteriormente podemos avanzar incorporando material más técnico y aparentemente objetivo.

5. Evita los efectos bandwagon y underdog

Muchas personas se suman a una opinión debido a que es o bien apoyada por la mayoría o bien ignorada por ésta . Es necesario que nuestro pensamiento no se vea influido por el hecho de que otros presten más o menos atención al hecho o información en cuestión.

• Quizzás te interese: " Gregarismo: el efecto Bandwagon y el efecto Underdog "

6. Cuestiona estereotipos

La sociedad genera de forma constante estereotipos respecto a una gran cantidad de temas. Intenta escoger uno de ellos y buscar información que lo ponga en cuestión para ver hasta qué punto sirve para explicar la realidad .

7. Busca y compara elementos contradictorios

Es sencillo encontrar publicaciones sobre temas controvertidos sobre los que no hay una opinión general clara ni absolutamente cierta. Buscar dos opiniones confrontadas y analizar cada una de ellas permite observar qué puntos débiles tienen dichas argumentaciones , ayudando a ser capaz de analizar otras futuras informaciones.

8. Investiga y fórmate

De cara a poder discutir algo es necesario saber de qué estamos hablando. Estar informado sobre lo que acontece en el mundo nos va a permitir poner en perspectiva las informaciones que recibamos del exterior, incluyendo el propio medio por el que nos hemos informado.

9. Aprende a separar la información de lo que esta te provoque

Las emociones nos ayudan a dar un significado interno a lo que nos sucede y vivimos. Sin embargo, en muchos casos provocan que nos comportemos o pensemos de determinada manera únicamente en base a dichas sensaciones . Esto nos puede llevar a considerar lo que algo nos hace sentir como la única verdad.

10. Intenta hacer caso a tu intuición

A pesar de lo dicho en el punto interior, a veces nuestra mente actúa de una forma concreta que no podemos explicar racionalmente. La intuición se conceptualiza en ocasiones como el resultado del procesamiento inconsciente de la información , es decir, como la realización de un análisis interno de la información que a nivel consciente no hemos procesado. Sin embargo hay que tener en cuenta que esta intuición también puede estar sesgada.

Cómo citar este artículo

Al citar, reconoces el trabajo original, evitas problemas de plagio y permites a tus lectores acceder a las fuentes originales para obtener más información o verificar datos. Asegúrate siempre de dar crédito a los autores y de citar de forma adecuada.

Oscar Castillero Mimenza . ( 2017, marzo 24 ). ¿Qué es el pensamiento crítico y cómo desarrollarlo? . Portal Psicología y Mente. https://psicologiaymente.com/inteligencia/pensamiento-critico Copiar cita

Artículos relacionados

Artículos nuevos.

¿Cómo influye en el Cerebro el hacer Dieta?

Nerea Moreno

La presión de unas vacaciones extraordinarias y la pérdida de la magia en lo ordinario

Rafael De Silva

Psicología clínica

Cómo gestionar los cambios psicológicos de la etapa vacacional

Adhara Psicología

Psicología social y relaciones personales

Los beneficios psicológicos de dar las gracias

Javi Soriano

Quizás te interese

20 preguntas filosóficas muy complicadas de responder

Juan Armando Corbin

Frases y reflexiones

Las 130 frases más célebres del Fútbol y los futbolistas

​Izzat Haykal

LEGO y los beneficios psicológicos de construir con piezas

Instituto Mensalus

La teoría utilitarista de John Stuart Mill

Adrián Triglia

• Table of Contents
• Random Entry
• Chronological
• Editorial Information
• About the SEP
• Editorial Board
• How to Cite the SEP
• Special Characters
• Advanced Tools
• Support the SEP
• PDFs for SEP Friends
• Make a Donation
• SEPIA for Libraries
• Entry Contents

Bibliography

Academic tools.

• Friends PDF Preview
• Author and Citation Info
• Back to Top

Critical Thinking

Critical thinking is a widely accepted educational goal. Its definition is contested, but the competing definitions can be understood as differing conceptions of the same basic concept: careful thinking directed to a goal. Conceptions differ with respect to the scope of such thinking, the type of goal, the criteria and norms for thinking carefully, and the thinking components on which they focus. Its adoption as an educational goal has been recommended on the basis of respect for students’ autonomy and preparing students for success in life and for democratic citizenship. “Critical thinkers” have the dispositions and abilities that lead them to think critically when appropriate. The abilities can be identified directly; the dispositions indirectly, by considering what factors contribute to or impede exercise of the abilities. Standardized tests have been developed to assess the degree to which a person possesses such dispositions and abilities. Educational intervention has been shown experimentally to improve them, particularly when it includes dialogue, anchored instruction, and mentoring. Controversies have arisen over the generalizability of critical thinking across domains, over alleged bias in critical thinking theories and instruction, and over the relationship of critical thinking to other types of thinking.

2.1 Dewey’s Three Main Examples

2.2 dewey’s other examples, 2.3 further examples, 2.4 non-examples, 3. the definition of critical thinking, 4. its value, 5. the process of thinking critically, 6. components of the process, 7. contributory dispositions and abilities, 8.1 initiating dispositions, 8.2 internal dispositions, 9. critical thinking abilities, 10. required knowledge, 11. educational methods, 12.1 the generalizability of critical thinking, 12.2 bias in critical thinking theory and pedagogy, 12.3 relationship of critical thinking to other types of thinking, other internet resources, related entries.

Use of the term ‘critical thinking’ to describe an educational goal goes back to the American philosopher John Dewey (1910), who more commonly called it ‘reflective thinking’. He defined it as

active, persistent and careful consideration of any belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the grounds that support it, and the further conclusions to which it tends. (Dewey 1910: 6; 1933: 9)

and identified a habit of such consideration with a scientific attitude of mind. His lengthy quotations of Francis Bacon, John Locke, and John Stuart Mill indicate that he was not the first person to propose development of a scientific attitude of mind as an educational goal.

In the 1930s, many of the schools that participated in the Eight-Year Study of the Progressive Education Association (Aikin 1942) adopted critical thinking as an educational goal, for whose achievement the study’s Evaluation Staff developed tests (Smith, Tyler, & Evaluation Staff 1942). Glaser (1941) showed experimentally that it was possible to improve the critical thinking of high school students. Bloom’s influential taxonomy of cognitive educational objectives (Bloom et al. 1956) incorporated critical thinking abilities. Ennis (1962) proposed 12 aspects of critical thinking as a basis for research on the teaching and evaluation of critical thinking ability.

Since 1980, an annual international conference in California on critical thinking and educational reform has attracted tens of thousands of educators from all levels of education and from many parts of the world. Also since 1980, the state university system in California has required all undergraduate students to take a critical thinking course. Since 1983, the Association for Informal Logic and Critical Thinking has sponsored sessions in conjunction with the divisional meetings of the American Philosophical Association (APA). In 1987, the APA’s Committee on Pre-College Philosophy commissioned a consensus statement on critical thinking for purposes of educational assessment and instruction (Facione 1990a). Researchers have developed standardized tests of critical thinking abilities and dispositions; for details, see the Supplement on Assessment . Educational jurisdictions around the world now include critical thinking in guidelines for curriculum and assessment.

For details on this history, see the Supplement on History .

2. Examples and Non-Examples

Before considering the definition of critical thinking, it will be helpful to have in mind some examples of critical thinking, as well as some examples of kinds of thinking that would apparently not count as critical thinking.

Dewey (1910: 68–71; 1933: 91–94) takes as paradigms of reflective thinking three class papers of students in which they describe their thinking. The examples range from the everyday to the scientific.

Transit : “The other day, when I was down town on 16th Street, a clock caught my eye. I saw that the hands pointed to 12:20. This suggested that I had an engagement at 124th Street, at one o’clock. I reasoned that as it had taken me an hour to come down on a surface car, I should probably be twenty minutes late if I returned the same way. I might save twenty minutes by a subway express. But was there a station near? If not, I might lose more than twenty minutes in looking for one. Then I thought of the elevated, and I saw there was such a line within two blocks. But where was the station? If it were several blocks above or below the street I was on, I should lose time instead of gaining it. My mind went back to the subway express as quicker than the elevated; furthermore, I remembered that it went nearer than the elevated to the part of 124th Street I wished to reach, so that time would be saved at the end of the journey. I concluded in favor of the subway, and reached my destination by one o’clock.” (Dewey 1910: 68–69; 1933: 91–92)

Ferryboat : “Projecting nearly horizontally from the upper deck of the ferryboat on which I daily cross the river is a long white pole, having a gilded ball at its tip. It suggested a flagpole when I first saw it; its color, shape, and gilded ball agreed with this idea, and these reasons seemed to justify me in this belief. But soon difficulties presented themselves. The pole was nearly horizontal, an unusual position for a flagpole; in the next place, there was no pulley, ring, or cord by which to attach a flag; finally, there were elsewhere on the boat two vertical staffs from which flags were occasionally flown. It seemed probable that the pole was not there for flag-flying.

“I then tried to imagine all possible purposes of the pole, and to consider for which of these it was best suited: (a) Possibly it was an ornament. But as all the ferryboats and even the tugboats carried poles, this hypothesis was rejected. (b) Possibly it was the terminal of a wireless telegraph. But the same considerations made this improbable. Besides, the more natural place for such a terminal would be the highest part of the boat, on top of the pilot house. (c) Its purpose might be to point out the direction in which the boat is moving.

“In support of this conclusion, I discovered that the pole was lower than the pilot house, so that the steersman could easily see it. Moreover, the tip was enough higher than the base, so that, from the pilot’s position, it must appear to project far out in front of the boat. Moreover, the pilot being near the front of the boat, he would need some such guide as to its direction. Tugboats would also need poles for such a purpose. This hypothesis was so much more probable than the others that I accepted it. I formed the conclusion that the pole was set up for the purpose of showing the pilot the direction in which the boat pointed, to enable him to steer correctly.” (Dewey 1910: 69–70; 1933: 92–93)

Bubbles : “In washing tumblers in hot soapsuds and placing them mouth downward on a plate, bubbles appeared on the outside of the mouth of the tumblers and then went inside. Why? The presence of bubbles suggests air, which I note must come from inside the tumbler. I see that the soapy water on the plate prevents escape of the air save as it may be caught in bubbles. But why should air leave the tumbler? There was no substance entering to force it out. It must have expanded. It expands by increase of heat, or by decrease of pressure, or both. Could the air have become heated after the tumbler was taken from the hot suds? Clearly not the air that was already entangled in the water. If heated air was the cause, cold air must have entered in transferring the tumblers from the suds to the plate. I test to see if this supposition is true by taking several more tumblers out. Some I shake so as to make sure of entrapping cold air in them. Some I take out holding mouth downward in order to prevent cold air from entering. Bubbles appear on the outside of every one of the former and on none of the latter. I must be right in my inference. Air from the outside must have been expanded by the heat of the tumbler, which explains the appearance of the bubbles on the outside. But why do they then go inside? Cold contracts. The tumbler cooled and also the air inside it. Tension was removed, and hence bubbles appeared inside. To be sure of this, I test by placing a cup of ice on the tumbler while the bubbles are still forming outside. They soon reverse” (Dewey 1910: 70–71; 1933: 93–94).

Dewey (1910, 1933) sprinkles his book with other examples of critical thinking. We will refer to the following.

Weather : A man on a walk notices that it has suddenly become cool, thinks that it is probably going to rain, looks up and sees a dark cloud obscuring the sun, and quickens his steps (1910: 6–10; 1933: 9–13).

Disorder : A man finds his rooms on his return to them in disorder with his belongings thrown about, thinks at first of burglary as an explanation, then thinks of mischievous children as being an alternative explanation, then looks to see whether valuables are missing, and discovers that they are (1910: 82–83; 1933: 166–168).

Typhoid : A physician diagnosing a patient whose conspicuous symptoms suggest typhoid avoids drawing a conclusion until more data are gathered by questioning the patient and by making tests (1910: 85–86; 1933: 170).

Blur : A moving blur catches our eye in the distance, we ask ourselves whether it is a cloud of whirling dust or a tree moving its branches or a man signaling to us, we think of other traits that should be found on each of those possibilities, and we look and see if those traits are found (1910: 102, 108; 1933: 121, 133).

Suction pump : In thinking about the suction pump, the scientist first notes that it will draw water only to a maximum height of 33 feet at sea level and to a lesser maximum height at higher elevations, selects for attention the differing atmospheric pressure at these elevations, sets up experiments in which the air is removed from a vessel containing water (when suction no longer works) and in which the weight of air at various levels is calculated, compares the results of reasoning about the height to which a given weight of air will allow a suction pump to raise water with the observed maximum height at different elevations, and finally assimilates the suction pump to such apparently different phenomena as the siphon and the rising of a balloon (1910: 150–153; 1933: 195–198).

Diamond : A passenger in a car driving in a diamond lane reserved for vehicles with at least one passenger notices that the diamond marks on the pavement are far apart in some places and close together in others. Why? The driver suggests that the reason may be that the diamond marks are not needed where there is a solid double line separating the diamond lane from the adjoining lane, but are needed when there is a dotted single line permitting crossing into the diamond lane. Further observation confirms that the diamonds are close together when a dotted line separates the diamond lane from its neighbour, but otherwise far apart.

Rash : A woman suddenly develops a very itchy red rash on her throat and upper chest. She recently noticed a mark on the back of her right hand, but was not sure whether the mark was a rash or a scrape. She lies down in bed and thinks about what might be causing the rash and what to do about it. About two weeks before, she began taking blood pressure medication that contained a sulfa drug, and the pharmacist had warned her, in view of a previous allergic reaction to a medication containing a sulfa drug, to be on the alert for an allergic reaction; however, she had been taking the medication for two weeks with no such effect. The day before, she began using a new cream on her neck and upper chest; against the new cream as the cause was mark on the back of her hand, which had not been exposed to the cream. She began taking probiotics about a month before. She also recently started new eye drops, but she supposed that manufacturers of eye drops would be careful not to include allergy-causing components in the medication. The rash might be a heat rash, since she recently was sweating profusely from her upper body. Since she is about to go away on a short vacation, where she would not have access to her usual physician, she decides to keep taking the probiotics and using the new eye drops but to discontinue the blood pressure medication and to switch back to the old cream for her neck and upper chest. She forms a plan to consult her regular physician on her return about the blood pressure medication.

Candidate : Although Dewey included no examples of thinking directed at appraising the arguments of others, such thinking has come to be considered a kind of critical thinking. We find an example of such thinking in the performance task on the Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA+), which its sponsoring organization describes as

a performance-based assessment that provides a measure of an institution’s contribution to the development of critical-thinking and written communication skills of its students. (Council for Aid to Education 2017)

A sample task posted on its website requires the test-taker to write a report for public distribution evaluating a fictional candidate’s policy proposals and their supporting arguments, using supplied background documents, with a recommendation on whether to endorse the candidate.

Immediate acceptance of an idea that suggests itself as a solution to a problem (e.g., a possible explanation of an event or phenomenon, an action that seems likely to produce a desired result) is “uncritical thinking, the minimum of reflection” (Dewey 1910: 13). On-going suspension of judgment in the light of doubt about a possible solution is not critical thinking (Dewey 1910: 108). Critique driven by a dogmatically held political or religious ideology is not critical thinking; thus Paulo Freire (1968 [1970]) is using the term (e.g., at 1970: 71, 81, 100, 146) in a more politically freighted sense that includes not only reflection but also revolutionary action against oppression. Derivation of a conclusion from given data using an algorithm is not critical thinking.

What is critical thinking? There are many definitions. Ennis (2016) lists 14 philosophically oriented scholarly definitions and three dictionary definitions. Following Rawls (1971), who distinguished his conception of justice from a utilitarian conception but regarded them as rival conceptions of the same concept, Ennis maintains that the 17 definitions are different conceptions of the same concept. Rawls articulated the shared concept of justice as

a characteristic set of principles for assigning basic rights and duties and for determining… the proper distribution of the benefits and burdens of social cooperation. (Rawls 1971: 5)

Bailin et al. (1999b) claim that, if one considers what sorts of thinking an educator would take not to be critical thinking and what sorts to be critical thinking, one can conclude that educators typically understand critical thinking to have at least three features.

• It is done for the purpose of making up one’s mind about what to believe or do.
• The person engaging in the thinking is trying to fulfill standards of adequacy and accuracy appropriate to the thinking.
• The thinking fulfills the relevant standards to some threshold level.

One could sum up the core concept that involves these three features by saying that critical thinking is careful goal-directed thinking. This core concept seems to apply to all the examples of critical thinking described in the previous section. As for the non-examples, their exclusion depends on construing careful thinking as excluding jumping immediately to conclusions, suspending judgment no matter how strong the evidence, reasoning from an unquestioned ideological or religious perspective, and routinely using an algorithm to answer a question.

If the core of critical thinking is careful goal-directed thinking, conceptions of it can vary according to its presumed scope, its presumed goal, one’s criteria and threshold for being careful, and the thinking component on which one focuses. As to its scope, some conceptions (e.g., Dewey 1910, 1933) restrict it to constructive thinking on the basis of one’s own observations and experiments, others (e.g., Ennis 1962; Fisher & Scriven 1997; Johnson 1992) to appraisal of the products of such thinking. Ennis (1991) and Bailin et al. (1999b) take it to cover both construction and appraisal. As to its goal, some conceptions restrict it to forming a judgment (Dewey 1910, 1933; Lipman 1987; Facione 1990a). Others allow for actions as well as beliefs as the end point of a process of critical thinking (Ennis 1991; Bailin et al. 1999b). As to the criteria and threshold for being careful, definitions vary in the term used to indicate that critical thinking satisfies certain norms: “intellectually disciplined” (Scriven & Paul 1987), “reasonable” (Ennis 1991), “skillful” (Lipman 1987), “skilled” (Fisher & Scriven 1997), “careful” (Bailin & Battersby 2009). Some definitions specify these norms, referring variously to “consideration of any belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the grounds that support it and the further conclusions to which it tends” (Dewey 1910, 1933); “the methods of logical inquiry and reasoning” (Glaser 1941); “conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication” (Scriven & Paul 1987); the requirement that “it is sensitive to context, relies on criteria, and is self-correcting” (Lipman 1987); “evidential, conceptual, methodological, criteriological, or contextual considerations” (Facione 1990a); and “plus-minus considerations of the product in terms of appropriate standards (or criteria)” (Johnson 1992). Stanovich and Stanovich (2010) propose to ground the concept of critical thinking in the concept of rationality, which they understand as combining epistemic rationality (fitting one’s beliefs to the world) and instrumental rationality (optimizing goal fulfillment); a critical thinker, in their view, is someone with “a propensity to override suboptimal responses from the autonomous mind” (2010: 227). These variant specifications of norms for critical thinking are not necessarily incompatible with one another, and in any case presuppose the core notion of thinking carefully. As to the thinking component singled out, some definitions focus on suspension of judgment during the thinking (Dewey 1910; McPeck 1981), others on inquiry while judgment is suspended (Bailin & Battersby 2009, 2021), others on the resulting judgment (Facione 1990a), and still others on responsiveness to reasons (Siegel 1988). Kuhn (2019) takes critical thinking to be more a dialogic practice of advancing and responding to arguments than an individual ability.

In educational contexts, a definition of critical thinking is a “programmatic definition” (Scheffler 1960: 19). It expresses a practical program for achieving an educational goal. For this purpose, a one-sentence formulaic definition is much less useful than articulation of a critical thinking process, with criteria and standards for the kinds of thinking that the process may involve. The real educational goal is recognition, adoption and implementation by students of those criteria and standards. That adoption and implementation in turn consists in acquiring the knowledge, abilities and dispositions of a critical thinker.

Conceptions of critical thinking generally do not include moral integrity as part of the concept. Dewey, for example, took critical thinking to be the ultimate intellectual goal of education, but distinguished it from the development of social cooperation among school children, which he took to be the central moral goal. Ennis (1996, 2011) added to his previous list of critical thinking dispositions a group of dispositions to care about the dignity and worth of every person, which he described as a “correlative” (1996) disposition without which critical thinking would be less valuable and perhaps harmful. An educational program that aimed at developing critical thinking but not the correlative disposition to care about the dignity and worth of every person, he asserted, “would be deficient and perhaps dangerous” (Ennis 1996: 172).

Dewey thought that education for reflective thinking would be of value to both the individual and society; recognition in educational practice of the kinship to the scientific attitude of children’s native curiosity, fertile imagination and love of experimental inquiry “would make for individual happiness and the reduction of social waste” (Dewey 1910: iii). Schools participating in the Eight-Year Study took development of the habit of reflective thinking and skill in solving problems as a means to leading young people to understand, appreciate and live the democratic way of life characteristic of the United States (Aikin 1942: 17–18, 81). Harvey Siegel (1988: 55–61) has offered four considerations in support of adopting critical thinking as an educational ideal. (1) Respect for persons requires that schools and teachers honour students’ demands for reasons and explanations, deal with students honestly, and recognize the need to confront students’ independent judgment; these requirements concern the manner in which teachers treat students. (2) Education has the task of preparing children to be successful adults, a task that requires development of their self-sufficiency. (3) Education should initiate children into the rational traditions in such fields as history, science and mathematics. (4) Education should prepare children to become democratic citizens, which requires reasoned procedures and critical talents and attitudes. To supplement these considerations, Siegel (1988: 62–90) responds to two objections: the ideology objection that adoption of any educational ideal requires a prior ideological commitment and the indoctrination objection that cultivation of critical thinking cannot escape being a form of indoctrination.

Despite the diversity of our 11 examples, one can recognize a common pattern. Dewey analyzed it as consisting of five phases:

• suggestions , in which the mind leaps forward to a possible solution;
• an intellectualization of the difficulty or perplexity into a problem to be solved, a question for which the answer must be sought;
• the use of one suggestion after another as a leading idea, or hypothesis , to initiate and guide observation and other operations in collection of factual material;
• the mental elaboration of the idea or supposition as an idea or supposition ( reasoning , in the sense on which reasoning is a part, not the whole, of inference); and
• testing the hypothesis by overt or imaginative action. (Dewey 1933: 106–107; italics in original)

The process of reflective thinking consisting of these phases would be preceded by a perplexed, troubled or confused situation and followed by a cleared-up, unified, resolved situation (Dewey 1933: 106). The term ‘phases’ replaced the term ‘steps’ (Dewey 1910: 72), thus removing the earlier suggestion of an invariant sequence. Variants of the above analysis appeared in (Dewey 1916: 177) and (Dewey 1938: 101–119).

The variant formulations indicate the difficulty of giving a single logical analysis of such a varied process. The process of critical thinking may have a spiral pattern, with the problem being redefined in the light of obstacles to solving it as originally formulated. For example, the person in Transit might have concluded that getting to the appointment at the scheduled time was impossible and have reformulated the problem as that of rescheduling the appointment for a mutually convenient time. Further, defining a problem does not always follow after or lead immediately to an idea of a suggested solution. Nor should it do so, as Dewey himself recognized in describing the physician in Typhoid as avoiding any strong preference for this or that conclusion before getting further information (Dewey 1910: 85; 1933: 170). People with a hypothesis in mind, even one to which they have a very weak commitment, have a so-called “confirmation bias” (Nickerson 1998): they are likely to pay attention to evidence that confirms the hypothesis and to ignore evidence that counts against it or for some competing hypothesis. Detectives, intelligence agencies, and investigators of airplane accidents are well advised to gather relevant evidence systematically and to postpone even tentative adoption of an explanatory hypothesis until the collected evidence rules out with the appropriate degree of certainty all but one explanation. Dewey’s analysis of the critical thinking process can be faulted as well for requiring acceptance or rejection of a possible solution to a defined problem, with no allowance for deciding in the light of the available evidence to suspend judgment. Further, given the great variety of kinds of problems for which reflection is appropriate, there is likely to be variation in its component events. Perhaps the best way to conceptualize the critical thinking process is as a checklist whose component events can occur in a variety of orders, selectively, and more than once. These component events might include (1) noticing a difficulty, (2) defining the problem, (3) dividing the problem into manageable sub-problems, (4) formulating a variety of possible solutions to the problem or sub-problem, (5) determining what evidence is relevant to deciding among possible solutions to the problem or sub-problem, (6) devising a plan of systematic observation or experiment that will uncover the relevant evidence, (7) carrying out the plan of systematic observation or experimentation, (8) noting the results of the systematic observation or experiment, (9) gathering relevant testimony and information from others, (10) judging the credibility of testimony and information gathered from others, (11) drawing conclusions from gathered evidence and accepted testimony, and (12) accepting a solution that the evidence adequately supports (cf. Hitchcock 2017: 485).

Checklist conceptions of the process of critical thinking are open to the objection that they are too mechanical and procedural to fit the multi-dimensional and emotionally charged issues for which critical thinking is urgently needed (Paul 1984). For such issues, a more dialectical process is advocated, in which competing relevant world views are identified, their implications explored, and some sort of creative synthesis attempted.

If one considers the critical thinking process illustrated by the 11 examples, one can identify distinct kinds of mental acts and mental states that form part of it. To distinguish, label and briefly characterize these components is a useful preliminary to identifying abilities, skills, dispositions, attitudes, habits and the like that contribute causally to thinking critically. Identifying such abilities and habits is in turn a useful preliminary to setting educational goals. Setting the goals is in its turn a useful preliminary to designing strategies for helping learners to achieve the goals and to designing ways of measuring the extent to which learners have done so. Such measures provide both feedback to learners on their achievement and a basis for experimental research on the effectiveness of various strategies for educating people to think critically. Let us begin, then, by distinguishing the kinds of mental acts and mental events that can occur in a critical thinking process.

• Observing : One notices something in one’s immediate environment (sudden cooling of temperature in Weather , bubbles forming outside a glass and then going inside in Bubbles , a moving blur in the distance in Blur , a rash in Rash ). Or one notes the results of an experiment or systematic observation (valuables missing in Disorder , no suction without air pressure in Suction pump )
• Feeling : One feels puzzled or uncertain about something (how to get to an appointment on time in Transit , why the diamonds vary in spacing in Diamond ). One wants to resolve this perplexity. One feels satisfaction once one has worked out an answer (to take the subway express in Transit , diamonds closer when needed as a warning in Diamond ).
• Wondering : One formulates a question to be addressed (why bubbles form outside a tumbler taken from hot water in Bubbles , how suction pumps work in Suction pump , what caused the rash in Rash ).
• Imagining : One thinks of possible answers (bus or subway or elevated in Transit , flagpole or ornament or wireless communication aid or direction indicator in Ferryboat , allergic reaction or heat rash in Rash ).
• Inferring : One works out what would be the case if a possible answer were assumed (valuables missing if there has been a burglary in Disorder , earlier start to the rash if it is an allergic reaction to a sulfa drug in Rash ). Or one draws a conclusion once sufficient relevant evidence is gathered (take the subway in Transit , burglary in Disorder , discontinue blood pressure medication and new cream in Rash ).
• Knowledge : One uses stored knowledge of the subject-matter to generate possible answers or to infer what would be expected on the assumption of a particular answer (knowledge of a city’s public transit system in Transit , of the requirements for a flagpole in Ferryboat , of Boyle’s law in Bubbles , of allergic reactions in Rash ).
• Experimenting : One designs and carries out an experiment or a systematic observation to find out whether the results deduced from a possible answer will occur (looking at the location of the flagpole in relation to the pilot’s position in Ferryboat , putting an ice cube on top of a tumbler taken from hot water in Bubbles , measuring the height to which a suction pump will draw water at different elevations in Suction pump , noticing the spacing of diamonds when movement to or from a diamond lane is allowed in Diamond ).
• Consulting : One finds a source of information, gets the information from the source, and makes a judgment on whether to accept it. None of our 11 examples include searching for sources of information. In this respect they are unrepresentative, since most people nowadays have almost instant access to information relevant to answering any question, including many of those illustrated by the examples. However, Candidate includes the activities of extracting information from sources and evaluating its credibility.
• Identifying and analyzing arguments : One notices an argument and works out its structure and content as a preliminary to evaluating its strength. This activity is central to Candidate . It is an important part of a critical thinking process in which one surveys arguments for various positions on an issue.
• Judging : One makes a judgment on the basis of accumulated evidence and reasoning, such as the judgment in Ferryboat that the purpose of the pole is to provide direction to the pilot.
• Deciding : One makes a decision on what to do or on what policy to adopt, as in the decision in Transit to take the subway.

By definition, a person who does something voluntarily is both willing and able to do that thing at that time. Both the willingness and the ability contribute causally to the person’s action, in the sense that the voluntary action would not occur if either (or both) of these were lacking. For example, suppose that one is standing with one’s arms at one’s sides and one voluntarily lifts one’s right arm to an extended horizontal position. One would not do so if one were unable to lift one’s arm, if for example one’s right side was paralyzed as the result of a stroke. Nor would one do so if one were unwilling to lift one’s arm, if for example one were participating in a street demonstration at which a white supremacist was urging the crowd to lift their right arm in a Nazi salute and one were unwilling to express support in this way for the racist Nazi ideology. The same analysis applies to a voluntary mental process of thinking critically. It requires both willingness and ability to think critically, including willingness and ability to perform each of the mental acts that compose the process and to coordinate those acts in a sequence that is directed at resolving the initiating perplexity.

Consider willingness first. We can identify causal contributors to willingness to think critically by considering factors that would cause a person who was able to think critically about an issue nevertheless not to do so (Hamby 2014). For each factor, the opposite condition thus contributes causally to willingness to think critically on a particular occasion. For example, people who habitually jump to conclusions without considering alternatives will not think critically about issues that arise, even if they have the required abilities. The contrary condition of willingness to suspend judgment is thus a causal contributor to thinking critically.

Now consider ability. In contrast to the ability to move one’s arm, which can be completely absent because a stroke has left the arm paralyzed, the ability to think critically is a developed ability, whose absence is not a complete absence of ability to think but absence of ability to think well. We can identify the ability to think well directly, in terms of the norms and standards for good thinking. In general, to be able do well the thinking activities that can be components of a critical thinking process, one needs to know the concepts and principles that characterize their good performance, to recognize in particular cases that the concepts and principles apply, and to apply them. The knowledge, recognition and application may be procedural rather than declarative. It may be domain-specific rather than widely applicable, and in either case may need subject-matter knowledge, sometimes of a deep kind.

Reflections of the sort illustrated by the previous two paragraphs have led scholars to identify the knowledge, abilities and dispositions of a “critical thinker”, i.e., someone who thinks critically whenever it is appropriate to do so. We turn now to these three types of causal contributors to thinking critically. We start with dispositions, since arguably these are the most powerful contributors to being a critical thinker, can be fostered at an early stage of a child’s development, and are susceptible to general improvement (Glaser 1941: 175)

8. Critical Thinking Dispositions

Educational researchers use the term ‘dispositions’ broadly for the habits of mind and attitudes that contribute causally to being a critical thinker. Some writers (e.g., Paul & Elder 2006; Hamby 2014; Bailin & Battersby 2016a) propose to use the term ‘virtues’ for this dimension of a critical thinker. The virtues in question, although they are virtues of character, concern the person’s ways of thinking rather than the person’s ways of behaving towards others. They are not moral virtues but intellectual virtues, of the sort articulated by Zagzebski (1996) and discussed by Turri, Alfano, and Greco (2017).

On a realistic conception, thinking dispositions or intellectual virtues are real properties of thinkers. They are general tendencies, propensities, or inclinations to think in particular ways in particular circumstances, and can be genuinely explanatory (Siegel 1999). Sceptics argue that there is no evidence for a specific mental basis for the habits of mind that contribute to thinking critically, and that it is pedagogically misleading to posit such a basis (Bailin et al. 1999a). Whatever their status, critical thinking dispositions need motivation for their initial formation in a child—motivation that may be external or internal. As children develop, the force of habit will gradually become important in sustaining the disposition (Nieto & Valenzuela 2012). Mere force of habit, however, is unlikely to sustain critical thinking dispositions. Critical thinkers must value and enjoy using their knowledge and abilities to think things through for themselves. They must be committed to, and lovers of, inquiry.

A person may have a critical thinking disposition with respect to only some kinds of issues. For example, one could be open-minded about scientific issues but not about religious issues. Similarly, one could be confident in one’s ability to reason about the theological implications of the existence of evil in the world but not in one’s ability to reason about the best design for a guided ballistic missile.

Facione (1990a: 25) divides “affective dispositions” of critical thinking into approaches to life and living in general and approaches to specific issues, questions or problems. Adapting this distinction, one can usefully divide critical thinking dispositions into initiating dispositions (those that contribute causally to starting to think critically about an issue) and internal dispositions (those that contribute causally to doing a good job of thinking critically once one has started). The two categories are not mutually exclusive. For example, open-mindedness, in the sense of willingness to consider alternative points of view to one’s own, is both an initiating and an internal disposition.

Using the strategy of considering factors that would block people with the ability to think critically from doing so, we can identify as initiating dispositions for thinking critically attentiveness, a habit of inquiry, self-confidence, courage, open-mindedness, willingness to suspend judgment, trust in reason, wanting evidence for one’s beliefs, and seeking the truth. We consider briefly what each of these dispositions amounts to, in each case citing sources that acknowledge them.

• Attentiveness : One will not think critically if one fails to recognize an issue that needs to be thought through. For example, the pedestrian in Weather would not have looked up if he had not noticed that the air was suddenly cooler. To be a critical thinker, then, one needs to be habitually attentive to one’s surroundings, noticing not only what one senses but also sources of perplexity in messages received and in one’s own beliefs and attitudes (Facione 1990a: 25; Facione, Facione, & Giancarlo 2001).
• Habit of inquiry : Inquiry is effortful, and one needs an internal push to engage in it. For example, the student in Bubbles could easily have stopped at idle wondering about the cause of the bubbles rather than reasoning to a hypothesis, then designing and executing an experiment to test it. Thus willingness to think critically needs mental energy and initiative. What can supply that energy? Love of inquiry, or perhaps just a habit of inquiry. Hamby (2015) has argued that willingness to inquire is the central critical thinking virtue, one that encompasses all the others. It is recognized as a critical thinking disposition by Dewey (1910: 29; 1933: 35), Glaser (1941: 5), Ennis (1987: 12; 1991: 8), Facione (1990a: 25), Bailin et al. (1999b: 294), Halpern (1998: 452), and Facione, Facione, & Giancarlo (2001).
• Self-confidence : Lack of confidence in one’s abilities can block critical thinking. For example, if the woman in Rash lacked confidence in her ability to figure things out for herself, she might just have assumed that the rash on her chest was the allergic reaction to her medication against which the pharmacist had warned her. Thus willingness to think critically requires confidence in one’s ability to inquire (Facione 1990a: 25; Facione, Facione, & Giancarlo 2001).
• Courage : Fear of thinking for oneself can stop one from doing it. Thus willingness to think critically requires intellectual courage (Paul & Elder 2006: 16).
• Open-mindedness : A dogmatic attitude will impede thinking critically. For example, a person who adheres rigidly to a “pro-choice” position on the issue of the legal status of induced abortion is likely to be unwilling to consider seriously the issue of when in its development an unborn child acquires a moral right to life. Thus willingness to think critically requires open-mindedness, in the sense of a willingness to examine questions to which one already accepts an answer but which further evidence or reasoning might cause one to answer differently (Dewey 1933; Facione 1990a; Ennis 1991; Bailin et al. 1999b; Halpern 1998, Facione, Facione, & Giancarlo 2001). Paul (1981) emphasizes open-mindedness about alternative world-views, and recommends a dialectical approach to integrating such views as central to what he calls “strong sense” critical thinking. In three studies, Haran, Ritov, & Mellers (2013) found that actively open-minded thinking, including “the tendency to weigh new evidence against a favored belief, to spend sufficient time on a problem before giving up, and to consider carefully the opinions of others in forming one’s own”, led study participants to acquire information and thus to make accurate estimations.
• Willingness to suspend judgment : Premature closure on an initial solution will block critical thinking. Thus willingness to think critically requires a willingness to suspend judgment while alternatives are explored (Facione 1990a; Ennis 1991; Halpern 1998).
• Trust in reason : Since distrust in the processes of reasoned inquiry will dissuade one from engaging in it, trust in them is an initiating critical thinking disposition (Facione 1990a, 25; Bailin et al. 1999b: 294; Facione, Facione, & Giancarlo 2001; Paul & Elder 2006). In reaction to an allegedly exclusive emphasis on reason in critical thinking theory and pedagogy, Thayer-Bacon (2000) argues that intuition, imagination, and emotion have important roles to play in an adequate conception of critical thinking that she calls “constructive thinking”. From her point of view, critical thinking requires trust not only in reason but also in intuition, imagination, and emotion.
• Seeking the truth : If one does not care about the truth but is content to stick with one’s initial bias on an issue, then one will not think critically about it. Seeking the truth is thus an initiating critical thinking disposition (Bailin et al. 1999b: 294; Facione, Facione, & Giancarlo 2001). A disposition to seek the truth is implicit in more specific critical thinking dispositions, such as trying to be well-informed, considering seriously points of view other than one’s own, looking for alternatives, suspending judgment when the evidence is insufficient, and adopting a position when the evidence supporting it is sufficient.

Some of the initiating dispositions, such as open-mindedness and willingness to suspend judgment, are also internal critical thinking dispositions, in the sense of mental habits or attitudes that contribute causally to doing a good job of critical thinking once one starts the process. But there are many other internal critical thinking dispositions. Some of them are parasitic on one’s conception of good thinking. For example, it is constitutive of good thinking about an issue to formulate the issue clearly and to maintain focus on it. For this purpose, one needs not only the corresponding ability but also the corresponding disposition. Ennis (1991: 8) describes it as the disposition “to determine and maintain focus on the conclusion or question”, Facione (1990a: 25) as “clarity in stating the question or concern”. Other internal dispositions are motivators to continue or adjust the critical thinking process, such as willingness to persist in a complex task and willingness to abandon nonproductive strategies in an attempt to self-correct (Halpern 1998: 452). For a list of identified internal critical thinking dispositions, see the Supplement on Internal Critical Thinking Dispositions .

Some theorists postulate skills, i.e., acquired abilities, as operative in critical thinking. It is not obvious, however, that a good mental act is the exercise of a generic acquired skill. Inferring an expected time of arrival, as in Transit , has some generic components but also uses non-generic subject-matter knowledge. Bailin et al. (1999a) argue against viewing critical thinking skills as generic and discrete, on the ground that skilled performance at a critical thinking task cannot be separated from knowledge of concepts and from domain-specific principles of good thinking. Talk of skills, they concede, is unproblematic if it means merely that a person with critical thinking skills is capable of intelligent performance.

Despite such scepticism, theorists of critical thinking have listed as general contributors to critical thinking what they variously call abilities (Glaser 1941; Ennis 1962, 1991), skills (Facione 1990a; Halpern 1998) or competencies (Fisher & Scriven 1997). Amalgamating these lists would produce a confusing and chaotic cornucopia of more than 50 possible educational objectives, with only partial overlap among them. It makes sense instead to try to understand the reasons for the multiplicity and diversity, and to make a selection according to one’s own reasons for singling out abilities to be developed in a critical thinking curriculum. Two reasons for diversity among lists of critical thinking abilities are the underlying conception of critical thinking and the envisaged educational level. Appraisal-only conceptions, for example, involve a different suite of abilities than constructive-only conceptions. Some lists, such as those in (Glaser 1941), are put forward as educational objectives for secondary school students, whereas others are proposed as objectives for college students (e.g., Facione 1990a).

The abilities described in the remaining paragraphs of this section emerge from reflection on the general abilities needed to do well the thinking activities identified in section 6 as components of the critical thinking process described in section 5 . The derivation of each collection of abilities is accompanied by citation of sources that list such abilities and of standardized tests that claim to test them.

Observational abilities : Careful and accurate observation sometimes requires specialist expertise and practice, as in the case of observing birds and observing accident scenes. However, there are general abilities of noticing what one’s senses are picking up from one’s environment and of being able to articulate clearly and accurately to oneself and others what one has observed. It helps in exercising them to be able to recognize and take into account factors that make one’s observation less trustworthy, such as prior framing of the situation, inadequate time, deficient senses, poor observation conditions, and the like. It helps as well to be skilled at taking steps to make one’s observation more trustworthy, such as moving closer to get a better look, measuring something three times and taking the average, and checking what one thinks one is observing with someone else who is in a good position to observe it. It also helps to be skilled at recognizing respects in which one’s report of one’s observation involves inference rather than direct observation, so that one can then consider whether the inference is justified. These abilities come into play as well when one thinks about whether and with what degree of confidence to accept an observation report, for example in the study of history or in a criminal investigation or in assessing news reports. Observational abilities show up in some lists of critical thinking abilities (Ennis 1962: 90; Facione 1990a: 16; Ennis 1991: 9). There are items testing a person’s ability to judge the credibility of observation reports in the Cornell Critical Thinking Tests, Levels X and Z (Ennis & Millman 1971; Ennis, Millman, & Tomko 1985, 2005). Norris and King (1983, 1985, 1990a, 1990b) is a test of ability to appraise observation reports.

Emotional abilities : The emotions that drive a critical thinking process are perplexity or puzzlement, a wish to resolve it, and satisfaction at achieving the desired resolution. Children experience these emotions at an early age, without being trained to do so. Education that takes critical thinking as a goal needs only to channel these emotions and to make sure not to stifle them. Collaborative critical thinking benefits from ability to recognize one’s own and others’ emotional commitments and reactions.

Questioning abilities : A critical thinking process needs transformation of an inchoate sense of perplexity into a clear question. Formulating a question well requires not building in questionable assumptions, not prejudging the issue, and using language that in context is unambiguous and precise enough (Ennis 1962: 97; 1991: 9).

Imaginative abilities : Thinking directed at finding the correct causal explanation of a general phenomenon or particular event requires an ability to imagine possible explanations. Thinking about what policy or plan of action to adopt requires generation of options and consideration of possible consequences of each option. Domain knowledge is required for such creative activity, but a general ability to imagine alternatives is helpful and can be nurtured so as to become easier, quicker, more extensive, and deeper (Dewey 1910: 34–39; 1933: 40–47). Facione (1990a) and Halpern (1998) include the ability to imagine alternatives as a critical thinking ability.

Inferential abilities : The ability to draw conclusions from given information, and to recognize with what degree of certainty one’s own or others’ conclusions follow, is universally recognized as a general critical thinking ability. All 11 examples in section 2 of this article include inferences, some from hypotheses or options (as in Transit , Ferryboat and Disorder ), others from something observed (as in Weather and Rash ). None of these inferences is formally valid. Rather, they are licensed by general, sometimes qualified substantive rules of inference (Toulmin 1958) that rest on domain knowledge—that a bus trip takes about the same time in each direction, that the terminal of a wireless telegraph would be located on the highest possible place, that sudden cooling is often followed by rain, that an allergic reaction to a sulfa drug generally shows up soon after one starts taking it. It is a matter of controversy to what extent the specialized ability to deduce conclusions from premisses using formal rules of inference is needed for critical thinking. Dewey (1933) locates logical forms in setting out the products of reflection rather than in the process of reflection. Ennis (1981a), on the other hand, maintains that a liberally-educated person should have the following abilities: to translate natural-language statements into statements using the standard logical operators, to use appropriately the language of necessary and sufficient conditions, to deal with argument forms and arguments containing symbols, to determine whether in virtue of an argument’s form its conclusion follows necessarily from its premisses, to reason with logically complex propositions, and to apply the rules and procedures of deductive logic. Inferential abilities are recognized as critical thinking abilities by Glaser (1941: 6), Facione (1990a: 9), Ennis (1991: 9), Fisher & Scriven (1997: 99, 111), and Halpern (1998: 452). Items testing inferential abilities constitute two of the five subtests of the Watson Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal (Watson & Glaser 1980a, 1980b, 1994), two of the four sections in the Cornell Critical Thinking Test Level X (Ennis & Millman 1971; Ennis, Millman, & Tomko 1985, 2005), three of the seven sections in the Cornell Critical Thinking Test Level Z (Ennis & Millman 1971; Ennis, Millman, & Tomko 1985, 2005), 11 of the 34 items on Forms A and B of the California Critical Thinking Skills Test (Facione 1990b, 1992), and a high but variable proportion of the 25 selected-response questions in the Collegiate Learning Assessment (Council for Aid to Education 2017).

Experimenting abilities : Knowing how to design and execute an experiment is important not just in scientific research but also in everyday life, as in Rash . Dewey devoted a whole chapter of his How We Think (1910: 145–156; 1933: 190–202) to the superiority of experimentation over observation in advancing knowledge. Experimenting abilities come into play at one remove in appraising reports of scientific studies. Skill in designing and executing experiments includes the acknowledged abilities to appraise evidence (Glaser 1941: 6), to carry out experiments and to apply appropriate statistical inference techniques (Facione 1990a: 9), to judge inductions to an explanatory hypothesis (Ennis 1991: 9), and to recognize the need for an adequately large sample size (Halpern 1998). The Cornell Critical Thinking Test Level Z (Ennis & Millman 1971; Ennis, Millman, & Tomko 1985, 2005) includes four items (out of 52) on experimental design. The Collegiate Learning Assessment (Council for Aid to Education 2017) makes room for appraisal of study design in both its performance task and its selected-response questions.

Consulting abilities : Skill at consulting sources of information comes into play when one seeks information to help resolve a problem, as in Candidate . Ability to find and appraise information includes ability to gather and marshal pertinent information (Glaser 1941: 6), to judge whether a statement made by an alleged authority is acceptable (Ennis 1962: 84), to plan a search for desired information (Facione 1990a: 9), and to judge the credibility of a source (Ennis 1991: 9). Ability to judge the credibility of statements is tested by 24 items (out of 76) in the Cornell Critical Thinking Test Level X (Ennis & Millman 1971; Ennis, Millman, & Tomko 1985, 2005) and by four items (out of 52) in the Cornell Critical Thinking Test Level Z (Ennis & Millman 1971; Ennis, Millman, & Tomko 1985, 2005). The College Learning Assessment’s performance task requires evaluation of whether information in documents is credible or unreliable (Council for Aid to Education 2017).

Argument analysis abilities : The ability to identify and analyze arguments contributes to the process of surveying arguments on an issue in order to form one’s own reasoned judgment, as in Candidate . The ability to detect and analyze arguments is recognized as a critical thinking skill by Facione (1990a: 7–8), Ennis (1991: 9) and Halpern (1998). Five items (out of 34) on the California Critical Thinking Skills Test (Facione 1990b, 1992) test skill at argument analysis. The College Learning Assessment (Council for Aid to Education 2017) incorporates argument analysis in its selected-response tests of critical reading and evaluation and of critiquing an argument.

Judging skills and deciding skills : Skill at judging and deciding is skill at recognizing what judgment or decision the available evidence and argument supports, and with what degree of confidence. It is thus a component of the inferential skills already discussed.

Lists and tests of critical thinking abilities often include two more abilities: identifying assumptions and constructing and evaluating definitions.

In addition to dispositions and abilities, critical thinking needs knowledge: of critical thinking concepts, of critical thinking principles, and of the subject-matter of the thinking.

We can derive a short list of concepts whose understanding contributes to critical thinking from the critical thinking abilities described in the preceding section. Observational abilities require an understanding of the difference between observation and inference. Questioning abilities require an understanding of the concepts of ambiguity and vagueness. Inferential abilities require an understanding of the difference between conclusive and defeasible inference (traditionally, between deduction and induction), as well as of the difference between necessary and sufficient conditions. Experimenting abilities require an understanding of the concepts of hypothesis, null hypothesis, assumption and prediction, as well as of the concept of statistical significance and of its difference from importance. They also require an understanding of the difference between an experiment and an observational study, and in particular of the difference between a randomized controlled trial, a prospective correlational study and a retrospective (case-control) study. Argument analysis abilities require an understanding of the concepts of argument, premiss, assumption, conclusion and counter-consideration. Additional critical thinking concepts are proposed by Bailin et al. (1999b: 293), Fisher & Scriven (1997: 105–106), Black (2012), and Blair (2021).

According to Glaser (1941: 25), ability to think critically requires knowledge of the methods of logical inquiry and reasoning. If we review the list of abilities in the preceding section, however, we can see that some of them can be acquired and exercised merely through practice, possibly guided in an educational setting, followed by feedback. Searching intelligently for a causal explanation of some phenomenon or event requires that one consider a full range of possible causal contributors, but it seems more important that one implements this principle in one’s practice than that one is able to articulate it. What is important is “operational knowledge” of the standards and principles of good thinking (Bailin et al. 1999b: 291–293). But the development of such critical thinking abilities as designing an experiment or constructing an operational definition can benefit from learning their underlying theory. Further, explicit knowledge of quirks of human thinking seems useful as a cautionary guide. Human memory is not just fallible about details, as people learn from their own experiences of misremembering, but is so malleable that a detailed, clear and vivid recollection of an event can be a total fabrication (Loftus 2017). People seek or interpret evidence in ways that are partial to their existing beliefs and expectations, often unconscious of their “confirmation bias” (Nickerson 1998). Not only are people subject to this and other cognitive biases (Kahneman 2011), of which they are typically unaware, but it may be counter-productive for one to make oneself aware of them and try consciously to counteract them or to counteract social biases such as racial or sexual stereotypes (Kenyon & Beaulac 2014). It is helpful to be aware of these facts and of the superior effectiveness of blocking the operation of biases—for example, by making an immediate record of one’s observations, refraining from forming a preliminary explanatory hypothesis, blind refereeing, double-blind randomized trials, and blind grading of students’ work. It is also helpful to be aware of the prevalence of “noise” (unwanted unsystematic variability of judgments), of how to detect noise (through a noise audit), and of how to reduce noise: make accuracy the goal, think statistically, break a process of arriving at a judgment into independent tasks, resist premature intuitions, in a group get independent judgments first, favour comparative judgments and scales (Kahneman, Sibony, & Sunstein 2021). It is helpful as well to be aware of the concept of “bounded rationality” in decision-making and of the related distinction between “satisficing” and optimizing (Simon 1956; Gigerenzer 2001).

Critical thinking about an issue requires substantive knowledge of the domain to which the issue belongs. Critical thinking abilities are not a magic elixir that can be applied to any issue whatever by somebody who has no knowledge of the facts relevant to exploring that issue. For example, the student in Bubbles needed to know that gases do not penetrate solid objects like a glass, that air expands when heated, that the volume of an enclosed gas varies directly with its temperature and inversely with its pressure, and that hot objects will spontaneously cool down to the ambient temperature of their surroundings unless kept hot by insulation or a source of heat. Critical thinkers thus need a rich fund of subject-matter knowledge relevant to the variety of situations they encounter. This fact is recognized in the inclusion among critical thinking dispositions of a concern to become and remain generally well informed.

Experimental educational interventions, with control groups, have shown that education can improve critical thinking skills and dispositions, as measured by standardized tests. For information about these tests, see the Supplement on Assessment .

What educational methods are most effective at developing the dispositions, abilities and knowledge of a critical thinker? In a comprehensive meta-analysis of experimental and quasi-experimental studies of strategies for teaching students to think critically, Abrami et al. (2015) found that dialogue, anchored instruction, and mentoring each increased the effectiveness of the educational intervention, and that they were most effective when combined. They also found that in these studies a combination of separate instruction in critical thinking with subject-matter instruction in which students are encouraged to think critically was more effective than either by itself. However, the difference was not statistically significant; that is, it might have arisen by chance.

Most of these studies lack the longitudinal follow-up required to determine whether the observed differential improvements in critical thinking abilities or dispositions continue over time, for example until high school or college graduation. For details on studies of methods of developing critical thinking skills and dispositions, see the Supplement on Educational Methods .

12. Controversies

Scholars have denied the generalizability of critical thinking abilities across subject domains, have alleged bias in critical thinking theory and pedagogy, and have investigated the relationship of critical thinking to other kinds of thinking.

McPeck (1981) attacked the thinking skills movement of the 1970s, including the critical thinking movement. He argued that there are no general thinking skills, since thinking is always thinking about some subject-matter. It is futile, he claimed, for schools and colleges to teach thinking as if it were a separate subject. Rather, teachers should lead their pupils to become autonomous thinkers by teaching school subjects in a way that brings out their cognitive structure and that encourages and rewards discussion and argument. As some of his critics (e.g., Paul 1985; Siegel 1985) pointed out, McPeck’s central argument needs elaboration, since it has obvious counter-examples in writing and speaking, for which (up to a certain level of complexity) there are teachable general abilities even though they are always about some subject-matter. To make his argument convincing, McPeck needs to explain how thinking differs from writing and speaking in a way that does not permit useful abstraction of its components from the subject-matters with which it deals. He has not done so. Nevertheless, his position that the dispositions and abilities of a critical thinker are best developed in the context of subject-matter instruction is shared by many theorists of critical thinking, including Dewey (1910, 1933), Glaser (1941), Passmore (1980), Weinstein (1990), Bailin et al. (1999b), and Willingham (2019).

McPeck’s challenge prompted reflection on the extent to which critical thinking is subject-specific. McPeck argued for a strong subject-specificity thesis, according to which it is a conceptual truth that all critical thinking abilities are specific to a subject. (He did not however extend his subject-specificity thesis to critical thinking dispositions. In particular, he took the disposition to suspend judgment in situations of cognitive dissonance to be a general disposition.) Conceptual subject-specificity is subject to obvious counter-examples, such as the general ability to recognize confusion of necessary and sufficient conditions. A more modest thesis, also endorsed by McPeck, is epistemological subject-specificity, according to which the norms of good thinking vary from one field to another. Epistemological subject-specificity clearly holds to a certain extent; for example, the principles in accordance with which one solves a differential equation are quite different from the principles in accordance with which one determines whether a painting is a genuine Picasso. But the thesis suffers, as Ennis (1989) points out, from vagueness of the concept of a field or subject and from the obvious existence of inter-field principles, however broadly the concept of a field is construed. For example, the principles of hypothetico-deductive reasoning hold for all the varied fields in which such reasoning occurs. A third kind of subject-specificity is empirical subject-specificity, according to which as a matter of empirically observable fact a person with the abilities and dispositions of a critical thinker in one area of investigation will not necessarily have them in another area of investigation.

The thesis of empirical subject-specificity raises the general problem of transfer. If critical thinking abilities and dispositions have to be developed independently in each school subject, how are they of any use in dealing with the problems of everyday life and the political and social issues of contemporary society, most of which do not fit into the framework of a traditional school subject? Proponents of empirical subject-specificity tend to argue that transfer is more likely to occur if there is critical thinking instruction in a variety of domains, with explicit attention to dispositions and abilities that cut across domains. But evidence for this claim is scanty. There is a need for well-designed empirical studies that investigate the conditions that make transfer more likely.

It is common ground in debates about the generality or subject-specificity of critical thinking dispositions and abilities that critical thinking about any topic requires background knowledge about the topic. For example, the most sophisticated understanding of the principles of hypothetico-deductive reasoning is of no help unless accompanied by some knowledge of what might be plausible explanations of some phenomenon under investigation.

Critics have objected to bias in the theory, pedagogy and practice of critical thinking. Commentators (e.g., Alston 1995; Ennis 1998) have noted that anyone who takes a position has a bias in the neutral sense of being inclined in one direction rather than others. The critics, however, are objecting to bias in the pejorative sense of an unjustified favoring of certain ways of knowing over others, frequently alleging that the unjustly favoured ways are those of a dominant sex or culture (Bailin 1995). These ways favour:

• reinforcement of egocentric and sociocentric biases over dialectical engagement with opposing world-views (Paul 1981, 1984; Warren 1998)
• distancing from the object of inquiry over closeness to it (Martin 1992; Thayer-Bacon 1992)
• indifference to the situation of others over care for them (Martin 1992)
• orientation to thought over orientation to action (Martin 1992)
• being reasonable over caring to understand people’s ideas (Thayer-Bacon 1993)
• being neutral and objective over being embodied and situated (Thayer-Bacon 1995a)
• doubting over believing (Thayer-Bacon 1995b)
• reason over emotion, imagination and intuition (Thayer-Bacon 2000)
• solitary thinking over collaborative thinking (Thayer-Bacon 2000)
• written and spoken assignments over other forms of expression (Alston 2001)
• attention to written and spoken communications over attention to human problems (Alston 2001)
• winning debates in the public sphere over making and understanding meaning (Alston 2001)

A common thread in this smorgasbord of accusations is dissatisfaction with focusing on the logical analysis and evaluation of reasoning and arguments. While these authors acknowledge that such analysis and evaluation is part of critical thinking and should be part of its conceptualization and pedagogy, they insist that it is only a part. Paul (1981), for example, bemoans the tendency of atomistic teaching of methods of analyzing and evaluating arguments to turn students into more able sophists, adept at finding fault with positions and arguments with which they disagree but even more entrenched in the egocentric and sociocentric biases with which they began. Martin (1992) and Thayer-Bacon (1992) cite with approval the self-reported intimacy with their subject-matter of leading researchers in biology and medicine, an intimacy that conflicts with the distancing allegedly recommended in standard conceptions and pedagogy of critical thinking. Thayer-Bacon (2000) contrasts the embodied and socially embedded learning of her elementary school students in a Montessori school, who used their imagination, intuition and emotions as well as their reason, with conceptions of critical thinking as

thinking that is used to critique arguments, offer justifications, and make judgments about what are the good reasons, or the right answers. (Thayer-Bacon 2000: 127–128)

Alston (2001) reports that her students in a women’s studies class were able to see the flaws in the Cinderella myth that pervades much romantic fiction but in their own romantic relationships still acted as if all failures were the woman’s fault and still accepted the notions of love at first sight and living happily ever after. Students, she writes, should

be able to connect their intellectual critique to a more affective, somatic, and ethical account of making risky choices that have sexist, racist, classist, familial, sexual, or other consequences for themselves and those both near and far… critical thinking that reads arguments, texts, or practices merely on the surface without connections to feeling/desiring/doing or action lacks an ethical depth that should infuse the difference between mere cognitive activity and something we want to call critical thinking. (Alston 2001: 34)

Some critics portray such biases as unfair to women. Thayer-Bacon (1992), for example, has charged modern critical thinking theory with being sexist, on the ground that it separates the self from the object and causes one to lose touch with one’s inner voice, and thus stigmatizes women, who (she asserts) link self to object and listen to their inner voice. Her charge does not imply that women as a group are on average less able than men to analyze and evaluate arguments. Facione (1990c) found no difference by sex in performance on his California Critical Thinking Skills Test. Kuhn (1991: 280–281) found no difference by sex in either the disposition or the competence to engage in argumentative thinking.

The critics propose a variety of remedies for the biases that they allege. In general, they do not propose to eliminate or downplay critical thinking as an educational goal. Rather, they propose to conceptualize critical thinking differently and to change its pedagogy accordingly. Their pedagogical proposals arise logically from their objections. They can be summarized as follows:

• Focus on argument networks with dialectical exchanges reflecting contesting points of view rather than on atomic arguments, so as to develop “strong sense” critical thinking that transcends egocentric and sociocentric biases (Paul 1981, 1984).
• Foster closeness to the subject-matter and feeling connected to others in order to inform a humane democracy (Martin 1992).
• Develop “constructive thinking” as a social activity in a community of physically embodied and socially embedded inquirers with personal voices who value not only reason but also imagination, intuition and emotion (Thayer-Bacon 2000).
• In developing critical thinking in school subjects, treat as important neither skills nor dispositions but opening worlds of meaning (Alston 2001).
• Attend to the development of critical thinking dispositions as well as skills, and adopt the “critical pedagogy” practised and advocated by Freire (1968 [1970]) and hooks (1994) (Dalgleish, Girard, & Davies 2017).

A common thread in these proposals is treatment of critical thinking as a social, interactive, personally engaged activity like that of a quilting bee or a barn-raising (Thayer-Bacon 2000) rather than as an individual, solitary, distanced activity symbolized by Rodin’s The Thinker . One can get a vivid description of education with the former type of goal from the writings of bell hooks (1994, 2010). Critical thinking for her is open-minded dialectical exchange across opposing standpoints and from multiple perspectives, a conception similar to Paul’s “strong sense” critical thinking (Paul 1981). She abandons the structure of domination in the traditional classroom. In an introductory course on black women writers, for example, she assigns students to write an autobiographical paragraph about an early racial memory, then to read it aloud as the others listen, thus affirming the uniqueness and value of each voice and creating a communal awareness of the diversity of the group’s experiences (hooks 1994: 84). Her “engaged pedagogy” is thus similar to the “freedom under guidance” implemented in John Dewey’s Laboratory School of Chicago in the late 1890s and early 1900s. It incorporates the dialogue, anchored instruction, and mentoring that Abrami (2015) found to be most effective in improving critical thinking skills and dispositions.

What is the relationship of critical thinking to problem solving, decision-making, higher-order thinking, creative thinking, and other recognized types of thinking? One’s answer to this question obviously depends on how one defines the terms used in the question. If critical thinking is conceived broadly to cover any careful thinking about any topic for any purpose, then problem solving and decision making will be kinds of critical thinking, if they are done carefully. Historically, ‘critical thinking’ and ‘problem solving’ were two names for the same thing. If critical thinking is conceived more narrowly as consisting solely of appraisal of intellectual products, then it will be disjoint with problem solving and decision making, which are constructive.

Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives used the phrase “intellectual abilities and skills” for what had been labeled “critical thinking” by some, “reflective thinking” by Dewey and others, and “problem solving” by still others (Bloom et al. 1956: 38). Thus, the so-called “higher-order thinking skills” at the taxonomy’s top levels of analysis, synthesis and evaluation are just critical thinking skills, although they do not come with general criteria for their assessment (Ennis 1981b). The revised version of Bloom’s taxonomy (Anderson et al. 2001) likewise treats critical thinking as cutting across those types of cognitive process that involve more than remembering (Anderson et al. 2001: 269–270). For details, see the Supplement on History .

As to creative thinking, it overlaps with critical thinking (Bailin 1987, 1988). Thinking about the explanation of some phenomenon or event, as in Ferryboat , requires creative imagination in constructing plausible explanatory hypotheses. Likewise, thinking about a policy question, as in Candidate , requires creativity in coming up with options. Conversely, creativity in any field needs to be balanced by critical appraisal of the draft painting or novel or mathematical theory.

• Abrami, Philip C., Robert M. Bernard, Eugene Borokhovski, David I. Waddington, C. Anne Wade, and Tonje Person, 2015, “Strategies for Teaching Students to Think Critically: A Meta-analysis”, Review of Educational Research , 85(2): 275–314. doi:10.3102/0034654314551063
• Aikin, Wilford M., 1942, The Story of the Eight-year Study, with Conclusions and Recommendations , Volume I of Adventure in American Education , New York and London: Harper & Brothers. [ Aikin 1942 available online ]
• Alston, Kal, 1995, “Begging the Question: Is Critical Thinking Biased?”, Educational Theory , 45(2): 225–233. doi:10.1111/j.1741-5446.1995.00225.x
• –––, 2001, “Re/Thinking Critical Thinking: The Seductions of Everyday Life”, Studies in Philosophy and Education , 20(1): 27–40. doi:10.1023/A:1005247128053
• American Educational Research Association, 2014, Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing / American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, National Council on Measurement in Education , Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
• Anderson, Lorin W., David R. Krathwohl, Peter W. Airiasian, Kathleen A. Cruikshank, Richard E. Mayer, Paul R. Pintrich, James Raths, and Merlin C. Wittrock, 2001, A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives , New York: Longman, complete edition.
• Bailin, Sharon, 1987, “Critical and Creative Thinking”, Informal Logic , 9(1): 23–30. [ Bailin 1987 available online ]
• –––, 1988, Achieving Extraordinary Ends: An Essay on Creativity , Dordrecht: Kluwer. doi:10.1007/978-94-009-2780-3
• –––, 1995, “Is Critical Thinking Biased? Clarifications and Implications”, Educational Theory , 45(2): 191–197. doi:10.1111/j.1741-5446.1995.00191.x
• Bailin, Sharon and Mark Battersby, 2009, “Inquiry: A Dialectical Approach to Teaching Critical Thinking”, in Juho Ritola (ed.), Argument Cultures: Proceedings of OSSA 09 , CD-ROM (pp. 1–10), Windsor, ON: OSSA. [ Bailin & Battersby 2009 available online ]
• –––, 2016a, “Fostering the Virtues of Inquiry”, Topoi , 35(2): 367–374. doi:10.1007/s11245-015-9307-6
• –––, 2016b, Reason in the Balance: An Inquiry Approach to Critical Thinking , Indianapolis: Hackett, 2nd edition.
• –––, 2021, “Inquiry: Teaching for Reasoned Judgment”, in Daniel Fasko, Jr. and Frank Fair (eds.), Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Theory, Development, Instruction, and Assessment , Leiden: Brill, pp. 31–46. doi: 10.1163/9789004444591_003
• Bailin, Sharon, Roland Case, Jerrold R. Coombs, and Leroi B. Daniels, 1999a, “Common Misconceptions of Critical Thinking”, Journal of Curriculum Studies , 31(3): 269–283. doi:10.1080/002202799183124
• –––, 1999b, “Conceptualizing Critical Thinking”, Journal of Curriculum Studies , 31(3): 285–302. doi:10.1080/002202799183133
• Blair, J. Anthony, 2021, Studies in Critical Thinking , Windsor, ON: Windsor Studies in Argumentation, 2nd edition. [Available online at https://windsor.scholarsportal.info/omp/index.php/wsia/catalog/book/106]
• Berman, Alan M., Seth J. Schwartz, William M. Kurtines, and Steven L. Berman, 2001, “The Process of Exploration in Identity Formation: The Role of Style and Competence”, Journal of Adolescence , 24(4): 513–528. doi:10.1006/jado.2001.0386
• Black, Beth (ed.), 2012, An A to Z of Critical Thinking , London: Continuum International Publishing Group.
• Bloom, Benjamin Samuel, Max D. Engelhart, Edward J. Furst, Walter H. Hill, and David R. Krathwohl, 1956, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Handbook I: Cognitive Domain , New York: David McKay.
• Boardman, Frank, Nancy M. Cavender, and Howard Kahane, 2018, Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric: The Use of Reason in Everyday Life , Boston: Cengage, 13th edition.
• Browne, M. Neil and Stuart M. Keeley, 2018, Asking the Right Questions: A Guide to Critical Thinking , Hoboken, NJ: Pearson, 12th edition.
• Center for Assessment & Improvement of Learning, 2017, Critical Thinking Assessment Test , Cookeville, TN: Tennessee Technological University.
• Cleghorn, Paul. 2021. “Critical Thinking in the Elementary School: Practical Guidance for Building a Culture of Thinking”, in Daniel Fasko, Jr. and Frank Fair (eds.), Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Theory, Development, Instruction, and Assessmen t, Leiden: Brill, pp. 150–167. doi: 10.1163/9789004444591_010
• Cohen, Jacob, 1988, Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences , Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2nd edition.
• College Board, 1983, Academic Preparation for College. What Students Need to Know and Be Able to Do , New York: College Entrance Examination Board, ERIC document ED232517.
• Commission on the Relation of School and College of the Progressive Education Association, 1943, Thirty Schools Tell Their Story , Volume V of Adventure in American Education , New York and London: Harper & Brothers.
• Council for Aid to Education, 2017, CLA+ Student Guide . Available at http://cae.org/images/uploads/pdf/CLA_Student_Guide_Institution.pdf ; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• Dalgleish, Adam, Patrick Girard, and Maree Davies, 2017, “Critical Thinking, Bias and Feminist Philosophy: Building a Better Framework through Collaboration”, Informal Logic , 37(4): 351–369. [ Dalgleish et al. available online ]
• Dewey, John, 1910, How We Think , Boston: D.C. Heath. [ Dewey 1910 available online ]
• –––, 1916, Democracy and Education: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Education , New York: Macmillan.
• –––, 1933, How We Think: A Restatement of the Relation of Reflective Thinking to the Educative Process , Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath.
• –––, 1936, “The Theory of the Chicago Experiment”, Appendix II of Mayhew & Edwards 1936: 463–477.
• –––, 1938, Logic: The Theory of Inquiry , New York: Henry Holt and Company.
• Dominguez, Caroline (coord.), 2018a, A European Collection of the Critical Thinking Skills and Dispositions Needed in Different Professional Fields for the 21st Century , Vila Real, Portugal: UTAD. Available at http://bit.ly/CRITHINKEDUO1 ; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• ––– (coord.), 2018b, A European Review on Critical Thinking Educational Practices in Higher Education Institutions , Vila Real: UTAD. Available at http://bit.ly/CRITHINKEDUO2 ; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• ––– (coord.), 2018c, The CRITHINKEDU European Course on Critical Thinking Education for University Teachers: From Conception to Delivery , Vila Real: UTAD. Available at http:/bit.ly/CRITHINKEDU03; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• Dominguez Caroline and Rita Payan-Carreira (eds.), 2019, Promoting Critical Thinking in European Higher Education Institutions: Towards an Educational Protocol , Vila Real: UTAD. Available at http:/bit.ly/CRITHINKEDU04; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• Ennis, Robert H., 1958, “An Appraisal of the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal”, The Journal of Educational Research , 52(4): 155–158. doi:10.1080/00220671.1958.10882558
• –––, 1962, “A Concept of Critical Thinking: A Proposed Basis for Research on the Teaching and Evaluation of Critical Thinking Ability”, Harvard Educational Review , 32(1): 81–111.
• –––, 1981a, “A Conception of Deductive Logical Competence”, Teaching Philosophy , 4(3/4): 337–385. doi:10.5840/teachphil198143/429
• –––, 1981b, “Eight Fallacies in Bloom’s Taxonomy”, in C. J. B. Macmillan (ed.), Philosophy of Education 1980: Proceedings of the Thirty-seventh Annual Meeting of the Philosophy of Education Society , Bloomington, IL: Philosophy of Education Society, pp. 269–273.
• –––, 1984, “Problems in Testing Informal Logic, Critical Thinking, Reasoning Ability”, Informal Logic , 6(1): 3–9. [ Ennis 1984 available online ]
• –––, 1987, “A Taxonomy of Critical Thinking Dispositions and Abilities”, in Joan Boykoff Baron and Robert J. Sternberg (eds.), Teaching Thinking Skills: Theory and Practice , New York: W. H. Freeman, pp. 9–26.
• –––, 1989, “Critical Thinking and Subject Specificity: Clarification and Needed Research”, Educational Researcher , 18(3): 4–10. doi:10.3102/0013189X018003004
• –––, 1991, “Critical Thinking: A Streamlined Conception”, Teaching Philosophy , 14(1): 5–24. doi:10.5840/teachphil19911412
• –––, 1996, “Critical Thinking Dispositions: Their Nature and Assessability”, Informal Logic , 18(2–3): 165–182. [ Ennis 1996 available online ]
• –––, 1998, “Is Critical Thinking Culturally Biased?”, Teaching Philosophy , 21(1): 15–33. doi:10.5840/teachphil19982113
• –––, 2011, “Critical Thinking: Reflection and Perspective Part I”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking across the Disciplines , 26(1): 4–18. doi:10.5840/inquiryctnews20112613
• –––, 2013, “Critical Thinking across the Curriculum: The Wisdom CTAC Program”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking across the Disciplines , 28(2): 25–45. doi:10.5840/inquiryct20132828
• –––, 2016, “Definition: A Three-Dimensional Analysis with Bearing on Key Concepts”, in Patrick Bondy and Laura Benacquista (eds.), Argumentation, Objectivity, and Bias: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA), 18–21 May 2016 , Windsor, ON: OSSA, pp. 1–19. Available at http://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive/OSSA11/papersandcommentaries/105 ; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• –––, 2018, “Critical Thinking Across the Curriculum: A Vision”, Topoi , 37(1): 165–184. doi:10.1007/s11245-016-9401-4
• Ennis, Robert H., and Jason Millman, 1971, Manual for Cornell Critical Thinking Test, Level X, and Cornell Critical Thinking Test, Level Z , Urbana, IL: Critical Thinking Project, University of Illinois.
• Ennis, Robert H., Jason Millman, and Thomas Norbert Tomko, 1985, Cornell Critical Thinking Tests Level X & Level Z: Manual , Pacific Grove, CA: Midwest Publication, 3rd edition.
• –––, 2005, Cornell Critical Thinking Tests Level X & Level Z: Manual , Seaside, CA: Critical Thinking Company, 5th edition.
• Ennis, Robert H. and Eric Weir, 1985, The Ennis-Weir Critical Thinking Essay Test: Test, Manual, Criteria, Scoring Sheet: An Instrument for Teaching and Testing , Pacific Grove, CA: Midwest Publications.
• Facione, Peter A., 1990a, Critical Thinking: A Statement of Expert Consensus for Purposes of Educational Assessment and Instruction , Research Findings and Recommendations Prepared for the Committee on Pre-College Philosophy of the American Philosophical Association, ERIC Document ED315423.
• –––, 1990b, California Critical Thinking Skills Test, CCTST – Form A , Millbrae, CA: The California Academic Press.
• –––, 1990c, The California Critical Thinking Skills Test--College Level. Technical Report #3. Gender, Ethnicity, Major, CT Self-Esteem, and the CCTST , ERIC Document ED326584.
• –––, 1992, California Critical Thinking Skills Test: CCTST – Form B, Millbrae, CA: The California Academic Press.
• –––, 2000, “The Disposition Toward Critical Thinking: Its Character, Measurement, and Relationship to Critical Thinking Skill”, Informal Logic , 20(1): 61–84. [ Facione 2000 available online ]
• Facione, Peter A. and Noreen C. Facione, 1992, CCTDI: A Disposition Inventory , Millbrae, CA: The California Academic Press.
• Facione, Peter A., Noreen C. Facione, and Carol Ann F. Giancarlo, 2001, California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory: CCTDI: Inventory Manual , Millbrae, CA: The California Academic Press.
• Facione, Peter A., Carol A. Sánchez, and Noreen C. Facione, 1994, Are College Students Disposed to Think? , Millbrae, CA: The California Academic Press. ERIC Document ED368311.
• Fisher, Alec, and Michael Scriven, 1997, Critical Thinking: Its Definition and Assessment , Norwich: Centre for Research in Critical Thinking, University of East Anglia.
• Freire, Paulo, 1968 [1970], Pedagogia do Oprimido . Translated as Pedagogy of the Oppressed , Myra Bergman Ramos (trans.), New York: Continuum, 1970.
• Gigerenzer, Gerd, 2001, “The Adaptive Toolbox”, in Gerd Gigerenzer and Reinhard Selten (eds.), Bounded Rationality: The Adaptive Toolbox , Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 37–50.
• Glaser, Edward Maynard, 1941, An Experiment in the Development of Critical Thinking , New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University.
• Groarke, Leo A. and Christopher W. Tindale, 2012, Good Reasoning Matters! A Constructive Approach to Critical Thinking , Don Mills, ON: Oxford University Press, 5th edition.
• Halpern, Diane F., 1998, “Teaching Critical Thinking for Transfer Across Domains: Disposition, Skills, Structure Training, and Metacognitive Monitoring”, American Psychologist , 53(4): 449–455. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.53.4.449
• –––, 2016, Manual: Halpern Critical Thinking Assessment , Mödling, Austria: Schuhfried. Available at https://pdfcoffee.com/hcta-test-manual-pdf-free.html; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• Hamby, Benjamin, 2014, The Virtues of Critical Thinkers , Doctoral dissertation, Philosophy, McMaster University. [ Hamby 2014 available online ]
• –––, 2015, “Willingness to Inquire: The Cardinal Critical Thinking Virtue”, in Martin Davies and Ronald Barnett (eds.), The Palgrave Handbook of Critical Thinking in Higher Education , New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 77–87.
• Haran, Uriel, Ilana Ritov, and Barbara A. Mellers, 2013, “The Role of Actively Open-minded Thinking in Information Acquisition, Accuracy, and Calibration”, Judgment and Decision Making , 8(3): 188–201.
• Hatcher, Donald and Kevin Possin, 2021, “Commentary: Thinking Critically about Critical Thinking Assessment”, in Daniel Fasko, Jr. and Frank Fair (eds.), Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Theory, Development, Instruction, and Assessment , Leiden: Brill, pp. 298–322. doi: 10.1163/9789004444591_017
• Haynes, Ada, Elizabeth Lisic, Kevin Harris, Katie Leming, Kyle Shanks, and Barry Stein, 2015, “Using the Critical Thinking Assessment Test (CAT) as a Model for Designing Within-Course Assessments: Changing How Faculty Assess Student Learning”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines , 30(3): 38–48. doi:10.5840/inquiryct201530316
• Haynes, Ada and Barry Stein, 2021, “Observations from a Long-Term Effort to Assess and Improve Critical Thinking”, in Daniel Fasko, Jr. and Frank Fair (eds.), Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Theory, Development, Instruction, and Assessment , Leiden: Brill, pp. 231–254. doi: 10.1163/9789004444591_014
• Hiner, Amanda L. 2021. “Equipping Students for Success in College and Beyond: Placing Critical Thinking Instruction at the Heart of a General Education Program”, in Daniel Fasko, Jr. and Frank Fair (eds.), Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Theory, Development, Instruction, and Assessment , Leiden: Brill, pp. 188–208. doi: 10.1163/9789004444591_012
• Hitchcock, David, 2017, “Critical Thinking as an Educational Ideal”, in his On Reasoning and Argument: Essays in Informal Logic and on Critical Thinking , Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 477–497. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-53562-3_30
• –––, 2021, “Seven Philosophical Implications of Critical Thinking: Themes, Variations, Implications”, in Daniel Fasko, Jr. and Frank Fair (eds.), Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Theory, Development, Instruction, and Assessment , Leiden: Brill, pp. 9–30. doi: 10.1163/9789004444591_002
• hooks, bell, 1994, Teaching to Transgress: Education as the Practice of Freedom , New York and London: Routledge.
• –––, 2010, Teaching Critical Thinking: Practical Wisdom , New York and London: Routledge.
• Johnson, Ralph H., 1992, “The Problem of Defining Critical Thinking”, in Stephen P, Norris (ed.), The Generalizability of Critical Thinking , New York: Teachers College Press, pp. 38–53.
• Kahane, Howard, 1971, Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric: The Use of Reason in Everyday Life , Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
• Kahneman, Daniel, 2011, Thinking, Fast and Slow , New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
• Kahneman, Daniel, Olivier Sibony, & Cass R. Sunstein, 2021, Noise: A Flaw in Human Judgment , New York: Little, Brown Spark.
• Kenyon, Tim, and Guillaume Beaulac, 2014, “Critical Thinking Education and Debasing”, Informal Logic , 34(4): 341–363. [ Kenyon & Beaulac 2014 available online ]
• Krathwohl, David R., Benjamin S. Bloom, and Bertram B. Masia, 1964, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook II: Affective Domain , New York: David McKay.
• Kuhn, Deanna, 1991, The Skills of Argument , New York: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511571350
• –––, 2019, “Critical Thinking as Discourse”, Human Development, 62 (3): 146–164. doi:10.1159/000500171
• Lipman, Matthew, 1987, “Critical Thinking–What Can It Be?”, Analytic Teaching , 8(1): 5–12. [ Lipman 1987 available online ]
• –––, 2003, Thinking in Education , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2nd edition.
• Loftus, Elizabeth F., 2017, “Eavesdropping on Memory”, Annual Review of Psychology , 68: 1–18. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-010416-044138
• Makaiau, Amber Strong, 2021, “The Good Thinker’s Tool Kit: How to Engage Critical Thinking and Reasoning in Secondary Education”, in Daniel Fasko, Jr. and Frank Fair (eds.), Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Theory, Development, Instruction, and Assessment , Leiden: Brill, pp. 168–187. doi: 10.1163/9789004444591_011
• Martin, Jane Roland, 1992, “Critical Thinking for a Humane World”, in Stephen P. Norris (ed.), The Generalizability of Critical Thinking , New York: Teachers College Press, pp. 163–180.
• Mayhew, Katherine Camp, and Anna Camp Edwards, 1936, The Dewey School: The Laboratory School of the University of Chicago, 1896–1903 , New York: Appleton-Century. [ Mayhew & Edwards 1936 available online ]
• McPeck, John E., 1981, Critical Thinking and Education , New York: St. Martin’s Press.
• Moore, Brooke Noel and Richard Parker, 2020, Critical Thinking , New York: McGraw-Hill, 13th edition.
• Nickerson, Raymond S., 1998, “Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises”, Review of General Psychology , 2(2): 175–220. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175
• Nieto, Ana Maria, and Jorge Valenzuela, 2012, “A Study of the Internal Structure of Critical Thinking Dispositions”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking across the Disciplines , 27(1): 31–38. doi:10.5840/inquiryct20122713
• Norris, Stephen P., 1985, “Controlling for Background Beliefs When Developing Multiple-choice Critical Thinking Tests”, Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice , 7(3): 5–11. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3992.1988.tb00437.x
• Norris, Stephen P. and Robert H. Ennis, 1989, Evaluating Critical Thinking (The Practitioners’ Guide to Teaching Thinking Series), Pacific Grove, CA: Midwest Publications.
• Norris, Stephen P. and Ruth Elizabeth King, 1983, Test on Appraising Observations , St. John’s, NL: Institute for Educational Research and Development, Memorial University of Newfoundland.
• –––, 1984, The Design of a Critical Thinking Test on Appraising Observations , St. John’s, NL: Institute for Educational Research and Development, Memorial University of Newfoundland. ERIC Document ED260083.
• –––, 1985, Test on Appraising Observations: Manual , St. John’s, NL: Institute for Educational Research and Development, Memorial University of Newfoundland.
• –––, 1990a, Test on Appraising Observations , St. John’s, NL: Institute for Educational Research and Development, Memorial University of Newfoundland, 2nd edition.
• –––, 1990b, Test on Appraising Observations: Manual , St. John’s, NL: Institute for Educational Research and Development, Memorial University of Newfoundland, 2nd edition.
• OCR [Oxford, Cambridge and RSA Examinations], 2011, AS/A Level GCE: Critical Thinking – H052, H452 , Cambridge: OCR. Past papers available at https://pastpapers.co/ocr/?dir=A-Level/Critical-Thinking-H052-H452; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• Ontario Ministry of Education, 2013, The Ontario Curriculum Grades 9 to 12: Social Sciences and Humanities . Available at http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/curriculum/secondary/ssciences9to122013.pdf ; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• Passmore, John Arthur, 1980, The Philosophy of Teaching , London: Duckworth.
• Paul, Richard W., 1981, “Teaching Critical Thinking in the ‘Strong’ Sense: A Focus on Self-Deception, World Views, and a Dialectical Mode of Analysis”, Informal Logic , 4(2): 2–7. [ Paul 1981 available online ]
• –––, 1984, “Critical Thinking: Fundamental to Education for a Free Society”, Educational Leadership , 42(1): 4–14.
• –––, 1985, “McPeck’s Mistakes”, Informal Logic , 7(1): 35–43. [ Paul 1985 available online ]
• Paul, Richard W. and Linda Elder, 2006, The Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking: Concepts and Tools , Dillon Beach, CA: Foundation for Critical Thinking, 4th edition.
• Payette, Patricia, and Edna Ross, 2016, “Making a Campus-Wide Commitment to Critical Thinking: Insights and Promising Practices Utilizing the Paul-Elder Approach at the University of Louisville”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines , 31(1): 98–110. doi:10.5840/inquiryct20163118
• Possin, Kevin, 2008, “A Field Guide to Critical-Thinking Assessment”, Teaching Philosophy , 31(3): 201–228. doi:10.5840/teachphil200831324
• –––, 2013a, “Some Problems with the Halpern Critical Thinking Assessment (HCTA) Test”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking across the Disciplines , 28(3): 4–12. doi:10.5840/inquiryct201328313
• –––, 2013b, “A Serious Flaw in the Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA) Test”, Informal Logic , 33(3): 390–405. [ Possin 2013b available online ]
• –––, 2013c, “A Fatal Flaw in the Collegiate Learning Assessment Test”, Assessment Update , 25 (1): 8–12.
• –––, 2014, “Critique of the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal Test: The More You Know, the Lower Your Score”, Informal Logic , 34(4): 393–416. [ Possin 2014 available online ]
• –––, 2020, “CAT Scan: A Critical Review of the Critical-Thinking Assessment Test”, Informal Logic , 40 (3): 489–508. [Available online at https://informallogic.ca/index.php/informal_logic/article/view/6243]
• Rawls, John, 1971, A Theory of Justice , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Rear, David, 2019, “One Size Fits All? The Limitations of Standardised Assessment in Critical Thinking”, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education , 44(5): 664–675. doi: 10.1080/02602938.2018.1526255
• Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, 1762, Émile , Amsterdam: Jean Néaulme.
• Scheffler, Israel, 1960, The Language of Education , Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
• Scriven, Michael, and Richard W. Paul, 1987, Defining Critical Thinking , Draft statement written for the National Council for Excellence in Critical Thinking Instruction. Available at http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/defining-critical-thinking/766 ; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• Sheffield, Clarence Burton Jr., 2018, “Promoting Critical Thinking in Higher Education: My Experiences as the Inaugural Eugene H. Fram Chair in Applied Critical Thinking at Rochester Institute of Technology”, Topoi , 37(1): 155–163. doi:10.1007/s11245-016-9392-1
• Siegel, Harvey, 1985, “McPeck, Informal Logic and the Nature of Critical Thinking”, in David Nyberg (ed.), Philosophy of Education 1985: Proceedings of the Forty-First Annual Meeting of the Philosophy of Education Society , Normal, IL: Philosophy of Education Society, pp. 61–72.
• –––, 1988, Educating Reason: Rationality, Critical Thinking, and Education , New York: Routledge.
• –––, 1999, “What (Good) Are Thinking Dispositions?”, Educational Theory , 49(2): 207–221. doi:10.1111/j.1741-5446.1999.00207.x
• Simon, Herbert A., 1956, “Rational Choice and the Structure of the Environment”, Psychological Review , 63(2): 129–138. doi: 10.1037/h0042769
• Simpson, Elizabeth, 1966–67, “The Classification of Educational Objectives: Psychomotor Domain”, Illinois Teacher of Home Economics , 10(4): 110–144, ERIC document ED0103613. [ Simpson 1966–67 available online ]
• Skolverket, 2018, Curriculum for the Compulsory School, Preschool Class and School-age Educare , Stockholm: Skolverket, revised 2018. Available at https://www.skolverket.se/download/18.31c292d516e7445866a218f/1576654682907/pdf3984.pdf; last accessed 2022 07 15.
• Smith, B. Othanel, 1953, “The Improvement of Critical Thinking”, Progressive Education , 30(5): 129–134.
• Smith, Eugene Randolph, Ralph Winfred Tyler, and the Evaluation Staff, 1942, Appraising and Recording Student Progress , Volume III of Adventure in American Education , New York and London: Harper & Brothers.
• Splitter, Laurance J., 1987, “Educational Reform through Philosophy for Children”, Thinking: The Journal of Philosophy for Children , 7(2): 32–39. doi:10.5840/thinking1987729
• Stanovich Keith E., and Paula J. Stanovich, 2010, “A Framework for Critical Thinking, Rational Thinking, and Intelligence”, in David D. Preiss and Robert J. Sternberg (eds), Innovations in Educational Psychology: Perspectives on Learning, Teaching and Human Development , New York: Springer Publishing, pp 195–237.
• Stanovich Keith E., Richard F. West, and Maggie E. Toplak, 2011, “Intelligence and Rationality”, in Robert J. Sternberg and Scott Barry Kaufman (eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 3rd edition, pp. 784–826. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511977244.040
• Tankersley, Karen, 2005, Literacy Strategies for Grades 4–12: Reinforcing the Threads of Reading , Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
• Thayer-Bacon, Barbara J., 1992, “Is Modern Critical Thinking Theory Sexist?”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines , 10(1): 3–7. doi:10.5840/inquiryctnews199210123
• –––, 1993, “Caring and Its Relationship to Critical Thinking”, Educational Theory , 43(3): 323–340. doi:10.1111/j.1741-5446.1993.00323.x
• –––, 1995a, “Constructive Thinking: Personal Voice”, Journal of Thought , 30(1): 55–70.
• –––, 1995b, “Doubting and Believing: Both are Important for Critical Thinking”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking across the Disciplines , 15(2): 59–66. doi:10.5840/inquiryctnews199515226
• –––, 2000, Transforming Critical Thinking: Thinking Constructively , New York: Teachers College Press.
• Toulmin, Stephen Edelston, 1958, The Uses of Argument , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Turri, John, Mark Alfano, and John Greco, 2017, “Virtue Epistemology”, in Edward N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2017 Edition). URL = < https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2017/entries/epistemology-virtue/ >
• Vincent-Lancrin, Stéphan, Carlos González-Sancho, Mathias Bouckaert, Federico de Luca, Meritxell Fernández-Barrerra, Gwénaël Jacotin, Joaquin Urgel, and Quentin Vidal, 2019, Fostering Students’ Creativity and Critical Thinking: What It Means in School. Educational Research and Innovation , Paris: OECD Publishing.
• Warren, Karen J. 1988. “Critical Thinking and Feminism”, Informal Logic , 10(1): 31–44. [ Warren 1988 available online ]
• Watson, Goodwin, and Edward M. Glaser, 1980a, Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal, Form A , San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
• –––, 1980b, Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal: Forms A and B; Manual , San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation,
• –––, 1994, Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal, Form B , San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
• Weinstein, Mark, 1990, “Towards a Research Agenda for Informal Logic and Critical Thinking”, Informal Logic , 12(3): 121–143. [ Weinstein 1990 available online ]
• –––, 2013, Logic, Truth and Inquiry , London: College Publications.
• Willingham, Daniel T., 2019, “How to Teach Critical Thinking”, Education: Future Frontiers , 1: 1–17. [Available online at https://prod65.education.nsw.gov.au/content/dam/main-education/teaching-and-learning/education-for-a-changing-world/media/documents/How-to-teach-critical-thinking-Willingham.pdf.]
• Zagzebski, Linda Trinkaus, 1996, Virtues of the Mind: An Inquiry into the Nature of Virtue and the Ethical Foundations of Knowledge , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139174763

How to cite this entry . Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society . Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO). Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers , with links to its database.

• Association for Informal Logic and Critical Thinking (AILACT)
• Critical Thinking Across the European Higher Education Curricula (CRITHINKEDU)
• Critical Thinking Definition, Instruction, and Assessment: A Rigorous Approach
• Critical Thinking Research (RAIL)
• Foundation for Critical Thinking
• Insight Assessment
• Partnership for 21st Century Learning (P21)
• The Critical Thinking Consortium
• The Nature of Critical Thinking: An Outline of Critical Thinking Dispositions and Abilities , by Robert H. Ennis

abilities | bias, implicit | children, philosophy for | civic education | decision-making capacity | Dewey, John | dispositions | education, philosophy of | epistemology: virtue | logic: informal

Copyright © 2022 by David Hitchcock < hitchckd @ mcmaster . ca >

• Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

• Info about mirror sites

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is copyright © 2024 by The Metaphysics Research Lab , Department of Philosophy, Stanford University

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

Critical thinking: enseñando a pensar de forma crítica

Este artículo en el que realizamos una aproximación al pensamiento crítico ( también podéis escucharlo en formato podcast ) es uno de los más leídos de nuestro blog. Por otro lado, la capacidad para pensar de forma crítica es una de las sofk skills más demandadas en la actualidad. A medida que avanzan la tecnología y la automatización aumenta la demanda de ciertas habilidades “humanas”, ¿y qué hay más humano que la capacidad de razonar y pensar?

Sin embargo, esta habilidad parece una de las más complejas de enseñar. Antes que nada, vamos a dar una breve definición de lo que es el critical thinking o pensamiento crítico.

Salah Khalil, nuestro invitado en el encuentro de Innova&acción que dedicamos al tema, definía el pensamiento crítico o critical thinking como:

“ Una herramienta o metodología de pensamiento (o forma de pensar) que nos permite asegurarnos de que estamos en lo cierto en cualquier situación y, por tanto, nos permite tomar las decisiones correctas en cada momento”

Una vez clarificado el concepto, trataremos de responder a las siguientes preguntas: ¿cómo podemos enseñar en las escuelas y universidades esta habilidad tan demandada como necesaria? ¿cómo podemos desarrollarla en un equipo de trabajo? ¿Qué cualidades debemos cultivar a título personal para mejorar nuestra capacidad para pensar críticamente?

10 + 1 cualidades que nos ayudarán a ser mejores pensadores

Todo pensador crítico posee una serie de habilidades o características. Como veréis a continuación, son cualidades sencillas y que, en mayor o menor medida, todos tenemos. Conocerlas nos permitirá prestarles una mayor atención y potenciarlas. Son estas:

La observación.  Es una de las primeras habilidades que desarrollamos en nuestra infancia. No es otra cosa que la capacidad de percibir y comprender el mundo que nos rodea documentando detalles y recopilando datos a través de nuestros sentidos.

La curiosidad . Tan propia de cuando somos niños. Debemos tratar de conservarla, lo máximo posible puesto que nos obliga a mantener una mente abierta lo que te lleva a un conocimiento más profundo de las cosas.

La objetividad . Centrarse en los hechos tratando de obviar los sentimientos. Basarse en la ciencia cuando sea posible. Ser conscientes de nuestros prejuicios y sesgos cognitivos.

Identificando sesgos. No solo deberemos reconocer nuestros propios sesgos e ideas preconcebidas, sino los de terceros.

Introspección. Pensar en cómo pensamos las cosas. Ser conscientes de nuestro grado de alerta y atención. Examinar nuestros pensamientos, sentimientos y sensaciones más íntimos. Autorreflexión.

Compasión y empatía. Para ser un buen pensador crítico, siempre debemos tener en cuenta el elemento humano. No todo lo que hacemos se trata de datos e información separados, también se trata de personas.

Humildad . La humildad es la voluntad de reconocer las deficiencias y ver los atributos positivos de una manera precisa. Cuando tienes humildad intelectual , estás abierto a los puntos de vista de otras personas, reconoces cuándo te equivocas y estás dispuesto a desafiar tus propias creencias cuando sea necesario.

No dependencia del status quo . El pensamiento crítico significa cuestionar las prácticas comerciales establecidas desde hace mucho tiempo y negarse a adherirse a los métodos tradicionales simplemente porque esa es la forma en que siempre se ha hecho.

Mente abierta. Los pensadores críticos evitan lanzarse a una discusión frenética o tomar partido: quieren escuchar todas las perspectivas. Los pensadores críticos no sacan conclusiones. Abordan una pregunta o situación con una mente abierta y aceptan otras opiniones y puntos de vista.

Comunicadores efectivos. La comunicación efectiva comienza con un proceso de pensamiento claro. Un pensador crítico efectivo debe ser capaz de transmitir sus ideas de una manera convincente y luego absorber las respuestas de los demás.

Oyentes activos. En lugar de ser un oyente pasivo durante una conversación o discusión, intentan activamente participar. Hacen preguntas para ayudarlos a distinguir los hechos de los supuestos. Recopilan información y buscan obtener información haciendo preguntas abiertas que profundizan en el tema.

Desarrollando el pensamiento crítico en nuestros equipos de trabajo

Tener un equipo de trabajo con la capacidad de pensar críticamente debería ser un objetivo a alcanzar para cualquier líder. Pero no es una tarea sencilla.  El motivo principal radica en la dificultad de evaluar de forma objetiva cómo piensa o razona una persona y en la propia complejidad del pensamiento humano.

A este respecto nos ha parecido muy interesante (y “fácil” de aplicar) el método que ha desarrollado el equipo de Zarvana y que puede servirnos de hoja de ruta para mejorar las habilidades de pensamiento crítico de un equipo de trabajo:

Este método divide el pensamiento crítico en cuatro fases medibles y consecutivas: la capacidad de ejecutar, la de sintetizar, la de recomendar y la de generar y establece una serie de preguntas para evaluar en qué fase se encuentra cada individuo. También nos da pautas sobre cómo podemos ayudarles si tienen dificultades en una determinada fase o como detectar cuándo han dominado una fase y están en disposición de pasar a la siguiente.

Fase 1: Ejecutar En esta primera fase, los miembros del equipo simplemente hacen lo que se les pide que hagan. Esto puede parecer muy sencillo, pero ya tiene algunas pinceladas de pensamiento crítico. Ejecutar implica que existe un razonamiento verbal y una cierta capacidad para resolver problemas o tomar pequeñas decisiones.

Para saber si un miembro de un equipo ha superado esta fase y puede volcarse en la siguiente, la respuesta a estas cuestiones debe ser afirmativa:

• ¿Completa  todas las  partes de sus tareas?
• ¿Las completa a tiempo?
• ¿Las completa en o cerca de su estándar de calidad?
• ¿Es capaz de realizar sugerencias sobre cómo mejorar su trabajo?

Si un miembro del equipo tiene dificultades aquí, lo que debemos hacer es asegurarnos de que entienden las instrucciones que les damos haciendo que las rearticule (nos las describa) antes de empezar. También es conveniente empezar con tareas más pequeñas con plazos inmediatos. Y una vez concluido el trabajo está bien que tengan que explicar lo que hicieron, cómo lo hicieron y por qué lo hicieron de una determinada manera y no de otra.

Fase 2: Sintetizar En esta fase, los miembros del equipo aprenden a clasificar la información que les llega y determinar qué es importante o relevante en cada situación.

Las preguntas que hay que hacerse son:

• ¿Pueden los miembros del equipo identificar  todas  las ideas importantes?
• ¿Excluyen  todas las  ideas sin importancia?
• ¿Evalúan con precisión la importancia relativa de las ideas importantes?
• ¿Pueden comunicar las ideas importantes de manera clara y sucinta?

La síntesis es una habilidad que, como cualquier otra, crece con la práctica. Algunas ideas para “entrenar” esta habilidad son:

• Que compartan sus conclusiones después de una llamada a un cliente o después de una reunión.
• Hacer ejercicios del estilo: si solo pudieras transmitir una idea cuál sería, si solo tuvieses 5 minutos como explicarías esto, si solo tuviéramos 500€ en qué los invertirías…

Se sabe que una persona está lista para pasar a la siguiente fase cuando puede proporcionar un resumen de las ideas e implicaciones importantes sobre un tema sin una preparación previa.

Fase 3: Recomendar En esta fase, los miembros del equipo pasan de identificar lo que es importante a determinar qué se debe hacer. Para evaluarlo deberemos hacernos las siguientes preguntas:

• ¿Suelen hacer recomendaciones o aportan posibles vías de acción?
• ¿Se muestran receptivos a los “peros” que surgen con respecto a sus ideas y recomendaciones?
• ¿Consideran alternativas antes de aterrizar en una recomendación?
• ¿Sus recomendaciones están respaldadas por un razonamiento fuerte y sensato?

Para incentivar la capacidad de recomendar de un equipo lo ideal es que el líder les pida que la den sin haber dado él la suya. También es conveniente pedir que razonen su recomendación y que compartan las alternativas que han considerado y por qué las han descartado. Es decir, cuáles eran las ventajas de una u otra opción y por qué se han decantado por una de ellas.

Los miembros del equipo están listos para pasar a la Fase 4 cuando hacen recomendaciones razonables que reflejan un buen juicio empresarial sobre el trabajo que no es suyo.

Fase 4: Generar En esta fase, los profesionales son capaces de crear algo de la nada. Por ejemplo, se dice que es necesario mejorar la formación que se da a quienes se incorporan al equipo y ellos crean un plan de formación. El progreso en esta fase se puede evaluar con estas preguntas:

• ¿Proponen un trabajo de alto valor y que no es “continuación” del trabajo que ya están haciendo?
• ¿Pueden convertir sus visiones y las de otros en planes factibles para hacer realidad esas visiones?
• ¿Pueden descubrir cómo responder preguntas que tiene, pero no sabe cómo responder?

Muchas personas no llegan a esta fase porque no se dan permiso para hacer el tipo de pensamiento abierto que requiere. Por tanto, aquí lo más efectivo es programar sesiones de lluvia de ideas o de innovación abierta y que los profesionales vean cómo otros “generan” ideas. Esto les servirá de inspiración y motivación.

También es beneficioso pedir a los miembros del equipo que vayan apuntando todas las ideas que se les vayan ocurriendo y permitirles que las compartan habitualmente. Si ven que sus ideas realmente son tenidas en cuenta este paso funcionará mejor.

La enseñanza y el pensamiento crítico

Por último, vamos a ver cómo se puede fomentar el pensamiento crítico desde las aulas. Con demasiada frecuencia los estudiantes se convierten en receptores pasivos de información. Veamos algunas técnicas para evitarlo.

• Hacer que los alumnos tengan un diario en el que cada día deban reflexionar sobre: ¿qué es lo más importante que has aprendido hoy en clase? ¿tienes alguna duda? ¿qué idea o ideas se han quedado fijadas en tu mente?
• Hacer que los alumnos trabajen de forma cooperativa. El aprendizaje grupal es muy bueno para aprender a pensar puesto que el apoyo y la retroalimentación constante con otros estudiantes nos lleva a enfrentarnos a distintos puntos de vista, a tener que argumentar, defender nuestra postura o a reconocer una buena idea (aunque no sea nuestra).
• Utilizar el método del caso. El profesor presenta un caso o historia sin conclusión y los alumnos tienen que ir haciendo preguntas y generando discusión y debate para saber qué es lo que ha pasado realmente.
• Hacer que los alumnos se cuestionen las cosas. Por ejemplo, cuando haya una lectura hacer que los estudiantes entreguen una serie de cuestiones que les hayan surgido, seleccionar algunas de ellas y lanzarlas al resto de la clase. O cuando finaliza una sesión dividirlos en pequeños grupos en los que puedan debatir y hacerse mutuamente preguntas sobre los aspectos que más les hayan impactado o sobre los que tengan dudas o quieran conocer otros puntos de vista.
• Pedir a los alumnos que lean antes sobre el tema que se va a tratar en clase previamente para elevar la capacidad de debate en el aula.
• Hacer que los alumnos analicen diálogos escritos o debates en vídeo : los distintos puntos de vista, los argumentos, cómo se ha llegado a una determinada conclusión…
• Pedir a los alumnos que redacten conclusiones sobre un tema abordado en clase o sobre una noticia de actualidad.
• Realizar en el aula juegos de roles o debates en los que a cada participante se le asigna una postura que debe defender. En este ejercicio puede resultar muy útil que algunos alumnos jueguen el rol de observadores cuya función será la de detectar sesgos y errores en el pensamiento, evaluando las habilidades de razonamiento y examinando las implicaciones éticas del contenido.
• Jugar con la ambigüedad . Brindar a los alumnos información contradictoria o con diversos matices para que saquen sus propias conclusiones. No dar a los alumnos una versión de los hechos como la única verdadera.

Algunas de estas técnicas o ideas podemos aplicarlas también en nuestras casas, con nuestros hijos o con nosotros mismos. Por ejemplo, podemos analizar un debate televisado, apuntar las cuestiones que nos vayan surgiendo cuando leemos un libro y luego buscar información u otros puntos de vista o llevar un diario en el que apuntemos las lecciones más importantes que vayamos aprendiendo en el día a día.

¿Te ha gustado? Compártenos:

Próximas actividades.

• Comunicación eficaz 8 agosto, 2024
• Encuentro 100 – Hackathon de intraemprendimiento 26 junio, 2024
• Inteligencia Artificial Generativa aplicada a la gestión de la innovación 14 junio, 2024
• Programa Completo Avanzado de Habilidades Financieras – PAHF 6 mayo, 2024
• Análisis Financiero- PAHF 1 4 mayo, 2024
• Finanzas modernas para la toma de decisiones – PAHF 2 2 mayo, 2024

Últimos artículos publicados

• Maximiza el potencial de tu equipo con el Test de Belbin 7 agosto, 2024
• Abordando los retos de tu empresa con pensamiento sistémico 7 junio, 2024
• Innova y haz crecer tu negocio con un buen plan mínimo viable de innovación 25 abril, 2024
• La Comunicación No Violenta puede cambiar nuestros entornos de trabajo 9 abril, 2024

Escribe aquí tu comentario Cancel Reply

Debes estar logueado para comentar el artículo. Puedes hacerlo justo debajo de este mensaje en el apartado de Accede. Ahí mismo podrás crear tu usuario si todavía no lo tienes.

¿Primera vez en la web?

Please enter your email address. Usted recibirá un enlace para crear una nueva contraseña via email.

Registrar | ¿Perdió su contraseña?

Plaza de Alfonso el Magnánimo 3, piso 7A, 46003 Valencia Tel: 963 21 50 21 Email: [email protected]

Política de privacidad - Aviso legal - Política de cookies

• Quiénes somos
• Club Innova&acción
• Encuentros Innova&acción
• Innova&acción Live
• Nuestros Hackathones
• Economía creativa
• CPI en acción
• Hackathones
• Programas formativos
• Formación a medida
• Proyectos a medida
• Busqueda de talento
• Videos y entrevistas
• KnowBox: recursos
• Atacama: observatorio de innovación

Contacto - Boletines - Aviso legal

Privacy Overview

Las cookies necesarias ayudan a hacer una página web utilizable activando funciones básicas como la navegación en la página y el acceso a áreas seguras de la página web. La página web no puede funcionar adecuadamente sin estas cookies.

• Resumen del producto
• Todas las funciones
• Último lanzamiento de funciones
• Integraciones con aplicaciones

CAPACIDADES

• project icon Gestión de proyectos
• Vistas del proyecto
• Campos personalizados
• Actualizaciones de estado
• goal icon Objetivos e informes
• Paneles de informes
• Portafolios
• workflow icon Flujos de trabajo y automatización
• Formularios
• portfolio icon Gestión de recursos
• Planificación de capacidad
• Gestión de recursos
• Seguimiento del tiempo
• my-task icon Administración y seguridad
• Consola del administrador
• asana-intelligence icon IA de Asana

TODOS LOS PLANES

• list icon Personal
• premium icon Starter
• briefcase icon Advanced
• Operaciones
• Gestión de objetivos
• Planificación organizacional
• Gestión de campañas
• Producción creativa
• Calendarios de contenido
• Planificación estratégica de marketing
• Planificación de recursos
• Recepción de proyectos
• Lanzamientos de productos
• Incorporación de empleados
• Ver todos los usos arrow-right icon
• Planes de proyectos
• Metas y objetivos del equipo
• Continuidad del equipo
• Agenda de reuniones
• Ver todas las plantillas arrow-right icon
• Recursos para la gestión del trabajo Descubre las mejores prácticas, mira los webinars, conoce los detalles
• Historias de clientes Descubre cómo las organizaciones más exitosas del mundo impulsan la innovación laboral con Asana
• Centro de ayuda Accede a muchos consejos, trucos y sugerencias para aprovechar Asana al máximo
• Academia Asana Regístrate en cursos interactivos y webinars para aprender más sobre Asana
• Desarrolladores Descubre cómo desarrollar aplicaciones en la plataforma de Asana
• Programas de la comunidad Conéctate con los clientes de Asana de todo el mundo y aprende de ellos
• Eventos Entérate de los próximos eventos cerca tuyo
• Socios Obtén más información sobre nuestros programas para socios
• Asistencia ¿Necesitas ayuda? Comunícate con el equipo de Asistencia de Asana
• Asana para organizaciones sin fines de lucro Obtén más información sobre nuestro programa de descuentos para organizaciones sin fines de lucro y completa la solicitud.

Lecturas destacadas

• Colaboración |
• Cómo desarrollar el pensamiento crítico ...

Cómo desarrollar el pensamiento crítico en 7 pasos (incluye ejemplos)

El pensamiento crítico es, justamente, crítico. Si desarrollas estas habilidades, mejorarás la capacidad de analizar la información para llegar a las mejores decisiones posibles. En este artículo, compartiremos los conceptos básicos del pensamiento crítico, como así también, los siete pasos necesarios para implementar el proceso de pensamiento crítico a pleno.

El pensamiento crítico implica hacer las preguntas correctas para llegar a la mejor conclusión posible. Los pensadores críticos exitosos analizan la información desde diferentes puntos de vista para luego determinar el curso de acción más apropiado.

No te preocupes si crees que no tienes buenas habilidades de pensamiento crítico. En este artículo te ayudaremos a desarrollar las bases del pensamiento crítico para que puedas comprender, analizar y tomar decisiones más informadas.

¿Qué es el pensamiento crítico?

El pensamiento crítico es la capacidad de recopilar y analizar información para llegar a una determinada conclusión. Esta habilidad es importante en prácticamente todo el mercado laboral y aplicable a una gran variedad de puestos de trabajo. Esto se debe a que el pensamiento crítico no se reduce a un tema específico, sino que se trata de la facultad para analizar información, datos, estadísticas y otros detalles para luego encontrar una solución satisfactoria.

Las 8 habilidades más importantes para el pensamiento crítico

Como la mayoría de las habilidades blandas, el pensamiento crítico no se aprende a través de un curso. Consiste más bien en una variedad de habilidades analíticas e interpersonales. Desarrollar el pensamiento crítico implica aprender a adoptar una postura abierta y flexible y aplicar el pensamiento analítico al proceso de encuadre de problemas .

A continuación te mostramos las ocho habilidades más importantes para un pensamiento crítico (sin un orden en particular):

Pensamiento analítico: Parte del pensamiento crítico implica analizar datos de diversas fuentes para poder llegar a las mejores conclusiones. El pensamiento analítico permite a las personas deshacerse de los prejuicios y esforzarse en recopilar y evaluar toda la información disponible para llegar a la mejor conclusión. 

Mentalidad abierta: Esta habilidad de pensamiento crítico implica dejar atrás los prejuicios personales para poder analizar y procesar toda la información y así llegar a una conclusión objetiva, respaldada por los datos. 

Resolución de problemas : El pensamiento crítico es una parte esencial de la resolución de problemas ya que implica llegar a una conclusión apropiada basada en toda la información disponible. Cuando se usa correctamente, el pensamiento crítico te ayuda a resolver cualquier problema, desde los desafíos en el trabajo hasta las dificultades que se presentan en la vida diaria. 

Autorregulación: La autorregulación se refiere a la capacidad de regular los pensamientos y dejar de lado los prejuicios personales para poder llegar a la conclusión más adecuada. Para desarrollar un pensamiento crítico, es importante cuestionar toda la información que tienes disponible y las decisiones que favoreces; solo entonces podrás llegar a la mejor conclusión. 

Observación: Esta habilidad ayuda a ver más allá de lo evidente. Para desarrollar un pensamiento crítico, debes tener puntos de vista diferentes y usar el sentido de la observación para identificar problemas potenciales.

Interpretación: Para desarrollar un pensamiento crítico es importante entender que no todos los datos se crean de la misma manera. Además de recopilar información, es importante determinar qué información es importante y relevante para cada situación. De esa forma, podrás sacar las mejores conclusiones de los datos recopilados. 

Evaluación: Las preguntas complejas rara vez tienen respuestas evidentes. Si bien el pensamiento crítico insiste en la necesidad de dejar de lado los prejuicios, es importante poder tomar una decisión con confianza en función de los datos disponibles. 

Comunicación: Una vez que se ha tomado una decisión, es importante poder compartirla con los demás involucrados. Las comunicaciones eficaces y claras en el trabajo comprenden presentar las pruebas que respalden la conclusión a la que has llegado, especialmente si hay varias soluciones posibles. 

Los 7 pasos para desarrollar un pensamiento crítico

El pensamiento crítico es una habilidad que puedes desarrollar siguiendo estos siete pasos. De esta manera, podrás asegurarte de que estás abordando un problema desde el ángulo correcto y que consideras todas las alternativas posibles para poder llegar a una conclusión objetiva.

Empecemos por el principio: cuándo se recomienda seguir los 7 pasos del proceso de pensamiento crítico

El proceso de pensamiento crítico involucra varias acciones, y no todas las decisiones deben ser pensadas con tanto cuidado. A veces, solo se necesita dejar de lado los prejuicios y abordar un proceso de manera lógica. En otros casos más complejos, la mejor manera de determinar el resultado ideal es pasar por todo el proceso de pensamiento crítico.

Los siete pasos del proceso de pensamiento crítico ayudan a tomar decisiones complejas en áreas poco conocidas. Asimismo, pueden ayudarte a abordar un problema con el que estás familiarizado pero desde un ángulo diferente, sin ningún prejuicio.

Si necesitas tomar una decisión menos compleja, considera una estrategia de resolución de problemas diferente. Las matrices de decisiones son una excelente manera de considerar la mejor opción entre diferentes alternativas. Te recomendamos consultar nuestro artículo sobre los 7 pasos para crear una matriz de decisiones .

1. Identifica el problema

Antes de poner en práctica el pensamiento crítico, primero debes identificar el problema que quieres resolver. Este paso incluye analizar el problema desde diferentes perspectivas y hacerse preguntas como:

¿Qué está sucediendo? 

¿Por qué está sucediendo? 

¿Qué suposiciones estoy haciendo? 

A simple vista, ¿cómo creo que podemos solucionar este problema? 

Una parte importante del desarrollo de las habilidades de pensamiento crítico es aprender a llegar a conclusiones objetivas. Para lograrlo, primero debes ser consciente de los sesgos que afectan tu pensamiento actual. ¿Alguien de tu equipo cree que sabe la respuesta? ¿Estás haciendo suposiciones que no son necesariamente ciertas? Reconocer estos detalles te ayudará durante el proceso.

2. Investiga

A esta altura, probablemente tengas un panorama general del problema. Sin embargo, para poder encontrar la mejor solución es importante investigar un poco más.

Durante el proceso de investigación, intenta recopilar información relacionada con el problema, incluidos datos, estadísticas, información sobre proyectos anteriores, comentarios del equipo y mucho más. Asegúrate de recopilar información de diversas fuentes, especialmente si esas fuentes presentan datos opuestos a tu opinión personal sobre la naturaleza del problema o sobre cómo resolverlo.

La recopilación de información variada es esencial para poder aplicar el proceso de pensamiento crítico. Si no obtienes suficiente información, tu capacidad para tomar una decisión final estará sesgada. Recuerda que el pensamiento crítico te ayuda a determinar la mejor conclusión objetiva. No se trata de seguir tu instinto, sino de realizar una investigación exhaustiva para poder encontrar la mejor opción.

3. Determina la relevancia de los datos

Así como es importante recopilar una variedad de información, también es importante determinar qué tan relevantes son las diversas fuentes de información. Después de todo, el hecho de que haya datos no significa precisamente que sean relevantes.

Una vez que hayas reunido toda la información, examínala detenidamente y determina qué datos son relevantes y cuáles no. Sintetizar toda esta información y determinar su importancia te ayudará con el proceso de evaluación de las diferentes fuentes para llegar a la mejor conclusión más adelante en el proceso de pensamiento crítico.

Para determinar la importancia de los datos, puedes hacerte las siguientes preguntas:

¿Qué tan confiable es esta información? 

¿Cuán importante es esta información? 

¿Esta información está actualizada? ¿Se especializa en un área en particular? 

4. Haz preguntas

Uno de los pasos más importantes del proceso de pensamiento crítico es la toma de decisiones objetivas. Para ello, debes dar un paso atrás durante el proceso y cuestionar las suposiciones que estás haciendo.

Todos tenemos prejuicios, y no necesariamente es algo malo. Los sesgos inconscientes (también conocidos como sesgos cognitivos) a menudo sirven como atajos mentales para simplificar la resolución de problemas y facilitar la toma de decisiones. Aun así, debes ser consciente de los prejuicios que tengas para poder dejarlos de lado cuando sea necesario.

Antes de encontrar una solución, pregúntate lo siguiente:

¿Estoy haciendo algún tipo de suposición sobre esta información? 

¿Hay otras variables que no he considerado? 

¿He evaluado la información desde todas las perspectivas? 

¿Hay algún punto de vista que no he considerado? 

5. Encuentra la mejor solución

Finalmente tienes todo listo para llegar a una conclusión. Para encontrar la mejor solución, establece una conexión entre la causa y el efecto. Usa los datos que has reunido para llegar a la conclusión más objetiva.

Ten en cuenta que puede haber más de una solución. A menudo, los problemas que enfrentas son complejos e intrincados. El proceso de pensamiento crítico no conduce necesariamente a una solución sencilla, sino que te ayuda a comprender las diferentes variables que existen para que puedas tomar una decisión informada.

6. Presenta tu solución

La comunicación es una habilidad esencial del pensamiento crítico. No es suficiente pensar por ti mismo, también es importante compartir las conclusiones con los demás participantes del proyecto. Si existen varias soluciones, preséntalas todas. Puede haber ocasiones en donde implementes una solución y la pruebes para ver si funciona antes de implementar otra solución.

7. Analiza tu decisión

Los siete pasos del proceso de pensamiento crítico conducen a un resultado. Luego será el momento de implementar esa solución. Una vez implementada, evalúa si fue efectiva o no. ¿Has podido resolver el problema inicial? ¿Qué lecciones —positivas o negativas— puedes aprender de esta experiencia para ser más crítico la próxima vez?

Dependiendo de cómo tu equipo comparta la información, considera documentar las lecciones aprendidas en una fuente centralizada de referencias. De esa manera, los miembros del equipo que deban tomar decisiones similares o relacionadas en el futuro comprenderán por qué tomaste determinada decisión y cuáles fueron los resultados.

Ejemplo de pensamiento crítico en el trabajo

Imagina que gestionas el equipo de Diseño de Experiencia del Usuario (UX). Tu equipo se centra en los precios y las ofertas y en garantizar que los clientes comprendan claramente los diferentes servicios que ofrece la empresa. A continuación, se explica cómo aplicar los siete pasos del proceso de pensamiento crítico:

Empieza por identificar el problema

La página de precios actual no está funcionando tan bien como quisieras. Algunos clientes te han comentado que los servicios ofrecidos no son claros y que la página no responde a sus preguntas. Esta página es muy importante para tu empresa, ya que es donde los clientes se registran para adquirir los servicios. El equipo tiene algunas teorías sobre por qué la página actual no funciona bien; sin embargo, deciden aplicar el proceso de pensamiento crítico para asegurarse de tomar la mejor decisión para la página.

Reúne información para poder entender cómo comenzó el problema

Parte de la identificación del problema incluye entender cómo surgió. La página de precios y ofertas es importante, por lo que seguramente la hayan planificado detenidamente antes de que el equipo la diseñara. Antes de evaluar cómo mejorar la página, hazte las siguientes preguntas:

¿Por qué se diseñó la página de precios de esa manera? 

¿Quiénes son las personas que deben participar en el proceso de toma de decisiones? 

¿Cuáles son algunos de los problemas de la página para los usuarios?

¿Hay alguna función que actualmente esté funcionando?

Luego, te pones a investigar

Además de comprender el historial de la página de precios y oferta, es importante comprender qué funciona bien. Parte de la investigación incluye analizar cómo se ven las páginas de precios de los competidores.

Hazte las siguientes preguntas:

¿Cómo han configurado sus páginas de precios los competidores?

¿Existen mejores prácticas para diseñar páginas de precios? 

¿Cómo influyen los colores, el posicionamiento y la animación en la navegación? 

¿Existe algún diseño estándar que los clientes esperan ver?

Organiza y analiza la información

Luego de recopilar toda la información que necesitas, debes organizarla y analizarla. ¿Qué tendencias, si las hay, has notado? ¿Existe alguna información relevante que debas considerar?

Haz preguntas abiertas para reducir los sesgos

Como parte del proceso de pensamiento crítico, es importante ser consciente de los prejuicios y dejarlos de lado tanto como sea posible. Para ello, pregúntate lo siguiente:

¿Estoy pasando algo por alto? 

¿Me he puesto en contacto con los participantes adecuados? 

¿Hay otros puntos de vista que deba considerar? 

Determina la mejor solución para tu equipo

Ya tienes toda la información que necesitas para diseñar la mejor página de precios. Dependiendo de la complejidad del diseño, considera la posibilidad de diseñar varias opciones para presentarlas a un grupo pequeño de clientes o realizar pruebas A/B en el sitio web activo.

Presenta tu solución a los participantes clave

El pensamiento crítico te ayudará en todos los aspectos de tu vida. Sin embargo, en el trabajo también debes involucrar a los participantes clave del proyecto ya que te ayudarán a determinar los próximos pasos, como por ejemplo, si debes realizar primero una prueba A/B en la página. Según la complejidad del problema, considera organizar una reunión o compartir un informe de estado para mantener a todos informados.

Analiza los resultados

Todos los procesos deben finalizar con una evaluación de los resultados. Luego de que la nueva página haya estado activa durante un tiempo, evalúa si funciona mejor que la página anterior. ¿Qué funcionó? ¿Qué salió mal? Esto también te ayudará a tomar mejores decisiones en el futuro.

Logra el éxito de manera crítica

Se necesita tiempo para desarrollar el pensamiento crítico. Sin embargo, con esfuerzo y paciencia puedes aplicar una mentalidad analítica e imparcial a cualquier situación. El pensamiento crítico constituye una de las muchas habilidades blandas que te convertirán en un miembro del equipo, gerente y trabajador eficiente. Si estás buscando desarrollar aún más tus habilidades, consulta nuestro artículo sobre las 25 habilidades esenciales de gestión de proyectos que necesitas para tener éxito .

Recursos relacionados

Más de 110 preguntas para romper el hielo y fortalecer el espíritu de equipo en el trabajo

Por qué contar con un plan claro de comunicaciones es mucho más importante de lo que crees

¿Cuáles son las etapas del desarrollo de un equipo?

La colaboración en el trabajo: 11 formas de incentivar el trabajo en equipo

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Working with sources
• What Is Critical Thinking? | Definition & Examples

What Is Critical Thinking? | Definition & Examples

Published on May 30, 2022 by Eoghan Ryan . Revised on May 31, 2023.

Critical thinking is the ability to effectively analyze information and form a judgment .

To think critically, you must be aware of your own biases and assumptions when encountering information, and apply consistent standards when evaluating sources .

Critical thinking skills help you to:

• Identify credible sources
• Evaluate and respond to arguments
• Assess alternative viewpoints
• Test hypotheses against relevant criteria

Table of contents

Why is critical thinking important, critical thinking examples, how to think critically, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about critical thinking.

Critical thinking is important for making judgments about sources of information and forming your own arguments. It emphasizes a rational, objective, and self-aware approach that can help you to identify credible sources and strengthen your conclusions.

Critical thinking is important in all disciplines and throughout all stages of the research process . The types of evidence used in the sciences and in the humanities may differ, but critical thinking skills are relevant to both.

In academic writing , critical thinking can help you to determine whether a source:

• Is free from research bias
• Provides evidence to support its research findings
• Considers alternative viewpoints

Outside of academia, critical thinking goes hand in hand with information literacy to help you form opinions rationally and engage independently and critically with popular media.

Scribbr Citation Checker New

The AI-powered Citation Checker helps you avoid common mistakes such as:

• Missing commas and periods
• Incorrect usage of “et al.”
• Ampersands (&) in narrative citations
• Missing reference entries

Critical thinking can help you to identify reliable sources of information that you can cite in your research paper . It can also guide your own research methods and inform your own arguments.

Outside of academia, critical thinking can help you to be aware of both your own and others’ biases and assumptions.

Academic examples

However, when you compare the findings of the study with other current research, you determine that the results seem improbable. You analyze the paper again, consulting the sources it cites.

You notice that the research was funded by the pharmaceutical company that created the treatment. Because of this, you view its results skeptically and determine that more independent research is necessary to confirm or refute them. Example: Poor critical thinking in an academic context You’re researching a paper on the impact wireless technology has had on developing countries that previously did not have large-scale communications infrastructure. You read an article that seems to confirm your hypothesis: the impact is mainly positive. Rather than evaluating the research methodology, you accept the findings uncritically.

Nonacademic examples

However, you decide to compare this review article with consumer reviews on a different site. You find that these reviews are not as positive. Some customers have had problems installing the alarm, and some have noted that it activates for no apparent reason.

You revisit the original review article. You notice that the words “sponsored content” appear in small print under the article title. Based on this, you conclude that the review is advertising and is therefore not an unbiased source. Example: Poor critical thinking in a nonacademic context You support a candidate in an upcoming election. You visit an online news site affiliated with their political party and read an article that criticizes their opponent. The article claims that the opponent is inexperienced in politics. You accept this without evidence, because it fits your preconceptions about the opponent.

There is no single way to think critically. How you engage with information will depend on the type of source you’re using and the information you need.

However, you can engage with sources in a systematic and critical way by asking certain questions when you encounter information. Like the CRAAP test , these questions focus on the currency , relevance , authority , accuracy , and purpose of a source of information.

When encountering information, ask:

• Who is the author? Are they an expert in their field?
• What do they say? Is their argument clear? Can you summarize it?
• When did they say this? Is the source current?
• Where is the information published? Is it an academic article? Is it peer-reviewed ?
• Why did the author publish it? What is their motivation?
• How do they make their argument? Is it backed up by evidence? Does it rely on opinion, speculation, or appeals to emotion ? Do they address alternative arguments?

Critical thinking also involves being aware of your own biases, not only those of others. When you make an argument or draw your own conclusions, you can ask similar questions about your own writing:

• Am I only considering evidence that supports my preconceptions?
• Is my argument expressed clearly and backed up with credible sources?
• Would I be convinced by this argument coming from someone else?

If you want to know more about ChatGPT, AI tools , citation , and plagiarism , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

• ChatGPT vs human editor
• ChatGPT citations
• Is ChatGPT trustworthy?
• Using ChatGPT for your studies
• What is ChatGPT?
• Chicago style
• Paraphrasing

 Plagiarism

• Types of plagiarism
• Self-plagiarism
• Avoiding plagiarism
• Academic integrity
• Consequences of plagiarism
• Common knowledge

Don't submit your assignments before you do this

The academic proofreading tool has been trained on 1000s of academic texts. Making it the most accurate and reliable proofreading tool for students. Free citation check included.

Try for free

Critical thinking refers to the ability to evaluate information and to be aware of biases or assumptions, including your own.

Like information literacy , it involves evaluating arguments, identifying and solving problems in an objective and systematic way, and clearly communicating your ideas.

Critical thinking skills include the ability to:

You can assess information and arguments critically by asking certain questions about the source. You can use the CRAAP test , focusing on the currency , relevance , authority , accuracy , and purpose of a source of information.

Ask questions such as:

• Who is the author? Are they an expert?
• How do they make their argument? Is it backed up by evidence?

A credible source should pass the CRAAP test  and follow these guidelines:

• The information should be up to date and current.
• The author and publication should be a trusted authority on the subject you are researching.
• The sources the author cited should be easy to find, clear, and unbiased.
• For a web source, the URL and layout should signify that it is trustworthy.

Information literacy refers to a broad range of skills, including the ability to find, evaluate, and use sources of information effectively.

Being information literate means that you:

• Know how to find credible sources
• Use relevant sources to inform your research
• Understand what constitutes plagiarism
• Know how to cite your sources correctly

Confirmation bias is the tendency to search, interpret, and recall information in a way that aligns with our pre-existing values, opinions, or beliefs. It refers to the ability to recollect information best when it amplifies what we already believe. Relatedly, we tend to forget information that contradicts our opinions.

Although selective recall is a component of confirmation bias, it should not be confused with recall bias.

On the other hand, recall bias refers to the differences in the ability between study participants to recall past events when self-reporting is used. This difference in accuracy or completeness of recollection is not related to beliefs or opinions. Rather, recall bias relates to other factors, such as the length of the recall period, age, and the characteristics of the disease under investigation.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

Ryan, E. (2023, May 31). What Is Critical Thinking? | Definition & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved August 12, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/working-with-sources/critical-thinking/

Is this article helpful?

Eoghan Ryan

Other students also liked, student guide: information literacy | meaning & examples, what are credible sources & how to spot them | examples, applying the craap test & evaluating sources, get unlimited documents corrected.

✔ Free APA citation check included ✔ Unlimited document corrections ✔ Specialized in correcting academic texts

• Agenda tu conferencia
• Testimonios
• SUSCRÍBETE AL NEWSLETTER

• Media Training

“CRITICAL THINKING”: Qué es el pensamiento crítico y cómo puedes ejercitarlo, por Daniel Colombo

Se trata de la posibilidad de pausar la acción y pensar. Líderes como Mark Zuckerberg (Facebook), Steve Jobs (Apple) o Bill Gates (Microsoft), tomaban frecuentemente semanas para pensar junto a sus empleados. Otros grandes promotores de esta herramienta son Michelle Obama con sus charlas inspiradoras, o Jack Dorsey, el fundador de Twitter, que dedica una media de diez horas por semana a pensar.

En lo cotidiano estamos viciados del pensamiento reflejo, y vamos perdiendo paulatinamente la capacidad crítica si no desafiamos al cerebro y todas sus funciones. De allí que el proceso del pensamiento crítico es altamente recomendable para organizaciones que quieren evolucionar y transformarse.

Estas herramientas también son esenciales en el desarrollo personal: el tomar tiempo con nosotros mismos, a solas, en reposo activo, pensando, trae un beneficio tangible desde donde se abre un universo de posibilidades y alternativas.

¿Por qué las conversaciones y el pensamiento crítico son esenciales en el mundo actual para obtener visiones alternativas? Porque nos permiten hacer análisis que van más allá de lo cuantificable, y, también, traducir esos diálogos en herramientas concretas de transformación.

La falta de tiempo para la gestión eficaz de los asuntos en la vida cotidiana; la sobre abundancia de reuniones innecesarias -se estima que más del 40% del tiempo en el trabajo se pierden en reuniones improductivas-, y la necesidad permanente de resultados, sumen a los ejecutivos y profesionales en una vorágine que los consume por dentro, incluso hasta niveles que derivan en el Sindrome de Burnout (“del quemado”), cuando ya no hay más capacidad para seguir adelante. En la perspectiva individual, despierta mayores herramientas de asertividad (“dar en la tecla”) de los asuntos más diversos, mis miradas sobre el mundo y el entorno directo; el punto donde me encuentro y adónde quiero llegar, entre múltiples alternativas.

En las empresas y organizaciones de todo tipo, abrir espacios reflexivos, desconectados del pensamiento cotidiano; en lugares variados; facilitados en lo posible por coaches y neurocoaches entrenados en esta disciplina, provocan excelentes resultados en un corto plazo. Entre ellos, aumenta la empatía, se viven los asuntos con mayor profundidad -no sólo en la superficie-, contribuye a mejoras sustanciales en la interacción humana, se estimula la creatividad y la innovación; mayor relax, volver al enfoque de lo esencial; soltar lo accesorio; reconectar con el ser y el rol que expresa cada persona a través de su obra y su trabajo, y promueve la comunicación entre los equipos.

• Una definición, múltiples aplicaciones

Desde una perspectiva formal y encuadre educativo, el pensamiento crítico es un proceso de gestión del conocimiento (lo cognitivo), direccionado e intencionado para poder examinar nuestro propio esquema de pensamiento. El objetivo es ayudar a generar insights, respuestas, despejar el campo, impulsar miradas internas, análisis y reflexiones que aún no han salido a la luz, y que, en forma de creencias, paradigmas, preconceptos, prejuicios, suelen entorpecer el desarrollo individual y organizacional.

Es muy frecuente que, en los entrenamientos individuales y grupales con herramientas de coaching, e incluso en dinámicas de team building, se detecten rápidamente de diversas formas los puntos críticos en la red de relaciones en la que nos movemos los seres humanos. Y desde allí, utilizando el pensamiento crítico como una de las herramientas -no la única-, se invita a la reflexión sobre aspectos que, de no tener el espacio del pensamiento crítico, pasarían desapercibidos, o quedarían sólo como expresiones verbales, gestuales, o ni siquiera eso: serían “lo no dicho” subyacente en el proceso de la comunicación.

Si bien el pensamiento crítico está presente siempre en la actividad de los ejecutivos y organizaciones, muchas veces sucede que se lo utiliza erróneamente. Estar concentrados todo el tiempo en lo erróneo de las cosas, en la crítica sin una mirada individual, grupal y corporativa, nos aleja de los objetivos. No nos acerca. El “critical thinking” permite tender un puente de entendimiento, para considerar los asuntos desde mi individualidad hacia el entorno. También se aprende a expresarlo de manera asertiva, y deriva frecuentemente en una construcción muy valiosa de un nuevo mundo de diálogo y conversaciones que enriquecen a todos los protagonistas y destinatarios. El "critical thinking"es un proceso reflexivo activo.

Lo ideal es identificar al menos dos o tres momentos del día en que se instrumente pensamiento crítico, hasta adquirir la destreza de instalar la herramienta dentro del resto de las estrategias que se llevan adelante; por ejemplo, los que lideran proyectos complejos pueden hacerlo luego instintivamente. A veces depende de una intervención corta en distintos momentos del día -por ejemplo, tomando tres espacios de 30 minutos cada uno-; o bien, en un entrenamiento más consistente hasta lograr la pregnancia necesaria de la herramienta, sería conveniente hacerlo sistematizadamente durante al menos 6 meses, con un programa de pensamiento crítico -por ejemplo, en cada reunión de directorio-. En mi experiencia produce beneficios prácticamente de inmediato.

Luego, el “moldear” nuestro sistema de pensamiento adoptando los aportes positivos del pensar críticamente, empieza a construir prácticamente al infinito.

Para entender los alcances, el modelo sistémico de incluye y contempla, sin excepción, estas siete dimensiones en su estructura:

• Claridad: Modo en que se expresa la idea / propuesta.
• Exactitud: Grado en que la estructura empleada tiene coherencia con las decisiones a tomar y la realidad del momento.
• Precisión: La construcción o propuesta debe ser ajustada a los conocimientos.
• Pertenencia o relevancia: Entorno en el que se trata el tema.
• Profundidad: Cuando el nivel de análisis, investigación y explicación se encuentra lo suficientemente cuidado.
• Amplitud: Extensión del planteamiento (hasta dónde o qué tan profundo es necesario llegar para lograr lo que nos planteamos).
• Lógica: Argumentación (aplicación de una lógica del pensamiento, donde no se inhibe lo diferente, aunque se lo ayuda a encuadrarlo y bajarlo a la realidad, apuntando a un resultado más concreto, rápido -en términos de un plazo concreto- y tangible).
• Poniéndolo en práctica, en la vida y en el trabajo

- Durante 3 meses corridos, todos los días, dedíquese 15 minutos al final del día y anote pensamientos recurrentes que tuvo durante el día. Categorícelos y priorícelos. Descarte los que pueda. Reordene la lista. Escriba el antónimo, lo opuesto de cada pensamiento crítico. Observe su estado emocional. Detecte desde qué lado está reaccionado (por ejemplo, desde su lado emocional, o racional). Registre al menos 3 acciones concretas para avanzar poniendo en perspectiva su pensamiento crítico principal de la jornada. Agende estas acciones y conclúyalas -o avance significativamente en ese rumbo- en las siguientes 48 horas.

- Cuando se siente invadido por la dispersión, que nubla su posibilidad de ponerse en pausa y dedicarse al pensamiento crítico: Deténgase de inmediato. Visualice un punto negro pequeño pegado en lo alto de una pared de fondo blanco. Mire la situación como si usted “fuese” ese punto negro. ¿Qué ve? ¿Qué siente? ¿Qué aroma tiene el asunto? ¿Qué palabras escucha? ¿Qué gestos le llaman la atención? ¿Cómo está usted en ese momento? ¿Cómo se expresan sus ideas? ¿Qué se dice internamente? ¿Qué se censura internamente? ¿Para qué actúa de esa forma y dónde lo lleva este comportamiento? ¿Se siente plenamente seguro de lo que razona, piensa y siente? ¿Hay algo que facilitaría salir de la zona de pensamiento crítico negativo de inmediato? ¿Qué haría? ¿Qué posición le gustaría tomar? (por ejemplo, visualizar que está frente a frente a determinada persona implicada en el caso). ¿Cómo piensa mentalmente que planteará su punto de vista? ¿Y si lo plantea enlazando el punto de vista del otro, y crea una propuesta superadora? Siéntase libre de procesar en su CT tantos “y qué tal si…” como le surjan). Hágalo. Obsérvese a usted mismo desde la perspectiva del punto negro en la pared. Y luego, desde el lugar real donde está. ¿Cómo se siente? ¿Cómo se expresa? ¿Qué resultado concreto obtiene?

- Técnica para “aprender a pensar”: tómese en soledad o en grupo un tiempo de al menos media hora sin interrupciones de ningún tipo. No se permiten los celulares o cortar el proceso por ningún motivo. Coloque música tranquila y calma. Si es posible, baje un poco la iluminación del lugar. Tome consciencia de su respiración: sólo se necesita el entrar y salir del aire, sin presión ni dificultad. Cierre los ojos. Obsérvese de pies a cabeza con su visualización creativa. Ahora, vuelva a recorrerse desde los dedos de la mano hasta la extremidad inferior de ese mismo lado; luego, cambie de pie y comience a subir respirando e imaginándose hasta llegar a la punta de sus dedos de esa mano. “Vea” el problema a resolver en un gran cartel; imagínelo con todo detalle. Póngale colores, texturas, aromas, emociones, sentimientos. Tome un borrador mental y cámbiele la tonalidad, la textura, el aroma, por un panorama más agradable y libre de obstáculos. Está visualizando; no hay nada que temer. Obsérvese en esa situación. ¿Cómo se siente? ¿Cómo están sus músculos faciales? ¿Cómo se siente: el capitán o el marinero de un gran barco? ¿Cómo puede evaluar esta experiencia, desde esta observación que está teniendo? ¿De qué forma internamente fluyen las imágenes? Tome consciencia de su participación en el problema que quiere resolver o sobre el cual tiene CT negativos o necesita mayor claridad. “Escriba” mentalmente las tres formas positivas de abordarlo, a partir de la “foto mental positiva” que acaba de construir. Lentamente, abra los ojos, mueva el cuerpo suavemente, y regrese al presente en su entorno. Tome papel y lápiz y escriba las tres palabras en tamaño destacado, separadas una de otras. Desarrolle debajo, las tres ideas principales que surgen ahora sobre cada punto de los escritos. Luego, de esas 3 ideas que acaban de surgir, derive otras 3 ideas -enfocándose ahora en la implementación concreta del caso a resolver o llevar adelante-. Complete el ejercicio con la regla de 3 x 3 x 3 con cada una de las 3 palabras que surgieron en su visualización de mindfulness (mente plena, en presente). Dedíquese tiempo a releer el material, y a ordenarlo en un plan concreto de 3 próximos pasos globales inmediatos, 3 a mediano plazo y 3 a largo plazo (nuevamente, 3 x 3 x 3). Establezca un acuerdo de fechas y medición de cumplimiento, tanto de su parte como del equipo que necesita involucrarse). Mida permanentemente, corrija los desvíos, y vuelva a enfocarse en la meta 3 x 3 x 3.

Daniel Colombo

Facilitador y Máster Coach Ejecutivo especializado en alta gerencia, profesionales y equipos; mentor y comunicador profesional; conferencista internacional; autor de 32 libros. LinkedIn Top Voice América Latina. Coach certificado por ICF (máximo nivel ACTP) y coach, conferencista y Miembro de John Maxwell Team. 

www.danielcolombo.com

Linkedin.com/in/danielcolombo

Instagram: daniel.colombo

YouTube.com/DanielColomboComunidad

www.facebook.com/DanielColomboComunidad

Twitter @danielcolombopr

Podcast en Spotify y en Wetoker, iTunes, TN y Google Podcast.

Mis libros en Amazon

🎤 Para contratar a Daniel como Speaker click aquí  

Facilitador y Máster Coach Ejecutivo, Mentor y Motivador experto en CEOs, alta gerencia, profesionales y equipos. Speaker-Conferencista internacional. Comunicador profesional. Experto en Oratoria y Media-Training.

Es autor de 32 libros incluyendo best-sellers traducidos a varios idiomas, y de más de 11 ebooks. Su trabajo ha llegado a +1 millón de personas entrenadas. Como conferencista, +1300 exposiciones en 18 países.

Ha sido reconocido como LinkedIn Top Voices América Latina por la mayor red social profesional del mundo, y como “Mentor Honorífico” por la Red Global de Mentores. Miembro Certificado y Mentor de Maxwell Leadership de John Maxwell (antes John Maxwell Team). Coach Profesional Certificado por ICF (Internacional Coaching Federation) en el máximo nivel, ACTP.

Suscríbete a mi canal de YouTube: www.youtube.com/danielcolombocomunidad/

También puedes suscribirte sin costo a mi podcast “Liderazgo y Motivación”: https://open.spotify.com/show/0fyq5btVdjmsN75YrlS3x8?si=8bf443dc8d654098

Contáctame aquí por Conferencias y Charlas, Motivación de equipos, Cursos, Liderazgo, Coaching práctico para empresas; Seminarios, Workshops y Talleres diseñados a medida. Capacitaciones in/out Company. Outdoors y Teambuilding. Facilito de Procesos de Cambio individuales y corporativos 1-to-1 presencial y a distancia.

También te puede interesar

Deja un comentario (Por favor no ingreses links en el mismo, no serán activados) Cancelar la respuesta

Tu dirección de correo electrónico no será publicada. Los campos obligatorios están marcados con *

Guarda mi nombre, correo electrónico y web en este navegador para la próxima vez que comente.

¿Te sirven mis contenidos?

E-books y libros en papel.

CriticalThinking.NET

thinking in practice

What is critical thinking?

How can we define critical thinking? 

Critical thinking is reasonable reflective thinking focused on deciding what to believe or do. 

A brief conception is below. For a longer definition, please see  long definition . A BRIEF CONCEPTION OF CRITICAL THINKING A critical thinker: 1. Is  open-minded  and mindful of  alternatives 2. Desires to be, and is,  well-informed 3. Judges well the  credibility of sources 4. Identifies  reasons ,  assumptions , and  conclusions 5. Asks appropriate  clarifying questions 6. Judges well the  quality of an argument , including its  reasons ,  assumptions ,  evidence , and their  degree of support for the conclusion 7. Can well  develop and  defend a reasonable position  regarding a belief or an action, doing justice to challenges 8.  Formulates plausible hypotheses 9. Plans and conducts  experiments  well 10.  Defines terms  in a way appropriate for the context 11.  Draws conclusions  when warranted – but with caution 12.  Integrates  all of the above aspects of critical thinking  Last revised 11/26/10 

(Note that this conception of critical thinking is not negative. It is also not mere persuasion, though critical thought will often be persuasive — but perhaps not often enough – the challenge of this century.)

Developed (revised 11/26/10) by Robert H. Ennis, Professor Emeritus, Univ. of Illinois. [email protected]

• Entrevistas
• Recomendaciones

Critical Thinking: aprender a cuestionarse la información

• Por Ingrid Mosquera Gende

Ingrid Mosquera Gende

Profesora adjunta en la Universidad Internacional de La Rioja. Dpto. Inglés. Facultad de Educación. Doctora en filología inglesa. DEA en Psicología de la Educación. Postgrados en Alteraciones de la Audición y el Lenguaje y en Estrategias de Aprendizaje. Máster en Docencia Universitaria.

Continuando en la línea de mi anterior post sobre gamificación , hoy deseo poner en cuestión la novedad del llamado Critical Thinking . De nuevo, en vez de juego, gamificación, en vez de correr, running…. pero, en este caso, ¿qué es lo que teníamos en vez de Critical Thinking ? ¿y en qué consiste el Critical Thinking ?

Desde hace años, se viene indicando la necesidad de que los alumnos aprendan a aprender, hace ya mucho tiempo que la información está en la red, disponible para todos y, por lo tanto, no resulta tan importante el contenido cómo la forma de acceder a él y la capacidad de distinguir lo fundamental de lo accesorio , lo real de lo inventado o las fuentes fiables de las no fiables. Es decir, el estudiante tiene toda la información en internet, pero debe saber buscarla, discernir y decidir sobre su relevancia, para ser capaz de escoger la adecuada, de un modo crítico.

El Critical Thinking , o pensamiento crítico, supone el desarrollo de diferentes habilidades en los alumnos , entre otras, ser capaz de:

• Reflexionar
• Formular preguntas
• Discernir la fiabilidad de fuentes

En esta ocasión, no considero que se esté añadiendo gran contenido a una idea ya existente. Creo que se le está dando un nombre anglosajón, lo que lo hace más atractivo, y pienso que, quizás, en este caso, para lo que sirve esta nueva metodología es para aunar y aglutinar diferentes ideas y pinceladas que se encontraban presentes en la mente de muchos docentes, sin llegar a conceptualizarse y sistematizarse.

Además de eso, estimo que la aportación más interesante del Thinking hace referencia a ofrecer ideas sobre cómo desarrollar esa actitud crítica y esa reflexión en nuestros estudiantes desde el aula. En este sentido, algunas indicaciones al respecto suponen que el profesor debe:

• Promover la reflexión con preguntas abiertas y hacer que los alumnos se cuestionen el contenido . No hay que creer todo lo que se lee y no todo lo que se nos explica tiene que ser blanco o negro, existen tonos intermedios. Mediante actividades de búsqueda de contenido, por ejemplo, se les puede ayudar a distinguir entre la objetividad y la subjetividad en las informaciones, así como a discernir su relevancia y la fiabilidad de las fuentes.
• Crear un ambiente motivador en el que el alumno desee aprender, despertando su interés e incentivando su curiosidad, al mismo tiempo que se fomenta su creatividad e imaginación.
• Conducir a los alumnos hacia su propio aprendizaje, favoreciendo su autonomía y actuando como intermediarios y no como transmisores de contenido, como guías hacia la construcción de su propio conocimiento.
• Colaborar en el autoconocimiento de los alumnos , ayudándoles a aprender a aprender y a aprender a pensar. No todos los estudiantes tienen los mismos estilos de aprendizaje ni las mismas estrategias o técnicas. Debemos ayudarles a encontrar su propio camino hacia el aprendizaje. Al mismo tiempo, desarrollarán los sentimientos de empatía y tolerancia, implementando la colaboración y la cooperación entre los estudiantes, así como su capacidad de superación de la frustración y del estrés, mediante el autoconocimiento, destacando la importancia de ser positivo y abierto ante nuevos retos y dificultades que se les presenten en la vida, tanto personales como laborales.

Como ejemplos concretos para el aula , se aportan, entre otras, ideas como:

• Contrastar noticias actuales procedentes de diversos medios, viendo distintos programas de televisión o escuchando diferentes programas de radio – para comparar puntos de vista y enfoques.
• Establecer debates sobre temas de actualidad e interés para los alumnos – para promover la tolerancia, la empatía, el debate, la escucha activa y el respeto por opiniones diferentes a las propias.
• Analizar páginas web y otras fuentes – comparando referencias, siendo capaces de valorar su importancia y credibilidad.
• Definir términos y presentar contenidos oralmente por parte de los alumnos – para crear y construir un contenido propio de calidad, aportando ideas, redactando y explicando de forma adecuada, sea por escrito o de forma oral.
• Preparar preguntas de examen por parte de los estudiantes – para involucrarlos en su propio aprendizaje, haciéndolos partícipes del mismo, promoviendo la autoevaluación y la valoración del contenido proporcionado, distinguiendo lo principal de lo secundario.
• Analizar imágenes, fotos o lenguaje no verbal – para desarrollar diferentes estilos de aprendizaje y conocer diferentes estrategias de estudio, acercándoles el arte y haciéndoles conscientes de que el aprendizaje no solo se produce a través de la palabra.
• Usar metodologías como el aprendizaje cooperativo , la clase invertida, la resolución de problemas o el aprendizaje por proyectos – para fomentar el diálogo, el debate, el aprendizaje por descubrimiento y la autonomía.

Creo que el fin último de cualquier metodología hoy en día debe ser la autonomía . Esa es la pieza fundamental que falta en el puzzle, los alumnos de hoy estudian para profesiones que aún no existen . Por lo tanto, no deberían estudiar para ellas, deberían prepararse para ellas, prepararse para lo impredecible y lo novedoso, sin hundirse al enfrentarse a nuevos retos y a adversidades. Eduquemos a los alumnos para la vida real , una vida que aún no sabemos cómo va a ser, eduquémoslos y preparémoslos para lo impredecible y proporcionémosles las herramientas para un aprendizaje continuo, autónomo y equilibrado.

Related Posts

Comentarios(11).

Me gustaron muchos de sus articulos, y siempre he pensado ue las enseñanza no tiene techo, este se lo coloca el docente y con esto encierra entre cuatro paredes al estudiante. le propongo ue estudie el caso de la aplicacion de las metodologias(usadas para resolucion de conflictos) como la open space que resultaria atractiva para los estudiantes ante la posibilidad de resolver un problem ue se le plantee como por ejemplo como les gustaria aprender ingles con sus moviles, como lo resolverian. los estudiantes buscaran y sus presentaciones deberan ahacerlas en ingles.

Me alegra escucharlo Olga, gracias a ti!

Muchas gracias tus ejemplos para el aula, me sirven de guia.

Muchas gracias por vuestras felicitaciones y por mejorar el post con vuestras aportaciones!

Anécdotas: Cuando yo era pequeña en Bs. As. llevábamos a clase los BILLIKEN, (revista en la que aparecían temas y entretenimientos para todas las edades) también figuras relacionadas con el tema que tratábamos en clase, y con ellas o recortes de interés de esa revista, adornábamos nuestros cuadernos. Los libros eran manuales desprovistos de broza, en los que aparecían los conceptos que debíamos aprender. Los ejercicios los planteaba la maestra en la pizarra de la clase y allí los resolvíamos o los copiábamos en nuestros cuadernos. Mis hijos recibieron por correo muchos ejemplares de Billiken y como asistían al colegio alemán de Valencia, en sus tardes libres y sin deberes, leían, recortaban, pintaban, etc, lo que les interesaba de esas revistas. Con 4 años de diferencia de edad, cada uno encontraba algo de su interés e incluso, algo con lo que ambos podían entretenerse. No recuerdo en que año, apareció en Valencia una revista similar. Dejaron de editarla porque pocos la comprábamos. Luego los domingos, apareció el Minipaís. Yo los coleccionaba, los empleaba en mi gabinete Letrasfon y regalaba algún artículo a quien le interesase. Cuando desmantelé el gabinete se los ofrecí de regalo a quien vino en busca de mobiliario escolar y material didáctico. Cristina eligió casi todo lo prefabricado con material casero y su niño reemplazó muchas horas de tablet por las hojas de los MINIPAIS …….

Muchas gracias por los comentarios que enriquecen más la publicación!!

De hecho, el rol fundamental del docente en la actualidad ya no es llenar de conocimientos, porque todo está en internet, por lo que debemos proporcionar estrategias de aprendizaje. Muy interesante.

muy interesante esta metodologia que hioy, los niños deben de manejar para un mejor desarrollo de su personalidad. agradecido por su innvitacion.

Me ha encantado :) me parece que fomentar esas capacidades en los/as niños/as es útil, interesante y necesario! Un saludo y enhorabuena por el post y por el blog!

Muchísimas gracias! Me alegra mucho que te haya gustado!

Felicitaciones por tan excelentes aportes a la educación.

Deja un comentario Cancelar respuesta

(*) Campos obligatorios

Marca aquí para suscribirte a los avisos de nuevas entradas

Pensamiento Crítico: ¿Qué es y por qué es importante?

• January 2015

• Measured Reasons LLC & Insight Assessment

Discover the world's research

• 25+ million members
• 160+ million publication pages
• 2.3+ billion citations
• Diana Lozano

• Nahyr Remolina de Cleves
• Carlos Ermel Bourne Gastezzi
• Héctor Betancur Giraldo
• Érika Cecilia Valderrama-Henao
• Andrés Felipe Marín-Pulgarín
• Marta Isabel Canese de Estigarribia

• Rodrigo Antonio
• Landabur Ayala
• Sonia Mireya
• Chaves Romero
• Luis Alejandro González Cabrera
• Benavente Ramírez Eustorgio Godoy
• Castro Granados Doris

• Heraldi F. Torres
• Sonia Torres Ladino
• Claudia Lengua-Cantero
• Manuel Caro-Piñeres
• Jairo Montero Pérez
• John Esterle
• M Rubenfeld
• Carole Wade
• Pensamiento Asociación Filosófica Americana
• P A Facione
• N C Facione
• Noreen C Facione
• Harvey Siegel
• Arthur L Costa
• Kahneman Daniel
• Stephen D Brookfield
• Recruit researchers
• Join for free
• Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up

41+ Critical Thinking Examples (Definition + Practices)

Critical thinking is an essential skill in our information-overloaded world, where figuring out what is fact and fiction has become increasingly challenging.

But why is critical thinking essential? Put, critical thinking empowers us to make better decisions, challenge and validate our beliefs and assumptions, and understand and interact with the world more effectively and meaningfully.

Critical thinking is like using your brain's "superpowers" to make smart choices. Whether it's picking the right insurance, deciding what to do in a job, or discussing topics in school, thinking deeply helps a lot. In the next parts, we'll share real-life examples of when this superpower comes in handy and give you some fun exercises to practice it.

Critical Thinking Process Outline

Critical thinking means thinking clearly and fairly without letting personal feelings get in the way. It's like being a detective, trying to solve a mystery by using clues and thinking hard about them.

It isn't always easy to think critically, as it can take a pretty smart person to see some of the questions that aren't being answered in a certain situation. But, we can train our brains to think more like puzzle solvers, which can help develop our critical thinking skills.

Here's what it looks like step by step:

Spotting the Problem: It's like discovering a puzzle to solve. You see that there's something you need to figure out or decide.

Collecting Clues: Now, you need to gather information. Maybe you read about it, watch a video, talk to people, or do some research. It's like getting all the pieces to solve your puzzle.

Breaking It Down: This is where you look at all your clues and try to see how they fit together. You're asking questions like: Why did this happen? What could happen next?

Checking Your Clues: You want to make sure your information is good. This means seeing if what you found out is true and if you can trust where it came from.

Making a Guess: After looking at all your clues, you think about what they mean and come up with an answer. This answer is like your best guess based on what you know.

Explaining Your Thoughts: Now, you tell others how you solved the puzzle. You explain how you thought about it and how you answered. 

Checking Your Work: This is like looking back and seeing if you missed anything. Did you make any mistakes? Did you let any personal feelings get in the way? This step helps make sure your thinking is clear and fair.

And remember, you might sometimes need to go back and redo some steps if you discover something new. If you realize you missed an important clue, you might have to go back and collect more information.

Critical Thinking Methods

Just like doing push-ups or running helps our bodies get stronger, there are special exercises that help our brains think better. These brain workouts push us to think harder, look at things closely, and ask many questions.

It's not always about finding the "right" answer. Instead, it's about the journey of thinking and asking "why" or "how." Doing these exercises often helps us become better thinkers and makes us curious to know more about the world.

Now, let's look at some brain workouts to help us think better:

1. "What If" Scenarios

Imagine crazy things happening, like, "What if there was no internet for a month? What would we do?" These games help us think of new and different ideas.

Pick a hot topic. Argue one side of it and then try arguing the opposite. This makes us see different viewpoints and think deeply about a topic.

3. Analyze Visual Data

Check out charts or pictures with lots of numbers and info but no explanations. What story are they telling? This helps us get better at understanding information just by looking at it.

4. Mind Mapping

Write an idea in the center and then draw lines to related ideas. It's like making a map of your thoughts. This helps us see how everything is connected.

There's lots of mind-mapping software , but it's also nice to do this by hand.

5. Weekly Diary

Every week, write about what happened, the choices you made, and what you learned. Writing helps us think about our actions and how we can do better.

6. Evaluating Information Sources

Collect stories or articles about one topic from newspapers or blogs. Which ones are trustworthy? Which ones might be a little biased? This teaches us to be smart about where we get our info.

There are many resources to help you determine if information sources are factual or not.

7. Socratic Questioning

This way of thinking is called the Socrates Method, named after an old-time thinker from Greece. It's about asking lots of questions to understand a topic. You can do this by yourself or chat with a friend.

Start with a Big Question:

"What does 'success' mean?"

Dive Deeper with More Questions:

"Why do you think of success that way?" "Do TV shows, friends, or family make you think that?" "Does everyone think about success the same way?"

"Can someone be a winner even if they aren't rich or famous?" "Can someone feel like they didn't succeed, even if everyone else thinks they did?"

Look for Real-life Examples:

"Who is someone you think is successful? Why?" "Was there a time you felt like a winner? What happened?"

Think About Other People's Views:

"How might a person from another country think about success?" "Does the idea of success change as we grow up or as our life changes?"

Think About What It Means:

"How does your idea of success shape what you want in life?" "Are there problems with only wanting to be rich or famous?"

Look Back and Think:

"After talking about this, did your idea of success change? How?" "Did you learn something new about what success means?"

8. Six Thinking Hats 

Edward de Bono came up with a cool way to solve problems by thinking in six different ways, like wearing different colored hats. You can do this independently, but it might be more effective in a group so everyone can have a different hat color. Each color has its way of thinking:

White Hat (Facts): Just the facts! Ask, "What do we know? What do we need to find out?"

Red Hat (Feelings): Talk about feelings. Ask, "How do I feel about this?"

Black Hat (Careful Thinking): Be cautious. Ask, "What could go wrong?"

Yellow Hat (Positive Thinking): Look on the bright side. Ask, "What's good about this?"

Green Hat (Creative Thinking): Think of new ideas. Ask, "What's another way to look at this?"

Blue Hat (Planning): Organize the talk. Ask, "What should we do next?"

When using this method with a group:

• Explain all the hats.
• Decide which hat to wear first.
• Make sure everyone switches hats at the same time.
• Finish with the Blue Hat to plan the next steps.

9. SWOT Analysis

SWOT Analysis is like a game plan for businesses to know where they stand and where they should go. "SWOT" stands for Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats.

There are a lot of SWOT templates out there for how to do this visually, but you can also think it through. It doesn't just apply to businesses but can be a good way to decide if a project you're working on is working.

Strengths: What's working well? Ask, "What are we good at?"

Weaknesses: Where can we do better? Ask, "Where can we improve?"

Opportunities: What good things might come our way? Ask, "What chances can we grab?"

Threats: What challenges might we face? Ask, "What might make things tough for us?"

Steps to do a SWOT Analysis:

• Goal: Decide what you want to find out.
• Research: Learn about your business and the world around it.
• Brainstorm: Get a group and think together. Talk about strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats.
• Pick the Most Important Points: Some things might be more urgent or important than others.
• Make a Plan: Decide what to do based on your SWOT list.
• Check Again Later: Things change, so look at your SWOT again after a while to update it.

Now that you have a few tools for thinking critically, let’s get into some specific examples.

Everyday Examples

Life is a series of decisions. From the moment we wake up, we're faced with choices – some trivial, like choosing a breakfast cereal, and some more significant, like buying a home or confronting an ethical dilemma at work. While it might seem that these decisions are disparate, they all benefit from the application of critical thinking.

10. Deciding to buy something

Imagine you want a new phone. Don't just buy it because the ad looks cool. Think about what you need in a phone. Look up different phones and see what people say about them. Choose the one that's the best deal for what you want.

11. Deciding what is true

There's a lot of news everywhere. Don't believe everything right away. Think about why someone might be telling you this. Check if what you're reading or watching is true. Make up your mind after you've looked into it.

12. Deciding when you’re wrong

Sometimes, friends can have disagreements. Don't just get mad right away. Try to see where they're coming from. Talk about what's going on. Find a way to fix the problem that's fair for everyone.

13. Deciding what to eat

There's always a new diet or exercise that's popular. Don't just follow it because it's trendy. Find out if it's good for you. Ask someone who knows, like a doctor. Make choices that make you feel good and stay healthy.

14. Deciding what to do today

Everyone is busy with school, chores, and hobbies. Make a list of things you need to do. Decide which ones are most important. Plan your day so you can get things done and still have fun.

15. Making Tough Choices

Sometimes, it's hard to know what's right. Think about how each choice will affect you and others. Talk to people you trust about it. Choose what feels right in your heart and is fair to others.

16. Planning for the Future

Big decisions, like where to go to school, can be tricky. Think about what you want in the future. Look at the good and bad of each choice. Talk to people who know about it. Pick what feels best for your dreams and goals.

Job Examples

17. solving problems.

Workers brainstorm ways to fix a machine quickly without making things worse when a machine breaks at a factory.

18. Decision Making

A store manager decides which products to order more of based on what's selling best.

19. Setting Goals

A team leader helps their team decide what tasks are most important to finish this month and which can wait.

20. Evaluating Ideas

At a team meeting, everyone shares ideas for a new project. The group discusses each idea's pros and cons before picking one.

21. Handling Conflict

Two workers disagree on how to do a job. Instead of arguing, they talk calmly, listen to each other, and find a solution they both like.

22. Improving Processes

A cashier thinks of a faster way to ring up items so customers don't have to wait as long.

23. Asking Questions

Before starting a big task, an employee asks for clear instructions and checks if they have the necessary tools.

24. Checking Facts

Before presenting a report, someone double-checks all their information to make sure there are no mistakes.

25. Planning for the Future

A business owner thinks about what might happen in the next few years, like new competitors or changes in what customers want, and makes plans based on those thoughts.

26. Understanding Perspectives

A team is designing a new toy. They think about what kids and parents would both like instead of just what they think is fun.

School Examples

27. researching a topic.

For a history project, a student looks up different sources to understand an event from multiple viewpoints.

28. Debating an Issue

In a class discussion, students pick sides on a topic, like school uniforms, and share reasons to support their views.

29. Evaluating Sources

While writing an essay, a student checks if the information from a website is trustworthy or might be biased.

30. Problem Solving in Math

When stuck on a tricky math problem, a student tries different methods to find the answer instead of giving up.

31. Analyzing Literature

In English class, students discuss why a character in a book made certain choices and what those decisions reveal about them.

32. Testing a Hypothesis

For a science experiment, students guess what will happen and then conduct tests to see if they're right or wrong.

33. Giving Peer Feedback

After reading a classmate's essay, a student offers suggestions for improving it.

34. Questioning Assumptions

In a geography lesson, students consider why certain countries are called "developed" and what that label means.

35. Designing a Study

For a psychology project, students plan an experiment to understand how people's memories work and think of ways to ensure accurate results.

36. Interpreting Data

In a science class, students look at charts and graphs from a study, then discuss what the information tells them and if there are any patterns.

Critical Thinking Puzzles

Not all scenarios will have a single correct answer that can be figured out by thinking critically. Sometimes we have to think critically about ethical choices or moral behaviors. 

Here are some mind games and scenarios you can solve using critical thinking. You can see the solution(s) at the end of the post.

37. The Farmer, Fox, Chicken, and Grain Problem

A farmer is at a riverbank with a fox, a chicken, and a grain bag. He needs to get all three items across the river. However, his boat can only carry himself and one of the three items at a time. 

Here's the challenge:

• If the fox is left alone with the chicken, the fox will eat the chicken.
• If the chicken is left alone with the grain, the chicken will eat the grain.

How can the farmer get all three items across the river without any item being eaten? 

38. The Rope, Jar, and Pebbles Problem

You are in a room with two long ropes hanging from the ceiling. Each rope is just out of arm's reach from the other, so you can't hold onto one rope and reach the other simultaneously. 

Your task is to tie the two rope ends together, but you can't move the position where they hang from the ceiling.

You are given a jar full of pebbles. How do you complete the task?

39. The Two Guards Problem

Imagine there are two doors. One door leads to certain doom, and the other leads to freedom. You don't know which is which.

In front of each door stands a guard. One guard always tells the truth. The other guard always lies. You don't know which guard is which.

You can ask only one question to one of the guards. What question should you ask to find the door that leads to freedom?

40. The Hourglass Problem

You have two hourglasses. One measures 7 minutes when turned over, and the other measures 4 minutes. Using just these hourglasses, how can you time exactly 9 minutes?

41. The Lifeboat Dilemma

Imagine you're on a ship that's sinking. You get on a lifeboat, but it's already too full and might flip over. 

Nearby in the water, five people are struggling: a scientist close to finding a cure for a sickness, an old couple who've been together for a long time, a mom with three kids waiting at home, and a tired teenager who helped save others but is now in danger. 

You can only save one person without making the boat flip. Who would you choose?

42. The Tech Dilemma

You work at a tech company and help make a computer program to help small businesses. You're almost ready to share it with everyone, but you find out there might be a small chance it has a problem that could show users' private info. 

If you decide to fix it, you must wait two more months before sharing it. But your bosses want you to share it now. What would you do?

43. The History Mystery

Dr. Amelia is a history expert. She's studying where a group of people traveled long ago. She reads old letters and documents to learn about it. But she finds some letters that tell a different story than what most people believe. 

If she says this new story is true, it could change what people learn in school and what they think about history. What should she do?

The Role of Bias in Critical Thinking

Have you ever decided you don’t like someone before you even know them? Or maybe someone shared an idea with you that you immediately loved without even knowing all the details. 

This experience is called bias, which occurs when you like or dislike something or someone without a good reason or knowing why. It can also take shape in certain reactions to situations, like a habit or instinct. 

Bias comes from our own experiences, what friends or family tell us, or even things we are born believing. Sometimes, bias can help us stay safe, but other times it stops us from seeing the truth.

Not all bias is bad. Bias can be a mechanism for assessing our potential safety in a new situation. If we are biased to think that anything long, thin, and curled up is a snake, we might assume the rope is something to be afraid of before we know it is just a rope.

While bias might serve us in some situations (like jumping out of the way of an actual snake before we have time to process that we need to be jumping out of the way), it often harms our ability to think critically.

How Bias Gets in the Way of Good Thinking

Selective Perception: We only notice things that match our ideas and ignore the rest. 

It's like only picking red candies from a mixed bowl because you think they taste the best, but they taste the same as every other candy in the bowl. It could also be when we see all the signs that our partner is cheating on us but choose to ignore them because we are happy the way we are (or at least, we think we are).

Agreeing with Yourself: This is called “ confirmation bias ” when we only listen to ideas that match our own and seek, interpret, and remember information in a way that confirms what we already think we know or believe. 

An example is when someone wants to know if it is safe to vaccinate their children but already believes that vaccines are not safe, so they only look for information supporting the idea that vaccines are bad.

Thinking We Know It All: Similar to confirmation bias, this is called “overconfidence bias.” Sometimes we think our ideas are the best and don't listen to others. This can stop us from learning.

Have you ever met someone who you consider a “know it”? Probably, they have a lot of overconfidence bias because while they may know many things accurately, they can’t know everything. Still, if they act like they do, they show overconfidence bias.

There's a weird kind of bias similar to this called the Dunning Kruger Effect, and that is when someone is bad at what they do, but they believe and act like they are the best .

Following the Crowd: This is formally called “groupthink”. It's hard to speak up with a different idea if everyone agrees. But this can lead to mistakes.

An example of this we’ve all likely seen is the cool clique in primary school. There is usually one person that is the head of the group, the “coolest kid in school”, and everyone listens to them and does what they want, even if they don’t think it’s a good idea.

How to Overcome Biases

Here are a few ways to learn to think better, free from our biases (or at least aware of them!).

Know Your Biases: Realize that everyone has biases. If we know about them, we can think better.

Listen to Different People: Talking to different kinds of people can give us new ideas.

Ask Why: Always ask yourself why you believe something. Is it true, or is it just a bias?

Understand Others: Try to think about how others feel. It helps you see things in new ways.

Keep Learning: Always be curious and open to new information.

In today's world, everything changes fast, and there's so much information everywhere. This makes critical thinking super important. It helps us distinguish between what's real and what's made up. It also helps us make good choices. But thinking this way can be tough sometimes because of biases. These are like sneaky thoughts that can trick us. The good news is we can learn to see them and think better.

There are cool tools and ways we've talked about, like the "Socratic Questioning" method and the "Six Thinking Hats." These tools help us get better at thinking. These thinking skills can also help us in school, work, and everyday life.

We’ve also looked at specific scenarios where critical thinking would be helpful, such as deciding what diet to follow and checking facts.

Thinking isn't just a skill—it's a special talent we improve over time. Working on it lets us see things more clearly and understand the world better. So, keep practicing and asking questions! It'll make you a smarter thinker and help you see the world differently.

Critical Thinking Puzzles (Solutions)

The farmer, fox, chicken, and grain problem.

• The farmer first takes the chicken across the river and leaves it on the other side.
• He returns to the original side and takes the fox across the river.
• After leaving the fox on the other side, he returns the chicken to the starting side.
• He leaves the chicken on the starting side and takes the grain bag across the river.
• He leaves the grain with the fox on the other side and returns to get the chicken.
• The farmer takes the chicken across, and now all three items -- the fox, the chicken, and the grain -- are safely on the other side of the river.

The Rope, Jar, and Pebbles Problem

• Take one rope and tie the jar of pebbles to its end.
• Swing the rope with the jar in a pendulum motion.
• While the rope is swinging, grab the other rope and wait.
• As the swinging rope comes back within reach due to its pendulum motion, grab it.
• With both ropes within reach, untie the jar and tie the rope ends together.

The Two Guards Problem

The question is, "What would the other guard say is the door to doom?" Then choose the opposite door.

The Hourglass Problem

• Start both hourglasses. 
• When the 4-minute hourglass runs out, turn it over.
• When the 7-minute hourglass runs out, the 4-minute hourglass will have been running for 3 minutes. Turn the 7-minute hourglass over. 
• When the 4-minute hourglass runs out for the second time (a total of 8 minutes have passed), the 7-minute hourglass will run for 1 minute. Turn the 7-minute hourglass again for 1 minute to empty the hourglass (a total of 9 minutes passed).

The Boat and Weights Problem

Take the cat over first and leave it on the other side. Then, return and take the fish across next. When you get there, take the cat back with you. Leave the cat on the starting side and take the cat food across. Lastly, return to get the cat and bring it to the other side.

The Lifeboat Dilemma

There isn’t one correct answer to this problem. Here are some elements to consider:

• Moral Principles: What values guide your decision? Is it the potential greater good for humanity (the scientist)? What is the value of long-standing love and commitment (the elderly couple)? What is the future of young children who depend on their mothers? Or the selfless bravery of the teenager?
• Future Implications: Consider the future consequences of each choice. Saving the scientist might benefit millions in the future, but what moral message does it send about the value of individual lives?
• Emotional vs. Logical Thinking: While it's essential to engage empathy, it's also crucial not to let emotions cloud judgment entirely. For instance, while the teenager's bravery is commendable, does it make him more deserving of a spot on the boat than the others?
• Acknowledging Uncertainty: The scientist claims to be close to a significant breakthrough, but there's no certainty. How does this uncertainty factor into your decision?
• Personal Bias: Recognize and challenge any personal biases, such as biases towards age, profession, or familial status.

The Tech Dilemma

Again, there isn’t one correct answer to this problem. Here are some elements to consider:

• Evaluate the Risk: How severe is the potential vulnerability? Can it be easily exploited, or would it require significant expertise? Even if the circumstances are rare, what would be the consequences if the vulnerability were exploited?
• Stakeholder Considerations: Different stakeholders will have different priorities. Upper management might prioritize financial projections, the marketing team might be concerned about the product's reputation, and customers might prioritize the security of their data. How do you balance these competing interests?
• Short-Term vs. Long-Term Implications: While launching on time could meet immediate financial goals, consider the potential long-term damage to the company's reputation if the vulnerability is exploited. Would the short-term gains be worth the potential long-term costs?
• Ethical Implications : Beyond the financial and reputational aspects, there's an ethical dimension to consider. Is it right to release a product with a known vulnerability, even if the chances of it being exploited are low?
• Seek External Input: Consulting with cybersecurity experts outside your company might be beneficial. They could provide a more objective risk assessment and potential mitigation strategies.
• Communication: How will you communicate the decision, whatever it may be, both internally to your team and upper management and externally to your customers and potential users?

The History Mystery

Dr. Amelia should take the following steps:

• Verify the Letters: Before making any claims, she should check if the letters are actual and not fake. She can do this by seeing when and where they were written and if they match with other things from that time.
• Get a Second Opinion: It's always good to have someone else look at what you've found. Dr. Amelia could show the letters to other history experts and see their thoughts.
• Research More: Maybe there are more documents or letters out there that support this new story. Dr. Amelia should keep looking to see if she can find more evidence.
• Share the Findings: If Dr. Amelia believes the letters are true after all her checks, she should tell others. This can be through books, talks, or articles.
• Stay Open to Feedback: Some people might agree with Dr. Amelia, and others might not. She should listen to everyone and be ready to learn more or change her mind if new information arises.

Ultimately, Dr. Amelia's job is to find out the truth about history and share it. It's okay if this new truth differs from what people used to believe. History is about learning from the past, no matter the story.

Related posts:

• Experimenter Bias (Definition + Examples)
• Hasty Generalization Fallacy (31 Examples + Similar Names)
• Ad Hoc Fallacy (29 Examples + Other Names)
• Confirmation Bias (Examples + Definition)
• Equivocation Fallacy (26 Examples + Description)

Reference this article:

About The Author

Free Personality Test

Free Memory Test

Free IQ Test

PracticalPie.com is a participant in the Amazon Associates Program. As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

Follow Us On:

Youtube Facebook Instagram X/Twitter

Psychology Resources

Developmental

Personality

Relationships

Psychologists

Serial Killers

Psychology Tests

Personality Quiz

Memory Test

Depression test

Type A/B Personality Test

© PracticalPsychology. All rights reserved

Privacy Policy | Terms of Use

Have a thesis expert improve your writing

Check your thesis for plagiarism in 10 minutes, generate your apa citations for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Working with sources
• What Is Critical Thinking? | Definition & Examples

What Is Critical Thinking? | Definition & Examples

Published on 25 September 2022 by Eoghan Ryan .

Critical thinking is the ability to effectively analyse information and form a judgement.

To think critically, you must be aware of your own biases and assumptions when encountering information, and apply consistent standards when evaluating sources .

Critical thinking skills help you to:

• Identify credible sources
• Evaluate and respond to arguments
• Assess alternative viewpoints
• Test hypotheses against relevant criteria

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Be assured that you'll submit flawless writing. Upload your document to correct all your mistakes.

Table of contents

Why is critical thinking important, critical thinking examples, how to think critically, frequently asked questions.

Critical thinking is important for making judgements about sources of information and forming your own arguments. It emphasises a rational, objective, and self-aware approach that can help you to identify credible sources and strengthen your conclusions.

Critical thinking is important in all disciplines and throughout all stages of the research process . The types of evidence used in the sciences and in the humanities may differ, but critical thinking skills are relevant to both.

In an academic context, critical thinking can help you to determine whether a source:

• Is free from research bias
• Provides evidence to support its findings
• Considers alternative viewpoints

Outside of academia, critical thinking goes hand in hand with information literacy to help you form opinions rationally and engage independently and critically with popular media.

The only proofreading tool specialized in correcting academic writing

The academic proofreading tool has been trained on 1000s of academic texts and by native English editors. Making it the most accurate and reliable proofreading tool for students.

Correct my document today

Critical thinking can help you to identify reliable sources of information that you can cite in your research paper . It can also guide your own research methods and inform your own arguments.

Outside of academia, critical thinking can help you to be aware of both your own and others’ biases and assumptions.

Academic examples

However, when you compare the findings of the study with other current research, you determine that the results seem improbable. You analyse the paper again, consulting the sources it cites.

You notice that the research was funded by the pharmaceutical company that created the treatment. Because of this, you view its results skeptically and determine that more independent research is necessary to confirm or refute them. Example: Poor critical thinking in an academic context You’re researching a paper on the impact wireless technology has had on developing countries that previously did not have large-scale communications infrastructure. You read an article that seems to confirm your hypothesis: the impact is mainly positive. Rather than evaluating the research methodology, you accept the findings uncritically.

Nonacademic examples

However, you decide to compare this review article with consumer reviews on a different site. You find that these reviews are not as positive. Some customers have had problems installing the alarm, and some have noted that it activates for no apparent reason.

You revisit the original review article. You notice that the words ‘sponsored content’ appear in small print under the article title. Based on this, you conclude that the review is advertising and is therefore not an unbiased source. Example: Poor critical thinking in a nonacademic context You support a candidate in an upcoming election. You visit an online news site affiliated with their political party and read an article that criticizes their opponent. The article claims that the opponent is inexperienced in politics. You accept this without evidence, because it fits your preconceptions about the opponent.

There is no single way to think critically. How you engage with information will depend on the type of source you’re using and the information you need.

However, you can engage with sources in a systematic and critical way by asking certain questions when you encounter information. Like the CRAAP test , these questions focus on the currency , relevance , authority , accuracy , and purpose of a source of information.

When encountering information, ask:

• Who is the author? Are they an expert in their field?
• What do they say? Is their argument clear? Can you summarise it?
• When did they say this? Is the source current?
• Where is the information published? Is it an academic article? Is it a blog? A newspaper article?
• Why did the author publish it? What is their motivation?
• How do they make their argument? Is it backed up by evidence? Does it rely on opinion, speculation, or appeals to emotion ? Do they address alternative arguments?

Critical thinking also involves being aware of your own biases, not only those of others. When you make an argument or draw your own conclusions, you can ask similar questions about your own writing:

• Am I only considering evidence that supports my preconceptions?
• Is my argument expressed clearly and backed up with credible sources?
• Would I be convinced by this argument coming from someone else?

Critical thinking refers to the ability to evaluate information and to be aware of biases or assumptions, including your own.

Like information literacy , it involves evaluating arguments, identifying and solving problems in an objective and systematic way, and clearly communicating your ideas.

Critical thinking skills include the ability to:

You can assess information and arguments critically by asking certain questions about the source. You can use the CRAAP test , focusing on the currency , relevance , authority , accuracy , and purpose of a source of information.

Ask questions such as:

• Who is the author? Are they an expert?
• How do they make their argument? Is it backed up by evidence?

A credible source should pass the CRAAP test  and follow these guidelines:

• The information should be up to date and current.
• The author and publication should be a trusted authority on the subject you are researching.
• The sources the author cited should be easy to find, clear, and unbiased.
• For a web source, the URL and layout should signify that it is trustworthy.

Information literacy refers to a broad range of skills, including the ability to find, evaluate, and use sources of information effectively.

Being information literate means that you:

• Know how to find credible sources
• Use relevant sources to inform your research
• Understand what constitutes plagiarism
• Know how to cite your sources correctly

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the ‘Cite this Scribbr article’ button to automatically add the citation to our free Reference Generator.

Ryan, E. (2022, September 25). What Is Critical Thinking? | Definition & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved 12 August 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/working-sources/critical-thinking-meaning/

Is this article helpful?

Eoghan Ryan

Other students also liked, how to paraphrase | step-by-step guide & examples, tertiary sources explained | quick guide & examples, how to quote | citing quotes in harvard & apa.

JavaScript seems to be disabled in your browser. For the best experience on our site, be sure to turn on Javascript in your browser.

• Order Tracking
• Create an Account

200+ Award-Winning Educational Textbooks, Activity Books, & Printable eBooks!

• Compare Products

Reading, Writing, Math, Science, Social Studies

• Search by Book Series
• Algebra I & II  Gr. 7-12+
• Algebra Magic Tricks  Gr. 2-12+
• Algebra Word Problems  Gr. 7-12+
• Balance Benders  Gr. 2-12+
• Balance Math & More!  Gr. 2-12+
• Basics of Critical Thinking  Gr. 4-7
• Brain Stretchers  Gr. 5-12+
• Building Thinking Skills  Gr. Toddler-12+
• Building Writing Skills  Gr. 3-7
• Bundles - Critical Thinking  Gr. PreK-9
• Bundles - Language Arts  Gr. K-8
• Bundles - Mathematics  Gr. PreK-9
• Bundles - Multi-Subject Curriculum  Gr. PreK-12+
• Bundles - Test Prep  Gr. Toddler-12+
• Can You Find Me?  Gr. PreK-1
• Complete the Picture Math  Gr. 1-3
• Cornell Critical Thinking Tests  Gr. 5-12+
• Cranium Crackers  Gr. 3-12+
• Creative Problem Solving  Gr. PreK-2
• Critical Thinking Activities to Improve Writing  Gr. 4-12+
• Critical Thinking Coloring  Gr. PreK-2
• Critical Thinking Detective  Gr. 3-12+
• Critical Thinking Tests  Gr. PreK-6
• Critical Thinking for Reading Comprehension  Gr. 1-5
• Critical Thinking in United States History  Gr. 6-12+
• CrossNumber Math Puzzles  Gr. 4-10
• Crypt-O-Words  Gr. 2-7
• Crypto Mind Benders  Gr. 3-12+
• Daily Mind Builders  Gr. 5-12+
• Dare to Compare Math  Gr. 2-7
• Developing Critical Thinking through Science  Gr. 1-8
• Dr. DooRiddles  Gr. PreK-12+
• Dr. Funster's  Gr. 2-12+
• Editor in Chief  Gr. 2-12+
• Fun-Time Phonics!  Gr. PreK-2
• Half 'n Half Animals  Gr. K-4
• Hands-On Thinking Skills  Gr. K-1
• Inference Jones  Gr. 1-6
• James Madison  Gr. 10-12+
• Jumbles  Gr. 3-5
• Language Mechanic  Gr. 4-7
• Language Smarts  Gr. 1-4
• Mastering Logic & Math Problem Solving  Gr. 6-9
• Math Analogies  Gr. K-9
• Math Detective  Gr. 3-8
• Math Games  Gr. 3-8
• Math Mind Benders  Gr. 5-12+
• Math Ties  Gr. 4-8
• Math Word Problems  Gr. 4-10
• Mathematical Reasoning  Gr. Toddler-11
• Middle School Science  Gr. 6-8
• Mind Benders  Gr. PreK-12+
• Mind Building Math  Gr. K-1
• Mind Building Reading  Gr. K-1
• Novel Thinking  Gr. 3-6
• OLSAT® Test Prep  Gr. PreK-K
• Organizing Thinking  Gr. 2-8
• Pattern Explorer  Gr. 3-9
• Practical Critical Thinking  Gr. 8-12+
• Punctuation Puzzler  Gr. 3-8
• Reading Detective  Gr. 3-12+
• Red Herring Mysteries  Gr. 4-12+
• Red Herrings Science Mysteries  Gr. 4-9
• Science Detective  Gr. 3-6
• Science Mind Benders  Gr. PreK-3
• Science Vocabulary Crossword Puzzles  Gr. 4-6
• Sciencewise  Gr. 4-12+
• Scratch Your Brain  Gr. 2-12+
• Sentence Diagramming  Gr. 3-12+
• Smarty Pants Puzzles  Gr. 3-12+
• Snailopolis  Gr. K-4
• Something's Fishy at Lake Iwannafisha  Gr. 5-9
• Teaching Technology  Gr. 3-12+
• Tell Me a Story  Gr. PreK-1
• Think Analogies  Gr. 3-12+
• Think and Write  Gr. 3-8
• Think-A-Grams  Gr. 4-12+
• Thinking About Time  Gr. 3-6
• Thinking Connections  Gr. 4-12+
• Thinking Directionally  Gr. 2-6
• Thinking Skills & Key Concepts  Gr. PreK-2
• Thinking Skills for Tests  Gr. PreK-5
• U.S. History Detective  Gr. 8-12+
• Understanding Fractions  Gr. 2-6
• Visual Perceptual Skill Building  Gr. PreK-3
• Vocabulary Riddles  Gr. 4-8
• Vocabulary Smarts  Gr. 2-5
• Vocabulary Virtuoso  Gr. 2-12+
• What Would You Do?  Gr. 2-12+
• Who Is This Kid? Colleges Want to Know!  Gr. 9-12+
• Word Explorer  Gr. 6-8
• Word Roots  Gr. 3-12+
• World History Detective  Gr. 6-12+
• Writing Detective  Gr. 3-6
• You Decide!  Gr. 6-12+

• Special of the Month
• Sign Up for our Best Offers
• Bundles = Greatest Savings!
• Sign Up for Free Puzzles
• Sign Up for Free Activities
• Toddler (Ages 0-3)
• PreK (Ages 3-5)
• Kindergarten (Ages 5-6)
• 1st Grade (Ages 6-7)
• 2nd Grade (Ages 7-8)
• 3rd Grade (Ages 8-9)
• 4th Grade (Ages 9-10)
• 5th Grade (Ages 10-11)
• 6th Grade (Ages 11-12)
• 7th Grade (Ages 12-13)
• 8th Grade (Ages 13-14)
• 9th Grade (Ages 14-15)
• 10th Grade (Ages 15-16)
• 11th Grade (Ages 16-17)
• 12th Grade (Ages 17-18)
• 12th+ Grade (Ages 18+)
• Test Prep Directory
• Test Prep Bundles
• Test Prep Guides
• Preschool Academics
• Store Locator
• Submit Feedback/Request
• Sales Alerts Sign-Up
• Technical Support
• Mission & History
• Articles & Advice
• Testimonials
• Our Guarantee
• New Products
• Free Activities
• Libros en Español

What is Critical Thinking?

Critical Thinking Definition

September 2, 2005, by The Critical Thinking Co. Staff

The Critical Thinking Co.™ "Critical thinking is the identification and evaluation of evidence to guide decision making. A critical thinker uses broad in-depth analysis of evidence to make decisions and communicate their beliefs clearly and accurately."

Other Definitions of Critical Thinking: Robert H. Ennis , Author of The Cornell Critical Thinking Tests "Critical thinking is reasonable, reflective thinking that is focused on deciding what to believe and do."

A SUPER-STREAMLINED CONCEPTION OF CRITICAL THINKING Robert H. Ennis, 6/20/02

Assuming that critical thinking is reasonable reflective thinking focused on deciding what to believe or do, a critical thinker:

1. Is open-minded and mindful of alternatives 2. Tries to be well-informed 3. Judges well the credibility of sources 4. Identifies conclusions, reasons, and assumptions 5. Judges well the quality of an argument, including the acceptability of its reasons, assumptions, and evidence 6. Can well develop and defend a reasonable position 7. Asks appropriate clarifying questions 8. Formulates plausible hypotheses; plans experiments well 9. Defines terms in a way appropriate for the context 10. Draws conclusions when warranted, but with caution 11. Integrates all items in this list when deciding what to believe or do

Critical Thinkers are disposed to:

1. Care that their beliefs be true, and that their decisions be justified; that is, care to "get it right" to the extent possible. This includes the dispositions to

a. Seek alternative hypotheses, explanations, conclusions, plans, sources, etc., and be open to them b. Endorse a position to the extent that, but only to the extent that, it is justified by the information that is available c. Be well informed d. Consider seriously other points of view than their own

2. Care to present a position honestly and clearly, theirs as well as others'. This includes the dispositions to

a. Be clear about the intended meaning of what is said, written, or otherwise communicated, seeking as much precision as the situation requires b. Determine, and maintain focus on, the conclusion or question c. Seek and offer reasons d. Take into account the total situation e. Be reflectively aware of their own basic beliefs

3. Care about the dignity and worth of every person (a correlative disposition). This includes the dispositions to

a. Discover and listen to others' view and reasons b. Avoid intimidating or confusing others with their critical thinking prowess, taking into account others' feelings and level of understanding c. Be concerned about others' welfare

Critical Thinking Abilities:

Ideal critical thinkers have the ability to (The first three items involve elementary clarification.)

1. Focus on a question

a. Identify or formulate a question b. Identify or formulate criteria for judging possible answers c. Keep the situation in mind

2. Analyze arguments

a. Identify conclusions b. Identify stated reasons c. Identify unstated reasons d. Identify and handle irrelevance e. See the structure of an argument f. Summarize

3. Ask and answer questions of clarification and/or challenge, such as,

a. Why? b. What is your main point? c. What do you mean by…? d. What would be an example? e. What would not be an example (though close to being one)? f. How does that apply to this case (describe a case, which might well appear to be a counter example)? g. What difference does it make? h. What are the facts? i. Is this what you are saying: ____________? j. Would you say some more about that?

(The next two involve the basis for the decision.)

4. Judge the credibility of a source. Major criteria (but not necessary conditions):

a. Expertise b. Lack of conflict of interest c. Agreement among sources d. Reputation e. Use of established procedures f. Known risk to reputation g. Ability to give reasons h. Careful habits

5. Observe, and judge observation reports. Major criteria (but not necessary conditions, except for the first):

a. Minimal inferring involved b. Short time interval between observation and report c. Report by the observer, rather than someone else (that is, the report is not hearsay) d. Provision of records. e. Corroboration f. Possibility of corroboration g. Good access h. Competent employment of technology, if technology is useful i. Satisfaction by observer (and reporter, if a different person) of the credibility criteria in Ability # 4 above.

(The next three involve inference.)

6. Deduce, and judge deduction

a. Class logic b. Conditional logic c. Interpretation of logical terminology in statements, including (1) Negation and double negation (2) Necessary and sufficient condition language (3) Such words as "only", "if and only if", "or", "some", "unless", "not both".

7. Induce, and judge induction

a. To generalizations. Broad considerations: (1) Typicality of data, including sampling where appropriate (2) Breadth of coverage (3) Acceptability of evidence b. To explanatory conclusions (including hypotheses) (1) Major types of explanatory conclusions and hypotheses: (a) Causal claims (b) Claims about the beliefs and attitudes of people (c) Interpretation of authors’ intended meanings (d) Historical claims that certain things happened (including criminal accusations) (e) Reported definitions (f) Claims that some proposition is an unstated reason that the person actually used (2) Characteristic investigative activities (a) Designing experiments, including planning to control variables (b) Seeking evidence and counter-evidence (c) Seeking other possible explanations (3) Criteria, the first five being essential, the sixth being desirable (a) The proposed conclusion would explain the evidence (b) The proposed conclusion is consistent with all known facts (c) Competitive alternative explanations are inconsistent with facts (d) The evidence on which the hypothesis depends is acceptable. (e) A legitimate effort should have been made to uncover counter-evidence (f) The proposed conclusion seems plausible

8. Make and judge value judgments: Important factors:

a. Background facts b. Consequences of accepting or rejecting the judgment c. Prima facie application of acceptable principles d. Alternatives e. Balancing, weighing, deciding

(The next two abilities involve advanced clarification.)

9. Define terms and judge definitions. Three dimensions are form, strategy, and content.

a. Form. Some useful forms are: (1) Synonym (2) Classification (3) Range (4) Equivalent expression (5) Operational (6) Example and non-example b. Definitional strategy (1) Acts (a) Report a meaning (b) Stipulate a meaning (c) Express a position on an issue (including "programmatic" and "persuasive" definitions) (2) Identifying and handling equivocation c. Content of the definition

10. Attribute unstated assumptions (an ability that belongs under both clarification and, in a way, inference)

(The next two abilities involve supposition and integration.)

11. Consider and reason from premises, reasons, assumptions, positions, and other propositions with which they disagree or about which they are in doubt -- without letting the disagreement or doubt interfere with their thinking ("suppositional thinking")

12. Integrate the other abilities and dispositions in making and defending a decision

(The first twelve abilities are constitutive abilities. The next three are auxiliary critical thinking abilities: Having them, though very helpful in various ways, is not constitutive of being a critical thinker.)

13. Proceed in an orderly manner appropriate to the situation. For example:

a. Follow problem solving steps b. Monitor one's own thinking (that is, engage in metacognition) c. Employ a reasonable critical thinking checklist

14. Be sensitive to the feelings, level of knowledge, and degree of sophistication of others

15. Employ appropriate rhetorical strategies in discussion and presentation (orally and in writing), including employing and reacting to "fallacy" labels in an appropriate manner.

Examples of fallacy labels are "circularity," "bandwagon," "post hoc," "equivocation," "non sequitur," and "straw person."

Dewey, John Critical thinking is "active, persistent, and careful consideration of any belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the grounds that support it and the further conclusions to which it tends (Dewey 1933: 118)."

Glaser (1) an attitude of being disposed to consider in a thoughtful way the problems and subjects that come within the range of one's experiences, (2) knowledge of the methods of logical inquiry and reasoning, and (3) some skill in applying those methods. Critical thinking calls for a persistent effort to examine any belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the evidence that supports it and the further conclusions to which it tends. (Glaser 1941, pp. 5-6).

Abilities include: "(a) to recognize problems, (b) to find workable means for meeting those problems, (c) to gather and marshal pertinent information, (d) to recognize unstated assumptions and values, (e) to comprehend and use language with accuracy, clarity and discrimination, (f) to interpret data, (g) to appraise evidence and evaluate statements, (h) to recognize the existence of logical relationships between propositions, (i) to draw warranted conclusions and generalizations, (j) to put to test the generalizations and conclusions at which one arrives, (k) to reconstruct one's patterns of beliefs on the basis of wider experience; and (l) to render accurate judgments about specific things and qualities in everyday life." (p.6)

MCC General Education Initiatives "Critical thinking includes the ability to respond to material by distinguishing between facts and opinions or personal feelings, judgments and inferences, inductive and deductive arguments, and the objective and subjective. It also includes the ability to generate questions, construct, and recognize the structure of arguments, and adequately support arguments; define, analyze, and devise solutions for problems and issues; sort, organize, classify, correlate, and analyze materials and data; integrate information and see relationships; evaluate information, materials, and data by drawing inferences, arriving at reasonable and informed conclusions, applying understanding and knowledge to new and different problems, developing rational and reasonable interpretations, suspending beliefs and remaining open to new information, methods, cultural systems, values and beliefs and by assimilating information."

Nickerson, Perkins and Smith (1985) "The ability to judge the plausibility of specific assertions, to weigh evidence, to assess the logical soundness of inferences, to construct counter-arguments and alternative hypotheses."

Moore and Parker , Critical Thinking Critical Thinking is "the careful, deliberate determination of whether we should accept, reject, or suspend judgment about a claim, and the degree of confidence with which we accept or reject it."

Delphi Report "We understand critical thinking to be purposeful, self-regulatory judgment which results in interpretation, analysis, evaluation, and inference, as well as explanation of the evidential, conceptual, methodological, criteriological, or contextual considerations upon which that judgment is based. CT is essential as a tool of inquiry. As such, CT is a liberating force in education and a powerful resource in one's personal and civic life. While not synonymous with good thinking, CT is a pervasive and self-rectifying human phenomenon. The ideal critical thinker is habitually inquisitive, well-informed, trustful of reason, open-minded, flexible, fair-minded in evaluation, honest in facing personal biases, prudent in making judgments, willing to reconsider, clear about issues, orderly in complex matters, diligent in seeking relevant information, reasonable in the selection of criteria, focused in inquiry, and persistent in seeking results which are as precise as the subject and the circumstances of inquiry permit. Thus, educating good critical thinkers means working toward this ideal. It combines developing CT skills with nurturing those dispositions which consistently yield useful insights and which are the basis of a rational and democratic society."

A little reformatting helps make this definition more comprehensible:

We understand critical thinking to be purposeful, self-regulatory judgment which results in

• interpretation

as well as explanation of the

• methodological
• criteriological

considerations upon which that judgment is based.

Francis Bacon (1605) "For myself, I found that I was fitted for nothing so well as for the study of Truth; as having a mind nimble and versatile enough to catch the resemblances of things … and at the same time steady enough to fix and distinguish their subtler differences; as being gifted by nature with desire to seek, patience to doubt, fondness to meditate, slowness to assert, readiness to consider, carefulness to dispose and set in order; and as being a man that neither affects what is new nor admires what is old, and that hates every kind of imposture."

A shorter version is "the art of being right."

Or, more prosaically: critical thinking is "the skillful application of a repertoire of validated general techniques for deciding the level of confidence you should have in a proposition in the light of the available evidence."

HELPFUL REFERENCE: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-informal/

• Cambridge Dictionary +Plus
• +Plus ayuda
• Cerrar sesión

Significado de critical thinking en inglés

Your browser doesn't support HTML5 audio

• adjudication
• interpretable
• interpretive
• interpretively
• reinterpret
• reinterpretation
• reinvestigate
• reinvestigation

También encontrarás palabras, frases y sinónimos relacionados con los temas:

Ejemplos de critical thinking

Traducciones de critical thinking.

¡Obtén una traducción rápida y gratuita!

Palabra del día

left-handed

(of a person) using their left hand to write and do most things

Robbing, looting, and embezzling: talking about stealing

Palabras nuevas

Aprende más con +Plus

• Recientes y Recomendados {{#preferredDictionaries}} {{name}} {{/preferredDictionaries}}
• Definiciones Explicaciones claras del uso natural del inglés escrito y oral inglés Learner’s Dictionary inglés británico esencial inglés americano esencial
• Gramática y sinónimos Explicaciones del uso natural del inglés escrito y oral gramática sinónimos y antónimos
• Pronunciation British and American pronunciations with audio English Pronunciation
• inglés-chino (simplificado) Chinese (Simplified)–English
• inglés-chino (tradicional) Chinese (Traditional)–English
• inglés–holandés holandés-inglés
• inglés-francés francés-inglés
• inglés-alemán alemán-inglés
• inglés-indonesio indonesio-inglés
• inglés-italiano italiano-inglés
• inglés-japonés japonés-inglés
• inglés-noruego noruego–inglés
• inglés-polaco polaco-inglés
• inglés-portugués portugués-inglés
• inglés-español español-inglés
• English–Swedish Swedish–English
• Dictionary +Plus Listas de palabras
• Inglés    Noun
• Translations
• Todas las traducciones

To add critical thinking to a word list please sign up or log in.

Añadir critical thinking a una de tus listas, o crear una lista nueva.

{{message}}

Ha ocurrido un error

El informe no pudo enviarse.

Semester-length online critical thinking courses begin August 20th! Develop your thinking in learning, teaching, professional work, and more. Register Today

Online Courses in Critical Thinking

The fall semester begins august 20th.

Fall Critical Thinking Academy

November 15-17, 2024 in the arkansas ozarks.

Become Certified in the Paul-Elder Critical Thinking Framework

Online certification course begins august 28.

Available Now: Liberating the Mind New Book by Dr. Linda Elder

The 2024 Fall Critical Thinking Academy

Join us in the Arkansas Ozarks November 15th-17th, 2024 for a unique learning experience led by Senior Fellows of the Foundation for Critical Thinking. Members of the  Center for Critical Thinking Community Online : please email us for another 20% off.

Online Course for Certification in the Paul-Elder Framework

Those looking to be  certified in the Paul-Elder Approach to Critical Thinking can complete their facilitator training in the Fall 2024  Online Certification Course . Course meetings begin August 28th, 2024!

Call for Volunteers!

The Foundation for Critical Thinking is seeking a volunteer programmer and a volunteer social media marketing expert . Volunteers will receive free access to our  learning opportunities and to the  Center for Critical Thinking Community Online while working with us. For details, see our  Call for Volunteers page.

Free Webinar Workshop: How to Detect Media Bias and Propaganda and Shield Yourself from Misinformation

Join Dr. Linda Elder August 27th at 2:00 p.m. EDT (11:00 a.m. Pacific). In this webinar workshop, deepen your understanding of how media bias and propaganda work in human societies, and you will learn more about how the human mind’s natural vulnerabilities to bias, manipulation, and disinformation enable “successful” propaganda.

Critical Thinking Podcast

Only in the Center for Critical Thinking Community Online . Join Drs. Linda Elder and Gerald Nosich, international authorities on critical thinking, as they break new ground in the podcast Critical Thinking: Going Deeper .

Full-Semester Courses in Critical Thinking

Fall 2024 Registration Open Now. Study under the guidance of a first-generation Paulian Scholar from the comfort of your home or office! Complete coursework on your own time with continual feedback.

I found that I was fitted for nothing so well as for the study of Truth . . . with desire to seek, patience to doubt, fondness to meditate, slowness to assert, readiness to consider, carefulness to dispose and set in order . . . being a man that neither affects what is new nor admires what is old, and that hates every kind of imposture.

~ francis bacon (1605), our mission.

For more than 40 years, our goal has been to promote essential change in education and society by cultivating fairminded critical thinking — thinking which embodies intellectual empathy, intellectual humility, intellectual perseverance, intellectual integrity, and intellectual responsibility.

international translations

Servicios Personalizados

Links relacionados, ciencias psicológicas, versión impresa  issn 1688-4094 versión on-line  issn 1688-4221, cienc. psicol. vol.11 no.1 montevideo jun. 2017, https://doi.org/10.22235/cp.v11i2.1343  .

Artículos Originales

ANÁLISIS DE INSTRUMENTOS DE MEDICIÓN DEL PENSAMIENTO CRÍTICO

ANALYSIS OF CRITICAL THINKING MEASURING INSTRUMENTS

Carlos J. Ossa-Cornejo 1  

Maritza R. Palma-Luengo 2  

Nelly G. Lagos-San Martín 3  

Ingrid M. Quintana-Abello 4  

Claudio H. Díaz-Larenas 5  

1 Departamento de Ciencias de la Educación, Universidad del Bio-Bio. Chile Correspondencia: Carlos J. Ossa-Cornejo. Universidad del Bio-Bio. Chile. Correo Electrónico: [email protected]

2 Departamento de Ciencias de la Educación, Universidad del Bio-Bio. Chile

3 Departamento de Ciencias de la Educación, Universidad del Bio-Bio. Chile

4 Departamento de Ciencias Sociales, Universidad del Bio-Bio. Chile

5 Unidad de Investigación y Desarrollo Docente, Universidad de Concepción. Chile

El pensamiento crítico es una competencia relevante hoy en día en la formación universitaria, con escaso consenso conceptual y metodológico en sus instrumentos de medición. En este artículo se ofrece una revisión acerca de los instrumentos que se han utilizado para medir el pensamiento crítico, con la finalidad de generar una discusión que permita una mejor comprensión y valoración de los aspectos que componen esta habilidad. La metodología utilizada consiste en una revisión sistemática de estudios en bases de datos, seleccionando 31 estudios de 97 encontrados, y analizando en profundidad ocho de ellos; se utilizó además, análisis de contenido temático para las definiciones y características de instrumentos. Los resultados señalan la existencia de divergencias a la hora de definir y evaluar el pensamiento crítico, con variedad de instrumentos y escaso consenso en los componentes medidos. Se discute la necesidad de lograr un modelo de Pensamiento Crítico integrado que considere habilidades cognitivas, metacognitivas y disposicionales.

Palabras Clave:  pensamiento crítico; evaluación; cognición; instrumentos; análisis de contenido

Critical thinking is a relevant ability nowadays in higher education, but there is a lack of consensus on its definitions and assessment instruments. This article offers a conceptual and methodological review about the instruments used to measure critical thinking, in order to generate a discussion that allows a better understanding and appreciation of the aspects that are considered in this skill. The methodology consisted of a systematic review of studies in databases, selecting 31 studies out of 97 founded, and 8 of them for deep analysis; atopic content analysis in definitions and test characteristics is also used. Results show the existence of many differences in definitions and assessments of critical thinking, with a variety of tests and little consensus on the measured components. The need of an integrative model of Critical Thinking, considering cognitive, metacognitive and dispositional skills is discussed.

Key Words:  critical thinking; assessment; cognition; test; content analysis

Introducción

El pensamiento crítico es valorado como una forma superior de razonamiento, una competencia transversal a los sistemas educativos ( Almeida, & Rodríguez, 2011 ) y un recurso cognitivo esencial ( Davies, 2013 ; Phan, 2010 ) en la formación profesional puesto que es una herramienta fundamental frente a la cantidad de información y la multiplicidad de situaciones a enfrentar diariamente en la actualidad, que exigen nuevas funciones cognitivas, particularmente poder combinar conocimiento, experiencia y habilidades intelectuales para un desempeño eficiente.

No obstante, dicho concepto es de difícil definición, puesto que se puede entender desde diversas perspectivas ( Bailin, Case, Coombs, & Daniels, 1999 ; Facione, 1990 ; Hager & Kaye, 1992 ; Paul & Elder 2003 ). Es así como tradicionalmente se le ha descrito tanto como un proceso de pensamiento lógico y científico, como una respuesta de desaprobación y contestataria o un mecanismo que permite reflexionar y filosofar ( López, 2012 ).

Se ha definido al pensamiento crítico desde diferentes disciplinas ( Facione, 2007 ; Madariaga & Schaferchnit, 2013 ), tales como la filosofía, la psicología, la sociología y la educación como un tipo de pensamiento elaborado, es decir, como un proceso cognitivo que implica evaluación y reflexión (Glaser, en Hager & Kaye, 1992 ). Es una habilidad que permite la construcción de un conocimiento nuevo, y la utilización estratégica del mismo en la solución de problemas presentes en la vida cotidiana ( Black, 2012 ; Halpern, 2006 ), por lo que ha sido una herramienta relevante en la formación profesional de carreras del área de la salud, de la ingeniería, psicología, educación entre otras.

Del mismo modo, se han utilizado diferentes instrumentos para evaluarlo, tanto de forma genérica como en los componentes que lo sustentan ( Butler, 2012 ; Madariaga & Schaferchnit, 2013 ), encontrándose una gran variedad de maneras de implementar programas para su promoción.

Pensamiento crítico

Este constructo es definido como un tipo de proceso cognitivo complejo, integrado por subprocesos interrelacionados que permiten evaluar, procesar analítica y reflexivamente, enjuiciar y aceptar o rechazar, información producida en contextos sociales o en trabajos científicos ( Tung & Chang, 2009 ; Yang, 2012 ). Otra revisión del concepto, indica que el pensamiento crítico corresponde a un conjunto de habilidades intelectuales, aptitudes y disposiciones caracterizadas por el dominio profundo del contenido y del aprendizaje, que desarrolla la apreciación por la razón y la evidencia ( Paul & Elder, 2003 ).

Bajo el enfoque del proyecto DELPHI en Estados Unidos, donde un conjunto de expertos norteamericanos en pensamiento crítico, se reunieron para definir y caracterizar el constructo ( Facione, 1990 ), éste puede definirse como un pensamiento elaborado o juicio que depende de la propia persona que busca un objetivo, dando como resultado habilidades de interpretación, análisis, evaluación e inferencia; también permitiría la explicación de situaciones en base a evidencia conceptual, metodológica, criteriológica o contextual, sobre las cuales se basa ese juicio ( Facione, 1990 ; 2007 ). De esta manera se identifican habilidades intelectuales como Mente abierta; Análisis; Madurez cognitiva; Búsqueda de la verdad; Sistematicidad; Curiosidad; y, Confianza en sí mismo.

Se plantea asimismo, que es un modo de pensar en el cual el sujeto mejora la calidad de dicho proceso al apoderarse de las estructuras inherentes al acto de pensamiento y al someterlas a estándares intelectuales ( Paul & Elder, 2003 ). Se considera además como una habilidad de pensamiento que permite evaluar el mérito, la precisión, y/o autenticidad de la información que se está aprendiendo o elaborando, por lo que resulta una habilidad importante para el desarrollo de profesionales científicos ( Antequera, 2011 ; Cassany, 2005 ).

Se puede establecer la existencia de un conjunto de elementos básicos de naturaleza cognitiva que integran el pensamiento crítico, destacando entre ellas la reflexión, la evaluación de la información, el análisis de opciones y la creatividad ( Sánchez, 2012 ; Tiwari, Lai, So, & Yuen, 2006 ). Estos componentes básicos en la descripción del pensamiento crítico, permitirían alcanzar funciones cognitivas complejas como el razonamiento, la solución de problemas y la toma de decisiones ( Saadé, Morin, & Thomas, 2012 ; Saiz & Rivas, 2008 ).

Entre estos componentes, el primer elemento que caracterizaría al pensamiento crítico es el razonamiento, el cual está vinculado al proceso de reflexión, que se conceptualiza como un proceso cognitivo de alto orden, que permite la revisión de información procesada y un cuestionamiento profundo de dicha información ( Saadé et al., 2012 ; Sierra, Carpintero, & Pérez, 2010 ). De este modo, la reflexión tendría una función de evaluación profunda, permitiendo evitar la ingenuidad que conlleva el mero proceso de la memorización y asimilación ( Melsert & Bicalho, 2012 ).

Un segundo elemento es la toma de decisiones, que implica el uso de procesos cognitivos de análisis de la información como pensamiento inductivo y deductivo, identificación de razones y valoración de argumentos ( Halpern, 1998 ; Yang, 2012 ); procesos que se enfocan en generar el análisis de los datos y razones que permiten decidir respecto a la información. Finalmente, se señala como tercer elemento la resolución de problemas, habilidad que se encuentra relacionada con la anterior en términos de la evaluación de argumentos, pero focalizada en la decisión posterior ( Antequera, 2011 ; Olivares & Heredia, 2012 ). Así, la resolución de problemas orientaría el proceso de análisis y revisión de información hacia un proceso de juicio evaluativo sistemático que permitiría a los estudiantes buscar las mejores soluciones ( Tiwari et al., 2006 ).

Por otro lado, algunos autores señalan la presencia de un componente no cognitivo en el pensamiento crítico que sería la disposición o motivación ( Facione, Facione, & Giancarlo, 2000 ; Saiz & Rivas, 2008 ; Valenzuela & Nieto, 2008 ). Si bien hay diferencias entre ambos conceptos ( Valenzuela, Nieto & Muñoz, 2014 ), éstas serían de carácter conceptual, puesto que ambos elementos se orientan a la generación de interés y actitudes hacia un objeto de la realidad.

Si bien la disposición es definida como un aspecto más particular que la motivación, el consenso, al parecer, es señalarlo como una disposición ya que de esta manera se ha trabajado en las investigaciones ( Facione, 2007 ; Facione et al., 2000 ; Valenzuela & Nieto, 2008 ). Este componente sería fundamental para el logro de esta habilidad, pues se plantea que aun cuando se disponga de las funciones cognitivas señaladas, si la persona no desea o juzga que no es conveniente aplicar el pensamiento crítico, este no se manifiesta en forma adecuada ( Saiz & Rivas, 2008 ; Saiz, Rivas, & Olivares, 2015 ).

Como conclusión se puede señalar que el pensamiento crítico es una habilidad cognitiva de alto nivel, que permite a la persona disponerse a analizar la información del medio, inferir su validez y propósitos, cuestionar verdades establecidas, reflexionar sobre los propios procesos de pensamiento, y tomar decisiones en base a lo anterior en vez de adoptar un discurso común o una decisión reactiva.

Evaluación del Pensamiento Crítico

Para la evaluación del pensamiento crítico se han construido instrumentos tanto cuantitativos como cualitativos, entre los cuales se pueden indicar la observación directa, los cuestionarios, las discusiones y los portafolios ( Calle Álvarez, 2013 ). Cada modalidad de evaluación incide directamente en la cantidad de individuos posibles de evaluar de forma simultánea, ya que para algunos autores es posible evaluar el pensamiento crítico con instrumentos que se pueden aplicar a un numeroso grupo de personas, como los cuestionarios de respuesta cerrada ( Facione, 1990 ); otros en cambio consideran que lo ideal es trabajar con grupos pequeños y analizar todos los comportamientos de manera cualitativa, como el caso de los instrumentos de respuesta abierta ( Marzano & Costa, 1988 ).

Cada uno de estos instrumentos está relacionado con modelos y programas específicos que no siempre han informado sobre las propiedades psicométricas que poseen; instituciones como American Colleges and Universities Association (en Butler, 2012 ) debaten actualmente acerca de la fiabilidad y validez de dichos instrumentos, pues resaltan algunos problemas tanto conceptuales como metodológicos sobre el concepto ( Rivas & Saiz, 2012 ).

Por un lado, a nivel conceptual, se señala la gran diversidad de conceptualizaciones del pensamiento crítico; y por otro, a nivel metodológico, se plantea el escaso análisis respecto al tipo de formato utilizado para evaluarlo, ya que la mayoría de las pruebas son instrumentos con un formato de respuesta cerrada, por lo tanto, se centran habitualmente en razonamientos simples deductivos, e impiden la exploración de los mecanismos fundamentales implicados en la tarea de pensar críticamente como la argumentación o la resolución de problemas ( López, 2012 ; Olivares & Heredia, 2012 ).

Las pruebas existentes se han dividido tradicionalmente en dos grupos, los que utilizan ítems de selección múltiple, con respuestas cerradas; y los que evalúan en base al desarrollo de respuestas abiertas o un ensayo. Los primeros presentan en general buenas cualidades estadísticas (validez y confiabilidad), pero solamente evalúan aspectos predeterminados del pensamiento crítico y presentan dificultades para su repetición. Los de ensayo son más adaptables a las necesidades específicas de cada caso o definición, son más fáciles de repetir, pero su validez de constructo y confiabilidad es limitada ( Madariaga & Schaferchnit, 2013 ).

Sin embargo, hay algunos intentos de generar propuestas híbridas que recogen ambos tipos de preguntas, como el Test de habilidades de pensamiento crítico de Halpern , el cual presenta 25 situaciones problema, en la que se realiza una pregunta de respuesta cerrada, y luego una de respuesta abierta, de manera que se pueda recoger el procesamiento de la persona por ambas vías de razonamiento (Halpern, 1998; Marin & Halpern, 2011 ). Asimismo, la República de Paraguay el año 2007 realizó un test de pensamiento crítico como parte de una política ministerial de mejoramiento de la educación Media (Secundaria), que consistía en una parte de preguntas de respuestas cerradas, y una segunda de análisis de escenas donde se explica argumentativamente la situación ( LaFuente, 2009 ).

De este modo, si bien han existido algunas sistematizaciones ( Butler, 2012 ; Olivares & Heredia, 2012 ), estas han sido descriptivas y no analíticas, por lo que no se ha logrado determinar cuáles aspectos de medición del fenómeno están siendo mayormente valorados y cuáles están siendo menos valorados. Por otra parte, no se ha profundizado en el análisis de las dimensiones que se han utilizado para medir el pensamiento crítico, lo que ha permitido una proliferación de instrumentos que no permiten determinar si se está evaluando procesos similares o diferentes.

Por lo anterior, el objetivo de la investigación fue analizar estudios sobre medición de pensamiento crítico, identificando los instrumentos de medición más utilizados en la investigación de este tema, y generar un análisis de tópicos relevantes que permitan determinar elementos que se encuentren aun poco estudiados, de manera que se pueda profundizar en ellos.

Materiales y método

En este trabajo se utilizó una estrategia de investigación documental. El análisis de los antecedentes sobre medición del pensamiento crítico, se basó en la búsqueda bibliográfica sistemática de publicaciones en las bases de datos Scopus, Scielo, Latindex, Google scholar y Web of Science (WOS).

La búsqueda se centró en una primera fase, en descriptores generales como pensamiento crítico y medición, abarcando todo tipo de publicaciones; se refinó posteriormente la búsqueda con criterios como año de publicación e idioma. La última fase se centró en descartar aquellas investigaciones que consideraban procesos similares, pero de diferente contexto (lectura crítica, teoría crítica); así como de artículos que eran una repetición del mismo estudio con menos variables, o el mismo estudio en diferente idioma.

Se utilizó además, la estrategia de análisis de contenido para examinar las definiciones del concepto, y características de los instrumentos, centrándose en tópicos como dimensiones utilizadas, tipo de respuestas del instrumento, grupo etario evaluado, y, niveles de confiabilidad.

Se encontraron en la primera búsqueda 97 estudios, abarcando desde el año 1980 hasta el año 2016, pero como se observa en la figura 1, con un mayor desarrollo en los años 2011 a 2016; 13 de los 97 estaban en español (13,4%), uno en portugués (1%) y 83 en inglés (85,6%). En una segunda fase, se filtró la búsqueda considerando sólo los artículos empíricos, y que mostraran datos de aplicación y validación de los instrumentos, lo que originó un total de 31 estudios (ver figura 1 ).

En la tercera fase, se seleccionaron ocho estudios de los 31, para realizar un análisis más profundo, dejando de lado aquellos estudios que repetían el mismo instrumento, no señalaban la muestra utilizada o trabajan en una muestra similar a otros. Estos ocho estudios señalaban los instrumentos usado para medir el pensamiento crítico, considerándose en el análisis los autores y el año de publicación del instrumento, las dimensiones que mide, la muestra utilizada en la validación y los niveles de confiabilidad, la cantidad de ítems, y finalmente, el país en que aplicó la validación.

En la revisión de estos últimos estudios, se encontraron los siguientes instrumentos:

1.- Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking (WGCTA; Watson & Glaser, 1980 ). Este instrumento se utilizó por primera vez en 1930 con estudiantes y adultos, tiene dos formas de aplicación (con o sin límite de tiempo).La versión original presenta 80 preguntas de opción múltiple, cerradas y contiene cinco sub-escalas: a) inferencia: mide la habilidad de discriminar para encontrar la verdad; b) reconocimiento de supuestos: a través de la cual se mide la capacidad de establecer afirmaciones o negaciones de un proceso; c) deducción: variable que determina la habilidad para razonar deductivamente; d) interpretación, mide la habilidad para determinar si las generalizaciones son válidas y e) evaluación de argumentos, que discrimina entre argumentos fuertes y débiles. La versión original registra una confiabilidad de .73-.83. También es posible encontrar una versión reducida de 40 preguntas, que en un estudio realizado hace algunos años ha demostrado su validez y confiabilidad, encontrando una confiabilidad medida con alfa de Cronbach de .82 ( De Mangione & De Anglat, 2007 ; Watson, & Glaser, 1980 ).

2.- California Critical Thinking Skills (CCTST; Facione, 1990 ). Este instrumento fue creado para el contexto universitario de pregrado o postgrado y personas adultas a nivel de ejecutivos. El instrumento permite evaluar cinco habilidades cognitivas; interpretación, análisis, evaluación, explicación e inferencia. El CCTST reporta seis puntuaciones, una global de las habilidades cognitivas del pensamiento crítico y cinco sub-puntuaciones: a) análisis, mide las habilidades de categorización, codificación de significado y clarificación, así como la forma de examinar ideas y detectar y analizar los componentes de un argumento; b) evaluación, se enfoca a las habilidades para calificar y presentar los argumentos y contra-argumentos, establecer resultados y justificar procedimientos; c) inferencia, evalúa la forma de buscar evidencia, hacer conjeturas sobre las alternativas y establecer conclusiones; d) razonamiento deductivo, veracidad comprobable de las premisas; e) razonamiento inductivo, asumir los precedentes. La confiabilidad informada de este instrumento es de .78 a .80 ( Facione, 1990 ).

Figura 1:  Gráfico de distribución de publicaciones. 

3.- California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory (CCTDI; Facione et al., 2000 ). El instrumento surge bajo los auspicios de la Asociación Norteamericana de Filosofía, que se completó y se publicó bajo el título Critical Thinking: A Statement of Expert Consensus for Purposes of Educational Assessement and Instruction (American Philosophical Association), con la coordinación de un grupo multidisciplinario a cargo de Peter Facione (1990). El objetivo del trabajo fue buscar un consenso con respecto a las destrezas intelectuales, así como a las disposiciones personales necesarias para pensar críticamente. El instrumento contiene 75 ítems de respuesta cerrada y posee buenos indicadores de confiabilidad ( Facione et al., 2000 ). El CCTDI se ha desarrollado para población adulta, pero se pueden incluir estudiantes de educación superior y media, tanto profesional como técnica. Para contestar el sujeto evaluado debe señalar el grado de acuerdo o desacuerdo con oraciones que expresan opiniones, valores, creencias y percepciones relacionadas con la reflexión, el razonamiento de juicios y la toma de decisiones. Se reportan indicadores de confiabilidad buenos para el instrumento en general, con un alfa de Cronbach de .90, y con indicadores de las escalas que van de .72 a .80 ( Rudd, Baker, & Hoover, 2000 ). Las habilidades intelectuales necesarias, identificadas por consenso, son: Análisis, Inferencia, Interpretación, Explicación, Evaluación y Auto-regulación.

4.- Test de Cornell Critical Thinking (CCTT; Ennis & Millman, 1985 ). Este instrumento se planteó con dos niveles X y Z, siendo dirigido a niños y jóvenes de 9 y 18 años de edad, su estructura es de opción múltiple, consta de 76 elementos que evalúan las habilidades de: 1) inducción, 2) credibilidad de una fuente, 3) observación, 4) semántica, 5) deducción, y 6) identificación de hipótesis. El nivel X corresponde a una prueba de comprensión, en la que el estudiante selecciona una opción de tres respuestas posibles por cada pregunta. El Nivel Z consta de 52 ítems con tres alternativas de respuesta, evalúa las siguientes habilidades: inducción, credibilidad de una fuente, semántica, predicción y experimentación, falacias, deducción, definición e identificación de hipótesis. Este nivel es para estudiantes universitarios y adultos, aunque también puede ser aplicada en estudiantes avanzados de educación básica o media. Gordón (1994 ) realizó un estudio con el propósito de aportar con una traducción al español válida y confiable del nivel Z del instrumento, a la que denominó Prueba Cornell para Pensamiento Crítico. Su propósito fue determinar el efecto en la adquisición de destrezas de pensamiento crítico al enseñar a estudiantes de un curso introductorio de enfermería algunas destrezas de pensamiento crítico ( Calle Álvarez, 2013 ).

5.- Halpern Critical Thinking Assessmentusing Everyday Situations (HCTAES; Halpern, 1998 ), el que a través de 25 preguntas de respuestas cerradas y abiertas (50 en total), busca medir de manera más amplia el logro de la habilidad, acompañándolo con una medición más objetiva y certera. El HCTAES considera cinco dimensiones: testeo de hipótesis, razonamiento verbal, argumentación, probabilidades e incertidumbre, y finalmente, resolución de problemas ( Marin & Halpern, 2011 ). Este instrumento mostró buenos indicadores de confiabilidad con un alfa de Cronbach de .88-.77, en muestras de diversos países ( Halpern, 1998 ).

6.- Pensamiento crítico Salamanca (PENCRISAL; Rivas & Saiz, 2012 ; Saiz & Rivas, 2008 ).El cuestionario cuenta con 35 ítems que se configuran en 5 factores: razonamiento deductivo, inductivo y práctico, toma de decisiones, y solución de problemas, a razón de 7 ítems por factor. Los ítems se presentan en un formato informatizado a fin de minimizar el cansancio y obtener resultados de manera más rápida y eficiente. En la evaluación del instrumento se utiliza un sistema de escalamiento cuantitativo, cuyo rango de valores se sitúa entre 0 y 70 puntos para la puntuación global y entre 0 y 14 para cada una de las cinco escalas. La consistencia interna de los 35 ítems se estimó en Alfa de Cronbach, obteniendo un valor global de .63.

7.- Tareas de Pensamiento Crítico (TPC; Miranda, 2003 ). En el contexto de una investigación chilena en la que participaron 352 docentes de educación básica de un programa de pensamiento crítico, se utilizó una versión adaptada para Chile, cuyos resultados mostraron buenas propiedades psicométricas. Este instrumento fue utilizado nuevamente ( Miranda, Zambrano, & Jelvez, 2010 ) en un estudio con estudiantes de Pedagogía en Castellano. Estudios en que también se indican buenos niveles de confiabilidad con un alfa de Cronbach de .87.

8.- Test de Pensamiento Crítico (TPC) de Paraguay . Este instrumento fue desarrollado por el Sistema Nacional de Evaluación del Proceso educativo (SNEPE) del Ministerio de Educación y Cultura de Paraguay (2007). Consiste en dos tareas, una de las cuales tenía una hoja de ejercicios para responder a situaciones, que consideraba 3 dimensiones y cinco sub habilidades; y una segunda parte, de respuesta abierta a partir de imágenes que debían ser explicadas ( LaFuente, 2009 ; MEC, 2007 ); presenta buena confiabilidad (alfa de .70 y .71). La tabla 1 , muestra una síntesis de la información arriba señalada, incluyendo además la muestra, país de validación y cantidad de ítems.

Como se ha mencionado anteriormente, el pensamiento crítico es un constructo muy complejo, definido desde marcos teóricos muy diversos, como resultado de instrumentos de diferente naturaleza ( Rivas & Saiz, 2012 ).

La revisión documental muestra que en los países de Latinoamérica existe una escasez de experiencias que permitan fomentar de manera didáctica dichas habilidades en la formación universitaria, por lo que los estudiantes estarían ingresando con pocas herramientas de pensamiento crítico a la educación superior ( Madariaga & Schaffernicht, 2013 ). Aun cuando existen experiencias e instrumentos desarrollados en Chile y Paraguay, son escasas experiencias en comparación con las desarrolladas en América del Norte, Europa y el Oriente.

A partir del análisis de los instrumentos de medición del Pensamiento crítico, se discuten algunas ideas en relación con las dimensiones señaladas, tipo de respuestas, grupo etario al que se dirige, y niveles de confiabilidad reportados.

a.- Análisis de las dimensiones . Los instrumentos analizados presentan entre 3 a 7 dimensiones, variando en cada instrumento según el constructo teórico del autor. Por ejemplo, Ennis y Millman (1985 ), valida un instrumento con 7 dimensiones, hacia los años 90, Facione plantea 5 dimensiones, mientras el mismo autor más tarde (Facione, 1990 ), reconsidera, 7 habilidades, construidas bajo otro modelo. El test de Halpern (Halpern, 1998 , 2006), incorpora habilidades como hipótesis, y probabilidad e incertidumbre. En tanto, el test PENCRISAL ( Saiz & Rivas, 2008 ) establece 5 habilidades, pensando en el Razonamiento práctico y la Resolución de problemas. Finalmente, el test de Tareas de Pensamiento crítico (TPC) de Miranda (2003 ), validado en Chile, establece, tres habilidades como: Indagación, análisis y comunicación. El test TPC, es un instrumento de desempeño, adaptación del Task of Critical Thinking (TCT), basado en preguntas de ensayo, contextualizado en un formato de informaciones científicas relacionadas al fenómeno del Niño Oscilación Sur (ENOS). Presenta una validación en un grupo de profesores chilenos ( Miranda, 2003 ) y en estudiantes de pedagogía del área de lenguaje ( Miranda et al., 2010 ).

b.- Tipo de respuestas . La mayoría de las pruebas que evalúan pensamiento crítico son instrumentos con formato de respuesta cerrada, que impiden la exploración de los mecanismos fundamentales del pensamiento implicados en la tarea de responder a un test ( Rivas & Saiz, 2012 ). A juicio de estos autores, existen al menos tres problemas graves en la mayoría de las pruebas estandarizadas: el primero, que no se sabe bien lo que miden, el segundo, que no activan las habilidades fundamentales objeto de la medida y finalmente, que los problemas son artificiales y alejados de la actividad cotidiana de la gente. Por ello, el test HCTAES ( Halpern Critical Thinking Assessment Using Everyday Situations; Halpern, 1998 ), permite resolver esta dificultad. Este instrumento se centra en los procesos de pensamiento y los ítems

que se proponen en la prueba son situaciones que describen problemas cotidianos que se deben resolver mediante respuestas abiertas y cerradas.

Tabla 1: Instrumentos para medir pensamiento crítico (elaboración propia)

Más tarde, en el intento de mejorar la versión de HCTAES, surge la prueba PENCRISAL de respuesta abierta, cuyas características son: 1) la utilización de ítems que sean situaciones cotidianas, 2) el uso de diferentes dominios, con la intención de valorar el grado de generalización de las habilidades, 3) un formato de respuesta abierta, que posibilita la exploración de los procesos de pensamiento, y 4) el empleo de situaciones-problema de respuesta única que permite evaluar el mecanismo de pensamiento correspondiente y facilita la cuantificación de los ítems ( Rivas & Saiz, 2012 ; Saiz & Rivas, 2008 ).Sin embargo, la limitante de esta prueba es el sistema de corrección que requiere de evaluadores expertos y el tiempo de los protocolos de respuesta es elevado.

c.- Grupo etario . El primer instrumento WGCTA, fue aplicado tanto a estudiantes como adultos. Luego, CCTST, aplicado a estudiantes de pre y postgrado, mientras CCTT, dirigido a estudiantes de 9 y 18 años. A pesar de la variada existencia de instrumentos, la mayoría han sido utilizados en estudiantes universitarios y adultos (Pencrisal, HCTAES, TPC, CCTT, CTDI, CCTST) y unos pocos a estudiantes de secundaria, como el HCTAES y el del Ministerio de Educación del Paraguay. Sin embargo, hasta ahora no se ha discriminado en relación al tipo de preguntas por edad o nivel educativo.

d.- Nivel de confiabilidad . Las diferentes iniciativas de evaluación hasta ahora desarrolladas, la mayoría, han mostrado problemas graves de validez, que han puesto en tela de juicio su viabilidad, siendo los test de respuesta cerrada los que presentan los más bajos niveles de confiabilidad. Por su parte, Saiz y Rivas (2008 ), resuelven los problemas de validez, producción y complejidad en la prueba PENCRISAL, analizando qué es lo que consigue medir para ello asumen el modelo de medida del HCTAES, pero corrigiendo sus limitaciones e incorporando una propuesta nueva que resuelve el problema de la validez.

El análisis de estas diferentes tipologías, nos permite agrupar las habilidades citadas en tres grandes dimensiones. La primera concierne a las habilidades vinculadas a la capacidad de depurar las informaciones a través de hacer preguntas, concebir y juzgar definiciones, distinguir los diferentes elementos de una argumentación, de un problema, de una situación o de una tarea, identificar y aclarar los problemas importantes. La segunda dimensión abarca las habilidades vinculadas a la capacidad de elaborar un juicio sobre la fiabilidad de las informaciones (juzgar la credibilidad de una fuente de información, juzgar la credibilidad de una información, identificar los presupuestos implícitos, juzgar la validez lógica de una argumentación). En cuanto a la tercera, se refiere a las habilidades relacionadas con la capacidad de evaluar las informaciones -obtener conclusiones apropiadas, realizar generalizaciones, inferir, formular hipótesis, generar y reformular de manera personal una argumentación, un problema, una situación o una tarea-, ( Piette, 1998 ).

A través de los diferentes instrumentos aquí analizados, se puede visualizar que las habilidades de argumentación también han sido relevadas por diversos autores quienes señalan que una forma argumentada de entender el mundo, ocupa un lugar central en la actividad científica ( Pinochet, 2015 ). Finalmente, la argumentación y consecuentemente el pensamiento crítico son habilidades coherentes con las demandas del nuevo siglo, ya que la cantidad de informaciones y datos que nos llegan cotidianamente, y frente a la que debemos tomar decisiones, es muy grande. Asimismo, las demandas del sistema educativo a nivel de aula, extensible a todas las disciplinas escolares exigen a los estudiantes que argumenten sus respuestas, por lo que resulta indispensable mejorar la base argumentativa en ellos ( Campillo & Guerrero, 2013 ).

Conclusiones

A nuestro juicio, el desarrollo de habilidades de pensamiento crítico debiera ser una prioridad a ser instalada en la educación media y superior, especialmente en la formación universitaria, pues permitiría el cambio en las prácticas pedagógicas y la calidad de la educación ( LaFuente, 2009 ; Marin & Halpern, 2011 ). Al respecto, Saiz y Rivas (2008 ) plantean que estas habilidades se basan en argumentar, decidir y resolver problemas, de manera que la persona pueda pensar mejor y generar cambios en su vida, siendo básicas para el razonamiento científico y crítico. La idea es poner en práctica una serie de habilidades cognitivas y procedimentales que permitan construir, comunicar y evaluar el conocimiento científico mediante la argumentación ( Pinochet, 2015 ).

Si bien el factor cognitivo es el que predomina mayormente, y da además la imagen de que el pensamiento crítico es un modo de usar el pensamiento de forma eficaz, la incorporación de la motivación como factor potenciador del mismo, es relevante para entender la complejidad del mismo, ya que no solo debe ser considerado como un proceso cognitivo, sino también disposicional.

En este sentido la motivación genera el interés necesario para mantener activados los procesos cognitivos que se desarrollan y orientan el metaconocimiento crítico ( Rivas & Saiz, 2012 ; Saiz, Rivas, & Olivares, 2015 ). Del mismo modo Daniel y Auriac (2012), rescatan la importancia del componente disposicional señalando que el pensamiento crítico no está solo conformado por complejas habilidades cognitivas, sino que además por un espíritu crítico, el cual estaría relacionado tanto con habilidades dialógicas del sujeto, como con la disposición a utilizarlo.

Aun cuando quizás sea adecuado contar con diferentes maneras de entender el pensamiento crítico, y así mismo de poder medirlo, es necesario tener una base común para lograr compartir experiencias y evidencias empíricas. Esta revisión da cuenta de lo difícil que es esto, y además, de lo lejos que nos encontramos ya que lo que ha predominado es la ultraespecialización de los instrumentos para abracar habilidades mucho más focalizadas.

Surge la idea de visibilizar la habilidad de pensamiento crítico de una manera más integrada. Es decir, considerar las habilidades cognitivas y metacognitivas como base y por otro lado la posibilidad de generar autorregulación y motivación a fin de lograr una disposición crítica, que implica estar abierto a enfoques múltiples para tomar decisiones e intervenir en la realidad social. Estos componentes definirían el pensamiento crítico como un proceso sofisticado y complejo, que incluiría habilidades cognitivas, de metacognición, disposición al juicio crítico, y colaboración frente a resolución de problemas ( Olivares & Heredia, 2012 ; Rivas & Saiz, 2012 ; Tiwari et al., 2006 ; Yang, 2012 ).

Dicha perspectiva integral es a nuestro juicio, una manera más adecuada de entender este complejo constructo, pero a la vez, necesario para el mejoramiento de los programas de promoción que buscan fortalecer las habilidades en las personas, permitiendo una base común.

Referencias

Almeida, L., & Rodríguez, A. (2011).Critical thinking: Its relevance for education in a Shifting society. Revista de Psicología , 29 (1), 175-195. Recuperado de: http://www.scielo.org.pe/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0254-92472011000100007&lng=es&nrm=iso [  Links  ]

Antequera, G. (2011). La promoción del pensamiento crítico en el aprendizaje basado en problemas (ABP). Un análisis a partir de los instrumentos de medición. Observar , 5, 68-94. Recuperado de: http://www.raco.cat/index.php/Observar/article/viewFile/247662/331621 [  Links  ]

Bailin, S., Case, R., Coombs, J., & Daniels, L. (1999).Common misconceptions of critical thinking. Journal of curriculum studies , 31 , 269-283. Recuperado de: http://www.iskconeducation.org/download/BAILIN,CASE,COOMBS%20&%20DANIELS%20-%20Common%20misconceptions%20of%20critical%20thinking.pdf [  Links  ]

Black, B. (2012). An overview of a programme of research to support the assessment of critical thinking. Thinking Skills and Creativity , 7, 122-133. doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2012.04.003 [  Links  ]

Butler, H. A. (2012). Halpern Critical Thinking Assessment predicts real-world outcomes of critical thinking. Applied Cognitive Psychology , 26 (5), 721-729. doi:10.1002/acp.2851 [  Links  ]

Cassany, D. (2005). Los significados de la comprensión crítica. Revista lectura y vida , 26 (3), 32-45. Recuperado de: http://www.lecturayvida.fahce.unlp.edu.ar/numeros/a26n3/26_03_Cassany.pdf [  Links  ]

Campillo, P., & Guerrero, J. A. (2013). El ABP y el diagrama Heurístico como herramientas para desarrollar la argumentación escolar en las asignaturas de ciencias . México: UNAM. doi:10.1590/s1516-73132013000300002 [  Links  ]

Calle Álvarez, G. (2013). Construcción de argumentos durante la producción de textos digitales Revista Científica Guillermo de Ockham , 11(2), 101-114. Recuperado de: http://www.redalyc.org/pdf/1053/105329737008.pdf [  Links  ]

Davies, M. (2013). Critical thinking and the disciplines reconsidered. Higher Education Research & Development , 32 (4), 529 - 544. doi:10.1080/07294360.2012.697878 [  Links  ]

De Mangione, E, & De Anglat, H.(2007) Evaluación de la competencia crítica a través del test de Watson-Glaser. Exploración de sus cualidades psicométricas. Revista de Psicología , 3(6), 1-14. Recuperado de: http://bibliotecadigital.uca.edu.ar/repositorio/revistas/revista-psicologia06.pdf [  Links  ]

Ennis, R. H., & Millman, J. (1985). Cornell critical thinking test, level X . Pacific Grove, CA: Midwest Publications. [  Links  ]

Facione, P.(1990). Critical thinking: A statement of expert consensus for purposes of educational assessment and instruction . Millbrea, CA: The California Academic Press. [  Links  ]

Facione, P. (2007). Pensamiento crítico. ¿Qué es y por qué es importante? Actualización. Documento online, 1-22. Recuperado de: http://www.eduteka.org/PensamientoCriticoFacione.php [  Links  ]

Facione, P. A., Facione, N. C., & Giancarlo, C. A. F. (2000).The disposition toward critical thinking: Its character, measurement, and relationship to critical thinking skill. Informal Logic , 20 (1), 61-84. Recuperado de: https://www.insightassessment.com/About-Us/Measured-Reasons/pdf-file/The-Disposition-Toward-Critical-Thinking-Its-Character-Measurement-and-Relationship-to-Critical-Thinking-Skill-PDF [  Links  ]

Gordón, L. (1994). El efecto de enseñar las destrezas del pensamiento crítico en un curso introductorio de enfermería. Rev. Latino-Am. Enfermagem 2 (2), 115-127. doi:10.1590/S0104-11691994000200009 [  Links  ]

Hager, P., & Kaye, M. (1992).Critical Thinking in Teacher Education: A Process-Oriented Research Agenda. Australian Journal of Teacher Education , 17 (2), 26-33. Recuperado de: http://ro.ecu.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1218&context=ajte [  Links  ]

Halpern, D. (1998). Teaching critical thinking for transfer across domains dispositions, skills, structure training, and metacognitive monitoring. American Psychologist , 53 (4), 449-455. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.53.4.449 [  Links  ]

Halpern, D. (2006). The nature and nurture of critical thinking. In R. J. Sternberg , H. L. Roediger, & D. F. Halpern (Eds.), Critical thinking in psychology (pp. 1-14). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge UniversityPress. [  Links  ]

LaFuente, M. (2009). La Experiencia del Sistema Nacional de Evaluación del Proceso Educativo, SNEPE, en Paraguay. Aprendizajes y desafíos. Revista Iberoamericana de Evaluación Educativa , 2(1). Recuperado de: http://rinace.net/riee/numeros/vol2-num1/art3_htm.html [  Links  ]

López, G. (2012). Pensamiento crítico en el aula. Docencia e Investigación , XXXVII (22), 41-60. Recuperado de: http://educacion.to.uclm.es/pdf/revistaDI/3_22_2012.pdf [  Links  ]

Madariaga, P., & Schaffernicht, M. (2013).Uso de objetos de aprendizaje para el desarrollo del pensamiento crítico. Revista de Ciencias Sociales (RCS), XIX, (3), 472 - 484. Recuperado de: http://www.redalyc.org/pdf/280/28028572010.pdf [  Links  ]

Marin, L., & Halpern, D. F. (2011). Pedagogy for developing critical thinking in adolescents: Explicit instruction produces greatest gains. Thinking Skills and Creativity . 6(1), 1-13. doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2010.08.002 [  Links  ]

Marzano, R.J. & Costa, A. (1988). Question: Do Standardized Tests Measure General Cognitive Skills? Answer: No. Educational Leadership , 45(8), 66-71. Recuperado de: http://ascd.com/ASCD/pdf/journals/ed_lead/el_198805_marzano.pdf [  Links  ]

Melsert, A.L. & Bicalho, P. P. (2012).Desencontros entre umaprática crítica empsicologia e concepções tradicionais em educação. Revista Semestral da Associação Brasileira de Psicologia Escolar e Educacional , 16(1), 153-160. doi:10.1590/S1413-85572012000100016 [  Links  ]

Ministerio de Educación y Cultura. MEC (2007). Informe de Resultados Test de Pensamiento Crítico. Segundo Curso. Sistema Nacional de Evaluación del Proceso Educativo. Programa Reforma Joven . Recuperado de: http://www.oei.es/historico/pdfs/informe-resultados-snepe5.pdf [  Links  ]

Miranda, C. (2003). El pensamiento crítico en docentes de Educación General Básica en Chile: un estudio de impacto. Estudios Pedagógicos , 29, 39-54. Recuperado de: http://mingaonline.uach.cl/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0718-07052003000100003&lng=es&nrm=iso [  Links  ]

Miranda, C., Zambrano, F., & Jélvez, M. (2010). ¿Incide la formación inicial en el desarrollo del pensamiento crítico de los estudiantes de pedagogía? Insumos desde un estudio de caso para un debate en curso. Boletín de Investigación Educacional , 24(1), 79-89. [  Links  ]

Olivares, S., & Heredia, Y. (2012). Desarrollo del pensamiento crítico en ambientes de aprendizaje basado en problemas en estudiantes de educación superior. Revista Mexicana de Investigación Educativa , 17(54), 759-778. Recuperado de: http://www.redalyc.org/pdf/140/14023127004.pdf [  Links  ]

Phan, H. P. (2010). Critical thinking as a self-regulatory process component in teaching and learning. Psicothema , 22(2), 284-292. Recuperado de: http://www.psicothema.com/PDF/3728.pdf [  Links  ]

Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2003). La mini-guía para el Pensamiento crítico. Conceptos y herramientas .. Ed. Fundación para el Pensamiento Crítico. Recuperado de: http://www.criticalthinking.org [  Links  ]

Pinochet, J. (2015). El modelo argumentativo de Toulmin y la educación en ciencias: una revisión argumentada. Ciência & Educação (Bauru), 21(2), 307-327. doi:10.1590/1516-731320150020004 [  Links  ]

Piette, J. (1998). Una educación para los medios centrada en el desarrollo del pensamiento crítico. En Alfonso Gutiérrez, Martín (coord.). Formación del profesorado en la sociedad de la información . Segovia: EU Magisterio-Universidad de Valladolid. Recuperado de: http://www.quadernsdigitals.net/datos_web/biblioteca/l_776/enLinea/5.htm [  Links  ]

Rivas, S. F. & Saiz, C. (2012). Validación y propiedades psicométricas de la prueba de pensamiento crítico PENCRISAL. Revista Electrónica de Metodología Aplicada , 17(1), 18-34. Recuperado de: http://www.pensamiento-critico.com/archivos/validapencrisalpub.pdf [  Links  ]

Rudd, R., Baker, M., & Hoover, T. (2000). Undergraduate agriculture student learning styles and critical thinking abilities: Is there a relationship? Journal of Agricultural Education , 41(3), 2-12. doi:10.5032/jae.2000.03002 [  Links  ]

Saadé, R., Morin, D., & Thomas, J. (2012).Critical thinking in E-learning environments. Computers in Human Behavior , 28, 1608-1617. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.03.025 [  Links  ]

Saiz, C. & Rivas, S. (2008). Evaluación en pensamiento crítico: una propuesta para diferenciar formas de pensar. Ergo , Nueva Época, 22-66. Recuperado de: http://www.pensamiento-critico.com/archivos/evaluarpcergodf.pdf [  Links  ]

Saiz, C., Rivas, S.F., & Olivares, S. (2015). Collaborative learning supported by rubrics improves critical thinking. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning . 15 (1), 10-19. doi:10.14434/josotl.v15i1.12905 [  Links  ]

Sánchez, I. (2012). Evaluación de una Renovación Metodológica para un Aprendizaje Significativo de la Física. Formación Universitaria , 5(5), 51-65. doi:10.4067/S0718-50062012000500006 [  Links  ]

Sierra, J., Carpintero, E. & Pérez, L. (2010). Pensamiento crítico y capacidad intelectual. Faísca , 15(17), 98 - 110. Recuperado de: https://dialnet.unirioja.es/descarga/articulo/3548104.pdf [  Links  ]

Tiwari, A., Lai, P., So, M., & Yuen, K. (2006). A comparision of effects of problem based learning and lecturing on the development of students’ critical thinking. Medical Education ,40(6), 547-554. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02481.x [  Links  ]

Tung, C.A., & Chang, S.Y. (2009).Developing Critical Thinking through Literature Reading.F eng Chia Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences ,19, 287-317. Recuperado de: http://www.cocd.fcu.edu.tw/wSite/publicfile/Attachment/f1262069682958.pdf [  Links  ]

Valenzuela, J., & Nieto, A. (2008).Motivación y Pensamiento Crítico: Aportes para el estudio de esta relación. Revista electrónica de Motivación y Emoción , 28(1), 1-8. Recuperado de: http://reme.uji.es/articulos/numero28/article3/article3.pdf [  Links  ]

Valenzuela, J., Nieto, A., & Muñoz, C. (2014). Motivación y disposiciones: enfoques alternativos para explicar el desempeño de habilidades de pensamiento crítico. Revista electrónica de investigación educativa ,16(3), 16-32. Recuperado de: http://www.scielo.org.mx/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1607-40412014000300002&lng=es&nrm=iso&tlng=es . [  Links  ]

Watson, G., & Glaser, E. M. (1980). Critical thinking appraisal, forms A and B . New York: Harcourt, Brace and Wold. [  Links  ]

Yang, Y. T. (2012).Cultivating critical thinkers: Exploring transfer of learning from pre-service teacher training to classroom practice. Teaching and Teacher Education , 28. 1116 -1130. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2012.06.007 [  Links  ]

Recibido: 04 de Octubre de 2016; Aprobado: 10 de Febrero de 2017