Is Critical Thinking Biased? Clarifications and Implications

Studies in Higher Education 38, 4: pp 506-522, 2013

The article reports a study that investigated ideas about critical thinking as held by academics working in three disciplines: history, philosophy and cultural studies. At least seven definitional strands were identified in the informants’ commentaries, namely critical thinking: (i) as judgement; (ii) as skepticism; (iii) as a simple originality; (iv) as sensitive readings; (v) as rationality; (vi) as an activist engagement with knowledge; and (vii) as self-reflexivity. This multiplicity of meanings is thought to have important implications for university teaching and learning. The design of the study and the conclusions drawn from it draw heavily on Wittgenstein’s idea of meaning as use.

Journal of Curriculum Studies, 1999

In this paper, the first of two, we analyze three widely-held conceptions of critical thinking: as one or more skills, as mental processes, and as sets of procedures. Each view is, we contend, wrong-headed, misleading or, at best, unhelpful. Some who written about critical thinking seem to muddle all three views in an unenlightening mélange. Apart from the errors or inadequacies of the conceptions themselves, they promote or abet misconceived practices for teaching critical thinking. Together, they have led to the view that critical thinking is best taught by practicing it. We offer alternative proposals for the teaching of critical thinking. Critical thinking is a subject of considerable current interest, both in terms of theory and pedagogy. A great deal is written about critical thinking, conferences on the subject abound, and educational initiatives aimed at fostering critical thinking proliferate. It is our view that much of the theoretical work and many of the pedagogical endeavors in this area are misdirected because they are based on faulty conceptions of critical thinking. Critical thinking is frequently conceptualized in terms of skills, processes, procedures and practice. Much of the educational literature either refers to cognitive or thinking skills or equates critical thinking with certain mental processes or procedural moves that can be improved through practice. In this paper we attempt to explain the misconceptions inherent in such ways of conceptualizing critical thinking. It is important to note that much of the literature contains a pervasive miasma of overlapping uses of such terms as skill, process, procedure, behavior, mental operations, etc. We thus find similar kinds of error and confusion about critical thinking under superficially different ways of talking. We have tried to focus on plausibly distinct uses of skill, process and procedure in our critiques. Our arguments will lay the groundwork for offering a new conception based on different foundational assumptions in the following paper on this theme. Many educators and theorists appear to view the task of teaching critical thinking as primarily a matter of developing thinking skills. Courses and conferences focus on the development of thinking skills and references to skills appear in much of the literature. Even leading theorists in the area of critical thinking conceptualize critical thinking largely in terms of skill. Thus, for example, Siegel (1988: 39, 41) writes of the critical thinker as possessing `a certain character as well as certain skills', and makes reference to `a wide variety of reasoning skills'. Similarly, Paul (1984: 5) refers to critical thinking skills and describes them as `a set of integrated macro-logical skills'. The Delphi Report on critical thinking (Facione 1990), which purports to be based on expert consensus in the field, views critical thinking in terms of cognitive skills in interpretation, analysis, evaluation, inference, explanation and self-regulation. It is important to note that the term `skill' can be used in a variety of senses and that, as a consequence, some of the discussion of skills in critical thinking is relatively unproblematic. In some instances `skill' is used to indicate that an individual is proficient at the task in question. It is used, in this context, in an achievement sense. As killed reasoner is one who is able to reason well and to meet the relevant criteria for good reasoning. The use of skill in this context focuses attention on students being capable of intelligent performance as opposed to merely having propositional knowledge about intelligent performance. Thus, someone who is thinking critically can do more than cite a definition for ad hominem. He or she will notice inappropriate appeals to an arguer's character in particular argumentative contexts. Clearly, being a critical thinker involves, among other things, having a certain amount of `know-how'. Such thinkers are skilled, then, in the sense that they must be able to fulfill relevant standards of good thinking. Conceptualizing critical thinking as involving skill in this achievement sense is relatively benign.

Educational Philosophy and Theory

As a philosophy professor, one of my central goals is to teach students to think critically. However, one difficulty with determining whether critical thinking can be taught, or even measured, is that there is widespread disagreement over what critical thinking actually is. Here, I reflect on several conceptions of critical thinking, subjecting them to critical scrutiny. I also distinguish critical thinking from other forms of mental processes with which it is often conflated. Next, I present my own conception of critical thinking, wherein it fundamentally consists in acquiring, developing, and exercising the ability to grasp inferential connections holding between statements. Finally, given this account of critical thinking, and given recent studies in cognitive science, I suggest the most effective means for teaching students to think critically.

Educational Theory, 1993

Seen from inside the critical thinking movement, things could not look better. Informal logic, the foundational discipline upon which recent conceptions of critical thinking rest, is a progressive research program. More philosophers and logicians are taking informal logic seriously. Its theory is getting both deeper and broader. More extensive and compelling analyses of basic concepts are increasingly available in the literature; new approaches, such as applied epistemology, are expanding the concepts available to members of the field. Informal logicians are moving away from a near exclusive focus on introductory college courses and text books, and are developing concepts and procedures that can support critical thinlung across the disciplines. There are deep continuities between critical thinlung and other theoretical approaches to argumentation theory and rhetoric, particularly with the work of Jurgen Habermas. Psychological grounding is available from psychologists such as Jerome Bruner and L. S. Vygotsky. There are many suggestive commonalities between critical thinking and social theories of reasoning and learning of all sorts, including trends in cognitive psychology. Critical thinking moves with a strong current in philosophy of education. It speaks to the educational goals associated with liberal education, and places the development of competent and reasonable learners and citizens at the center of its concern. It comports nicely with recent and credible pedagogical approaches such as cooperative and collaborative learning, problem solving, discovery methods in science, writing process, the use of schema in reading comprehension, and multiculturalism. Most important, perhaps, the integration of critical thinking into school practices, the vitality of in-service and pre-service efforts, a growing and influential professional literature, and well-attended conferences, all point to its attractiveness as a framework for progressive educational change. In the United States, national and regional reports identify critical thinking as a desired educational outcome, often citing the business community's belief that critical thinking is necessary within a modern workforce. Critical thinking has, however, been challenged at a deep theoretical level. In 1981, John McPeck published Critical Thinking and Education, which contained a sustained critique that had, at its core, an argument that denied the possibility of critical thinking, construed as striving to offer educationally relevant general procedures and concepts. The argument is both simple and profound:

Journal of Curriculum Studies, 1999

In this paper, the first of two, we analyze three widely-held conceptions of critical thinking: as one or more skills, as mental processes, and as sets of procedures. Each view is, we contend, wrong-headed, misleading or, at best, unhelpful. Some who written about critical thinking seem to muddle all three views in an unenlightening mélange. Apart from the errors or inadequacies of the conceptions themselves, they promote or abet misconceived practices for teaching critical thinking. Together, they have led to the view that critical thinking is best taught by practicing it. We offer alternative proposals for the teaching of critical thinking. Critical thinking is a subject of considerable current interest, both in terms of theory and pedagogy. A great deal is written about critical thinking, conferences on the subject abound, and educational initiatives aimed at fostering critical thinking proliferate. It is our view that much of the theoretical work and many of the pedagogical endeavors in this area are misdirected because they are based on faulty conceptions of critical thinking. Critical thinking is frequently conceptualized in terms of skills, processes, procedures and practice. Much of the educational literature either refers to cognitive or thinking skills or equates critical thinking with certain mental processes or procedural moves that can be improved through practice. In this paper we attempt to explain the misconceptions inherent in such ways of conceptualizing critical thinking. It is important to note that much of the literature contains a pervasive miasma of overlapping uses of such terms as skill, process, procedure, behavior, mental operations, etc. We thus find similar kinds of error and confusion about critical thinking under superficially different ways of talking. We have tried to focus on plausibly distinct uses of skill, process and procedure in our critiques. Our arguments will lay the groundwork for offering a new conception based on different foundational assumptions in the following paper on this theme. Many educators and theorists appear to view the task of teaching critical thinking as primarily a matter of developing thinking skills. Courses and conferences focus on the development of thinking skills and references to skills appear in much of the literature. Even leading theorists in the area of critical thinking conceptualize critical thinking largely in terms of skill. Thus, for example, Siegel (1988: 39, 41) writes of the critical thinker as possessing `a certain character as well as certain skills', and makes reference to `a wide variety of reasoning skills'. Similarly, Paul (1984: 5) refers to critical thinking skills and describes them as `a set of integrated macro-logical skills'. The Delphi Report on critical thinking (Facione 1990), which purports to be based on expert consensus in the field, views critical thinking in terms of cognitive skills in interpretation, analysis, evaluation, inference, explanation and self-regulation. It is important to note that the term `skill' can be used in a variety of senses and that, as a consequence, some of the discussion of skills in critical thinking is relatively unproblematic. In some instances `skill' is used to indicate that an individual is proficient at the task in question. It is used, in this context, in an achievement sense. As killed reasoner is one who is able to reason well and to meet the relevant criteria for good reasoning. The use of skill in this context focuses attention on students being capable of intelligent performance as opposed to merely having propositional knowledge about intelligent performance. Thus, someone who is thinking critically can do more than cite a definition for ad hominem. He or she will notice inappropriate appeals to an arguer's character in particular argumentative contexts. Clearly, being a critical thinker involves, among other things, having a certain amount of `know-how'. Such thinkers are skilled, then, in the sense that they must be able to fulfill relevant standards of good thinking. Conceptualizing critical thinking as involving skill in this achievement sense is relatively benign.

Pedagogy and the Human Sciences, 2016

Contemporary discussions of critical thinking lack serious consideration of students’ thinking-processes as phenomena embedded within the contexts of psychological and interpersonal relationships. This paper departs from past and present approaches to critical thinking pedagogy by analogizing thinking and critical thinking with forms of relating: to self, to others, to objects of thought, and to what we describe as “thinking-relationships.” The analogy of thinking with relating permits us to examine more closely the connections between self, psyche, student, teacher, and learning institution, and to apply valuable insights from the fields of social philosophy and psychoanalytic theory to critical thinking pedagogy and practice. This paper introduces the metaphor of critical thinking as relating to one’s thinking-relationships, explores the contexts in which such critical thinking-relationships are embedded, identifies hidden desires, defenses, and fantasies that may hinder the development of critical thinking, and concludes by reflecting upon the link between the ethical development of the person and the ideal of critical thinking.

World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews

The argument that non-western countries lack or do not have critical thinking has ushered in a strong scholarly debate. Several scholars perceived this statement as ‘Othering’ lacking evidence and mired in ethnocentric dogma. Indeed, this paper is to redefine CT, indicating it is not culture-specific and is not necessarily a western legacy. CT has evolved and developed across different civilizations, even long before the Greeks. This study interprets CT as critical intelligence, learnable and transformable, with emphasize on its linguistics determinism; meaning that any language with a question structure enables its people to activate this critical intelligence and master it through practice. However, culture still plays a potent role in shaping the CT style.

Theory and Research in Education

It is widely recognised among educational theorists, educators and policy makers alike, that critical thinking should claim a superordinate place in our system of educational objectives. In the philosophical literature on this topic, critical thinking is often conceptualised as the educational cognate of rationality, which in turn is analysed as being comprised of the relevant skills and abilities to assess reasons and evidence, together with the intellectual dispositions to actively use these proficiencies in practice. The resulting picture is in many respects normative and idealised, following the style of philosophical theorising commonplace in the tradition of analytic philosophy of education. In contrast, certain recent empirical findings related to the rational performance of actual human beings seem to cast doubts on the extent to which we can expect people to fulfil these idealised normative standards of rationality. After introducing the relevant philosophical theories and ...

2020

International Education Studies, 2015

Learning critical thinking skills are the goal of educational systems so the term "critical thinking" (CT) is frequently found in educational policy documents. Despite this frequency, however, precise understandings among teachers of what CT really means do not exit. The present study is designed to answer the following question. We can classify critical thinking concept in a conceptual framework. A qualitative content analysis with deductive categorization was used to classify critical thinking concept in a conceptual framework .The research field (statistical population) included all available digital and written sources related to critical thinking. The Research sample was a purposeful homogeneous sample. It is used to describe the sample that includes information based on the qualitative research goals. The results showed that critical thinking concept could be investigated in fields of both psychology and philosophy. While philosophers emphasis on the nature and quality of critical thinking, psychologists focus on cognitive process and components used to investigate the practical problems. So philosophers emphasize critical thinking attitudes while psychologists focus on critical thinking skills.

Higher Education Research & Development, 2013

This paper argues that Moore's specifist defence of critical thinking as ‘diverse modes of thought in the disciplines’, which appeared in Higher Education Research & Development, 30(3), 2011, is flawed as it entrenches relativist attitudes toward the important skill of critical thinking. The paper outlines the critical thinking debate, distinguishes between ‘top-down’, ‘bottom-up’ and ‘relativist’ approaches and locates Moore's account therein. It uses examples from one discipline-specific area, namely, the discipline of Literature, to show that the generalist approach to critical thinking does not ‘leave something out’ and outlines why teaching ‘generic’ critical thinking skills is central to tertiary education, teaching and learning, and employment opportunities for students. The paper also defends the assessment of critical thinking skills.

SOCIAL WELFARE: INTERDISCIPLINARY APPROACH

The article discusses the construction of the critical thinking concept in higher education and its change in scientific publications between 1993 and 2017. Based on a systematic literature review, the following research questions are raised: how does construction of critical thinking concept change in the context of higher education during time? How are personal, interpersonal, and social aspects expressed in the concept of critical thinking in the context of higher education? The systematic literature review revealed significant grow of publications starting from 1998. It is also disclosed slight change in treating critical thinking as purely general or domain-specific competence. The authors of the researched articles do not make clear division between critical thinking as a general and as a domain-specific competence. Researchers in different fields tend to associate critical thinking with the development of a person’s cognitive and intellectual capacities, including skills and...

1991

This conference focused on the field of critical thinking emphasizing social and cultural inquiry, through the perspectives of scholars and practitioners in a variety of academic disciplines. Following an overview describing the mission of the institute, and an introduction entitled "Critical Thinking and the Improvement of Undergraduate Education," plenary papers are presented: "Literacy, Education, and the Struggle for Public Life: Towards a Pedagogy of Critical Thinking"; "Critical Thinking and Cultural Literacy: Where E. D. Hirsch Goes Wrong"; and "Critical Thinking across the Disciplines: The Search for an Archimedian Point." The volume is then organized into 9 sections reflecting the thoughts of more than 60 authors representing over 20 academic fields. It includes papers addressing a range of issues in critical thinking and undergraduate education, reflecting the many theoretical perspectives that relate critical thinking to social and cultural inquiry. The nine sections address the following topics: (1) social and cultural context of critical thinking; (2) social inquiry as critical practice; (3) critical thinking, social issues and communication; (4) critical thinking in instructional contexts: within and across the disciplines; (5) critical thinking and the teaching of social sciences; (6) critical thinking and narrative discourse; (7) critical thinking and gender; (8) leadership, authority and power; and (9) critical thinking theory. (LL)

1989

2005

This paper addresses some issues concerning the promotion of critical thinking, from a philosophical perspective. The argument is based on the idea that the specific manifestations of critical thinking one produces about some issue depend on one’s knowledge resources, as well as on one’s emotional attitudes towards that issue. From this idea, and with an emphasis different from that suggested by the ideas of general skills and critical spirit, it is argued that critical thinking about the set of issues, dimensions and perspectives that are not actually critically addressed in the classroom, in terms of both knowledge and emotions about them, is not being directly promoted, and there is no guarantee that students will be critical about them in the future. Educators interested in the promotion of critical thinking, therefore, should take the responsibility for defining what crucial issues, dimensions and perspectives will, as a minimum, need to be properly addressed. Lastly, it is arg...