Critical thinking can be defined as “thinking about thinking” in some area of inquiry. More specifically, it emphasizes explicit awareness of the thinking process within that domain. Departments are encouraged to begin conversations about the relevant thinking processes in their area (e.g., what it means to think like an artist, biologist, chemist, dancer, engineer, historian, or psychologist). These conversations are important because critical thinking is not a generic skill, but one that manifests itself in different ways depending on the subject matter.
Misconception #1 --- critical thinking is happening everywhere. Critical thinking should not be confused with active engagement with course material or even the production of excellent student work (Choy & Cheah, 2009). Many students are able to solve complex problems, craft meaningful prose, and create beautiful works of art without understanding the process. If this was all that critical thinking involved, then critical thinking might indeed be widespread. However, critical thinking requires reflecting on the process of thinking (Elder & Paul, 2010). Even if excellent thinking is happening everywhere, it is not clear that an awareness of the process is nearly as widespread. This suggests that teachers need to make the process of thinking as explicit as possible, even among our most excellent thinkers.
Misconception #2 --- critical thinking should be happening all the time. Within any given course, there will be a variety of learning goals. Some will involve covering particular disciplinary content. Others involve the development of particular disciplinary skills. The infusion of critical thinking requires that faculty and student reflect on the thinking process at least some of the time. For example, if a course requires that students gather particular forms of data, then at least some attention should be given to why the data were collected in a particular fashion and how those data answer the proposed question.
Misconception #3 – critical thinking can be learned in one particular course. Some courses will emphasize the process of close and careful thought more than others. But like the development of any other skill, critical thinking requires on-going practice and reinforcement. This is especially true given that critical thinking is a collection of skills that vary across many contexts. Students capable of analyzing how factors such as gender, race, and sexuality influence governmental policy may have difficulty analyzing a theatrical performance or the appropriateness of a statistical sampling method. Even within an academic major, students will need to practice and refine their critical thinking skills throughout their time in a program.
Formal and informal scaffolding methods (e.g., structured assignments building on one another) can enhance the development of critical thinking (Wass, Harland, & Mercer, 2011). Wass, Harland and Mercer, for example, found that zoology students moved from teacher-led exercises designed to evaluate evidence to using those evaluations in student directed research. At the end of the three year involvement in the program, students reported learning to “think like a zoologist." If teaching methods are constructed to explicitly highlight the stages in the learning process, students are better able to articulate their own thought processes.
Choy, S. C. & Cheah, P.K. (2009). “Teacher Perceptions of Critical Thinking Among Students and its Influence on Higher education.” International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education. 20 (2), 198-206.
Davies, W. M. (2006). “An ‘infusion’ approach to critical thinking: Moore on the critical thinking debate.” Higher Education Research and Development, 25(2), 179-193.
Duron, R., Limbach, B., & Waugh, W. (2006). “Critical Thinking Framework for Any
Discipline.” International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 17 (2), 160-166.
Elder, L. & Paul, R. (2011). “Critical Thinking: Competency Standards Essential for the Cultivation of Intellectual Skills, Part I.” Journal of Developmental Education, 34 (2), 38-39.
Lauer, T. (2004). “Teaching critical thinking skills using course content material: a reversal of roles.” Journal of College Science Teaching, 34 (6), 34-37.
Paul, R., Elder, L. & Bartell, T. (1997). California teacher preparation for instruction in critical thinking: research findings and policy recommendations. Sacramento, CA: California Commission on Teacher Credentialing.
Wass, R., Harland, T., and Mercer, A. (2011). “Scaffolding critical thinking in the zone of proximal development.” Higher Education Research and Development, 30 (3), 317-328.
Some content on this page is saved in PDF format. To view these files, download Adobe Acrobat Reader free. If you are having trouble reading a document, request an accessible copy of the PDF or Word Document.
