Critical Thinking: An Academic Perspective

The article begins by defining "critical thinking," a multifaceted concept that requires people to think abstractly, to contextualize material into a personalized framework, and parallels a constructivist standpoint. Despite the fact that critical thinking appears to be a sophisticated intellectual construct, school systems generally avoid incorporating activities that induce this advanced cognitive mechanism. Ideas for teachers who are interested in integrating a critical model (i.e., "the questioning circle") into their instruction are presented. Finally, populations for which critical thinking is more suitable are reviewed, as well as populations that might particularly struggle with the esoteric nature associated with this style of thought.

Educational Psychology > Critical Thinking: An Academic Perspective

Keywords Critical Thinking; Constructivist Perspective; Developmental Perspective; Reductionist Perspective; Questioning Circle; Triarchic Theory

Overview

In an attempt to understand how students learn most efficiently, educational psychologists have broached various pedagogical issues and ascertained their proficiency, rigor, and contributions toward academia. Critical thinking is a concept that has been examined from various angles in terms of how it enhances the learning process, along with the advantages, disadvantages, and limitations that this thinking style imparts. Much research (Glevey, 2006; Paul & Elder, 2006; Vansieleghem, 2005), asserts that the actual definition of critical thinking is somewhat abstract and varied. Heiman and Slomianko (1985) describe critical thinking as an internal dialogue whereby a person ponders and dissects the material that is being learned. As opposed to passively receiving information, critical thinkers internally apply the knowledge that they receive against their personal frames of reference. They devise specific questions that need further contemplation, and brainstorm relevant examples that help illuminate the material. Additionally, they use exploratory and imaginative methods that are conceptual in nature and do not typically yield right and wrong answers.

By nature, instructors who assign writing activities elicit more critical thinking skills than those that evaluate students based upon testing assessments that are commonly formatted into multiple-choice, true/false, or fill-in-the-blank questions (Jackson, 2006). The latter requires people to think deductively by narrowing down options until the correct answer remains. Writing, on the other hand, allows people to expressively justify their opinions, and it is typically their style and way with words that validates their convictions.

Critical Thinking Across the Curriculum

Meyers (1986) maintains that coursework should contain critical thinking elements across the curriculum. Budding writers should not limit their critical expression to English class; they should be challenged in this arena from teachers who specialize in various subjects (e.g., English, biology, history, math, etc.). For example, a biology student who is studying the ecology of giraffes might speculate what life would be like as a giraffe. This student might look through the lens of the giraffe while drafting a paper, and reflect on questions such as, "Based on my bodily dimensions, what food might be more accessible?" or "Within my natural habitat, how would I escape a predator?"

Likewise, a history student might wonder how life would unfold if aspects of Ancient Rome were to take place in today's culture. In both of these instances, the initial concern undertaken by the critical thinker is not related to the accuracy of facts; not until the offset and exploration of such an imaginative process will a student comparatively unearth the scientific and historical certainties. Theoretically, this type of "thinking outside the box" leaves a lasting and complex impression by merging objective material with the learner's subjective and hypothetical reasoning. In contrast, memorizing a list of historical dates and scientific details is less memorable, and thus more fleeting.

Davis-Seaver (2000) defines critical thinking as "purposeful thinking that uses the skills of problem solving, decision making, evaluation, and metacognition to resolve conflicts, arrive at solutions and understand depth. It is that part of the creative thinking process that analyzes and evaluates the appropriateness and logicalness of the creative process or outcome" (pp. 9–10). She contends that there are interconnected concepts that coincide with the existence of critical thinking, including abstract thinking, (the thought processes that are not necessarily based in reality) and creative thinking, which are innovative and unique revelations. Critical thinking draws upon people's ability to think hypothetically about intangible, unrealistic, metaphoric, or time-infinite (e.g., past or futuristic) events.

Questions & Skepticism

Included in the definition of critical thought offered by Garside (1996) is the critical thinker who does not blindly accept universal truths, but rather approaches phenomena with a healthy dose of skepticism, and the ability to see the strengths and weaknesses in any given claim. This pattern is ideally exemplified in an educational environment, and students should be given the opportunity to raise questions and challenge data that is put forth by their professors. Furthermore, Garside (1996) asserts that "critical thinking includes a set of skills that are most effectively taught within the context of a subject area. Since it is impossible to think critically about something of which one knows nothing, critical thinking is dependent on a sufficient base of knowledge" (p. 215). Meyers (1986) shares this sentiment and indicates that the sequence of critical thinking transmission should begin with a concrete understanding of information that gradually forays into more abstraction. In other words, science students should learn basic tenets before creating their own theoretical milieu.

Further Insights

The Reductionist Perspective

Most schools utilize a converse set of procedures, such as biology students who begin by examining theoretical, abstract concepts before transitioning into hands-on laboratory activities that are concrete. This corresponds with the reductionist ideal described by Davis-Seaver (2000), which is one of three perspectives (i.e., reductionist, developmental, constructivist) attributed with the etiology of critical thinking. The reductionist perspective breaks down thinking patterns to their simplest form, and therefore focuses on skill mastery, or the obtainment of concrete knowledge that needs to exist before critical thinking can occur. In other words, before a student philosophizes about the various aspects of U.S. government, and compares current policies against the "rise and fall" of Ancient Rome, that student needs to have a solid understanding of governmental policies that currently reign in America, as well as those that existed in Rome.

The Developmental Perspective

This is contrasted with the developmental perspective, which emphasizes age-appropriate maturation that must be established before engaging in critical thinking, and is associated with theorists such as Piaget, Vygotsky, and Erikson. Just as a young child would not be expected to run a marathon due to biological and physiological constraints that have yet to be cultivated, children are intellectually unequipped with the intellectual mechanisms that necessitate processing information in a critical manner. Dewey (1910) points out that experiences that are relevant to adults naturally transform from concrete to abstract. Because children are inexperienced with the everyday actions carried out by adults (e.g., paying bills, taxes, voting), such experiences remain theoretical until the child transitions into adulthood, when those same activities become a normative, practical, and concrete part of life.

The Constructivist Perspective

Finally, constructivism is the perspective that resonates with most critical thinking advocates. It purports that critical thinking is experiential, pertinent to one's life, requires curiosity and reflection, and can be accomplished at any age. This perspective assumes that as children confront relevant coursework, a natural sense of inquisitiveness ensues, which should be nurtured by teachers who encourage them to probe, investigate, and scrutinize what has been presented.

Maiorana (1992) explains the nature of critical thinking within the context of everyday life. Humans are curious by nature and, when confronted with information that is puzzling, problematic, or discordant with their values, possess an instinctual desire to unearth the mysteries that comprise their existence. Through their five senses, people are able to distinguish what is real, and through their critical thinking skills they are able to unveil why this may be the case. Critical thinking is the series of questions that clarify situations more precisely, offer resolutions, and attach value appraisals to their worth. A basic concept that a psychology student might learn, for example, is that repetitive exposure to violence portrayed in the media (e.g., movies, music, video games) makes them desensitized, or numb, to the severity of future acts of violence. However, a psychology student who ponders this matter critically might question why Japan, which manufactures more video games worldwide (Chan, 2004), has fewer documented cases of societal violence (Kaplan, 2007).

Making Personal Meaning

Petrosky (1986) expands upon the personalized process of critical thinking. Whereas rote learning involves the memorization of facts and figures, critical thinking makes meaning out of such information by correlating it to life experiences. For example, if a marital counselor sought to understand the devastating effects surrounding divorce in order to forge a sense of empathy with clients undergoing such experiences, drawing references from experiential knowledge (e.g., former clients, friends, or from self) would be more illuminating than reliance on statistical norms. Therefore, the critical thinker not only speculates on the "whys" of life, but also places situations into a personalized framework while forming thoughts and ideas.

Critical Thinking in School

It behooves school systems to adopt a curriculum that challenges students' abilities to think critically (Behar-Horenstein & Niu, 2011). Hill (1996) found that the benefits of critical thinking skills expand much farther beyond successful academic pursuits, and that they also produce advanced moral and personal development. However, most American schools inadequately employ critical thinking skills, and instead focus on acquisition and comprehension skills (Petrosky, 1986) for various reasons. Maiorana (1992) notes that didactic instruction consists of a teacher who stands before a classroom of learners and takes initiative in terms of talking, thinking, describing, and hypothesizing. The teacher is the one doing all of the work, while the students serve as passive (and bored) spectators. The students' main goal becomes deriving enough knowledge to pass the test/class/grade level, and therefore the knowledge becomes temporal, in that students might cram the material until test time, after which it will dissipate from memory. A critical approach, on the other hand, would integrate the material into their lives and instill lessons that are more durable and prolonged.

Moreover, when students are not encouraged to think critically, they blindly receive information that is passed down from their teachers. This "passing of the baton" approach is precarious, in that it becomes a cyclical and generational modality: teachers relay information that had been previously bestowed upon them onto their set of students, some of whom eventually become teachers. This new group of teachers, in turn, relays the same information upon the next cohort of students. This process becomes robotic and stale, viewing knowledge as static and predictable as opposed to novel.

Furthermore, textbooks are often structured in a linear, sequential, and concrete manner by offering theories and statistics as factual information. Students are expected to faithfully read such scripts and demonstrate an adherence to their underlying principles by taking quizzes and exams that reflect a recitation of these documented facts. Rarely are textbooks presented in a manner that requires students to question the material and contrast it against their belief systems. In other words, textbooks are often vehicles that disseminate indisputable "truths," instead of mediums that challenge, ponder, and explore data.

The Triarchic Theory

According to Sternberg's triarchic theory (Sternberg, Torff, & Grigorenko, 1998), human intelligence can be categorized threefold, into:

• Analytical tasks (e.g., appraising, critiquing),

• Creative tasks (e.g., inventing, supposing), and

• Practical tasks (e.g., recalling, repeating).

Not surprisingly, students who utilize all three aspects of the triarchic theory perform better than those who are solely recipient to analytical or practical methods. Unfortunately, many teachers are remiss in purveying creative endeavors, partially because of the pressure that is placed upon them to produce students who score highly on standardized, fact-driven tests (e.g., the No Child Left Behind Act; McKim, 2007).

The Questioning Circle

Christenbury & Kelly (1983) provide theoretical knowledge on critical thinking, which can serve as a teaching tool for educators who seek to integrate more critical skills into their curricula. Their theory is grounded in the tenet that questioning is the platform that enables critical thinking to thrive (Larson & Lovelace, 2013). Christenbury and Kelly devised "the questioning circle," which is visually formatted into a configuration that resembles a Venn diagram (Cassel, 2007), consisting of three overlapping circles that function as a question forum. The first circle is titled "matter" and contains the given subject/theme. The second circle is titled "personal reality" and embodies the subjective interpretations or values relating to the subject/theme. The third circle is titled "external reality" and relates to societal norms, cultural relevance, and historical events. This concept can be illustrated by using William Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet:

Matter: Romeo and Juliet.

Personal Reality: Have you ever been in love to the degree that you would sever family ties, or take your own life?

External Reality: What are some cultural implications of a couple in love who operate from incompatible religious backgrounds? What coping skills relate to family members who have lost a loved one to suicide? What are the ramifications of spontaneous life-altering decisions?

Viewpoints

Critical Thinking & Specific Populations

There may be certain populations that are able to apply the principles of critical thinking more aptly, perhaps because of their ability to handle its abstract nature, or perhaps because of sturdy academic foundations possessed by these populations. In a study conducted among nursing students (Smith, 1996), students with higher grade point averages scored higher on critical-thinking assessments, and experienced less anxiety in the process. Zohar, Degani, and Vaaknin (2001) noted that perhaps students that perform higher academically are targeted for courses that refine their critical thinking skills, thus creating an exclusive system that targets advanced students who demonstrate a proclivity for schoolwork. The system hones in on this select group of students, and helps them to perfect their ability to think in abstract ways. Hence, if critical thinking is a learned phenomenon, then lower-functioning, at-risk populations are under-represented members in such an elite scholastic endeavor. Ironically, Maiorana (1992) indicates that at-risk students would benefit from enrollment in more critically-oriented classes, which might serve to prevent low performance and drop-out rates among this group, since they struggle with mainstream learning styles that come easily to affluent students, such as "cramming" for tests or partaking in lengthy note-taking lectures.

Penningroth, Despain, and Gray (2007) conducted a study demonstrating that critical thinking is indeed learned. They created a one-credit college level psychology class that concentrated on enhancing students' critical thinking skills, and at the offset found that students taking the class thought more critically than students who were excluded from the class. In another study (Lampert, 2006), four groups of college students (i.e., freshman art majors, freshman non-art majors, junior and senior art majors, and junior and senior non-art majors) were surveyed on their ability to think critically. The findings indicated that the junior and senior art majors far surpassed freshman non-art majors in their aptitude to critically think, suggesting that students who have progressed farther educationally, particularly within a discipline that refines conceptual thinking skills, are more predisposed toward critical thought.

As a society, the U.S. is continually becoming more diverse (Evans, 2007). Moreover, within the field of education, an understanding of students with learning disabilities (LD) and other special needs are materializing. As awareness of LD and multicultural needs comes to the forefront of education, exploration of how such populations assimilate with critical thinking models are necessary and are being undertaken (Jenkins, 2011). Rose (1998) found that there was a difference between students with and without learning disabilities regarding their ability for written expression. The nature of writing itself is elusive, subjective, and critical in nature, and people are evaluated on their ability to craft a paper based on personal and creative implements. Perhaps students who struggle with such abstraction (e.g., LD students) might flounder when performing this type of critical thinking assessment. It is also possible that "concrete" assessments that seek to measure critical thinking skills might fail to capture the essence of creativity that might accompany written appraisals. In addition, these students may simply not have received the instruction necessary for them to develop their critical thinking skills to the best of their abilities. Melhem and Isa (2013) point out that many LD students are not taught strategies for critical thinking due to the widely held belief that they "have a more urgent need to master basic skills, such as learning to read and write" (pp. 152–153). They found that when taught using the CoRT (Cognitive Research Trust) program, LD students displayed a statistically significant improvement in critical thinking skills (Melhem & Isa, 2013, pp. 159–160).

Lee & Carrasquillo (2006) discuss points of confusion surrounding critical thinking skills within a multicultural paradigm. In particular, their study examined students who emigrated from Korea and enrolled in American schools. These students were reared in Korean culture, which is founded in Confucian principles that emphasize strong teacher-student hierarchies and respect for elders. These ideals are communicated through silence, averting eye contact, and non-questioning reverence. Needless to say, when exposed to critical thinking environments, these Korean students often performed at insufficient levels. Teachers perceived such students to be passive and uninvolved, and the Korean students did not understand why their teachers would relinquish power to their students. Moreover, the Korean students expected teachers to be omniscient experts in their field of study, possessing wisdom and answers. The fact that they posed questions to their student body to mull over, and subsequently come to their own conclusions was disconcerting and confusing.

Conclusion

It is hard to succinctly define critical thinking. Factors associated with this type of cerebral process include that it is abstract in nature, that it intellectually stimulates those who are well-suited for academia, that it can be harnessed more astutely through written expression, and that there are certain populations that might gravitate more fluently to this type of thinking. Despite redeeming academic qualities, many teachers are reluctant to encourage their students to utilize critical thinking skills, conceivably because American education has evolved into a fact-driven and test oriented society. This article delineates foundational theories and models that may pique the interest of faculty interested in incorporating entry-level critical thinking strategies into their classroom. Moreover, it initiates discourse surrounding difficulties that multicultural and learning-disabled students might have toward critical thinking, which is an area that needs further clarification.

Terms & Concepts

Critical Thinking: An advanced intellectual process that taps into abstract thought and creativity.

Constructivist Perspective: Suggests that critical thinking is experiential and should reflect a person's life.

Developmental Perspective: Indicates that developmental maturation must transpire before critical thinking can occur.

Reductionist Perspective: Reduces critical thinking down to its simplest form. Critical thinking cannot take place without knowledge of concrete facts.

Questioning Circle: A technique to elicit critical thinking, under which a person examines material through the following categories: "matter," "personal reality," and "external reality."

Triarchic Theory: Claims that human intelligence is comprised of analytical, creative, and practical tasks.

Bibliography

Al-Musaad, H. M. (2002). A measurement of the critical thinking ability of college students with learning disabilities. Dissertation Abstracts International, 62 (7-A), 2329.

Behar-Horenstein, L. S., & Niu, L. (2011). Teaching critical thinking skills in higher education: A review of the literature. Journal of College Teaching & Learning, 8, 25–41. Retrieved on December 7, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=58843015&site=ehost-live

Cassel, D. (2007). Cogwheels of the mind: The story of Venn diagrams. School Science & Mathematics, 107 , 404. Retrieved December 10, 2007, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=24532199&site=ehost-live

Chan, D. (2004). Asian games. Meanjin, 63 , 186–191. Retrieved December 10, 2007, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=13432810&site=ehost-live

Christenbury, L., & Kelly, P. P. (1983). Questioning: A path to critical thinking. Urbana, IL: ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading and Communication Skills and the National Council of Teachers of English.

Davis-Seaver, J. (2000). Critical thinking in young children. Lewiston, NY: The Edwin Mellen Press.

Dewey, J. D. (1910). How we think. Boston: D.C. Health.

Evans, M. (2007). The cure is in the melting pot. Modern Healthcare, 37 , 32–36. Retrieved December 10, 2007, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=25427024&site=ehost-live

Garside, C. (1996). Look who's talking: A comparison of lecture and group discussion teaching strategies in developing critical thinking skills. Communication Education, 45 , 212–227. Retrieved November 7, 2014, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=9709170535&site=ehost-live

Glevey, K. E. (2006). Promoting thinking skills in education. London Review of Education, 4 , 291–302. Retrieved December 10, 2007, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=23355795&site=ehost-live

Heiman, M., & Slomianko, J. (1985). Critical thinking skills. Washington, DC: National Education Association.

Hill, K. E. (1996). Critical thinking and its relation to academic, personal, and moral development in the college years. Dissertation Abstracts International, 56 (8-B), 4603.

Jackson, E. (2006). Narrow testing? It's the American way. Times Educational Supplement, 4690, 22. Retrieved December 10, 2007, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=21595742&site=ehost-live

Jenkins, S. (2011). Cross-cultural perspectives on critical thinking. Journal of Nursing Education, 50, 268–274. Retrieved on December 7, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=60773032&site=ehost-live

Kaplan, D. E. (2007). More stressed, but still safer. U.S. News & World Report, 142 , 66. Retrieved December 10, 2007, from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=24410506&site=ehost-live

Lampert, N. A. (2006). A comparison of the critical thinking dispositions of arts and non-arts undergraduates. Dissertation Abstracts International, 66 (11-A), 3949.

Larson, L. R., & Lovelace, M. D. (2013). Evaluating the efficacy of questioning strategies in lecture-based classroom environments: Are we asking the right questions?. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 24, 105–122. Retrieved on December 7, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=85628873&site=ehost-live

Lee, K. S., & Carrasquillo, A. (2006). Korean college students in United States: Perceptions of professors and students. College Student Journal, 40 , 442–456. Retrieved December 10, 2007, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=21375570&site=ehost-live

Maiorana, V. P. (1992). Critical thinking across the curriculum: Building the analytical classroom. Bloomington, IN: ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading and Communication Skills.

McKim, B. (2007). The road less traveled. Phi Delta Kappan, 89 , 298–299. Retrieved December 10, 2007, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=27757262&site=ehost-live

Melhem, T. Y. M., & Isa, Z. M. (2013). Enhancing critical thinking skills among students with learning difficulties. International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and Development, 2 , 151–169. Retrieved November 7, 2013, from http://hrmars.com/hrmars%5Fpapers/Enhancing%5FCritical%5FThinking%5FSkills%5Famong%5FStudents%5Fwith%5FLearning%5FDifficulties.pdf

Meyers, C. (1986). Teaching students to think critically. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2006). Critical thinking: The nature of critical and creative thought. Journal of Developmental Education, 30 , 34–35. Retrieved December 10, 2007, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=23830680&site=ehost-live

Penningroth, S. L, Despain, L. H., & Gray, M. J. (2007). A course designed to improve psychological critical thinking. Teaching of Psychology, 34 , 153–157. Retrieved November 7, 2014, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=26342751&site=ehost-live

Petrosky, A. (1986). Critical thinking: Qu' est-ce que c'est? The English Record, 37 , 2–5.

Rose, M. M. (1998). Critical thinking skills instruction for postsecondary students with and without learning disabilities: The effectiveness of icons as part of a literature curriculum. Dissertation Abstracts International, 58 (8-A), 3088.

Smith, M. L. (1996). A quantitative analysis of critical thinking abilities, learning and study strategies, and academic achievement in associate degree nursing students. Dissertation Abstracts International, 56 (10-A), 3893.

Sternberg, R. J., Torff, B., & Grigorenko, E. L. (1998). Teaching triarchically improves school achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90 , 374–384. Retrieved November 7, 2014, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=1126244&site=ehost-live

Surajbali-Bissoonauth, C. (2012). Who said literature study is worthless? Literature as a tool for development of critical thinking. International Journal of Learning, 18 , 127–139. Retrieved November 7, 2014, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=83814094&site=ehost-live

Vansieleghem, N. (2005). Philosophy for children as the wind of thinking. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 39 , 19–35. Retrieved December 10, 2007, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=16878451&site=ehost-live

Zohar, A., Degani, A., & Vaaknin, E. (2001). Teachers' beliefs about low-achieving students and higher order thinking. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17 , 469–485. Retrieved November 7, 2014, from EBSCO Online Database PsycINFO.

Suggested Reading

Fisher, A. (2011). Critical thinking: An introduction (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Michalko, M. (2001). Cracking creativity: The secrets of creative genius. New York, NY: Ten Speed Press.

Ruscio, J. (2006). Critical thinking in psychology: Separating sense from nonsense (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing.

Shim, W., & Walczak, K. (2012). The impact of faculty teaching practices on the development of students' critical thinking skills. International Journal of Teaching & Learning in Higher Education, 24 , 16–30. Retrieved November 7, 2014, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=89290471&site=ehost-live