critical thinking across the curriculum project

Critical Thinking Across the Curriculum: A Vision

• Published: 10 June 2016
• Volume 37 , pages 165–184, ( 2018 )

Cite this article

• Robert H. Ennis 1  

10k Accesses

130 Citations

7 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

This essay offers a comprehensive vision for a higher education program incorporating critical thinking across the curriculum (CTAC) at hypothetical Alpha College, employing a rigorous detailed conception of critical thinking called “The Alpha Conception of Critical Thinking”. The program starts with a 1-year, required, freshman course, two-thirds of which focuses on a set of general critical thinking dispositions and abilities. The final third uses subject-matter issues to reinforce general critical thinking dispositions and abilities, teach samples of subject matter, and introduce subject-specific critical thinking. Subject-matter departmental and other units will make long-range plans for incorporating critical thinking in varying amounts in subject-matter courses, culminating in a written Senior Thesis/Project involving investigating, taking, and defending a position, which reinforce critical thinking abilities and dispositions and increase subject-matter knowledge. Teaching approaches used in the program are involving and based on the principle, “We learn what we use.” Both summative and formative assessment are employed as appropriate. Coordination and support are extensive. Objections and concerns are discussed, and alternatives, including possible transitions, are considered. An extended review of research supports moving toward CTAC.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Australian teachers’ adoption of critical and creative thinking as curriculum

Discourses of artificial intelligence in higher education: a critical literature review, opting out as an untapped resource in instructional design: review and implications.

Abrami et al (2008) Instructional interventions affecting critical thinking skills and dispositions: stage 1 meta-analysis. Rev Ed Res 78(4):1102–1134

Article   Google Scholar  

Abrami PC et al (2015) Strategies for teaching students to think critically: a meta-analysis. Rev Ed Res 85:275–314

Allegretti C (2005) Thinking critically: instruction and assessment. Best practices in teaching critical across the psychology curriculum conference. Atlanta, GA, Oct 1

Arum R, Roksa J (2011) Academically adrift. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

Google Scholar  

Bailin S, Battersby M (2010) Reason in the balance: an inquiry approach to critical thinking. McGraw-Hill Ryerson, Canada

Belkin D (2015) Skills gap found in college students. Wall Street J Jan 17–18:A5

Bok D (2006) Our underachieving colleges: a candid look at how much students learn and why they should be learning more. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ

Campbell D, Stanley J (1963) Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Rand-McNally, Chicago

Capon N, Kuhn D (2004) What’s so good about problem-based learning? Cogn Instr 22(1):61–79

Casserly M (2012) The 10 skills that will get you hired in 2013. Forbes, 10 Dec

Center for Assessment & Improvement of Learning (n.d.). CAT. Center for Assessment & Learning, Tennessee Technological Institute, Cookeville, TN

Clemson University (2016a) Clemson thinks2. http://www.clemson.edu/academics/programs/thinks2/

Clemson University (2016b) Clemson QEP report. http://www.clemson.edu/academics/programs/thinks2/QEP-report.pdf

Cohen J (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, 2nd edn. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale

Commission on the Humanities (1980) The humanities in American life. University of California Press, Berkeley

Conant J (ed) (1948–1954, a series) Harvard case histories in experimental science. Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA

Cook T, Campbell D (1979) Quasi-experimentation: design and analysis issues for field settings. Houghton Mifflin, Boston

Council for Aid to Education (n.d.). CLA. Council for Aid to Education, New York

De Vise D (2012) Colleges face their own test anxiety. Sarasota Herald Tribune (from The Washington Post) March 15: 2A 7A

DeAngelo I et al (2009) National norms for the 2007–2008 HERI faculty survey. Higher Education Research Institute, Los Angeles

Dewey J (1933) How we think. D C Heath, Boston

Ennis R (1961) Assumption-finding. In: Smith B, Ennis R (eds) Language and concepts in education. Rand McNally, Chicago. Reprinted (1971) La identificacion de supestos. In: Smith B, Ennis R (eds) Lenguaje y conceptos en la educacion. El Ateneo, Buenos Aires

Ennis R (1964) Operational definitions. Am Educ Res J 1:183–201 (Reprinted in: Krimerman L (ed) (1969) The nature and scope of social science: a critical anthology. Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York (Title as reprinted: Operationism can and should be divorced from covering law assumptions)

Ennis R (1968) Enumerative induction and best explanation. J Philos 65:523–530

Ennis R (1973) On causality. Educ Res 2(6):4–11

Ennis R (1982) Identifying implicit assumptions. Synthese 51:61–86

Ennis R (1984) Problems in testing informal logic, critical thinking, reasoning ability. Inf Logic 6:3–9

Ennis R (1987a) A conception of critical thinking—with some curriculum suggestions. APA Newsletter on Teaching Philosophy Summer:1–5

Ennis R (1987b) A taxonomy of critical thinking dispositions and abilities. In: Baron J, Sternberg R (eds) Teaching thinking skills: Theory and practice. W.H. Freeman, New York

Ennis R (1989) Critical thinking and subject specificity: clarification and needed research. Educ Res 18(3):4–10

Ennis R (1990) The extent to which critical thinking is subject-specific: further clarification. Educ Res 19(4):13–16

Ennis R (1991) Critical thinking: a streamlined conception. Teach Philos 14(1):5–25

Ennis R (1996) Critical thinking. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River

Ennis R (2001) Argument appraisal strategy: a comprehensive approach. Inf Logic 21.2(2):97–140

Ennis R (2003) Critical thinking assessment. In: Fasko D (ed) Critical thinking and reasoning: current theories, research, and practice. Hampton, Cresskill

Ennis R (2004) Applying soundness standards to qualified reasoning. Inf Logic 24(1):23–39

Ennis R (2005) Pensamiento critico: un punto de vista racional. Revisita de Psicologia y educacion 1 1:47–64. A Spanish reprint and translation of “Critical thinking: a streamlined conception” (1991)

Ennis R (2006) ‘Probably’. In: Hitchcock D Verheij B (eds) Arguing on the toulmin model. Springer, Dordrecht

Ennis R (2007) ‘Probable’ and its equivalents. In: Hansen H, Pinto RC (eds) Reason reclaimed: essays in honor of J. Anthony Blair and Ralph H. Johnson. Vale Press, Newport News, VA

Ennis R (2008) Nationwide testing of critical thinking for higher education: vigilance required. Teach Philos 31(1):1–26

Ennis R (2009) Investigating and assessing multiple-choice critical thinking tests. In: Sobocan J, Groarke L (eds) Critical thinking education and assessment: can higher order thinking be tested?. Althouse, London Ontario

Ennis R (2011a) Reflection and perspective. Part II Inquiry 26(2):5–20

Ennis R (2011b) Reflection and perspective. Part I Inquiry 26(1):4–18

Ennis R (2013) Critical thinking across the curriculum: the wisdom CTAC program. Inquiry 28(2):25–45

Ennis R (2015a) Critical thinking: A streamlined conception. In: Davies M, Barnett R (eds) The Palgrave handbook of critical thinking in higher education. Palgrave, New York

Ennis R (2015b) The nature of critical thinking. http://criticalthinking.net/longdefinition.html . Cited 1 March 2016

Ennis R, Weir E (1985) The Ennis-Weir critical thinking essay test. Midwest Publications, Pacific Grove, CA

Ennis R, Norris S (1990) Critical thinking assessment: status, issues, needs. In: Legg S, Algina J (eds) Cognitive assessment of language and math outcomes. Ablex, Norwood

Ennis R, Millman J (2005a) Cornell critical thinking test, Level X. The Critical Thinking Co, Seaside, CA

Ennis R, Millman J (2005b) Cornell critical thinking test, Level Z. The Critical Thinking Co, Seaside, CA

Ennis R, Chattin G (2015) An annotated list of English-language critical thinking tests. http://criticalthinking.net/testing.html . Cited 1 March 2016

Ennis R, Millman J, Tomko T (2005) Administration manual: cornell critical thinking tests: level X and level Z. The Critical Thinking Co, Seaside, CA

Facione P (1990) Critical thinking: a statement of expert consensus for purposes of educational assessment and instruction. Executive summary: the delphi report Table 1. California Academic Press, Millbrae, CA

Fisher A, Scriven M (1997) Critical thinking: its definition and assessment. Edgepress, Point Reyes

Groarke L (2009) What’s wrong with the California critical thinking skills test? CT testing and accountability. In: Sobocan J, Groarke L (eds) Critical thinking education and assessment: can higher order thinking be tested? Althouse Press, Aylmer

Hart H (1961) The concept of law. Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp 155–159

Hatcher D (2009) The institutional assessment of critical thinking: a fifteen-year perspective. In: Sobocan J, Groarke L (eds) Critical thinking education and assessment: can high order thinking be tested?. Althouse Press, Aylmer

Hatcher D (2013) Is critical thinking across the curriculum a plausible goal? OSSA conference Archive. Paper 69. http://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive/OSSA10/papersandcommentaries/69 . Cited 1 March 2016

Hitchcock D (1985) Enthymematic arguments. Inf Log 7(2, 3):83–97

Hitchcock D (2004) The effectiveness of computer assisted instruction in critical thinking. Inf Log 24(3):183–217

Hitchcock D (2015) The effectiveness of instruction in critical thinking. In: Davies M, Barnett R (eds) The Palgrave handbook of critical thinking in higher education. Palgrave, New York

Huber C, Kuncel N (2015) Does college teach critical thinking? A meta-analysis. Review of educational research. Prepublished 16 Sept 2015. doi: 10.3102/0034654315605917

Kosonen P, Winne P (1995) Effects of teaching statistical laws on reasoning about everyday problems. J Educ Psychol 87:33–46

Kuhn D (2015) Thinking together and alone. Educ Res 44(1):46–53

Lehman D, Lempert R, Nisbett R (1988) The effects of graduate training on reasoning: formal discipline and thinking about everyday-life events. Am Psychol 43(6):431–442

Lumpken C (1990) Effects of teaching critical thinking skills on the critical thinking ability, achievement, and retention of social studies content by fifth and sixth graders. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama

McPeck J (1981) Critical thinking and education. St Martin’s Press, New York

McPeck J (1990) Critical thinking and subject specificity: a reply to Ennis. Educ Res 19(4):10–12

Mead M (1928) Coming of age in Samoa. Morrow, Oxford

Nisbett R (1992) Rules for reasoning. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale

Norris S, Ennis R (1989) Evaluating critical thinking. Midwest Publications, Pacific Grove

Pascarella E, Terenzini P (2005) How college affects students: findings and insights from twenty years of research, vol 2: a third decade of research. Jossey Bass, San Francico

Pease M, Kuhn D (2011) Experimental analysis of the effective components of problem-based learning. Sci Educ 95:57–86

Possin K (2008) A field guide to critical thinking assessment. Teach Philos 31(3):201–228

Possin K (2013a) A serious flaw in the collegiate learning assessment [CLA] test. Inf Log 33(3):390–405. Also posted in Italian at http://unibec.wordpress.com/2013/05/13/un-grave-difetto-del-test-colligiate-learning-assessment-cla/

Possin K (2013b) Some problems with the Halpern Critical Thinking Assessment [HCTA] test. Inquiry 28(3):4–12

Possin K (2013c) A fatal flaw in the Collegiate Learning Assessment test. Assess Update 25(1):8–11

Possin K (2014) Critique of the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal test: the more you know, the lower your score. Inf Log 34(4):393–416

Rawls J (1971) Theory of justice. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

Rowe M, Gillespie R, Harris K, Koether S, Shannon L, Rose L (2015) Redesigning a general education science course to promote critical thinking. CBE Life Sci Educ 14(3):ar30. Examined 19 April, 2016. http://www.lifescied.org/content/14/3/ar30.short

Scriven M, Paul R (1987) Presentation. 8th Annual international conference on critical thinking and education reform. http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/defining-critical-thinking/766 . Cited 1 March 2016

Siegel H (1988) Educating reason. Routledge, New York

Sobocan J, Groarke L (eds) (2009) Critical thinking education and assessment: can higher order thinking be tested?. Althouse, London Ontario

Solon T (2001) Improving critical thinking in an introductory psychology course. Mich Commun Coll J 7(2):73–80

Solon T (2003) Teaching critical thinking: the more the better. Commun College Enterp 9(2):25–38

Solon T (2007) Critical thinking infusion and course content learning in introductory psychology. J Instr Psychol 34(2):95–109

U. S. Office of Education (1991) America 2000: an education strategy. U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington

Winocur SLM (1981) The impact of a program of critical thinking on reading comprehension remediation and critical thinking of middle and high school students. Diss Abstr Int 42:996A

Wirkala C, Kuhn D (2011) Problem-based learning in K-12 education: is it effective and how does it achieve its effects? Am Educ Res J 48:1157–1186

Download references

Acknowledgments

This is the final version of a practical proposal that has been developing over the past 3 years. It assumes my previous work in critical thinking and my faculty and some administrative experiences over many years. Earlier versions of this proposal were presented at the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation, Windsor, Ontario, Canada, May 24, 2013; in Inquiry (Ennis 2013 ); at the conference on Reasoning, Argumentation, and Critical Thinking Instruction, Lund, Sweden, February 26, 2015; and at the II International Seminar on Critical Thinking, University of Tras-os-Montes e Alto Douro, Villa Real, Portugal, May 8, 2015. I have profited from the many suggestions and challenges made in response to these presentations. The comments by Jennie Berg, Frank Fair, Derek Allen, Mark Battersby, Don Hatcher, Michael Scriven, Frank Zenker, and anonymous reviewers were very helpful.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

University of Illinois, Urbana, IL, 61801, USA

Robert H. Ennis

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robert H. Ennis .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Ennis, R.H. Critical Thinking Across the Curriculum: A Vision. Topoi 37 , 165–184 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-016-9401-4

Download citation

Published : 10 June 2016

Issue Date : March 2018

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-016-9401-4

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Alpha conception of critical thinking
• Critical thinking
• Critical thinking across the curriculum
• General critical thinking
• Subject-specific critical thinking
• Critical thinking glossary
• Problem-based learning (PBL)
• Lecture-discussion teaching (LDT)
• Critical thinking principles
• Critical thinking abilities
• Critical thinking dispositions
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Our Mission

Boosting Critical Thinking Across the Curriculum

Visible thinking routines that encourage students to document and share their ideas can have a profound effect on their learning.

In my coaching work with schools, I am often requested to model strategies that help learners think deeply and critically across multiple disciplines and content areas. Many teachers are looking to adapt research-based methods to help students think about content in meaningful ways by making connections to previous learning, asking relevant questions, displaying understanding through learning artifacts , and identifying their challenges with the material.

Educator Alfred Mander said, “Thinking is skilled work. It is not true that we are naturally endowed with the ability to think clearly and logically—without learning how and without practicing.”

Visible thinking routines can be an excellent and simple way to start using systematic but flexible approaches to teaching thinking dispositions to young people at any grade level. Focusing on thinking types, powerful routines can strengthen learners’ ability to analyze, synthesize (design), and question effectively. Classroom teachers want these skills to become habits, making students the most informed stakeholder in their own learning.

Not to be confused with visible learning research by John Hattie , Visible Thinking is a research-based initiative by Harvard’s Project Zero with more than 30 routines aimed at making learning the consequence of good thinking dispositions . Students begin to comprehend content through thinking routines composed of short questions or a series of steps. During routines, their learning becomes visible because their ideas are documented, voiced, discussed with others, and reflected on.

For example, the routine See, Think, Wonder can be used to get students to analyze and interpret graphs, text, infographics, or video during the entry event of project-based learning units or daily lessons. Guiding students to have rich and lively discussions about their thoughts, interpretations, and wonderings (questions) can help teachers decide on appropriate lessons and next steps.

Another effective visible thinking routine is Connect, Extend, Challenge (CEC). Learners can use CEC to organize, clarify, and simplify complex information on graphic organizers. The graphic organizer becomes a kinesthetic activity for creating an informational artifact that students can refer to as the lesson or unit progresses.

Here are some creative but simple ways to carry out these two routines across multiple classrooms.

See, Think, Wonder

See, Think, Wonder can be leveraged as a thinking routine to launch engagement and inquiry in daily lessons by introducing an interesting object (graphic, artifact, etc.). The idea is for students to think carefully about why the object looks or is a certain way. Teachers introduce the following question prompts to guide students’ thinking:

• What do you see?
• What do you think about that?
• What does it make you wonder?

When the routine is new, sometimes young children may not know where to begin expressing themselves—this is where converting the above question prompts into sentence stems, “I see…,” “I think…,” and “I wonder…,” comes into play. For students struggling with analytical skills, it’s empowering for them to accept themselves where they currently are—learning how to analyze critically can be achieved over time and with practice. Teachers can help them build confidence with positive reinforcement .

Adapt the routine to meet the needs of your kids, which may be to have them work individually or to engage with classmates. I use it frequently—especially when introducing emotionally compelling graphics to students learning about environmental issues (e.g., the UN’s Goals for Sustainable Development) and social issues . This is useful in helping them better understand how to interpret graphs, infographics, and what’s happening in text and visuals. Furthermore, it also promotes interpretations, analysis, and questioning.

Content teachers can use See, Think, Wonder to get learners thinking critically by introducing graphics that reinforce essential academic information and follow up the routine with lessons and scaffolds to support students’ ideas and interpretations.

Connect, Extend, Challenge

CEC is a powerful visible learning routine to help students connect previous learning to new learning and identify where they are struggling in various educational concepts. Taking stock of where they are stuck in the material is as vital as articulating their connections and extensions. Again, they might struggle initially, but here’s where front-loading vocabulary and giving them time to talk through challenges can help.

A good place to introduce CEC is after students have analyzed or observed something new. This works as a natural next step to have them dig deeper with reflection and use what they learned in the analysis process to create their own synthesis of ideas. I also like to use CEC after engaging them in the See, Think, Wonder routine and at the end of a unit.

Again, learners can work individually or in small groups. Teachers can also have them move into the routine after reading an article or some form of targeted informational text where the learning is critical to moving forward (e.g., proportional relationships, measurement, unit conversion). Regardless of your approach, Project Zero suggests having learners reflect on the following question prompts:

• How is the _____ connected to something you already know?
• What new ideas or impressions do you have that extended your thinking in new directions?
• What is challenging or confusing? What do you need to improve your understanding?

I like to have learners in small groups answer a version of the question prompts in a simple three-column graphic organizer. The graphic organizer can also become a road map for prioritizing the next steps in learning for students of all ages. Here are some visual examples of how I used the activity with educators in a professional development session targeting emotional intelligence skills.

More Visible Thinking Resources

• Project Zero’s Thinking Routine Toolbox : Access to core thinking routines
• Making Thinking Visible: How to Promote Engagement, Understanding, and Independence for All Learners , by Ron Ritchhart, Mark Church, and Karin Morrison
• Creating Cultures of Thinking: The 8 Forces We Must Master to Truly Transform Our Schools , by Ron Ritchhart

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Critical Thinking across the Curriculum

Critical thinking can help its practitioners understand the issues in society. The authors discuss the method involved in evaluating the validity of arguments and the need for teaching and using critical thinking skills across the curriculum. Introduction Critical thinking, simply stated, is arriving at conclusions based on the legitimacy of one's research. "Legitimacy" is the operative word here, for the critical thinking process eradicates faulty thinking patterns and, in particular, those known as fallacies. Why is this process important in today's teaching climate? With controversies like the 2000 Presidential election, the McVeigh execution, the Megan's Law Internet connection, and, above all, the September 11th tragedy, there can be little doubt that improved critical thinking could provide a means of combating tendencies that might undermine some basic democratic rights on no firmer foundation than raw emotion, popular opinion, ideology and certain infle...

Related Papers

Peter A Facione

The eighties witnessed a growing accord that the heart of education lies exactly where traditional advocates of a liberal education always said it was-in the processes of inquiry, learning and thinking rather than in the accumulation of disjointed skills and senescent information. By the decade's end the movement to infuse the K-12 and post-secondary curricula with critical thinking (CT) had gained remarkable momentum. This success also raised vexing questions: What exactly are those skills and dispositions which characterize CT? What are some effective ways to teach CT? And how can CT, particularly if it becomes a campus-wide, district-wide or statewide requirement, be assessed? When asked by the individual professor or teacher seeking to introduce CT into her own classroom, such questions are difficult enough. But they take on social, fiscal, and political dimensions when asked by campus curriculum committees, school district offices, boards of education, and the educational t...

Linda Murawski

Educational Theory

Mark Weinstein

Roland Case

practice” (1991, p. 354). Research in the U.S. supports these observations. For example, Su’s (1990) study, based on interviews with 112 educators, found that although teachers stated that they valued critical thinking they did not implement it in their classrooms. Similarly, in her study of a three-year project to foster critical thinking in social studies, McKee (1988) found that teachers spent only four percent of class time on reasoning activities.

Peter Ellerton

Critical thinking is an educational priority, a foundational 21st century skill and essential to building cultures of innovation and responsible citizenship. While critical thinking is often incorporated into curricula—for example, as “general capabilities” (Australia), “common core” (USA) or “core competencies” (Canada)—little guidance is provided to regular classroom teachers about how to teach critical thinking or how to embed it in classroom practice. This paper outlines the theoretical and practical approach to teaching critical thinking developed by the University of Queensland Critical Thinking Project (UQCTP), a professional learning program that has for the past decade assisted thousands of teachers across hundreds of schools, nationally and internationally, in developing pedagogical expertise in ‘teaching for thinking’. In this paper research findings from one Australian secondary school’s ‘whole-of-school’ commitment to pedagogical transformation are presented as proof of...

John P. Portelli

Learning and Instruction

Monique Volman , Geert Dam

English Language Teaching

samaneh eslamdoost

Developing critical thinking since the educational revolution gave rise to flourishing movements toward embedding critical thinking (CT henceforth) stimulating classroom activities in educational settings. Nevertheless the process faced with complications such as teachability potentiality, lack of practical frameworks concerning actualization of CT tasks, and transferability obstacles, as well as lack of a homogeneous model of conceptualization of CT among educators. The present study made an effort to represent a comprehensive model of CT for educators drawn on the contemporary literaturein order to indicate a uniform delineation of the construct and to offer a comprehensive model of CT for the intention of making boosting learners' capability of CT possible.

The landmark 1990 APA Delphi Report presents the findings of the two year project to articulate an international expert consensus definition of “critical thinking. Over the past 25 years this report has been adopted by educators at every level and in every discipline, as well as by business, military, healthcare, and technology professionals seeking to make the idea of “critical thinking” practical, positive, and applicable. Today the Delphi conceptualization grounds is used throughout the world. It grounds academic requirements, courses, textbooks, peer-reviewed research, dissertations, competitively funded grants, institutional accreditation projects, and numerous assessment tools used for educational and employment purposes when evaluating an individual’s or a group’s reasoning skills and mindset attributes are important. The international panel of experts who participated in the APA Delphi research project come to the consensus that critical thinking is best understood, taught, and modeled for students as the process of purposeful and reflective judgment. When engaging in critical thinking we solve problems and make decisions by considering the questions, evidence, conceptualizations, context, and standards to apply to the problem or issue at hand. The process is non-linear and the application of our specific critical thinking skills can be recursive, for we can analyze our interpretations, evaluate our inferences, or explain our analyses. The key, of course, is that we are being reflective and fair-minded and truth-seeking throughout the process of determining what to believe or what to do in any given context. Defined in this way, critical thinking is a powerful tool for learning as well as for our professional and civic lives. We all may have different beliefs, values, perspectives, and experiences influencing our problem solving and decision making. But we share the human capacity to be reflective, analytical, open-minded, and systematic about thinking through our problems and choices, so that we can make the best judgments possible about what to believe or what to do. That human process of well-reasoned, reflective judgment is critical thinking. In the Delphi Report the international panel of experts identify the attributes of ideal critical thinker as well as the specific skills that are engaged in the process of purposeful, reflective judgment. The report includes detailed pedagogically focused tables and specific recommendations relating to critical thinking instruction and assessment.

CEPS Journal , Milan Stančić , Lidija Radulovic

• Starting with the fact that school education has failed to become education for critical thinking and that one of the reasons for that could be in how education for critical thinking is conceptualised, this paper presents: (1) an analysis of the predominant approach to education for critical thinking through the implementation of special programs and methods, and (2) an attempt to establish different approaches to education for critical thinking. The overview and analysis of understanding education for developing critical thinking as the implementation of special programs reveal that it is perceived as a decontextualised activity , reduced to practicing individual intellectual skills. Foundations for a different approach, which could be characterised as the 'education for critical competencies' , are found in ideas of critical pedagogy and open curriculum theory. This approach differs from the predominant approach in terms of how the nature and purpose of critical thinking and education for critical thinking are understood. In the approach of education for critical competencies, it is not sufficient to introduce special programs and methods for the development of critical thinking to the existing educational system. This approach emphasises the need to question and reconstruct the status, role, and power of pupils and teachers in the teaching process, but also in the process of curriculum development.

RELATED PAPERS

Costruire città. Le case popolari protagoniste dell'assetto urbano

Antonella Indrigo

Álvaro Notario Sánchez

Krisztián Józsa

Pharmacological Research

MARIA APARECIDA Cicilini

Kebene Wodajo

Statsvetenskaplig Tidskrift

Margareta Bertilsson

Open Cultural Studies

dien vidia rosa

Cogitare Enfermagem

Fernanda León Moreno

Mike Coombes

Revue des études slaves

Pierre Gonneau

Teks del Sud

Santiago Grima

Revista Administração em Diálogo - RAD

Leonardo Fantinel

Economic Affairs

Edward Stringham

Belqes S Al-Sowaidi

International Journal of Sciences: Basic and Applied Research

Eustace Mwenda Kirima

Journal of Environmental Management

NEZİH KAMİL SALİHOĞLU

Journal of Minimal Access Surgery

gökmen öztürk

Journal of Geochemical Exploration

R. Flemming

Electrochemistry Communications

Richard Noetzel

Journal of Industrial and Production Engineering

Reza Tavakkoli-Moghaddam

American Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics

Olorunsola Niyi

emmanuel Ndlovu

Carlee Holmes

Voices from the Middle

Shelbie Witte

QJM: An International Journal of Medicine

Magdy El-Sharkawy

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024