critical thinking and creativity

Creative Thinking vs. Critical Thinking

What's the difference.

Creative thinking and critical thinking are two distinct but equally important cognitive processes. Creative thinking involves generating new ideas, concepts, and solutions by exploring various possibilities and thinking outside the box. It encourages imagination, originality, and innovation. On the other hand, critical thinking involves analyzing, evaluating, and questioning ideas, arguments, and information to make informed decisions and judgments. It emphasizes logical reasoning, evidence-based thinking, and the ability to identify biases and fallacies. While creative thinking focuses on generating ideas, critical thinking focuses on evaluating and refining those ideas. Both thinking processes are essential for problem-solving, decision-making, and personal growth.

Further Detail

Introduction.

Creative thinking and critical thinking are two distinct cognitive processes that play crucial roles in problem-solving, decision-making, and innovation. While they share some similarities, they also have distinct attributes that set them apart. In this article, we will explore the characteristics of creative thinking and critical thinking, highlighting their differences and showcasing how they complement each other in various contexts.

Creative Thinking

Creative thinking is a cognitive process that involves generating new ideas, concepts, or solutions by exploring possibilities, making connections, and thinking outside the box. It is characterized by originality, flexibility, and fluency of thought. Creative thinkers often challenge conventional wisdom, embrace ambiguity, and are open to taking risks. They are adept at finding alternative perspectives and exploring multiple solutions to problems.

One of the key attributes of creative thinking is the ability to think divergently. This means being able to generate a wide range of ideas or possibilities, often through brainstorming or free association. Creative thinkers are not limited by constraints and are willing to explore unconventional or unorthodox approaches to problem-solving.

Another important aspect of creative thinking is the ability to make connections between seemingly unrelated concepts or ideas. This skill, known as associative thinking, allows creative thinkers to draw upon a diverse range of knowledge and experiences to generate innovative solutions. They can see patterns, analogies, and relationships that others may overlook.

Furthermore, creative thinking involves the willingness to take risks and embrace failure as a learning opportunity. Creative thinkers understand that not all ideas will be successful, but they are not deterred by setbacks. They view failures as stepping stones towards finding the right solution and are persistent in their pursuit of innovative ideas.

In summary, creative thinking is characterized by divergent thinking, associative thinking, risk-taking, and persistence. It encourages the exploration of new ideas and unconventional approaches to problem-solving.

Critical Thinking

Critical thinking, on the other hand, is a cognitive process that involves analyzing, evaluating, and interpreting information to form reasoned judgments or decisions. It is characterized by logical, systematic, and objective thinking. Critical thinkers are skilled at identifying biases, assumptions, and fallacies in arguments, and they strive to make well-informed and rational decisions based on evidence.

One of the key attributes of critical thinking is the ability to think analytically. Critical thinkers break down complex problems or situations into smaller components, examine the relationships between them, and evaluate the evidence or information available. They are adept at identifying logical inconsistencies or flaws in reasoning, which helps them make sound judgments.

Another important aspect of critical thinking is the ability to evaluate information objectively. Critical thinkers are skeptical and question the validity and reliability of sources. They seek evidence, consider alternative viewpoints, and weigh the strengths and weaknesses of different arguments before forming their own opinions. This attribute is particularly valuable in today's information-rich society, where misinformation and biased narratives are prevalent.

Furthermore, critical thinking involves the ability to think systematically. Critical thinkers follow a logical and structured approach to problem-solving, ensuring that all relevant factors are considered. They are skilled at identifying assumptions, clarifying concepts, and drawing logical conclusions based on the available evidence. This systematic approach helps minimize errors and biases in decision-making.

In summary, critical thinking is characterized by analytical thinking, objective evaluation, skepticism, and systematic reasoning. It emphasizes the importance of evidence-based decision-making and helps individuals navigate complex and information-rich environments.

Complementary Attributes

While creative thinking and critical thinking have distinct attributes, they are not mutually exclusive. In fact, they often complement each other and can be seen as two sides of the same coin.

Creative thinking can benefit from critical thinking by providing a framework for evaluating and refining ideas. Critical thinking helps creative thinkers assess the feasibility, viability, and desirability of their innovative ideas. It allows them to identify potential flaws, consider alternative perspectives, and make informed decisions about which ideas to pursue further.

On the other hand, critical thinking can benefit from creative thinking by expanding the range of possibilities and solutions. Creative thinking encourages critical thinkers to explore unconventional approaches, challenge assumptions, and consider alternative viewpoints. It helps them break free from rigid thinking patterns and discover innovative solutions to complex problems.

Moreover, both creative thinking and critical thinking require open-mindedness and a willingness to embrace ambiguity. They both involve a certain level of discomfort and uncertainty, as individuals venture into uncharted territories of thought. By combining creative and critical thinking, individuals can develop a well-rounded cognitive toolkit that enables them to tackle a wide range of challenges.

Creative thinking and critical thinking are two distinct cognitive processes that bring unique attributes to problem-solving, decision-making, and innovation. Creative thinking emphasizes divergent thinking, associative thinking, risk-taking, and persistence, while critical thinking emphasizes analytical thinking, objective evaluation, skepticism, and systematic reasoning.

While they have their differences, creative thinking and critical thinking are not mutually exclusive. They complement each other and can be seen as two sides of the same coin. Creative thinking benefits from critical thinking by providing a framework for evaluation and refinement, while critical thinking benefits from creative thinking by expanding the range of possibilities and solutions.

By cultivating both creative and critical thinking skills, individuals can enhance their ability to navigate complex problems, make well-informed decisions, and drive innovation in various domains. These cognitive processes are not only valuable in academic and professional settings but also in everyday life, where the ability to think creatively and critically can lead to personal growth and success.

Comparisons may contain inaccurate information about people, places, or facts. Please report any issues.

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Part Two: You are the President and CEO of You

Thinking Critically and Creatively

Dr. andrew robert baker.

Critical and creative thinking skills are perhaps the most fundamental skills involved in making judgments and solving problems. They are some of the most important skills I have ever developed. I use them everyday and continue to work to improve them both.

The ability to think critically about a matter—to analyze a question, situation, or problem down to its most basic parts—is what helps us evaluate the accuracy and truthfulness of statements, claims, and information we read and hear. It is the sharp knife that, when honed, separates fact from fiction, honesty from lies, and the accurate from the misleading. We all use this skill to one degree or another almost every day. For example, we use critical thinking every day as we consider the latest consumer products and why one particular product is the best among its peers. Is it a quality product because a celebrity endorses it? Because a lot of other people may have used it? Because it is made by one company versus another? Or perhaps because it is made in one country or another? These are questions representative of critical thinking.

The academic setting demands more of us in terms of critical thinking than everyday life. It demands that we evaluate information and analyze a myriad of issues. It is the environment where our critical thinking skills can be the difference between success and failure. In this environment we must consider information in an analytical, critical manner. We must ask questions—What is the source of this information? Is this source an expert one and what makes it so? Are there multiple perspectives to consider on an issue? Do multiple sources agree or disagree on an issue? Does quality research substantiate information or opinion? Do I have any personal biases that may affect my consideration of this information? It is only through purposeful, frequent, intentional questioning such as this that we can sharpen our critical thinking skills and improve as students, learners, and researchers. Developing my critical thinking skills over a twenty year period as a student in higher education enabled me to complete a quantitative dissertation, including analyzing research and completing statistical analysis, and earning my Ph.D. in 2014.

While critical thinking analyzes information and roots out the true nature and facets of problems, it is creative thinking that drives progress forward when it comes to solving these problems. Exceptional creative thinkers are people that invent new solutions to existing problems that do not rely on past or current solutions. They are the ones who invent solution C when everyone else is still arguing between A and B. Creative thinking skills involve using strategies to clear the mind so that our thoughts and ideas can transcend the current limitations of a problem and allow us to see beyond barriers that prevent new solutions from being found.

Brainstorming is the simplest example of intentional creative thinking that most people have tried at least once. With the quick generation of many ideas at once we can block-out our brain’s natural tendency to limit our solution-generating abilities so we can access and combine many possible solutions/thoughts and invent new ones. It is sort of like sprinting through a race’s finish line only to find there is new track on the other side and we can keep going, if we choose. As with critical thinking, higher education both demands creative thinking from us and is the perfect place to practice and develop the skill. Everything from word problems in a math class, to opinion or persuasive speeches and papers, call upon our creative thinking skills to generate new solutions and perspectives in response to our professor’s demands. Creative thinking skills ask questions such as—What if? Why not? What else is out there? Can I combine perspectives/solutions? What is something no one else has brought-up? What is being forgotten/ignored? What about ______? It is the opening of doors and options that follows problem-identification.

Consider an assignment that required you to compare two different authors on the topic of education and select and defend one as better. Now add to this scenario that your professor clearly prefers one author over the other. While critical thinking can get you as far as identifying the similarities and differences between these authors and evaluating their merits, it is creative thinking that you must use if you wish to challenge your professor’s opinion and invent new perspectives on the authors that have not previously been considered.

So, what can we do to develop our critical and creative thinking skills? Although many students may dislike it, group work is an excellent way to develop our thinking skills. Many times I have heard from students their disdain for working in groups based on scheduling, varied levels of commitment to the group or project, and personality conflicts too, of course. True—it’s not always easy, but that is why it is so effective. When we work collaboratively on a project or problem we bring many brains to bear on a subject. These different brains will naturally develop varied ways of solving or explaining problems and examining information. To the observant individual we see that this places us in a constant state of back and forth critical/creative thinking modes.

For example, in group work we are simultaneously analyzing information and generating solutions on our own, while challenging other’s analyses/ideas and responding to challenges to our own analyses/ideas. This is part of why students tend to avoid group work—it challenges us as thinkers and forces us to analyze others while defending ourselves, which is not something we are used to or comfortable with as most of our educational experiences involve solo work. Your professors know this—that’s why we assign it—to help you grow as students, learners, and thinkers!

Foundations of Academic Success: Words of Wisdom Copyright © 2015 by Thomas Priester is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Creative Thinking vs. Critical Thinking: Unleashing the Power of Both

Annie Walls

Creative thinking and critical thinking are two essential cognitive skills that play a crucial role in problem-solving, decision-making, and innovation. While creative thinking involves generating new ideas, thinking outside the box, and exploring unconventional solutions, critical thinking focuses on analyzing, evaluating, and making logical judgments. Both thinking styles have their unique characteristics and benefits. However, the true power lies in the synergy of creative and critical thinking. By combining these two approaches, individuals can enhance their problem-solving skills, promote innovation, and foster growth. In this article, we will explore the definitions, characteristics, and benefits of both creative and critical thinking, and discuss practical strategies for developing these skills and integrating them in education.

Key Takeaways

• Creative thinking involves generating new ideas and exploring unconventional solutions.
• Critical thinking focuses on analyzing, evaluating, and making logical judgments.
• The synergy of creative and critical thinking enhances problem-solving skills.
• Combining creative and critical thinking promotes innovation and growth.
• Practical strategies can be used to develop and integrate creative and critical thinking skills in education.

Understanding Creative Thinkin

Defining creative thinking.

Creative thinking is the ability to generate new and innovative ideas, solutions, and perspectives. It involves thinking outside the box and challenging traditional ways of thinking. Creativity is a key driver of innovation and can lead to breakthrough ideas that can transform industries and solve complex problems. It is a dynamic and fluid process that requires an open mind and a willingness to explore different possibilities.

In the context of this article, creative thinking refers to the cognitive skills and mindset that enable individuals to come up with original and unconventional ideas. It is about pushing boundaries and embracing uncertainty to find unique solutions to challenges. Creative thinkers are often characterized by their curiosity , imagination , and willingness to take risks .

To better understand the concept of creative thinking, let's take a look at the following table that highlights some key characteristics of creative thinkers:

It is important to note that creative thinking is not limited to artistic or creative fields. It is a valuable skill that can be applied in any profession or industry. By cultivating creative thinking skills, individuals can enhance their problem-solving abilities, generate innovative ideas, and contribute to the growth and success of their organizations.

Characteristics of Creative Thinkers

Creative thinkers possess a unique set of characteristics that set them apart from others. They are known for their ability to think outside the box and come up with innovative solutions to problems. Curiosity is a key trait of creative thinkers, as they are constantly seeking new knowledge and experiences. They are also open-minded and willing to consider different perspectives and ideas. Additionally, creative thinkers are often risk-takers , unafraid to take chances and explore unconventional paths. They are flexible and adaptable, able to adjust their thinking and approach as needed. Finally, creative thinkers are persistent and determined, willing to overcome obstacles and continue pursuing their ideas.

Benefits of Creative Thinking

Creative thinking offers numerous benefits that can enhance various aspects of our lives. It allows us to think outside the box and come up with innovative solutions to problems. Creativity also promotes flexibility and adaptability , enabling us to navigate through challenges and embrace change. Additionally, creative thinking fosters self-expression and individuality , allowing us to express our unique perspectives and ideas. It encourages collaboration and teamwork , as it often involves bouncing ideas off others and building upon each other's creativity. Moreover, creative thinking can lead to personal growth and fulfillment , as it provides a sense of accomplishment and satisfaction when we create something new and meaningful.

Exploring Critical Thinking

Defining critical thinking.

Critical thinking is the ability to analyze and evaluate information objectively and independently. It involves questioning assumptions, considering multiple perspectives, and making reasoned judgments based on evidence. Critical thinking is a key skill in problem-solving, decision-making, and effective communication. It helps individuals to identify biases, logical fallacies, and faulty reasoning, enabling them to make informed and rational choices. In order to develop critical thinking skills, it is important to practice active listening, ask probing questions, and seek out diverse sources of information. By cultivating critical thinking, individuals can become more discerning and analytical thinkers, capable of navigating complex issues and arriving at well-reasoned conclusions.

Here are some practical strategies for enhancing critical thinking:

• Question assumptions : Challenge preconceived notions and examine underlying assumptions.
• Consider multiple perspectives : Seek out diverse viewpoints and evaluate different arguments.
• Evaluate evidence : Assess the quality and reliability of information and sources.
• Identify biases : Recognize personal biases and strive for objectivity.
• Apply logical reasoning : Use logical and rational thinking to analyze and solve problems.

Remember, critical thinking is not about being critical for the sake of it, but rather about being thoughtful, analytical, and open-minded in our approach to information and ideas.

Characteristics of Critical Thinkers

Critical thinkers possess several key characteristics that set them apart. They are analytical and have a strong ability to evaluate information and arguments. They are also curious and have a desire to seek out new knowledge and perspectives. Critical thinkers are open-minded and willing to consider different viewpoints, even if they conflict with their own. They are skeptical and question assumptions and beliefs, looking for evidence and logical reasoning. Additionally, critical thinkers are reflective and take the time to analyze their own thinking and decision-making processes.

Benefits of Critical Thinking

Critical thinking has numerous benefits that can positively impact various aspects of life. It allows individuals to analyze information objectively and make informed decisions. Problem-solving is one of the key skills developed through critical thinking. By critically evaluating different options and considering various perspectives, individuals can find effective solutions to complex problems. Critical thinking also enhances communication skills , as it encourages individuals to articulate their thoughts and ideas clearly and logically. Additionally, critical thinking promotes creativity by challenging individuals to think outside the box and explore innovative solutions.

The Synergy of Creative and Critical Thinking

Complementary nature of creative and critical thinking.

Creative thinking and critical thinking are not opposing forces, but rather complementary skills that work together to enhance problem-solving and promote innovation and growth. While creative thinking involves generating new ideas, thinking outside the box, and exploring possibilities, critical thinking involves analyzing and evaluating information, reasoning logically, and making informed decisions.

When combined, these two thinking styles create a powerful synergy that allows individuals to approach problems from multiple perspectives and find innovative solutions. By leveraging creative thinking to generate a wide range of ideas and critical thinking to evaluate and refine those ideas, individuals can develop more effective problem-solving skills.

In addition, the complementary nature of creative and critical thinking is essential for promoting innovation and growth. Creative thinking allows individuals to envision new possibilities and challenge the status quo, while critical thinking ensures that these ideas are carefully evaluated and implemented in a practical and effective manner.

To fully unleash the power of both creative and critical thinking, individuals and organizations can implement practical strategies such as brainstorming sessions, mind mapping, and design thinking to enhance creative thinking. Similarly, strategies such as analyzing data, conducting research, and engaging in logical reasoning can enhance critical thinking.

By integrating creative and critical thinking in education, students can develop a well-rounded set of thinking skills that will prepare them for future challenges and opportunities.

Enhancing Problem-Solving Skills

Enhancing problem-solving skills is crucial for individuals and organizations alike. It allows us to tackle complex challenges and find effective solutions. One important strategy for improving problem-solving skills is to analyze the problem thoroughly. By breaking down the problem into smaller components and examining each one, we can gain a deeper understanding of the issue at hand.

Another useful technique is to brainstorm multiple solutions. This involves generating a wide range of ideas without judgment or evaluation. By encouraging creativity and divergent thinking, we can uncover innovative approaches that may not have been initially apparent.

To ensure a structured approach, it can be helpful to use a table to organize and compare different solutions. This allows us to evaluate the pros and cons of each option and make informed decisions.

In addition, it is important to collaborate with others when solving problems. By leveraging the diverse perspectives and expertise of a team, we can generate more comprehensive solutions and avoid potential blind spots.

Remember, problem-solving is an iterative process. It is essential to iterate and refine our solutions based on feedback and new information. This continuous improvement mindset enables us to adapt and find better solutions over time.

As Albert Einstein once said, "We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." By embracing creative and critical thinking, we can enhance our problem-solving skills and unlock new possibilities for growth and innovation.

Promoting Innovation and Growth

Promoting innovation and growth is a key outcome of combining creative and critical thinking. When these two thinking styles are integrated, individuals and organizations are able to approach challenges and opportunities with a holistic perspective. By leveraging creative thinking, new ideas and possibilities are generated, while critical thinking helps evaluate and refine these ideas to ensure their feasibility and effectiveness.

To promote innovation and growth, it is important to create an environment that encourages both creative and critical thinking. This can be achieved by fostering a culture of open-mindedness, curiosity, and experimentation. Encouraging collaboration and diverse perspectives also plays a crucial role in promoting innovation, as it allows for the exchange of ideas and the identification of new possibilities.

In addition, organizations can implement structured processes and frameworks that facilitate the integration of creative and critical thinking. This includes establishing clear problem-solving methodologies, providing training and resources for developing these thinking skills, and creating opportunities for reflection and continuous improvement.

By promoting the synergy of creative and critical thinking, organizations can unlock their full potential for innovation and growth, leading to competitive advantage and success in today's dynamic and rapidly changing world.

Developing Creative and Critical Thinking Skills

Practical strategies for enhancing creative thinking.

There are several strategies that can help enhance creative thinking. One effective strategy is to embrace curiosity. Curiosity allows individuals to explore new ideas, ask questions, and seek out different perspectives. By being curious, individuals can uncover unique insights and connections that can lead to innovative solutions.

Another strategy is to encourage brainstorming . Brainstorming is a technique that involves generating a large number of ideas without judgment. This allows for the exploration of various possibilities and encourages out-of-the-box thinking.

Additionally, divergent thinking can be a valuable strategy. Divergent thinking involves generating multiple solutions or ideas to a problem. This approach encourages creativity by exploring different options and perspectives.

Lastly, taking breaks can also enhance creative thinking. Stepping away from a problem or task allows the mind to relax and recharge. This can lead to fresh insights and new perspectives when returning to the task at hand.

Practical Strategies for Enhancing Critical Thinking

When it comes to enhancing critical thinking skills, there are several effective strategies that can be implemented. These strategies are designed to help individuals develop their analytical and logical reasoning abilities, enabling them to make well-informed decisions and solve complex problems.

One practical strategy is to engage in active reading and reflection. This involves critically analyzing and evaluating the information presented in texts, articles, or research papers. By asking questions, identifying assumptions, and evaluating evidence, individuals can deepen their understanding and develop a more critical perspective.

Another strategy is to practice active listening and effective communication. By actively listening to others and engaging in meaningful discussions, individuals can challenge their own assumptions and broaden their perspectives. This not only enhances critical thinking but also promotes collaboration and the exchange of diverse ideas.

Additionally, seeking out diverse perspectives and alternative viewpoints is crucial for enhancing critical thinking. By exposing oneself to different opinions and considering multiple perspectives, individuals can develop a more comprehensive understanding of complex issues and avoid biases.

In summary, enhancing critical thinking requires active engagement, reflection, and seeking out diverse perspectives. By implementing these strategies, individuals can strengthen their analytical skills and become more effective problem solvers.

Integrating Creative and Critical Thinking in Education

Integrating creative and critical thinking in education is essential for fostering well-rounded and innovative individuals. By combining these two types of thinking, students are able to develop a holistic approach to problem-solving and decision-making. This integration allows students to think outside the box while also critically evaluating their ideas and solutions.

One practical strategy for integrating creative and critical thinking in education is through project-based learning. This approach encourages students to work on real-world problems and challenges, allowing them to apply both creative and critical thinking skills. By engaging in hands-on projects, students can explore different perspectives, generate innovative ideas, and analyze the effectiveness of their solutions.

Another effective strategy is to incorporate open-ended questions and discussions into the curriculum. This encourages students to think critically about complex issues and encourages them to explore multiple viewpoints. By engaging in thoughtful discussions, students can develop their analytical skills and learn to consider different perspectives and evidence.

Additionally, educators can promote the integration of creative and critical thinking by providing opportunities for reflection and self-assessment. By encouraging students to reflect on their thinking processes and evaluate the effectiveness of their solutions, educators can help students develop metacognitive skills and become more self-aware learners.

In summary, integrating creative and critical thinking in education is crucial for developing well-rounded individuals who can think innovatively and critically. By incorporating strategies such as project-based learning, open-ended discussions, and reflection, educators can empower students to become effective problem solvers and decision makers.

Developing creative and critical thinking skills is essential in today's fast-paced and ever-changing world. Whether you're a student, professional, or entrepreneur, the ability to think creatively and critically can give you a competitive edge and open doors to new opportunities. At Keynote Speaker James Taylor , we specialize in inspiring creative minds and helping individuals and organizations unlock their full potential . With our engaging and thought-provoking presentations, workshops, and coaching sessions, we empower individuals to tap into their creative genius and develop the critical thinking skills needed to thrive in the 21st century. Visit our website today to learn more about how we can help you unleash your creativity and enhance your problem-solving abilities.

In conclusion, both creative thinking and critical thinking are essential skills that complement each other in problem-solving and decision-making. While creative thinking allows us to generate innovative ideas and explore new possibilities, critical thinking helps us evaluate and analyze these ideas to make informed decisions. By harnessing the power of both types of thinking, individuals and organizations can unlock their full potential and achieve greater success. So, whether you are brainstorming new ideas or analyzing data, remember to embrace both creative and critical thinking to unleash your true potential.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the difference between creative thinking and critical thinking.

Creative thinking involves generating new ideas, while critical thinking involves analyzing and evaluating existing ideas.

Can someone be both a creative thinker and a critical thinker?

Yes, individuals can develop and utilize both creative and critical thinking skills.

How can creative thinking benefit problem-solving?

Creative thinking allows for innovative and out-of-the-box solutions to problems.

What are the characteristics of a creative thinker?

Characteristics of a creative thinker include open-mindedness, curiosity, and willingness to take risks.

How does critical thinking contribute to decision-making?

Critical thinking helps in analyzing and evaluating options to make informed and logical decisions.

Is it possible to enhance creative and critical thinking skills?

Yes, through practice, exposure to diverse perspectives, and adopting creative thinking techniques.

Popular Posts

Robert hannigan – the power of neurodiversity in innovation, cybersecurity, gchq and counter-intelligence #342.

Explore key insights on intelligence and decision-making from Professor Sir David Omand’s book, focusing on critical thinking and creativity.

Sam Dixon of Womble Bond Dickinson, The Evolving Role of Lawyers in the AI Era #341

John craske of cms, collaboration between humans and machines in the legal industry #340, jd meier of microsoft, productivity strategies for success #339, sir david omand, author of how spies think – 10 lessons in critical thinking #338, meilleur conférencier principal en teambuilding.

Les conférences virtuelles et les sommets peuvent être des moyens très efficaces pour inspirer, informer

James is a top motivational keynote speaker who is booked as a creativity and innovation keynote speaker, AI speaker , sustainability speaker and leadership speaker . Recent destinations include: Dubai , Abu Dhabi , Orlando , Las Vegas , keynote speaker London , Barcelona , Bangkok , Miami , Berlin , Riyadh , New York , Zurich , motivational speaker Paris , Singapore and San Francisco

Latest News

• 415.800.3059
• [email protected]
• Media Interviews
• Meeting Planners
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Cookie Policy

FIND ME ON SOCIAL

© 2024 James Taylor DBA P3 Music Ltd.

• 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

Discover the Top 75 Free Courses for August

Udemy Announces Layoffs Without Saying ‘Layoffs’

Udemy’s latest ‘Strategic Business Update’ uses corporate euphemisms to signal job cuts while pivoting to enterprise clients.

• [2024] 300+ Free Google Certifications
• 10 Best Free Programming Courses for 2024
• 7 Best Reverse Engineering Courses for 2024
• 10 Best Organic Chemistry Courses for 2024
• 10 Best Applied AI & ML Courses for 2024

600 Free Google Certifications

Most common

• graphic design

Popular subjects

Management & Leadership

Communication Skills

Popular courses

Understanding Clinical Research: Behind the Statistics

Preventing Dementia

Perdón y reconciliación: cómo sanar heridas

Organize and share your learning with Class Central Lists.

View our Lists Showcase

Class Central is learner-supported. When you buy through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission.

A Beginner’s Guide to Critical and Creative Thinking

New Scientist via FutureLearn Help

This course may be unavailable.

Develop your creative and critical thinking skills with New Scientist

Critical thinking and creativity are key skills needed to improve decision-making, whether in a personal context or in the workplace.

This three-week course will help sharpen your ability to analyse information and increase your capacity to problem solve creatively.

Learn from experts in cognitive science and creative problem solving

Guided by Dr Denise Cummins, Fellow of the Association for Psychological Science, and Professor Gerard Puccio from Buffalo State, you’ll explore various models of thinking in different contexts.

With this knowledge, you’ll be able to approach problems more logically, rationally, scientifically, and creatively.

Refine your decision-making process using logical and rational thinking

There are a variety of cognitive biases that can hinder decision-making.

On this course, you’ll examine them in detail, as well as learning to recognise red herrings, false dichotomies, ad hominem attacks, and motivated reasoning.

With this knowledge, you’ll be able to spot flaws and fallacies in others’ arguments and avoid biases in your own thinking. This will strengthen your own arguments and help justify your decisions.

Explore critical and creative problem solving techniques

By strengthening both your analytical reasoning and your creative thinking, you’ll have the tools necessary to solve problems in any situation.

You’ll bring together your critical and creative thinking skills to analyse the differences between convergent and divergent thinking and apply them appropriately.

By the end of this course, you’ll have learned key models of creative and critical thinking, as well as the factors that can impact decisions. Having learned how to combine creative and critical thinking, you’ll be able to supercharge brainstorming sessions and problem solving tasks.

This course is designed for learners at all levels with an interest in evaluating information and increasing their capacity for creative thinking.

It is particularly useful for professionals who want to improve their problem solving and decision-making in the workplace.

• Introducing critical and creative thinking
• Welcome to the course
• Why critical and creative thinking matters
• Three pillars of critical thinking
• Critical thinking: How to think logically
• Bringing it all together
• Critical thinking: How to think rationally and scientifically
• Critical thinking: How to think rationally
• Critical Thinking: How to think scientifically
• How to think creatively
• Developing our innate creativity
• Cognitive rigidity and the creative cliff illusion
• Strategies for creative thinking
• Creative Problem Solving: The Thinking Skills Model

Finola Lang

Related Courses

Superthinker | a way to better thinking, master your decision making and critical thinking skills , solving problems with creative and critical thinking, your deceptive mind: a scientific guide to critical thinking skills, master cognitive biases and improve your critical thinking, critical thinking & problem solving brilliance, related articles, learn the visual arts from professionals who’ve worked at disney, pixar, blizzard and more, massive list of mooc-based microcredentials, 100+ futurelearn courses that still offer free certificates.

Select rating

Start your review of A Beginner’s Guide to Critical and Creative Thinking

Never Stop Learning.

Get personalized course recommendations, track subjects and courses with reminders, and more.

The Synergy of Creative and Critical Thinking

More elaboration, excerpted from Preparing Creative and Critical Thinkers by Donald J. Treffinger

Publications

On-demand strategy, speaking & workshops, latest articles, write for us, library/publications.

• Competency-Based Education
• Early Learning
• Equity & Access
• Personalized Learning
• Place-Based Education
• Post-Secondary
• Project-Based Learning
• SEL & Mindset
• STEM & Maker
• The Future of Tech and Work

Lisa Gevelber on Grow with Google, Career Certificates and Artificial Intelligence

Sonoma county’s approach to career and technical education and pathways, todd smith and stacey ocander on pathways strategies to address the healthcare workforce shortage in nebraska and beyond, futures thinking in education, recent releases.

Health Science Pathways Guide

New Pathways Handbook: Getting Started with Pathways

Unfulfilled Promise: The Forty-Year Shift from Print to Digital and Why It Failed to Transform Learning

The Portrait Model: Building Coherence in School and System Redesign

Green Pathways: New Jobs Mean New Skills and New Pathways

Support & Guidance For All New Pathways Journeys

Unbundled: Designing Personalized Pathways for Every Learner

Credentialed Learning for All

AI in Education

For more, see Publications |  Books |  Toolkits

Microschools

New learning models, tools, and strategies have made it easier to open small, nimble schooling models.

Green Schools

The climate crisis is the most complex challenge mankind has ever faced . We’re covering what edleaders and educators can do about it. 

Difference Making

Focusing on how making a difference has emerged as one of the most powerful learning experiences.

New Pathways

This campaign will serve as a road map to the new architecture for American schools. Pathways to citizenship, employment, economic mobility, and a purpose-driven life.

Web3 has the potential to rebuild the internet towards more equitable access and ownership of information, meaning dramatic improvements for learners.

Schools Worth Visiting

We share stories that highlight best practices, lessons learned and next-gen teaching practice.

View more series…

About Getting Smart

Getting smart collective, impact update, at the intersection of creativity and critical thinking.

Creativity and critical thinking sit atop most lists of skills crucial for success in the 21st century. They represent two of the “Four Cs” in   P21 ’s learning framework (the other two being communication and collaboration), and they rank second and third on the World Economic Forum ’s top ten list of skills workers will need most in the year 2020 (complex problem solving ranks first).

The various lists of 21st-century skills grant creativity and critical thinking such prominence in part because they are human abilities robots and AI are unlikely to usurp anytime soon. The picture of the near future that emerges from these compilations of skills is one in which people must compete against their own inventions by exploiting the most human of their human qualities: empathy, a willingness to work together, adaptability, innovation. As the 21st century unfolds, creativity and critical thinking appear as uniquely human attributes essential for staving off our own obsolescence.

Like many things human, however, creativity and critical thinking are not easily or consistently defined. The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation’s list of “ Deeper Learning Competencies ,” for example, identifies creativity not as its own competency but as a tool for thinking critically. Bloom’s Taxonomy  treats the two as separate educational goals, ranking creativity above critical thinking in the progression of intellectual abilities. Efforts to pin down these skills are so quickly muddled, one is tempted to fall back on the old Justice Stewart remark regarding obscenity: “I know it when I see it.” Unfortunately, that yardstick isn’t much help to teachers or students.

Definitions of creativity tend toward the broad and vague. One of the leading researchers in the area, Robert Sternberg, characterizes creativity  as “a decision to buy low and sell high in the world of ideas.” While this is itself a creative approach to the problem of defining creativity, it is not a solution easily translated into a rubric.

Definitions of critical thinking don’t fare much better. According to one group of researchers , “Critical thinking is the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning or communication, as a guide to belief and action.” Again, a curiously self-demonstrating definition, but not one ready-made for the classroom.

Generally speaking, creativity is associated with generating ideas, while critical thinking is associated with judging them. In practice, however, the two are not so easy to separate. As parents and teachers know well, creativity without critical judgment tends toward the fanciful, the impractical, the ridiculous. “Creative thinking” becomes a nice way of saying that someone’s ideas have run amok.

At the same time, critical thinking gets short shrift when reduced to making a judgment, since, at its best, critical thinking is also a way of making a contribution. It is fundamentally creative in the sense that its aim is to produce something new: an insight, an argument, a new synthesis of ideas or information, a new level of understanding.

Our grasp of creativity and critical thinking is improved when we see them in symbiotic relationship with one another. Creativity  benefits from our recognizing the role of critical thinking in ensuring the value of novel ideas. In turn, critical thinking  comes into clearer focus when we recognize it as a creative act that enriches understanding by giving rise to something that wasn’t there before.

What does this symbiotic relationship look like in the classroom? Here are a few educational contexts in which creativity is disciplined by critical thinking and critical thinking is expanded through recognition of its creative function:

• Writing.  Creative writing only works when the writer’s critical judgment is brought to bear on the product of their imagination. However richly imagined, a story’s success depends on the skill with which its author corrals and controls their ideas, crafting them into something coherent and cohesive. Storycraft is accomplished by writers who discipline their own creative work by thinking critically about it.Successful academic writing — argumentative, expository — requires not just critical analysis but also creative invention. Academic writers enter into conversation with their readers, their instructors, fellow students, other writers and scholars, anyone affected by or invested in their topic. As in any conversation, a successful participant doesn’t simply repeat back what others have already said, but builds upon it, asking critical questions, fine-tuning points, proposing solutions — in short, creating and contributing something original that extends and enriches the conversation.
• History.  History classes lend themselves readily to creative exercises like imagining the experiences of people in the past, or envisioning what the present might look like if this or that historical event had played out differently. These exercises succeed only when imagination is disciplined by critical thinking; conjectures must be plausible, connections must be logical, and the use of evidence must be reasonable.At the same time, critical analysis of historical problems often employs invention and is (or should be) rewarded for its creativity. For example, a student analyzing the US mission to the moon in terms of the theme of the frontier in American mythology is engaged in an intellectual activity that is at least as creative as it is evaluative.
• Math.  Creative projects can generate engagement and enthusiasm in students, prompting them to learn things they might otherwise resist. In this example , a middle school math class learned about circuitry on their way to creating a keyboard made of bananas. Projects like this one demonstrate that creativity and critical thinking are reciprocal. A banana keyboard is unquestionably creative, but of little utility except insofar as it teaches something valuable about electronics. Yet, that lesson was made possible only by virtue of the creative impulse the project inspired in students.

The skills today’s students will need for success are, at a most basic level, the skills that humans have always relied on for success — the very things that make us human, including our creativity and our capacity for thinking critically. The fact that our defining qualities so often defy definition, that our distinctive traits are so frustratingly indistinct, is just another gloriously untidy part of us that robots will never understand.

For more, see:

• How Dialogue Teaches Critical Thinking and Empathy
• Creating Change-Agents: The Intersection of Critical Thinking and Student Agency
• Philadelphia is Reimagining Arts & Creativity Education Programming

Stay in-the-know with all things EdTech and innovations in learning by signing up to receive the weekly Smart Update .

William Bryant

• @BetterRhetor

Discover the latest in learning innovations

Sign up for our weekly newsletter.

Related Reading

How We Move Forward: Practicing Three Inclusive, Anti-Racist Mindsets for Reopening Schools

What I Learned From the Stanford Certificate in Innovation & Entrepreneurship

Eduprotocols: Facilitating Student Collaboration, Creativity and Ownership

Preparing to Reopen: Six Principles That Put Equity at the Core

Leave a comment.

Your email address will not be published. All fields are required.

Nominate a School, Program or Community

Stay on the cutting edge of learning innovation.

Subscribe to our weekly Smart Update!

Smart Update

What is pbe (spanish), designing microschools download, download quick start guide to implementing place-based education, download quick start guide to place-based professional learning, download what is place-based education and why does it matter, download 20 invention opportunities in learning & development.

An Introduction to Critical Thinking and Creativity: Think More, Think Better by

Get full access to An Introduction to Critical Thinking and Creativity: Think More, Think Better and 60K+ other titles, with a free 10-day trial of O'Reilly.

There are also live events, courses curated by job role, and more.

INTRODUCTION

1.1 THINKING SKILLS IN THE AGE OF GLOBALIZATION

Whether we like it or not, globalization is changing the way we work and live. First of all, we are increasingly faced with complex problems that affect the whole world, whether it is global warming, pollution, financial crises, or new epidemics. We need good thinking and creative ideas to coordinate efforts to solve these problems. At the personal level, globalization brings about an ever-quickening pace of life. We have a huge amount of information available, but what we learn today might easily become obsolete tomorrow. Although fast changes also bring new opportunities, we now have to compete with talented people across the world. To be successful in this environment, we need good thinking skills that can help us make reliable decisions and acquire new knowledge quickly.

But what do we mean by good thinking skills? Basically, it comes down to two things—critical thinking and creativity. Critical thinking is thinking clearly and rationally. It involves thinking precisely and systematically, and following the rules of logic and scientific reasoning, among other things. As for creativity, it is a matter of coming up with new and useful ideas, generating alternative possibilities. This book is about these two sets of thinking skills, but at this point, you might ask, Which is more important, critical thinking or creativity? The short answer is that they are equally important. We need creativity to come up with ...

Get An Introduction to Critical Thinking and Creativity: Think More, Think Better now with the O’Reilly learning platform.

O’Reilly members experience books, live events, courses curated by job role, and more from O’Reilly and nearly 200 top publishers.

Don’t leave empty-handed

Get Mark Richards’s Software Architecture Patterns ebook to better understand how to design components—and how they should interact.

It’s yours, free.

Check it out now on O’Reilly

Dive in for free with a 10-day trial of the O’Reilly learning platform—then explore all the other resources our members count on to build skills and solve problems every day.

Creativity and Critical Thinking Contribute to Scholarly Achievement

• First Online: 01 October 2023

Cite this chapter

• Mark A. Runco 4 &
• Lindsay Ellis Lee 5  

1090 Accesses

This chapter explores theories of creativity as they relate to critical thinking and scholarly achievement. It discusses domain differences in creativity and raises the possibility that scholarly creativity is distinct from other expressions of creativity. It also covers theories and research that show creativity to be distinct from general intelligence and critical thinking. One key idea is that creativity and critical thinking are not entirely distinct but instead sometimes work together. This chapter offers support for the discriminant validity and predictive validity of creativity and for domain specificity. Quite a few implications for scholarship are noted.

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

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Durable hardcover edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

The Antecedents and Outcomes of Creative Cognition

Commentary: Can You Score Uniqueness, Creativity, and Imagination?

Introduction: The Crossroads of Creativity and Ethics

Getzels JW, Jackson PW (1962) Creativity and intelligence: explorations with gifted students. Wiley, London

Google Scholar  

Wallach MA, Kogan N (1965) Modes of thinking in young children: a study of the creativity-intelligence distinction. Holt, Reinhart, & Winston

Albert RS, Runco MA (1987) The possible different personality dispositions of scientists and nonscientists. In: Jackson DN, Rushton JP (eds) Scientific excellence: origins and assessment. Sage, Beverly Hills, pp 67–97

Guilford JP (1968) Intelligence, creativity, and emotional implications. Robert R. Knapp, San Diego

Cropley A (2006) In praise of convergent thinking. Creat Res J 18:391–404. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj1803_13

Article   Google Scholar  

Acar S, Runco MA (2019) Divergent thinking: new methods, recent research, and extended theory. Psychol Aesthet Creat Arts 13:153–158. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000231

Runco MA (1991) Divergent thinking. Ablex Publishing, New York

Runco MA, Smith WR (1992) Interpersonal and intrapersonal evaluations of creative ideas. Personal Individ Differ 13:295–302. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(92)90105-X

Baer J (2010) Is creativity domain specific? In: Kaufman JC, Sternberg RJ (eds) The Cambridge handbook of creativity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 321–341. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511763205.021

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Gardner H (1998) A multiplicity of intelligences. Sci Am 9:19–23

Kim KH, The APA (2011) 2009 Division 10 debate: are the Torrance tests of creative thinking still relevant in the 21st century? Psychol Aesthet Creat Arts 5:302–308. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021917

Plucker JA (1998) Beware of simple conclusions: the case for content generality of creativity. Creat Res J 11:179–182. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj1102_8

Runco MA (1986) Divergent thinking and creative performance in gifted and nongifted children. Educ Psychol Meas 46:375–384. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316448604600211

Baer J (2015) Domain specificity of creativity. Elsevier Science, Amsterdam

Plucker JA, Beghetto RA (2004) Why creativity is domain general, why it looks domain specific, and why the distinction does not matter. In: Sternberg RJ, Grigorenko EL, Singer JL (eds) Creativity: from potential to realization. American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, pp 153–167. https://doi.org/10.1037/10692-009

Gardner H (1983) Frames of mind: a theory of multiple intelligences. Basic Books, New York

Spearman C (1927) The abilities of man. Macmillan, New York

Warne RT, Burningham C (2019) Spearman’s g found in 31 non-Western nations: strong evidence that g is a universal phenomenon. Psychol Bull 145:237–272. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000184

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Davies M (2013) Critical thinking and the disciplines reconsidered. High Educ Res Dev 32:529–544. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2012.697878

Moore T (2004) The critical thinking debate: how general are general thinking skills? High Educ Res Dev 23:3–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/0729436032000168469

Smith G (2002) Are there domain specific thinking skills? J Philos Educ 36:207–227. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9752.00270

Patrick C (1938) Scientific thought. J Psychol 5:55–83

Kattou M, Kontoyianni K, Pitta-Pantazi D, Christou C (2013) Connecting mathematical creativity to mathematical ability. ZDM 45:167–181. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-012-0467-1

Meier MA, Burgstaller JA, Benedek M, Vogel SE, Grabner RH (2021) Mathematical creativity in adults: its measurement and its relation to intelligence, mathematical competence and general creativity. J Intell 9:10. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence9010010

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Hu W, Adey P (2002) A scientific creativity test for secondary school students. Int J Sci Educ 24:389–403. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690110098912

Feist GJ (1998) A meta-analysis of personality in scientific and artistic creativity. Pers Soc Psychol Rev 2:290–309. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0204_5

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Simonton DK (2021) Scientific creativity: discovery and invention as combinatorial. Front Psychol 12:1–11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.721104

Weiping H, Shi QZ, Han Q, Wang X, Adey P (2010) Creative scientific problem finding and its developmental trend. Creat Res J 22(1):46–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400410903579551

Balka DS (1974) Creative ability in mathematics. Teach Child Math 21:633–636. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ106476

Akgul S, Kahveci NG (2016) A study on the development of a mathematics creativity scale. Eurasian J Educ Res 62:57–76. https://doi.org/10.14689/ejer.2016.62.5

Jankowska DM, Karwowski M (2015) Measuring creative imagery abilities. Front Psychol 6:1591. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01591

Urban KK (2004) Assessing creativity: the test for creative thinking-drawing production (TCT-DP)—The concept, application, evaluation, and international studies. Psychol Sci 46:387–397

Amabile TM (1982) Social psychology of creativity: a consensual assessment technique. Pers Soc Psychol Rev 43:997–1013. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.43.5.997

Amabile T (1996) Creativity in context: update to the social psychology of creativity. Westview, Boulder

Denson CD, Buelin JK, Lammi MD, D’amico S (2015) Developing instrumentation for assessing engineering design. J Technol Educ 27:23–40. https://doi.org/10.21061/jte.v27i1.a.2

Root-Bernstein R, Root-Bernstein M (2004) Artistic scientists and scientific artists: the link between polymathy and creativity. In: Sternberg RJ, Grigorenko EL, Singer JL (eds) Creativity: from potential to realization. American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, pp 127–151. https://doi.org/10.1037/10692-008

Runco MA, Abdulla Alabbasi AM (2022) Creative activity and accomplishment as indicators of polymathy among gifted and nongifted students. Submitted for publication

Basadur M (1994) Managing the creative process in organizations. In: Runco MA (ed) Problem solving, problem finding, and creativity. Ablex, Westport, pp 237–268

Brophy DR (1998) Understanding, measuring and enhancing individual creative problem-solving efforts. Creat Res J 11:123–150

Dodds RA, Ward TB, Smith SM (2012) Incubation to problem solving and creativity. In: Runco MA (ed) Creativity research handbook, 3 vols. Hampton Press, New York, pp 251–284

Runco MA (ed) (1994) Problem finding, problem solving, and creativity. Ablex Publishing, Westport

Getzels JW (1975) Problem-finding and the inventiveness of solutions. J Creat Behav 9:12–18. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.1975.tb00552.x

Einstein A, Infeld L (1938) The evolution of physics. Simon & Schuster, New York

Root-Bernstein RS (1988) Discovering. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Adams JL (1984) Conceptual blockbusting. Norton, New York

Hudson L (1966) Contrary imaginations. Methuen, North Yorkshire

Runco MA, Millar G, Acar S, Cramond B (2010) Torrance tests of creative thinking as predictors of personal and public achievement: a fifty-year follow-up. Creat Res J 2010(22):361–368. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2010.523393

Hunter ST, Bedell KE, Mumford MD (2007) Climate for creativity: a quantitative review. Creat Res J 19:69–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400410709336883

Ma H-H (2009) The effect size of variables associated with creativity: a meta-analysis. Creat Res J 21:30–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400410802633400

Acar S, Runco MA, Park H (2020) What should people be told when they take a divergent thinking test? A meta-analytic review of explicit instructions for divergent thinking. Psychol Aesthet Creat Arts 14:39–49. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000256

Runco MA, Jaeger G (2012) The standard definition of creativity. Creat Res J 24:92–96

Acar S, Runco MA (2014) Assessing associative distance among ideas elicited by tests of divergent thinking. Creat Res J 26:229–238. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2014.901095

Beketayev K, Runco MA (2016) Scoring divergent thinking tests by computer with a semantics-based algorithm. Eur J Psychol 12:210–220. https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.v12i2.1127

Acar S, Berthiaume K, Grajzel K, Dumas D, Flemister CT, Organisciak P (2023) Applying automated originality scoring to the verbal form of Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking. Gift Child Q 67:3–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/00169862211061874

Dumas D, Organisciak P, Doherty M (2020) Measuring divergent thinking originality with human raters and textmining models: a psychometric comparison of methods. Psychol Aesthet Creat Arts 15:645–663. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000319

Landauer TK, Dumais ST (1997) A solution to Plato’s problem: the latent semantic analysis theory of acquisition, induction, and representation of knowledge. Psychol Rev 104:211–240. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.104.2.211

Günther F, Dudschig C, Kaup B (2015) LSAfun-An R package for computations based on Latent Semantic Analysis. Behav Res Methods 47:930–944. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-014-0529-0

Pennington J, Socher R, Manning C (2014) Glove: global vectors for word representation. In: Moscitti A, Pang A, Daelemans B (eds) Proceedings of the 2014 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing. Association for Computational Linguistics, Stroudsburg, pp 1532–1543

Runco MA (1995) Insight for creativity, expression for impact. Creat Res J 8:377–390. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj0804_4

Kuhn TS (1962/2012) The structure of scientific revolutions, 4th edn. University of Chicago Press

Rubenson DL, Runco MA (1992) The psychoeconomic approach to creativity. New Ideas Psychol 10:131–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/0732-118X(92)90021-Q

Forthmann B, Runco MA (2020) An empirical test of the inter-relationships between various bibliometric creative scholarship indicators. MDPI 8:34. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications8020034

Mednick S (1962) The associative basis of the creative process. Psychol Rev 69:220–232. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0048850

Runco MA (1986) Flexibility and originality in children’s divergent thinking. J Psychol 120:345–352

Runco MA, Chand I (1995) Cognition and creativity. Educ Psychol Rev 7:243–267. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02213373

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Southern Oregon University, Ashland, OR, USA

Mark A. Runco

Department of Pediatrics, Quillen College of Medicine, East Tennessee State University, Johnson City, TN, USA

Lindsay Ellis Lee

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mark A. Runco .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Retired Senior Expert Pharmacologist at the Office of Cardiology, Hematology, Endocrinology, and Nephrology, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, US Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD, USA

Gowraganahalli Jagadeesh

Professor & Director, Research Training and Publications, The Office of Research and Development, Periyar Maniammai Institute of Science & Technology (Deemed to be University), Vallam, Tamil Nadu, India

Pitchai Balakumar

Division Cardiology & Nephrology, Office of Cardiology, Hematology, Endocrinology and Nephrology, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, US Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD, USA

Fortunato Senatore

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Runco, M.A., Lee, L.E. (2023). Creativity and Critical Thinking Contribute to Scholarly Achievement. In: Jagadeesh, G., Balakumar, P., Senatore, F. (eds) The Quintessence of Basic and Clinical Research and Scientific Publishing. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-1284-1_3

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-1284-1_3

Published : 01 October 2023

Publisher Name : Springer, Singapore

Print ISBN : 978-981-99-1283-4

Online ISBN : 978-981-99-1284-1

eBook Packages : Biomedical and Life Sciences Biomedical and Life Sciences (R0)

Share this chapter

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

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Breadcrumbs Section. Click here to navigate to respective pages.

Creativity and Critical Thinking

DOI link for Creativity and Critical Thinking

Get Citation

What do we mean by creativity? What is the link between creativity and critical thinking? How can creativity and critical thinking be incorporated into classroom practice and what are the benefits for students?

Creativity and critical thinking are central to effective teaching and learning and have a significant impact on students’ attainment, engagement, attendance and behaviour. This book draws on recent research and policy to provide teachers with a clear framework for understanding creativity and critical thinking and practically demonstrates how they can be incorporated into classroom practice.

Bringing together an expert team of contributors with a wide-range of experience of bringing creative approaches into the classroom the book includes:

• an analysis of the issues associated with creativity and critical thinking
• clear guidance on how schools can develop dynamic thinking and creative learning strategies and use them with all learners
• advice on using external agencies to bring the creative perspective into schools
• case studies alongside examples of current activities and practice in schools
• links to resources and organisations who can offer support.

Providing clear guidance on the underpinning theory and policy and drawing upon current initiatives in schools, this book is essential reading for trainee and practising teachers that want to provide the best possible learning experience for their students.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter 1 | 15  pages, an introduction to creativity and critical thinking, chapter 2 | 16  pages, creativity in – creativity out: creativity and critical thinking in the context of initial teacher training, chapter 3 | 20  pages, a framework for creativity in schools, chapter 4 | 17  pages, sowing the seeds: creativity and critical thinking in a key stage 2 setting, chapter 5 | 16  pages, a question of integration creativity and critical thinking in the context of mtl accreditation, chapter 6 | 13  pages, new faces in new places: how the arts centre can impact on creative learning, chapter 7 | 16  pages, barriers, enablers and practical approaches.

• Privacy Policy
• Terms & Conditions
• Cookie Policy
• Taylor & Francis Online
• Taylor & Francis Group
• Students/Researchers
• Librarians/Institutions

Connect with us

Registered in England & Wales No. 3099067 5 Howick Place | London | SW1P 1WG © 2024 Informa UK Limited

• Science & Math
• Mathematics

Sorry, there was a problem.

Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required .

Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.

Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.

Image Unavailable

• To view this video download Flash Player

Follow the author

An Introduction to Critical Thinking and Creativity: Think More, Think Better 1st Edition

A valuable guide on creativity and critical thinking to improve reasoning and decision-making skills

C ritical thinking skills are essential in virtually any field of study or practice where individuals need to communicate ideas, make decisions, and analyze and solve problems. An Introduction to Critical Thinking and Creativity: Think More, Think Better outlines the necessary tools for readers to become critical as well as creative thinkers. By gaining a practical and solid foundation in the basic principles that underlie critical thinking and creativity, readers will become equipped to think in a more systematic, logical, and imaginative manner.

Creativity is needed to generate new ideas to solve problems, and critical thinking evaluates and improves an idea. These concepts are uniquely introduced as a unified whole due to their dependence on each other. Each chapter introduces relevant theories in conjunction with real-life examples and findings from cognitive science and psychology to illustrate how the theories can be applied in numerous fields and careers. An emphasis on how theoretical principles of reasoning can be practical and useful in everyday life is featured, and special sections on presentation techniques, the analysis of meaning, decision-making, and reasoning about personal and moral values are also highlighted.

All chapters conclude with a set of exercises, and detailed solutions are provided at the end of the book. A companion website features online tutorials that further explore topics including meaning analysis, argument analysis, logic, statistics, and strategic thinking, along with additional exercises and multimedia resources for continued study.

• ISBN-10 0470195096
• ISBN-13 978-0470195093
• Edition 1st
• Publisher Wiley
• Publication date April 19, 2011
• Language English
• Dimensions 6.1 x 0.7 x 9.2 inches
• Print length 272 pages
• See all details

Editorial Reviews

From the inside flap.

An Introduction to Critical Thinking and Creativity is an excellent book for courses on critical thinking and logic at the undergraduate and graduate levels. The book also serves as a self-contained study guide for readers interested in the topics of critical thinking and creativity as a unified whole.

From the Back Cover

About the author, product details.

• Publisher ‏ : ‎ Wiley; 1st edition (April 19, 2011)
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• Paperback ‏ : ‎ 272 pages
• ISBN-10 ‏ : ‎ 0470195096
• ISBN-13 ‏ : ‎ 978-0470195093
• Item Weight ‏ : ‎ 13.6 ounces
• Dimensions ‏ : ‎ 6.1 x 0.7 x 9.2 inches
• #176 in Cognitive Psychology (Books)
• #466 in Mathematical Logic
• #1,645 in Medical Cognitive Psychology

About the author

Joe y. f. lau.

Dr. Joe Lau is Associate Professor at the University of Hong Kong. He teaches critical thinking, logic, and the philosophy of mind and cognitive science. He studied physics and philosophy at Oxford University and did his Ph.D. at MIT.

Customer reviews

• 5 star 4 star 3 star 2 star 1 star 5 star 63% 22% 9% 7% 0% 63%
• 5 star 4 star 3 star 2 star 1 star 4 star 63% 22% 9% 7% 0% 22%
• 5 star 4 star 3 star 2 star 1 star 3 star 63% 22% 9% 7% 0% 9%
• 5 star 4 star 3 star 2 star 1 star 2 star 63% 22% 9% 7% 0% 7%
• 5 star 4 star 3 star 2 star 1 star 1 star 63% 22% 9% 7% 0% 0%

Customer Reviews, including Product Star Ratings help customers to learn more about the product and decide whether it is the right product for them.

To calculate the overall star rating and percentage breakdown by star, we don’t use a simple average. Instead, our system considers things like how recent a review is and if the reviewer bought the item on Amazon. It also analyzed reviews to verify trustworthiness.

Reviews with images

• Sort reviews by Top reviews Most recent Top reviews

Top reviews from the United States

There was a problem filtering reviews right now. please try again later..

Top reviews from other countries

• About Amazon
• Investor Relations
• Amazon Devices
• Amazon Science
• Sell products on Amazon
• Sell on Amazon Business
• Sell apps on Amazon
• Become an Affiliate
• Advertise Your Products
• Self-Publish with Us
• Host an Amazon Hub
• › See More Make Money with Us
• Amazon Business Card
• Shop with Points
• Reload Your Balance
• Amazon Currency Converter
• Amazon and COVID-19
• Your Account
• Your Orders
• Shipping Rates & Policies
• Returns & Replacements
• Manage Your Content and Devices

• Conditions of Use
• Privacy Notice
• Consumer Health Data Privacy Disclosure
• Your Ads Privacy Choices

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Recommended Articles
• PubMed/Medline
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

Creativity, critical thinking, communication, and collaboration: assessment, certification, and promotion of 21st century skills for the future of work and education.

1. Introduction

“21st century skills”, “soft skills”, and the “4cs”, 2. the 4cs, assessment, and support for development, 2.1. creativity, 2.1.1. individual assessment of creativity, 2.1.2. institutional and environmental support for development of creativity, 2.2. critical thinking, 2.2.1. individual assessment of critical thinking, 2.2.2. institutional and environmental support for development of critical thinking skills, 2.3. communication, 2.3.1. individual assessment of communication, 2.3.2. institutional and environmental support for development of communication skills, 2.4. collaboration, 2.4.1. individual assessment of collaboration, 2.4.2. institutional and environmental support for development of collaboration and collaborative skills, 3. labelization: valorization of the 4cs and assessing support for their development, 3.1. labeling as a means of trust and differentiation, 3.2. influence on choice and adoption of goods and services, 3.3. process of labelizing products and services, 3.4. labelization of 21st century skills, 4. the international institute for competency development’s 21st century competencies 4cs assessment framework for institutions and programs, 4.1. evaluation grid for creativity, 4.2. evaluation grid for critical thinking, 4.3. evaluation grid for collaboration, 4.4. evaluation grid for communication, 5. assessing the 4cs in informal educational contexts: the example of games, 5.1. the 4cs in informal educational contexts, 5.2. 4cs evaluation framework for games, 6. discussion and conclusions, 6.1. interrelationships between the 4cs and a new model for use in pedagogy and policy promotion, 6.2. limitations and future work, 6.3. conclusion: labelization of the 4cs and the future of education and work, author contributions, institutional review board statement, informed consent statement, data availability statement, conflicts of interest.

• Abrami, Philip C., Robert M. Bernard, Eugene Borokhovski, David I. Waddington, C. Anne Wade, and Tonje Persson. 2015. Strategies for Teaching Students to Think Critically: A Meta-Analysis. Review of Educational Research 85: 275–314. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• AbuSeileek, Ali Farhan. 2012. The Effect of Computer-Assisted Cooperative Learning Methods and Group Size on the EFL Learners’ Achievement in Communication Skills. Computers & Education 58: 231–39. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ahern, Aoife, Caroline Dominguez, Ciaran McNally, John J. O’Sullivan, and Daniela Pedrosa. 2019. A Literature Review of Critical Thinking in Engineering Education. Studies in Higher Education 44: 816–28. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ainsworth, Shaaron E., and Irene-Angelica Chounta. 2021. The roles of representation in computer-supported collaborative learning. In International Handbook of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning . Edited by Ulrike Cress, Carolyn Rosé, Alyssa Friend Wise and Jun Oshima. Cham: Springer, pp. 353–69. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Alsaleh, Nada J. 2020. Teaching Critical Thinking Skills: Literature Review. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology 19: 21–39. Available online: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1239945.pdf (accessed on 1 November 2022).
• Al-Samarraie, Hosam, and Shuhaila Hurmuzan. 2018. A Review of Brainstorming Techniques in Higher Education. Thinking Skills and Creativity 27: 78–91. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Amabile, Teresa M. 1982. Social Psychology of Creativity: A Consensual Assessment Technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 43: 997–1013. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Amron, Manajemen Pemasaran. 2018. The influence of brand image, brand trust, product quality, and price on the consumer’s buying decision of MPV cars. European Scientific Journal 14: 228–39. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Ananiadoui, Katerina, and Magdalean Claro. 2009. 21st Century Skills and Competences for New Millennium Learners in OECD Countries . OECD Education Working Papers, No. 41. Paris: OECD Publishing. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bailin, Sharon. 1988. Achieving Extraordinary Ends: An Essay on Creativity . Dordrecht: Springer. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bandyopadhyay, Subir, and Jana Szostek. 2019. Thinking Critically about Critical Thinking: Assessing Critical Thinking of Business Students Using Multiple Measures. Journal of Education for Business 94: 259–70. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Barber, Herbert F. 1992. Developing Strategic Leadership: The US Army War College Experience. Journal of Management Development 11: 4–12. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Barnett, Ronald. 2015. A Curriculum for Critical Being. In The Palgrave Handbook of Critical Thinking in Higher Education . New York: Palgrave Macmillan US, pp. 63–76. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bateson, Patrick, and Paul Martin. 2013. Play, Playfulness, Creativity and Innovation . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Batey, Mark. 2012. The Measurement of Creativity: From Definitional Consensus to the Introduction of a New Heuristic Framework. Creativity Research Journal 24: 55–65. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Battelle for Kids. 2022. Framework for 21st Century Learning Definitions. Available online: http://static.battelleforkids.org/documents/p21/P21_Framework_DefinitionsBFK.pdf (accessed on 1 November 2022).
• Bellaera, Lauren, Yana Weinstein-Jones, Sonia Ilie, and Sara T. Baker. 2021. Critical Thinking in Practice: The Priorities and Practices of Instructors Teaching in Higher Education. Thinking Skills and Creativity 41: 100856. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Blessinger, Patrick, and John P. Anchan. 2015. Democratizing Higher Education: International Comparative Perspectives , 1st ed. Edited by Patrick Blessinger and John P. Anchan. London: Routledge. Available online: https://www.routledge.com/Democratizing-Higher-Education-International-Comparative-Perspectives/Blessinger-Anchan/p/book/9781138020955 (accessed on 1 November 2022).
• Bloom, Benjamin Samuel, ed. 1956. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals: Handbook I, Cognitive Domain . New York: Longmans. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bourgeois-Bougrine, Samira. 2022. Design Thinking. In The Palgrave Encyclopedia of the Possible . Cham: Springer International Publishing. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bourgeois-Bougrine, Samira, Nathalie Bonnardel, Jean-Marie Burkhardt, Branden Thornhill-Miller, Farzaneh Pahlavan, Stéphanie Buisine, Jérôme Guegan, Nicolas Pichot, and Todd Lubart. 2022. Immersive Virtual Environments’ Impact on Individual and Collective Creativity: A Review of Recent Research. European Psychologist 27: 237–53. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bourke, Sharon L., Simon Cooper, Louisa Lam, and Lisa McKenna. 2021. Undergraduate Health Professional Students’ Team Communication in Simulated Emergency Settings: A Scoping Review. Clinical Simulation in Nursing 60: 42–63. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Brookfield, Stephen D. 1997. Assessing Critical Thinking. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education 75: 17–29. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Burkhardt, Jean-Marie, Françoise Détienne, Anne-Marie Hébert, and Laurence Perron. 2009. Assessing the ‘Quality of Collaboration’ in Technology-Mediated Design Situations with Several Dimensions. In Human-Computer Interaction—INTERACT 2009 . Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 157–60. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Camarda, Anaëlle, Lison Bouhours, Anaïs Osmont, Pascal Le Masson, Benoît Weil, Grégoire Borst, and Mathieu Cassotti. 2021. Opposite Effect of Social Evaluation on Creative Idea Generation in Early and Middle Adolescents. Creativity Research Journal 33: 399–410. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cannon-Bowers, Janis, Scott I. Tannenbaum, Eduardo Salas, and Catherine E. Volpe. 1995. Defining team competencies and establishing team training requirements. In Team Effectiveness and Decision Making in Organizations . Edited by Richard A. Guzzo and Eduardo Salas. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp. 333–80. [ Google Scholar ]
• Care, Esther, Claire Scoular, and Patrick Griffin. 2016. Assessment of Collaborative Problem Solving in Education Environments. Applied Measurement in Education 29: 250–64. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Care, Esther, Helyn Kim, Alvin Vista, and Kate Anderson. 2018. Education System Alignment for 21st Century Skills: Focus on Assessment . Washington, DC: Brookings Institution. [ Google Scholar ]
• Carmichael, Erst, and Helen Farrell. 2012. Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Online Resources in Developing Student Critical Thinking: Review of Literature and Case Study of a Critical Thinking Online Site. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice 9: 38–55. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Carson, Shelley H., Jordan B. Peterson, and Daniel M. Higgins. 2005. Reliability, Validity, and Factor Structure of the Creative Achievement Questionnaire. Creativity Research Journal 17: 37–50. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Casey, Betty J., Sarah Getz, and Adriana Galvan. 2008. The Adolescent Brain. Developmental Review: DR 28: 62–77. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Cassotti, Mathieu, Anaëlle Camarda, Nicolas Poirel, Olivier Houdé, and Marine Agogué. 2016. Fixation Effect in Creative Ideas Generation: Opposite Impacts of Example in Children and Adults. Thinking Skills and Creativity 19: 146–52. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chameroy, Fabienne, and Lucien Veran. 2014. Immatérialité de La Qualité et Effet Des Labels Sur Le Consentement à Payer. Management International 18: 32–44. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Chiu, Fa-Chung. 2015. Improving Your Creative Potential without Awareness: Overinclusive Thinking Training. Thinking Skills and Creativity 15: 1–12. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chulvi, Vicente, Elena Mulet, Amaresh Chakrabarti, Belinda López-Mesa, and Carmen González-Cruz. 2012. Comparison of the Degree of Creativity in the Design Outcomes Using Different Design Methods. Journal of Engineering Design 23: 241–69. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Cinque, Maria. 2016. ‘Lost in Translation’. Soft Skills Development in European Countries. Tuning Journal for Higher Education 3: 389–427. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Cömert, Musa, Jördis Maria Zill, Eva Christalle, Jörg Dirmaier, Martin Härter, and Isabelle Scholl. 2016. Assessing Communication Skills of Medical Students in Objective Structured Clinical Examinations (OSCE) - A Systematic Review of Rating Scales. PLoS ONE 11: e0152717. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Corazza, Giovanni Emanuele. 2016. Potential Originality and Effectiveness: The Dynamic Definition of Creativity. Creativity Research Journal 28: 258–67. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Corazza, Giovanni Emanuele, Frédéric Darbellay, Todd Lubart, and Chiara Panciroli. 2021. Developing Intelligence and Creativity in Education: Insights from the Space–Time Continuum. In Creativity and Learning . Edited by Soila Lemmetty, Kaija Collin, Vlad Glăveanu and Panu Forsman. Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 69–87. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cotter, Katherine N., Ronald A. Beghetto, and James C. Kaufman. 2022. Creativity in the Classroom: Advice for Best Practices. In Homo Creativus . Edited by Todd Lubart, Marion Botella, Samira Bourgeois-Bougrine, Xavier Caroff, Jérôme Guégan, Christohe Mouchiroud, Julien Nelson and Franck Zenasni. Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 249–64. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Curtis, J. Randall, Anthony L. Back, Dee W. Ford, Lois Downey, Sarah E. Shannon, Ardith Z. Doorenbos, Erin K. Kross, Lynn F. Reinke, Laura C. Feemster, Barbara Edlund, and et al. 2013. Effect of Communication Skills Training for Residents and Nurse Practitioners on Quality of Communication with Patients with Serious Illness: A Randomized Trial. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association 310: 2271. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• D’Alimonte, Laura, Elizabeth McLaney, and Lisa Di Prospero. 2019. Best Practices on Team Communication: Interprofessional Practice in Oncology. Current Opinion in Supportive and Palliative Care 13: 69–74. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• de Freitas, Sara. 2006. Learning in Immersive Worlds: A Review of Game-Based Learning . Bristol: JISC. Available online: http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/programmes/elearninginnovation/gamingreport_v3.pdf (accessed on 1 November 2022).
• Détienne, Françoise, Michael Baker, and Jean-Marie Burkhardt. 2012. Perspectives on Quality of Collaboration in Design. CoDesign 8: 197–99. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Diedrich, Jennifer, Emanuel Jauk, Paul J. Silvia, Jeffrey M. Gredlein, Aljoscha C. Neubauer, and Mathias Benedek. 2018. Assessment of Real-Life Creativity: The Inventory of Creative Activities and Achievements (ICAA). Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts 12: 304–16. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Doyle, Denise. 2021. Creative and Collaborative Practices in Virtual Immersive Environments. In Creativity in the Twenty First Century. Edited by Anna Hui and Christian Wagner . Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 3–19. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Drisko, James W. 2014. Competencies and Their Assessment. Journal of Social Work Education 50: 414–26. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dul, Jan, and Canan Ceylan. 2011. Work Environments for Employee Creativity. Ergonomics 54: 12–20. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Dumitru, Daniela, Dragos Bigu, Jan Elen, Aoife Ahern, Ciaran McNally, and John O’Sullivan. 2018. A European Review on Critical Thinking Educational Practices in Higher Education Institutions . Vila Real: UTAD. Available online: http://repositorio.utad.pt/handle/10348/8320 (accessed on 2 November 2022).
• Edelman, Jonathan, Babajide Owoyele, and Joaquin Santuber. 2022. Beyond Brainstorming: Introducing Medgi, an Effective, Research-Based Method for Structured Concept Development. In Design Thinking in Education . Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 209–32. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Etilé, Fabrice, and Sabrina Teyssier. 2016. Signaling Corporate Social Responsibility: Third-Party Certification versus Brands: Signaling CSR: Third-Party Certification versus Brands. The Scandinavian Journal of Economics 118: 397–432. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Evans, Carla. 2020. Measuring Student Success Skills: A Review of the Literature on Collaboration . Dover: National Center for the Improvement of Educational Assessment. [ Google Scholar ]
• Facione, Peter Arthur. 1990a. The California Critical Thinking Skills Test–College Level. Technical Report# 1. Experimental Validation and Content Validity. Available online: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED327549.pdf (accessed on 2 November 2022).
• Facione, Peter Arthur. 1990b. Critical Thinking: A Statement of Expert Consensus for Purposes of Educational Assessment and Instruction. Research Findings and Recommendations ; Washington, DC: ERIC, Institute of Education Sciences, pp. 1–112. Available online: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED315423 (accessed on 2 November 2022).
• Facione, Peter Arthur. 2011. Critical thinking: What it is and why it counts. Insight Assessment 2007: 1–23. [ Google Scholar ]
• Faidley, Joel. 2018. Comparison of Learning Outcomes from Online and Face-to-Face Accounting Courses. Ph.D. dissertation, East Tennessee State University, Johnson City, TN, USA. [ Google Scholar ]
• Friedman, Hershey H. 2017. Cognitive Biases That Interfere with Critical Thinking and Scientific Reasoning: A Course Module. SSRN Electronic Journal , 1–60. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Fryer-Edwards, Kelly, Robert M. Arnold, Walter Baile, James A. Tulsky, Frances Petracca, and Anthony Back. 2006. Reflective Teaching Practices: An Approach to Teaching Communication Skills in a Small-Group Setting. Academic Medicine: Journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges 81: 638–44. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Glăveanu, Vlad Petre. 2013. Rewriting the Language of Creativity: The Five A’s Framework. Review of General Psychology: Journal of Division 1, of the American Psychological Association 17: 69–81. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Glăveanu, Vlad Petre. 2014. The Psychology of Creativity: A Critical Reading. Creativity Theories Research Applications 1: 10–32. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Goldenberg, Olga, and Jennifer Wiley. 2011. Quality, Conformity, and Conflict: Questioning the Assumptions of Osborn’s Brainstorming Technique. The Journal of Problem Solving 3: 96–118. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Graesser, Arthur C., John P. Sabatini, and Haiying Li. 2022. Educational Psychology Is Evolving to Accommodate Technology, Multiple Disciplines, and Twenty-First-Century Skills. Annual Review of Psychology 73: 547–74. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Graesser, Arthur C., Stephen M. Fiore, Samuel Greiff, Jessica Andrews-Todd, Peter W. Foltz, and Friedrich W. Hesse. 2018. Advancing the Science of Collaborative Problem Solving. Psychological Science in the Public Interest 19: 59–92. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Grassmann, Susanne. 2014. The pragmatics of word learning. In Pragmatic Development in First Language Acquisition . Edited by Danielle Matthews. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 139–60. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hager, Keri, Catherine St Hill, Jacob Prunuske, Michael Swanoski, Grant Anderson, and May Nawal Lutfiyya. 2016. Development of an Interprofessional and Interdisciplinary Collaborative Research Practice for Clinical Faculty. Journal of Interprofessional Care 30: 265–67. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] [ Green Version ]
• Halpern, Diane F. 1998. Teaching Critical Thinking for Transfer across Domains: Disposition, Skills, Structure Training, and Metacognitive Monitoring. The American Psychologist 53: 449–55. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Halpern, Diane F., and Dana S. Dunn. 2021. Critical Thinking: A Model of Intelligence for Solving Real-World Problems. Journal of Intelligence 9: 22. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hanover Research. 2012. A Crosswalk of 21st Century Skills. Available online: http://www.hanoverresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/A-Crosswalk-of-21st-Century-Skills-Membership.pdf (accessed on 15 August 2022).
• Hathaway, Julia R., Beth A. Tarini, Sushmita Banerjee, Caroline O. Smolkin, Jessica A. Koos, and Susmita Pati. 2022. Healthcare Team Communication Training in the United States: A Scoping Review. Health Communication , 1–26. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hesse, Friedrich, Esther Care, Juergen Buder, Kai Sassenberg, and Patrick Griffin. 2015. A Framework for Teachable Collaborative Problem Solving Skills. In Assessment and Teaching of 21st Century Skills . Edited by Patrick Griffin and Esther Care. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, pp. 37–56. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hitchcock, David. 2020. Critical Thinking. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2020 Edition) . Edited by Nouri Zalta Edward. Stanford: Stanford University. [ Google Scholar ]
• Houdé, Olivier. 2000. Inhibition and cognitive development: Object, number, categorization, and reasoning. Cognitive Development 15: 63–73. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Houdé, Olivier, and Grégoire Borst. 2014. Measuring inhibitory control in children and adults: Brain imaging and mental chronometry. Frontiers in Psychology 5: 616. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Huber, Christopher R., and Nathan R. Kuncel. 2016. Does College Teach Critical Thinking? A Meta-Analysis. Review of Educational Research 86: 431–68. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Huizinga, Johan. 1949. Homo Ludens: A Study of the Play-Elements in Culture . London: Routledge. [ Google Scholar ]
• Humphrey, Neil, Andrew Curran, Elisabeth Morris, Peter Farrell, and Kevin Woods. 2007. Emotional Intelligence and Education: A Critical Review. Educational Psychology 27: 235–54. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• International Institute for Competency Development. 2021. 21st Century Skills 4Cs Labelization. Available online: https://icd-hr21.org/offers/21st-century-competencies/ (accessed on 2 November 2022).
• Jackson, Denise. 2014. Business Graduate Performance in Oral Communication Skills and Strategies for Improvement. The International Journal of Management Education 12: 22–34. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jahn, Gabriele, Matthias Schramm, and Achim Spiller. 2005. The Reliability of Certification: Quality Labels as a Consumer Policy Tool. Journal of Consumer Policy 28: 53–73. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jauk, Emanuel, Mathias Benedek, and Aljoscha C. Neubauer. 2014. The Road to Creative Achievement: A Latent Variable Model of Ability and Personality Predictors. European Journal of Personality 28: 95–105. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Joie-La Marle, Chantal, François Parmentier, Morgane Coltel, Todd Lubart, and Xavier Borteyrou. 2022. A Systematic Review of Soft Skills Taxonomies: Descriptive and Conceptual Work. Available online: https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/mszgj (accessed on 2 November 2022).
• Jones, Stanley E., and Curtis D. LeBaron. 2002. Research on the Relationship between Verbal and Nonverbal Communication: Emerging Integrations. The Journal of Communication 52: 499–521. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kaendler, Celia, Michael Wiedmann, Timo Leuders, Nikol Rummel, and Hans Spada. 2016. Monitoring Student Interaction during Collaborative Learning: Design and Evaluation of a Training Program for Pre-Service Teachers. Psychology Learning & Teaching 15: 44–64. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kahneman, Daniel. 2003. A Perspective on Judgment and Choice: Mapping Bounded Rationality. The American Psychologist 58: 697–720. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Kahneman, Daniel. 2011. Thinking, Fast and Slow . New York: Macmillan. [ Google Scholar ]
• Karl, Katherine A., Joy V. Peluchette, and Navid Aghakhani. 2022. Virtual Work Meetings during the COVID-19 Pandemic: The Good, Bad, and Ugly. Small Group Research 53: 343–65. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Keefer, Kateryna V., James D. A. Parker, and Donald H. Saklofske. 2018. Three Decades of Emotional Intelligence Research: Perennial Issues, Emerging Trends, and Lessons Learned in Education: Introduction to Emotional Intelligence in Education. In The Springer Series on Human Exceptionality . Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 1–19. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kemp, Nenagh, and Rachel Grieve. 2014. Face-to-Face or Face-to-Screen? Undergraduates’ Opinions and Test Performance in Classroom vs. Online Learning. Frontiers in Psychology 5: 1278. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Kimery, Kathryn, and Mary McCord. 2002. Third-Party Assurances: Mapping the Road to Trust in E-retailing. The Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application 4: 63–82. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kohn, Nicholas W., and Steven M. Smith. 2011. Collaborative Fixation: Effects of Others’ Ideas on Brainstorming. Applied Cognitive Psychology 25: 359–71. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kowaltowski, Doris C. C. K., Giovana Bianchi, and Valéria Teixeira de Paiva. 2010. Methods That May Stimulate Creativity and Their Use in Architectural Design Education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education 20: 453–76. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kruijver, Irma P. M., Ada Kerkstra, Anneke L. Francke, Jozien M. Bensing, and Harry B. M. van de Wiel. 2000. Evaluation of Communication Training Programs in Nursing Care: A Review of the Literature. Patient Education and Counseling 39: 129–45. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] [ Green Version ]
• Lai, Emily R. 2011. Critical thinking: A literature review. Pearson’s Research Reports 6: 40–41. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Lamri, Jérémy, and Todd Lubart. 2021. Creativity and Its’ Relationships with 21st Century Skills in Job Performance. Kindai Management Review 9: 75–91. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lamri, Jérémy, Michel Barabel, Olivier Meier, and Todd Lubart. 2022. Le Défi Des Soft Skills: Comment les Développer au XXIe Siècle? Paris: Dunod. [ Google Scholar ]
• Landa, Rebecca J. 2005. Assessment of Social Communication Skills in Preschoolers: Assessing Social Communication Skills in Children. Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews 11: 247–52. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lee, Sang M., Jeongil Choi, and Sang-Gun Lee. 2004. The impact of a third-party assurance seal in customer purchasing intention. Journal of Internet Commerce 3: 33–51. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lewis, Arthur, and David Smith. 1993. Defining Higher Order Thinking. Theory into Practice 32: 131–37. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Liu, Ou Lydia, Lois Frankel, and Katrina Crotts Roohr. 2014. Assessing Critical Thinking in Higher Education: Current State and Directions for next-Generation Assessment: Assessing Critical Thinking in Higher Education. ETS Research Report Series 2014: 1–23. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lubart, Todd. 2017. The 7 C’s of Creativity. The Journal of Creative Behavior 51: 293–96. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lubart, Todd, and Branden Thornhill-Miller. 2019. Creativity: An Overview of the 7C’s of Creative Thought. Heidelberg: Heidelberg University Publishing . [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lubart, Todd, Baptiste Barbot, and Maud Besançon. 2019. Creative Potential: Assessment Issues and the EPoC Battery/Potencial Creativo: Temas de Evaluación y Batería EPoC. Estudios de Psicologia 40: 540–62. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lubart, Todd, Franck Zenasni, and Baptiste Barbot. 2013. Creative potential and its measurement. International Journal of Talent Development and Creativity 1: 41–51. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lubart, Tubart, and Branden Thornhill-Miller. 2021. Creativity in Law: Legal Professions and the Creative Profiler Approach. In Mapping Legal Innovation: Trends and Perspectives . Edited by Antoine Masson and Gavin Robinson. Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 1–19. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lubin, Jeffrey, Stephan Hendrick, Branden Thornhill-Miller, Maxence Mercier, and Todd Lubart. Forthcoming. Creativity in Solution-Focused Brief Therapy.
• Lucas, Bill. 2019. Why We Need to Stop Talking about Twenty-First Century Skills . Melbourne: Centre for Strategic Education. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lucas, Bill. 2022. Creative Thinking in Schools across the World . London: The Global Institute of Creative Thinking. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lucas, Bill, and Guy Claxton. 2009. Wider Skills for Learning: What Are They, How Can They Be Cultivated, How Could They Be Measured and Why Are They Important for Innovation? London: NESTA. [ Google Scholar ]
• Malaby, Thomas M. 2007. Beyond Play: A New Approach to Games. Games and Culture 2: 95–113. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Marin, Lisa M., and Diane F. Halpern. 2011. Pedagogy for developing critical thinking in adolescents: Explicit instruction produces greatest gains. Thinking Skills and Creativity 6: 1–13. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mathieu, John E., John R. Hollenbeck, Daan van Knippenberg, and Daniel R. Ilgen. 2017. A Century of Work Teams in the Journal of Applied Psychology. The Journal of Applied Psychology 102: 452–67. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Matthews, Danielle. 2014. Pragmatic Development in First Language Acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company . [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• McDonald, Skye, Alison Gowland, Rebekah Randall, Alana Fisher, Katie Osborne-Crowley, and Cynthia Honan. 2014. Cognitive Factors Underpinning Poor Expressive Communication Skills after Traumatic Brain Injury: Theory of Mind or Executive Function? Neuropsychology 28: 801–11. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Moore, Brooke Noel, and Richard Parker. 2016. Critical Thinking , 20th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Education. [ Google Scholar ]
• Morreale, Sherwyn P., Joseph M. Valenzano, and Janessa A. Bauer. 2017. Why Communication Education Is Important: A Third Study on the Centrality of the Discipline’s Content and Pedagogy. Communication Education 66: 402–22. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mourad, Maha. 2017. Quality Assurance as a Driver of Information Management Strategy: Stakeholders’ Perspectives in Higher Education. Journal of Enterprise Information Management 30: 779–94. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• National Education Association. 2011. Preparing 21st Century Students for a Global Society: An Educator’s Guide to the “Four Cs” . Alexandria: National Education Association. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nouri, Jalal, Anna Åkerfeldt, Uno Fors, and Staffan Selander. 2017. Assessing Collaborative Problem Solving Skills in Technology-Enhanced Learning Environments—The PISA Framework and Modes of Communication. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (IJET) 12: 163. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• O’Carroll, Veronica, Melissa Owens, Michael Sy, Alla El-Awaisi, Andreas Xyrichis, Jacqueline Leigh, Shobhana Nagraj, Marion Huber, Maggie Hutchings, and Angus McFadyen. 2021. Top Tips for Interprofessional Education and Collaborative Practice Research: A Guide for Students and Early Career Researchers. Journal of Interprofessional Care 35: 328–33. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• OECD. 2017. PISA 2015 collaborative problem-solving framework. In PISA 2015 Assessment and Analytical Framework: Science, Reading, Mathematic, Financial Literacy and Collaborative Problem Solving . Paris: OECD Publishing. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• OECD. 2019a. Framework for the Assessment of Creative Thinking in PISA 2021: Third Draft . Paris: OECD. Available online: https://www.oecd.org/pisa/publications/PISA-2021-creative-thinking-framework.pdf (accessed on 2 November 2022).
• OECD. 2019b. Future of Education and Skills 2030: A Series of Concept Notes . Paris: OECD Learning Compass. Available online: https://www.oecd.org/education/2030-project/teaching-and-learning/learning/learning-compass-2030/OECD_Learning_Compass_2030_Concept_Note_Series.pdf (accessed on 2 November 2022).
• Osborn, A. F. 1953. Applied Imagination . New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons. [ Google Scholar ]
• Parkinson, Thomas L. 1975. The Role of Seals and Certifications of Approval in Consumer Decision-Making. The Journal of Consumer Affairs 9: 1–14. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Partnership for 21st Century Skills. 2008. 21st Century Skills Education and Competitiveness: A Resource and Policy Guide . Tuscon: Partnership for 21st Century Skills. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pasquinelli, Elena, and Gérald Bronner. 2021. Éduquer à l’esprit critique. Bases théoriques et indications pratiques pour l’enseignement et la formation ; Rapport du Conseil Scientifique de l’Éducation Nationale. Paris: Ministère de l’Éducation Nationale, de la JEUNESSE et des Sports.
• Pasquinelli, Elena, Mathieu Farina, Audrey Bedel, and Roberto Casati. 2021. Naturalizing Critical Thinking: Consequences for Education, Blueprint for Future Research in Cognitive Science. Mind, Brain and Education: The Official Journal of the International Mind, Brain, and Education Society 15: 168–76. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Paul, Richard, and Linda Elder. 2006. Critical thinking: The nature of critical and creative thought. Journal of Developmental Education 30: 34–35. [ Google Scholar ]
• Paulus, Paul B., and Huei-Chuan Yang. 2000. Idea Generation in Groups: A Basis for Creativity in Organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 82: 76–87. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Paulus, Paul B., and Jared B. Kenworthy. 2019. Effective brainstorming. In The Oxford Handbook of Group Creativity and Innovation . Edited by Paul B. Paulus and Bernard A. Nijstad. New York: Oxford University Press. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Paulus, Paul B., and Mary T. Dzindolet. 1993. Social Influence Processes in Group Brainstorming. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 64: 575–86. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Paulus, Paul B., and Vincent R. Brown. 2007. Toward More Creative and Innovative Group Idea Generation: A Cognitive-Social-Motivational Perspective of Brainstorming: Cognitive-Social-Motivational View of Brainstorming. Social and Personality Psychology Compass 1: 248–65. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Peddle, Monica, Margaret Bearman, Natalie Radomski, Lisa Mckenna, and Debra Nestel. 2018. What Non-Technical Skills Competencies Are Addressed by Australian Standards Documents for Health Professionals Who Work in Secondary and Tertiary Clinical Settings? A Qualitative Comparative Analysis. BMJ Open 8: e020799. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Peña-López, Ismaël. 2017. PISA 2015 Results (Volume V): Collaborative Problem Solving . Paris: PISA, OECD Publishing. [ Google Scholar ]
• Popil, Inna. 2011. Promotion of Critical Thinking by Using Case Studies as Teaching Method. Nurse Education Today 31: 204–7. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pornpitakpan, Chanthika. 2004. The Persuasiveness of Source Credibility: A Critical Review of Five Decades’ Evidence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 34: 243–81. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Possin, Kevin. 2014. Critique of the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal Test: The More You Know, the Lower Your Score. Informal Logic 34: 393–416. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Proctor, Robert W., and Addie Dutta. 1995. Skill Acquisition and Human Performance . Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc. [ Google Scholar ]
• Putman, Vicky L., and Paul B. Paulus. 2009. Brainstorming, Brainstorming Rules and Decision Making. The Journal of Creative Behavior 43: 29–40. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Reiman, Joey. 1992. Success: The Original Handbook . Atlanta: Longstreet Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ren, Xuezhu, Yan Tong, Peng Peng, and Tengfei Wang. 2020. Critical Thinking Predicts Academic Performance beyond General Cognitive Ability: Evidence from Adults and Children. Intelligence 82: 101487. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Renard, Marie-Christine. 2005. Quality Certification, Regulation and Power in Fair Trade. Journal of Rural Studies 21: 419–31. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Restout, Emilie. 2020. Labels RSE: Un décryptage des entreprises labellisées en France. Goodwill Management . Available online: https://goodwill-management.com/labels-rse-decryptage-entreprises-labellisees/ (accessed on 2 November 2022).
• Rhodes, Mel. 1961. An Analysis of Creativity. The Phi Delta Kappan 42: 305–10. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rider, Elizabeth A., and Constance H. Keefer. 2006. Communication Skills Competencies: Definitions and a Teaching Toolbox: Communication. Medical Education 40: 624–29. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Riemer, Marc J. 2007. Communication Skills for the 21st Century Engineer. Global Journal of Engineering Education 11: 89. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rietzschel, Eric F., Bernard A. Nijstad, and Wolfgang Stroebe. 2006. Productivity Is Not Enough: A Comparison of Interactive and Nominal Brainstorming Groups on Idea Generation and Selection. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 42: 244–51. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ross, David. 2018. Why the Four Cs Will Become the Foundation of Human-AI Interface. Available online: https://www.gettingsmart.com/2018/03/04/why-the-4cs-will-become-the-foundation-of-human-ai-interface/ (accessed on 2 November 2022).
• Rothermich, Kathrin. 2020. Social Communication Across the Lifespan: The Influence of Empathy [Preprint]. SocArXiv . [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rusdin, Norazlin Mohd, and Siti Rahaimah Ali. 2019. Practice of Fostering 4Cs Skills in Teaching and Learning. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences 9: 1021–35. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] [ Green Version ]
• Rychen, Dominique Simone, and Salganik Laura Hersch, eds. 2003. Key Competencies for a Successful Life and a Well-Functioning Society . Cambridge: Hogrefe and Huber. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sahin, Mehmet Can. 2009. Instructional Design Principles for 21st Century Learning Skills. Procedia, Social and Behavioral Sciences 1: 1464–68. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Salas, Eduardo, Kevin C. Stagl, and C. Shawn Burke. 2004. 25 Years of Team Effectiveness in Organizations: Research Themes and Emerging Needs. In International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology . Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., pp. 47–91. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Salas, Eduardo, Marissa L. Shuffler, Amanda L. Thayer, Wendy L. Bedwell, and Elizabeth H. Lazzara. 2015. Understanding and Improving Teamwork in Organizations: A Scientifically Based Practical Guide. Human Resource Management 54: 599–622. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Salmi, Jamil. 2017. The Tertiary Education Imperative: Knowledge, Skills and Values for Development . Cham: Springer. [ Google Scholar ]
• Samani, Sanaz Ahmadpoor, Siti Zaleha Binti Abdul Rasid, and Saudah bt Sofian. 2014. A Workplace to Support Creativity. Industrial Engineering & Management Systems 13: 414–20. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Saroyan, Alenoush. 2022. Fostering Creativity and Critical Thinking in University Teaching and Learning: Considerations for Academics and Their Professional Learning . Paris: OECD. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sasmita, Jumiati, and Norazah Mohd Suki. 2015. Young consumers’ insights on brand equity: Effects of brand association, brand loyalty, brand awareness, and brand image. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management 43: 276–92. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Schlegel, Claudia, Ulrich Woermann, Maya Shaha, Jan-Joost Rethans, and Cees van der Vleuten. 2012. Effects of Communication Training on Real Practice Performance: A Role-Play Module versus a Standardized Patient Module. The Journal of Nursing Education 51: 16–22. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Schleicher, Andreas. 2022. Why Creativity and Creative Teaching and Learning Matter Today and for Tomorrow’s World . Creativity in Education Summit 2022. Paris: GloCT in Collaboration with OECD CERI. [ Google Scholar ]
• Schneider, Bertrand, Kshitij Sharma, Sebastien Cuendet, Guillaume Zufferey, Pierre Dillenbourg, and Roy Pea. 2018. Leveraging Mobile Eye-Trackers to Capture Joint Visual Attention in Co-Located Collaborative Learning Groups. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 13: 241–61. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Schultz, David M. 2010. Eloquent Science: A course to improve scientific and communication skills. Paper presented at the 19th Symposium on Education, Altanta, GA, USA, January 18–21. [ Google Scholar ]
• Scialabba, George. 1984. Mindplay. Harvard Magazine 16: 19. [ Google Scholar ]
• Scott, Ginamarie, Lyle E. Leritz, and Michael D. Mumford. 2004. The Effectiveness of Creativity Training: A Quantitative Review. Creativity Research Journal 16: 361–88. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sigafoos, Jeff, Ralf W. Schlosser, Vanessa A. Green, Mark O’Reilly, and Giulio E. Lancioni. 2008. Communication and Social Skills Assessment. In Clinical Assessment and Intervention for Autism Spectrum Disorders . Edited by Johnny L. Matson. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 165–92. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Simonton, Dean Keith. 1999. Creativity from a Historiometric Perspective. In Handbook of Creativity . Edited by Robert J. Sternberg. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 116–34. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Singh, Pallavi, Hillol Bala, Bidit Lal Dey, and Raffaele Filieri. 2022. Enforced Remote Working: The Impact of Digital Platform-Induced Stress and Remote Working Experience on Technology Exhaustion and Subjective Wellbeing. Journal of Business Research 151: 269–86. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Spada, Hans, Anne Meier, Nikol Rummel, and Sabine Hauser. 2005. A New Method to Assess the Quality of Collaborative Process in CSCL. In Proceedings of the 2005 Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning Learning 2005: The next 10 Years!—CSCL’05, Taipei, Taiwan, May 30–June 4 . Morristown: Association for Computational Linguistics. [ Google Scholar ]
• Spitzberg, Brian H. 2003. Methods of interpersonal skill assessment. In The Handbook of Communication and Social Interaction Skills . Edited by John O. Greene and Brant R. Burleson. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sternberg, Robert. 1986. Intelligence, Wisdom, and Creativity: Three Is Better than One. Educational Psychologist 21: 175–90. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sternberg, Robert J., and Joachim Funke. 2019. The Psychology of Human Thought: An Introduction . Heidelberg: Heidelberg University Publishing (heiUP). [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sursock, Andrée. 2021. Quality assurance and rankings: Some European lessons. In Research Handbook on University Rankings . Edited by Ellen Hazelkorn and Georgiana Mihut. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 185–96. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sursock, Andrée, and Oliver Vettori. 2017. Quo vadis, quality culture? Theses from different perspectives. In Qualitätskultur. Ein Blick in Die Gelebte Praxis der Hochschulen . Vienna: Agency for Quality Assurance and Accreditation, pp. 13–18. Available online: https://www.aq.ac.at/de/ueber-uns/publikationen/sonstige-publikationen.php (accessed on 2 November 2022).
• Sutter, Éric. 2005. Certification et Labellisation: Un Problème de Confiance. Bref Panorama de La Situation Actuelle. Documentaliste-Sciences de l Information 42: 284–90. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Taddei, François. 2009. Training Creative and Collaborative Knowledge-Builders: A Major Challenge for 21st Century Education . Paris: OCDE. [ Google Scholar ]
• Thomas, Keith, and Beatrice Lok. 2015. Teaching Critical Thinking: An Operational Framework. In The Palgrave Handbook of Critical Thinking in Higher Education . Edited by Martin Davies and Ronald Barnett. New York: Palgrave Macmillan US, pp. 93–105. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Thompson, Jeri. 2020. Measuring Student Success Skills: A Review of the Literature on Complex Communication . Dover: National Center for the Improvement of Educational Assessment. [ Google Scholar ]
• Thorndahl, Kathrine L., and Diana Stentoft. 2020. Thinking Critically about Critical Thinking and Problem-Based Learning in Higher Education: A Scoping Review. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning 14 . [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Thornhill-Miller, Branden. 2021. ‘Crea-Critical-Collab-ication’: A Dynamic Interactionist Model of the 4Cs (Creativity, Critical Thinking, Collaboration and Communication). Available online: http://thornhill-miller.com/newWordpress/index.php/current-research/ (accessed on 2 November 2022).
• Thornhill-Miller, Branden, and Jean-Marc Dupont. 2016. Virtual Reality and the Enhancement of Creativity and Innovation: Underrecognized Potential Among Converging Technologies? Journal for Cognitive Education and Psychology 15: 102–21. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Thornhill-Miller, Branden, and Peter Millican. 2015. The Common-Core/Diversity Dilemma: Revisions of Humean Thought, New Empirical Research, and the Limits of Rational Religious Belief. European Journal for Philosophy of Religion 7: 1–49. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Tomasello, Michael. 2005. Constructing a Language: A Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition . Cambridge: Harvard University Press. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Uribe-Enciso, Olga Lucía, Diana Sofía Uribe-Enciso, and María Del Pilar Vargas-Daza. 2017. Pensamiento Crítico y Su Importancia En La Educación: Algunas Reflexiones. Rastros Rostros 19. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• van der Vleuten, Cees, Valerie van den Eertwegh, and Esther Giroldi. 2019. Assessment of Communication Skills. Patient Education and Counseling 102: 2110–13. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• van Klink, Marcel R., and Jo Boon. 2003. Competencies: The triumph of a fuzzy concept. International Journal of Human Resources Development and Management 3: 125–37. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• van Laar, Ester, Alexander J. A. M. Van Deursen, Jan A. G. M. Van Dijk, and Jos de Haan. 2017. The Relation between 21st-Century Skills and Digital Skills: A Systematic Literature Review. Computers in Human Behavior 72: 577–88. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• van Rosmalen, Peter, Elizabeth A. Boyle, Rob Nadolski, John van der Baaren, Baltasar Fernández-Manjón, Ewan MacArthur, Tiina Pennanen, Madalina Manea, and Kam Star. 2014. Acquiring 21st Century Skills: Gaining Insight into the Design and Applicability of a Serious Game with 4C-ID. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science . Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 327–34. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• 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 . Paris: OECD Publishing. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Voogt, Joke, and Natalie Pareja Roblin. 2012. A Comparative Analysis of International Frameworks for 21st Century Competences: Implications for National Curriculum Policies. Journal of Curriculum Studies 44: 299–321. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Waizenegger, Lena, Brad McKenna, Wenjie Cai, and Taino Bendz. 2020. An Affordance Perspective of Team Collaboration and Enforced Working from Home during COVID-19. European Journal of Information Systems: An Official Journal of the Operational Research Society 29: 429–42. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Watson, Goodwin. 1980. Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal . San Antonio: Psychological Corporation. [ Google Scholar ]
• Watson, Goodwin, and Edwin M. Glaser. 2010. Watson-Glaser TM II critical thinking appraisal. In Technical Manual and User’s Guide . Kansas City: Pearson. [ Google Scholar ]
• Weick, Karl E. 1993. The collapse of sensemaking in organizations: The Mann Gulch disaster. Administrative Science Quarterly 38: 628–52. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• West, Richard F., Maggie E. Toplak, and Keith E. Stanovich. 2008. Heuristics and Biases as Measures of Critical Thinking: Associations with Cognitive Ability and Thinking Dispositions. Journal of Educational Psychology 100: 930–41. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Whitmore, Paul G. 1972. What are soft skills. Paper presented at the CONARC Soft Skills Conference, Fort Bliss, TX, USA, December 12–13; pp. 12–13. [ Google Scholar ]
• Willingham, Daniel T. 2008. Critical Thinking: Why Is It so Hard to Teach? Arts Education Policy Review 109: 21–32. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wilson, Sarah Beth, and Pratibha Varma-Nelson. 2016. Small Groups, Significant Impact: A Review of Peer-Led Team Learning Research with Implications for STEM Education Researchers and Faculty. Journal of Chemical Education 93: 1686–702. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Winterton, Jonathan, Françoise Delamare-Le Deist, and Emma Stringfellow. 2006. Typology of Knowledge, Skills and Competences: Clarification of the Concept and Prototype . Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. [ Google Scholar ]
• World Economic Forum. 2015. New Vision for Education: Unlocking the Potential of Technology . Geneva: World Economic Forum. [ Google Scholar ]
• World Economic Forum. 2020. The Future of Jobs Report 2020. Available online: https://www.weforum.org/reports/the-future-of-jobs-report-2020 (accessed on 2 November 2022).
• World Health Organization. 2010. Framework for Action on Interprofessional Education and Collaborative Practice . No. WHO/HRH/HPN/10.3. Geneva: World Health Organization. [ Google Scholar ]
• Yue, Meng, Meng Zhang, Chunmei Zhang, and Changde Jin. 2017. The Effectiveness of Concept Mapping on Development of Critical Thinking in Nursing Education: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Nurse Education Today 52: 87–94. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zielke, Stephan, and Thomas Dobbelstein. 2007. Customers’ Willingness to Purchase New Store Brands. Journal of Product & Brand Management 16: 112–21. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Zlatić, Lidija, Dragana Bjekić, Snežana Marinković, and Milevica Bojović. 2014. Development of Teacher Communication Competence. Procedia, Social and Behavioral Sciences 116: 606–10. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]

Click here to enlarge figure

Share and Cite

Thornhill-Miller, B.; Camarda, A.; Mercier, M.; Burkhardt, J.-M.; Morisseau, T.; Bourgeois-Bougrine, S.; Vinchon, F.; El Hayek, S.; Augereau-Landais, M.; Mourey, F.; et al. Creativity, Critical Thinking, Communication, and Collaboration: Assessment, Certification, and Promotion of 21st Century Skills for the Future of Work and Education. J. Intell. 2023 , 11 , 54. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence11030054

Thornhill-Miller B, Camarda A, Mercier M, Burkhardt J-M, Morisseau T, Bourgeois-Bougrine S, Vinchon F, El Hayek S, Augereau-Landais M, Mourey F, et al. Creativity, Critical Thinking, Communication, and Collaboration: Assessment, Certification, and Promotion of 21st Century Skills for the Future of Work and Education. Journal of Intelligence . 2023; 11(3):54. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence11030054

Thornhill-Miller, Branden, Anaëlle Camarda, Maxence Mercier, Jean-Marie Burkhardt, Tiffany Morisseau, Samira Bourgeois-Bougrine, Florent Vinchon, Stephanie El Hayek, Myriam Augereau-Landais, Florence Mourey, and et al. 2023. "Creativity, Critical Thinking, Communication, and Collaboration: Assessment, Certification, and Promotion of 21st Century Skills for the Future of Work and Education" Journal of Intelligence 11, no. 3: 54. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence11030054

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

How to think critically and creatively

This course will teach you to refine your critical thinking skills so that you are in a better position to evaluate information. You will learn how to think more logically, more rationally, more scientifically – and more creatively.

Supercharge your thinking

Many of us may assume that good thinking is simply a matter of education. The greater your knowledge, the more astute you will be. In reality, even the “smartest” people with advanced qualifications are prone to reasoning errors. And on the flip side, even the least “gifted” of us are capable of creative solutions that can improve our lives and work prospects.

Along the way you will pick up skills to help you analyse an argument. You will learn how to spot flaws and fallacies in someone else’s thinking - and how to avoid biases that can muddle your own. You will feel more confident in your ability to recognise red herrings, false dichotomies and ad hominem attacks, putting you in a position to make better decisions.

And by learning how to think in analogies, to use divergent and convergent thinking, and to avoid what is known as the creative cliff illusion, the better decisions you make should be more creative too.

Watch this video to find out more about this course from our expert speakers

What will you learn.

The importance of being thoughtful

• How to unlock your hidden potential

How to think logically

How to think rationally

How to make better decisions

How to think scientifically

How to think creatively

• The art of creativity

Who is this course suitable for?

This beginner's course is for anyone who is eager to learn how to think critically and creatively and is suitable for learners at all levels.

You may be studying at university and want the skills to improve your critical thinking skills to get the most out of the information presented in your course syllabus. Perhaps you’re a business leader or manager looking for tools to help you sharpen your decision-making. Or maybe you’re looking to improve your creative thinking skills to boost your career prospects.

After completing the course, you will be issued with a digital certificate. This can be used as evidence to show during job and university applications, or appraisals.

Who will you learn with?

Denise D. Cummins

Cognitive scientist

Dr. Denise D. Cummins is cognitive scientist, author, and elected Fellow of the Association for Psychological Science. She has held faculty and research positions at Yale University, the University of California, the University of Illinois, and the Center for Adaptive Behavior at the Max Planck Institute in Berlin.

In her Psychology Today blog, Scientific American, NPR, and PBS NewHour articles, she writes about what she and other cognitive scientists are discovering about the way people think, solve problems, and make decisions. Dr. Cummins also blogs about equestrian sports as The Thinking Equestrian.

Gerard J. Puccio

Organizational psychologist

Gerard J. Puccio is Department Chair and Professor at the International Center for Studies in Creativity, Buffalo State; a unique academic department that offers the world's only Master of Science degree in creativity. Gerard has written more than 50 articles, chapters and books.

His most recent book titled The Innovative Team, co-authored with Chris Grivas, is a fable about a team that was able to apply proven creative-thinking tools to turn around a dysfunctional and unproductive situation. In 2011 he and his colleagues published the second edition of their book Creative Leadership: Skills that Drive Change.

In recognition of his outstanding work as a scholar, Dr. Puccio received the State University of New York Chancellor's Recognition Award for Research Excellence, as well as the President's Medal for Scholarship and Creativity.

David Robson

Science writer and course host

David Robson is a science writer and author specialising in neuroscience and psychology. A graduate of Cambridge University, he has worked as an editor at New Scientist and a senior journalist at the BBC. His writing has appeared in The Guardian, The Atlantic, The Psychologist, and many other publications.

His first book, The Intelligence Trap: Revolutionise Your Thinking and Make Wiser Decisions was published in 2019. His second book, The Expectation Effect: How Your Mindset Can Transform Your Life, will be published in Jan 2022.

Thinking more creatively and more critically can get you further in all walks of life ...

Course curriculum, free preview, introduction.

Welcome and course objectives

How to navigate this course

Test your critical thinking skills

Your hidden potential

Objective and agenda

What school didn’t teach you

The dual process theory

Why creativity can be taught – and why it matters

Test your understanding

Can you analyse an argument?

The common logical fallacies

Carl Sagan’s fire-breathing dragon

Logical thinking

The art of logic

What logical traps do you fall into?

More to explore

Beware cognitive miserliness

Seven biases to avoid

The perils of motivated reasoning

The “consider the opposite” technique

Why should we think scientifically?

The illusion of explanatory depth

Correlation or causation?

How to assess risk and uncertainty

Scientific thinking

Why should we think creatively?

Thinking in analogies

Divergent and convergent thinking

The creative cliff illusion

Creative thinking

The big quiz

Speaker profiles

Retest your critical thinking skills

Course feedback

Course glossary

Learning with New Scientist Academy

New Scientist's expertly curated online courses allow you to learn from top scientists and education providers about the hottest topics in science.

Video tutorials from world renowend experts

Join discussion groups and share ideas

100% online course: Learn at your own pace

What our learners say about our courses

Some kind words from our course graduates

I really liked the mix of videos, media, community questions, quiz and further resource points. It was engaging to have different types of media to interact with. It was a good introduction to a subject matter that I don’t know that much about. I’d now be keen to read around the topic. Katy

5 star rating of the An introduction to the biggest mysteries of the cosmos.

This fun and accessible course gave me a good base and in certain areas developed knowledge of the brain. I would recommend it to anyone interested in the brain or psychology. Sophie

5 star rating of the How your brain works and how to make the most of it

Brilliant: Thoroughly recommend this course. Harriet

5 star rating of the How your brain works and how to make the most of it course.

Approaching problems in a scientific way can improve your decision making. ...

Stay updated.

Sign up and join our academy for free. You'll gain access to free course-preview content. You will also be the first to hear about new courses, promotional offers and events.

Please enter a valid email address

Oops, something went wrong. Please try again with a different email address.

You can opt out of this any time by using an ‘unsubscribe’ link that’s included in each email.

Thank you for signing up for updates

AI and Critical Thinking: a Resource for Faculty

Intro to ai.

• University Librarian
• AI, Honor Code and Course Policies
• Assignments that help students think critically
• Sample Lesson Ideas
• AI Focused Journals
• A conversation with Chat GPT
• A Conversation with Claude.ai
• Student and Faculty Tips on using AI ethically
• Helpful Readings recommended by other faculty

Sample Rubrics

• Annotated Bibliography

Artificial Intelligence is a technology with the potential to support student understanding, and increase creativity. Used appropriately, AI can assist students in delving deeper into topics, support their understanding, and improve their writing.

The library can support students' critical thinking skills, teaching students in partnership with faculty on how to best use the technology. Additionally, faculty can create or recommend AI resources for their students.

• Computational thinking was found to be a significant determinant of AI literacy, which facilitate using , recognizing, and evaluating AI -based technologies Celik, I. (2023) .
• Artificial Intelligence can be used to spread false information and also to generate it (Paris, et al, 2022 )
• AI can be used to support struggling students similar to computer programs and apps designed for a specific academic purpose. A "dashboard" can be created to assess and address specific learning gaps, or a commercial product can be used for this purpose, such as ALEKS . This type of support can assist students with learning deficits, or in need of some additional explanation. ChaptGPT now has Solvely, a math AI tutor with step by step instructions; there are many others also available in the Apple and Google App stores. Discussion questions could be used to support student understanding and generate deeper thinking.
• Next: AI, Honor Code and Course Policies >>
• Last Updated: Aug 20, 2024 11:03 AM
• URL: https://slulibrary.saintleo.edu/libraryai

share this!

August 15, 2024

This article has been reviewed according to Science X's editorial process and policies . Editors have highlighted the following attributes while ensuring the content's credibility:

fact-checked

trusted source

Study sheds light on creative thinking

by Rebecca Knecht, Constructor University

Creativity is the art of combining diverse ideas, making meaningful connections between concepts, and remaining focused to produce innovative ideas and useful solutions. Expansive and remote associations drive the generation of new ideas, while inhibition enables refining these ideas into practical solutions.

A recent study, led by former student Ronald Mtenga and directed by Dr. Mathias Bode and Dr. Radwa Khalil at Constructor University, has illuminated crucial conclusions about creative thinking processes. The study , published in the Journal of Creative Behavior , provides a fresh perspective on the shift from analytical to creative thinking.

This study employed a unique approach by utilizing the Hopfield neural network (HNN), a neural network model, to investigate the mechanisms of semantic creative thinking–based associations. Researchers identified two key mechanisms that facilitate the transition from analytical to creative, associative thinking, suggesting that creative thinking often emerges when analytical thinking is insufficient.

Ronald Mtenga, the study's first author, holds a BSc in Electrical and Computer Engineering from Constructor University, where Dr. Mathias Bode is affiliated. Dr. Radwa Khalil is an expert in the creativity field, known for her multidisciplinary approaches that spans cognitive neuroscience , neuropsychology, computational modeling, and empirical research.

Provided by Constructor University

Explore further

Feedback to editors

Researchers teach artificial intelligence about frustration in protein folding

5 hours ago

New view of North Star reveals spotted surface

6 hours ago

Trees stripped by invasive caterpillars muster defenses that can harm native insects, research shows

8 hours ago

Habitat connectivity drives panda recovery, finds study

9 hours ago

Advanced materials could provide more durable metals for fusion power reactors

Paleontologists describe new examples of giant sea scorpions from the Silurian and Devonian in New South Wales

Sponges' symbiosis with bacteria helps them store toxic molybdenum to keep predators away, study shows

10 hours ago

Demand for low-quality credits undermines the voluntary carbon market: Study

The evolution of the Trappist-1 planetary system

Roundworm study paves way for better RNA-based drugs to treat human disease

Relevant physicsforums posts, cover songs versus the original track, which ones are better, why are abba so popular.

7 hours ago

Song: Epiphany of the Physicist

14 hours ago

Interesting anecdotes in the history of physics?

Today's fusion music: t square, cassiopeia, rei & kanade sato.

Aug 17, 2024

Favorite songs (cont.)

Aug 16, 2024

More from Art, Music, History, and Linguistics

Related Stories

Examining whether creative therapies can help with neurodegenerative diseases

Jun 22, 2023

How creativity is possible through response inhibition

Apr 12, 2023

A neurobiological model to better understand creative processes

Jun 2, 2022

Study pinpoints origins of creativity in the brain

Jul 15, 2024

AI outperforms humans in standardized tests of creative potential

Mar 1, 2024

How our knowledge of the world embedded in brain connectivity shapes our creativity

Feb 4, 2022

Recommended for you

Study suggests video game playing may have mental health benefits under some conditions

12 hours ago

New research analyzes 'Finnegans Wake' for novel spacing between punctuation marks

11 hours ago

Study explains why laws are written in an incomprehensible style

Aug 19, 2024

Study finds gun violence in rural America rises as deer hunting season begins

Spread the love (online): Study reveals in-party positivity drives online engagement more than out-party hostility

Saturday Citations: Citizen scientists observe fast thing; controlling rat populations; clearing nanoplastic from water

Let us know if there is a problem with our content.

Use this form if you have come across a typo, inaccuracy or would like to send an edit request for the content on this page. For general inquiries, please use our contact form . For general feedback, use the public comments section below (please adhere to guidelines ).

Please select the most appropriate category to facilitate processing of your request

Thank you for taking time to provide your feedback to the editors.

Your feedback is important to us. However, we do not guarantee individual replies due to the high volume of messages.

E-mail the story

Your email address is used only to let the recipient know who sent the email. Neither your address nor the recipient's address will be used for any other purpose. The information you enter will appear in your e-mail message and is not retained by Phys.org in any form.

Newsletter sign up

Get weekly and/or daily updates delivered to your inbox. You can unsubscribe at any time and we'll never share your details to third parties.

More information Privacy policy

Donate and enjoy an ad-free experience

We keep our content available to everyone. Consider supporting Science X's mission by getting a premium account.

E-mail newsletter