teaching critical thinking in social work education a literature review

Open Access is an initiative that aims to make scientific research freely available to all. To date our community has made over 100 million downloads. It’s based on principles of collaboration, unobstructed discovery, and, most importantly, scientific progression. As PhD students, we found it difficult to access the research we needed, so we decided to create a new Open Access publisher that levels the playing field for scientists across the world. How? By making research easy to access, and puts the academic needs of the researchers before the business interests of publishers.

We are a community of more than 103,000 authors and editors from 3,291 institutions spanning 160 countries, including Nobel Prize winners and some of the world’s most-cited researchers. Publishing on IntechOpen allows authors to earn citations and find new collaborators, meaning more people see your work not only from your own field of study, but from other related fields too.

Brief introduction to this section that descibes Open Access especially from an IntechOpen perspective

Want to get in touch? Contact our London head office or media team here

Our team is growing all the time, so we’re always on the lookout for smart people who want to help us reshape the world of scientific publishing.

Home > Books > Empathy Study

Critical Thinking in Social Work Training

Submitted: 14 July 2019 Reviewed: 04 September 2019 Published: 15 November 2019

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.89538

Cite this chapter

There are two ways to cite this chapter:

From the Edited Volume

Empathy Study

Edited by Makiko Kondo and Bala Nikku

To purchase hard copies of this book, please contact the representative in India: CBS Publishers & Distributors Pvt. Ltd. www.cbspd.com | [email protected]

Chapter metrics overview

1,238 Chapter Downloads

Impact of this chapter

Total Chapter Downloads on intechopen.com

Total Chapter Views on intechopen.com

It is the look at the that leads us to questioning and the answers guide us to updating and the production of knowledge. There is always, in the debates of social work professionals, the question of the search for an intervention project that gives a new meaning to the profession in order to respond, not only theoretically coherent but also efficiently, to the demands placed upon them. The purpose of this chapter is to highlight the importance of critical thinking in the training of social workers. The research is based on an exploratory study carried out with recently graduated university students, whose results point to the benefits of this soft skill in the ability to analyze, understand interactions, detect inconsistencies, systematic problem-solving, reflect on beliefs and values, and reintegrate information as a whole.

• critical thinking
• social work
• soft skills

Author Information

Helena belchior-rocha *.

• Centre for Research and Studies in Sociology (CIES-IUL), Instituto Universitário de Lisboa (ISCTE-IUL), Lisbon, Portugal

Inês Casquilho-Martins

*Address all correspondence to: [email protected]

1. Introduction

The development of skills in critical thinking by students of higher education is nowadays, faced by the challenges of society and the job market place, essential for professional and personal success. This theme has been the subject of increasing reflection and encouragement by different national and international bodies and entities, such as A3ES, 1 the European Commission, OECD, the World Economic Forum, etc. However, despite the interest expressed, there is still a long way for critical thinking to be a generalized priority in the pedagogical practices of teachers, promoted in an intentional, systematic, and transversal way to any area of knowledge.

Thinking about it, in 2009, the Soft Skills Lab (SSL) with the intention of giving students the possibility of complementing their curriculum with soft skills, among which is critical thinking, was created in our university. 2 Being both teachers in social work and critical thinking at the LCT, we decided to carry out this exploratory study to understand the impact of this curricular unit on newly graduated students.

A partial and non-critical view can compromise the performance of any professional, and it is no different with social workers. Common sense concepts are so embedded in our society that even social work students, most of the time, at the beginning of the graduation have a completely wrong idea about what the profession is. The knowledge provided by common sense lead people to believe that the social worker is a kind of a good Samaritan, and this is only one of the challenges students are going to face.

Over time, reality is altered and new conceptions are incorporated into the way of living, learning, acting, interacting, and thinking. The new resources that are constantly added to the already existing ones have or should have the purpose of better serving the individual and society in general. Dealing with the new and complex situations of the contemporary world requires more and more expertise in ways of thinking and acting and relating. Faced with this reality of constant transformations, how can we find autonomy to decide on what is relevant, important, pertinent, and ethical? Critical thinking fits into this question, when it serves as a filter to select what should be harnessed or discarded in this actual avalanche of instantaneous information.

Reflective analysis on the theoretical foundations and intervention models allows social workers to re-equate the directionality of professional action in the context of critical thinking that frames objectivity and questions the reality where it is intervened, as well as the meaning of this intervention in its micro, meso, and macro levels from local to global and from global to local, an exercise that social works constantly need.

As Granja says:

Knowing in Social Work means understanding the social problems as total social phenomena that arise from the operation of the structures and social relations, without denying the particularity of the individual processes and act with a mission to prevent and repair the structural inefficiencies that prevent the poorest from accessing indispensable resources for building themselves as full citizens [ 1 ].

Knowledge about the transformation of social reality requires an investment that results from a reflexive activity involving professionals, in a link between theoretical knowledge and practice, through an interdisciplinary approach that requires a theoretical synthesis built with other areas of social sciences, namely psychology, sociology, anthropology and economics, law, public and social policies, among others, which aims to “change the systems of opportunities, promote social relations dynamics and overcoming the deficit of civic participation” [ 1 ].

Social work practice focuses on social problems, that is, lack of income, unemployment, isolation and breakdown of social ties, domestic violence, children and young people at risk, school drop-out and failure, and migrants and refugees, among many others which by their complexity require a multidimensional combination of vulnerability and the articulation with structural phenomena and current social policies.

It is better evident for all the importance that critical thinking has in the education of future professionals, although it is nothing new, given the fact that is always in the debates of social work professionals the question of the search for an intervention project that gives a new meaning to the profession in order to respond, not only theoretically coherent but also efficiently, to the demands placed.

Social work as a profession has always demanded critical abilities and qualities from its practitioners because decisions have to be made “on the spot” and under pressure. With practice situations being so complex, the consequences of any decisions and action are extremely important [ 2 ].

A reflexive practice leads to thinking through the mediation of concepts and allows to reconstruct the problems and to construct new ways of solving problems. The ability to select data and identify patterns in the professional activity in order to be recognized and transmissible to become sources of knowledge and to be prepare for lifelong learning. For the development of this reflection, it is necessary to have a structured thought about the phenomena that allow analyzing and constructing operational representations.

This requirement goes beyond “competent practice” and demands “critical practice” [ 3 ], and the development of “critical being,” that is, a person who not only reflects critically on knowledge but also develops their powers of critical self-reflection and critical action [ 4 ].

In the research that Ford et al. [ 5 , 6 ] made on criticality with students in social work education, these ideas have been explored and they conclude that the intellectual resources for critical thinking are: (1) background knowledge; (2) critical concepts; (3) critical thinking standards; (4) strategies; and (5) habits of mind. This allows us to realize that this process has to be permanent and rooted as a mindset.

The more we know about a situation and the circumstances that caused it, the better we can articulate with a structural question, be it social, economic, cultural, or political, including beliefs, values in order to clarify the range of available options and solutions, so that the professional can make an informed decision about the problems that are dealing with.

Beginning to deal with this type of “how to” knowledge is where a practitioner’s ignorance becomes obvious and can cause anxiety. It may well be the reason why many new qualified workers take a very prescriptive, rule-based approach to try to ensure they do not do anything wrong. In many ways such a focus on detail and correctness ensures that practitioners can be more critically aware of what they are doing than experienced workers who have established routines [ 2 ].

Gray et al. add that “Social workers need to examine closely the strengths and limitations of research evidence. Regardless of how strong the evidence for a particular intervention might be, social workers are in a position where they must critically reflect on their work in the political, social, organizational, and interpersonal contexts, make professional judgements, engage in debate with decision-makers about resource allocation, negotiate appropriate practices and, when necessary, argue convincingly for the effectiveness of the work that is done. This requires skills in formulating and presenting well-supported arguments and the interpersonal and written communication skills to convey a position convincingly” [ 7 ].

Based on these assumptions, we did a review of the literature and developed an exploratory study with the aim of understanding the perception of recent students in social work about the importance of critical thinking.

2. The importance of critical thinking in education

According to the literature, the importance of critical thinking skills is recognized in the academic and professional contexts, in which the need to implement measures that facilitate their development and awareness of their usefulness is mentioned.

We find several approaches to critical thinking, some more vague, others more objective, but we cannot easily find a consensus between them, either in terms of definition, in terms of the terminology used, or in the type of methodology designed to develop it [ 8 , 9 ].

The scientific areas in which we can find greater literary production and investigation around critical thinking are philosophy, psychology, and education [ 10 , 11 , 12 ].

We find different contributions from the disciplinary areas mentioned above in an attempt to define critical thinking, and there are no definitions that fit exclusively in one or another area, since many of these authors cross the areas in terms of the research they develop. It is not our goal to find the best definition of critical thinking, or even the most complete one. The various theories focus on different aspects, put the focus on different circumstances, conceptualized in a way that is not always consensual and sometimes even antagonistic. Despite the differences, we find, in these definitions, points of convergence that we think allow us to have a perception about what critical thinking might actually be [ 10 , 13 ].

An argument goes from the premises to the conclusion and is one in which there are good reasons for the assumptions to be true, and in addition, the premises have good reasons to support or support the conclusion.

It is focused initially on the holistic assessment of a situation, not explicit reasoning and analysis. In other words, they establish the inductive or deductive links necessary to bring the different parts of a situation into a meaningful whole, to allow it to make sense. Every situation one experiences and faces may be different, but it is imperative to know enough of the parties to make general sense of the whole in order to start dealing with it.

The foundation for critical thinking defines critical thinking as:

the type of thinking—about any subject, content, or problem—in which the thinker improves the quality of his thinking by competently analyzing, evaluating and reconstructing it. Critical thinking is self-directed, self-disciplined, self-monitored, and self-corrective. It presupposes consent to rigorous standards of excellence and a conscious control of its use. It implies effective communication and problem-solving skills, as well as a commitment to surpass our natural egocentrism and sociocentrism [ 14 ].

According to the Delphi Report, referenced by Facione, in addition to the skills associated with critical thinking, there are still a set of aptitudes, divided into two approaches: one related to life skills in general, and another related to specific issues, doubts, and problems. Regarding the first, the Delphi Report describes the following as critical thinker’s skills: (1) curiosity over a wide variety of issues; (2) concern about becoming and staying well informed; (3) alert to opportunities to use critical thinking; (4) trust in the rational research process; (5) confidence in your own reasoning abilities; (6) open mind regarding divergent views about the world; (7) flexibility when considering alternatives and opinions; (8) understanding of the opinions of others; (9) honesty in the evaluation of reasoning; (10) honesty when confronted by our own egocentric and sociocentric prejudices, stereotypes, and tendencies; (11) caution in the suspension, elaboration or alteration of judgments; and (12) predisposition to reconsider and revise viewpoints, where honest reflection suggests change is necessary [ 15 , 16 ].

Regarding the approach related to specific issues, the Delphi Report refers the following as aptitudes: (1) clarity in affirming an issue or concern; (2) method in dealing with complexity; (3) diligence in searching for relevant information; (4) reasonability in the selection and application of criteria; (5) concern to focus attention on the subject; (6) persistence despite any difficulties that may arise; and (7) accuracy to the level allowed by subject and circumstance.

Critical thinking is multidimensional, encompassing the intellectual (logic, rationality), psychological (self-consciousness, empathy), sociological (in terms of socio-historical context), ethics (norms and moral evaluation), and philosophical (meaning of nature and human life) [ 17 ].

It is also due to its characteristics of transversatility and multidimensionality that the authors argue that critical thinking has for centuries been the basis for the creation and maintenance of a democratic and democratically participative society, qualified by an active, pluralistic, and autonomous citizenship [ 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 ].

In education, we highlight pioneering authors who have emphasized critical thinking (although with other terminologies), from the Greek philosopher Socrates and the concepts of “knowledge” and “maièutica,” to the American philosopher, psychologist, and educator John Dewey, and reflection on “thinking” and “reflecting” [ 23 , 24 ].

Dewey is even considered the “father” of the modern tradition of critical thinking [ 25 ] when, in the early twentieth century, he advocated the need for education to prepare students for the complex demands of citizenship and the world of work [ 26 ].

The debate about the operationalization of critical thinking, the development and teaching of critical thinking, the skills of critical thinking, and the evaluation of critical thinking, are thus essential topics in education from the last decades of the twentieth century until now, specifically for social work, a recent study in this area recommends a future research agenda for critical thinking [ 27 ]. As competence, or set of competencies, critical thinking can be developed and evaluated. In this sense, the exploratory study presented here intends to contribute to the evaluation of the importance that students attribute to critical thinking, as well as to the evaluation of critical thinking as competence.

2.1 Social work education and critical thinking

The twentieth century imposes on contemporary social work the challenge of establishing theoretical categories and methodologies that broaden its interdisciplinary horizon and stimulate the conception of the human being as a builder of its own reality [ 28 ]. The increasing complexity leads us to the search for alternatives, skills, and a competence to manage the theoretical-practical process, related to the attempt to understand the reality in constant movement, the tendencies and the possibilities that are put to our daily lives.

Social work education in Portugal according to Branco [ 29 ] “focuses on the dynamics of break and continuity between its pivotal socio-political periods and international influences” the same author in its latest article marks these periods saying that:

The social work education itinerary in Portugal during the period between the Republican Regime foundations (1910), the constitution of Estado Novo (1933–1945), the succession of Salazar (1968), the revolutionary crises associated with the Carnation Revolution of 1974 and the academisation period (1989 to the present) [ 29 ].

Questions related to the production of knowledge and the dissemination of this same knowledge arise later (also for socio-historical reasons), with the affirmation of the profession as a specific area of knowledge. In Portugal, with the development of the academic career in the area of social work, (undergraduate, master, and doctorate), the theoretical and practical dimensions, namely training, intervention, and research, have been developing and, consequently, we have assisted to a greater theoretical production (in the form of theses, dissertations, articles, and books) and an intensification of the research effort and its dissemination, which has given to Portuguese social work a greater visibility among the scientific community [ 30 ].

Consequently, the construction of knowledge was imposed as a means of awareness of the subjects involved in the teaching-learning process, in a critical perspective of knowledge as a tool for the realization of the political-professional ethical project and for the transformation of the socio-institutional and political- cultural reality. This awareness has undoubtedly been one of the means for advancing professional maturity.

The experience of this critical thinking course comes from the university, where the study was done through the creation in 2009 of a Cross Skills Laboratory to give students extra skills with the aim of developing a reflexive practice that, rather than aiming at the constitution of a stabilized knowledge, intends to develop the capacities of reflexivity and action; understand the importance of critical thinking in academic and professional context; identify the elements and analyze simple and complex arguments; recognize errors on daily speech; assess the quality of arguments and argumentative texts; and create simple and complex arguments in oral debates and written texts. The students that successfully complete this curriculum unit will be able to analyze arguments regarding their structure and content; argue on an issue; identify the deductive validity on propositions; and question arguments, identifying its weaknesses.

According to Jones “Critical thinking can lead us to open up self-doubt and this is a good thing because it lead us to really examine why we think and act as we do” [ 31 ] and “Developing an ability to understand why you react and think as you do is part of a recognition of you own inner resources” [ 31 ] this author also argues that:

To be able to think about how we, and others, think—thinking about thinking. In doing this you will be thinking about the reasoning, motives and arguments of others. You will have the ability to see all sides of the question and analyze its strengths and weak-in these [ 31 ].

And is corroborated by other authors that alert us by saying that

The technical rationality model also fails to recognize how understanding is developed from the integration of theory and practice (…) Reflective learning incorporates both theoretical and practical themes and issues and seeks to integrate these—to open a dialogue between theory and practice [ 32 ].

It is a continuous process of reflection and allows the interveners to develop their theory directly from their experience. In addition, it allows you to “tailor” your intervention to each specific context using a range of non-defined skills and perspectives.

3. Methodology

The present study is exploratory and quantitative and aims to understand the perception of recent graduate students in social work on the importance of learning critical thinking in higher education and its impact on the labor market.

It aims to identify the potential of learning critical thinking during its formation, including future usefulness in the professional field. Although we do not intend to prove hypotheses, we seek to explore the results based not only on the perception of the respondents, but also to categorize the critical-thinking skills acquired as potentialities in teaching in social work and as knowledge of support to the professional exercise.

In a universe of 154 newly graduated students between 2015 and 2017, whose training integrated the curricular unit of critical thinking in their curriculum, we used an intentional sample of 79 individuals recently graduated in social work.

A bibliographical review was made on the subject and we used as a data collection technician, a questionnaire in which we used a Likert scale of level 5. The Likert scales [ 33 ] are widely used to measure postures and opinions with a higher level of a question of “yes” or “no,” in this questionnaire was composed of a set of sentences (items) in relation to each one of which the respondents were asked to express the degree of agreement from the non-positive (level 1), until very positive (level 5). We also added two questions to understand the degree of satisfaction with the critical thinking training with a scale from 0 to 10, in which 0 was totally dissatisfied and 10 totally satisfied and an open question to perceive the benefits and disadvantages of learning critical thinking.

The questionnaire was divided into two parts: socio-demographic characterization and the identification of the importance of critical thinking contribution as training in its learning.

The age of the participants is between 21 and 45 years, with an average of 24.5 years, mostly females, 87.3, 91.1% Portuguese and 78.5% is inserted in the job market (as social workers) and 94.4% attended this curricular unit in the first year of the degree.

Ability to analyze

Systematic problem solving

Understand interactions and detect inconsistencies

Reflection on beliefs and values

The reintegration of information as a whole

We are aware that one of the limitations of this study is that there is no credit for its generalization [ 34 ] given the fact that it has a small sample (although representative in terms of results for our university) and is exploratory.

Another limitation is that the respondents themselves may have given skewed responses because they know the purpose of the study, they may want to appreciate the university that formed them and give answers that they consider “correct.” It was attempted to overcome this limitation by saying that both the institution and the participants would be anonymous.

We intend to continue this study in a first phase at national level with partnerships with other universities and later extend to a study in the Iberian Peninsula (Portugal-Spain).

The results show that the majority of respondents considered that the contents seized in their critical thinking training were positive or very positive with Likert scores (1–5) between 4.53 and 3.89. The average of responses in the different categories considered the impact of the contents acquired positive 50.55% and very positive 35.27%, understanding this competence as an active element of learning as students, stimulating a clear, logical, and organized thinking, helping to develop the necessary skills during the frequency of higher education and currently in the labor market ( Figure 1 ).

Distribution of respondents’ answers on the current impacts of content acquired during their training.

According to the results, the greatest impact of learning was reflected in the development of strategies for decision-making and in the capacity to train a rigorous analytical view, both with a mean score in the answers of 4.53 (Likert scale-Ls). These figures translate into the impacts of these two categories, which were considered positive by 36.71% of the respondents and very positive by 58.23%. It is also noted that 5.06% of the respondents consider neither positive nor negative.

The identification of the barriers to critical thinking obtained the highest percentage of answers with the classification of positives (67.09%) along with the diagnosis in problem solving (63.29%). In the categories of preparation for problem solving and articulation of daily information, there was a balanced preference for responses, mainly considering positive or very positive.

Respondents answered that the impact on the preparation for problem solving was both very positive (44.30%) and positive (44.30%), considering neither positive or negative 10.13% nor negative 1.27%. In the articulation of information with the everyday situations, 46.84% was very positive, 44.30 positive, and 8.86 neither positive nor negative.

Regarding the ability to identify argumentation errors, 25.32% of the respondents answered that the impacts were neither positive nor negative. This is the category in which neutrality assumes greater expression, although it continues to be less than the responses that consider the very positive (37.97%) and positive (36.71%).

As for the less-valued aspects, but still with an average that considers these competences as positive, are the dimensions of acquisition of learning strategies through reading (3.89 Ls) and acquisition of learning strategies through listening (3.99 Ls). The responses in these two categories vary in their distribution, and the acquisition of learning strategies through reading 32.91% of the respondents considered that the impact of this competence was neither positive nor negative, while 45.57% considered that it was positive and 21.52% which was very positive.

Regarding the acquisition of learning strategies through listening 20.25% considered that was very positive, 59.49% positive, 18.99% that was neither positive nor negative, and 1.27 responded that the impact was negative.

In the acquisition of research techniques and information systematization, most of the answers were positive 55.23%, positive for 22.78% of the respondents, and 16.46% neither positive nor negative. This competence was the one with a residual value, presented the highest percentage of responses that considered the negative impact (2.53%).

The comprehension of the structure of an argumentative text and the acquisition of competences for an argumentative discourse were both considered 55 by 0.70% of the respondents as having a positive impact. The understanding of the structure of an argumentative text also registered 34.18% of responses that indicate a very positive impact and 10.13% that consider that the impact was neither positive nor negative.

In the acquisition of competences for a care argumentative discourse 33.91% considered to have had a very positive impact and 11.39% did not have a positive or negative impact. The ability to develop abstract reasoning was for 26.58% of the respondents considered very positive, 53.16% positive, and 20.25% neither negative nor positive. The break with common sense was perceived as a competence with a very positive impact by 53.16% of the respondents, 37.97% answered that the impact on this competence was very positive, and the remaining ones were neither positive nor negative, 8.86%.

Finally, the acquisition of skills for clear and objective writing had 48.10% considering that the impact of the contents acquired was positive, followed by 26.71% of the responses as very positive and 15.19% which was neither positive nor negative. Other aspects analyzed were the satisfaction with the curricular unit of critical thinking and professional satisfaction, as well as the aspects that were considered as advantages or disadvantages in their training.

Using a satisfaction scale of 0–10 in which 0 is totally unsatisfied and 10 is fully satisfied, the highest number of equal answers with the classification 8 regarding satisfaction with the program they had in their training of critical thinking was 32.91% of the respondents and 34.18% with the same classification relative to the importance in the labor market. The answers ranged from 4 to 10 in both questions, with the average rating being 7.57 and 7.67, respectively.

In addition to the satisfaction with critical thinking learning in both academic and professional spheres, among the main advantages, respondents identified the improvement of their attention and observation abilities of the real world, as well as the contribution in the decision-making supported by an exercise of rational discernment. It was also mentioned the improvement of the capacities to identify key ideas avoiding irrelevant elements, the facilitation in the process of transmitting ideas and perspectives, and the development of this competence to various situations and contexts. There were no disadvantages to register except for the reference to the difficulty in interpreting texts and access to scientific sources of information.

About the importance of critical thinking associated with the issue of values and beliefs and of a more comprehensive thinking, respondents considered the knowledge acquired with critical thinking as extremely important because it allows them to question universal opinions, general judgments, and mind-beliefs, in order to be able to perform quality work in their intervention with people.

5. Discussion

This exploratory study gives us the perception that the recent graduate students in social work who attended the critical thinking curricular unit valued this learning in their training, but also in the usefulness and articulation with the job market.

Participants’ responses show that the majority of respondents considered that the competences learned in their training in critical thinking were positive or very positive, with critical thinking being an active element in their higher education, stimulating reflection and acting capacities in the service domain of a clear, logical and systematized form, helping to develop the skills needed during higher education attendance and currently in the labor market.

5.1 Ability to analyze

Among the dimensions analyzed stand the development of strategies to support decision-making and analytical capacity through rigorous and systematized procedures. The development of strategies for decision-making includes efficient, quick, and objective forms of planning in the analysis of situations. Here, it includes the ways of acting in complex situations that aim for more efficient and effective responses through thought patterns that can increase the confidence and assertiveness of the responses when implementing them.

The training capacity of a rigorous analytical vision leads to a cognitive reflection, free of opinions and value judgments, focusing on a critical action of analysis of information, facts and events, and managing to select and systematize what is significant in an idea developed or presented. It also promotes a process of evaluation of evidence and facts at the expense of opinions, as well as a reflection on the issues in a structured, logical, and informed way.

The acquisition of research techniques and systematization of information refers to the training of valid and reliable bibliographic research and the careful use of information sources. It is necessary to establish critical thinking in premises based on evidence, supported by theoretical or empirical data.

Although with a less significant expression, the competences of acquiring learning strategies through reading and listening are also present in the development of this competence. It is important to apply research and information selection processes in written texts, the analysis of written narratives, and documentary information to support the development of critical thinking, as well as the listening of oral, synchronous, or asynchronous narratives that allow the acquisition of information to support the construction of logical and consistent reasoning.

5.2 Systematic problem solving

It is also highlighted the importance of critical thinking as support for diagnosis and problem solving, focusing on the ability to analyze and evaluate situations, looking at them by different prisms, particularly in relation to issues associated with ideologies, religion, ethics, or human behavior.

The preparation of these professionals for the resolution of problems and for the articulation of daily information promotes competences for an accuracy in the way they reflected and act when facing questions that imply the analysis of a complex situation, dilemmas or unforeseen situations, developing the training for think and anticipate problems critically, generating solutions that are useful in solving problems, in project management or in the way different parts of an activity or task is developed.

In this field, the capacity to observe reality and current analysis through the collection and application of information in plural and multidimensional contexts is highlighted and allows the development of forms of analysis and adaptation in different areas and groups in the face of a diversified reality of constant transformations.

5.3 Understand interactions and detect inconsistencies

The understanding of the structure of an argumentative text and the acquisition of competences for the construction of a discourse are developed competences that allow the identification of reasons and conclusions, together with the evaluation of the premises that support the presented conclusions.

It encompasses the ability to identify points of view in a clear, systematic, and objective way, identifying simple and complex lines of reasoning. It also contributes to a better communication and interaction with others, achieving through a clearer discourse to present convincing quality arguments and reinforcing points of view in a structured way.

This relates to a process that involves conscious choices, supported by evidence that gives strength to our discourse, be it oral or written, allowing cumulatively to be able to interpret and deconstruct our ideas and others ideas. It also allows for an evolution in the capacities of relationship and communication, making possible the selection about what is more or less relevant.

The ability to detect inconsistencies in performance, through the identification of fallacies, refers to the development of the ability to recognize the most common argumentations failures and to be attentive to failures in the arguments of others.

It makes possible to identify errors of argumentation with a competence that contributes to finding weaknesses and strengths in the discourses of others and be able to counteract them, as well as to formulate its own arguments. It also highlights the ability to recognize information manipulation techniques and fallacies and present a well-grounded, clear, and organized perspective in order to convince others. It also promotes a correct grammatical and conceptual use, avoiding abstract, vague or general terms that compromise attention-getting to what is central to the argument, through precise, specific, and concrete language.

5.4 Reflection on beliefs and values

The importance of overcoming the barriers to critical thinking are recognized as a relevant aspect that refers to the pertinence of the approach of this theme, resulting in the development of skills of conceptualization of criticism and overcoming inhibition to criticism and in the ability to be free of emotional influences or affective, avoiding that they affect the clarity of the reasoning and must be analyzed by the evidences.

Also, it is recognized that common sense is capable of creating absolutisms all the time and the tendency of the great mass of our society is to absorb them easily; creating a vision of the world capable of guiding our whole existence. We are hardly willing to question what is going on around us and seek a second opinion of the facts. Instead, we prefer the convenience of thinking like others, following the vast majority, prefer superficiality. Because it is hard work creating critical thinking, these students create added value in both professional and personal life and it’s a lifelong tool.

5.5 The reintegration of information as a whole

The capacity for development of abstract reasoning aims to identify the positioning of others, arguments, and conclusions, leading to innovation processes. It develops concepts and ideas analysis skills from a more systemic and global perspective. Rupture with common sense contributes to the use of facts as support for action to the detriment of individual knowledge supported by lack of evidence, aiding in the foundation of arguments, and ideas that are proven theoretically or empirically.

Some research [ 35 ] refers that as they are in control of their thoughts, that is, they are aware, understand, self-direct, and self-evaluate; have “tacit knowledge” groups that form “patterns” and represent the learning and generalization of previous experiences, research, and theory; recognize other significant patterns and principles and irrelevant aspects in a situation and bind to these existing known patterns and thus assess in depth (patterns or contours formed in the mind) that when adapted to the problem suggest solution procedures and periodically checks us for review, progress, and evaluate results.

6. Conclusions

Teaching is a privileged context for the development of critical thinking in individuals, and the teacher plays a fundamental role in the conduct of this complex process with theoretical, practical, and motivational components of active learning [ 10 ].

Experts in the area of critical thinking collaborated in the definition of strategies and methodologies of approach for the operationalization of the development of these competences in educational contexts, as in the case of the Delphi Report already mentioned, that resulted from the meeting of a group of experts with the objective, through the Delphi Method, to constitute a set of propositions and recommendations that would act as guiding lines for education agents and other professionals related to this area, regarding teaching, and evaluation of critical thinking.

In pedagogical terms, there are different ways of teaching and exercising critical thinking among students. The two most common approaches are: the creation of a course or program specifically dedicated to the development of critical thinking; and the incorporation of the development of critical thinking in curricular subjects.

Based on the literature, we cannot say that one approach is more effective than the other, but we can say that the perception of the key benefits that our graduated students report in conducting our critical thinking programs refers to ensuring good practice that is already being realized through discussions with others and the link between theory and practice to rethink their practices, allowing them to perceive when they fall into the bureaucratic routine and adopt more appropriate methods and approaches.

An awareness and acceptance of uncertainty in the practice of any professional is an important way to lessen stress. There are no perfect solutions out there to find, so we cannot be called on to work perfectly. If we accept the fact that the things we do or decide on are still dependent on something uncertain or on future happenings, and work in a way that takes account of that (i.e. constantly reviewing the things we deal with, decide on, or do), then this is really what “thinking critically” is all about [ 2 ].

The key is to strike a balance between the need for certainty and the need to be aware of other ways of doing or thinking about practice. This is where critical reflection (especially involving others) can play a key role in building trust by analyzing practice based on strengths, but also allows consideration of alternative options, points of view, etc., within a space safe, and where uncritical rigidity is not established.

These characteristics should be present not only in the students but also in the teachers. They must know how to model the learning they want to pass. Is it possible to give classes that do not develop these skills but reach other academic goals? Of course yes. But, it is also possible to achieve academic goals, curricular goals, and programmatic content by developing these skills at the same time.

Not least, we find the evaluation. In order to gauge how the process is going, we must evaluate. It is a great challenge to evaluate these skills, it is true. It will be easier to evaluate if you have memorized dates and locations. But as it is a challenge to know how much a student contributed in a group work and not fail to do so, we cannot give up to train our students in skills that will be valid for the rest of their lives because of the difficulty we encounter in the evaluation and the technology resources that allow new forms of formative and summative evaluation.

It cannot be forgotten that the surprises with which every social worker is confronted in everyday contacts and relationships need to be analyzed not only with common sense look but also with critical thinking and the autonomy of a thought based on solid concepts should be a factor of considerable importance. This will mean that in each complex situation, the values that underpin knowledge are at the service of conscious decision-making.

Acknowledgments

We are grateful and want to thank all the participants for their availability and collaboration, so that this study was possible.

The publication of this paper was supported by Portuguese national funds through Foundation for Science and Technology in the scope of the UID / SOC / 03126/2019 project. We appreciate the support given by the CIES-IUL and the funding of the Foundation for Science and Technology.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

• 1. Granja B, Queirós MC. Problemas e desafios da investigação em serviço social. Intervenção Social. 2011; 38 :233-251. ISSN: 0874-1611 (Portuguese)
• 2. Brown K, Rutter L. Critical Thinking for Social Work. 2nd ed. Southernhay East: Learning Matters Ltd.; 2008. 3, 42, 47 p. ISBN: 978 1 84445 157 9
• 3. Adams R, Dominelli L, Payne M, editors. Critical Practice in Social Work. Basingstoke: Palgrave; 2002
• 4. Barnett R. Higher Education: A Critical Business. Buckingham: Society for Research in Higher Education and Open University Press; 1997. ISBN: 0 335 19703 5
• 5. Ford P, Johnston B, Mitchell R, Myles F. Social work education and criticality: Some thoughts from research. Social Work Education. 2004; 23 (2):185-198. DOI: 10.1080/0261547042000209198
• 6. Ford P, Johnston B, Mitchell R, Myles F. Practice learning and the development of students as critical practitioners: Some findings from research. Social Work Education. 2005; 24 (4):391-407. DOI: 10.1080/02615470500096910
• 7. Gray M, Plath D, Webb SA. Evidence-Based Social Work: A Critical Stance. London and New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group; 2009. ISBN 0-203-87662-89
• 8. Bailin S, Case R, Coombs JR, Daniels LB. Conceptualizing critical thinking. Journal of Curriculum Studies. 1999; 31 (3):285-302. DOI: 10.1080/002202799183133
• 9. Washburn P. The Vocabulary of Critical Thinking. New York: Oxford University Press; 2010. ISBN: 0195324803
• 10. Almeida LS, Franco AHR. Critical thinking: Its relevance for education in a shifting society. Revista de Psicología. 2011; 29 (1):176-195. ISSN 0254-9247
• 11. Baker M, Rudd R. Relationships between critical and creative thinking. Journal of Southern Agricultural Education Research. 2001; 51 :173-188. http://www.jsaer.org/pdf/vol51Whole.pdf
• 12. Lai ER. Critical Thinking: A Literature Review—Research Report [Online]. Pearson Education; 2011. Available from: http://images.pearsonassessments.com/images/tmrs/CriticalThinkingReviewFINAL.pdf [Accessed: 23 May 2019]
• 13. Halpern D. Teaching for critical thinking: Helping college students develop the skills and dispositions of a critical thinker. New Directions for Teaching and Learning. 1999; 80 :69-74. DOI: 10.1002/tl.8005
• 14. Foundation for Critical Thinking. Our Concept and Definition of Critical Thinking [Internet]. 2007. Available from: https://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/our-conception-of-critical-thinking/411 [Accessed: 02 June 2019]
• 15. Facione PA. Critical Thinking: A Statement of Expert Consensus for purposes of Educational Assessment and Instruction—Executive Summary “The Delphi Report” [Internet]. 1990a. Available from: http://assessment.aas.duke.edu/documents/Delphi_Report.pdf [Accessed: 02 June 2019]
• 16. Facione PA. Critical Thinking: A Statement of Expert Consensus for Purposes of Educational Assessment and Instruction—Research Findings and recommendations (ERIC Report No. ED315423) [Internet]. 1990b. Available from: http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED315423.pdf [Accessed: 23 May 2019]
• 17. Paul R, Elder L, Bartell T. California Teacher Preparation for Instruction in Critical Thinking (ERIC Report No. ED437379) [Internet]. 1997. Available from: http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED437379.pdf [Accessed: 23 May 2019]
• 18. Angeli C, Valanides N. Instructional effects on critical thinking: performance on ill-defined issues. Learning and Instruction. 2009; 19 :322-324. DOI: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.06.010
• 19. Brookfield SD. Developing Critical Thinkers: Challenging Adults to Explore Alternative Ways of Thinking and Acting. Buckingham: Open University Press; 1991. ISBN: 978-1-555-42356-8
• 20. Dewey J. Democracy and Education [Internet]. Penn State Electronic Classics Series Publication; 2001. Available from: https://nsee.memberclicks.net/assets/docs/KnowledgeCenter/BuildingExpEduc/BooksReports/10.%20democracy%20and%20education%20by%20dewey.pdf [Accessed: 24 May 2019]
• 21. Freire P. Educação Como Prática da Liberdade. Rio de Janeiro: Editora Paz e Terra; 1967 (Brasilian)
• 22. Kuhn D. A developmental model of critical thinking. Educational Research. 1999; 28 (2):16-46. DOI: 10.3102/0013189x028002016
• 23. Riddell T. Critical assumptions: Thinking critically about critical thinking. The Journal of Nursing Education. 2007; 46 (3):121-126. https://www.healio.com/journals/jne/2007-3-46-3/%7Bfd7bf35f-0615-4e21-9291-56bf66297a8f%7D/critical-assumptions-thinking-critically-about-critical-thinking#
• 24. Wang S-Y, Tsai J-C, Chiang H-C, Lai C-S, Lin H-J. Socrates, problem-based learning and critical thinking—A philosophic point of view. The Kaohsiung Journal of Medical Sciences. 2008; 24 (3 Supplement):S6-S13. DOI: 10.1016/s1607-551x(08)70088-3
• 25. Fisher A. Critical Thinking: An intrOduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2001
• 26. Halpern D, Nummendal SG. Closing thoughts about helping students improve how they think. Teaching of Psychology. 1995; 22 (1):82-83. DOI: 10.1207/s15328023top2201_24
• 27. Verburgh A. Effectiveness of approaches to stimulate critical thinking in social work curricula. Studies in Higher Education. 2019; 44 (5):880-889. DOI: 10.1080/03075079.2019.1586336
• 28. Belchior Rocha H, Marques Ferreira P, Silva TP, Braz Ramalho V. Serviço social crítico: da modernidade à contemporaneidade. Alternativas: Cuadernos de Trabajo Social. 2013; 20 :79-90. DOI: 10.14198/ALTERN2013.20.05
• 29. Branco F. Social work education: The Portuguese story in a local and global perspective. Practice. 2018; 30 (4):271-291. DOI: 10.1080/09503153.2018.1485144
• 30. Leitão Ferreira J. Serviço social: Profissão e ciência. Contributos para o debate científico nas ciências sociais. Cuadernos de Trabajo Social. 2014; 27 (2):329-341. DOI: 10.5209/rev_CUTS.2014.v27.n2.44782
• 31. Jones S. Critical Learning for Social Work Students. Exeter: Learning Matters Ltd; 2009. 93, 109 p. ISBN-13: 978-1844452019
• 32. Thompson N, Pascal J. Developing critically reflective practice. Reflective Practice. 2012; 13 (2):311-325. DOI: 10.1080/14623943.2012.657795
• 33. Lima L. Atitudes: Estrutura e mudança. In: Vala J, Monteiro MB, editors. Psicologia Social. Lisboa: Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian; 2000 (Portuguese)
• 34. Kates S. A qualitative exploration into voters’ ethical perceptions of political advertising: Discourse, disinformation, and moral boundaries. Journal of Business Ethics. 1998; 17 (16):1871-1885. DOI: 10.1023/a:1005796113389
• 35. Macaulay C. Transfer of learning. In: Cree VE, Macaulay C, editors. Transfer of Learning in Professional and Vocational Learning. London: Routledge; 2000. pp. 1-26. ISBN: 0415204194
• A3ES is our National Accreditation Agency for higher education courses.
• It is a public University with 15 graduations, 49 masters, 22 PhDs, and around 8868 students.

© 2019 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Continue reading from the same book

Edited by Makiko Kondo

Published: 09 September 2020

By Makiko Kondo, Sachie Okanishi, Etsuko Arai, Kumiko...

759 downloads

By Noriko Okabe

1771 downloads

By José de Almeida Brites, Américo Baptista, Catarina...

1231 downloads

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• PMC10300824

An Evaluative Review of Barriers to Critical Thinking in Educational and Real-World Settings

Associated data.

No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is not applicable to this article.

Though a wide array of definitions and conceptualisations of critical thinking have been offered in the past, further elaboration on some concepts is required, particularly with respect to various factors that may impede an individual’s application of critical thinking, such as in the case of reflective judgment. These barriers include varying levels of epistemological engagement or understanding, issues pertaining to heuristic-based thinking and intuitive judgment, as well as emotional and biased thinking. The aim of this review is to discuss such barriers and evaluate their impact on critical thinking in light of perspectives from research in an effort to reinforce the ‘completeness’ of extant critical thinking frameworks and to enhance the potential benefits of implementation in real-world settings. Recommendations and implications for overcoming such barriers are also discussed and evaluated.

1. Introduction

Critical thinking (CT) is a metacognitive process—consisting of a number of skills and dispositions—that, through purposeful, self-regulatory reflective judgment, increases the chances of producing a logical solution to a problem or a valid conclusion to an argument ( Dwyer 2017 , 2020 ; Dwyer et al. 2012 , 2014 , 2015 , 2016 ; Dwyer and Walsh 2019 ; Quinn et al. 2020 ).

CT has long been identified as a desired outcome of education ( Bezanilla et al. 2019 ; Butler et al. 2012 ; Dwyer 2017 ; Ennis 2018 ), given that it facilitates a more complex understanding of information ( Dwyer et al. 2012 ; Halpern 2014 ), better judgment and decision-making ( Gambrill 2006 ) and less dependence on cognitive bias and heuristic thinking ( Facione and Facione 2001 ; McGuinness 2013 ). A vast body of research (e.g., Dwyer et al. 2012 ; Gadzella 1996 ; Hitchcock 2004 ; Reed and Kromrey 2001 ; Rimiene 2002 ; Solon 2007 ), including various meta-analyses (e.g., Abrami et al. 2008 , 2015 ; Niu et al. 2013 ; Ortiz 2007 ), indicates that CT can be enhanced through targeted, explicit instruction. Though CT can be taught in domain-specific areas, its domain-generality means that it can be taught across disciplines and in relation to real-world scenarios ( Dwyer 2011 , 2017 ; Dwyer and Eigenauer 2017 ; Dwyer et al. 2015 ; Gabennesch 2006 ; Halpern 2014 ). Indeed, the positive outcomes associated with CT transcend educational settings into real-world, everyday situations, which is important because CT is necessary for a variety of social and interpersonal contexts where good decision-making and problem-solving are needed on a daily basis ( Ku 2009 ). However, regardless of domain-specificity or domain-generality of instruction, the transferability of CT application has been an issue in CT research (e.g., see Dumitru 2012 ). This is an important consideration because issues with transferability—for example, in real-world settings—may imply something lacking in CT instruction.

In light of the large, aforementioned body of research focusing on enhancing CT through instruction, a growing body of research has also evaluated the manner in which CT instruction is delivered (e.g., Abrami et al. 2008 , 2015 ; Ahern et al. 2019 ; Cáceres et al. 2020 ; Byerly 2019 ; Dwyer and Eigenauer 2017 ), along with additional considerations for and the barriers to such education, faced by teachers and students alike (e.g., Aliakbari and Sadeghdaghighi 2013 ; Cáceres et al. 2020 ; Cornell et al. 2011 ; Lloyd and Bahr 2010 ; Ma and Liu 2022 ; Ma and Luo 2021 ; Rear 2019 ; Saleh 2019 ); for example, those regarding conceptualisation, beliefs about CT, having feasible time for CT application and CT’s aforementioned transferability. However, there is a significant lack of research investigating barriers to CT application by individuals in real-world settings, even by those who have enjoyed benefits from previous CT instruction. Thus, perhaps the previously conjectured ‘something lacking in CT instruction’ refers to, in conjunction with the teaching of what CT consists of, making clear to students what barriers to CT application we face.

Simply, CT instruction is designed in such a way as to enhance the likelihood of positive decision-making outcomes. However, there are a variety of barriers that can impede an individual’s application of CT, regardless of past instruction with respect to ‘how to conduct CT’. For example, an individual might be regarded as a ‘critical thinker’ because they apply it in a vast majority of appropriate scenarios, but that does not ensure that they apply CT in all such appropriate scenarios. What keeps them from applying CT in those scenarios might well be one of a number of barriers to CT that often go unaddressed in CT instruction, particularly if such instruction is exclusively focused on skills and dispositions. Perhaps too much focus is placed on what educators are teaching their students to do in their CT courses as opposed to what educators should be recommending their students to look out for or advising what they should not be doing. That is, perhaps just as important for understanding what CT is and how it is conducted (i.e., knowing what to do) is a genuine awareness of the various factors and processes that can impede CT; and so, for an individual to think critically, they must know what to look out for and be able to monitor for such barriers to CT application.

To clarify, thought has not changed regarding what CT is or the cognitive/metacognitive processes at its foundation (e.g., see Dwyer 2017 ; Dwyer et al. 2014 ; Ennis 1987 , 1996 , 1998 ; Facione 1990 ; Halpern 2014 ; Paul 1993 ; Paul and Elder 2008 ); rather, additional consideration of issues that have potential to negatively impact CT is required, such as those pertaining to epistemological engagement; intuitive judgment; as well as emotional and biased thinking. This notion has been made clear through what might be perceived of as a ‘loud shout’ for CT over at least the past 10–15 years in light of growing political, economic, social, and health-related concerns (e.g., ‘fake news’, gaps between political views in the general population, various social movements and the COVID-19 pandemic). Indeed, there is a dearth of research on barriers to CT ( Haynes et al. 2016 ; Lloyd and Bahr 2010 ; Mangena and Chabeli 2005 ; Rowe et al. 2015 ). As a result, this evaluative perspective review aims to provide an impetus for updating the manner in which CT education is approached and, perhaps most importantly, applied in real-world settings—through further identifying and elaborating on specific barriers of concern in order to reinforce the ‘completeness’ of extant CT frameworks and to enhance the potential benefits of their implementation 1 .

2. Barriers to Critical Thinking

2.1. inadequate skills and dispositions.

In order to better understand the various barriers to CT that will be discussed, the manner in which CT is conceptualised must first be revisited. Though debate over its definition and what components are necessary to think critically has existed over the 80-plus years since the term’s coining (i.e., Glaser 1941 ), it is generally accepted that CT consists of two main components: skills and dispositions ( Dwyer 2017 ; Dwyer et al. 2012 , 2014 ; Ennis 1996 , 1998 ; Facione 1990 ; Facione et al. 2002 ; Halpern 2014 ; Ku and Ho 2010a ; Perkins and Ritchhart 2004 ; Quinn et al. 2020 ). CT skills—analysis, evaluation, and inference—refer to the higher-order, cognitive, ‘task-based’ processes necessary to conduct CT (e.g., see Dwyer et al. 2014 ; Facione 1990 ). CT dispositions have been described as inclinations, tendencies, or willingness to perform a given thinking skill (e.g., see Dwyer et al. 2016 ; Siegel 1999 ; Valenzuela et al. 2011 ), which may relate to attitudinal and intellectual habits of thinking, as well as motivational processes ( Ennis 1996 ; Norris 1994 ; Paul and Elder 2008 ; Perkins et al. 1993 ; Valenzuela et al. 2011 ). The relationship between CT skills and dispositions has been argued to be mutually dependent. As a result, overemphasising or encouraging the development of one over the other is a barrier to CT as a whole. Though this may seem obvious, it remains the case that CT instruction often places added emphasis on skills simply because they can be taught (though that does not ensure that everyone has or will be taught such skills), whereas dispositions are ‘trickier’ (e.g., see Dwyer 2017 ; Ku and Ho 2010a ). That is, it is unlikely that simply ‘teaching’ students to be motivated towards CT or to value it over short-instructional periods will actually meaningfully enhance it. Moreover, debate exists over how best to train disposition or even measure it. With that, some individuals might be more ‘inherently’ disposed to CT in light of their truth-seeking, open-minded, or inquisitive natures ( Facione and Facione 1992 ; Quinn et al. 2020 ). The barrier, in this context, is how we can enhance the disposition of those who are not ‘inherently’ inclined. For example, though an individual may possess the requisite skills to conduct CT, it does not ensure the tendency or willingness to apply them; and conversely, having the disposition to apply CT does not mean that one has the ability to do so ( Valenzuela et al. 2011 ). Given the pertinence of CT skills and dispositions to the application of CT in a broader sense, inadequacies in either create a barrier to application.

2.2. Epistemological (Mis)Understanding

To reiterate, most extant conceptualisations of CT focus on the tandem working of skills and dispositions, though significantly fewer emphasise the reflective judgment aspect of CT that might govern various associated processes ( Dawson 2008 ; Dwyer 2017 ; Dwyer et al. 2014 , 2015 ; King and Kitchener 1994 , 2004 ; Stanovich and Stanovich 2010 ). Reflective judgment (RJ) refers to a self-regulatory process of decision-making, with respect to taking time to engage one’s understanding of the nature, limits, and certainty of knowing and how this can affect the defense of their reasoning ( Dwyer 2017 ; King and Kitchener 1994 ; Ku and Ho 2010b ). The ability to metacognitively ‘think about thinking’ ( Flavell 1976 ; Ku and Ho 2010b ) in the application of critical thinking skills implies a reflective sensibility consistent with epistemological understanding and the capacity for reflective judgement ( Dwyer et al. 2015 ; King and Kitchener 1994 ). Acknowledging levels of (un)certainty is important in CT because the information a person is presented with (along with that person’s pre-existing knowledge) often provides only a limited source of information from which to draw a conclusion. Thus, RJ is considered a component of CT ( Baril et al. 1998 ; Dwyer et al. 2015 ; Huffman et al. 1991 ) because it allows one to acknowledge that epistemological understanding is necessary for recognising and judging a situation in which CT may be required ( King and Kitchener 1994 ). For example, the interdependence between RJ and CT can be seen in the way that RJ influences the manner in which CT skills like analysis and evaluation are conducted or the balance and perspective within the subsequent inferences drawn ( Dwyer et al. 2015 ; King et al. 1990 ). Moreover, research suggests that RJ development is not a simple function of age or time but more so a function of the amount of active engagement an individual has working in problem spaces that require CT ( Brabeck 1981 ; Dawson 2008 ; Dwyer et al. 2015 ). The more developed one’s RJ, the better able one is to present “a more complex and effective form of justification, providing more inclusive and better integrated assumptions for evaluating and defending a point of view” ( King and Kitchener 1994, p. 13 ).

Despite a lesser focus on RJ, research indicates a positive relationship between it and CT ( Baril et al. 1998 ; Brabeck 1981 ; Dawson 2008 ; Dwyer et al. 2015 ; Huffman et al. 1991 ; King et al. 1990 )—the understanding of which is pertinent to better understanding the foundation to CT barriers. For example, when considering one’s proficiency in CT skills, there might come a time when the individual becomes so good at using them that their application becomes something akin to ‘second nature’ or even ‘automatic’. However, this creates a contradiction: automatic thinking is largely the antithesis of reflective judgment (even though judgment is never fully intuitive or reflective; see Cader et al. 2005 ; Dunwoody et al. 2000 ; Hamm 1988 ; Hammond 1981 , 1996 , 2000 )—those who think critically take their time and reflect on their decision-making; even if the solution/conclusion drawn from the automatic thinking is ‘correct’ or yields a positive outcome, it is not a critically thought out answer, per se. Thus, no matter how skilled one is at applying CT skills, once the application becomes primarily ‘automatic’, the thinking ceases to be critical ( Dwyer 2017 )—a perspective consistent with Dual Process Theory (e.g., Stanovich and West 2000 ). Indeed, RJ acts as System 2 thinking ( Stanovich and West 2000 ): it is slow, careful, conscious, and consistent ( Kahneman 2011 ; Hamm 1988 ); it is associated with high cognitive control, attention, awareness, concentration, and complex computation ( Cader et al. 2005 ; Kahneman 2011 ; Hamm 1988 ); and accounts for epistemological concerns—consistent not only with King and Kitchener’s ( 1994 ) conceptualisation but also Kuhn’s ( 1999 , 2000 ) perspective on metacognition and epistemological knowing . This is where RJ comes into play as an important component of CT—interdependent among the requisite skills and dispositions ( Baril et al. 1998 ; Dwyer et al. 2015 )—it allows one to acknowledge that epistemological understanding is vital to recognising and judging a situation in which CT is required ( King and Kitchener 1994 ). With respect to the importance of epistemological understanding, consider the following examples for elaboration.

The primary goal of CT is to enhance the likelihood of generating reasonable conclusions and/or solutions. Truth-seeking is a CT disposition fundamental to the attainment of this goal ( Dwyer et al. 2016 ; Facione 1990 ; Facione and Facione 1992 ) because if we just applied any old nonsense as justification for our arguments or solutions, they would fail in the application and yield undesirable consequences. Despite what may seem like truth-seeking’s obvious importance in this context, all thinkers succumb to unwarranted assumptions on occasion (i.e., beliefs presumed to be true without adequate justification). It may also seem obvious, in context, that it is important to be able to distinguish facts from beliefs. However, the concepts of ‘fact’ or ‘truth’, with respect to how much empirical support they have to validate them, also require consideration. For example, some might conceptualise truth as factual information or information that has been or can be ‘proven’ true. Likewise, ‘proof’ is often described as evidence establishing a fact or the truth of a statement—indicating a level of absolutism. However, the reality is that we cannot ‘prove’ things—as scientists and researchers well know—we can only disprove them, such as in experimental settings where we observe a significant difference between groups on some measure—we do not prove the hypothesis correct, rather, we disprove the null hypothesis. This is why, in large part, researchers and scientists use cautious language in reporting their results. We know the best our findings can do is reinforce a theory—another concept often misconstrued in the wider population as something like a hypothesis, as opposed to what it actually entails: a robust model for how and/or why a given phenomenon might occur (e.g., gravity). Thus, theories will hold ‘true’ until they are falsified—that is, disproven (e.g., Popper [1934] 1959 , 1999 ).

Unfortunately, ‘proof’, ‘prove’, and ‘proven’—words that ensure certainty to large populations—actually disservice the public in subtle ways that can hinder CT. For example, a company that produces toothpaste might claim its product to be ‘clinically proven’ to whiten teeth. Consumers purchasing that toothpaste are likely to expect to have whiter teeth after use. However, what happens—as often may be the case—if it does not whiten their teeth? The word ‘proven’ implies a false claim in context. Of course, those in research understand that the word’s use is a marketing ploy, given that ‘clinically proven’ sounds more reassuring to consumers than ‘there is evidence to suggest…’; but, by incorrectly using words like ‘proven’ in our daily language, we reinforce a misunderstanding of what it means to assess, measure and evaluate—particularly from a scientific standpoint (e.g., again, see Popper [1934] 1959 , 1999 ).

Though this example may seem like a semantic issue, it has great implications for CT in the population. For example, a vast majority of us grew up being taught the ‘factual’ information that there were nine planets in our solar system; then, in 2006, Pluto was reclassified as a dwarf planet—no longer being considered a ‘major’ planet of our solar system. As a result, we now have eight planets. This change might be perceived in two distinct ways: (1) ‘science is amazing because it’s always developing—we’ve now reached a stage where we know so much about the solar system that we can differentiate celestial bodies to the extent of distinguishing planets from dwarf planets’; and (2) ‘I don’t understand why these scientists even have jobs, they can’t even count planets’. The first perspective is consistent with that of an individual with epistemological understanding and engagement that previous understandings of models and theories can change, not necessarily because they were wrong, but rather because they have been advanced in light of gaining further credible evidence. The second perspective is consistent with that of someone who has failed to engage epistemological understanding, who does not necessarily see that the change might reflect progress, who might be resistant to change, and who might grow in distrust of science and research in light of these changes. The latter point is of great concern in the CT research community because the unwarranted cynicism and distrust of science and research, in context, may simply reflect a lack of epistemological understanding or engagement (e.g., to some extent consistent with the manner in which conspiracy theories are developed, rationalised and maintained (e.g., Swami and Furnham 2014 )). Notably, this should also be of great concern to education departments around the world, as well as society, more broadly speaking.

Upon considering epistemological engagement in more practical, day-to-day scenarios (or perhaps a lack thereof), we begin to see the need for CT in everyday 21st-century life—heightened by the ‘new knowledge economy’, which has resulted in exponential increases in the amount of information made available since the late 1990s (e.g., Darling-Hammond 2008 ; Dwyer 2017 ; Jukes and McCain 2002 ; Varian and Lyman 2003 ). Though increased amounts of and enhanced access to information are largely good things, what is alarming about this is how much of it is misinformation or disinformation ( Commission on Fake News and the Teaching of Critical Literacy in Schools 2018 ). Truth be told, the new knowledge economy is anything but ‘new’ anymore. Perhaps, over the past 10–15 years, there has been an increase in the need for CT above and beyond that seen in the ‘economy’s’ wake—or maybe ever before; for example, in light of the social media boom, political unrest, ‘fake news’, and issues regarding health literacy. The ‘new’ knowledge economy has made it so that knowledge acquisition, on its own, is no longer sufficient for learning—individuals must be able to work with and adapt information through CT in order to apply it appropriately ( Dwyer 2017 ).

Though extant research has addressed the importance of epistemological understanding for CT (e.g., Dwyer et al. 2014 ), it does not address how not engaging it can substantially hinder it—regardless of how skilled or disposed to think critically an individual may be. Notably, this is distinct from ‘inadequacies’ in, say, memory, comprehension, or other ‘lower-order’ cognitively-associated skills required for CT ( Dwyer et al. 2014 ; Halpern 2014 ; see, again, Note 1) in that reflective judgment is essentially a pole on a cognitive continuum (e.g., see Cader et al. 2005 ; Hamm 1988 ; Hammond 1981 , 1996 , 2000 ). Cognitive Continuum Theory postulates a continuum of cognitive processes anchored by reflective judgment and intuitive judgment, which represents how judgment situations or tasks relate to cognition, given that thinking is never purely reflective, nor is it completely intuitive; rather, it rests somewhere in between ( Cader et al. 2005 ; Dunwoody et al. 2000 ). It is also worth noting that, in Cognitive Continuum Theory, neither reflective nor intuitive judgment is assumed, a priori, to be superior ( Dunwoody et al. 2000 ), despite most contemporary research on judgment and decision-making focusing on the strengths of RJ and limitations associated with intuitive judgment ( Cabantous et al. 2010 ; Dhami and Thomson 2012 ; Gilovich et al. 2002 ). Though this point regarding superiority is acknowledged and respected (particularly in non-CT cases where it is advantageous to utilise intuitive judgment), in the context of CT, it is rejected in light of the example above regarding the automaticity of thinking skills.

2.3. Intuitive Judgment

The manner in which human beings think and the evolution of which, over millions of years, is a truly amazing thing. Such evolution has made it so that we can observe a particular event and make complex computations regarding predictions, interpretations, and reactions in less than a second (e.g., Teichert et al. 2014 ). Unfortunately, we have become so good at it that we often over-rely on ‘fast’ thinking and intuitive judgments that we have become ‘cognitively lazy’, given the speed at which we can make decisions with little energy ( Kahneman 2011 ; Simon 1957 ). In the context of CT, this ‘lazy’ thinking is an impediment (as in opposition to reflective judgment). For example, consider a time in which you have been presented numeric data on a topic, and you instantly aligned your perspective with what the ‘numbers indicate’. Of course, numbers do not lie… but people do—that is not to say that the person who initially interpreted and then presented you with those numbers is trying to disinform you; rather, the numbers presented might not tell the full story (i.e., the data are incomplete or inadequate, unbeknownst to the person reporting on them); and thus, there might be alternative interpretations to the data in question. With that, there most certainly are individuals who will wish to persuade you to align with their perspective, which only strengthens the impetus for being aware of intuitive judgment as a barrier. Consider another example: have you ever accidentally insulted someone at work, school, or in a social setting? Was it because the statement you made was based on some kind of assumption or stereotype? It may have been an honest mistake, but if a statement is made based on what one thinks they know, as opposed to what they actually know about the situation—without taking the time to recognise that all situations are unique and that reflection is likely warranted in light of such uncertainty—then it is likely that the schema-based ‘intuitive judgment’ is what is a fault here.

Our ability to construct schemas (i.e., mental frameworks for how we interpret the world) is evolutionarily adaptive in that these scripts allow us to: make quick decisions when necessary and without much effort, such as in moments of impending danger, answer questions in conversation; interpret social situations; or try to stave off cognitive load or decision fatigue ( Baumeister 2003 ; Sweller 2010 ; Vohs et al. 2014 ). To reiterate, research in the field of higher-order thinking often focuses on the failings of intuitive judgment ( Dwyer 2017 ; Hamm 1988 ) as being limited, misapplied, and, sometimes, yielding grossly incorrect responses—thus, leading to faulty reasoning and judgment as a result of systematic biases and errors ( Gilovich et al. 2002 ; Kahneman 2011 ; Kahneman et al. 1982 ; Slovic et al. 1977 ; Tversky and Kahneman 1974 ; in terms of schematic thinking ( Leventhal 1984 ), system 1 thinking ( Stanovich and West 2000 ; Kahneman 2011 ), miserly thinking ( Stanovich 2018 ) or even heuristics ( Kahneman and Frederick 2002 ; Tversky and Kahneman 1974 ). Nevertheless, it remains that such protocols are learned—not just through experience (as discussed below), but often through more ‘academic’ means. For example, consider again the anecdote above about learning to apply CT skills so well that it becomes like ‘second nature’. Such skills become a part of an individual’s ‘mindware’ ( Clark 2001 ; Stanovich 2018 ; Stanovich et al. 2016 ) and, in essence, become heuristics themselves. Though their application requires RJ for them to be CT, it does not mean that the responses yielded will be incorrect.

Moreover, despite the descriptions above, it would be incorrect, and a disservice to readers to imply that RJ is always right and intuitive judgment is always wrong, especially without consideration of the contextual issues—both intuitive and reflective judgments have the potential to be ‘correct’ or ‘incorrect’ with respect to validity, reasonableness or appropriateness. However, it must also be acknowledged that there is a cognitive ‘miserliness’ to depending on intuitive judgment, in which case, the ability to detect and override this dependence ( Stanovich 2018 )—consistent with RJ, is of utmost importance if we care about our decision-making. That is, if we care about our CT (see below for a more detailed discussion), we must ignore the implicit ‘noise’ associated with the intuitive judgment (regardless of whether or not it is ‘correct’) and, instead, apply the necessary RJ to ensure, as best we can, that the conclusion or solution is valid, reasonable or appropriate.

Although, such a recommendation is much easier said than done. One problem with relying on mental shortcuts afforded by intuition and heuristics is that they are largely experience-based protocols. Though that may sound like a positive thing, using ‘experience’ to draw a conclusion in a task that requires CT is erroneous because it essentially acts as ‘research’ based on a sample size of one; and so, ‘findings’ (i.e., one’s conclusion) cannot be generalised to the larger population—in this case, other contexts or problem-spaces ( Dwyer 2017 ). Despite this, we often over-emphasise the importance of experience in two related ways. First, people have a tendency to confuse experience for expertise (e.g., see the Dunning–KrugerEffect (i.e., the tendency for low-skilled individuals to overestimate their ability in tasks relevant to said skill and highly skilled individuals to underestimate their ability in tasks relevant to said skills); see also: ( Kruger and Dunning 1999 ; Mahmood 2016 ), wherein people may not necessarily be expert, rather they may just have a lot of experience completing a task imperfectly or wrong ( Dwyer and Walsh 2019 ; Hammond 1996 ; Kahneman 2011 ). Second, depending on the nature of the topic or problem, people often evaluate experience on par with research evidence (in terms of credibility), given its personalised nature, which is reinforced by self-serving bias(es).

When evaluating topics in domains wherein one lacks expertise, the need for intellectual integrity and humility ( Paul and Elder 2008 ) in their RJ is increased so that the individual may assess what knowledge is required to make a critically considered judgment. However, this is not necessarily a common response to a lack of relevant knowledge, given that when individuals are tasked with decision-making regarding a topic in which they do not possess relevant knowledge, these individuals will generally rely on emotional cues to inform their decision-making (e.g., Kahneman and Frederick 2002 ). Concerns here are not necessarily about the lack of domain-specific knowledge necessary to make an accurate decision, but rather the (1) belief of the individual that they have the knowledge necessary to make a critically thought-out judgment, even when this is not the case—again, akin to the Dunning–Kruger Effect ( Kruger and Dunning 1999 ); or (2) lack of willingness (i.e., disposition) to gain additional, relevant topic knowledge.

One final problem with relying on experience for important decisions, as alluded to above, is that when experience is engaged, it is not necessarily an objective recollection of the procedure. It can be accompanied by the individual’s beliefs, attitudes, and feelings—how that experience is recalled. The manner in which an individual draws on their personal experience, in light of these other factors, is inherently emotion-based and, likewise, biased (e.g., Croskerry et al. 2013 ; Loftus 2017 ; Paul 1993 ).

2.4. Bias and Emotion

Definitions of CT often reflect that it is to be applied to a topic, argument, or problem of importance that the individual cares about ( Dwyer 2017 ). The issue of ‘caring’ is important because it excludes judgment and decision-making in day-to-day scenarios that are not of great importance and do not warrant CT (e.g., ‘what colour pants best match my shirt’ and ‘what to eat for dinner’); again, for example, in an effort to conserve time and cognitive resources (e.g., Baumeister 2003 ; Sweller 2010 ). However, given that ‘importance’ is subjective, it essentially boils down to what one cares about (e.g., issues potentially impactful in one’s personal life; topics of personal importance to the individual; or even problems faced by an individual’s social group or work organisation (in which case, care might be more extrinsically-oriented). This is arguably one of the most difficult issues to resolve in CT application, given its contradictory nature—where it is generally recommended that CT should be conducted void of emotion and bias (as much as it can be possible), at the same time, it is also recommended that it should only be applied to things we care about. As a result, the manner in which care is conceptualised requires consideration. For example, in terms of CT, care can be conceptualised as ‘concern or interest; the attachment of importance to a person, place, object or concept; and serious attention or consideration applied to doing something correctly or to avoid damage or risk’; as opposed to some form of passion (e.g., intense, driving or over-powering feeling or conviction; emotions as distinguished from reason; a strong liking or desire for or devotion to some activity, object or concept). In this light, care could be argued as more of a dispositional or self-regulatory factor than emotional bias; thus, making it useful to CT. Though this distinction is important, the manner in which care is labeled does not lessen the potential for biased emotion to play a role in the thinking process. For example, it has been argued that if one cares about the decision they make or the conclusion they draw, then the individual will do their best to be objective as possible ( Dwyer 2017 ). However, it must also be acknowledged that this may not always be the case or even completely feasible (i.e., how can any decision be fully void of emotional input? )—though one may strive to be as objective as possible, such objectivity is not ensured given that implicit bias may infiltrate their decision-making (e.g., taking assumptions for granted as facts in filling gaps (unknowns) in a given problem-space). Consequently, such implicit biases may be difficult to amend, given that we may not be fully aware of them at play.

With that, explicit biases are just as concerning, despite our awareness of them. For example, the more important an opinion or belief is to an individual, the greater the resistance to changing their mind about it ( Rowe et al. 2015 ), even in light of evidence indicating the contrary ( Tavris and Aronson 2007 ). In some cases, the provision of information that corrects the flawed concept may even ‘backfire’ and reinforce the flawed or debunked stance ( Cook and Lewandowsky 2011 ). This cognitive resistance is an important barrier to CT to consider for obvious reasons—as a process; it acts in direct opposition to RJ, the skill of evaluation, as well as a number of requisite dispositions towards CT, including truth-seeking and open-mindedness (e.g., Dwyer et al. 2014 , 2016 ; Facione 1990 ); and at the same time, yields important real-world impacts (e.g., see Nyhan et al. 2014 ).

The notion of emotion impacting rational thought is by no means a novel concept. A large body of research indicates a negative impact of emotion on decision-making (e.g., Kahneman and Frederick 2002 ; Slovic et al. 2002 ; Strack et al. 1988 ), higher-order cognition ( Anticevic et al. 2011 ; Chuah et al. 2010 ; Denkova et al. 2010 ; Dolcos and McCarthy 2006 ) and cognition, more generally ( Iordan et al. 2013 ; Johnson et al. 2005 ; Most et al. 2005 ; Shackman et al. 2006 ) 2 . However, less attention has specifically focused on emotion’s impact on the application of critical thought. This may be a result of assumptions that if a person is inclined to think critically, then what is yielded will typically be void of emotion—which is true to a certain extent. However, despite the domain generality of CT ( Dwyer 2011 , 2017 ; Dwyer and Eigenauer 2017 ; Dwyer et al. 2015 ; Gabennesch 2006 ; Halpern 2014 ), the likelihood of emotional control during the CT process remains heavily dependent on the topic of application. Consider again, for example; there is no guarantee that an individual who generally applies CT to important topics or situations will do so in all contexts. Indeed, depending on the nature of the topic or the problem faced, an individual’s mindware ( Clark 2001 ; Stanovich 2018 ; Stanovich et al. 2016 ; consistent with the metacognitive nature of CT) and the extent to which a context can evoke emotion in the thinker will influence what and how thinking is applied. As addressed above, if the topic is something to which the individual feels passionate, then it will more likely be a greater challenge for them to remain unbiased and develop a reasonably objective argument or solution.

Notably, self-regulation is an important aspect of both RJ and CT ( Dwyer 2017 ; Dwyer et al. 2014 ), and, in this context, it is difficult not to consider the role emotional intelligence might play in the relationship between affect and CT. For example, though there are a variety of conceptualisations of emotional intelligence (e.g., Bar-On 2006 ; Feyerherm and Rice 2002 ; Goleman 1995 ; Salovey and Mayer 1990 ; Schutte et al. 1998 ), the underlying thread among these is that, similar to the concept of self-regulation, emotional intelligence (EI) refers to the ability to monitor (e.g., perceive, understand and regulate) one’s own feelings, as well as those of others, and to use this information to guide relevant thinking and behaviour. Indeed, extant research indicates that there is a positive association between EI and CT (e.g., Afshar and Rahimi 2014 ; Akbari-Lakeh et al. 2018 ; Ghanizadeh and Moafian 2011 ; Kaya et al. 2017 ; Stedman and Andenoro 2007 ; Yao et al. 2018 ). To shed light upon this relationship, Elder ( 1997 ) addressed the potential link between CT and EI through her description of the latter as a measure of the extent to which affective responses are rationally-based , in which reasonable desires and behaviours emerge from such rationally-based emotions. Though there is extant research on the links between CT and EI, it is recommended that future research further elaborate on this relationship, as well as with other self-regulatory processes, in an effort to further establish the potentially important role that EI might play within CT.

3. Discussion

3.1. interpretations.

Given difficulties in the past regarding the conceptualisation of CT ( Dwyer et al. 2014 ), efforts have been made to be as specific and comprehensive as possible when discussing CT in the literature to ensure clarity and accuracy. However, it has been argued that such efforts have actually added to the complexity of CT’s conceptualisation and had the opposite effect on clarity and, perhaps, more importantly, the accessibility and practical usefulness for educators (and students) not working in the research area. As a result, when asked what CT is, I generally follow up the ‘long definition’, in light of past research, with a much simpler description: CT is akin to ‘playing devil’s advocate’. That is, once a claim is made, one should second-guess it in as many conceivable ways as possible, in a process similar to the Socratic Method. Through asking ‘why’ and conjecturing alternatives, we ask the individual—be it another person or even ourselves—to justify the decision-making. It keeps the thinker ‘honest’, which is particularly useful if we’re questioning ourselves. If we do not have justifiable reason(s) for why we think or intend to act in a particular way (above and beyond considered objections), then it should become obvious that we either missed something or we are biased. It is perhaps this simplified description of CT that gives such impetus for the aim of this review.

Whereas extant frameworks often discuss the importance of CT skills, dispositions, and, to a lesser extent, RJ and other self-regulatory functions of CT, they do so with respect to components of CT or processes that facilitate CT (e.g., motivation, executive functions, and dispositions), without fully encapsulating cognitive processes and other factors that may hinder it (e.g., emotion, bias, intuitive judgment and a lack of epistemological understanding or engagement). With that, this review is neither a criticism of existing CT frameworks nor is it to imply that CT has so many barriers that it cannot be taught well, nor does it claim to be a complete list of processes that can impede CT (see again Note 1). To reiterate, education in CT can yield beneficial effects ( Abrami et al. 2008 , 2015 ; Dwyer 2017 ; Dwyer and Eigenauer 2017 ); however, such efficacy may be further enhanced by presenting students and individuals interested in CT the barriers they are likely to face in its application; explaining how these barriers manifest and operate; and offer potential strategies for overcoming them.

3.2. Further Implications and Future Research

Though the barriers addressed here are by no means new to the arena of research in higher-order cognition, there is a novelty in their collated discussion as impactful barriers in the context of CT, particularly with respect to extant CT research typically focusing on introducing strategies and skills for enhancing CT, rather than identifying ‘preventative measures’ for barriers that can negatively impact CT. Nevertheless, future research is necessary to address how such barriers can be overcome in the context of CT. As addressed above, it is recommended that CT education include discussion of these barriers and encourage self-regulation against them; and, given the vast body of CT research focusing on enhancement through training and education, it seems obvious to make such a recommendation in this context. However, it is also recognised that simply identifying these barriers and encouraging people to engage in RJ and self-regulation to combat them may not suffice. For example, educators might very well succeed in teaching students how to apply CT skills , but just as these educators may not be able to motivate students to use them as often as they might be needed or even to value such skills (such as in attempting to elicit a positive disposition towards CT), it might be the case that without knowing about the impact of the discussed barriers to CT (e.g., emotion and/or intuitive judgment), students may be just as susceptible to biases in their attempts to think critically as others without CT skills. Thus, what such individuals might be applying is not CT at all; rather, just a series of higher-order cognitive skills from a biased or emotion-driven perspective. As a result, a genuine understanding of these barriers is necessary for individuals to appropriately self-regulate their thinking.

Moreover, though the issues of epistemological beliefs, bias, emotion, and intuitive processes are distinct in the manner in which they can impact CT, these do not have set boundaries; thus, an important implication is that they can overlap. For example, epistemological understanding can influence how individuals make decisions in real-world scenarios, such as through intuiting a judgment in social situations (i.e., without considering the nature of the knowledge behind the decision, the manner in which such knowledge interacts [e.g., correlation v. causation], the level of uncertainty regarding both the decision-maker’s personal stance and the available evidence), when a situation might actually require further consideration or even the honest response of ‘I don’t know’. The latter concept—that of simply responding ‘I don’t know’ is interesting to consider because though it seems, on the surface, to be inconsistent with CT and its outcomes, it is commensurate with many of its associated components (e.g., intellectual honesty and humility; see Paul and Elder 2008 ). In the context this example is used, ‘I don’t know’ refers to epistemological understanding. With that, it may also be impacted by bias and emotion. For example, depending on the topic, an individual may be likely to respond ‘I don’t know’ when they do not have the relevant knowledge or evidence to provide a sufficient answer. However, in the event that the topic is something the individual is emotionally invested in or feels passionate about, an opinion or belief may be shared instead of ‘I don’t know’ (e.g., Kahneman and Frederick 2002 ), despite a lack of requisite evidence-based knowledge (e.g., Kruger and Dunning 1999 ). An emotional response based on belief may be motivated in the sense that the individual knows that they do not know for sure and simply uses a belief to support their reasoning as a persuasive tool. On the other hand, the emotional response based on belief might be used simply because the individual may not know that the use of a belief is an insufficient means of supporting their perspective– instead, they might think that their intuitive, belief-based judgment is as good as a piece of empirical evidence; thus, suggesting a lack of empirical understanding. With that, it is fair to say that though epistemological understanding, intuitive judgment, emotion, and bias are distinct concepts, they can influence each other in real-world CT and decision-making. Though there are many more examples of how this might occur, the one presented may further support the recommendation that education can be used to overcome some of the negative effects associated with the barriers presented.

For example, in Ireland, students are not generally taught about academic referencing until they reach third-level education. Anecdotally, I was taught about referencing at age 12 and had to use it all the way through high school when I was growing up in New York. In the context of these referencing lessons, we were taught about the credibility of sources, as well as how analyse and evaluate arguments and subsequently infer conclusions in light of these sources (i.e., CT skills). We were motivated by our teacher to find the ‘truth’ as best we could (i.e., a fundament of CT disposition). Now, I recognise that this experience cannot be generalised to larger populations, given that I am a sample size of one, but I do look upon such education, perhaps, as a kind of transformative learning experience ( Casey 2018 ; King 2009 ; Mezirow 1978 , 1990 ) in the sense that such education might have provided a basis for both CT and epistemological understanding. For CT, we use research to support our positions, hence the importance of referencing. When a ‘reference’ is not available, one must ask if there is actual evidence available to support the proposition. If there is not, one must question the basis for why they think or believe that their stance is correct—that is, where there is logic to the reasoning or if the proposition is simply an emotion- or bias-based intuitive judgment. So, in addition to referencing, the teaching of some form of epistemology—perhaps early in children’s secondary school careers, might benefit students in future efforts to overcome some barriers to CT. Likewise, presenting examples of the observable impact that bias, emotions, and intuitive thought can have on their thinking might also facilitate overcoming these barriers.

As addressed above, it is acknowledged that we may not be able to ‘teach’ people not to be biased or emotionally driven in their thinking because it occurs naturally ( Kahneman 2011 )—regardless of how ‘skilled’ one might be in CT. For example, though research suggests that components of CT, such as disposition, can improve over relatively short periods of time (e.g., over the duration of a semester-long course; Rimiene 2002 ), less is known about how such components have been enhanced (given the difficulty often associated with trying to teach something like disposition ( Dwyer 2017 ); i.e., to reiterate, it is unlikely that simply ‘teaching’ (or telling) students to be motivated towards CT or to value it (or its associated concepts) will actually enhance it over short periods of time (e.g., semester-long training). Nevertheless, it is reasonable to suggest that, in light of such research, educators can encourage dispositional growth and provide opportunities to develop it. Likewise, it is recommended that educators encourage students to be aware of the cognitive barriers discussed and provide chances to engage in CT scenarios where such barriers are likely to play a role, thus, giving students opportunities to acknowledge the barriers and practice overcoming them. Moreover, making students aware of such barriers at younger ages—in a simplified manner, may promote the development of personal perspectives and approaches that are better able to overcome the discussed barriers to CT. This perspective is consistent with research on RJ ( Dwyer et al. 2015 ), in which it was recommended that such enhancement requires not only time to develop (be it over the course of a semester or longer) but is also a function of having increased opportunities to engage CT. In the possibilities described, individuals may learn both to overcome barriers to CT and from the positive outcomes of applying CT; and, perhaps, engage in some form of transformative learning ( Casey 2018 ; King 2009 ; Mezirow 1978 , 1990 ) that facilitates an enhanced ‘valuing’ of and motivation towards CT. For example, through growing an understanding of the nature of epistemology, intuitive-based thinking, emotion, bias, and the manner in which people often succumb to faulty reasoning in light of these, individuals may come to better understand the limits of knowledge, barriers to CT and how both understandings can be applied; thus, growing further appreciation of the process as it is needed.

To reiterate, research suggests that there may be a developmental trajectory above and beyond the parameters of a semester-long training course that is necessary to develop the RJ necessary to think critically and, likewise, engage an adequate epistemological stance and self-regulate against impeding cognitive processes ( Dwyer et al. 2015 ). Though such research suggests that such development may not be an issue of time, but rather the amount of opportunities to engage RJ and CT, there is a dearth of recommendations offered with respect to how this could be performed in practice. Moreover, the how and what regarding ‘opportunities for engagement’ requires further investigation as well. For example, does this require additional academic work outside the classroom in a formal manner, or does it require informal ‘exploration’ of the world of information on one’s own? If the latter, the case of motivational and dispositional levels once again comes into question; thus, even further consideration is needed. One way or another, future research efforts are necessary to identify how best to make individuals aware of barriers to CT, encourage them to self-regulate against them, and identify means of increasing opportunities to engage RJ and CT.

4. Conclusions

Taking heed that it is unnecessary to reinvent the CT wheel ( Eigenauer 2017 ), the aim of this review was to further elaborate on the processes associated with CT and make a valuable contribution to its literature with respect to conceptualisation—not just in light of making people explicitly aware of what it is, but also what it is not and how it can be impeded (e.g., through inadequate CT skills and dispositions; epistemological misunderstanding; intuitive judgment; as well as bias and emotion)—a perspective consistent with that of ‘constructive feedback’ wherein students need to know both what they are doing right and what they are doing wrong. This review further contributes to the CT education literature by identifying the importance of (1) engaging understanding of the nature, limits, and certainty of knowing as individuals traverse the landscape of evidence-bases in their research and ‘truth-seeking’; (2) understanding how emotions and biases can affect CT, regardless of the topic; (3) managing gut-level intuition until RJ has been appropriately engaged; and (4) the manner in which language is used to convey meaning to important and/or abstract concepts (e.g., ‘caring’, ‘proof’, causation/correlation, etc.). Consistent with the perspectives on research advancement presented in this review, it is acknowledged that the issues addressed here may not be complete and may themselves be advanced upon and updated in time; thus, future research is recommended and welcomed to improve and further establish our working conceptualisation of critical thinking, particularly in a real-world application.

Acknowledgments

The author would like to acknowledge, with great thanks and appreciation, John Eigenauer (Taft College) for his consult, review and advice regarding earlier versions of this manuscript.

Funding Statement

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Data availability statement, conflicts of interest.

The author declares no conflict of interest.

1 Notably, though inadequacies in cognitive resources (apart from those explicitly set within the conceptualisations of CT discussed; e.g., see Section 2.1 ) are acknowledged as impediments to one’s ability to apply CT (e.g., a lack of relevant background knowledge, as well as broader cognitive abilities and resources ( Dwyer 2017 ; Halpern 2014 ; Stanovich and Stanovich 2010 )), these will not be discussed as focus is largely restricted to issues of cognitive processes that ‘naturally’ act as barriers in their functioning. Moreover, such inadequacies may more so be issues of individual differences than ongoing issues that everyone , regardless of ability, would face in CT (e.g., the impact of emotion and bias). Nevertheless, it is recommended that future research further investigates the influence of such inadequacies in cognitive resources on CT.

2 There is also some research that suggests that emotion may mediate enhanced cognition ( Dolcos et al. 2011 , 2012 ). However, this discrepancy in findings may result from the types of emotion studied—such as task-relevant emotion and task-irrelevant emotion. The distinction between the two is important to consider in terms of, for example, the distinction between one’s general mood and feelings specific unto the topic under consideration. Though mood may play a role in the manner in which CT is conducted (e.g., making judgments about a topic one is passionate about may elicit positive or negative emotions that affect the thinker’s mood in some way), notably, this discussion focuses on task-relevant emotion and associated biases that negatively impact the CT process. This is also an important distinction because an individual may generally think critically about ‘important’ topics, but may fail to do so when faced with a cognitive task that requires CT with which the individual has a strong, emotional perspective (e.g., in terms of passion , as described above).

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

• Abrami Philip C., Bernard Robert M., Borokhovski Eugene, Waddington David I., Wade C. Anne, Persson Tonje. Strategies for teaching students to think critically: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research. 2015; 85 :275–314. doi: 10.3102/0034654314551063. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Abrami Philip C., Bernard Robert M., Borokhovski Evgueni, Wade Anne, Surkes Michael A., Tamim Rana, Zhang Dai. Instructional interventions affecting critical thinking skills and dispositions: A stage 1 meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research. 2008; 78 :1102–34. [ Google Scholar ]
• Afshar Hassan Soodmand, Rahimi Masoud. The relationship among critical thinking, emotional intelligence, and speaking abilities of Iranian EFL learners. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2014; 136 :75–79. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.05.291. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ahern Aoife, Dominguez Caroline, McNally Ciaran, O’Sullivan John J., Pedrosa Daniela. A literature review of critical thinking in engineering education. Studies in Higher Education. 2019; 44 :816–28. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2019.1586325. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Akbari-Lakeh M., Naderi A., Arbabisarjou A. Critical thinking and emotional intelligence skills and relationship with students’ academic achievement. Prensa Médica Argentina. 2018; 104 :2. [ Google Scholar ]
• Aliakbari Mohammad, Sadeghdaghighi Akram. Teachers’ perception of the barriers to critical thinking. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2013; 70 :1–5. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.01.031. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Anticevic Alan, Repovs Grega, Corlett Philip R., Barch Deanna M. Negative and nonemotional interference with visual working memory in schizophrenia. Biological Psychiatry. 2011; 70 :1159–68. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2011.07.010. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Baril Charles P., Cunningham Billie M., Fordham David R., Gardner Robert L., Wolcott Susan K. Critical thinking in the public accounting profession: Aptitudes and attitudes. Journal of Accounting Education. 1998; 16 :381–406. doi: 10.1016/S0748-5751(98)00023-2. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bar-On Reuven. The Bar-On model of emotional-social intelligence (ESI) Psicothema. 2006; 18 :13–25. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Baumeister Roy. The psychology of irrationality: Why people make foolish, self-defeating choices. The Psychology of Economic Decisions. 2003; 1 :3–16. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bezanilla María José, Fernández-Nogueira Donna, Poblete Manuel, Galindo-Domínguez Hector. Methodologies for teaching-learning critical thinking in higher education: The teacher’s view. Thinking Skills and Creativity. 2019; 33 :100584. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2019.100584. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Brabeck Mary Margaret. The relationship between critical thinking skills and development of reflective judgment among adolescent and adult women; Paper presented at the 89th annual convention of the American Psychological Association; Los Angeles, CA, USA. August 24–26; 1981. [ Google Scholar ]
• Butler Heather A., Dwyer Christopher P., Hogan Michael J., Franco Amanda, Rivas Silvia F., Saiz Carlos, Almeida Leandro S. The Halpern Critical Thinking Assessment and real-world outcomes: Cross-national applications. Thinking Skills and Creativity. 2012; 7 :112–21. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2012.04.001. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Byerly T. Ryan. Teaching for intellectual virtue in logic and critical thinking classes: Why and how. Teaching Philosophy. 2019; 42 :1. doi: 10.5840/teachphil201911599. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cabantous Laure, Gond Jean-Pascal, Johnson-Cramer Michael. Decision theory as practice: Crafting rationality in organizations. Organization Studies. 2010; 31 :1531–66. doi: 10.1177/0170840610380804. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cáceres Martín, Nussbaum Miguel, Ortiz Jorge. Integrating critical thinking into the classroom: A teacher’s perspective. Thinking Skills and Creativity. 2020; 37 :100674. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cader Raffik, Campbell Steve, Watson Don. Cognitive continuum theory in nursing decision-making. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 2005; 49 :397–405. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2004.03303.x. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Casey Helen. Doctoral dissertation. National University of Ireland; Galway, Ireland: 2018. Transformative Learning: An Exploration of the BA in Community and Family Studies Graduates’ Experiences. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chuah Lisa YM, Dolcos Florin, Chen Annette K., Zheng Hui, Parimal Sarayu, Chee Michael WL. Sleep deprivation and interference by emotional distracters. SLEEP. 2010; 33 :1305–13. doi: 10.1093/sleep/33.10.1305. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Clark Andy. Mindware: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Cognitive Science. Oxford University Press; New York: 2001. [ Google Scholar ]
• Commission on Fake News and the Teaching of Critical Literacy in Schools . Fake News and Critical Literacy: Final Report. National Literacy Trust; London: 2018. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cook John, Lewandowsky Stephan. The Debunking Handbook. University of Queensland; St. Lucia: 2011. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cornell Paul, Riordan Monica, Townsend-Gervis Mary, Mobley Robin. Barriers to critical thinking: Workflow interruptions and task switching among nurses. JONA: The Journal of Nursing Administration. 2011; 41 :407–14. doi: 10.1097/NNA.0b013e31822edd42. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Croskerry Pat, Singhal Geeta, Mamede Sílvia. Cognitive debiasing 2: Impediments to and strategies for change. BMJ Quality and Safety. 2013; 22 :ii65–ii72. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2012-001713. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Darling-Hammond Linda. How can we teach for meaningful learning? In: Darling-Hammond L., editor. Powerful Learning. Wiley; New York: 2008. pp. 1–10. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dawson Theo L. Prepared in Response to Tasking from ODNI/CHCO/IC Leadership Development Office. Developmental Testing Service, LLC; Northampton: 2008. Metacognition and learning in adulthood. [ Google Scholar ]
• Denkova Ekaterina, Wong Gloria, Dolcos Sanda, Sung Keen, Wang Lihong, Coupland Nicholas, Dolcos Florin. The impact of anxiety-inducing distraction on cognitive performance: A combined brain imaging and personality investigation. PLoS ONE. 2010; 5 :e14150. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0014150. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dhami Mandeep K., Thomson Mary E. On the relevance of cognitive continuum theory and quasirationality for understanding management judgment and decision making. European Management Journal. 2012; 30 :316–26. doi: 10.1016/j.emj.2012.02.002. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dolcos Florin, Iordan Alexandru D., Dolcos Sanda. Neural correlates of emotion–cognition interactions: A review of evidence from brain imaging investigations. Journal of Cognitive Psychology. 2011; 23 :669–94. doi: 10.1080/20445911.2011.594433. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dolcos Florin, McCarthy Gregory. Brain systems mediating cognitive interference by emotional distraction. Journal of Neuroscience. 2006; 26 :2072–79. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5042-05.2006. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dolcos Florin, Denkova Ekaterina, Dolcos Sanda. Neural correlates of emotional memories: A review of evidence from brain imaging studies. Psychologia. 2012; 55 :80–111. doi: 10.2117/psysoc.2012.80. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dumitru Daniela. Critical thinking and integrated programs. The problem of transferability. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2012; 33 :143–47. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.01.100. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dunwoody Philip T., Haarbauer Eric, Mahan Robert P., Marino Christopher, Tang Chu-Chun. Cognitive adaptation and its consequences: A test of cognitive continuum theory. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making. 2000; 13 :35–54. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-0771(200001/03)13:1<35::AID-BDM339>3.0.CO;2-U. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dwyer Christopher P. Doctoral thesis. National University of Ireland; Galway, Ireland: 2011. The Evaluation of Argument Mapping as a Learning Tool. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dwyer Christopher P. Critical Thinking: Conceptual Perspectives and Practical Guidelines. Cambridge University Press; Cambridge: 2017. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dwyer Christopher P. Teaching critical thinking. The SAGE Encyclopedia of Higher Education. 2020; 4 :1510–12. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dwyer Christopher P., Walsh Anne. A case study of the effects of critical thinking instruction through adult distance learning on critical thinking performance: Implications for critical thinking development. Educational Technology and Research. 2019; 68 :17–35. doi: 10.1007/s11423-019-09659-2. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dwyer Christopher P., Eigenauer John D. To Teach or not to Teach Critical Thinking: A Reply to Huber and Kuncel. Thinking Skills and Creativity. 2017; 26 :92–95. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2017.08.002. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dwyer Christopher P., Hogan Michael J., Stewart Ian. An evaluation of argument mapping as a method of enhancing critical thinking performance in e-learning environments. Metacognition and Learning. 2012; 7 :219–44. doi: 10.1007/s11409-012-9092-1. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dwyer Christopher P., Hogan Michael J., Stewart Ian. An integrated critical thinking framework for the 21st century. Thinking Skills and Creativity. 2014; 12 :43–52. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2013.12.004. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dwyer Christopher P., Hogan Michael J., Stewart Ian. The evaluation of argument mapping-infused critical thinking instruction as a method of enhancing reflective judgment performance. Thinking Skills & Creativity. 2015; 16 :11–26. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dwyer Christopher. P., Hogan Michael J., Harney Owen M., Kavanagh Caroline. Facilitating a Student-Educator Conceptual Model of Dispositions towards Critical Thinking through Interactive Management. Educational Technology & Research. 2016; 65 :47–73. [ Google Scholar ]
• Eigenauer John D. Don’t reinvent the critical thinking wheel: What scholarly literature says about critical thinking instruction. NISOD Innovation Abstracts. 2017; 39 :2. [ Google Scholar ]
• Elder Linda. Critical thinking: The key to emotional intelligence. Journal of Developmental Education. 1997; 21 :40. doi: 10.5840/inquiryctnews199616211. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ennis Robert H. A taxonomoy of critical thinking dispositions and abilities. In: Baron J. B., Sternberg R. J., editors. Teaching Thinking Skills: Theory and Practice. W.H. Freeman; New York: 1987. pp. 9–26. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ennis Robert H. Critical Thinking. Prentice-Hall; Upper Saddle River: 1996. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ennis Robert H. Is critical thinking culturally biased? Teaching Philosophy. 1998; 21 :15–33. doi: 10.5840/teachphil19982113. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ennis Robert. H. Critical thinking across the curriculum: A vision. Topoi. 2018; 37 :165–84. doi: 10.1007/s11245-016-9401-4. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Facione Noreen C., Facione Peter A. Analyzing explanations for seemingly irrational choices: Linking argument analysis and cognitive science. International Journal of Applied Philosophy. 2001; 15 :267–68. [ Google Scholar ]
• Facione Peter A. The Delphi Report: Committee on Pre-College Philosophy. California Academic Press; Millbrae: 1990. [ Google Scholar ]
• Facione Peter A., Facione Noreen C. CCTDI: A Disposition Inventory. California Academic Press; Millbrae: 1992. [ Google Scholar ]
• Facione Peter A., Facione Noreen C., Blohm Stephen W., Giancarlo Carol Ann F. The California Critical Thinking Skills Test: CCTST. California Academic Press; San Jose: 2002. [ Google Scholar ]
• Feyerherm Ann E., Rice Cheryl L. Emotional intelligence and team performance: The good, the bad and the ugly. International Journal of Organizational Analysis. 2002; 10 :343–63. doi: 10.1108/eb028957. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Flavell John H. Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. The Nature of Intelligence. 1976:231–36. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gabennesch Howard. Critical thinking… what is it good for? (In fact, what is it?) Skeptical Inquirer. 2006; 30 :36–41. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gadzella Bernadette M. Teaching and Learning Critical Thinking Skills. 1996.
• Gambrill Eileen. Evidence-based practice and policy: Choices ahead. Research on Social Work Practice. 2006; 16 :338–57. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ghanizadeh Afsaneh, Moafian Fatemeh. Critical thinking and emotional intelligence: Investigating the relationship among EFL learners and the contribution of age and gender. Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics. 2011; 14 :23–48. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gilovich Thomas, Griffin Dale, Kahneman Daniel., editors. Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment. Cambridge University Press; Cambridge: 2002. [ Google Scholar ]
• Glaser Edward. M. An Experiment in the Development of Critical Thinking. Teachers College of Columbia University, Bureau of Publications; New York: 1941. [ Google Scholar ]
• Goleman Daniel. Emotional Intelligence. Bantam; New York: 1995. [ Google Scholar ]
• Halpern Diane F. Thought & Knowledge: An Introduction to Critical Thinking. 5th ed. Psychology Press; London: 2014. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hamm Robert M. Clinical intuition and clinical analysis: Expertise and the cognitive continuum. In: Dowie J., Elstein A. S., editors. Professional Judgment: A Reader in Clinical Decision Making. Cambridge University Press; Cambridge: 1988. pp. 78–105. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hammond Kenneth R. Principles of Organization in Intuitive and Analytical Cognition. Center for Research on Judgment and Policy, University of Colorado; Boulder: 1981. Report No. 231. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hammond Kenneth R. Upon reflection. Thinking and Reasoning. 1996; 2 :239–48. doi: 10.1080/135467896394537. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hammond Kenneth R. Judgments Under Stress. Oxford University Press on Demand; New York: 2000. [ Google Scholar ]
• Haynes Ada, Lisic Elizabeth, Goltz Michele, Stein Barry, Harris Kevin. Moving beyond assessment to improving students’ critical thinking skills: A model for implementing change. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning. 2016; 16 :44–61. doi: 10.14434/josotl.v16i4.19407. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hitchcock David. The effectiveness of computer-assisted instruction in critical thinking. Informal Logic. 2004; 24 :183–218. doi: 10.22329/il.v24i3.2145. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Huffman Karen, Vernoy Mark W., William Barbara F. Studying Psychology in Action: A Study Guide to Accompany Psychology in Action. Wiley; Hoboken: 1991. [ Google Scholar ]
• Iordan Alexandru D., Dolcos Sanda, Dolcos Florin. Neural signatures of the response to emotional distraction: A review of evidence from brain imaging investigations. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. 2013; 7 :200. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00200. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Johnson Marcia K., Raye Carol L., Mitchell Karen J., Greene Erich J., Cunningham William A., Sanislow Charles A. Using fMRI to investigate a component process of reflection: Prefrontal correlates of refreshing a just-activated representation. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience. 2005; 5 :339–61. doi: 10.3758/CABN.5.3.339. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jukes I., McCain T. Minds in Play: Computer Game Design as a Context of Children’s Learning. Erlbaum; Hillsdale: 2002. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kahneman Daniel. Thinking Fast and Slow. Penguin; Great Britain: 2011. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kahneman Daniel, Frederick Shane. Representativeness revisited: Attribute substitution in 240 intuitive judgment. In: Gilovich T., Griffin D., Kahneman D., editors. Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment. Cambridge University Press; New York: 2002. pp. 49–81. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kahneman Daniel, Slovic Paul, Tversky Amos., editors. Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Cambridge University Press; Cambridge: 1982. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kaya Hülya, Şenyuva Emine, Bodur Gönül. Developing critical thinking disposition and emotional intelligence of nursing students: A longitudinal research. Nurse Education Today. 2017; 48 :72–77. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2016.09.011. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• King Kathleen P. Adult Education Special Topics: Theory, Research, and Practice in Lifelong Learning. Information Age Publishing; Charlotte: 2009. The Handbook of the Evolving Research of Transformative Learning Based on the Learning Activities Survey. [ Google Scholar ]
• King Patricia M., Kitchener Karen S. Reflective judgment: Theory and research on the development of epistemic assumptions through adulthood. Educational Psychologist. 2004; 39 :5–18. doi: 10.1207/s15326985ep3901_2. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• King Patricia M., Wood Phillip K., Mines Robert A. Critical thinking among college and graduate students. The Review of Higher Education. 1990; 13 :167–86. doi: 10.1353/rhe.1990.0026. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• King Patricia. M., Kitchener Karen. Developing Reflective Judgment: Understanding and Promoting Intellectual Growth and Critical Thinking in Adolescents and Adults. Jossey Bass; San Francisco: 1994. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kruger Justin, Dunning David. Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-Assessments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1999; 77 :1121–34. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.77.6.1121. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ku Kelly Y. L. Assessing students’ critical thinking performance: Urging for measurements using multi-response format. Thinking Skills and Creativity. 2009; 4 :70–76. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2009.02.001. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ku Kelly Y. L., Ho Irene T. Dispositional factors predicting Chinese students’ critical thinking performance. Personality and Individual Differences. 2010a; 48 :54–58. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2009.08.015. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ku Kelly Y. L., Ho Irene T. Metacognitive strategies that enhance critical thinking. Metacognition and Learning. 2010b; 5 :251–67. doi: 10.1007/s11409-010-9060-6. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kuhn Deanna. A developmental model of critical thinking. Educational Researcher. 1999; 28 :16–25. doi: 10.3102/0013189X028002016. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kuhn Deanna. Metacognitive development. Current Directions in Psychological Science. 2000; 9 :178–81. doi: 10.1111/1467-8721.00088. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Leventhal Howard. A perceptual-motor theory of emotion. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. 1984; 17 :117–82. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lloyd Margaret, Bahr Nan. Thinking critically about critical thinking in higher education. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning. 2010; 4 :1–16. [ Google Scholar ]
• Loftus Elizabeth. F. Eavesdropping on memory. Annual Review of Psychology. 2017; 68 :1–18. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-010416-044138. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ma Lihong, Luo Haifeng. Chinese pre-service teachers’ cognitions about cultivating critical thinking in teaching English as a foreign language. Asia Pacific Journal of Education. 2021; 41 :543–57. doi: 10.1080/02188791.2020.1793733. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ma Lihong, Liu Ning. Teacher belief about integrating critical thinking in English teaching in China. Journal of Education for Teaching. 2022; 49 :137–52. doi: 10.1080/02607476.2022.2044267. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mahmood Khalid. Do people overestimate their information literacy skills? A systematic review of empirical evidence on the Dunning-Kruger effect. Communications in Information Literacy. 2016; 10 :199–213. doi: 10.15760/comminfolit.2016.10.2.24. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mangena Agnes, Chabeli Mary M. Strategies to overcome obstacles in the facilitation of critical thinking in nursing education. Nurse Education Today. 2005; 25 :291–98. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2005.01.012. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McGuinness Carol. Teaching thinking: Learning how to think; Presented at the Psychological Society of Ireland and British Psychological Association’sPublic Lecture Series; Galway, Ireland. March 6; 2013. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mezirow Jack. Perspective Transformation. Adult Education. 1978; 28 :100–10. doi: 10.1177/074171367802800202. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mezirow Jack. How Critical Reflection Triggers Transformative Learning. In: Mezirow J., editor. Fostering Critical Reflection in Adulthood. Jossey Bass; San Francisco: 1990. pp. 1–20. [ Google Scholar ]
• Most Steven B., Chun Marvin M., Widders David M., Zald David H. Attentional rubbernecking: Cognitive control and personality in emotioninduced blindness. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review. 2005; 12 :654–61. doi: 10.3758/BF03196754. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Niu Lian, Behar-Horenstein Linda S., Garvan Cyndi W. Do instructional interventions influence college students’ critical thinking skills? A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review. 2013; 9 :114–28. doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2012.12.002. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Norris Stephen P. Critical Thinking: Current Research, Theory, and Practice. Kluwer; Dordrecht: 1994. The meaning of critical thinking test performance: The effects of abilities and dispositions on scores; pp. 315–29. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nyhan Brendan, Reifler Jason, Richey Sean, Freed Gary L. Effective messages in vaccine promotion: A randomized trial. Pediatrics. 2014; 133 :E835–E842. doi: 10.1542/peds.2013-2365. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ortiz Claudia Maria Alvarez. Master’s thesis. University of Melbourne; Melbourne, VIC, Australia: 2007. Does Philosophy Improve Critical Thinking Skills? [ Google Scholar ]
• Paul Richard W. Critical Thinking: What Every Person Needs to Survive in a Rapidly Changing World. Foundation for Critical Thinking; Santa Barbara: 1993. [ Google Scholar ]
• Paul Richard, Elder Linda. Critical. The Foundation for Critical Thinking; Dillon Beach: 2008. Thinking. [ Google Scholar ]
• Perkins David N., Jay Eileen, Tishman Shari. Beyond abilities: A dispositional theory of thinking. Merrill Palmer Quarterly. 1993; 39 :1. [ Google Scholar ]
• Perkins David, Ritchhart Ron. Motivation, Emotion, and Cognition. Routledge; London: 2004. When is good thinking? pp. 365–98. [ Google Scholar ]
• Popper Karl R. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Routledge; London: 1959. First published 1934. [ Google Scholar ]
• Popper Karl R. All Life Is Problem Solving. Psychology Press; London: 1999. [ Google Scholar ]
• Quinn Sarah, Hogan Michael, Dwyer Christopher, Finn Patrick, Fogarty Emer. Development and Validation of the Student-Educator Negotiated Critical Thinking Dispositions Scale (SENCTDS) Thinking Skills and Creativity. 2020; 38 :100710. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2020.100710. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rear David. One size fits all? The limitations of standardised assessment in critical thinking. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. 2019; 44 :664–75. [ Google Scholar ]
• Reed Jennifer H., Kromrey Jeffrey D. Teaching critical thinking in a community college history course: Empirical evidence from infusing Paul’s model. College Student Journal. 2001; 35 :201–15. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rimiene Vaiva. Assessing and developing students’ critical thinking. Psychology Learning & Teaching. 2002; 2 :17–22. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rowe Matthew P., Gillespie B. Marcus, Harris Kevin R., Koether Steven D., Shannon Li-Jen Y., Rose Lori A. Redesigning a general education science course to promote critical thinking. CBE—Life Sciences Education. 2015; 14 :ar30. doi: 10.1187/cbe.15-02-0032. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Saleh Salamah Embark. Critical thinking as a 21st century skill: Conceptions, implementation and challenges in the EFL classroom. European Journal of Foreign Language Teaching. 2019; 4 :1. doi: 10.5281/zenodo.2542838. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Salovey Peter, Mayer John D. Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition and Personality. 1990; 9 :185–211. doi: 10.2190/DUGG-P24E-52WK-6CDG. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schutte Nicola S., Malouff John M., Hall Lena E., Haggerty Donald J., Cooper Joan T., Golden Charles J., Dornheim Liane. Development and validation of a measure of emotional intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences. 1998; 25 :167–77. doi: 10.1016/S0191-8869(98)00001-4. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shackman Alexander J., Sarinopoulos Issidoros, Maxwell Jeffrey S., Pizzagalli Diego A., Lavric Aureliu, Davidson Richard J. Anxiety selectively disrupts visuospatial working memory. Emotion. 2006; 6 :40–61. doi: 10.1037/1528-3542.6.1.40. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Siegel Harvey. What (good) are thinking dispositions? Educational Theory. 1999; 49 :207–21. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-5446.1999.00207.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Simon Herbert A. Models of Man. Wiley; New York: 1957. [ Google Scholar ]
• Slovic Paul, Fischhoff Baruch, Lichtenstein Sarah. Behavioral decision theory. Annual Review of Psychology. 1977; 28 :1–39. doi: 10.1146/annurev.ps.28.020177.000245. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Slovic Paul, Finucane Melissa, Peters Ellen, MacGregor Donald G. Rational actors or rational fools: Implications of the affect heuristic for behavioral economics. The Journal of SocioEconomics. 2002; 31 :329–42. doi: 10.1016/S1053-5357(02)00174-9. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Solon Tom. Generic critical thinking infusion and course content learning in Introductory Psychology. Journal of Instructional Psychology. 2007; 34 :95–109. [ Google Scholar ]
• Stanovich Keith E. Miserliness in human cognition: The interaction of detection, override and mindware. Thinking & Reasoning. 2018; 24 :423–44. [ Google Scholar ]
• Stanovich Keith E., Stanovich Paula J. A framework for critical thinking, rational thinking, and intelligence. In: Preiss D. D., Sternberg R. J., editors. Innovations in Educational Psychology: Perspectives on Learning, Teaching, and Human Development. Springer Publishing Company; Berlin/Heidelberg: 2010. pp. 195–237. [ Google Scholar ]
• Stanovich Keith E., West Richard F. Individual differences in reasoning: Implications for the rationality debate? Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 2000; 23 :645–65. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X00003435. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stanovich Keith E., West Richard F., Toplak Maggie E. The Rationality Quotient: Toward a Test of Rational Thinking. MIT Press; Cambridge: 2016. [ Google Scholar ]
• Stedman Nicole LP, Andenoro Anthony C. Identification of relationships between emotional intelligence skill and critical thinking disposition in undergraduate leadership students. Journal of Leadership Education. 2007; 6 :190–208. doi: 10.12806/V6/I1/RF10. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Strack Fritz, Martin Leonard L., Schwarz Norbert. Priming and communication: Social determinants of information use in judgments of life satisfaction. European Journal of Social Psychology. 1988; 18 :429–42. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.2420180505. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Swami Viren, Furnham Adrian. Political paranoia and conspiracy theories. In: van Prooijen J. W., van Lange P. A. M., editors. Power, Politics, and Paranoia: Why People Are Suspicious of Their Leaders. Cambridge University Press; Cambridge: 2014. pp. 218–36. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sweller John. Cognitive load theory: Recent theoretical advances. In: Plass J. L., Moreno R., Brünken R., editors. Cognitive Load Theory. Cambridge University Press; New York: 2010. pp. 29–47. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tavris Carol, Aronson Elliot. Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me) Harcourt; Orlando: 2007. [ Google Scholar ]
• Teichert Tobias, Ferrera Vincent P., Grinband Jack. Humans optimize decision-making by delaying decision onset. PLoS ONE. 2014; 9 :e89638. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0089638. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tversky Amos, Kahneman Daniel. Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science. 1974; 185 :1124–31. doi: 10.1126/science.185.4157.1124. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Valenzuela Jorge, Nieto Ana, Saiz Carlos. Critical Thinking Motivational Scale: A 253 contribution to the study of relationship between critical thinking and motivation. Journal of Research in Educational Psychology. 2011; 9 :823–48. doi: 10.25115/ejrep.v9i24.1475. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Varian Hal, Lyman Peter. How Much Information? School of Information Management and Systems, UC Berkeley; Berkeley: 2003. [ Google Scholar ]
• Vohs Kathleen D., Baumeister Roy F., Schmeichel Brandon J., Twenge Jean M., Nelson Noelle M., Tice Dianne M. Making choices impairs subsequent self-control: A limited-resource account of decision making, self-regulation, and active initiative. Personality Processes and Individual Differences. 2014; 94 :883–98. doi: 10.1037/2333-8113.1.S.19. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yao Xiaonan, Yuan Shuge, Yang Wenjing, Chen Qunlin, Wei Dongtao, Hou Yuling, Zhang Lijie, Qiu Jiang, Yang Dong. Emotional intelligence moderates the relationship between regional gray matter volume in the bilateral temporal pole and critical thinking disposition. Brain Imaging and Behavior. 2018; 12 :488–98. doi: 10.1007/s11682-017-9701-3. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

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

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

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Thinking Like a Social Worker: Examining the Meaning of Critical Thinking in Social Work

Critical thinking is frequently used to describe how social workers ought to reason. But how well has this concept helped us to develop a normative description of what it means to think like a social worker? This critical review mines the literature on critical thinking for insight into the kinds of thinking social work scholars consider important. Analysis indicates that critical thinking in social work is generally treated as a form of practical reasoning. Further, epistemological disagreements divide 2 distinct proposals for how practical reasoning in social work should proceed. Although these disagreements have received little attention in the literature, they have important implications for social work practice.

Related Papers

Journal of Teaching in Social Work

Empathy Study

Helena Rocha

Teresa Aurora Carmona Scott

Vol. 4(2), 1-7

Kathiresan Loganathan

Social Work as an applied discipline aims to 'help people to help themselves'. Its knowledge base originates and thrives on western theories, perspectives, models and dimensions of various other disciplines, which is applied within the vast realms of social work practice. Theories of social work are broadly categorized into two types. The first one relates to theories that help social workers to understand individuals and their problems in various settings such as family, group, community and society; and thus help these professionals to intervene effectively. The second one deals with practice theories which are derived from the field. Many of these western oriented theories overlook the importance of socio-economic, cultural and political milieu of the non-western societies. While applying these theories, the practitioners thus face a multitude of challenges; and hence they tend to become dogmatic in their perseverance towards goal achievement. This paper argues that if critical reflection is used as a method of theorization, it would provide an inclusive approach (bottomup) as against the rigid deductive empirical (top-down) theories.

EDULEARN Proceedings

Inês Casquilho-Martins

Jeremiah Nyongesa

Brian Cooper

Summary This study is a preliminary definitional study that examines the idea of literacy and critical thinking in social work practice, especially as it applies to evidenced-based practice. It is not a definitive study as such, but more an exploration of what would constitute literacy and critical thinking in social work practice especially in a changing policy framework that requires greater accountability for practice through an evidence-based approach. The paper accepts the proposition that the essence of literacy is the communication of an idea or concept in a way others who are not familiar with that idea are able to understand it. The study examined five related areas, which would be considered important for the basis the background understanding required to participate in the evidenced-based discourse. These are critical thinking, statistical literacy, data visualisation, data literacy and information literacy. Findings Whilst there are differences in what is understood as literacy of the various areas, there are also commonalities between each area. The emphasis that evidenced-based practice will require in the mode and method of argument to be used will be based on the principles of argument that arise will be influenced by critical thinking, statistical literacy, data visualisation, data literacy or information literacy. Application The application of this preliminary study to social work practice is how one views and communicates information and observations to a wider audience. It provides a basis for argument for social work practice to be able to participate in a discourse dealing with evidence-based practice whilst within the ethical and values framework of social work philosophy. Key Words Critical thinking, statistical literacy, data visualisation, information literacy, evidenced-based practice, social work, disadvantage, spatial literacy

The Routledge Handbook of Critical Social Work

Christopher Thorpe

This chapter critically considers the steady turn away from social theory within social work generally, and the unintended consequences of this for critical social work specifically. Historically, social theoretical concepts and forms of argumentation have played a decisive role in shaping the ideational and normative agenda of critical social work. As the relationship between social work and social theory has steadily broken down, however, the latter has become increasingly (mis-)understood and (mis-)represented by the former. Herein, the argument is made that current (mis-)conceptions of social theory divert attention away from the fact that social workers ‘do’ a form of critical social theorizing all the time, albeit in ways that are actively and institutionally misrecognised. Putting to work various social theoretical concepts and forms of argumentation, the chapter calls for critical social workers to (re-)present the relationship between social work and social theory to social workers. Doing so constitutes a crucial step towards ameliorating the intellectual conditions of reception for the critical social work message.

Critical Social Work Praxis

Sobia Shaheen Shaikh

Chapter 1 of Critical Social Work Praxis, written by Brenda A. LeFrancois, Teresa Macias, and Sobia Shaheen Shaikh

Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Social Services

Lorraine Moya Salas

Social work is rich in ideologies and traditions. One of our defining characteristics has been that we struggle with dichotomies. The focus of this article relates to our practice dichotomy: the struggle between service to the individual and change of the environment. This article uses critical theory as an ideological foundation to bridge the dichotomous approach between micro and macro social work practice. Applying critical theory to social work practice fits well with the professional values of enhancement of people&#39;s well-being, promotion of social justice, and empowerment of oppressed populations, while blending micro and macro practice. The article concludes with guidelines for critical social work practice.

RELATED PAPERS

International Journal of Engineering Research and Technology (IJERT)

IJERT Journal

Antibiotik untuk Infeksi Saluran Kencing (ISK) Paling Rekomended Dan Tidak Menimbulkan Efek Samping

Obat ISK Ampuh

Doug Seeley

Linguagem em (Dis)curso

Vanise Medeiros

Science Advances

Diego Pasini

Silvana Mima

Syed Ali Raza

International Journal of Sustainable Built Environment

Srikonda Ramesh

Ian Griffin

Ineke Goudswaard

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care

Marc Gewillig

Mary Lopretti

Journal of Economics and Business

Saranna Thornton

James Donovan

International Journal of Electrical and Computer Engineering (IJECE)

Ibrahim Mohammed

Physical Review Letters

Jose garcia coello

yoshifumi konishi

Jurnal Riset Manajemen dan Bisnis

Murti Lestari

Revista de Demografía Histórica

Alejandro Ríos Conejero

"Gdanski Notatnik Historyczny"

Igor Hałagida

Francisco Arciniega

HAL (Le Centre pour la Communication Scientifique Directe)

Fabienne CHAMEROY

tyghfg hjgfdfd

The Open Agriculture Journal

teklay tesfay

SN Comprehensive Clinical Medicine

Colette Andree

RELATED TOPICS

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

Teaching Critical Thinking– A Task-Based Approach: Work in Progress

• Conference paper
• First Online: 01 January 2023
• Cite this conference paper

• Elena Mäkiö   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-9624-0871 11 &
• Juho Mäkiö   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-9987-7600 11  

Part of the book series: Communications in Computer and Information Science ((CCIS,volume 1720))

Included in the following conference series:

• International Conference on Technology and Innovation in Learning, Teaching and Education

1006 Accesses

1 Citations

While there is large body of literature devoted to teaching critical thinking (CT) in higher education, there is no consensus on what educational approaches and instructional methods are best for developing CT in students. Although many scholarly studies have explored various methods for teaching CT, there are still no conclusive findings about their impact. This study proposes a task-based educational approach that aims to teach both domain-specific skills and CT skills and dispositions. This approach integrates the teaching of CT into the subject instruction and can be applied across disciplines. To evaluate the impact of this approach on the development of CT skills in students, two educational experiments were conducted. For these experiments, two modules “Innovation management” and “Scientific seminar” were developed according to this approach and deployed at the University of Applied Sciences Emden/Leer. The Critical Thinking Assessment Tool, developed as part of the Think4Jobs project and proven in terms of validity and reliability, was used to measure students’ CT skills and dispositions. At the time of writing this paper, this tool has been used to record students‘ self-assessments at the beginning of the experiments. As this study is still in progress, further data collection, data analysis and presentation of the findings will be published later.

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

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight 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

Lai, E.R.: Critical thinking: a literature review. Pearson’s Research Reports 6 , 40–41 (2011)

Google Scholar  

Facione, P.: Critical thinking: A statement of expert consensus for purposes of educational assessment and instruction (The Delphi Report) (1990)

Abrami, P.C., et al.: Instructional interventions affecting critical thinking skills and dispositions: a stage 1 meta-analysis. Rev. Educ. Res. 78 , 1102–1134 (2008)

Article   Google Scholar  

Abrami, P.C., Bernard, R.M., Borokhovski, E., Waddington, D.I., Wade, C.A., Persson, T.: Strategies for teaching students to think critically: a meta-analysis. Rev. Educ. Res. 85 , 275–314 (2015)

Anderson, L.W., Krathwohl, D.R.: A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: a revision of Bloom"s taxonomy of educational objectives. abridged edition. Longman, New York (2001)

Uden, L., Willis, N.: Learning strategies for information systems students. Enabling Society with Information Technology, Jin, Q., Li, J., Zhang, N., Cheng, J., Yu, C., Noguchi, C., eds.: Springer, Japan, pp. 268–275 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-4-431-66979-1_26

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

Lee, W., Chiang, C.-H., Liao, I.-C., Lee, M.-L., Chen, S.-L., Liang, T.: The longitudinal effect of concept map teaching on critical thinking of nursing students. Nurse Educ. Today 33 , 1219–1223 (2013)

Pnevmatikos, D., Christodoulou, P., Georgiadou, T.: Promoting critical thinking in higher education through the values and knowledge education (V a KE) method. Stud. High. Educ. 44 , 892–901 (2019)

Cáceres, M., Nussbaum, M., Ortiz, J.: Integrating critical thinking into the classroom: a teacher’s perspective. Thinking Skills Creativity 37 , 100674 (2020)

Cargas, S., Williams, S., Rosenberg, M.: An approach to teaching critical thinking across disciplines using performance tasks with a common rubric. Thinking Skills and Creativity 26 , 24–37 (2017)

Duron, R., Limbach, B., Waugh, W.: Critical thinking framework for any discipline. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, vol. 17, pp. 160–166 (2006)

Adler, M.J.: Why ‘Critical Thinking’ Programs Won’t Work?. Education Week (1986)

Kolmos, A., Holgaard, J.E., Clausen, N.R.: Progression of student self-assessed learning outcomes in systemic PBL. Eur. J. Eng. Educ. 46 , 67–89 (2021)

Mäkiö, E., Azmat, F., Ahmad, B., Harrison, R., Colombo, A.W.: T-CHAT educational framework for teaching cyber-physical system engineering. European Journal of Engineering Education, pp. 1–30 (2021)

Willingham, D.T.: Critical thinking: why is it so hard to teach? Arts Educ. Policy Review 109 , 21–32 (2008)

Westwood, P.S.: What Teachers Need to Know About Teaching Methods. ACER Press, Australia (2008)

Kurki-Suonio, K.: Principles supporting the perceptional teaching of physics: a “practical teaching philosophy? Sci. Educ. 20 , 211–243 (2011)

Creswell, J.W.: Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. Sage publications, London (2009)

Anderson, G., Arsenault, N.: Fundamentals of Educational Research. Falmer, London (2005)

Book   Google Scholar  

Shadish, W.R., Luellen, J.K.: Quasi-experimental design. Handbook of Complementary Methods in Education Research, Green, J.L., Camilli, G., Elmore, P.B., eds.: Routledge, Abingdon, pp. 539–550 (2006)

Nair, G.G.: Preliminary psychometric characteristics of the critical thinking self-assessment scale. Citeseer (2011)

Quinn, S., Hogan, M., Dwyer, C., Finn, P., Fogarty, E.: Development and validation of the student-educator negotiated critical thinking dispositions scale (SENCTDS). Thinking Skills and Creativity 38 , 100710 (2020)

Huizingh, E.K.: Open innovation: state of the art and future perspectives. Technovation 31 , 2–9 (2011)

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

University of Applied Sciences Emden/Leer, 26723, Emden, Germany

Elena Mäkiö & Juho Mäkiö

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elena Mäkiö .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

University of Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro, Vila Real, Portugal

Arsénio Reis

João Barroso

Paulo Martins

University of Peloponnese, Tripoli, Greece

Athanassios Jimoyiannis

National Cheng Kung University, Tainan City, Taiwan

Ray Yueh-Min Huang

Nova IMS, Lisbon, Portugal

Roberto Henriques

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Cite this paper.

Mäkiö, E., Mäkiö, J. (2022). Teaching Critical Thinking– A Task-Based Approach: Work in Progress. In: Reis, A., Barroso, J., Martins, P., Jimoyiannis, A., Huang, R.YM., Henriques, R. (eds) Technology and Innovation in Learning, Teaching and Education. TECH-EDU 2022. Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol 1720. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-22918-3_20

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-22918-3_20

Published : 01 January 2023

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-031-22917-6

Online ISBN : 978-3-031-22918-3

eBook Packages : Computer Science Computer Science (R0)

Share this paper

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

• Search Menu
• Advance articles
• Editor's Choice
• Author Guidelines
• Submission Site
• Open Access
• About The British Journal of Social Work
• About the British Association of Social Workers
• Editorial Board
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Journals Career Network
• Self-Archiving Policy
• Dispatch Dates
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

• Introduction
• ‘Looking at art’: VTS, visual literacy and critical inquiry
• VTS in medical, nursing and IPE
• VTS in social work education
• Implications for social work education
• A concluding note
• Acknowledgements
• < Previous

Integrating Visual Thinking Strategies in Social Work Education: Opportunities for the Future?

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

Deborah Lynch, Integrating Visual Thinking Strategies in Social Work Education: Opportunities for the Future?, The British Journal of Social Work , Volume 52, Issue 3, April 2022, Pages 1643–1661, https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcab121

• Permissions Icon Permissions

Pedagogy associated with engaging with the arts in social work education is a developing area of exploration and research. This conceptual article explores the potential use of Visual Thinking Strategies (VTS), which is a methodology where students look at artwork and discuss with peers. It draws on some existing literature on visual thinking or a similar pedagogical approach to stimulate thought and debate on the use of the methodology in contemporary social work education. The links discovered between VTS, critical inquiry and visual literacy highlight the relevance, and the potential of this methodology to contribute to student learning outcomes in direct practice social work courses through connecting skills-based competency with cognitive processes, such as critical inquiry and creativity. Engaging social work students in VTS can advance skills in observing, processing and communicating reasoning to peers in situations of ambiguity, which are critical for assessment and decision making in their future professional practice. There is a potential for students to engage with VTS in inter-professional education with medical, nursing and allied health students to facilitate communication and collaborative problem-solving. The article identifies the need for research to evaluate the use of VTS in the context of art-based pedagogies in social work.

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

• Recommend to your Library

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 1468-263X
• Print ISSN 0045-3102
• Copyright © 2024 British Association of Social Workers
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

• USC Libraries
• Research Guides

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper

• Applying Critical Thinking
• Purpose of Guide
• Design Flaws to Avoid
• Independent and Dependent Variables
• Glossary of Research Terms
• Reading Research Effectively
• Narrowing a Topic Idea
• Broadening a Topic Idea
• Extending the Timeliness of a Topic Idea
• Academic Writing Style
• Choosing a Title
• Making an Outline
• Paragraph Development
• Research Process Video Series
• Executive Summary
• The C.A.R.S. Model
• Background Information
• The Research Problem/Question
• Theoretical Framework
• Citation Tracking
• Content Alert Services
• Evaluating Sources
• Primary Sources
• Secondary Sources
• Tiertiary Sources
• Scholarly vs. Popular Publications
• Qualitative Methods
• Quantitative Methods
• Insiderness
• Using Non-Textual Elements
• Limitations of the Study
• Common Grammar Mistakes
• Writing Concisely
• Avoiding Plagiarism
• Footnotes or Endnotes?
• Further Readings
• Generative AI and Writing
• USC Libraries Tutorials and Other Guides
• Bibliography

Critical thinking refers to deliberately scrutinizing and evaluating theories, concepts, or ideas using reasoned reflection and analysis. The act of thinking critically involves moving beyond simply understanding information, but rather, to question its source, its production, and its presentation in order to expose potential bias or researcher subjectivity [i.e., being influenced by personal opinions and feelings rather than by external determinants ] . Applying critical thinking to investigating a research problem involves actively challenging basic assumptions and questioning the choices and potential motives underpinning how the author designed the study, conducted the research, and arrived at particular conclusions or recommended courses of action.

Mintz, Steven. "How the Word "Critical" Came to Signify the Leading Edge of Cultural Analysis." Higher Ed Gamma Blog , Inside Higher Ed, February 13, 2024; Van Merriënboer, Jeroen JG and Paul A. Kirschner. Ten Steps to Complex Learning: A Systematic Approach to Four-component Instructional Design . New York: Routledge, 2017.

Thinking Critically

Applying Critical Thinking to Research and Writing

Professors like to use the term critical thinking; in fact, the idea of being a critical thinker permeates much of higher education writ large. In the classroom, the idea of thinking critically is often mentioned by professors when students ask how they should approach a research and writing assignment [other approaches your professor might mention include interdisciplinarity, comparative, gendered, global, etc.]. However, critical thinking is more than just an approach to research and writing. It is an acquired skill associated with becoming a complex learner capable of discerning important relationships among the elements of, as well as integrating multiple ways of understanding applied to, the research problem. Critical thinking is a lens through which you holistically interrogate a topic.

Given this, thinking critically encompasses a variety of inter-related connotations applied to writing a college-level research paper:

• Integrated and Multi-Dimensional . Critical thinking is not focused on any one element of research, but instead, is applied holistically throughout the process of identifying the research problem, reviewing the literature, applying methods of analysis, describing the results, discussing their implications, and, if appropriate, offering recommendations for further research. It permeates the entire research endeavor from contemplating what to write to proofreading the final product.
• Humanizes the Research . Thinking critically can help humanize what is being studied by extending the scope of your analysis beyond the traditional boundaries of prior research. This prior research could have involved, for example, sampling homogeneous populations, considering only certain factors related to the investigation of a phenomenon, or limiting the way authors framed or contextualized their study. Critical thinking creates opportunities to incorporate the experiences of others into the research process, leading to a more inclusive and representative examination of the topic.
• Non-Linear . This refers to analyzing a research problem in ways that do not rely on sequential decision-making or rational forms of reasoning. Creative thinking relies on intuitive judgement, flexibility, and unconventional approaches to investigating complex phenomena in order to discover new insights, connections, and potential solutions . This involves going back and modifying your thinking as new evidence emerges , perhaps multiple times throughout the research process, and drawing conclusions from multiple perspectives.
• Normative . This is the idea that critical thinking can be used to challenge prior assumptions in ways that advocate for social justice, equity, and inclusion and that can lead to research having a more transformative and expansive impact. In this respect, critical thinking can be viewed as a method for breaking away from dominant culture norms so as to produce research outcomes that illuminate previously hidden aspects of exploitation and injustice.
• Power Dynamics . Research in the social sciences often includes examining aspects of power and influence that shape social relations, organizations, institutions, and the production and maintenance of knowledge. These studies focus on how power operates, how it can be acquired, and how power and influence can be maintained. Critical thinking can reveal how societal structures perpetuate power and influence in ways that marginalizes and oppresses certain groups or communities within the contexts of history , politics, economics, culture, and other factors.
• Reflection . A key component of critical thinking is practicing reflexivity; the act of turning ideas and concepts back onto yourself in order to reveal and clarify your own beliefs, assumptions, and perspectives. Being critically reflexive is important because it can reveal hidden biases you may have that could unintentionally influence how you interpret and validate information. The more reflexive you are, the better able and more comfortable you are in opening yourself up to new modes of understanding.
• Rigorous Questioning . Thinking critically is guided by asking questions that lead to addressing complex concepts, principles, theories, or problems more effectively and, in so doing, help distinguish what is known from from what is not known [or that may be hidden]. Critical thinking involves deliberately framing inquiries not just as research questions, but as a way to apply systematic, disciplined,  in-depth forms of questioning concerning the research problem and your positionality as a researcher.
• Social Change . An overarching goal of critical thinking applied to research and writing is to seek to identify and challenge sources of inequality, exploitation, oppression, and marinalization that contributes to maintaining the status quo within institutions of society. This can include entities, such as, schools, courts, businesses, government agencies, or religious organizations, that have been created and maintained through certain ways of thinking within the dominant culture.

Although critical thinking permeates the entire research and writing process, it applies most directly to the literature review and discussion sections of your paper . In reviewing the literature, it is important to reflect upon specific aspects of a study, such as, determining if the research design effectively establishes cause and effect relationships or provides insight into explaining why certain phenomena do or do not occur, assessing whether the method of gathering data or information supports the objectives of the study, and evaluating if the assumptions used t o arrive at a specific conclusion are evidence-based and relevant to addressing the research problem. However, an assessment of whether a source is helpful to investigating the research problem also involves critically analyzing how the research challenges conventional approaches to investigations that perpetuate inequalities or hides the voices of others.

Critical thinking applies to the discussion section of your paper because this is where you internalize the results of your study and explain its significance. This involves more than summarizing findings and describing outcomes. It includes reflecting on their importance and providing reasoned explanations why your paper is important in filling a gap in the literature or expanding knowledge and understanding in ways that inform practice. Critical reflection helps you think introspectively about your own beliefs concerning the significance of the findings, but in ways that avoid biased judgment and decision making.

Behar-Horenstein, Linda S., and Lian Niu. “Teaching Critical Thinking Skills in Higher Education: A Review of the Literature.” Journal of College Teaching and Learning 8 (February 2011): 25-41; Bayou, Yemeserach and Tamene Kitila. "Exploring Instructors’ Beliefs about and Practices in Promoting Students’ Critical Thinking Skills in Writing Classes." GIST–Education and Learning Research Journal 26 (2023): 123-154; Butcher, Charity. "Using In-class Writing to Promote Critical Thinking and Application of Course Concepts." Journal of Political Science Education 18 (2022): 3-21; Loseke, Donileen R. Methodological Thinking: Basic Principles of Social Research Design. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2012; Mintz, Steven. "How the Word "Critical" Came to Signify the Leading Edge of Cultural Analysis." Higher Ed Gamma Blog , Inside Higher Ed, February 13, 2024; Hart, Claire et al. “Exploring Higher Education Students’ Critical Thinking Skills through Content Analysis.” Thinking Skills and Creativity 41 (September 2021): 100877; Lewis, Arthur and David Smith. "Defining Higher Order Thinking." Theory into Practice 32 (Summer 1993): 131-137; Sabrina, R., Emilda Sulasmi, and Mandra Saragih. "Student Critical Thinking Skills and Student Writing Ability: The Role of Teachers' Intellectual Skills and Student Learning." Cypriot Journal of Educational Sciences 17 (2022): 2493-2510. Suter, W. Newton. Introduction to Educational Research: A Critical Thinking Approach. 2nd edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 2012; Van Merriënboer, Jeroen JG and Paul A. Kirschner. Ten Steps to Complex Learning: A Systematic Approach to Four-component Instructional Design. New York: Routledge, 2017; Vance, Charles M., et al. "Understanding and Measuring Linear–Nonlinear Thinking Style for Enhanced Management Education and Professional Practice." Academy of Management Learning and Education 6 (2007): 167-185; Yeh, Hui-Chin, Shih-hsien Yang, Jo Shan Fu, and Yen-Chen Shih. "Developing College Students’ Critical Thinking through Reflective Writing." Higher Education Research & Development 42 (2023): 244-259.

• << Previous: Academic Writing Style
• Next: Choosing a Title >>
• Last Updated: Apr 16, 2024 10:20 AM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide