national council for excellence in critical thinking

• Information Literacy

Critical Thinking

Critical thinking defined, assistive technologies, critical thinking & information literacy.

• Meta-cognitive Awareness Inventory

Research Help

Library Terms

Multilingual Glossary for Today’s Library Users - Definitions

Universal design for learning.

• Reference Information
• Find books and E-books
• Find articles
• Statistical Sources
• Evaluate Information
• Cite sources
• Writing Style Manuals
• Fake News and Information Literacy

Critical Thinking can be thought of in terms of

• Reasonable thinking
• Reflective thinking
• Evaluative thinking
• Mindful thought
• Intellectually-disciplined thought

Critical Thinking as Defined by the National Council for Excellence in Critical Thinking, 1987

A statement by Michael Scriven & Richard Paul, presented at the 8th Annual International Conference on Critical Thinking and Education Reform, Summer 1987.

Critical thinking is the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action. In its exemplary form, it is based on universal intellectual values that transcend subject matter divisions: clarity, accuracy, precision, consistency, relevance, sound evidence, good reasons, depth, breadth, and fairness.

• Critically Thinking

You’ve done some great work so far, thumbs up!  Now we are going to look at information access and evaluation, another important skill for your research skills toolbox.

Information has many facets, and it’s important to understand how these components contribute to writing your research paper. sometimes, you are looking for snippets of information that capture your thoughts or ideas. but when you  access and evaluate resources  you need to  think deeply  and  critically  about the  resource  you want to use to  support your argument  in your writing assignment., information  resources come in a  variety of formats, such as books, e-books, scholarly and peer reviewed articles, articles from trade magazines, newspapers, and, depending on your topic, streaming videos; audio files or blog posts .  but one thing they have in common is that they have  identifiable attributes  for you to consider. these attributes help you to determine if the resource is relevant to your topic., so what are these facets.

• The date the source  was published or created.
• If the article is not been published recently, you must ask yourself why you want to use it as a source. Is the material dated? Or does it offer some insight that warrants being cited (i.e., is it a classic in the field? a neglected contribution to the literature?)
• Is this part of a larger source?
• For example, is it a chapter in a book or e-book? Article in a journal or newspaper?
• What about that source tells you this?
• Article in a newspaper or trade magazine
• Book Review
• Scholarly and peer reviewed article

There are a number of questions you should ask of these different formats. If your source is from a periodical, is that source considered credible, for example, a major newspaper such as the  New York Times  or  Washington Post ? If your source is from a trade magazine, does it offer a skewed perspective, based on its position in industry or ideology? Does it show bias? If from a website, where does the site get its facts? Does it cite scholarly articles, clearly indicate its sources? Have other credible sources questioned its objectivity?

• What do you know about the author ? ( Where they   work ,  what they do ,  other sources  they’ve created, their relationship to the subject or topic?
• What else  might you find out about the author/s?

Once you identify these aspects, you need to ask some critical questions to evaluate your sources.

• What is your source about?   What is the author’s argument?  If you can’t tell from the information that’s been provided,  context or clues  within the source will help you make a reasonable guess.
• What would you say about the language  used in the source? Is it difficult to understand or fairly simple?
• Who do you think is the  audience  for your source? Why?
• What about the  visuals  in your source? For example, are the images used to  support the message ,  provide evidence , or  give you information about the author ? Are there  images  that  distract ?
• Remember that the PGCC Library Databases have been vetted by Teaching and Library faculty to ensure that the content meets the curriculum plan of the college. If you are using articles from a PGCC Library Database, you will never have to pay to access the article.

Now we are going to look at an article obtained from a library database about BLACKLIVESMATTER  and see if we can consider access and evaluation of the article based on the criteria above. This article is from PsycArticles, a PROQUEST database.

The article title is : “Participation in Black Lives Matter and deferred action for childhood arrivals: Modern activism among Black and Latino college students”

What do we know about the author/authors?

If you click on the Hyperlink for the Author’s name, you’ll find other articles that have been published by the author.

The article is published in the  Journal of Diversity in Higher Education.  If you click on the name of the Journal you will find out information about the journal. 

The 9.3 (Sep 2016): 203-215; indicates that it is Volume 9; Issue 3 dated September 2016: pages 203-215.

How can we tell that this is a scholarly and peer reviewed article? What components of this article indicate that this is a research paper?

If you look at these components, you will find that they meet the test of a scholarly and peer reviewed research article. The article uses technical terminology, and it follows a standard research format—it has an abstract, a review of the literature, methodology, results, conclusion, and references.

So, after looking at this article, you have concluded that this is a peer-reviewed research article. Next you’ll need to evaluate the source. You’ll want to consider  what this source is about . From reading the abstract above, can you  consider through what lens or perspective might this author be writing?

First, look at the language in the article. Is it  clear, concise  and  easily readable ? Based on the language, who do you think  the AUDIENCE  is for this source? Students? Researchers? Is it for the  average reader  or for someone who might want to write a research paper?

Now let’s look at the article’s presentation of data. You will find four tables that report on the study:  Study Variables by Race; BLM and DACA involvement by Race, Ethnicity and Gender; Average level of political activism; Predicting BLM and DACA Involvement . Do these tables help you understand the impact of study better? Why or Why not? 

Now let’s return to the language of the article and see if we can tell if this article  pro-BLACKLIVESMATTERS or not? How can you tell?  Are there  clues in how the abstract  is written that help you to  infer the author’s position ? For example, does this statement from the article give you a perspective as to the direction of the article, “ Two 21st century sociopolitical movements that have emerged to counteract racial/ethnic marginalization in the United States are BLM and advocacy for DACA legislation. BLM activists seek legislative changes to decrease the negative (and often life threatening) effects of discriminatory practices in our justice and political systems ”.

Your analysis of the author’s attitude involves you interpreting the article’s tone—in the preceding sentence, the author does not use language to undermine BLM—it doesn’t say “claims to” or “reportedly” or “seemingly” in describing the impact of the movement. It does not use charged political rhetoric to suggest BLM’s worsens marginalization or to undercut its assertions about the level of discrimination.

Then you have judge the usefulness of the source:

If you are writing about the  influence of the BLACKLIVESMATTER  movement and  activism , is this article  good for your paper ? Why or Why not?

Let’s look at the abstract, where the article claims that “ Political activism is one way racially/ethnically marginalized youth can combat institutional discrimination and seek legislative change toward equality and justice. In the current study, we examine participation in #BlackLivesMatter (BLM) and advocacy for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) as political activism popular among youth.”

First, determine whether the article may provide evidence to support your argument. This involves paying close attention to the article’s thesis and to its supporting evidence. What  do you think the  article  is  saying overall ? What is the  takeaway ? How does it relate to your own argument? This involves considerable reflection on your part.

For example, does this statement argue your topic?  “Finally, scholars suggest that experiencing racial/ethnic discrimination likely contributes to greater participation in political activism as a mechanism to mitigate future instances of discrimination (Hope & Jagers, 2014; Hope & Spencer, in press)”. That really depends on what  your  thesis is. You may find that this conclusion is too broad, and you may then refine your own position. In an engagement with scholarly articles, you may be forced to think more clearly about your own position.

Secondly , you must determine how much research has been done on this topic.  Where does this article fit in the overall field of scholarship? You can’t simply assume that one article has vanquished all others from the field of intellectual battle. In this analysis, you must examine the article’s limitations:  What wasn’t included or  what was missing  from the article? Have you seen other articles that challenge the author’s perspective? Do you want—for example—to see evidence of political activism actually leading to change? Or is the article’s claim too weak? After all, the sentence above simply says it’s one way to seek change, not the most effective.

Remember, research is a process. You want to find the best scholarly articles not only to support your own claims, but to challenge your assumptions and help refine your conclusions. As we’ve seen, that involves determining whether an article appears in a respectable scholarly journal—as citing weak and unprofessional sources destroys your credibility and offers no real challenge. Instead, you should exercise your analytical and argumentative skills on the best scholarship available. 

Accessibility Masterlist

This MasterList, edited by Gregg Vanderheiden Ph.D.,   is designed to serve as a resource for researchers, developers, students, and others interested in understanding or developing products that incorporate one or more of these features.

Each feature or approach is then listed below along with applicable disabilities to each feature are marked with the following icons:

• B  - Blindness (For our purposes, blindness is defined as no or very low vision - such that text cannot be read at any magnification)
• LV  - Low Vision
• CLL  - Cognitive, Language, and Learning Disabilities (including low literacy)
• PHY  - Physical Disabilities
• D/HOH  - Deaf and Hard of Hearing
• American Sign Language Dictionary

Search and compare thousands of words and phrases in American Sign Language (ASL). The largest collection of free video signs online.

Braille Translator 

Brailletranslator.org is a simple way to convert text to braille notation. This supports nearly all Grade Two braille contractions.

• Braille Translator

Voyant Tools (Corpus Analysis)

Voyant Tools is an open-source, web-based application for performing text analysis. It supports scholarly reading and interpretation of texts or corpus, particularly by scholars in the digital humanities, but also by students and the general public. It can be used to analyze online texts or ones uploaded by users. (Source:  Wikipedia )

• Voyant Tools (Corpus Analysis)

Critical Thinking & Information Literacy - Parallel Processes

• Realize the task
• Explore, formulate, question, make connections
• Search and find
• Collect and organize
• Analyze, evaluate, interpret
• Apply understanding
• Communicate, present, share

Did you know that you can request a RESEARCH CONSULTATION appointment?  This is a one-on-one assistance with your research related need. 

Whether it's in-person, e-mail , phone, chat or text to 301-637-4609, you can ask a librarian for research help. 

It's important to understand library terms in order for you to do your research. If you have questions about the terminology used in the tutorial you can check this Glossary of Library Terms.

Abstract :  A summary or brief description of the content of another long work. An abstract is often provided along with the citation to a work.

Annotated bibliography:  a bibliography in which a brief explanatory or evaluate note is added to each reference or citation. An annotation can be helpful to the researcher in evaluating whether the source is relevant to a given topic or line of inquiry.

Archives : 1. A space which houses historical or public records. 2. The historical or public records themselves, which are generally non-circulating materials such as collections of personal papers, rare books, Ephemera, etc.

Article : A brief work—generally between 1 and 35 pages in length—on a topic. Often published as part of a journal, magazine, or newspaper.

Author : The person(s) or organization(s) that wrote or compiled a document. Looking for information under its author's name is one option in searching.

Bibliography : A list containing citations to the resources used in writing a research paper or other document. See also Reference.

Book : A relatively lengthy work, often on a single topic. May be in print or electronic.

Boolean operator : A word—such as AND, OR, or NOT—that commands a computer to combine search terms. Helps to narrow (AND, NOT) or broaden (OR) searches.

Call number : A group of letters and/or numbers that identifies a specific item in a library and provides a way for organizing library holdings. Three major types of call numbers are Dewey Decimal, Library of Congress, and Superintendent of Documents.

Catalog : A database (either online or on paper cards) listing and describing the books, journals, government documents, audiovisual and other materials held by a library. Various search terms allow you to look for items in the catalog.

Check-out : To borrow an item from a library for a fixed period of time in order to read, listen to, or view it. Check-out periods vary by library. Items are checked out at the circulation desk.

Circulation : The place in the library, often a desk, where you check out, renew, and return library materials. You may also place a hold, report an item missing from the shelves, or pay late fees or fines there.

Citation : A reference to a book, magazine or journal article, or other work containing all the information necessary to identify and locate that work. A citation to a book includes its author's name, title, publisher and place of publication, and date of publication.

Controlled vocabulary : Standardized terms used in searching a specific database.

Course reserve : Select books, articles, videotapes, or other materials that instructors want students to read or view for a particular course. These materials are usually kept in one area of the library and circulate for only a short period of time. See also Electronic reserve.

Descriptor : A word that describes the subject of an article or book; used in many computer databases.

Dissertation : An extended written treatment of a subject (like a book) submitted by a graduate student as a requirement for a doctorate.

DOI : Acronym for Digital Object Identifier. It is a unique alphanumeric string assigned by the publisher to a digital object.

E-book (or Electronic book) : An electronic version of a book that can be read on a computer or mobile device.

Editor : A person or group responsible for compiling the writings of others into a single information source. Looking for information under the editor's name is one option in searching.

Electronic reserve (or E-reserve) : An electronic version of a course reserve that is read on a computer display screen. See also Course reserve.

Encyclopedia : A work containing information on all branches of knowledge or treating comprehensively a particular branch of knowledge (such as history or chemistry). Often has entries or articles arranged alphabetically.

Hold : A request to have an item saved (put aside) to be picked up later. Holds can generally, be placed on any regularly circulating library material in-person or online.

Holdings : The materials owned by a library.

Index : 1. A list of names or topics—usually found at the end of a publication—that directs you to the pages where those names or topics are discussed within the publication. 2. A printed or electronic publication that provides references to periodical articles or books by their subject, author, or other search terms.

Interlibrary services/loan : A service that allows you to borrow materials from other libraries through your own library. See also Document delivery.

Journal : A publication, issued on a regular basis, which contains scholarly research published as articles, papers, research reports, or technical reports. See also Periodical.

Limits/limiters : Options used in searching that restrict your results to only information resources meeting certain other, non-subject-related, criteria. Limiting options vary by database, but common options include limiting results to materials available full-text in the database, to scholarly publications, to materials written in a particular language, to materials available in a particular location, or to materials published at a specific time. 

Magazine : A publication, issued on a regular basis, containing popular articles, written and illustrated in a less technical manner than the articles found in a journal.

Microform : A reduced sized photographic reproduction of printed information on reel to reel film (microfilm) or film cards (microfiche) or opaque pages that can be read with a microform reader/printer.

Newspaper : A publication containing information about varied topics that are pertinent to general information, a geographic area, or a specific subject matter (i.e. business, culture, education). Often published daily.

Online Public Access Catalog (OPAC) : A computerized database that can be searched in various ways— such as by keyword, author, title, subject, or call number— to find out what resources a library owns. OPAC’s will supply listings of the title, call number, author, location, and description of any items matching one's search. Also referred to as “library catalog ” or “online catalog.”

PDF : A file format developed by Adobe Acrobat® that allows files to be transmitted from one computer to another while retaining their original appearance both on-screen and when printed. An acronym for Portable Document Format.

Peer-reviewed journal : Peer review is a process by which editors have experts in a field review books or articles submitted for publication by the experts’ peers. Peer review helps to ensure the quality of an information source. A peer-reviewed journal is also called a refereed journal or scholarly journal.

Periodical : An information source published in multiple parts at regular intervals (daily, weekly, monthly, biannually). Journals, magazines, and newspapers are all periodicals. See also Serial.

Plagiarism : Using the words or ideas of others without acknowledging the original source.

Primary source : An original record of events, such as a diary, a newspaper article, a public record, or scientific documentation.

Print : The written symbols of a language as portrayed on paper. Information sources may be either print or electronic.

Publisher : An entity or company that produces and issues books, journals, newspapers, or other publications.

Recall : A request for the return of library material before the due date.

Refereed journal: See Peer-reviewed journal.

Reference : 1. A service that helps people find needed information. 2. Sometimes "reference" refers to reference collections, such as encyclopedias, indexes, handbooks, directories, etc. 3. A citation to a work is also known as a reference.

Renewal : An extension of the loan period for library materials.

Reserve : 1. A service providing special, often short-term, access to course-related materials (book or article readings, lecture notes, sample tests) or to other materials (CD-ROMs, audio-visual materials, current newspapers or magazines). 2. Also the physical location—often a service desk or room—within a library where materials on reserve are kept. Materials can also be made available electronically. See also Course reserve, Electronic reserve.

Scholarly journal : See Peer-reviewed journal.

Search statement/Search Query : Words entered into the search box of a database or search engine when looking for information. Words relating to an information source's author, editor, title, subject heading or keyword serve as search terms. Search terms can be combined by using Boolean operators and can also be used with limits/limiters.

Secondary sources : Materials such as books and journal articles that analyze primary sources. Secondary sources usually provide evaluation or interpretation of data or evidence found in original research or documents such as historical manuscripts or memoirs.

Serial : Publications such as journals, magazines, and newspapers that are generally published multiple times per year, month, or week. Serials usually have number volumes and issues.

Stacks : Shelves in the library where materials—typically books—are stored. Books in the stacks are normally arranged by call number. May be referred to as “book stacks.”

Style manual : An information source providing guidelines for people who are writing research papers. A style manual outlines specific formats for arranging research papers and citing the sources that are used in writing the paper.

Subject heading : Descriptions of an information source’s content assigned to make finding information easier. See also Controlled vocabulary, Descriptors.

Title : The name of a book, article, or other information sources. Upload: To transfer information from a computer system or a personal computer to another computer system or a larger computer system.

Virtual reference: A service allowing library users to ask questions through email, text message, or live-chat as opposed to coming to the reference desk at the library and asking a question in person. Also referred to as “online reference” or “e-reference.”

Multilingual Glossary for Today’s Library Users

If English is not your first language, then this resource will help you navigate the definitions of library terms in the following languages: English, Chinese, Korean, Japanese, French, Spanish, Arabic, and Vietnamese.

• Multilingual Glossary for Today’s Library Users - Definitions The Glossary provides terms an ESL speaker might find useful and a listing of the terms that are most likely to be used in a library.
• Multilingual Glossary for Today’s Library Users - Language Table Here is a list of definitions that you can also find the translation in English, Chinese, Korean, Japanese, French, Spanish, Arabic, and Vietnamese.

Universal Design for Learning (UDL)

• UDL Core Apps
• Universal Design for Learning Research Guide
• << Previous: Information Literacy
• Next: Reference Information >>
• Last Updated: Jul 20, 2023 1:57 PM
• URL: https://pgcc.libguides.com/c.php?g=631064

• Madigan Library
• Research Guides
• Information Literacy

Critical Thinking

Information literacy: critical thinking.

• Information Literacy and Framework for Information Literacy
• Library Confidential

Research Help

• Course & Subject Guides
• Reference information
• Find articles
• Statistical Sources
• Evaluate Information
• Cite sources
• Writing Style Manuals
• Subject Librarians

Critical Thinking can be thought of in terms of

• Reasonable thinking
• Reflective thinking
• Evaluative thinking
• Mindful thought
• Intellectually-disciplined thought

Critical Thinking & Information Literacy

Critical Thinking & Information Literacy - Parallel Processes

• Realize the task
• Explore, formulate, question, make connections
• Search and find
• Collect and organize
• Analyze, evaluate, interpret
• Apply understanding
• Communicate, present, share

Critical Thinking Defined

Critical thinking as defined by the national council for excellence in critical thinking, 1987.

A statement by Michael Scriven & Richard Paul, presented at the 8th Annual International Conference on Critical Thinking and Education Reform, Summer 1987.

Critical thinking is the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action. In its exemplary form, it is based on universal intellectual values that transcend subject matter divisions: clarity, accuracy, precision, consistency, relevance, sound evidence, good reasons, depth, breadth, and fairness.

• Defining Critical Thinking

Subject Guide

Whether it's in-person, e-mail, phone, chat or text, you can Ask A Librarian for research help.

• << Previous: Information Literacy and Framework for Information Literacy
• Next: Library Confidential >>
• Last Updated: Oct 31, 2023 2:35 PM
• URL: https://pct.libguides.com/infolit

Critical Thinking: Gurus of Critical Thinking

• Gurus of Critical Thinking
• Magazines & Journals
• Media Bias Chart & CRAAP Test
• Fact Checkers

Big 6 Approach

• What Is the "Big 6 Approach" to Critical Thinking? Developed by Mike Eisenberg and Bob Berkowitz, the "Big 6" approach to critical thinking includes: Task Definition, Information Seeking Strategies, Location and Access, Use of Information, Synthesis, Evaluation.
• Applying Big6™ Skills, AASL Standards and ISTE NETS to Internet Research

Project Information Literacy

Directed by Dr. Alison J. Head and Dr. Michael Eisenberg, Project Information Literacy (PIL) is an “ongoing research project, based in the University of Washington's Information School (that is) currently collecting data from early adults enrolled in community colleges and public and private colleges and universities in the U.S.”   Its goal is to “understand how early adults conceptualize and operationalize research activities for course work and "everyday life" use and especially how they resolve issues of credibility, authority, relevance, and currency in the digital age.”

• Project Information Literacy Web site includes list of publications, podcasts and webcasts, and several videos, such as "The Student Discussion Groups" and "Understanding Information Literacy through the Lens of the Student Experience."

Linda Elder

Dr. Linda Elder is President of the Foundation for Critical Thinking and Executive Director of the Center for Critical Thinking.

• The Critical Thinking Community Sponsors the International Critical Thinking Conference, billed as "the World's Oldest Conference on Critical Thinking," the Foundation and Center for Critical Thinking's mission is to provide education to primary schools through colleges by presenting publications, conferences, workshops and professional development programs. Emphasis is on instructional strategies, Socratic questioning, critical reading/writing, higher order thinking, assessment, research, quality enhancement and standards.

Richard Paul

Dr. Richard Paul is the Director of Research and Professional Development at the Center for Critical Thinking and Chair of the National Council for Excellence in Critical Thinking.

• National Council for Excellence in Critical Thinking "The goal of the NCECT is to articulate, preserve, and foster intellectual standards in critical thinking research, scholarship, and instruction. The NCECT is a creation of the Foundation for Critical Thinking. The council presently consists of about 8,000 leading educators."
• Michael Eisenberg

“Mike Eisenberg is the founding dean of the Information School at the University of Washington . During his tenure (1998-2006), (he) transformed the unit from a single graduate degree into a broad-based information school with a wide range of research and academic programs, including an undergraduate degree in informatics, masters degrees in information management and library and information science, and a doctorate degree in information science.”  With colleague Bob Berkowitz, he created the "Big 6 Approach" to critical thinking.

• Gerald M. Nosich

"Dr. Gerald Nosich is a noted authority on critical thinking and has given more than 200 workshops on all aspects of teaching critical thinking ... He is the author of Reasons and Arguments (Wadsworth, 1982).  His second book, Learning to Think Things Through: A Guide to Critical Thinking Across the Curriculum , has been translated into Spanish, Chinese, and Arabic.  (He) is an associate of the Center and the Foundation for Critical Thinking.  He is a professor at Buffalo State University."

“Dr. Enoch Hale is a Fellow of the Foundation and Center for Critical Thinking

Dr. Hale holds a B.A. degree in intellectual and social history, a Masters degree in liberal arts and sciences, a secondary single subject credential in social science, and a Ph.D. in Interdisciplinary Studies with an emphasis on critical thinking and educational reform.”

• The Critical Thinking Community
• << Previous: Intro
• Next: Books >>
• Last Updated: Jan 13, 2023 10:13 AM
• URL: https://libguides.huntingdon.edu/c.php?g=86504

A Model of Critical Thinking as an Important Attribute for Success in the 21st Century

• October 2016
• Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 232(7):102-108
• 232(7):102-108
• CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
• This person is not on ResearchGate, or hasn't claimed this research yet.

Discover the world's research

• 25+ million members
• 160+ million publication pages
• 2.3+ billion citations
• Herlinawati Herlinawati

• Noriah Ismail

• Ahmad Ayyoub
• Nita Nuraini
• Rindi Novitri Antika

• Fatchur Rohman
• Adisti Yuliastrin

• Mahnaz Ezhdehakosh
• Slađana Živković

• Henry A. Giroux
• SCHOOL PSYCHOL REV
• RJ Sternberg
• Joanna Tapper

• Recruit researchers
• Join for free
• Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up

• Asia-Pacific
• Middle-East and Africa
• Learn Chinese

The National Council for Excellence in Critical Thinking decided on the following definition:

"Critical thinking is the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analysing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action."

But what role can critical thinking play in the world, and why should we make it part of our everyday lives? The Agenda's Stephen Cole explains.

ALSO ON THE AGENDA:

Salah Khalil  reveals how critical thinking is helping humans compete with the machines of the future.

Lord Jim Knight discusses how play-based learning can have a positive impact on productivity.

Anthony McClaran explains why social media is proving a barrier to critical thinking.

FIND MORE STORIES FROM THE AGENDA WITH STEPHEN COLE   HERE

Search Trends

• Documentary

Copyright © 2020 CGTN. Beijing ICP prepared NO.16065310-3

Disinformation report hotline: 010-85061466

• Terms of use
• Privacy policy

• Politics & Social Sciences
• Politics & Government

Sorry, there was a problem.

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

Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.

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

Image Unavailable

• To view this video download Flash Player

Follow the authors

Critical Thinking for Strategic Intelligence Second Edition

With this second edition of  Critical Thinking for Strategic Intelligence , Randolph H. Pherson and Katherine Hibbs Pherson update their highly regarded, easy-to-use handbook for developing core critical thinking skills and analytic techniques. This indispensable text is framed around 20 key questions that all analysts must ask themselves as they prepare to conduct research, generate hypotheses, evaluate sources of information, draft papers, and ultimately present analysis. New material includes a chapter on working with statistics and probabilities at an introductory level; discussions on how to work with social media; managing the "big data" phenomenon and what role analysis plays both at the front and back end of utilizing such information.

Each of the book’s chapters are consistently organized, enabling students and analysts alike to easily trace the key steps of: Setting the Stage; Looking More Deeply; Key Takeaways; Considering the Case Study, and the book’s illustrations include useful graphics that diagram and display the processes and structured analytic techniques for arriving at the best possible analytical products. The "Analyst’s Roadmap" provides an at-a-glance "map" for readers depicting the best practices involved in perfecting the analytical product. A set of carefully crafted case studies on national intelligence, homeland security, and law enforcement issues illustrate how to apply these critical thinking skills tie directly to end-of-chapter questions, providing valuable self-assessment opportunities.

• ISBN-10 1506316883
• ISBN-13 978-1506316888
• Edition Second
• Publisher CQ Press
• Publication date November 15, 2016
• Language English
• Dimensions 6 x 0.5 x 9 inches
• Print length 408 pages
• See all details

Editorial Reviews

About the author.

Randolph H. Pherson is president of Pherson Associates, LLC; CEO of Globalytica, LLC; and a founding director of the nonprofit Forum Foundation for Analytic Excellence. He teaches advanced analytic techniques and critical thinking skills to analysts in the government and private sector. Mr. Pherson collaborated with Richards Heuer Jr. in developing and launching use of Analysis of Competing Hypotheses, and he developed several analytic techniques for the CIA’s Sherman Kent School, many of which were incorporated in his Handbook of Analytic Tools and Techniques . He coauthored Critical Thinking for Strategic Intelligence with Katherine Hibbs Pherson, Cases in Intelligence Analysis: Structured Analytic Techniques in Action with Sarah Miller Beebe, and several other guides for analysts on writing, briefing, indicators, and managing the production process. Mr. Pherson completed a twenty-eight-year career in the Intelligence Community in 2000, last serving as National Intelligence Officer (NIO) for Latin America. Previously at the CIA, Mr. Pherson managed the production of intelligence analysis on topics ranging from global instability to Latin America, served on the Inspector General’s staff, and was chief of the CIA’s Strategic Planning and Management Staff. He is the recipient of the Distinguished Intelligence Medal for his service as NIO and the Distinguished Career Intelligence Medal. Mr. Pherson received his B.A. from Dartmouth College and an M.A. in international relations from Yale University.

Product details

• Publisher ‏ : ‎ CQ Press; Second edition (November 15, 2016)
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• Paperback ‏ : ‎ 408 pages
• ISBN-10 ‏ : ‎ 1506316883
• ISBN-13 ‏ : ‎ 978-1506316888
• Item Weight ‏ : ‎ 1.1 pounds
• Dimensions ‏ : ‎ 6 x 0.5 x 9 inches
• #1,695 in Law Enforcement Politics
• #1,886 in Political Intelligence
• #1,973 in National & International Security (Books)

About the authors

Randolph h. pherson.

I have been developing and teaching Structured Analytic Techniques and critical thinking and writing skills for almost two decades to analysts throughout the intelligence, homeland security, and defense communities as well as in the private sector and overseas. Since retiring from the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in 2000, i have authored, co-authored, and edited eleven books on intelligence analysis. You can find them on shop.globalytica.com. I am best known for co-authoring Structured Analytic Techniques for Intelligence Analysis with Richards J. Heuer, Jr. and Critical Thinking for Strategic Intelligence with my wife, Katherine Hibbs Pherson. I also write a monthly blog, the Analytic Insider, www.globalytica.com, that provides insights on how to use analytic techniques to better understand how the world is evolving and learn what you can do to stay ahead of the brewing chaos.

As Chief Executive Officer of Globalytica, LLC, i have taught courses in over two dozen countries, supporting major financial institutions, global retailers, and security firms. I am also a Founding Director of the Forum Foundation for Analytic Excellence, a nonprofit that supports the propagation of critical thinking skills and structured analytic techniques. Our companies has taught critical thinking skills and structured analytic techniques to 10 of the Fortune Top 100. We also facilitate Strategic Foresight Analysis workshops for foreign governments, international foundations, and multinational corporations and holds the patent on a suite of collaborative analytic tools. As CEO and as President of Pherson Associates, I have assisted senior corporate and government officials in building robust analytic organizations. Our companies have developed and implemented programs on how to increase the quality and speed of delivery of analytic products for US Government agencies, Homeland Security Fusion Centers, a major global law firm, and a major oil company.I am also a Founding Director of the Forum Foundation for Analytic Excellence, a nonprofit that supports the propagation of critical thinking skills and structured analytic techniques.

Before becoming involved in teaching analytic techniques, I worked for almost three decades in the Intelligence Community, last serving as National Intelligence Officer (NIO) for Latin America. While at the Central Intelligence Agency, I managed the production of intelligence analysis on topics ranging from global instability to Latin America, served on the Inspector General's staff, and developed and implemented a strategic planning process for the agency. I am the proud recipient of the Distinguished Intelligence Medal for my service as NIO for Latin America and the Distinguished Career Intelligence Medal. My academic background is a political science major specializing in African Studies at Dartmouth College and an M.A. in International Relations from Yale University where I also took courses at the Yale Law School.

Katherine Hibbs Pherson

Katherine Hibbs Pherson, Chief Executive Officer of Pherson Associates, teaches advanced analytic techniques and critical thinking skills to analysts in the intelligence and homeland security communities, the private sector, and academia. She is also a consultant to the government on planning, security, and analysis projects, President of Pherson Associates' sister company Globalytica, and founding board member of the non-profit Forum Foundation for Analytic Excellence. She co-authored Critical Thinking for Strategic Intelligence with her husband and business partner, Randy.

Ms. Pherson completed in 2000 a 27-year career with the Central Intelligence Agency in intelligence and security analysis and resource management. Her leadership in the security arena led to the adoption of a risk management methodology, the strengthening and the implementation of overseas security countermeasures, and improvements in dealing with unsolicited contacts. As Director of the DCI's Center for Security Evaluation she managed the Intelligence Community's involvement in rebuilding the penetrated U.S. Embassy in Moscow. Ms. Pherson received her A.B. in Hispanic Studies from Vassar College, an M.A. in Spanish Linguistics and Latin American Studies from the University of Illinois, and an M.A. in Communications from the University of Oklahoma. She is a recipient of the CIA's Distinguished Career Intelligence Medal and the Intelligence Community's National Distinguished Service Medal.

Customer reviews

• 5 star 4 star 3 star 2 star 1 star 5 star 75% 14% 7% 0% 4% 75%
• 5 star 4 star 3 star 2 star 1 star 4 star 75% 14% 7% 0% 4% 14%
• 5 star 4 star 3 star 2 star 1 star 3 star 75% 14% 7% 0% 4% 7%
• 5 star 4 star 3 star 2 star 1 star 2 star 75% 14% 7% 0% 4% 0%
• 5 star 4 star 3 star 2 star 1 star 1 star 75% 14% 7% 0% 4% 4%

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

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

• Sort reviews by Top reviews Most recent Top reviews

Top reviews from the United States

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

Russia’s limits on critical thinking are hitting its academic performance

Stricter political and administrative controls on what can be said have led to the creation of a pioneering ‘free university’, say katarzyna kaczmarska and dmitry dubrovsky.

• Share on linkedin
• Share on mail

Recent months have seen heated debates in Russia about the limits of faculty and students’ rights to undertake public speaking and engage in political activism.

Lecturers at the prestigious  Higher School of Economics  (HSE), once considered Russia’s most liberal university, have spent the summer worrying that their criticisms of the political status quo might put an end to their teaching careers.

A master’s programme was apparently shut down when the university’s management realised that Yegor Zhukov – a prominent blogger and participant in the 2019 protests against fraudulent practices in the elections for the Moscow city parliament – was among the newly admitted cohort. He was also badly  beaten  just hours after he posted a video on YouTube explaining that he had been enrolled and then, less than two hours later, was crossed off a list of students admitted.

It has proved contentious for scholars to speak out in public and for students to engage in political activity at least since the 2019 protests. Zhukov was an undergraduate at the HSE when he was  arrested  following an unsanctioned opposition rally that summer. This led many fellow students, staff and alumni to express solidarity. However, though the management initially supported calls for Zhukov’s release, it later shifted to a policy seemingly designed to avoid future clashes with the state authorities.

In 2020, the university introduced new  internal regulations  requiring staff and students to refrain from using their university affiliations in public statements that could trigger “negative social reactions and/or have negative reputational consequences for the university”. Though these regulations are careful to emphasise that there are no restrictions on academics speaking out about their “research results” and matters of “professional competence”, keeping within the guidelines is likely to be difficult, particularly for those researching current social or political developments in Russia. This attempt to establish a boundary between “legitimate” academic research and “unacceptable” participation in public debate amounts to another way of silencing critically minded scholars.

After the journalist Svetlana Prokopyeva was  found guilty  in July of “justifying terrorism” when she dared to ask about the connection between the repressive political regime in Russia and a suicide bomb outside the Federal Security Service office in Arkhangelsk, several HSE employees produced a paper citing values such as “academic ethics” to delegitimise debate about terrorism and its causes. A few scholars  responded  by pointing out that such a stance could close down research into social phenomena such as terrorism, state terror, revolution and liberation movements.

The HSE has also decided not to extend the contracts of a number of academics for the coming academic year. Though the university’s management has defended its decision on grounds of efficiency and necessary restructuring, those adversely affected argue that the dismissals were motivated by an urge to get rid of those who were most  outspoken  and critical of the political system in Russia, including the abruptly amended  constitution .

The British Association for Slavonic and East European Studies (BASEES) published a  letter  this July in which the president shared his unease “about the integrity of the process by which decisions over continuing employment and terminations of contracts are taken” and emphasised that these developments undermine the HSE’s position as a close partner for scholars and universities in the UK. And Russia’s  University Solidarity  trade union  called for  a protest (using a hashtag translating as “you can’t shut us up”) against measures to punish scholars and students for their outspokenness.

Then, in late August, a group of scholars, including those whose contracts at HSE have not been renewed, issued a  manifesto  announcing the establishment of Russia’s first Free University and stating that one of their main goals is to free lecturers from excessive administrative pressures (among which they mean to include the pressure not to speak out).

Among the group is Gasan Guseynov, whose social media post last year criticising abuses of the Russian language by journalists and politicians  prompted  HSE management to look into whether it “violated academic ethics in public speaking”. This led to a committee’s  recommending  that Guseynov make a public apology for the “deliberate dissemination of ill-considered and irresponsible statements that have caused damage to the university’s reputation”.

All of this took place against a background of Russian universities failing to achieve the planned leap in international rankings; more and more insecure  employment contracts ; and  legislation  requiring that education in schools and universities should include not only knowledge and skills, but also spiritual and moral values.

A recent  analysis  of the obstacles to scientific progress in Russia concludes that research managers do not prioritise the creation of the kind of new scientific knowledge likely to be recognised by the international academic community. This study was authored by people close to Alexei Kudrin, who represents the liberal-leaning wing within the ruling elite.

What even this group fails to mention, however, is that the problem does not reside so much in management structures as in a political system that crushes creativity and punishes critical thinking and activism.

Katarzyna Kaczmarska is lecturer in politics and international relations at the University of Edinburgh . Dmitry Dubrovsky is an associate research fellow at the Centre for Independent Social Research  in Russia.

Register to continue

Why register?

• Registration is free and only takes a moment
• Once registered, you can read 3 articles a month
• Sign up for our newsletter

Or subscribe for unlimited access to:

• Unlimited access to news, views, insights & reviews
• Digital editions
• Digital access to THE’s university and college rankings analysis

Already registered or a current subscriber? Login

Related articles

Is Russia’s 5-100 Project working?

Simon Baker weighs the evidence for the transformation of the country’s higher education system

Russian science reforms ‘ambitious but unrealistic’

Experts question whether new National Science Project will have wide impact beyond creating ‘a few islands of research excellence’

Russian curbs on foreigners show rise of science nationalism

Kremlin action follows US reluctance to work with China, and comes as Moscow moves closer to Beijing

You might also like

New Zealand ‘has a problem’ with academic freedom

Author says country should acknowledge forces to suppress academic expression, irrespective of their ideological roots 

• Call for Volunteers!
• Our Team of Presenters

• Dr. Richard Paul
• Dr. Linda Elder
• Dr. Gerald Nosich
• Contact Us - Office Information
• Permission to Use Our Work
• Create a CriticalThinking.Org Account
• Contributions to the Foundation for Critical Thinking
• Testimonials
• Center for Critical Thinking
• The National Council for Excellence in Critical Thinking

International Center for the Assessment of Higher Order Thinking

Translate this page from English...

*Machine translated pages not guaranteed for accuracy. Click Here for our professional translations.

The International Center for the Assessment of Higher Order Thinking (ICAT) was founded to help colleges and universities design cost-effective ways to evaluate students’ critical thinking abilities. ICAT provides assessment tools which:

• evaluate students’ critical thinking skills.
• evaluate course designs.

The resulting assessment includes a profile of students’ reasoning abilities that can be effectively used not only as a benchmark against which progress can be measured, but also as a practical guide for critical thinking instruction .

International Critical Thinking Essay Test

The International Critical Thinking Test Is Available to Educational Institutions Under Three Different Options

• Direct License. You may elect to be licensed directly to use the exam. The cost for this is $1000. In this case, you must take responsibility for training the graders and the appropriate use of the exam.
• With a Training Session For Faculty Graders. You may schedule a training session for faculty to use and grade the test. The cost for this depends on the cost of a workshop in your area of the country. Contact us for professional development workshop information if you are interested in this option. If you schedule this professional training, the test is provided free.
• Pilot Site. You may elect to become a pilot site for the exam. In this case, you must submit a plan as to how you will field test the exam, specifying what your purpose is and how you will structure your pilot project. To be accepted as a pilot site, you must provide evidence that you will train the graders appropriately and carefully control the conditions under which you pilot the exam. Once you have used the test you must also provide a written report explaining the results of your project. If we accept your plan, the exam will be provided to you free. A preview copy of the test is available below.

The purpose of the International Critical Thinking Test is to provide an assessment of the fundamentals of critical thinking that can be used with content from any subject. The goal of the test is two-fold. The first goal is to provide a reasonable way to pre- and post-test students to determine the extent to which they have learned to think critically. The second goal is to provide a test instrument that stimulates the faculty to teach their discipline so as to foster critical thinking in the students. Once faculty become committed to pre- and post-testing their students using the exam, it is natural and desirable for them to emphasize analysis and assessment of thinking in their routine instruction within the subjects they teach. The exam, therefore, is designed to have a significant effect on instruction. The test is designed to have high consequential validity; that is, the consequence of using the test is significant: faculty tend to re-structure their courses to put more emphasis on critical thinking within the disciplines (to help students prepare for the test). It also has the consequence that faculty think through important critical thinking principles and standards (which they otherwise take for granted) The International Critical Thinking test differs from traditional critical thinking tests in that traditional tests tend to have low consequential validity; that is, the nature of the test items is such that faculty, not seeing the relevance of the test to the content they teach, ignore it. The International Critical Thinking Test is the perfect test to teach to. For one, the structure and standards for thought explicit in the test are relevant to thinking in all departments and divisions. The English Department can test their students using a literary prompt. The History Department can choose an excerpt from historical writing; Sociology from sociological writing; etc. In one case, a section from a textbook may be chosen; in another, an editorial, in a third, a professional essay. In short, the writing prompt can be chosen from any discipline or writing sample. What is more, since to make the test reliable the faculty must be intimately involved in the choosing of the writing prompt and in the grading of tests, faculty are primed to follow up on the results. Results are seen to be relevant to assessing instruction within the departments involved. The International Critical Thinking Essay Test is divided into two parts: 1) analysis of a writing prompt, and 2) assessment of the writing prompt. The analysis is worth 80 points; the assessment is worth 20. In the Analysis segment of the test, the student must accurately identify the elements of reasoning within a written piece (each response is worth 10 points). In the Assessment segment of the test, the student must construct a critical analysis and evaluation of the reasoning (in the original piece).

Each student exam must be graded individually by a person competent to assess the critical thinking of the test taker and trained in the grading called for in this examination. In evaluating student exams the grader is attempting to answer two questions:

• Did the student clearly understand the key components in the thinking of the author, as exhibited in the writing sample? (Identifying Purpose, Question at Issue, Information, Conclusions, Assumptions, Concepts, Implications, Point of View)
• Was the student able to effectively evaluate the reasoning, as appropriate, in the original text and present his/her assessment effectively? (Pointing out strengths and possible limitations and/or weaknesses of the reasoning in the writing sample).
• Pilot Site. You may elect to become a pilot site for the exam. In this case, you must submit a plan as to how you will field test the exam, specifying what your purpose is and how you will structure your pilot project. To be accepted as a pilot site, you must provide evidence that you will train the graders appropriately and carefully control the conditions under which you pilot the exam. Once you have used the test you must also provide a written report explaining the results of your project. If we accept your plan, the exam will be provided to you free.

Add Item to your Cart

The Nature of the Exam

The ICAT exam is divided into two parts: 1) analysis of a writing prompt, and 2) assessment of the writing prompt. The analysis is worth 80 points; the assessment is worth 20. In the Analysis segment of the test, the student must accurately identify the elements of reasoning within a written piece (each response is worth 10 points). In the Assessment segment of the test, the student must construct a critical analysis and evaluation of the reasoning (in the original piece). Each student exam must be graded individually by a person competent to assess the critical thinking of the test taker and trained in the grading called for in this examination. In evaluating student exams the grader is attempting to answer two questions:

• Did the student clearly understand the key components in the thinking of the author, as exhibited in the writing sample? (Identifying Purpose, Question at Issue, Information, Conclusions, Assumptions, Concepts, Implications, Point of View).
• Was the student able to effectively evaluate the reasoning, as appropriate, in the original text and present his/her assessment (i.e., point out the strengths and possible limitations and/or weaknesses of the reasoning in the writing sample) effectively?

Grading the ICAT Test In Part I of the test, the grader makes 8 judgments concerning student's work, each worth 10 points. In Part II of the test, the grader grades holistically (0-20 points). There are, therefore, 100 points possible for the two parts: 80 for the first part and 20 for the second part. The graders are asked to keep in mind the following general criteria as they award points. Form A First Part of the Test:  Analysis of Reasoning (each item 0-10 points) Total Points Possible: 80 0 – 2 points – unacceptable analysis (unskilled) 3 – 4 points – low level analysis (minimally skilled) 5 – 6 points – mixed level analysis (beginning skills) 7 – 8 points – commendable analysis (skilled) 9 – 10 points – excellent analysis (highly skilled) Second part of the Test:  Evaluation of Reasoning (grade holistically) Total Possible Points: 20 0 – 4 points – unacceptable evaluation (unskilled) 6 – 8 points – low level evaluation (minimally skilled) 10 – 12 points – mixed level evaluation (beginning skills) 14 – 16 points – commendable evaluation (skilled) 17 – 20 points – excellent evaluation performance (highly skilled) Intellectual Standards and Criteria Used in the ICAT Critical Thinking Essay Test The test taker should be guided by the questions below in developing his/her assessment of the writing sample (Part II). In addition, the test taker is called upon to comment on the reasoning as appropriate in terms of its clarity, accuracy, precision, relevance, depth, breadth, logicalness, significance, and fairness -- or lack thereof. 1. Question: Is the question at issue clear and unbiased? Does the expression of the question do justice to the complexity of the matter at issue? 2. Purpose: Is the purpose well-stated or implied? Is it clear and justifiable? Are the question and purpose directly relevant to each other? 3. Information: Is relevant evidence, experiences and/or information essential to the issue cited? Is the information accurate? Are the complexities of the issue addressed? 4. Ideas (concepts): Are key ideas clarified when necessary? Are the concepts used justifiably? 5. Assumptions: Is there sensitivity to what is being taken for granted or assumed?  Are questionable assumptions being used without addressing problems which might be inherent in those assumptions (insofar as those assumptions might reasonably be questioned)? 6. Conclusions: Is a line of reasoning well developed explaining the main conclusions? Are alternative conclusions considered? Are there any apparent inconsistencies in the reasoning? 7. Point of View: Is sensitivity to alternative relevant points of view or lines of reasoning shown? Is consideration given to objections framed from other relevant points of view? If so, were they responded to? 8. Implications: Is sensitivity shown to the implications and consequences of the position taken? The ICAT Critical Thinking Essay Test Can Be Taken With A Variety of Prompts Since every administration of the exam requires that a given writing prompt be chosen, it is possible to give students the exam on multiple occasions — in one case, testing their ability to analyze and evaluate scientific thinking; in another, sociological thinking; in a third, literary thinking; and so on. In one case, a section from a textbook may be chosen; in another, an editorial; in a third, a professional essay. In other words, the writing prompt can be chosen from any discipline or writing sample. General Directions to the Person About to Take the ICAT Critical Thinking Essay Exam After you carefully read the writing sample (taking whatever notes you want), you will have two tasks — each of them important. First, you will complete a template (see Form A) demonstrating your ability to recognize key important components in the thinking of an author. For example, demonstrate your ability to recognize the author’s purpose or the nature of the question, problem, or issue that is at the heart of the original editorial, article, or essay. You should not write your answers on Form A. Use your own paper, or blank pages provided, in order to have room to elaborate. Second, you will summarize your assessment of strengths and weaknesses of the reasoning of the original editorial, article, or essay (with special attention to the components you commented on). In doing this, you should present your analysis and assessment in the form of a persuasive explanation of your thinking about the original, imagining your audience as educated reasonable persons. You are therefore appealing to the reason of the audience, not their emotions. You should refer to intellectual standards whenever you can (Clarity, Accuracy, Precision, Relevance, Depth, Breadth, Logicalness, Significance). For example, you might feel that the question or problem in the text was never sufficiently made clear or that the information in support of a key conclusion was irrelevant to the question. You would then state how the issue or question should have been expressed. If you judge that the information in the original editorial, article, or essay was in part irrelevant, you would state what sort of information was relevant and comment on how that information could best be obtained. You should refer to the Criteria for Evaluating Reasoning (see Form B) in assessing the author’s thinking as displayed in the editorial, article, or essay. You are provided with the main criteria that the grader will be using in assessing your answers (see Form C). The grader will be asking himself/herself two questions while reading your answer:

• Did the student clearly understand the key components in the thinking of the original editorial, article, or essay?
• Was the student able to effectively evaluate the reasoning in the original editorial, article, or essay? Did the student present a reasonable case for his/her interpretation of the writing sample?

In an excellent evaluation, the evaluator takes into account the nature and purpose of the original writing sample. For example, it would be inappropriate to apply the same criteria to an editorial (which is severely limited in space) as one would to a research monograph or to a report on a scientific experiment in a scientific journal. In some writing technical information is essential and in other writing it is enough to cite common experience in supporting one’s conclusions. In every case, we expect the student to sympathetically enter into the viewpoint of the author and to engage in a fair-minded assessment based on an insightful understanding of the author’s reasoning. The extra weight (80 points), which is given to an accurate analysis as a necessary first step to evaluation (20 points), reflects our emphasis on the fact that fair-minded critical thinkers always make sure that they understand something BEFORE they criticize it. Good criticism always makes a contribution to the object of its criticism. It brings both strengths and weaknesses out into the open so that we may build on the first and correct the second.

What Does Part I Look Like?

Directions: After you have carefully read the assigned reading, complete the following sentences with whatever elaboration you think necessary to make your meaning clear. Do not write on the test. Use separate sheets of paper so that you have room for elaboration. 1) The main purpose of this editorial, article, or essay is ________________________. 2) The key question (whether stated or unstated) is __________________. 3) The most important information in this editorial, article, or essay is ____________. 4) The main conclusion(s) in this editorial, article, or essay is (are) ____________________. 5) The main idea(s) we need to understand in order to understand this editorial, article, or essay is (are) ___________________________. Here is a short explanation of what the author means by this/these concept(s): _________________________________________________________________. 6) The main assumption(s) underlying the author’s thinking is (are)________________. 7) The main implication(s) of this line of reasoning is (are) __________. 8) The main point(s) of view presented in this editorial, article, or essay is (are): _____________________________. (What is the author focused on and from what angle?) The Validity and Reliability of The ICAT Critical Thinking Essay Test

The main purpose of the ICAT test is for internal, not external use. The goal is to facilitate the faculty at given institutions putting more emphasis on thinking critically within the disciplines taught. Because the faculty use various prompts on different testing occasions and choose those prompts from different disciplines, it is difficult to compare student performances (using different prompts) by point scores alone. The goal is for the grading faculty to report back to the teaching faculty with appropriate commentary that enables that teaching faculty to form reasonable conclusions about the degree to which students are developing the critical thinking skills tested by ICAT. The ICAT exam has high "face validity," for it directly tests the students’ ability 1) to accurately identify the most fundamental intellectual structures in thinking, and 2) to do so in a piece of writing which the faculty themselves choose. It is clear and uncontroversial that critical thinking requires the thinker to analyze and evaluate reasoning. The ICAT test requires the student to do just that and, once again, to do so with respect to prompts which are representative of the content that is covered by instruction. One gains insight into the validity of the exam to the extent that one recognizes the significance of the abilities directly tested in the exam: the students’ ability to accurately identify the purpose of a piece of writing, the questions it raises, the information it embodies, the inferences and conclusions arrived at, the key concepts, the underlying assumptions, the implications of the reasoning, and the point of view of the reasoner. One gains further insight into the validity of the exam to the extent that one recognizes the significance of the intellectual standards which the student must use to assess the reasoning in the prompt: the relative clarity, accuracy, precision, relevance, depth, breadth, logicalness, significance, and fairness of the reasoning. Beyond that, one gains insight into the usefulness of the test in grasping its potential in helping faculty to develop comparable descriptions of their programs and course grading standards that highlight the critical thinking embodied in the content. Of course, success depends directly on the competence of the graders and on the manner in which they have established consistency in their grading. Here are the instructions faculty are given for this purpose:

How to Understand the Examination

First review some of the basic principles and purposes behind critical thinking so that you go into the grading of the examination with the clearest sense of what you are going to assess. You should review the Elements of Thought and the Universal Intellectual Standards. Then you should carefully review the editorial, article, or essay the students are going to analyze and comment on. Each faculty evaluator should read and take the test himself/herself. Faculty evaluators should reach consensus on the range of interpretations of that piece that are plausible. Once a consensus is achieved, one or two student case analyses should be individually assessed by all faculty and scoring compared. Faculty should use Form A and Form B as the criteria for scoring. All faculty should be within a 10 point range.

1) First, carefully read and analyze the editorial yourself, making sure that you are clear as to its structure: the writer's purpose, the central question posed, the information presented and reasons given in support of the author's position, the main conclusions and concepts, the fundamental assumptions and implications, and, of course, the point of view within the framework of which all of the reasoning proceeds. 2) Do a critical evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses (or limitations) of the original writing prompt. Make sure there is agreement of the faculty graders on these strengths and weaknesses. 2) Read a few of the essays to be scored. 3) Follow the grading procedure detailed in Form C. 4) The margin of error for graders should be plus or minus ten points. Practice grading with two other graders until the scoring of the three of you fall consistently within this range.

Practical Guide for Critical Thinking Instruction

  The goal of the ICAT Critical Thinking Essay Exam is two-fold:

• The first goal is to provide a reasonable way to pre- and post-test students to determine the extent to which they have learned to think critically.
• The second goal is to provide a test instrument that stimulates the faculty to teach their discipline so as to foster critical thinking in their students. Once faculty become committed to pre- and post-testing their students using the exam, it is natural and desirable for them to emphasize the analysis and assessment of thinking in their routine instruction within the subjects they teach. The exam, therefore, is designed to have a significant effect on instruction.

Let's examine this in greater detail.

C ritical thinking is, among other things, "thinking that analyzes itself, evaluates itself, and improves itself as a result." In science classes, students should learn to think scientifically; in math classes, to think mathematically; in history classes, to think historically; etc. Critical thinking is essential to this internalization. We internalize the logic of scientific thinking when we can analyze, evaluate, and improve instances of it. We internalize the logic of mathematical thinking when we can analyze, evaluate, and improve instances of it. We internalize the logic of historical thinking when we can analyze, evaluate, and improve instances of it. To teach a subject in a critical manner requires that students take ownership of the basic intellectual structures of the discipline (the elements of thought focused upon in Part I of the ICAT exam). It also requires that students internalize intellectual standards which they can use in assessing thinking for its strengths and weaknesses (the standards of thought which are focused upon in Part II of the ICAT exam). The Elements of Thought (The Essence of Part I of the Exam)

To understand content as a mode of thinking, we need to recognize that all content has a logic which is defined by the same eight dimensions that define the thinking which produced and continue to produce it. All content/thinking has been generated by organizing goals and purposes (that enable professionals to share in the pursuit of common ends and projects). All content/thinking is defined by the problems it defines and solves. All content/thinking presupposes the gathering and use of information in professional performance and problem solving. All content/thinking requires the making of inferences from relevant data or information to interpretative conclusions (rendering thereby the data of use to practitioners for guiding judgments). All content/thinking is structured by concepts (theoretical constructs) that organize, shape, and "direct" it. All content/ thinking proceeds from assumptions or presuppositions from which it logically proceeds (providing "boundaries" for the field). All content/thinking generates implications and consequences, that enable professionals to make predictions and test theories, lines of reasoning, and hypotheses.

All content/thinking defines a frame of reference or point of view (which provide practitioners with a logical map of use in considering the professional "moves" they will make). The ICAT Exam Highlights The Interrelationship Between Content and Thinking Each of the above sentences, as you may have noted, read equally well with either "content" or "thinking" as the subject. This is no accident of language. There is a perfect logical symmetry captured in each case. The symmetry is a reflection of the fact that all of what we call "content" is nothing more nor less than an organized product of a specific mode of disciplined thinking, developed by a community of thinkers.

When we master the logic of the thinking, we master the logic of the content. When we master the logic of the content, we master the logic of the thinking. For example, when we learn to think like a historian, we — at one and the same time — master the logic of the discipline called "History." When we master the logic of "History," we master ipso facto , the logic of historical thought. Period. There is nothing else that remains. Once we begin to grasp content as a mode of thinking, we can begin to isolate the connection between what it is that good thinkers must do to think well within that content and what it is that students must do to perform competently in an academic field defined by it. For example, it is possible to construct a generic description of academic goals that can be contextualized for virtually any field of study. Consider the following generic description. As you read through it, mentally place your discipline in the blank spaces. It is followed by a couple of sample contextualizations to exemplify what we mean. The ICAT Exam Suggests Model Descriptions of Goals for Academic Programs Students successfully completing a major in ___ will acquire a range of ___ thinking skills and abilities which they use in the acquisition of knowledge. Their work at the end of the program will be clear, precise, and well-reasoned. They will demonstrate in their thinking command of the key ___ terms and distinctions, and the ability to identify and solve fundamental ___ problems. Their work will demonstrate a mind in charge of its own ___ ideas, assumptions, inferences, and intellectual processes. They will demonstrate the ability to analyze ___ questions and issues clearly and precisely, formulate ___ information accurately, distinguish the relevant from irrelevant, recognize key questionable ___ assumptions, use key ___ concepts effectively, use ___ language in keeping with established professional usage, identify relevant competing ___ points of view, and reason carefully from clearly stated ___ premises, as well as show sensitivity to important ___ implications and consequences. They will demonstrate excellent ___ reasoning and problem-solving.

Sample Contextualizations

History Department Students successfully completing a major in History will demonstrate a range of historical thinking skills and abilities which they use in the acquisition of knowledge. Their work at the end of the program will be clear, precise, and well-reasoned. They will demonstrate in their thinking command of the key historical terms and distinctions, and the ability to identify and solve fundamental historical problems. Their work will demonstrate a mind in charge of its own historical ideas, assumptions, inferences, and intellectual processes. They will demonstrate the ability to analyze historical questions and issues clearly and precisely, formulate historical information accurately, distinguish the relevant from irrelevant, recognize key questionable historical assumptions, use key historical concepts effectively, use historical language in keeping with established professional usage, identify relevant competing historical points of view, and reason carefully from clearly stated historical premises, as well as show sensitivity to important historical implications and consequences. They will demonstrate excellent historical reasoning and problem-solving. Anthropology Department Students successfully completing a major in Anthropology will demonstrate a range of anthropological thinking skills and abilities which they use in the acquisition of anthropological knowledge. Their work at the end of the program will be clear, precise, and well-reasoned. They will demonstrate in their thinking command of the key anthropological terms and distinctions, and the ability to identify and solve fundamental anthropological problems. Their work will demonstrate a mind in charge of its own anthropological ideas, assumptions, inferences, and intellectual processes. They will demonstrate the ability to analyze anthropological questions and issues clearly and precisely, formulate anthropological information accurately, distinguish the relevant from irrelevant, recognize key questionable anthropological assumptions, use key anthropological concepts effectively, use anthropological language in keeping with established professional usage, identify relevant competing anthropological points of view, and reason carefully from clearly stated anthropological premises, as well as show sensitivity to important anthropological implications and consequences. They will demonstrate excellent anthropological reasoning and problem-solving. Biology Department Students successfully completing a major in Biology will demonstrate a range of biological thinking skills and abilities which they use in the acquisition of biological knowledge. Their work at the end of the program will be clear, precise, and well-reasoned. They will demonstrate in their thinking command of the key biological terms and distinctions, and the ability to identify and solve fundamental biological problems. Their work will demonstrate a mind in charge of its own biological ideas, assumptions, inferences, and intellectual processes. They will demonstrate the ability to analyze biological questions and issues clearly and precisely, formulate biological information accurately, distinguish the relevant from irrelevant, recognize key questionable biological assumptions, use key biological concepts effectively, use biological language in keeping with established professional usage, identify relevant competing biological points of view, and reason carefully from clearly stated biological premises, as well as show sensitivity to important biological implications and consequences. They will demonstrate excellent biological reasoning and problem-solving. Philosophy Department Students successfully completing a major in Philosophy will demonstrate a range of philosophical thinking skills and abilities. Their work at the end of the program will be clear, precise, and well-reasoned. They will demonstrate in their thinking command of the key philosophical terms and distinctions, and the ability to identify and solve fundamental philosophical problems. Their work will demonstrate a mind in charge of its own philosophical ideas, assumptions, inferences, and intellectual processes. They will demonstrate the ability to analyze philosophical questions and issues clearly and precisely, formulate philosophical information accurately, distinguish the relevant from irrelevant, recognize key questionable philosophical assumptions, use key philosophical concepts effectively, use philosophical language in keeping with established professional usage, identify relevant competing philosophical points of view, and reason carefully from clearly stated philosophical premises, as well as show sensitivity to important philosophical implications and consequences. They will demonstrate excellent philosophical reasoning and problem-solving.

Marketing Department Students successfully completing a major in Marketing will demonstrate a range of marketing thinking skills and abilities which they use in the acquisition of knowledge. Their work at the end of the program will be clear, precise, and well-reasoned. They will demonstrate in their thinking command of the key marketing terms and distinctions, and the ability to identify and solve fundamental marketing problems. Their work will demonstrate a mind in charge of its own marketing ideas, assumptions, inferences, and intellectual processes. They will demonstrate the ability to analyze marketing questions and issues clearly and precisely, formulate marketing information accurately, distinguish the relevant from irrelevant, recognize key questionable marketing assumptions, use key marketing concepts effectively, use marketing language in keeping with established professional usage, identify relevant competing marketing points of view, and reason carefully from clearly stated marketing premises, as well as show sensitivity to important marketing implications and consequences. They will demonstrate excellent marketing reasoning and problem-solving. Mathematics Department Students successfully completing a major in Mathematics will demonstrate a range of mathematical thinking skills and abilities. Their work at the end of the program will be clear, precise, and well-reasoned. They will demonstrate in their thinking command of the key mathematical terms and distinctions, and the ability to identify and solve fundamental mathematical problems. Their work will demonstrate a mind in charge of its own mathematical ideas, assumptions, inferences, and intellectual processes. They will demonstrate the ability to analyze mathematical questions and issues clearly and precisely, formulate mathematical information accurately, distinguish the relevant from irrelevant, recognize key questionable mathematical assumptions, use key mathematical concepts effectively, use mathematical language in keeping with established professional usage, identify relevant competing mathematical points of view, and reason carefully from clearly stated mathematical premises, as well as sensitivity to important mathematical implications and consequences. They will demonstrate excellent mathematical reasoning and problem-solving. Nursing Department Students successfully completing a major in Nursing will demonstrate a range of nursing thinking skills and abilities which they use in the acquisition of knowledge in nursing. Their work at the end of the program will be clear, precise, and well-reasoned. They will demonstrate in their thinking command of the key nursing terms and distinctions, and the ability to identify and solve fundamental nursing problems. Their work will demonstrate a mind in charge of its own nursing ideas, assumptions, inferences, and intellectual processes. They will demonstrate the ability to analyze nursing questions and issues clearly and precisely, formulate nursing information accurately, distinguish the relevant from irrelevant, recognize key questionable nursing assumptions, use key nursing concepts effectively, use nursing language in keeping with established professional usage, identify relevant competing nursing points of view, and reason carefully from clearly stated nursing premises, as well as show sensitivity to important nursing implications and consequences. They will demonstrate excellent nursing reasoning and problem-solving. Management Department Students successfully completing a major in Management will demonstrate a range of management thinking skills and abilities. Their work at the end of the program will be clear, precise, and well-reasoned. They will demonstrate in their thinking command of the key management terms and distinctions, and the ability to identify and solve fundamental management problems. Their work will demonstrate a mind in charge of its own ideas, assumptions, inferences, and intellectual processes in management. They will demonstrate the ability to analyze management questions and issues clearly and precisely, formulate information accurately, distinguish the relevant from irrelevant, recognize key questionable management assumptions, use key management concepts effectively, use management language in keeping with established professional usage, identify relevant competing management points of view, and reason carefully from clearly stated premises, as well as show sensitivity to important management implications and consequences. They will demonstrate excellent management reasoning and problem-solving. Music Department Students successfully completing a major in Music will demonstrate a range of musical thinking skills and abilities. Their work at the end of the program will be clear, precise, and well-reasoned and well-performed. They will demonstrate in their musical thinking and performance command of the key musical terms and distinctions, and the ability to identify and solve fundamental musical problems. Their work will demonstrate a mind in charge of its own musical ideas, assumptions, inferences, and intellectual processes, as well as musical performance. They will demonstrate the ability to analyze musical questions and issues clearly and precisely, formulate musical information accurately, distinguish the relevant from irrelevant, recognize key questionable musical assumptions, use key musical concepts effectively, use musical language in keeping with established professional usage, identify relevant competing musical points of view, and reason carefully from clearly stated musical premises, as well as show sensitivity to important musical implications and consequences. They will demonstrate excellent musical reasoning, problem-solving, and performance. Human Ecology Department Students successfully completing a major in Human Ecology will demonstrate a range of ecological thinking skills and abilities which they use in the acquisition of ecological knowledge. Their work at the end of the program will be clear, precise, and well-reasoned. They will demonstrate in their thinking command of the key ecological terms and distinctions, and the ability to identify and solve fundamental ecological problems. Their work will demonstrate a mind in charge of its own ecological ideas, assumptions, inferences, and intellectual processes. They will demonstrate the ability to analyze ecological questions and issues clearly and precisely, formulate ecological information accurately, distinguish the relevant from irrelevant, recognize key questionable ecological assumptions, use key ecological concepts effectively, use ecological language in keeping with established professional usage, identify relevant competing ecological points of view, and reason carefully from clearly stated ecological premises, as well as show sensitivity to important ecological implications and consequences. They will demonstrate excellent ecological reasoning and problem-solving. Physical Education Students successfully completing a major in Physical Education will demonstrate a range of physically-based thinking skills and abilities. Their work at the end of the program will be clear, precise, well-reasoned and well-performed. They will demonstrate in their thinking and performance command of the key physical and sport terms and distinctions, and the ability to identify and solve fundamental problems inherent in physical education and performance. Their work will demonstrate a mind in charge of its own ideas, assumptions, inferences, and intellectual processes as they are integral to physical performance. They will demonstrate the ability to analyze questions and issues clearly and precisely, formulate information accurately, distinguish the relevant from irrelevant, recognize key questionable assumptions, use key concepts effectively, use physical education language in keeping with established professional usage, identify relevant competing points of view in physical education, and reason carefully from clearly stated premises, as well as show sensitivity to important implications and consequences. They will demonstrate excellent reasoning, problem-solving, and performance in a variety of domains of physical education. Adopting The ICAT Exam Can Lead to Generic Academic Performance Standards The ICAT Critical Thinking Essay Examination highlights basic structures in thought and basic intellectual standards. Those structures and standards can be combined to create generic academic performance standards. One possible effect of the adoption of the exam is greater alignment between critical thinking and criteria for grades in courses. The text below defines the outlines of potential standards for the "grades" of A, B, C, D, and F. These specifications of performance levels are suggestive of common denominator academic values (tested by the ICAT exam). These specifications must, of course, be contextualized at two levels: at the department level (to capture domain-specific variations) and at the course level (to capture course-specific differences). The Grade of A The grade of A implies excellence in thinking and performance within the domain of a subject and course, along with the development of a range of knowledge acquired through the exercise of thinking skills and abilities. A-level work is, on the whole, not only clear, precise, and well-reasoned, but insightful as well. Basic terms and distinctions are learned at a level which implies insight into basic concepts and principles. The A-level student has internalized the basic intellectual standards appropriate to the assessment of his/her own work in a subject and demonstrates insight into self-evaluation. The A-level student often raises important questions and issues, analyzes key questions and problems clearly and precisely, recognizes key questionable assumptions, clarifies key concepts effectively, uses language in keeping with educated usage, frequently identifies relevant competing points of view, and demonstrates a commitment to reason carefully from clearly stated premises in the subject, as well as marked sensitivity to important implications and consequences. A-level work displays excellent reasoning and problem-solving within a field and works consistently at a high level of intellectual excellence. The Grade of B The grade of B implies sound thinking and performance within the domain of a subject and course, along with the development of a range of knowledge acquired through the exercise of thinking skills and abilities. B-level work is, on the whole, clear, precise, and well-reasoned, but does not have depth of insight. Basic terms and distinctions are learned at a level which implies comprehension of basic concepts and principles. The B-level student has internalized some of the basic intellectual standards appropriate to the assessment of his/her own work in a subject and demonstrates competence in self-evaluation. The B-level student often raises questions and issues, analyzes questions and problems clearly and precisely, recognizes some questionable assumptions, clarifies key concepts competently, typically uses language in keeping with educated usage, sometimes identifies relevant competing points of view, and demonstrates the beginnings of a commitment to reason carefully from clearly stated premises in a subject, as well as some sensitivity to important implications and consequences. B-level work displays sound reasoning and problem-solving within a field and works consistently at a competent level of intellectual performance. The Grade of C The grade of C implies mixed thinking and performance within the domain of a subject and course, along with some development of a range of knowledge acquired through the exercise of thinking skills and abilities. C-level work is inconsistently clear, precise, and well-reasoned; moreover, it does not display depth of insight or even consistent competence. Basic terms and distinctions are learned at a level which implies the beginnings of, but inconsistent comprehension of, basic concepts and principles. The C-level student has internalized a few of the basic intellectual standards appropriate to the assessment of his/her own work in a subject, but demonstrates inconsistency in self-evaluation. The C-level student sometimes raises questions and issues, sometimes analyzes questions and problems clearly and precisely, recognizes some questionable assumptions, clarifies some concepts competently, inconsistently uses language in keeping with educated usage, sometimes identifies relevant competing points of view, but does not demonstrate a clear commitment to reason carefully from clearly stated premises in a subject, nor is he/she consistent in sensitivity to important implications and consequences. C-level work displays inconsistent reasoning and problem-solving within a field and works, at best, at a competent level of intellectual performance. The Grade of D The grade of D implies poor thinking and performance within the domain of a subject and course. On the whole, the student tries to get through the course by means of rote recall, attempting to acquire knowledge by memorization rather than through comprehension and understanding. The student is not developing critical thinking skills and understandings as requisite to understanding course content. D-level work represents thinking that is typically unclear, imprecise, and poorly reasoned. The student is achieving competence only on the lowest order of performance. Basic terms and distinctions are often incorrectly used and reflect a superficial or mistaken comprehension of basic concepts and principles. The D-level student has not internalized the basic intellectual standards appropriate to the assessment of his/her own work in a subject and does poorly in self-evaluation. The D-level student rarely raises questions and issues, superficially analyzes questions and problems, does not recognize his/her assumptions, only partially clarifies concepts, rarely uses language in keeping with educated usage, rarely identifies relevant competing points of view, and shows no understanding of the importance of a commitment to reason carefully from clearly stated premises in a subject. The D-level student is insensitive to important implications and consequences. D-level work displays poor reasoning and problem-solving within a field and works, at best, at a low level of intellectual performance. The Grade of F The student tries to get through the course by means of rote recall, attempting to acquire knowledge by memorization rather than through comprehension and understanding. The student is not developing critical thinking skills and understandings as requisite to understanding course content. F-level work represents thinking that is regularly unclear, imprecise, and poorly reasoned. The student is not achieving competence in his/her academic work. Basic terms and distinctions are regularly incorrectly used and reflect a mistaken comprehension of basic concepts and principles. The F-level student has not internalized the basic intellectual standards appropriate to the assessment of his/her own work in a subject and regularly mis-evaluates his/her own work. The F-level student does not raise questions or issues, does not analyze questions and problems, does not recognize his/her assumptions, does not clarify concepts, does not use language in keeping with educated usage, confuses his/her point of view with the TRUTH, and shows no understanding of the importance of a commitment to reason carefully from clearly stated premises in a subject. The F-level student is oblivious of important implications and consequences. F-level work displays incompetent reasoning and problem-solving within a field and displays consistently poor intellectual performance.

The ICAT Exam and Education

Education is a high word. It is not socialization. It is not training. It is not indoctrination. It is the internalization of the life of reason within a domain of purposes and problems. It is the cultivation of a variety of modes of thought. It is the development of the power of knowledge. We are educated only when we are able to think within multiple fields and have the ability to learn to think in others. It would be odd to say that a person was well educated but not able to figure out the purposes, the questions, the information, the key concepts, the point of view, and so forth, of their own thinking and that of others. In a like manner, it would be odd to say of persons that they reasoned well, except for their tendency to be unclear, inaccurate, imprecise, irrelevant, superficial, narrow-minded, illogical, trivial, and unfair. The ICAT Critical Thinking Essay Exam focuses on what is the substantive core of education.

Back  to top