Critical Thinking in HE

By -
 Critical thinking is a key attribute of scholarship, and in order for students to be successful in higher education (HE), it is imperative that they understand and use it effectively (Alexander, Argent, & Spencer, 2018). Davies and Barnett concur, but also take a wider view stating that 'critical thinking is a necessary part of the formation of critical citizens’ (2015, p. 1).



However, it is a concept or term that is not easily defined, or rather, not easily defined in a comprehensive and universally accepted way (Alexander et al., 2018; Hitchcock, 2019). Naturally, there have been numerous attempts over the years to define it as definitively as possible. In fact, Davies and Barnett remind us that in 1990 the American Philosophical Association brought together ‘an authoritative panel of forty-six noted experts on the subject to produce a definitive account of the concept.’ However, Davies and Barnett are of the opinion that the resulting definition of critical thinking produced by that intellectual cohort to be ‘as long as it is hard to follow’ and that ‘this account of critical thinking does not lend itself easily to educational implementation’ (2015, p. 10).

Definitions of critical thinking [over the decades]

The following definitions range from a few years ago right up to more recent times, and are presented here for consideration, perhaps critically.

Lipman suggests that ‘a functional definition would consider critical thinking to be defined by three characteristics: (1) it is self-corrective thinking; (2) it is thinking with criteria; and (3) it is thinking that is sensitive to context’ (1987, p. 5). He expands on these points, of course, and I believe his article is worth reading.

 Jumping about a decade ahead, we have Huitt’s definition: ‘Critical thinking is the disciplined mental activity of evaluating arguments or propositions and making judgments that can guide the development of beliefs and taking action’ (1998, Proposed definition). Perhaps because this definition was somewhat influenced by Robert Ennis’ definition of critical thinking (See Huitt, 1998), I am reminded of Lipman’s response to that Ennis definition. Ennis defines the concept as ‘reasonable reflective thinking that is focused on deciding what to believe and do’ (cited in Lipman, 1987, p.5), [emphasis added]. Lipman argues that this definition is too restrictive ‘because critical thinking is employed for many other purposes and not just for deciding what to believe and do’ (1987, p. 5). He goes on to identify some of those other purposes as ‘analyzing, judging, hypothesizing, explaining’ and further states that ‘critical thinking is a process that occasionally results in decisions or solutions, but the process is not to be defined solely by those occasional consequences’ (1987, p. 5). 

While recognising that there is no clear-cut definition of critical thinking, Hitchcock believes that ‘the competing definitions can be understood as differing conceptions of the same basic concept: careful thinking directed to a goal’ (2019, para. 1). He goes on to clarify that ‘conceptions differ with respect to the scope of such thinking, the type of goal, the criteria and norms for thinking carefully, and the thinking components on which they focus’ (2019, para. 1).

Model of critical thinking in HE

Davies and Barnett argue that ‘Any...account of critical thinking must also embrace the long-standing focus of critical thinking as a composite of skills and judgments, and as a variety of dispositions as well.' That said, they present a model of critical thinking in HE (See Figure 1) that comprises ‘six distinct, yet integrated and permeable, dimensions’ (2015, p. 8). Point 6 – creativity or openness – should perhaps be highlighted because it might be a common belief that critical thinking implies or involves (only) criticising or evaluating. In fact, I have heard it said by more than one fellow teacher that critical thinking means finding what is wrong and exposing it. While that might be one aspect of critical thinking, another might be to expand on existing knowledge, and perhaps to the furthest extent, transform it.






Critical thinking and different disciplines

Moore (2011) advises against a generic approach to critical thinking. This is based on an investigation into how critical thinking is practised and realised in three disciplines, namely: Philosophy, History, and Literary studies. The study reports two findings: 
  • The mode critical thinking takes in each of the three        disciplines  
  • What students need to be critical about.
Table 1 is my attempt at a summary of point number one, with implications for teaching as I saw them emerge from the report.






Conclusion

Although there is no one-size-fits-all definition of critical thinking, its importance at least in HE seems to be incontrovertible. With that said, it might be useful to note that critical thinking is more than criticising and evaluating, and that it can also include a goal to build on existing knowledge and to create new pathways leading to new perspectives. What is more, it is not just a way of thinking but also a way of being, underscored by a certain attitude. As I see it, this attitude is one of openness and a quest to discover, but with caution and reflection. 


References

Alexander, O., Argent, S., & Spencer, J. (2018). EAP essentials: A teacher’s guide to principles and practice (2nd ed.). Reading, England: Garnet.

Davies, M., & Barnett, R. (Eds.). (2015). The Palgrave handbook of critical thinking in higher education. New York, USA: Palgrave Macmillan.

Hitchcock, D. (2019). Critical thinking. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2019 edition). Retrieved from https://stanford.library.sydney.edu.au/archives/spr2019/entries/critical-thinking/ 

Huitt, W. (1998). Critical thinking: An overview. Educational Psychology Interactive. Valdosta, GA: Valdosta State University. Retrieved from http://www.edpsycinteractive.org/topics/cognition/critthnk.html

Lipman, M. (1987). Critical thinking: What can it be? Analytic Teaching, 8(1), pp. 5-12. Retrieved from https://journal.viterbo.edu/index.php/at/article/view/403/197

Moore, T. J. (2011). Critical thinking and disciplinary thinking: A continuing debate. Higher Education Research and Development, 30(3), pp. 261-274. 


Image

pixabay







Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Incorporating information from sources

By -
Image
  This is my response to a task to create an academic skills lesson. Topic:  How to incorporate information from sources  Broad discipline area:  Social sciences Target audience: 1st Year Undergraduate students Lesson aims To introduce and practise: reading with a purpose. summarising, paraphrasing and synthesising. collaborative learning. critical thinking.   1.  Read the text about race assigned to your group and, as a group , write a short definition in the Table 1 : 2. Read the other two texts and check if you agree with the other groups' definitions. 3. With your original group, compare the definitions from the three texts as outlined in Table 2 : 4. Using the three definitions, write a cohesive response to the question: What is race? Do this individually. Remember to cite each author and year of publication. 5. Compare in your group. 6. Then compare your output with this model: Small (2006) writes that race as a concept or theory originated in the 18 th and 19 th
Read more

Moves Like Swales

By -
Image
  The CARS model In his seminal work on genre analysis published in 1990, John Swales introduced the revised version of his Create a Research Space (CARS) model. Adika (2014, p. 58) explains that this model  'describes the rhetorical moves that researchers utilize to claim research space in their disciplines in a highly competitive environment.' Specifically, the CARS model pertains to the introduction section of research articles (RA). Swales (1990) points out that introductions can be difficult to write. This is because RA authors have an array of options at their disposal for how they might approach the opening paragraphs.  The CARS model comprises 3 rhetorical moves, each with particular steps (See Table 1). Hyland (2006, p. 50) defines a rhetorical move as ‘a distinct communicative act designed to achieve a particular communicative function’. Put another way, a rhetorical move is a stretch of text anywhere from a phrase to a paragraph with a particular job (Rienecker, 2021
Read more

GELT vs EAP

By -
Image
General English language teaching (GELT) is the context in which I have honed, and to a large extent am still honing, my teaching skills. Like English for Academic Purposes (EAP) contexts, GELT comes with its own unique set of challenges and rewards. In this post, I look at some of the differences between these two contexts through the prism of my experience. Therefore, the reader should be aware of the anecdotal nature of my commentary. Alexander, Argent, and Spencer (2018, pp. 11-13) outline differences along three categories, namely context, people, and teaching and learning content. I will now briefly explore each of these and their sub-categories. Context What drives the syllabus? In GELT contexts, the syllabus is level driven. These are typically labelled Beginner, Elementary, Pre-intermediate, etc. Some schools and institutions might also refer to these levels as A1, A2, B1, etc [based on the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR)]. New students ar
Read more