DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 304 041 HE 022 199

AUTHOR Kurfiss, Joanne Gainen

TITLE Critical Thinking: Theory, Research, Practice, and
Possibilities. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No.
2, 1988.
INSTITUTION Association for the Study of Higher Education.; ERIC
Clearinghouse on Higher Education, Washington,
D.C.
SPONS AGENCY Office of Educational Research and Improvement (ED),
Washington, DC.
REPORT NO ISBN-0-913317-44-6
PUB DATE 88
CONTRACT ED-RI-88-062014
NOTE 164p.
AVAILABLE FROM ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Reports, The George
Washington University, One Dupont Circle, Suite 630,
Dept. RC, Washington, DC 20036-1183 ($15.00).
PUB TYPE Guides Classroom Use Guides (For Teachers) (052)
Information Analyses ERIC Information Analysis
Products (071) -- Reports Research/Technical (143)

EDRS PRICE MF01/PC07 Plus Postage.

DESCRIPTORS Cognitive Processes; College Instruction; College
Students; *Critical Th:Lnking; Evaluative Thinking;
Higher Education; *Intellectual Development;
Intellectual Disciplines; Logical Thinking; Models;
Productive Thinking; *Student Development; Teacher
Responsibility; *Teaching Methods

ABSTRACT
The formal development of critical thinking is
discussed, and guidance is provided to help faculty insure that
critical thinking becomes an integral part of learning. Theory,
research, teaching practice, and college programs pertinent to the
development and role of critical thinking are presented in order to
show how educators have shaped educational settings to nurture the
capacity and disposition to think critically. Eight sections include:
(1) introduction (definitions, teaching critical thinking, and
purpose of the report); (2) historical background (forerunners and
relationship to the current scene); (3) informal logic: analysis and
construction of arguments (formal and informal logic, critical
thinking textbooks, and educational implications); (4) cognitive
processes in critical thinking (assumptions, reasoning of novices and
experts, and affective factors: curiosity and purpose); (5)
developmental foundations of critical thinking (stages of
intellectual development, differences between samples, and changing
students' beliefs about knowledge); (6) teaching critical thinking in
the disciplines (teacher education, evaluation in critical thinking
courses, and common features in critical thinking courses in the
disciplines); (7) institutional issues and approaches (circular
approaches, organizational strategies, and features of current
programs); and (8) conclusion (needed research and support and
dissemination). Contains about 300 references. (SM)
Critical
Thinking
U.S DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Once of Educational Research and improvement
Theory. Research, EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION
CENTER (ERICI
Practice, and Possibilities VMS dOcument has been rePrOduced as
received from the person or organaation
originating a
CT Minor changes have been made to improve
Joanne G. Kurfiss reproduCtion duality

Points°, view of °onions statedinthisdocu-

merit do not necessarily represent Oliva!
ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Reports 198o OERI posthon or oeitoy

S
 Critical Thinking:
Theory, Research, Practice, and Possibilities

by Joanne Gainen Ktufiss

ASHE -ERIC Higher Education Report No. 2, 1988

Prepared by
' Clearinghouse on Higher Education
ERIC The George Washington University

Published by
ASH*Association for the Study of
Higher Education

Jonathan D. Fife,
Series Editor

.1
ti
Cite as
Kurfiss, Joanne G. Critical Thinking: Theory, Research, Practice, and
Possibilities. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 2. Washing-
ton, D.C.: Association for the Study of Higher Education, 1988.

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 88-71519

ISSN 0884-0040
ISBN 0-913317-44-6

Managing Editor: Christopher Rigaux

Manuscript Editor: Barbara FisnellEditech
Cover design by Michael David Brown, Rockville, Magian('

The ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education invites individuals to

submit proposals for writing monographs for the Higher Education Re-
port series. Proposals must include:
1. A detailed manuscript proposal of not more than five pages.
2. A chapter-by-chapter outline.
3. A 75-word summary w be used by several review committees for
the initial screening and rating of each proposal.
4. A vita.
5. A writing sample.

(ERIC} Clearinghouse on Higher Education

School of Education and Human Development
The George Washington University
One Dupont Circle, Suite 630
Washington, D.C. 20036-1183

ASHE, Association for the Study of Higher Education

Texas A&M University
Department of Educational Administration
Harrington Education Center
College Station, Texas 77843

This publication was prepared partially with funding from the Office
of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Edu-
cation, under contract no. ED R1-88-062014. The opinions expressed
in this report do not necessarily reflect the positions or policies of
OERI or the Department.

4
 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Most colleges and universities aspire to produce graduates who
think critically, who can make judgments in complex situations
on the basis of sound reason, adequate evidence, and articu-
lated values. Why, then, does criticism such as that of Allan
Bloom in The Closing of the American Mind strike such a re-
sponsive chord with the American public? Is it true, as the sub-
title of Bloom's book proclaims, that "higher education has
failed democracy and impoverished the souls of today's stu-
dents"?
Bloom's sweeping claim does not lend itself well to empiri-
cal validation or disconfirmation (Bloom himself disdains empir-
icism as a path to truth). Nonetheless, theoretical and empirical
studies of students' intellectual deve'opment are helpful in ad-
dressing several questions: What is critical thinking? How does
it develop? What role does knowledge play in critical thinking?
Do educational practices affect the ability to think critically?
This report surveys theory, research, teaching practice, and in-
stitutional programs pertinent to these questions.

Does Higher Education Promote Critical Thinking?

Three perspectives dominate current literature on critical think-
ing and its development in college: argument skills, cognitive
processes, and intellectual development.

Argument skills
Introductory courses on critical thinking teach students to detect
and avoid fallacious reasoning and to analyze deductive and in-
ductive arguments. These courses are grounded in informal
logic, a branch of philosophy. Argument skills improve mod-
estly with college experience (McMillan 1987), but education
has only a minor effect on the depth of students' arguments on
everyday issues (Perkins 1986). It may be because subject mat-
ter knowledge is more important in critical thinking than ge-
neric knowledge of how to analyze arguments (McPeck 1981).
Or it may be because students are unable to make use of
knowledge that is in fact available to them (Perkins 1986).

Cognitive processes
Cognitive psychologists study the organization of knowledge in
memory and its role in tasks such as reading, writing, and
problem solving. In cognitive terms, critical thinking is prob-
lem solving in situations where "solutions" cannot be verified
empirically. Confronted with a complex issue, the learner con-

Critical Thinking iii

 structs a representation or mental model of the situation; the
model is organized around a claim or thesis and supported by
reasoning and evidence.
Three kinds of knowledge interact in developing a model: (1)
declarative knowledge, knowing the facts and concepts in the
discipline; (2) procedural knowledge, knowing how to reason,
inquire, and present knowledge in the discipline; and (3) meta -
cognition, cognitive control strategies, such as setting goals,
determining when additional information is needed, and assess-
ing the fruitfulness of a line of inquiry.
Experts draw on an extensive network of hierarchically and
causally organized declarative knowledge relevant to problems
in their field. In addition, they use metacognition and the rea-
soning procedures of their discipline; however, their use of
these cognitive processes is so automatic that they may be un-
aware of the skill that underlies their performance.
Students acquire considerable declarative knowledge in their
college courses. Their knowledge, however, may not be effec-
tively organized for solving particular problems. Moreover,
procedural knowledge is rarely taught (in part because it is tacit
knowledge for professors), and many students' metacognitive
skills are poorly developed. As a result, students may not draw
upon the full extent of their knowledge when called upon to
complete assignments that require critical thinking.
This report summarizes cognitive research on thinking in var-
ious disciplines and describes courses that foster critical think-
ing in the disciplines. Many of these courses explicitly teach
discipline-specific procedural knowledge and build metacog-
nitive processes into instructions for assignments and class
activities.

Intellectual development
While cognitive researchers focus on learners' discipline- or
even t -sk- specific knowledge of complex issues, the develop-
mental approach traces transformations in students' beliefs
about the nature of knowledge and truth. A major develop-
mental task for college students is discovering and reckoning
with the loss of singular truth and ultimate authority (Be leaky
et al. 1986; Perry 1970).
Many people assume that knowledge consists of objective
tracts possessed by authorities. When students encounter plural-
ism, complexity, and uncertainty in college courses, they inter-
pret it as "subjectivity." They proclaim that when "facts" are

iv
6
 not known, all opinions are equally valid. This view (called
"multiplicity" or "subjective knowledge") is similar to the ex-
cessive "openness" deplored by Allan Bloom. Several devel-
opmental studies support Bloom's contention that students view
knowledge as "purely" subjective.
Persistent attention to the justification of belief helps students
progress to the view that opinions are knowledge claims that
have stronger or weaker grounds and that their merits can be
discussed (though perhaps not agreed upon) within a particular
intellectual community. The final developmental task is to
make rational, caring commitments in a relativistic world. For
many educators, it is the mature epistemology of commitment,
not isolated analytical skills, that is the true aim of instruction
for critical thinking.
Developmentally effective instruction challenges students to
confront the indeterminacy of knowledge at the level just be-
yond their present understanding and supports them by affirm-
ing what they have already achieved (Belenky et al. 1986;
Widick, Knefelkamp, and Parker 1975). The intellectual devel-
opment perspective has been extensively investigated and has
provided guidance and inspiration for many educators.

What Can Educators Do to Foster Critical Thinking?

This report describes numerous examples of programs and
courses that successfully integrate critical thinking with content
learning in many disciplines. Many of these projects overcome
students' reluctance to tackle challenging assignments by con-
necting themes, values, and modes of inquiry in the discipline
with experiences and questions that are meaningful in students'
lives (Gamson and Associates 1984; Loacker et al. 1984).
These courses do not neglect "content" in favor of "process."
Rather, they require students to use content in projects that re-
quire critical thinking. Students' initial attempts are recognized
as the work of novices, to be developed and refined as their
base of declarative and strategic knowledge grows. Teachers in
such courses often use structured small group work in which
students clarify concepts, explore complex problems, debate is-
sues, and get help on work in progress.
Fostering all students' critical thinking abilities and intellec-
tual development requires the participation and support of
faculty in every discipline. Institutional approaches currently in
use include freshman-year programs, cross-curricular models,
and assessment-based strategies. To build support for institu-

Critical Thinking v
 tional cooperation, campus leaders often survey faculty, em-
ployers, or alumni or conduct a formal assessment of thinking
skills, then create a forum for discussion and interpretation of
the results. Once courses or programs are established, adminis-
trators must recognize that faculty who are experimenting with
new teaching methods and skills need support in the form of
resources, time, training, and encouragement. Supportive ad-
ministrators often find that teaching for thinking is an important
source of faculty vitality, renewal, and collegiality (Gamson
and Associates 1984).

Recommendations for the Future

Support for research, practice, and dissemination of critical
thinking pedagogy is needed from a variety of sources to
strengthen critical thinking in higher education. Collaborations
between cognitive researchers and faculty will deepen under-
standing of learning and thinking in every discipline. Academic
and professions: organizations can play an important role by
sponsoring research and instructional projects on critical think-
ing and related topics, such as ethical reasoning.
Critical thinking is an essential capacity of citizens in a
healthy democratic society, and postsecondary educators are
uniquely qualified to cultivate this capacity among students. At-
tention to critical thinking is not an educational panacea, and
many other capacities of young adults and other students also
deserve the attention of educators. To the degree, however, that
critical thinking contributes to a more rational and humane so-
ciety, its cultivation merits a significant expenditure of educa-
tors' collective time, wisdom, and effort. The research and
practice summarized in this report provide a point of departure
as well as a reason to hope that the work will prove rewarding
for those who accept the challenge.

vi
ADVISORY BOARD
Roger G. Baldwin
Assistant Professor of Education
College of William and Mary
Carol M. Boyer
Senior Academic Planner
Massachusetts Board of Regents
Clifton F. Conrad
Professor of Higher Education
Department of Educational Administration
University of WisconsinMadison
Elaine H. El-Khawas
Vice President
Policy Analysis and Research
American Council on Education
Martin Finkelstein
Associate Professor of Higher Education Administration
Seton Hall University
Carol Ever ly Floyd
Associate Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs
Board of Regents of the Regency Universities System
State of Illinois
George D. Kuh
Professor of Higher Education
School of Education
Indiana University
Yvonna S. Lincoln
Associate Professor of Higher Education
University of Kansas
Richard F. Wilson
Associate Chancellor
University of Illinois
Ami Zusman
Principal Analyst, Academic Affairs
University of California

Critical Thinking vii

9
 CONSULTING EDITORS
Charles Adams
Director, The Inquiry Program
Center for the Study of Adult and Higher Education
University of Massachusetts

Ann E. Austin
Research Assistant Professor
Vanderbilt University

Trudy W. Banta
Research Professor
University of Tennessee

Harriet W. Cabell
Associate Dean for Adult Education
Director, External Degree Program
University of Alabama

L. Leon Campbell
Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs
University of Delaware
Ellen Earle Chaffee
Associate Commissioner for Academic Affairs
North Dakota State Board of Higher Education

Robert Paul Churchill

Chair and Associate Professor
Department of Philosophy
George Washington University

Peter T. Ewell
Senior Associate
National Center for Higher Education Management Systems
Reynolds Ferrante
Professor of Higher Education
George Washington University

Zelda F. Damson
Director
New England Resource Center for Higher Education

J. Wade Gilley
Senior Vice President
George Mason Univeisity

Critical Thinking ix
10
 Judy Diane Grace
Director of Research
Council for Advancement and Support of Education
Madeleine F. Green
Director, Center for Leadership Development
American Council on Education
Milton Greenberg
Provost
American University
Judith Dozier Hackman
Associate Dean
Yale University
Paul W. Hartman
Vice Chancellor for University Relations and Development
Texas Christian University
James C. Hearn
Associate Professor
University of Minnesota
Evelyn lively
Vice President for Academic Programs
American Association of State Colleges and Universities

Frederic Jacobs
Dean of the Faculties
American University
Paul Jedamus
Professor
University of Colorado

Joseph Katz
Director. New Jersey Master Faculty Program
Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Four dation

George Keller
Senior Vice President
The Barton-Gillet Company

L. Lee Knefelkamp
Dean, School of Education
American University

f1
 David A. Kolb
Professor and Chairman
Department of Organizational Behavior
The Weatherhead School of Management
Case Western Reserve University
Oscar T. Lenning
Vice President for Academic Affairs
Robert Wesleyan College
Charles J. McClain
President
Northeast Missouri State University
Judith B. McLaughlin
Research Associate on Education and Sociology
Harvard University
Marcia Mentkowski
Director of Research and Evaluation
Professor of Psychology
Alverno College
James L. Morrison
Professor
University of North Carolina
Sheila A. Murdick
Director, National Program on Noncollegiate-Sponsored
Instruction
New York State Board of Regents
Elizabeth M. Nuss
Executive Director
National Association of Student Personnel Adnimistrators
Robert L. Payton
Director, Center on Philanthropy
Indiana University
Jack E. Rossmann
Professor of Psychology
Macalester College
Donald M. Sacken
Associate Professor
University of Arizona

Critical Thinking xi

12
Robert A. Scott
President
Ramapo College of New Jersey
Henry A. Spine
Director, Office on Educational Credits and Credentials
American Council on Education
CONTENTS
XV
Foreword
xvii
Acknowledgments
1
Introduction
2
Definition of Terms
The Challenge of Teaching Critical Thinking 3
Purpose and Scope of the Report 4
7
Historical Background
7
The Forerunners
Relationship to the Current Scene 10

Informal Logic: Analysis and Construction of

13
Arguments
Rhetoric, Formal Logic, and Informal Logic 14
14
Types of Arguments
Fallacies of Informal Reasoning 15
16
Critical Thinking Textbooks
Transferable Aspects of Argument 19
Critique of Critical Thinking as Analysis of Arguments 21
Educational Impi ltions 23

Cognitive Processes in Critical Thinking 25

25
Assumptions
Critical Thinking as Problem Solving 28
Reasoning of Novices and Experts 30
Acquiring Knowledge for Critical Thinking 33
Beliefs about Knnwledge 46
Affective Factors: Curiosity and Purpose 47
48
Conclusions
Developmental Foundations of Critical Thinking 51
Background of the Research 51
"Stages" of Intellectual Development 52
Differences between Samples 56
Criticisms 58
Relationship to Critical Thinking 60
Relationship to Other Behaviors 61
Changing Students' Beliefs about Knowledge 63
67
Conclusion
Teaching Critical Thinking in the Disciplines 71
71
The Sciences, Mathematics, and Engineering
76
The Humanities
81
Social Sciences
Teacher Education 85
Evaluation in Critical Thinking Courscs 87

Critical Thinking
14
Common Features of Critical Thinking Courses in the
Disciplines 88
Institution:41 Issues and Approaches 91
Curricular Approaches 91
Organizational Strategies 97
Features of Current Programs 101
Consequences for Academic Life 101
Conclusion 103
Needed Research 103
Support and Dissemination 106
References 109
Index 131

15
FOREWORD
A person's thinking style is developed ever a long period of
time. It is generally the result of three factors: (1) a natural in-
clination toward a particular thinking style, such as right-brain
or left-brain; (2) modelling, through such mechanisms as trial-
and-error and positive reinforcement; and (3) the formal educa-
tion process. The concern of this report is with the third factor,
i.e., the formal development of critical thinking.
The first question concerning critical thinking is *Int can or
how it can be taught, but whether it is allowed to be taught?
The popular press is filled with reports on how parents and or-
ganizations try to prevent the teaching of ideas that are contrary
to their own beliefs. An example of this appeared in the Wash-
ington Post on October 20, 1988, in an article about how a
curriculum program, "Facing History and Ourselves," used the
history of the Holocaust to explore morality, human behavior,
law, and citizenship; it was opposed by a concerned organiza-
tion who objected to students being encouraged to think criti-
cally about decisions made by their government.
A second question is whether teachers have the internal sup-
port to teach critical thinking. Critical thinking is often opposed
by students themselves because of its difficulty. As Henry Ford
is quoted as saying, "Thinking is hard work, and that's why so
few people do it." Critical thinking is very hard to quantify or
grade, and the grading of critical thinking is always subject to
debate. It is easier and safer for faculty to teach at a level that
is less threatening and more quantifiable.
The importance critical thinking plays in the education
process depends upon one's philosophic belief in the purpose of
education. If education is only to teach basic facts, than critical
thinking plays only a minor role and rote learning is sufficient.
If, however, the role of education is to develop greater reason-
ing skill in order to cope with and make decisions about life
and society, then critical thinking plays a central position, since
reasoning is impossible without critical thinking.
Because critical thinking is generally not encouraged at the
elementary and secondary level, it becomes a central responsi-
bility for higher education. In this report, Joanne Gainen Kur-
fiss, a teaching consultant at the University of Delaware,
examines critical thinking on the three levels by which it is
most commonly taught in higher education: argument skills,
cognitive processes, intellectual development. One of the most
difficult features of teaching critical thinking is incorporating it

Critical Thinking xv
J6
into the basic curiculum; the author provides a wealth of excel-
lent suggestions on how this can be accomplished.
One thing that almost everyone will agree on is that the next
50 years will bring more changes than has been seen in the
sum history of humanity. How well society handles them in a
large part will be determined by its ability to reason and think
critically. This report clearly provides guidance in helping fac-
ulty insure that critical thinking becomes an integral part of
learning.

Jonathan D. Fife
Professor and Director
ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education
School of Education and Human Development
The George Washington University
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This project has benefited from my work in the Center for
Teaching Effectiveness and especially from conversations with
my colleague in the center, Julie Schmidt.
The project also benefited from data base searches provided
by ERIC and from generous sharing of reprints by many re-
searchers and teachers. Mary Norton, who teaches critical
thinking, graciously provided resources for the chapter on argu-
ment skills. My thanks to all, including those whose work ulti-
mately fell outside the scope of this report.
I also want to thank my first readers, who include Jon Fife
and Chris Rigaux at the ERIC Clearinghouse, the reviewers of
the original manuscript, and participants at the University of
Chicago's Institute on Teaching and Learning in May 1988,
who read an early version of the materials on theoretical per-
spectives. Their questions challenged my thinking, and their in-
terest supported my faith that the effort was worthwhile.
This book is dedicated to my family.

Critical Thinking xvii

j8
INTRODUCTION
In recent years, critical thinking has become a major focus of
conferences, publications, and programs in higher education.
Schools and colleges from New York to California have estab- It is human
lished programs and centers devoted to critical thinking. Doz-
ens of conference papers have been presented in forums across
irrationality,
the country, and new books on the subject are appearing at not a lack of
an accelerating rate. Critical thinking skills are tested state- knowledge,
wide in California public schools (Kneed ler 1985). And many
institutions have received grants to support projects on critical
that threatens
thinking. human
Why all this attention to critical thinking? potential.
The complexities of contemporary life place great demands
on human rationality; about this there is little disagreement.
Contemporary problems are not simply larger or more numer-
ous than those of the past, however; they must be resolved in a
world where familiar assumptions (like continued growth and
expansion) no longer hold true (Morrill 1980). Furthermore, it
is human irrationality, not a lack of knowledge, that threatens
human potential (Nickerson 1986c).
Against this background is the increasingly compelling evi-
dence of serious deficiencies in the ability to reason among col-
lege students and the limited influence of college education on
critical thinking skills. Depth of argument on controversial top-
ics is minimal and increases marginally as a result of college
instruction (Perkins 1985). Seniors are more adept than fresh-
men at evaluating position papers, but their overall level of per-
formance is low (Keeley, Browne, and Kreutzer 1982). Com-
pared to freshmen, seniors in liberal arts and engineering are
more aware of evidence in reasoning, but they still believe
judgment is a matter of "individual idiosyncracies" (Welfel
1982, p. 495). College students make judgments on the basis
of unexamined personal preferences, even after four years of
higher education (Belenky et al. 1986; King et al. 1983; Wel-
fel 1982).
Longitudinal studies show an influence of education, but
when reasoning about everyday questions, such as bias in the
news and evaluation of food additives, only graduate students
seem to recognize that different points of view can be com-
pared and evaluated through contextual reasoning (King et al.
1983; King, Kitchener, and Wood 1985). Many researchers
have documented an uncritical, "makes-sense epistemology"
(Perkins, Allen, and Hafner 1983), termed "multiplicity"
(Perry 1970) and "subjective knowledge" (Belenky et al.

Critical Thinking I

19
 1986). Recently, college students' subjectivism has become the
focus of national attention as "the openness of indifference"
described in The Closing of the American Mind (Bloom 1987,
p. 41).
Disheartening reports and personal observation of students
have prompted educators and researchers to take a closer look
at students' reasoning and to search for teaching methods to en-
courage critical thinking. Their successes, frustrations, and un-
resolved questions are the subject of lids report.

Definition of Terms
Critical thinking is a rational response to questions that cannot
be answered definitively and for which all the relevant informa-
tion may not be available. It is defined here as an investigation
whose purpose is to explore a situation, phenomenon, question,
or problem to arrive at a hypothesis or conclusion about it that
integrates all available information and that can therefore be
convincingly justified. In critical thinking, all assumptions are
open to question, divergent views are aggressively sought, and
the inquiry is not biased in favor of a particular outcome.
The outcomes of a critical inquiry are twofold: a conclusion
(or hypothesis) and the justification offered in support of it.
These outcomes are usually set forth in the form of an argu-
ment, defined as "the sequence of interlinked claims and rea-
sons that, between them, establish the content and force of the
position for which a particular speaker is arguing" (Toulmin,
Rieke, and Janik 1979, p. 13). The need for justification arises
from the ill-defined nature of problems to which the term "crit-
ical thinking" generally applies. Because conclusions cannot be
tested (as they can be in problem solving), the arguer must
demonstrate their plausibility by offering supporting reasons
(Voss, Tyler, and Yengo 1983).
The inquiry itself, in which evidence is reviewed and inter-
preted, is sometimes referred to as "the context of discovery";
it is the inventive, creative phase of critical thinking. The pre-
sentation of the argument is referred to as "the context ofjusti-
fication" (Kahane 1980; McPeck 1981). In practice, the two
may be intertwined rather than distinct.
Academic and professional settings offer numerous occasions
for critical thinking. A student offering evidence from a literary
text to support an insight about the author's intentions is en-
gaged in critical thinking (the context of justification). Students
investigating divergent accounts of a historical event and at-

2
g0
tempting to formulate a plausible interpretation of what really
happened or to decipher the meaning of events are engaged in
critical thinking (the context of discovery). Faculty studying a
new curriculum proposal are engaged in critical thinking. In
each case, the quality of the inquiry depends on the degree to
which the inquirers arc able to set aside preconceptions and re-
main open to new information or plausible counterarguments.
Critical thinking can result in a decision, a speech, a pro-
posal or experiment, or a document like a position paper. It can
result in a new way of approaching significant issues in one's
life or a deeper understanding of the basis for one's actions
(Brookfield 1987). Or it might also result in political activity
(Guyton 1982, 1984).
While critical thinking may yield a satisfying account of the
issue or subject in question, it might also raise doubts that can-
not be resolved under the particular circumstances of the in-
quiry, especially when moral or ethical principles are at stake.
When an account is constructed, the individual must often act
upon it even while recognizing that it is subject to further de-
velopment and may change in light of new evidence or reason-
ing or a change in circumstances (Perry 1970).

The Challenge of Teaching Critical Thinking

Educators in every discipline value critical thinking skills of
one form or another. Asked to identify the reasoning skills
most critical to success in graduate school in their disciplines,
professors in six disciplines offered only partially overlapping
lists (Powers and Enright 1987). For example, chemists most
value the ability to draw sound inferences from observations,
critically analyze and evaluate previous research, and generate
new questions or experiments, while English professors most
value the ability to elaborate an argument and develop its im-
plications, understand, analyze, and evaluate arguments, sup-
port general assertions with details, and recognize the central
thesis in a work. For English professors, the most critical errors
include inability to synthesize ideas, unquestioning acceptance
of assumptions, and reliance on narration or description when
analysis is appropriate. In education, a serious error is failing
to evaluate the credibility or reliability of a source (Powers and
Enright 1987, p. 669).
Although these skills are valued, they are seldom explicitly
taught to students. Professors display the products of their
skills in the form of the arguments and interpretations they

Critical Thinking 3

21
 present in lectures and discussions. But students rarely witness
the processes by which their professors interrogate texts, com-
pare conflicting interpretations of phenomena or works of art or
literature, or discover patterns in seemingly chaotic evidence.
Students are often -ssigned tasks that require such skills, but
the problem of acquiring the requisite skills is left to the inge-
nuity, good fortune, and native ability of the student.
Furthermore, students are often unaware of the characteristic
forms in which arguments are presented in different fields.
Some disciplines prefer a probleta-solution structure; in others,
a position on an issue is supported with evidence (Bean and
Ramage 1986). Experiment?' reports in tae natural and social
sciences favor statement of the problem, hypothesis, methods,
findings, and discussion. History is descriptive and narrative at
times, interpretive at other times Many students are only mar-
ginally aware of these differences and the reasons for their ex-
istence. Moreover, commercial textbooks may obscure the
nature and form of disciplinary arguments.
Faculty members' intimate familiarity with the questions and
methods of their disciplines would seem to put them in an ideal
position to help students acquire the needed skills. Most aca-
demics chose their discipline because they had a natural affinity
for its ways, however. To them, discipline-specific reasoning
skills are second nature. Teaching critical thinking involves
making familiar patterns explicit so they can be shared.
Such an enterprise naturally raises many questions. What are
the important skills students need to acquire? How do people
acquire the skills and dispositions needed to think in the mode
of the discipline? How much does thinking depend on special-
ized knowledge? How much on native ability or affinity for the
subject? Does the study of certain subjects foster critical think-
ing more than others? Does it matter how subjects are taught?
Do critical thinking skills learned in one domain transfer to
other subjects? While many educators and researchers have ex-
plored questions such as these, their findings present a complex
and incomplete but comprehensible portrait of critical thinking.

Purpose and Scope of the Report

The purposes of this report are to enrich educators' models of
critical thinking and its development and to illustrate how edu-
cators have shaped educational settings to nurture the capacity
and disposition to think critically. The report examines three
major perspectives on critical thinking:

22
 Informal logic, or critical thinking as skills of analyzing
and constructing arguments;
Cognitive processes, or critical thinking as construction of
meaning; and
Intellectual development, or critical thinking as the mani-
festation of a contextual theory of knowledge.

Within each perspective, relevant theory and research are re-

viewed and limitations and educational implications explored.
The report then illustrates current practice in the teaching of
critical thinking at two levels: individual courses within a disci-
pline and institutional programs to foster critical thinking. It
concludes with recommendations for research and practice and
an assessment of prospects for critical thinking as an outcome
of higher education.
The perspectives of this report are primarily psychological,
educational, and empirical. Other perspectives, however, could
certainly enrich such an inquiryfor example, philosophers in-
terested in ethics and values (e.g., Morrill 1980), sociologists
interested in the influence of group norms and social structures
on reasoning (e.g., Stark 1987), and specialists in communica-
tion, rhetoric, and composition who offer important insights on
group dynamics, persuasion, and the ways in which language
reflects and shapes thinking. Moreover, many educators not
discussed here have adapted their teaching practice to cajole,
provoke, and entice students into thinking critically. They have
a reputation among students, and they offer a rich store of local
knowledge for interested colleagues.
Within its psychological perspective, this report does not ad-
dress motivational issues or learning styles, although it has im-
plications for each of these topics. Two earlier reports in this
series address stress in teaching and learning, which has impli-
cations for motivation (Whitman, Spend love, and Clark 1984,
1986); others address learning styles (Claxton and Murrell
1987; Claxton and Ralston 1978). Another book offers a brief
overview of affective factors in problem solving (McLeod
1985).
The report maintains a deliberate focus on instruction in the
academic disciplines. (For a comprehensive review of "ge-
neric" thinking skills programs, see Nickerson, Perkins, and
Smith 1985.) It presents experimental studies relevant to in-
struction in the disciplines and theoretically grounded instruc-
tional practice supported by documented effects on thinking

Critical Thinking
 skills. Many promising courses and programs lack such ground-
ing as yet. For example, this report does not address instruction
based on Freire's concepts of education for critical conscious-
ness (1985), although advocates claim powerful effects on stu-
dents' thinking (sec, e.g., Shor 1980, 1987).
Finally, the underlying assumption of the report is one origi-
nally articulated by the Soviet psychologist Lev Vygotsky
(1978), who observed that children can do more with assistance
than they can do unaided. The distance between the two per-
formance levels is a developmental threshold he called the
"zone of proximal development": "What a child can do with
assistance today she will be able to do by herself tomorrow"
(p. 87). This report offers grounds for optimism that students'
limitations as critical thinkers can be overcome with the support
and guidance of their professors and peers.
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
The Forerunners
A brief overview of the forerunners and context of the current
"movement" sets the stage for discussion of more recent de-
velopments.
Dewey
John Dewey stressed the distinction between process and prod-
uct in thinking. He defined "reflective thinking" as "active,
persistent, and careful consideration of any belief or supposed
form of knowledge in the light of the grounds that support it
and the further conclusions to which it tends [that] includes a
conscious and voluntary effort to establish belief upon a firm
basis of evidence and rationality" (1933, p. 9).
Reflective thinking is stimulated by a "perplexed" situation
that prompts guesses ("suggestions") about haw to resolve it.
The rational problem solver pauses to formulate the problem
and develop a hypothesis. Observation and reason guide testing
and refinement of the hypothesis (1933, pp. 106-15). Like con-
temporary theorists, Dewey insisted that these processes are not
linear but recursive and mutually influential.
Judgment, for Dewey, is reflective thinking turned to contro-
versy; it involves "selecting and weighing the bearing of facts
and suggestions as they present themselves, as well as of decid-
ing whether the alleged facts are really facts and whether the
idea used is a sound idea or merely a fancy" (pp. 119-20).
Dewey observed that learning does not guarantee good judg-
ment; comparing memory to a refrigerator, he states that it pro-
vides a "stock of meanings for future use, but judgment selects
and adopts the one to be used in an emergency" (p. 125).
Dewey believed that education could either help or hinder
development of problem solving and judgment. He advocated
education based on the scientific method, capitalizing on stu-
dents' interests and integrating experience and reflection with
learning content (Dewey 1938).
Dewey's ideas stimulated extensive reform rhetoric and %%cre
used to justify a reform movement called "progressive educa-
tion." Progressive education prompted sonic curricular and in-
structional changes designed to improve students' thinking
skills at the elementary level but resulted in little change in
practice in secondary scHols (Cuban 1984).
Glaser
A major experiment to test the feasibility of teaching critical
thinking to high school students identified three components of

Critical Thinking 7
,f-- 5
 critical thinking: "(1) an attitude of being disposed to consider
in a thoughtful way the problems and subj cts that come within
the range of one s experiences, (2) knowledge of the methods
of logical inquiry and reasoning, and (3) some skill in applying
those methods" (Glaser 1941, pp. 5-6).
To ':est the skills of critical thinking, Glaser developed flu:
Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal, a multiple-choice
test of reasoning skills that is still widely used in studies at the
high school and college level (Watson and Glaser 19S0; see
McMillan 1987 for a review and Mc Peck 1981 for a critique).
The Critical Thinking Appraisal tests skills of arguments, specif-
ically drawing inferences, recognizing assumptions, evaluating
conclusions, and assessing the strength of reasons offered in
support of a claim.
Glaser's instructional program consisted of eight lessons on
topics related to critical thinking, including definition, evi-
dence, inference, scientific method and attitude, prejudice,
propaganda, and values and logic. The lessons were taught in
English classes over a 10week period. Following Dewey,
Glaser encouraged teachers to capitalize on students' interests
in the choice of specific topics for analysis.
Compared with students in four control classes, students in
the four experimental classes made significantly greater gains
on several subtests of the Watson-Glaser instrument. The study
also revealed high correlations between scores for critical ti:ink-
ing and measures of intelligence (.46) and reading comprehen-
sion (.77), however, a problem that plagues tests of critical
thinking to this day (Facione 1984; Mc Peck 1981). Students
and teachers alike reported satisfaction and enjoyment of the
program, and teachers reported seeing many examples of criti-
c-al thinking on the part of students outside the context of the
lessons.

Ennis
Another early and influential view of critical thinking is that of
Ennis, coauthor of the Cornell Tests of Critical Thinking Abil-
ity (Ennis 1962, 1985, 1986; Ennis and Millman 1985). In his
early paper, he defined critical thinking as "the correct assess-
ment or statements"; more recently, he has defined it as "re-
flective and reasonable thinking that is focused on deciding
what to believe or do" (Ennis 1985, p. 45). Ennis's goals for a
critical thinking curricu!um include "dispositions" (e.g., open-
mindedness and staying informed) and abilirtas like clarify-

8
26
ing questions, terms, and assumptions, assessing sources' credi-
bility, reasoning logically, and detecting or using persuasive
strategies.
Ennis has published two multiple-choice tests for assessing
critical thinking (Ennis and Millman 1985). The college-level
test assesses inductive and deductive reasoning, prediction and
experimentation, fallacies, definition, and identification of as-
sumpions.

A Piox4;,:n approach
In the late 1950s, Inhelder and Piaget published work describ-
ing the development of abstract, systematic, and hypothetical
reasoning as evidenced in scientific problem solving (1958).
Among the reasoning abilities they identified were separation
and control of variables (in their terms, the "schema" of "all
other things being equal"), proportional reasoning, hypothetical
reasoning, correlational reasoning, and systematic combination
of items in a set.
Inhelder and Piaget found that while adolescents could suc-
cessfully perform tests of these skills, preadolescents could not.
They concluded that adolescents use "formal operations," gen-
eralized abstract schemas or blueprints that enable them to
solve abstract or hypothetical problems independent of their
content. Before adolescence, students use "concrete opera-
tions," in which reasoning is tied to actual objects or their rep-
resentations. For example, to combine chemicals in search of a
particular reaction, concrete thinkers use trial and error rather
than devise a system. When they get a reaction, they stop, fail-
ing to consider the possibility that another combination might
also produce the reaction. Most concepts taught at the college
level require formal thinking.
College and university professors of physics, and later in
other disciplines as well, noticed that their students had diffi-
culty performing the kinds of tasks Inhelder and Piaget de-
scribed. Although Inhelder and Piaget had placed the onset of
"formal operations" in early to middle adolescence, research-
ers in the United States found that large numbers of college
freshmen consistently performed concretely on formal tasks
(Arons 1976; Lawson and Renner 1974). Such students would
be at a disadvantage in college, unless they could rely on rote
memory strategies.
This discovery inspired a number of programs and courses
designed to help these students develop formal reasoning skills

Critical Thinking

P7
 (e.g., Arons 1976; Fuller 1978, 1980; McKinnon 1976). These
programs were based on three fundamental Piagetian principles:
(1) development is a progression from action-based, concrete
"operations" or schemas to abstract, systematized, logical op-
erations; (2) learning is heightened when the learner is sur-
prised by a discrepancy between expectations and real events;
and (3) both learning and development require activity on the
part of the learner (Piaget 1968). These programs were de-
signed to develop formal reasoning abilities in conjunction with
learning traditional disciplinary "content." Students in these
programs were usually college freshmen, in some cases poorly
prepared for college.
An early program to develop formal reasoning, ADAPT, was
initiated at the University of NebraskaLincoln in 1972 (Fuller
1978, 1980). The program involved several courses organized
around a set of reasoning skills, beginning with observation and
progressing to systematic control of variables. Participating stu-
dents enrolled in at least three ADAPT courses so that they
learned to use the same reasoning skill in many disciplines at
once. All courses in the program used z teaching strategy based
on Piaget's three principles, called the "learning cycle" (Kar-
plus 1974, 1977). The learning cycle begins with a concrete
"exploration" of a problem designed to raise questions and en-
courage students to formulate and test hypotheses. In the "con-
cept introduction" phase, students report their findings and
formulate concepts. To discourage rote learning, the teacher in-
troduces abstract terminology only when students seem to have
grasped underlying concepts. Students extend their understand-
ing in readings, homework assignments, or more advanced
classroom activities (the "application" phase).
The ADAPT program enhanced formal reasoning skills and
scores on the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal. No
comparable gains were found for students in a similarly co-
hesive program or in a control group of students who had indi-
cated interest in the ADAPT program but were not enrolled in
it (Tomlinson-Keasey and Eisert 1978). The ADAPT program
is still offered at the University of NebraskaLincoln.

Relationship to the Current Scene

Glaser's course description bears many similarities to contem-
porary critical thinking courses, which emphasize skills of ar-
gument, and Ennis's skills approach has been influential in the
critical thinking movement in grades K through 12 (see Swartz

10

28
1986, e.g.). (Informal logic, an argument skills approach to
critical thinking, is described in the next section of this report.)
Two developments in psychology provide the impetus for
much of the work reported here. The first is the growth of cog-
nitive science, the interdisciplinary study of human perception,
memory, language, learning, and thinking (Gardner 1985).
Cognitive researchers share Piaget's belief that human beings
actively construct meaning, but they differ in their view of the
role of knowledge in reasoning. Studies in artificial intelligence
-(which-attempts to simulate human thought processes on com-
puters) have made clear that considerable task-specific knowl-
edge is required to solve even "simple" problems, challenging
Piaget's view that abstract logical structures account for reason-
ing ability. In recent years, teaching methods based on cogni-
tive psychology have been introduced to supplement Piagetian
methods (e.g., SOAR at Xavier Universitysee Carmichael
1982). Dewey's thinking foreshadows cognitive concepts of ex-
pert problem solving. Cognitive psychology is the second per-
spective reviewed in this report.
The second development in psychology was the publication
of a study of changes in college students' beliefs about knowl-
edge, truth, and authority (Perry 1970). Perry observed that
college experience fosters a gradual recognition of the indeter-
minacy of knowledge and with that, a recognition of personal
responsibility for making judgments and commitments in a
relativistic world. He documented this growth among under-
gaduates at Harvard; more recently, women's intellectual per-
spectives have also been reported in detail (Belenky et al.
1986). Many educators and researchers have found Perry's
model a source of understanding and inspiration for their work;
their studies are reviewed in the third section on theory. Re-
ports of course- and institutional-level teaching practices follow
these three theoretical reviews.

11
Critical Thinking

29
INFORMAL LOGIC: Analysis and
Construction of Arguments
Critical thinking involves the justification of beliefs, and argu-
mentation is the vehicle by which justification is offered. For
many people, the term "argument" suggests violent disagree- Students can
ment, or at least a vigorous exchange of ideas. In the context
of critical thinking, an argument is a "train of reasoning" in
learn the
which claims and supporting reasons are linked to establish a structural
position. Arguments are also, however, "human interactions features of
through which such trains of reasoning are formulated, debated,
and/or thrashed out" (Toulmin, Rieke, and Janik 1979). Argu-
arguments,
mentation occurs in various forums or settingsfor example, but they must
corporate board meetings, engineering design conferences, also learn the
congressional committee meetings, courts of law (Toulmin,
Rieke, and Janik 1979), college classrooms and residence halls,
forms and
family "councils," town meetings, and many other public and standards of
private settings. Further, advertising claims imply arguments, evidence for
and politicians offer arguments in support of their positions.
Because argumentation is such an important feature of public
each field
and private life, achieving skill in constructing and evaluating they study.
arguments is a valued educational goal. Most textbooks and
courses designed to teach critical thinking aim to develop skill
in analyzing arguments, detecting errors in reasoning ("falla-
cies"), and constructing convincing arguments.
Teaching students to analyze, criticize, and construct argu-
ments offers an appealing resolution to the dilemma of stu-
dents' deficient reasoning skills. But thinking involves more
than argumentation (Mc Peck 1981; Walters 1986). How justi-
fied is the assumption that learning to analyze arguments en-
hances students' critical thinking ability? To what extent does
instruction in the analysis of arguments prepare students for the
critic i thinking tasks they will face in instruction of subject
matter? Should institutions offer introductory courses to teach
students general skills of argument? Should instruction in argu-
ment be included in general education or specialized discipline-
centered courses?
A closer look at what might be included in an introductory
course on critical thinking may prove useful in deliberations
about these questions. This section provides a brief review and
analysis of "informal logic," the approach most often used in
textbooks on critical thinking. The section concludes with a
discussion of how the study of critical thinking relates to rea-
soning in courses in the disciplines.

Critical Thinking 13

30
 Rhetoric, Formal Logic, and Informal Logic
Since the time of Aristotle, rhetoricians and logicians have
taken as their task the formulation of principles for effective
and sound argument. While rhetoric is concerned with persua-
siveness of arguments, logic is concerned with the quality of
reasoning in an argument, that is, with how well it furthers un-
derstanding of the subject of inquiry (Beardsley 1975).
Logicians are concerned with the structure of arguments and
the ways arguments can go astray. Traditionally, logicians stud-
ied deductive and inductive inference using arguments pre-
sented in idealized syllogistic forms. In recent years, some
logicians have turned to the study of argument as it is practice J
in everyday life, or "informal logic" (Johnson and Bhrir
1980). Teaching "critical thinking," at least at the introductory
level, has become almost synonymous with the methods ef ap-
plied informal logic.
Textbooks on critical thinking and courses based on informal
logic focus on the structural features of arguments, criteria for
ev2Juation of arguments, and the fallacies or sources of error
that can make an argument seem valid when it is not (Girle
1983; Johnson and Blair 1980; Mc Peck 1981). Several key
concepts, defined below, are found in such texts.

Types of Arguments
Formal arguments are deductive; their conclusions follow nec-
essarily from their premises. The familiar syllogism is the
prototype:

(premise) 1. If A, then B.
(premise) 2. A; therefore,
(conclusion) 3. B.

Or, in more concrete terms:

1. If the president doesn't act forcefully, he'll lose points in

the polls.
2. He won't act forcefully; therefore,
3. He'll lose points in the polls (Kahane 1984, p. 8).

Informal arguments are inductive; inductive arguments in-

volve making generalizations rather than drawing firm conclu-
sions. Their conclusions can only be more or less probable;
they can never be established as absolutely true. The premises

14

31
 used in such arguments can be based on causality, analogy,
comparisons, or statistics (Kahane 1984; Kelly 1988). For ex-
ample, U.S. presidents are unlikely to act forcefully because
they fear a loss of popularity in public opinion polls, where the
premise is that U.S. presidents fear a loss of popularity in the
opinion polls and the conclusion is that U.S. presidents are un-
likely to act forcefully. But an additional premise is implied:
U.S. presidents' actions are guided by the reactions they antic-
ipate in the polls. Missing premises (or "enthymemes") must
be inferred for the argument to make sense (Boylan 1988;
Kelly 1988). Often (as in the examples given here), they con-
tain key assumptions that must be questioned.
A cogent argument rests on premises that are justified or
warranted: its reasoning is validthat is, no fallacies or errors
of inference arc involvedand, if it is inductive, it uses all
available information relevant to the subject (Kahane 1980).
Most arguments are the informal, inductive type.
The probabilistic nature of informal arguments means that
they must be developed, that is, additional premises supplied,
to be convincing (Johnson and Blair 1980). Developing infor-
mal arguments requires a store of relevant knowledge, flexible
thinking, and ingenuity, as many different kinds of premises
may be brought to bear on the issue. Informal arguments are
dialectical; that is, reasoners "interrogate" their knowledge
base in search of possible objections or counterarguments. Con-
sequently, new premises can be brought in to challenge pre-
vious statements, often causing a change in the reasoner's idea
(or "model") of the situation. Premises may also be abandoned
when a flaw or competing alternative is discovered. In an infor-
mal argument, even a well-supported conclusion can be ques-
tioned (Perkins, Allen, and Hafner 1983).

Fallacies of Informal Reasoning

The complex, dynamic quality of informal arguments renders
them particularly susceptible to faulty reasoning. Philosophers
(and also psychologists) have identified numerous errors in rea-
soning (see Kahneman, Slovic, and Tversky 1982 for an im-
pressive catalog of studies on this subject). Philosophers refer
to these errors as "fallacies." Descriptions and examples of
fallacies abound in textbooks on critical thinking. For example:

1. Provincialism: The tendency to accept or reject ideas on

the basis of experience in one's own group or society

Critical Thinking 15

,-t 2
 rather than on evidence or in light of knowledge and be-
liefs of other societies.
2. Ad hominem: An attack on a person's credibility or char-
acter rather than on the arguments presented.
3. False dilemma: "Erroneously reducing the number of
possible choices on an issue" (Barry 1983, p. 108).
Questionnaires frequently create false dilemmas; writing
assignments that ask students to defend a position on an
issue may similarly restrict thinking.
4. Hasty conclusion or generalization: Drawing conclusions
from too little evidence or from unrepresentative samples.
5. Begging the question, circularity: "Endorsing without
proof some form of the very question at issue" (Kahane
1984, p. 82) (Barry 1983; Kahane 1984; Toulmin, Rieke,
and Janik 1979).

Other fallacies commonly mentioned are straw men, sup-

pressed evidence, non sequiturs or "irrelevant reason" (Kahane
1980), appeal to authority, arguing from what is to what ought
to be, wishful thinking, and self-deception.

Critical Thinking Textbooks

A brief look at several current textbooks for courses on critical
thinking reveals a shared focus on reasoning as "a way of test-
ing ideas critically" (Toulmin, Rieke, and Janik 1979, p. 9).
All provide instruction and practice exercises in the analysis of
arguments and identification of fallacies in reasoning. Most au-
thors have abandoned Latin terminology in favor of English
names for arguments and fallacies (Johnson and Blair 1980).
Beyond these common starting points, texts vary on several
dimensions:

1. The relative importance they assign to fallacy and to

analysis of argument structure;
2. Their emphasis on technical features of arguments, for
example, details of inductive and deductive reasoning, or
application of a particular analytical format;
3. The kinds of examples they use: short or extended, actual
or invented arguments, visual as well as verbal presenta-
tions, and use of examples from the popular media;
4. The style of the author, ranging from friendly and con-
crete to authoritative and formal;

16 33
 5. The relative emphasis on analyzing versus constructing
arguments.

Texts that stress analysis of arguments include Boylan's The

Process of Argwnent (1988), Browne and Keeley's Asking the
Right Questions (1986), and Toulmin, Rieke, and Janik's An
Introduction to Reasoning (1979). Boylan describes a method
for outlining arguments to reveal their central premises and
controversial points. He demonstrates the method on inductive
and pictoral arguments, using both invented and actual exam-
ples, but discusses evaluation of arguments and fallacy only
briefly. Browne and Keeley identify 12 questions to ask in
evaluating an argument. Several extended examples are taken
from the popular press, for example, articles on the 55-mph
speed limit and licensing parents; others are invented. Toulmin,
Rieke, and Janik present a model for analysis of arguments and
illustrate its use in fields ranging from football to ethics. The
text illustrates the model's application and discusses issues of
argumentation in law, science, art, management, and ethics.
Exercises include examples from popular media; for example,
the chapter on conclusions provides extensive comparative data
on four compact automobiles from Consumer Reports, while
the chapter on reasoning in the arts uses a review of a record
album from Rolling Stone.
The Art of Reasoning offers a conceptual approach (Kelly
1988). The author begins with chapters on concepts, defini-
tions, and propositions, using diagrams to outline a structure of
argument. He then describes inductive and deductive arguments
and illustrates them in depth; separate chapters are devoted to
fallacy, analogy, causality, and statistics. Exercises include ex-
amples from many sources. Copi's text, Informal Logic (1986),
also takes a conceptual approach, with chapters on language,
reasoning by analogy, and definition. It emphasizes causality
and scientific reasoning and includes an extended analysis of
John Stuart Mill's method. Copi uses a graphic system for dia-
gramming arguments; his examples are drawn from diverse
sources, including historical and philosophical texts and the Bi-
ble. Beardsley's Thinking Straight (1975) is also conceptual,
with emphasis on the structure of deductive arguments and var-
ious forms of inductive reasoning. He includes chapters on the
"pitfalls" and "resources" of language in arguments, with at-
tention to ambiguity, vagueness, emotive language, metaphor,

Critical Thinking 17
 and slant, and discusses fallacies throughout the text. Examples
are drawn from news media or invented based on actual issues.
Fallacy is the central focus in Kahane's Logic and Contem-
porary Rhetoric (1984). The text is replete with examples from
many sources that illustrate how self-deception and wishful
thinking prevent critical evaluation of ideas and permit inaccu-
rate or inconsistent world views to persist. Language, advertis-
ing, extended arguments, news media, and textbooks are
closely analyzed in terms of the world views they present.
Techniques for analyzing and constructing arguments are intro-
duced in a single chapter midway through the text.
Three texts exemplify approaches that integrate reasoning
and writing. The authors share the view that teaching critical
reading and thinking must be supplemented with instruction in
argumentative writing. Gage's The Shape of Reason: Argumen-
tative Writing in College (1987) is holistic rather than analytical
in approach. The task Gage addresses is formulating a position
through critical reading and inquiry, then setting forth reasons
for one's conclusions, as oppused to argumentation as an effort
to win a case by persuasion. The text emphasizes responsible
decision making in reading, developing a point of view, finding
support for it, and presenting it (and oneself) in writing. Exam-
ples are invented (or possibly drawn from students' work).
Barry, in Good Reason for Writing (1983), treats both princi-
ples of argument and methods for composing arguments. He
presents four rhetorical patterns commonly used in argumenta-
tive writing: the opinion essay, essays of comparison or anal-
ogy, cause-and-effect essays, and extended definition. A
chapter on troubleshooting discusses more than 50 common fal-
lacies, with examples drawn from numerous sources. Bean and
Ramage (1986) also describe rhetorical patterns; they offer a
composition text grounded in argumentation and supported by
extensive guidance in formulating questions and thinking dia-
lectically during the phase of discovery.
Ruggierio's The Art of Thinking: A Guide to Critical and
Creative Thought (1984) also emphasizes discovery and devel-
opment of ideas. He offers ways to broaden perspectives, re-
kindle curiosity, sharpen analytical skills, and become more
creative. The text walks the student through several phases of
thinking, beginning with creative processes involved in identi-
fying md investigating problems and generating possible solu-
tions. The author demonstrates the role of criticism in develop-

18

:
ing ideas and encourages students to anticipate negative reac-
tions so they can build a persuasive case. Appendixes briefly
summarize fundamentals of composition and logic.
Of these texts. Barry, Ruggierio, Kahane, and Bean and Ra-
mage most consistently suggest exercises that involve compos-
ing original arguments. The remaining texts focus primarily on
practicing analytical methods.

Transferable Aspects of Argument

The origins of critical thinking texts in informal logic clarify
why analysis and construction of arguments are prominent fea-
tures in such texts. A fundamental question that remains, how-
ever, is the degree to which learning the skills of argument
enables students to reason effectively in various disciplines.
Mc Peck (1981) argues that critical thinking is discipline spe-
cific because it depends on knowledge of what constitutes good
reasons in a discipline, which requires extensive knowledge of
the subject matter. He concludes that critical thinking is not a
generalized skill and that instruction in critical thinking without
a solid foundation of specialized knowledge tends to "underes-
timate and play down the real complexities that usually underlie
even apparently 'common' or 'everyday' problems" (p. 156).
How this question is answered rests in part on an assessment
of the degree to which arguments share common features across
disciplines. Toulmin's influential analysis (1958) identifies six
basic elements found in arguments on any subject, in any field.
He calls the conclusion in traditional terminology a claim; the
premises become data or grounds on which the claim rests.
The relationship between the claim and the data is expressed in
a warrant, which is often an unstated premise (as in the presi-
dential argument above). Backing is often needed to justify the
warrant in an informal argument. In addition, the modality of
the argument is expressed in qualifiers that indicate the force
with which the claim is asserted. The argument may also con-
tain a rebuttal, or statement of exceptions or conditions under
which the warrant might not hold true.
These common elements make it clear that fields use differ-
ent kinds of backing to justify warrants (e.g., statutes for legal
claims, statistical information for claims about the distribution
of phenomena) as well as kinds of evidence to support claims
and criteria used to evaluate evidence. Toulmin concludes that
arguments cannot be measured against any universal or formal

19
Critical Thinking

AIM
 standard; they must be evaluated against "whatever sort of co-
gency or well-foundedness can relevantly be asked for in that
field" (p. 248, emphasis added).
Thus, students can learn the structural features of mgu-
nzents, but they must also learn the forms and standards of evi-
dence for each field they study. This view guides the essentially
discipline-based organization of Toulmin's recent text on rea-
soning (Toulmin, Rieke, and Janik 1979). The model has also
been used to teach argumentative writing (Bean and Ramage
1986) and beginning speech (Verderber 1967). Discipline-
specific argument skills have been taught in an introductory
psychology course using Toulmin's model (Cerbin 1988), and
the model has been used in research on problem solving in the
social sciences (Voss, Tyler, and Yengo 1983).
Many authors have proposed inventories of argument skills
(e.g., Arons 1985; Ennis 1985, 1986; Nickerson 1986c). All
would agree that background knowledge of a topic is essential
to good argument. Moreover, acquiring skills in the methodol-
ogy of a field takes years of study. High expectations for criti-
cal thinking among undergraduates may therefore be unrealistic
(Facione 1984). Nevertheless, instruction can help students
learn to determine "which data to attend to, and how to orga-
nize these data to maximize their implications" (p. 261). Es-
sential skills include:

1. Identifying issues requiring the application of thinking

skills informed by background knowledge;
2. Determining the nature of the background knowledge that
is relevant to deciding the issues involved and gathering
that knowledge;
3. Generating initially plausible hypotheses regarding the
issues;
4. Developing procedures to test these hypotheses, which
procedures lead to the confirmation or disconfirmation of
those hypotheses;
5. Articulating in argument form the results of these testing
procedures; and
6. Evaluating . . . arguments and, where appropriate, revis-
ing the initial hypotheses in the light of alternative under-
standings developed during the testing process (Facione
1984, p. 261; see also Facione 1986, p. 226).

This approach is illustrated in a reading course (Stasz and

20
Associates 1985). Students learn to explore a problem or topic
by identifying what they already know about it and what more
they need to know before they begin reading to gather informa-
tion about it. The statement of the problem and the solution
emerge from their inquiry. This approach is applicable in many
disciplines; at the same time, the questions that arise from par-
ticular explorations invite discussion of criteria for evaluating
evidence in context.
Thus, although Mc Peck demonstrates limitations of several
current attempts to identify and teach common skills of argu-
ment, his "discipline-specific approach obscures the common-
alities evident across disciplines" (Facione 1986, p. 226).

Critique of Critical Thinking as Analysis of Arguments

Informal logic as an approach to critical thinking has been criti-
cized on several grounds.
Critical thinking courses teach skills but do not challenge
thinking. One author argues that critical thinking courses en-
courage sophistry by teaching students skills they can then use
to rationalize their existing biases (Paul 1982, 1986). Alterna-
tively, students who discover that any position can be defended
may dismiss the entire process, preferring to rely on intuition
or feelings. In either case, by emphasizing analysis and "cor-
rection" of fallacies, these courses miss the point that irration-
ality is a fundamental human characteristic, inherent in the way
"world views"complex networks of beliefs and knowl-
edge arc constructed and protected. Paul (1986) advocates
teaching critical thinking in the "strong" sense"teaching it
so that students explicate, understand, and critique their own
deepest prejudices, biases, and misconceptions, thereby allow-
ing [them] to discover and contest their own egocentric and so-
ciocentric tendencies" (p. 140). He deliberately selects
complex issues that students care about and that "engage their
egocentric thoughts and beliefs" (p. 140), then fosters "dialog-
ical" thinking about the issues by insisting that students "argue
for and against .. . every important point of view and each
basic belief or conclusion that they are to take seriously" (p.
140). An earlier article describes a critical thinking course in
which students confront their nationalistic biases (Paul 1982).
Paul's claim is that critical thinking courses fail to address
the fundamental weakness in people's reasoning, their tendency
to maintain existing beliefs. As noted in the introduction, re-
searchers have generally found that beliefs are extremely resis-

Critical Thinking 21
1(4 8
 cant to change. Emphasizing analytical skills may improve
students' ability to justify beliefs they already hold without
significantly improving their disposition to weigh evidence
objectively.
Courses that address controversial issues directly may be
more successful in this regard. In at least one documented in-
stance, however, students classified as authoritarian became
more polarized in their views on a controversial topic (racial
integration of housing in the 1950s) as a result of instruction in
critical thinking (Stern and Cope 1956). Students' responses to
critical thinking courses reflect their assumptions about the
truth, knowledge, and authority and their awareness of contex-
tual influences on judgment. Different assumptions may require
different forms of instruction. Theories of intellectual develop-
ment, taken up in a later section of this report, address this
interpretation.
Critical thinking courses misrepresent thinking. Critical
thinking courses that emphasize "analytical reductionism" may
leave students with the impression that "critical" thinking is
the only valid form of thought (Walters 1986). They may de-
value other forms, such as aesthetic or contemplative thought,
if they are not given equal weight in the curriculum. Mc Peck
(1981) goes one step farther, questioning the assumption that
these courses even teach "critical thinking." They teach analy-
sis of arguments, which is a logician's craft and may have little
to do with critical thinking. For example, they emphasize the
"context of justification" but neglect the "context of discov-
ery," which is the source of both hypotheses and alternatives
in real-world reasoning. Discovery is viewed as the "domain of
psychologists" (Kahane 1980, p. 37).
Critical thinking courses can have several possible negative
outcomes (Girle 1983). First, they convey the view that even
the best argument can be criticized; second, analysis of trun-
cated arguments implies that context, development, and nuance
are unimportant in arguments. Further, when students only crit-
icize and are not responsible for producing alternatives, they
are not learning to reason, only to analyze the reasoning of oth-
ers. And by taking as their object of study "set pieces," or
arguments taken out of context and prepared for analysis, such
courses fail to convey that argumentation is a dialogue in
which "good argument can be vindicated, poor argument re-
vealed, opinions changed, and the search for truth can pro-
ceed" (Girle 1983, p. 146).

22
99
 The value of critical thinking cour;cs is not supported by em-
pirical evidence. Several investigators have noted the shortage
of empirical evidence that such courses positively influence stu-
dents' reasoning in subsequent courses. They have also noted,
however, that anecdotal reports of the benefits of such courses
arc frequent and that students' and instructors' satisfaction with
them is often quite high (Nickerson, Perkins, and Smith 1985;
Resnick 19871. Some precollegiate programs have been evalu-
ated, and the results are generally positive (e.g., Glaser 1941;
Herrnstein el al. 1986). Evaluation of four separate sections of
one course revealed that students improved on several aspects
of argument analysis. But exhaustive analysis frustrated their
understanding of the issue as a whole (BP-ostein and Brouwer
1986). More such studies are needed.

Educational Implications
What might instruction in critical thinking contribute to reason-
ing in the disciplines?
McPeck's argument against "generic" courses in critical
thinking skills rests in part on the claim that analysis of argu-
ments is not central to reasoning in the disciplines. The reason-
ing processes of disciplinary experts often depend on tacit
knowledge that may need to be made explicit for beginners,
however. Courses in critical thinking foster explicitness about
reasoning by focusing students' attention on analytic processes
and by providing experience in reasoning at a level appropriate
to their abilities.
A college-level course in critical thinking is probably the
first opportunity most students have had to focus attention on
their own reasoning processes. Engaging in relatively superfi-
cial arguments in various subjects sensitizes students to the di-
versity, if not the complexity, of arguments. At the same time,
it provides concrete experience in recognizing the c..ilmon ele-
ments of arguments. Such experience helps them develop their
understanding of what an argument is. As novices in the aca-
demic world, students, especially freshmen, will not produce
extended arguments for quite some time. Therefore, although
courses in critical thinking may not demand extended argu-
ments or employ sophisticated criteria for evaluating argu-
ments, they offer practice at a level that is compatible with
students' initial entry into the field of argument.
Analysis of arguments also provides practice in academically
important skills like reading comprehension, summarization,

Cniical Thinking 23

40
 analysis, comparison and contrast, and evaluation of ideas.
Similar skills are frequently the focus of programs to improve
reading and study habits, many of which have had documented
success. By making students aware of the ways in which argu-
ments can be organized, courses in critical thinking attune them
to the structure and logic of texts. Similarly, identification of
fallacies encourages close reading of texts, something students
may never have done.
Most important, courses on thinking provide opportunities
for discussion of ideas with other students. Controversy com-
pels students to confront their biases and may stimulate them to
rethink their ideas, either to find new justifications or to revise
them in the light of better arguments. Attitudes and beliefs
about controversial issues are highly resistant to change, but
they are unlikely to change at all if they are not challenged in
some disciplined and ultimately supportive manner.
This analysis is based on the assumption that students will in
fact practice using the skills of argument presented in texts on
critical thinking. Some texts clearly lend themselves to practical
application more than others, and professors may differ in the
degree to which they emphasize application as opposed to con-
cepts. In planning courses to teach thinking, students' level of
involvement in class discussion and opportunities for practice
and feedback on skills are as important as decisions about how
many credits the course should be worth, who will teach the
course, and what textbook (if any) will be used.
The most fundamental limitation of courses in critical think-
ing skills is that the questions we ask determine the value of
our inquiry, and, without knowledge of the subject of inquiry,
it is difficult to ask intelligent questions. For this reason, intro-
ductory courses on thinking cannot substitute for discipline-
based instruction in reasoning. They do offer one avenue for
initiating students into the complexities and challenges of rea-
soning they viii encounter in subsequent courses, however.
This initiation must be reinforced and extended in disciplinary
study.
The next scction examines relationships between subject
knowledge and reasoning skill in greater detail.

24
41
COGNITIVE PROCESSES IN
CRITICAL THINKING
Informal logic clarifies the forms arguments can take and pro-
vides guidance in identifying fallacious arguments. It illumi-
nates the context of justification, the phase of argument in The process
which conclusions are set forth and supported once they have
been reached. Left unexplored are questions of how people ar-
of developing
rive at conclusions, how knowledge influences reasoning support for a
processes, how people learn to use the methods of specific dis- position most
ciplines to address complex issues, and how they direct and clearly
sustain attention to the demanding, multifaceted task of think-
ing critically. Most perplexing, while logicians generate ever- distinguishes
expanding lists of fallacies in reasoning, their lists provide little critical
help in understanding why people persist in reasoning erro- thinking from
neously, even when they have been alerted to the dangers of
fallacious reasoning. problem
Cognitive research does not address all the questions left un- solving.
answered by logicians. It does, however, provide educators
with a window on students' reasoning processes afld how they
influence students' academic work. Thus, cognitive research is
relevant to the context of discovery. After a brief summary of
assumptions, this section reviews research on reasoning pro-
cesses in several disciplines. The research reveals the extent
and nature of the gap between beginning and advanced (student
and faculty) thinkers. The last part of this section analyzes re-
search on instructional strategies designed to close that gap.

Assumptions
The study of cognition has become an interdisciplinary field en-
compassing linguistics, anthropology, artificial intelligence,
philosophy, psychology, and education (Gardner 1985; Stevens
and Gentner 1983). To say that such a diverse research com-
munity shares many assumptions risks making a statement so
broad as to be meaningless. Several themes rele' ant to instruc-
tion for critical thinking can be detected in the. work of re-
searchers in this field, however.
A person is not a tabula rasa. The "cognitive revolution" in
psychology views perception, learning, understanding, and
problem solving as purposeful behavior whose function is to
give meaning to experience by imposing order upon it.

Because we lack the cognitive ,:apacities to apprehend the

world as it is, we are forced to construct representations of
that world and to engage in thinking and reasoning within
the confines of those constructions . . . . Individuals actively

Critical Thinking 25
42
 make use of cognitive strategies and previous knowledge to
deal with their cognitive limitations (Shulman and Carey
1984, pp. 508, 509, emphasis added).

Given a problem, story, event, work of art, or phenomenon

of any sort, people interpret or represent it in terms of what
they already know or believe. They are not "blank slates"
upon which information can be written or "reality" faithfully
copied. In fact, their existing beliefs are so powerful that they
can inhibit learning of concepts that do not "fit." For example,
people do not retell unconventional stories as they hear them
but reconstruct them to conform to their experiences and expec-
tations (Bartlett 1932).
Knowledge is meaningful information stored in memory. To
make its way into memory, knowledge must be acted upon by
the learner. In terms of the metaphor of information processing
that dominates cognitive psychology, short-term memory is the
active processing function that translates stimulation into famil-
iar terms so that it becomes "information." Information that
the learner integrates with prior learning becomes usable
"knowledge," which is stored in long-term memory. But as
noted earlier, information is not stored exactly as it is pre-
sented; what is storms t; is meaning, as constructed by the
learner. In terms of classroom learning, this model implies that
students remem'uer what they understand, not necessarily what
is said.
Knowledge in memo?), is organized. When people encounter
familiar subjects, their prior knowledge enables them to distin-
guish important from unimportant aspects of the situation.
Their knowledge is organized into patterns that provide a con-
text for new information, which are called "scripts" (Schank
and Abelson 1977) or "schemas" (Anderson 1985; Bartlett
1932; Rumelhart 1977). When people do not have an appropri-
ate schema for a situation, they have difficulty remembering
information about it. For example, in a study of people's rec-
ollection of information from a story about a baseball game,
baseball fans remembered numerous details, especially events
related to scoring. People unfamiliar with the game remem-
bered little of this information but picked up details about fa-
miliar elements, such as the weather (Spilich et al. 1979).
Students taking a course in an unfamiliar subject suffer the
same disadvantage as "baseball illiterates" reading about a
baseball game.

26
 Expertise results from gradual development of high-level
schemas that enable experts to quickly recognize and categorize
frequently recurring patterns of information in their field, called
"chunks." For a physician a cluster of symptoms is a chunk,
for a musician a cluster of notes from a familiar work, for a
scholar key terms and names of leading thinkers in the field.
Chunks enable experts to scan a research paper or book or
glance at an artifact and quickly develop a hypothesis as to its
theoretical orientation or origin. Experts call upon a working
vocabulary estimated at 50,000 chunks. These chunks serve as
an "index" to the many schemas that organize experts' knowl-
edge in their field (Simon 1980). Novices have few such pat-
terns; hence, their problem-solving processes are slower and
less effective. At the normal rate of learning, it takes about 10
years to become an "expert" (Simon 1980).
In the classroom, students benefit from instruction that helps
them organize what they are learning, for example, into a ma-
trix or hierarchy. Hierarchies that clarify cause-and-effect rela-
tionships are especially helpful (Armbruster 1984). A student
can begin immediately to construct a schema for an unfamiliar
topic from a causally structured outline.
Knowledge takes many forms. Reasoning about any subject
calls upon several forms of knowledge. One form, declarative
knowledge, includes concepts, principles, stories, and other
proposition knowledge that is used to make inferences. Second,
the learner must know how and when to use declarative knowl-
edge to execute a skilled performance. This aspect of knowl-
edge, called procedural or strategic knowledge, describes what
a person can do (Anderson 1985; Greeno 1980). Examples in-
clude knowing how to drive a car, find information in the li-
brary, or write a book review.
Competent problem solvers also plan and monitor their work
using executive control strategies. They make plans, set goals
any ,ubgoals, ask questions, take notes, observe the effective-
ness of their efforts, and take corrective action when necessary.
In problem solving, metacognition directs attention to the
knowledge base in search of information relevant to the prob-
lem. Metacognition is a term frequently used to refer to control
strategies (Flavell 1976, 1979).
Two important principles relevant to instruction for critical
thinking follow from the assumption of multiple forms of
knowledge:

Critical Thinking
27
 1. Declarative knowledge alone is necessary but not suffi-
cient for development of skilled performance. Students
must also learn strategies or procedures for using their
knowledge and conditions under which specific knowl-
edge is relevant (Bransford et al. 1986; Perfetto, Brans-
ford, and Franks 1983; Simon 1980).
2. While some general strategies for problem solving may
exist, skill in solving most problems depends a great deal
on the extent and organization of the knowledge base
available to the problem solver (Larkin, Heller, and
Greeno 1980; Simon 1980).

Critical Thinking as Problem Solving

Critical thinking is a form of problem solving, but a major dif-
ference between the two is that critical thinking involves rea-
soning about open-ended or "ill-structured" problems, while
problem solving is usually considered narrower in scope. The
primary difference, however, lies in what happens after a con-
clusion (solution, hypothesis) is reached. Problem solving has
been well studied by cognitive scientists, although critical
thinking has not.
Problem solving is mental activity leading from an unsatis-
factory state to a more desired "goal state." As in critical
thinking, problem solvers construct and then refine a "model"
of the problematic situation. They analyze their current state,
identify constraints, gather information, generate one or more
hypotheses, and test their hypotheses until the goal is achieved
(Anderson 1985; Newell and Simon 1972).
In problem solving as studied in cognition laboratories, the
probiems are often complex but a correct answer usually exists,
and only a limited number of approaches (possibly only one)
will.work. Such problems are often referred to as "well struc-
tured." in contrast, critical thinking involves inductive reason-
ing, or reasoning about "ill-structured problems" that have no
single solution. Thus, in critical thinking, the goal is not to
find and execute a solution but to construct a plausible repre-
sentation of the situation or issue that could be presented in a
convincing argument.
The representation (or "situation model"Perkins, Allen,
and Hafner 1983) can he summarized in the form of a proposi-
tion or "claim" that purports to account for all available infor-
mation. Whether the claim is an interpretation of a literary or
artistic work, a position on a controversial issue, or a proposal

28
45
 1

for the solution of a complex problem, it cannot be proven or

tested; hence, it must be s,!,,iported with appropriate reasoning
and evidence (Voss, Tyler, and Yengo 1983). The process of
developing support for a position most clearly distinguishes
critical thinking from problem solving.
Many resources are candidates for inclusion in reasoning
about ill-defined problems (Perkins 1986). For example, politi-
cal science experts were asked how they would solve the prob-
lem of improving agricultural production in the Soviet Union.
The causes they identified, and hence the solutions they pro-
posed, differed widely (Voss, Greene, Post, and Penner 1983;
Voss, Tyler, and Yengo 1983). Despite their snared discipline,
they applied very different "scripts" to the problem. In com-
parison to physics or mathematics, the particular knowledge
base of the problem solver appears to be a more salient factor
in social science problems (Voss, Greene, Post, and Penner
1983) and probably in other less consensual fields as well.
The apparent difference between critical thinking (associated
with the social sciences and humanities) and problem solving
(associated with mathematics and physics) may be an artifact of
the problems used in cognitive research. Studies of problem
solving use well-structured (though nontrivial) problems, but
when physicists and mathematicians conduct research, the prob-
lems they face are naturally more open ended. Notes from the
research of the physicist Michael Faraday reveal that his re-
search strategy was similar to that of social scientists address-
ing ill-structured problems. Ibis experiments explored ty.ro
hypotheses and were designed to develop lines of argumenta-
tion (Tweeney 1981, cited in Voss, Greene, Post, and Penner
1983). Furthermore, the scope of an apparently well-defined
problem canand often shouldbe extended, as in the case of
an engineering problem whose solution has real-world implica-
tions (Simon and Simon 1979).
Reasoning in the professions, e.g., business, engineering,
teaching, or architecture, combines characteristics of both prob-
lem solving and critical thinking. Il professiona: practice, prob-
lems are ill defined, but solutions can often be tested, although
without scientific or mathematical precision. Faced with com-
plex problems, professionals conduct informal but rigorous
"action experiments," evaluate the results of their experiments,
and modify the'. approaches based on the results (Argyris, Put-
nam, and Smith 1985; Schon 1983, 1987). Action experiments
allow practitioners to act with some assurance even when prob-

Critical Thinking

46
am
 .,IIIMM.,=

lems are ill defined. Their hypothesis-testing quality allows the

practitioner to learn from the outcomes.
Thus, although critical thinking and problem solving differ in
important ways, the overlap between them is substantial enough
to justify close examination of problem solving and related
processes for insight regarding critical thinking.

Reasoning of Novices and Experts

Educators often express dismay at the poor quality of reasoning
students use to solve problems or think critically about topics
presented in their courses. They may believe that they have lit-
tle control over the quality of work their students produce.
How do problem-solving abilities develop? What factors differ-
entiate effective from ineffective reasoners? And what, if any
thing, can faculty do to enhance their students' performance in
reasoning?
Cognitive studies often compare the reasoning processes of
novices or inexperienced problem solvers (usually undergradu-
ates in introductory courses) with those of experts or effective
problem solvers (Bloom and Broder 1951; Chase and Simon
1973; Faigley and Witte 1981; Flower aid Hayes 1980; Larkin
et al. 1980; Newell and Simon 19/2; Schoenfeld 1983a,
1985a, 1985b Sommers 1980; Voss, Greene, Post, and Penner
1983; Voss, Tyler, and 1,...ngo 198.). These studies frequently
employ a method first used by Duncker (1945), in which the
problem solver is asked to report all thoughts while completing
a task. Protocols from think-aloud studies prov;de a data base
from which researchers have induced patterns of behavior and
organization of knowledge associated with the performance of
complex cognitive tasks. Their findings help to understand stu-
dents' difficulties in the early stages of learning a discipline.
Novices and experts differ in their use of declarative, proce-
dural, and metacognitive knowledge. In addition, some re-
searchers have noted the influence of beliefs about the nature of
the task (Ryan 1984a, 1984b; Schoenfeld 1983a, 1985a,
1985b). A few cognitive theorists have also noted the impor-
tance of affective, dispositional, and situational factors, such as
purpose (Perkins 1981), intrinsic motivation (Malone 1981),
determination (Polya 1957), and emotion (McLeod 1985; see
also Nickerson, Perkins, and Smith 1985).
Novice-expert studies reveal striking differences between the
two groups and striking similarities within groups, regardless of
discipline. For example, experts work at the level of principles

30
47
and plans before plunging into the intricate details of a solu-
tion. They may explore a number of possible representations of
a problem before they commit to a particular solution. Echoing
Dewey's (1933) phenomenological description of reflective
thinking, experts treat a solution plan as a hypothesis, check-
ing their progress frequently to avoid a "wild goose chase"
(Schoenfeld 1985b, p. 366). Experts also use heuristics to ad-
vance understanding of the problem. Successful problem solv-
ers aggressively seek connections between the present problem
and what they already know (Greenfield 1987). Novices, in
contrast, exhibit tendencies that preclude success, such as cate-
gorizing the problem on the basis of superficial features (Chi,
Feltovich, and Glaser 1981), failing to include all elements of
the problem in their representation, using trial and error instead
of analysis (Schoenfeld 1985a, 1985b), and quitting (Bloom
and Broder 1950).
The following paragraphs illustrate these differences for
problem solving in mathematics, composition, reading compre-
hension, physics, art history, and political science.

Mathematics
Expert problem solvers read the problem, analyze it, explore it
if necessary in search of relevant information, plan, implemet.
and verify the solution. They monitor the effectiveness of their
efforts continually (Schoenfeld 1985a).
Novices exhibi. similar processes, but the proportion of time
they devote to each differs radically from the pattern observed
for experts. Experts spend more time in analysis and planning.
while novices tend to advance rapidly toward implementation.
Novices pay attention to form rather than to meaning, in one
case spending more time "copying over" a proof than they
spent developing it (Schoenfeld 1985a).

Composition
Studies of cognitive processes in writing yield very similar pat-
terns, although the context and terminology differ. The problem
is to compose an essay that meets the needs of the writer as
wL!! as a given audience. Expert writers study the rhetorical sit-
uation and develop a detailed representation of their audience,
their aims, their presentation of self, and the text. Novices fo-
cus on the topic, giving scant attention to the problems of com-
municating with an audience (Flower and Hayes 1980). When
revising, expert writers and advanced students freely alter the

Critical Thinking 31

48
 meaning of their original texts. Inexperienced writers are timid,
making primarily surface changes; they rarely change meanings
(Faigley and Witte 1981). For beginners, the text is a solution,
not a hypothesis. Once advanced, it is not subject to significant
review or revision. Beginners may detect problems in a text but
be unable to diagnose and correct them (Flower et al. 1986).

Reading comprehension
Reading is not simply a matter of absorbing individual words;
rather, it is a progressive effort to construct a "model of the
meaning of the text" (Armbruster 1984). Effective readers re-
main absorbed by text:. until a triggering event, such as a pile-
up of poorly understood words, signals a failure to understand
what they are reading. They then decide what action to take to
correct the situation so that they can continue reading. In con-
trast, poor readers often do not recognize their own failure to
understand a word or passage they are reading and so are un-
able to correct the situation (Palincsar and Brown 1984).

Physics
Physics experts represent problems in terms of the laws or prin-
ciples needed to solve them, e.g., energy equations or New-
ton's laws of motion. Lacking a scientific understanding of
these principles, novices categorize problems on the basis of
superficial features, such as whether they involve pulleys, in-
clined planes, or other objects (Chi, Feltovich, and Glaser
1981; Larkin, Heller, and Greeno 1980; Larkin and Reif 1979).

Art history
To "solve the problem" of understanding a painting, both nov-
ices and experts attend to formal elements of paintings (color,
line, perspective), particularly when faced with an abstract
work. Novices respond to representational works in terms of
semantic content ("stury") and mood, categories that experts
use !Lss often. In contrast, experts synthesize their observations
and subordinate them in terms of categories, such as symbolism
or the artist's intentions. They support their interpretations with
visual evidence from the painting (Schmidt, McLaughlin, and
Leighten n.d.).

Political science
Expert political scientists use more abstract categories than nov-
ices to identify the causes of problems; graduate students in po-

32
litical science are intermediate in their level of abstractness in
citing causes. Experts use different strategies, preferring to
identify and eliminate causes in light of political or other con-
straints, while novices simply start listing solutions. Comple-
tion of a single course on the subject has no noticeable effect
on undergraduates' representation of the problem; it does, how-
ever, slightly increase the complexity of the arguments they use
to support their claims (Voss, Greene, Post, and Penner 1983;
Voss, Tyler, and Yengo 1983).

Limitations
Expert-novice comparison studies suffer several limitations.
First, they are based on laboratory studies of individuals work-
ing in an artificial situation (talking out loud while solving
complex problems or, in some cases, problem solving in pairs).
The sample sizes in many cases are small, and individual dif-
ferences are present (e.g., Voss, Greene, Post, and Penner
1983; Voss, Tyler, and Yengo 1983). Furthermore, novices are
unlikely to have the degree of aptitude for the subject observed
in those who go on to become experts, so study participants are
not on a developmental continuum (Schoenfeld and Herrmann
1982). Moreover, the fact that experts use certain strategies is
no guarantee that teaching those strategies to students will im-
prove their performance; in fact, to the degree that strategies
depend on background knowledge, novices may have difficulty
using them at all. Evidence reviewed below, however, suggests
that instruction based on inferences from these and related etud-
ics can improve students' problem solving.

Acquiring Knowledge for Critical Thinking

Students often fail to use knowledge from then r _purses to ana-
lyze new problems. Two, perhaps three, courses taught by tra-
ditional methods may be necessary to influence students' use of
knowledge and discipline-specific reasoning strategies (Nisbett
et al. 1987; Voss et al. 1986). This section reviews studies
with implications for accelerating development of students'
abilities in critical thinking and problem solving in discipline-
'oased instruction.

Declarative knowledge
Acquiring large amounts of information does not ensure that it
will be used in subsequent reasoning (Bransford et al 1986;
Perkins 1986; Perfetto, aransford, and Franks 1933; Voss et

Critical Thinking 33
5Q
 al. 1986; Voss, Greene, Post, and Penner 1983). Declarative
knowledge can be acquired through memorization, but knowl-
edge acquired by rote is not helpful in solving unfamiliar prob-
lems or thinking about complex issues (Collins, Brown, and
Newman 1986). Knowledge must be well understoodrecon-
structed in schcmas in memoryto be useful to the learner. It
must also be organized and accessible to the learner.

Understanding. Students' success as problem solvers is often

hampered by limited or incorrect understanding of concepts
needed to construct an adequate model of the problem. Stu-
dents often hold intuitive conceptions or misconceptions that
persist even after college-level instruction (Carey 1986; Clem-
ent 1983; diSessa 1983). Misconceptions are "consistent ideas
reliably held by the reasoner, which differ from scientific con-
ceptions held by experts" (Linn 1986, p. 167). For example,
even after a year of college physics, many novices hold the
non-Newtonian view that an upward force is exerted on an ob-
ject when it is tossed into the air; gravity is acting on it only
on the way down (Cie:rent 1983). Misconceptions can be ob-
served in other domains as well. For example, the widespread
belief in creationism presents instructional challenges equivalent
to those of restructuring knowledge in physics. Like scientific
theories, misconceptions are not relinquished easily. If miscon-
ceptions are present, the learner must do more than acquire in-
formation. Knowledge may have to be restructured, with new
conceptions replacing old ones, for true understanding to occur
(Carey 1986; Linn 1986; Vosniadou and Brewer 1987).
The persistence of misconceptions after instruction is evi-
dence that present instructional methods fail to counteract stu-
dents' prior understanding of the subject. Misconceptions
become apparent when students make predictions based on their
schcmas, then test their predictions against actual events. Pia-
getian methods described earlier employ this strategy, as do in-
quiry methods, described later. Galileo used a similar method
to persuade his colleagues that Aristotelian concepts were in-
correct (diSessa 1983). Analogies, metaphors, and physical
models are also important (Vosniadou and Brewer 1987).
Dialogue and physical models can be effective even without
significant guidance by a teacher, as illustrated in a transcript
of two college students figuring out the balance beam (Loch-
head 1979).
Much of the declarative knowledge students must acquire can

34

51
be cast in terms of cause-and-effect relationships. For example,
in geography, understanding climate (dependent variable)
means being able to describe the influence of factors like lati-
tude, altitude, and currents (independent variables). In art his-
tory, artists' techniques and visual relationships (independent
variables) create effects on viewers (dependent variable). In the
study of law, precedents, evidence, and laws affect court deci-
sions on particular cases. Similarly, in reasoning about moral
situations, factors such as the consequences of behavior and the
rights of affected parties influence moral judgments (Collins
and Stevens 1982).
Inquiry methods are useful in teaching causal relationships
and correcting misconceptions. An excellent analysis of inquiry
methods is provided by Collins and Stevens (1982), who ana-
lyzed inquiry teachers' dialogues with students to identify goals
and strategies they use to foster students' reasoning. Goals in-
cluded teaching basic facts and concepts relevant to the topic,
a specific rule or theory in a domain, and how to derive a rule
or theory.
Teachers who use inquiry methods encourage students to
analyze a situation in search of causal factors. They deliber-
ately ask questions, select examples, and use "entrapment"
strategies to elicit misconceptions in students' thinking so that
they can be corrected.
The classroom agenda of inquiry teachers is characterized 'y
high-level goals that enable them to respond flexibly to stu-
dents' changing understanding. As goals are met, the teacher
removes them from the agenda, often verbally checking them
off with "clue words such as `okay,' now,' or 'anyway' " (p.
89). Inquiry teachers also have priorities for modifying the
agenda in response to the dialogue. For instance, they take care
of errors in the theory before dealing with omitted factors, be-
cause errors can interfere with learning of other information.
They introduce factors in causal or temporal sequences. And
they call on students who have not participated before those
who have so that all students have the opportunity to verbalize
their thinking. Further, inquiry teachers have strategies for se-
lecting cases that are most likely to achieve their goals. They
choose more salient, frequent, or familiar cases (e.g., large
countries in geography, major diseases in medicine, everyday
problems in moral reasoning) over less common or less impor-
tant ones. They also choose cases that lead to a "significant
generalization" (p. 91).

Critical Thinking 35

52
 The decisions inquiry teachers make in all these areas are in-
fluenced by their model of the students' understanding. The
model includes estimates of what the students probably already
know and knowledge of misconceptions that frequently occur in
the subject domain (Collins and Stevens 1982).
Inquiry teaching has the advantage of providing students with
models of problem solving. It also fosters motivation and in-
creases understanding and applicability of the subject. On the
other hand, information is communicated slowly; the method is
most effective when students have read extensively on the topic
before the dialogue. Further, teachers must be able to involve
all students so that their ideas can be made explicit and cor-
rected if necessary. The teacher must be very knowledgeable,
flexible, and ingenious, especially in choosing problems for
analysis (Collins and Stevens 1982).
While most professors value conceptual understanding, many
underestimate the limitations of current methods of instruction
as means to achieve it. Teaching for understanding requires
time, a deep understanding of the subject on the part of the in-
structor, and perceptiveness in diagnosing students' problems in
understanding.

Organization. The schemas developed by students arc influ-

enced by the organizational structure of the materials used to
teach them (Ey fon and Reif 1984). Unfortunately, teachers and
textbooks often fail to point out the organizing principles, gen-
eralizations, or causal relationships that help students construct
an adequate representation of the material (Armbruster 1984;
Larkin 1979). Research in physics and history illustrates the
advantages gained by emphasizing hierarchical structure in
teaching.
Students' performance of complex tasks is enhanced when
information is presented in hierarchical form, with information
most relevant to the task placed at the top of the hierarchy
( Eylon and Reif 1984). Three groups of students studied rules
for solving physics problems. Students who received the infor-
mation in a logical, linear, sequential fashion performed less
effectively than students who were given a general procedure
followed by the specific rules. Repeating the linear presentation
improved the performance of high-ability students, who evi-
dently used the second presentation to organize the material
hierarchically; repetition did not help the poorer students.
In a second study, the researchers demonstrated that perfor-

36

53
mance improves when the hierarchy is adapted to the demands
of the task. Two hierarchies were constructed. In the deductive
version, theoretical concepts were presented first, elaborated in
the second level, and their historical development described in
the third level. The hierarchy was reversed for the historical
version. In each case, relationships between levels of the hier-
archy were clearly explained in the text. Whcn the task in-
volved historical analysis, students who learned material orga-
nized historically performed best. When the task required stu-
dents to generalize the model to a more complex situation,
students who studied the deductive model performed best. In
general, material at the top of the hierarchies was recalled best.
The lowest-ability students in these studies appeared to be un-
able to reconstruct hierarchical structures in spite of the visual
rehearsal strategies used to present it (Eylon and Rcif 1984).
Freshmen in a study skills course who learned one of two
methods for detecting hierarchical structure in historical texts
were better able to learn from no% material than those who
learned nonhierarchical study methods (Slater et al. 1988). One
group learned a visual model and used it over a nine-week pe-
riod to generate summaries of text. A second group answcrd
questions aimut main ideas and details in the text (also a hierar-
chical structure). Both groups discussed their responses with a
partner during class and discussed or wrote out ideas recalled
from the text. Control students received instruction in study
skills, but the two structure groups outperformed the control
group on all experimental measures.
In these studies, students learned best when they identified
the underlying structure of the text and discussed their analysis
with experimenters or peers.

Accessibility. People apparently need considerable prompting

to use their knowledge to solve problems. For example, when
reasoning about issues like litter laws, individuals offered more
lines of argument as years of education increased (and there-
fore, presumably, the amount of information available for rea-
soning), but the increase was marginal (0.1 "lines" per year
Perkins 1985, 1986). When reasoning about arguments of per-
sonal significance, however, which they claimed to have
thought about for hundreds of hours, people offered twice as
many arguments. To demonstrate that more information was in
fact available, interviewers asked content-free probing questions
after initial arguments were offered by a group of 20 high

Critical Thinking 37

54
 schcol students. The probes significantly increased the number
of arguments the students put forth (Perkins 1986).
Access to relevant knowledge is greatly reduced when the
learner is not informed that the knowledge will be useful (Per-
fetto, Bransford, and Franks 1983). In an experiment, students
rated the truthfulness of 12 statements directly relevant to sev-
eral simple problems. After a three-minute delay, they were
given the problems; for example:

Uriah Fuller, the famous Israeli superpsychic, can tell you

the score of any baseball game before the game starts. What
is his secret?

One-third of the students were told explicitly that the informa-

tion they had just rated was relevant, one-third were not
prompted, and one-third did not receive the clue statements at
all. Students who received the clues but no prompts to use
them performed at the same level as thos:. who had received no
clues at all. Explicit prompting resulted in the best perfor-
mance, although the mean proportion of responses using the
cues was a surprisingly low .54. (Incidentally, the clue to the
"psychic" problem is that at the beginning of any game, the
score is 0 to 0.)
Providing a personally relevant context for new material may
increase its accessibility. In a lecture, the concept of attention
was presented to one group 3f students by relating it to situa-
tions students encounter daily (for example, studying or listen-
ing to a lecture). Another group simply learned about experi-
ments on the subject. Both groups initially learned the material
equally well. The "context" group, however, reported thinking
about the concept more often in the following two days than
those who simply learned about the experiments (Bransford
et al. 1986).

Implications for instruction. Simply presenting declarative

knowledge to students is no guarantee that they will be able to
use it to solve problems. write essays, or think critically about
issues for which the knowledge is relevant. It does not follow,
however, that critical thinking tasks should be withheld from
students until they have acquired a foundation of knowledge.
Thinking about content helps students master new information.
For example, when students write short essays about texts they
have read, their conceptual understanding of the content is

55
greater than when they either take notes or answer probing
study questions. Most important, gains in understanding are MEMERI.
greatest for students who began the task with low levels of Assign tasks
passage-specific knowledge (Newell 1984). Writing analytical
essays evokes more high-level reasoning processes than writing
that require
summaries (Durst 1987) or answering study questions (Newell the students
1984). Thinking tasks can build from short assignments focused to construct
on one or two key concepts to more complex assignments that
encourage students to integrate ideas from many sources so that
their own
they simultaneously acquire knowledge and develop skill in schemas,
using it. perhaps with
Taking students' background knowledge in a subject into ac-
count is useful when planning critical thinking assignments.
the assistance
Assignments that assume intimate familiarity with the di,cipline of a peer.
beyond the level of the course may challenge a few students to
unanticipated heights, but for many, the only recourse will be
the sort of quote-and-paste hodgepodge that frustrates teachers
and fosters students' negative views of academic inquiry. On
the other hand, assignments that help students organize and de-
velop the knowledge they are acquiring are likely to increase
the quality of thinking they can do about the subject.
A pretest can help students determine whether they are ade-
quately prepared for a particular course. Students whose prepa-
ration is marginal should be encouraged to review materials
recommended by the professor or to consider taking a less ad-
vanced course on the subject.
In addition to these measures, helping students organize their
knowledge of the subject increases their learning. In lectures,
presenting material in a chart, matrix, or hierarchical outline
helps students build an organizing schema that will assist them
later in recalling the information, but it is probably equally im-
portant to assign tasks that require the students to construct
their own sche:nas, perhaps with the assistance of a peer.
Using familiar examples and analogies helps students relate
content to existing schemas, especially important in the early
stages of learning.
Some declarative knowledge about arguments may enhance
critical thinking, for example, the forms and pitfalls discussed
in the previous section. The role of such knowledge has not
been explored in the cognitive literature. Students understand
the basic "script" for presenting arguments; what they do not
understand is the degree to which an argument must be devel-
oped to be convincing.

Critical Thinking 39
56
 Procedural knowledge
Educators typically want students to use their knowledge to ac-
complish discipline-related tasks like solving problems, inter-
preting texts, designing or evaluating experiments, or weighing
the merits of a proposal. Thclarative knowledge suffices to talk
or read about a subject; procedural knowledge makes it possi-
ble to do something in the subject domain (Greeno 1980; Lar-
kin, Heller, and Greeno 1980; Simon 1980).
Procedural knowledge relevant to critical thinking includes
knowledge of how information is obtained, analyzed, and com-
municated in a discipline (Loacker et al. 1984). For example,
in art history, the task is to interpret works of art and describe
their historical significance. Students must supplement declara-
tive knowledge of art history with procedural knowledge neces-
sary to decode the images in the painting, integrate visual and
historical evidence, and present the interpretation in verbal
form (Schmidt, McLaughlin, and Leighton n.d.). In economics,
a typical task is to analyze the effects of changes in one seg-
ment of the economy on other segments (Voss et al. 1986).
Other examples of domain-specific procedural knowledge in-
clude historical analysis in political science, setting up proofs
in mathematics, and decomposing software problems to write
computer programs (Voss, Tyler, and Yengo 1983). Students
must learn a different "code" of procedural knowledge in each
of several disciplines and eventually develop a moderate level
of expertise in at least one area of specialized study.
Some aspects of the code are explicit and formalized, for ex-
ample, the "scientific method." Others, however, are implicit,
tacit, taken-far-granted thought processes that an expert uses
without conscious attention. For example, the use of constraints
by political science expeis sets their solution procedures apart
as qualitatively different from those of novice and intermediate
students. Yet it is unlikely that this aspect of political science
problem solving would be explicitly addressed in teaching, un-
less the instructional context included many examples of politi-
cal science problem solving. Such a context would include
modeling the process by the professor and multiple attempts to
solve problems by the students. Even so, the professor would
probably have to explicitly point out the use (or neglect) of
constraints so that students would begin to take into account
contextual factors in constructing plausible solutions.
Within the domain of social science problem solving, at
least, teaching students to identify constraints before they pro-

40
pose solutions might help them to overcome a major weakness
in their uguments: inadequate development. In comparison to
experts' arguments, students' arguments are thin; for example,
in the political science studies, experts averaged nearly nine
levels of backing for their solutions, with long chains of sup-
portive argument. Novices averaged fewer than three levels of
backing and used very short chains of argument (Voss, Greene,
Post, and Penner .983). Similarly, in another case, students of-
fered only a few lines of argument to support (and far fewer in
opposition to) their views on current issues (Perkins 1985).
Constraints serve as criteria in the search for an adequate so-
lution. Considering proposed solutions in light of constraints
causes expert problem solvers to notice subproblems and impli-
cations of their suggestions, which in turn prompts them to
modify or elaborate upon their solutions (Voss, Tyler, and
Yengo 1983). Without constraints, novices have no basis for
evaluating proposed solutions or reasons in support of a claim
and hence no stimulus for further inquiry.
Procedural knowledge can be taught directly to students
using a variety of methods that incorporate practice and feed-
back on the desired skill. An example is learning to write a
good definition, with a clearly stated criterion and illustrative
and contrastive examples. Students acquire the greatest skill
when they are given examples that might illustrate a concept
(such as courage) and asked to develop definitional criteria.
Students who analyze extended definitions and write short defi-
nitions (standard instructional practice in many composition
classrooms) show no significant gains in the overall quality of
their definitions or in the use of criteria and examples. Neither
approach significantly influences students' ability to generate
contrastive examples, however (Hillocks, Kahn, and Johannes-
sen 1983). In composition instruction generally, writing im-
proves most when students use inquiry strategies to develop
their essays (Hillocks 1984, 1986).
In physics, explicit instruction on strategies used by experts
improves beginners' ability to solve problems. Expert physicists
integrate principles when solving problems, but instruction in
physics typically teaches principles individually in succession,
without showing students how to integrate them to solve prob-
lems and with a premature emphasis on mathematical represen-
tation. Larkin and Reif (1979) taut it students in introductory
physics how to use several physics principles in concert to
solve problems as well as how to approach problems by con-

Critical Thinking 41

58
:--7.11111.111......100FrIPINIIIMINIP.

structing "low-detail qualitative descriptions" (p. 199), then

successively refining their strategy. A control group studied the
same principles, but instruction reinforced attention to mathe-
matical descriptions. Although both groups learned the individ-
ual principles equally well, all five students in the qualitative
group solved two or three problems within the given time limit,
but four of the five in the mathematical group solved only one
problem (the fifth solved three). The authors concluded that
students should be encouraged to use "vague verbal or pictorial
descriptions" in the early stages of problem solving (as expert
physicists do), then taught how to translate them into precise
mathematical form during the problem-solving process (p. 201).
Perhaps practice enables declarative knowledge about the
procedure to become procedural knowledge mediated by verbal
self-instructions, which gradually fade as the procedure be-
comes more automated (Anderson 1985). This model helps to
understand why experts often have difficulty verbalizing their
procedural knowledge--and may not even be aware they are
using it. They can perform a task (such as construct geometric
proofs), but they cannot describe or analyze their own actions;
moreover, they attribute students' performance on reasoning
tasks to "intelligence" or "motivation" (Greeno 1980).
Students probably induce strategic knowledge from working
problems and watching teachers solve them (Greeno 1980). The
strategies experts use to solve problems may become public
only when an unexpectedly difficult question causes the teacher
to "think out loud," giving students a momentary glimpse of
the workings of an expert's mind. Unfortunately, such mo-
ments are rare, particularly in subjects where time is considered
precious and teachers conscientiously come "prepared," as in
the case of math professors who believe they must cover sev-
eral problems to make the session worthwhile and so have
worked out the problems for the day to avoid "wasting time"
on incorrect solutions. In contrast, thinking aloud while solving
a problem, perhaps inviting the class to participate in exploring
it, gives students a vivid image of experts' actual thought
processes.

Metacognition and implications for instruction

A third factor influencing problem solving is metacognition, the
use of strategies to monitor and control attention and memory
and to make decisions about how to proceed on a task (Collins,
Brown, and Newman 1986; Flavell 1976, 1979; Palincsar and

42
 Brown 1984; Schoenfeld 1983a, 1983b, 1985a, 1985b; Wein-
stein and Rogers 1985). Metacognition is distinct from proce-
dural knowledge in that procedural knowledge is domain
specific, while metacognitive strategies support problem solv-
ing in any domain.
Planning is an important metacognitive strategy, visible in
expert reasoning in many domains. Experts plan by establishing
goals and subgoals during the problem-solving process. Experts
also use a variety of strategies to review their progress. For ex-
ample, in writing they monitor the correspondence between the
text and their intent (Flower and Hayes 1980; Flower et al.
1986). Effective readers monitor their comprehension using
strategies like summarizing key points, questioning the meaning
and implications of the text, clarifying the text by rereading
when a "triggering event" (such as inability to summarize a
passage adequately) signals a failure in comprehension, and
predicting what might lie ahead in the text (Palincsar and
Brown 1984). Mathematicians and physicists, too, remain alert
to clues that a solution may not be working and revise their
approach accordingly. :

Students can learn to use metacognitive strategies to increase

the effectiveness of their reading and problem solving. For ex-
ample, in a training program focused on metacognition in
mathematical problem solving, students learned to consider sev-
eral possible solution strategies, to evaluate each one, and to
check their progress after five minutes of implementation. Stu-
dents who completed the 18-day course engaged in significantly
more planning before attempting a solution to a problem and
reviewed their progress far more frequently than before the
course (Schoenfeld 1985a). Moreover, the program enhanced
students' use of knowledge aboi mathematical problems. After
the course, they categorized mathematics problems in ways that
more closely corresponded to the categories used 1w mathemati-
cians. A control group that learned a "structured, nierarchical,
and orderly way to solve nonmathematical problems using the
computer" showed no similar improvement (Schoenfeld and
Herrmann 1982, p. 486). This result suggests that training in
metacognition makes knowledge more accessible to students.
Some experimental metacognitive strategies can be adapted
for classroom use. One study, for example, paired students and
assigned them text passages to study and summariz; in writing
(Spur lin et al. 1984). Students who took turns actively ques-
tioning each other outperformed students who were less active

Critical Thinking 43
60
 or who worked alone. The active pairs used metacognitive
questions to monitor accuracy and to encourage each other to
relate the text to prior knowledge. Similar questions can be
given to students (or developed in class discussion) and used in
studying or in small groups.
Work in small groups can also incorporate a strategy called
"pair problem solving." One student solves a problem out loud
while the other acts as a monitor, asking questions whenever
something seems unclear or incomplete. A checklist helps the
listener detect errors - and omissions in the problem solver's rea-
soning (Lochhead and Whimbey 1987; Whimbey and Lochhead
1982). This approach, combined with training on formal rea-
soning abilities using the Piagetian learning cycle model, is
credited with the academic success of minority students who
have completed Xavier University's SOAR program kLochhead
and Whimbey 1987; Whimbey et al. 1980).
Finally, teachers can follow Schoenfeld's lead in mathemat-
ics, demonstrating their own metacognitive processes, just as
they can demonstrate procedural knowledge at work. Many
study skills programs include training in metacognition. These
programs teach students to become aware of their own cogni-
tions, to establish learning goals, to assess progress toward
their goals, and to modify their learning strategies when neces-
sary (see, for example, Weinstein and Rogers 1985). Training
in comprehension monitoring has proven useful in bolstering
students' reading performance (Palincsar and Brown 1984;
Weinstein and Rogers 1985). Teaching students to formulate
questions during lecture arid reading significantly affects their
grade point average and persistence in college (Heiman and
Slomianko 1984). In their classes, the professor can demon-
strate a careful reading of a difficult text passage, showing stu-
dents the techniques of questioning, summarizing, clarifying,
and predicting, as well as relating the information to previously
studied material and encouraging students to use these tech-
niques on assignments.
Metacognitive processes help to manage large quantities of
complex and often conflicting information (including lengthy
arguments composed by experts) encountered in critical think-
ing. School practices, such as lecturing from textbooks and
using only "objective" examinations, discourage the develop-
ment of metacognitive skills other than, perhaps, the use of
mnemonic devices. In contrast, instruction that directs students'
attention to their own reasoning processes or that creates a way

44
 for students to stimulate each others' metacognitions aids learn-
ing and may improve performance on related cognitive tasks
(see, for example, Palincsar and Brown 1984; Weinstein and
Rogers 1985; Whimbey et al. 1980). Metacognitive skills have
the potential to increase students' ability to learn and to use
what they know (Scardamalia and Bereiter 1986).
Metacognition may play an important role in developing ob-
jectivity, because it enables people_to searc:i out relevant
knowledge and to reflect on their reasoning. In a study de-
scribed earlier, metacognitive questions posed to 20 high school
students after they had offered their arguments on an issue sig-
nificantly increased the number of arguments they provided on
both their own and the opposing side (Perkins 1986). "My-
side" arguments doubled to more than seven, while "other-
side" arguments increased by 700 percent, to 5.6. In other
words, simply by prompting, the researcher was able to enrich
the array of reasons students used to develop their positions.
The study offers less reason for optimism than might appear
at first glance, however. Despite the dramatic change in both
the number and proportion of arguments offered on the oppos-
ing side, only three students changed their minds on the issue.
For the remaining 17, the new information they retrieved had
almost no effect on the confidence with which they held their
initial position. The study demonstrates the resilience of beliefs
in the face of contrary evidence, confirming results reported by
others (Dressel and Lehmann 1965; Lord, Ross, and Leper
1979; Ross and Anderson 1982). Students actively resist re-
quests to present arguments for an opposing view (Alvermann,
Dillon, and O'Brien 1987; Bernstein 1988; Roby 1983, 1985).
They also evaluate studies that favor their point of view more
positively than those that do not, a phenomenon labeled "bi-
ased assimilation" (Lord, Ross, and Leper 1979). Persuading
students to weigh information objectively poses a far more per-
plexing challenge to teachers than does teaching them how to
retrieve it.
To counteract biased assimilation of evidence, use of the
heuristic has been suggested (Bernstein 1988), what some have
called "consider the opposite" (Lord, Ross, and Leper 1979).
When reviewing research, students are instructed to ask them-
selves whether they would have produced the same evaluation
of the research if it had produced the opposite result. The
"devil's advocate" is used to encourage students to take the
point of view of others, essentially a request to state the point

Critical Thinking 45

62
 of view of someone the student disagrees with to that person's
satisfaction (Roby 1983, 1985).
Professors who want to facilitate their students' ability to
reason about disciplinary content can use their awareness of
metacognition to help students become more strategic learners.
They can demonstrate and discuss their approaches to solving
tough problems or reading difficult material. In this way, con-
tent can be clarified while metacognitive skills are introduced.
Professors can also conduct class discussions in which students
share their approaches to assignments that require critical think-
ing and collaborate to devise techniques for addressing prob-
lems they identify while the work is in progress. Guidelines for
group work, class discussion, or assignments may also include
metacognitive questions or prompts like those described here.

Beliefs about Knowledge

Beliefs about the nature of knowledge in the discipline under
study influence the approaches individuals adopt when solving
complex thinking tasks in that discipline (Ryan 1984a, 1984b;
Schoenfeld 1983a, 1985b). An example is the belief that his-
tory consists of a chronology of known events and that the
main task is to learn important dates. This belief directs stu-
dents' attention inappropriately in lecture and reading, making
it difficult for them to perceive important information, such as
multiple causes or alternative interpretation:; of events.
With respect to in; ai argument, students do not share ac-
ademics' belief that extended analysis of an issue is necessary.
They are satisfied to offer a few arguments for one or another
point of view and accept it because it fits their existing be-
liefswhat one writer refers to as a "make-mse epistemol-
ogy" (Perkins 1986; Perkins, Allen, and Hafner 1983) and
another as "epistemic cognition" (Kitchener 1983). Develop-
mental studies, discussed in the next section, have documented
widespread adherence to this view of thinking among college
students (e.g., Kitchener and King 1981; Welfel 1982).
Epistemological beliefs can have a devastating impact on stu-
dents' problem solving. For example, many students in mathe-
matics appear to hold a "nonmathematical epistemology,"
which includes beliefs such as "Mathematics problems are al-
ways solved in less than 10 minutes, if they are solved at all.
Corollary: Give up after 10 minutes." and "Only geniuses are
capable of discovering or creating mathematics. First corollary:
If you forget something, too bad. After all, you're not a genius

46
6 0' 4
and you won't be able to derive it on your own. Second corol-
lary: Accept procedures at face value, and don't try to under-
stand why they work" (Schoenfeld 1985b, p. 372). A parallel
exists between students' failure to recognize mathematical argu-
mentation as useful and the "make-sense epistemology" men-
tioned earlier (Schoenfeld 1983a, 1983b, 1985a, 1985b).
Cognitive psychologists, with the exception of Schoenfeld,
have paid little attention to the ways in which belief systems
change or the nature of their influence on learning and reason-
ing. Schoenfeld (1985a) illustrates changes in students' beliefs
about mathematics as a consequence of participation in his
problem-solving course. Students exchanged their initial reli-
ance on trial-and-error exploration for analysis and deduction,
they paid more attention to the meaning than the form of prob-
lems, and they became active rather than passive in solving
problems (Although these changes reflect adoption of new
procedural and metacognitive strategies, Schoenfeld infers
from them a change in students' beliefs about the meaning of
their task.)

Affective Factors: Curiosity and Purpose

Although the role of affective factors in critical thinking de-
serves greater attention, few cognitive researchers have ex-
plored it empirically. Three cognitive factors that arouse intrin-
sic motivation have been identified (Malone 1981), however,
and two studies suggest the role of peers in fostering motiva-
tion for learning.
Intrinsic motivation arises when the student perceives a situa-
tion as problematic. The key factors in intrinsic motivation are
curiosity, challenge, and fantasy. Curiosity is aroused when
learners experience inadequacies is their knowledge (e.g., upon
completing the penultimate chapter of a murder mystery). Ma-
lone notes that inadequacies can be exposed using the inquiry
or "Socratic" instructional methods summarized above (see
Collins and Stevens 1982). Challenge requires personally mean-
ingful goals, uncertain outcomes, and difficulty levels and feed-
back that enhance rather than damage self-esteem. Fantasy
intrinsic to the subject (as in a game that presents realistic
problems and naturalistic feedback) enhances both learning and
intrinsic motivation. Informative feedback also facilitates intrin-
sic motivation (Malone 1981).
Students' orientation to peers can also be used to give pur-
pose to learning. In one study, students were given a passage

Critical Thinking 47
G4
 to study. One group was told that they would be tested on the
material; the other group was told that they would teach the
material to another student, who would then be tested. In fact,
both groups were tested. Students in the peer-teaching group
spent more time on the material, rated themselves as more ac-
tive in the learning process, and performed better on both infor-
mational and conceptual tests than students who were simply
studying for tamselves (Benware and Deci 1984). In another
study, conducted with middle-school children, students who
worked in cooperatively structured groups to analyze controver-
sial issues engaged in more voluntary search for additional ma-
terials relevant to the topic than students working alone or in
competitively structured groups. Interestingly, they also incor-
porated more arguments from the opposing viewpoint into their
final individual papers than did students in the other two groups
(Johnson and Johnson 1985).
These studies suggest that students' motivation can be influ-
enced through both the structure of the presentation of material
and the social structure of the classroom.

Conclusions
The research reviewed here has several broad implications
for faculty who wish to foster students' abilities in critical
thinking.

1. Arouse students' curiosity by using problems as organiz-

ing principles for instruction. Link new information to the
context in which it is to be used and to students' back-
ground knowledge and intuitive conceptions of the sub-
ject. Use task-adapted hierarchies, inquiry methods, and
familiar examples to enhance understanding, manization,
and accessibility of declarative knowledge.
2. Teach students when and how to use what they are learn-
ing. Use modeling, coaching, practice, and feedback to
teach reasoning skills relevant to the subject of study.
3. Demonstrate metacognition and build metacognit've
prompts into class exercises and assignments.
4. Elicit and discuss beliefs about the nature of what is to be
learned and provide experiences to overcome students'
naive conceptions about the subject.
5. Use social and cognitive strategies to enhance purpose
and motivation to learn.

48
 These conclusions suggest a "cognitive apprenticeship" ap-
proach to instruction (Collins, Brown, and Newman 1986). The
elements of a cognitive apprenticeship are modeling (demon-
strating a cognitive task so students can observe it), coaching
(assisting the learner during learning or performance of a task),
scaffolding (providing expert guidance initially and gradually
removing it), articulating (reasoning processes and knowledge
in use), reflecting (comparing students' problem-solving pro-
"esses with those of an expert), and exploring (encouraging stu-
dents to establish their own goals or subgoals within a given
task). Instruction in an apprenticeship is sequenced for increas-
ing complexity and diversity and progresses from global to lo-
cal skills. The sociological aspects of the apprenticeship include
"situated learning" (learning in the context of a task or prob-
lem similar to the context of actual use), a "culture of expert
practice" (in which students enact and communicate about the
skills they are to learn), intrinsic motivation, and use of both
cooperative and competitive activity structures (Collins, Brown,
and Newman 1986).
Integrating multiple forms of knowledge in instruction offers
a coherent way to ensure that students will take from their edu-
cation a rich and accessible store of knowledge and skills. The
time required to point out to students the structural features of
arguments and the characteristics of domain-specific reasoning
is small compared to the potential benefits of having a frame-
work and a common language for discussing academic work.
In spite of professors' best efforts to foster critical thinking,
difficulties will arise. Students may acquire the form but not
the substance of critical thinking (Nickerson 1986b; Stern and
Cope 1956; W. 'ters 1986). While some of these difficulties
arise from students' limited background knowledge, others re-
flect their intuitive conceptions about the nature of knowledge
and the learning process. The next section describes thz evolu-
tion of students' beliefs about knowledge and considers the
ways these beliefs interact with instruction intended to foster
critical thinking.

Critical Thinking

G6
 DEVELOPMENTAL FOUNDATIONS OF CRITICAL THINKING
If critical thinking were only a matter of acquiring skills and
knowledge, teaching stt. ;ants to do it would be relatively un-
problematic. Evidence aiready cited, however, suggests that Constructed
this is not the case. Students' difficulties with critical thinking
can be better understood by considering the assumptions about knowledge as
knowledge, truth, authority, and inquiry implicit in the pro- described
cess itself. in Women's
Critical thinking ta'..;es pluralism as given and sees individu-
als as responsible for constructing their own coherent account
Ways of
of whatever subject they are disposed to investigate. This rela- Knowing
tivistic or constructivist theory about what it means to know captures the
something is not necessarily held by people in students' home
communities (Belenky et al. 1985, 1986; Bizell 1986; Daly interplay of
1986). Discrepancies between students' and professors' as- rationality,
sumptions about knowledge probably account for a major share caring, and
of the frustration both groups experience when critical thinking
is required in a course. Models of college students' intellectual commitment
development provide a framework for understanding how stu- that is the
dents come to terms with this discrepancy and what teachers
can do to help.
ultimate goal
of education.
Background of the Research
The first studies of epistemological development in college
were conducted at Harvard by William Perry and his associates
(Perry 1970). They interviewed over 100 students, nearly all
male, in two separate four-year studies at Harvard and Rad-
cliffe in the late 1950s and early 1960s. Eighty-four of these
students were interviewed during each of their four years in
college. The first set of interviews was used to generate the
scheme; the second set provided a test of the scheme's validity.
Since then, researchers have modified Perry's formulation of
intellectual development (Kitchener and King 1981) or tested
its underlying assumptions (Clinchy and Zimmerman 1982;
Kurfiss 1975, 1977). Many others have explored its implica-
tions for learning and educational practice (e.g., Baxter-
Magolda 1987; Clinchy, Lief, and Young 1977; Goldberger
1981; King 1985; Knefelkamp 1974; Knefelkamp and Slepitza
1976; Ryan 1984a, 1984b; Schmidt and Davison 1983; Ste-
phenson and Hunt 1977; Touchton et al. 1977; Widick and
Simpson 1978). Measures for assessing epistemological develop-
ment have been developed and validated, using interviews (Kitch-
ener and King 1981) or paper-and-pencil assessments (Baxter-
Magolda and Porterfield 1985; Knefelkamp and Moore n.d.;

Critical Thinking 51
6"
 Mentkowski, Moeser, and Strait 1983). Finally, several studies
have examined connections between epistemological models
and other aspects of development and exprience (e.g., Benack
1984; Benack and Basseches 1987; Brabeck 1983; King,
Kitchener, and Wood 1985; Kurfiss 1975, 1976, 1977; We lfel
1982). (For reviews of research on the Perry model, see King
1978 and Perry 1981.)'
Research on women's epistemological development has
shown that while the broad categories of the scheme are similar
to those identified by Perry, contemporary women frequently
differ from the men and women interviewed by Perry in their
views of authority, truth, and knowledge (Belenky et al. 1986;
Benack 1982).

"Stages" of Intellectual Development=

Perry (1970) identified nine sequential "positions from which a
person views his world" (p. 48) and three "alternatives to
growth" (p. 177ff). Belenky and associates identified four per-
spectives among college women and an additional perspective
among women who were clients in human service agencies.
The following summary of intellectual development in college
integrates Belenky and associates' extensive research on wom-
en's perspectives with the earlier findings reported by Perry.
The summary is organized into four major categories or levels
and suggests how students at each developmental level will re-
spond to tasks that require critical thinking.

Level 1: Dualism /received knowledge

Many students believe that knowledge is a collection of discrete
facts; therefore, learning is simply a matter of acquiring infor-
mation delivered by the professor in concert with the text. In-
formation is either correct or it is not; hence, Pcny's label for
this belief system is "dualism." Dualistic thinkers do not real-
ize the degree to which the information presented in a course or
textbook is selected, interpreted, and systematized. They view
the professor as the authority, presenting factual knowledge

1. William S. Moore coordinates the Perry Network; his address is 1670 Prince
Ave., Athens, GA 30606.
2. The term "stages" implies a more deterministic and integrative concept of
development than researchers in this field wish to claim. For this reason, Perry
chose the more modest term "positions," and Belenky and associates chose
"perspectives."

52
 known to all experts in the discipline. Their dependence on au-
thority as the ource of all knowledge led Belenky and her as-
sociates to refer to this belief system as "received knowledge."
Professors are always more or less right in this view, because,
as one student says, "They have books to look at. Things that
you look up in a book, you normally get the right answer"
(Belenky et al. 1986, p. 39).
For these students, the concept of interpretation, essential to
critical thinking, is puzzling. Doesn't the text mean what it
says? Why can't the author just say what he or she means?
They may become confused or indignant when professors ask
them to reason independently. Here is one student's response to
a general education course that emphasizes thinking:

"It's supposed to teach you toalt, reason better. That

seems to be the, the excuse that natural science people give
for these coursesthey're supposea to teach you to arrive at
more logical conclusions and look at things in a more scien-
tific manner. Actually, what you get out of that course is
you, you get an idea that science is a terrifically confused
thing in which nobody knows what's coming off anyway"
(Perry 1970, p. 74).

In the face of "so many conflicting doctrines and opinions,"

many students in this first level opt "just to keep quiet until
[they] really know just what the answer is" (Perry 1970, p.
87). Rather than reflecting a personality characteristic like
"passivity" or "vocationalism," their resistance to critical
thinking reflects a legitimate developmental quandary as they
encounter a world far more complex than they have realized.

Level 2: Multiplicity /subjective knowledge

Before students can accept the challenges and responsibilities of
independent thinking, they must recognize that "conflicting
doctrines and opinions" are an inevitable and legitimate feature
of knowledge. And they must begin to develop trust in their
"inner voices" as a source of knowledge. This is the work of
the second level of intellectual development as described by
Perry and by Belenky and associates.
In some courses, particularly those in the humanities and so-
cial sciences, students encounter numerous conflicts of interpre-
tation and theory. Most students gradually acknowledge the
existence of unknowns, doubts, and uncertainties, at least in

Critical Thinking 53

69
 some areas of knowledge. When the facts are not known,
knowledge is a matter of "mere opinion." When no absolute
truth exists, one "opinion" is as good as another, and teachers
"have no right to call [the student] wrong" on matters of opin-
ion (Perry 1970, p. 97). Many conflicts over grade. probably
arise from students' failure to understand, or professors' failure
to communicate, the criteria used to judge "opinion" papers.
Perry's term "multiplicity" emphasizes this position's depar-
ture from dichotomous thinking. Belenky and associates' tern
"subjective knowledge" highlights women's tendency to turn
inward, away from external authorities as their primary source
of knowledge. The majority of college students subscribe to
this category of epistemological beliefs (Belenky et al. 1986;
King, Kitchener, and Wood 1985; We 'fel 1982).
Multiplicity/subjective knowledge is a crucial turning point in
the development of critical thinking. Students at this level rec-
ognize complexity but have not yet learned how to navigate its
waters. They perceive no basis other than intuition, feeling, or
"common sense" on whicn to judge the merits of the opinions
cii,:y now accept as reflections of legitimate differences. They
are "make-sense epistemologists" (Perkins, Allen, and Hafner
1983) in their studies of informal argument. A recent popular
characterization describes these students as suffering from the
"openness of indifference" (Bloom 1987, p. 41). "Openness
used to be the virtue that permitte4 us to seek the good ..ly
using reason. It now means accepting everything and denying
reason's povyer" (p. 38).

Level 3: Relativism 'procedural knowledge

Insistent pressure from peers (for example, in arguments in the
residence hall or coffee shop) and from faculty (to give reasons
for opinions offered in class discussions, on examinations, or in
term papers) leads some students to realize that "opinions" dif-
fer in quality. Good opinions are supported with reasons. Stu-
dents learn that they must examine an issue "in complex terms,
weighing more than one factor in trying to devclop your own
opinion" (Perry 1970, p. 100). In the arts, students learn that
they must substitute analysis using "objective" criteria based
on factors in the work for personal responses to its mood and
character ( Belenky et al. 1986). Belenky and associates' term
"procedural knowledge captures this emphasis on using disci-
plinary methods of reasoning. Perry labels this belief system
"relativism," because it assumes that what counts as true de-

54
70
pends on (is relative to) the frame of refer-;nce used to evaluate
the phenomenon in question. Confusion out the meaning of
the term "relativism" has led many writers to use the term
"..ontextualism" or "contextual relativism" (see, for example,
Clinchy and Zimmerman 1982). Others have used the terms
"reflective skepticism" (Mc Peck 1981) and "critical episte-
mology" (Perkins, Allen, and Hafner 1983) to describe this
way of thinking.
Level 3 beliefs reflect the traditional academic view of rea-
soning as objective analysis and argument. Belenky and associ-
ates noticed, however, that some women employed an alterna-
tive procedure for developing opinions, which they called
"connected knowledge." Connected knowledge attcmos to un-
derstand the reasons for another's way of thinking. The student
undertakes a "deliberate, imaginative extension of one's under-
standing into positions that initially feel wrong or remote" (p.
121). Connected knowledge differs from the objective analyti-
cal model of thinking, which they called "separate knowl-
edge." Confronting a poem, separate knowers ask, "What
techniques can I use to analyze it?" In contrast, connected
knowers ask, "What is this poet trying to say to me?" (Be-
lenky et al. 1986, p. 101). Connected knowledge does not pre-
clude analysis or criticism; it does, however, begin with a more
empathic treatment of divergent views.
In Perry's study, most students came to realize that the "aca-
demic" method of deciding issues is generally applicable, be-
cause knowledge is inherently indeterminatc. Subsequent stud-
ies have found fewer than half of college seniors subscribing to
this epistemological perspective (Baxter-Mabolda and Porter-
field 1985; King, Kitchener, and Wood 1985; Welfel 1982).

Level 4: Commitment in relativismIconstructed knowledge

The reasoning procedures of level 3 illuminate a situation, but
they do not provide definitive answers. Ultimately, individuals
must take a position and make commitments, even tt -Nigh they
can have no external assurances of the "correctness" of what
they choose to do or believe. :Ience, Perry labels this perspec-
tive "commitment in relativism."
"Constructed knowledge," as described by Belenky and as-
sociates, integrates knowledge learned from others ith the
"inner truth" of experience and personal reflection. At this
level, students understand that knower and known are inti-
mately intertwined and exist in a particular historical and cul-

Critical Thinking 55

7j
 tural context. Even in the sciences, this realization is possible,
as one senior honors student observes:

"hi science you don't really want to say that something's

taste. You realize that you're dealing with a model. Our
models are always simpler than the real world. The real
world is more complex than anything we can create. We're
simplifying everything so that we can work w. it, but the
thing is really more complc.;:. When you try to describe
things, you're leaving the truth because you're oversimplify-
ing" (Belenky et al. 1986, p. 138).

Constructed knowledge as described in Women's Ways of

Knotting captures the interplay of rationality, caring, and com-
mitment that is the ultimate goal of education. Constructed
knowers are able to take "a position outside a particular con-
text or frame of reference and look back cn 'who' is asking the
question, 'why' the question is asked at all, and 'how' answers
are arrived at" (Belenky et al. 1986, p. 139). They include the
self in their knowing process, no longer execen a procedure
but now becoming passionately engaged in the search for un-
derstanding. They are committed to nurturing rather than criti-
cizing ideas; they may withdraw into silence if they believe the
other person is not really listening, be it spouse, acquaintance,
i..-ofessor, or colleague. They seek integrated, authentic lives
that contribute to "empowerment and improvement in the qual-
ity of life of others" (p. 152).

Alternatives to growth
Perry identified three alternatives to intellectual growth in the
students he interviewed. Temporizing is "a pause in growth
over a full academic year" (p. 178), retreat is a regression to
an earlier position, and escape may take the form of fatalistic
ac:eptance or gamesmanship. The common theme of these al-
ternatives is, for Perry, the "defeat of care . . . . The speaker
always conveys a nostalgia for a care and involvement that
once was, or might have been, or might yet be . . . if
only . . . " (p. 200).

Differences between Samples

Although the general outlines of these two development&
models are similar, Belenky and associates found several differ-

56
72
ences between the women in their sample and the men and
women in Perry's study.
Most noticeably, particularly in level 1, the men at Harvard
identified with the male authority figures tney were discussing.
In contrast, women in the sample tended not to identify with
authorities. The absence of women in key positions in their
schools and the negative attitudes toward women's capabilities
conveyed by some professors provided little basis for identifica-
tion, even among women from elite schools in the study.
A second difference is that for women, a central theme is
their responsibility to help others. Although it may have been
an issue for students at Harvard and Radcliffe, Perry did not
explicitly identify it.
A third difference is that for the women interviewed by Be-
lenky and associates, listening or gaining a voice is the domi-
nant metaphor, with a new meaning at each level. Women in
the perspective of received knowledge (level 1) report being
strongly influencedand confusedby advice from friends and
counselors or by different views in what they read. Expecting
to find "answers" outside themselves, they are unable to listen
to their own voices, whether to express themselves in class or
to decide what to do with their lives. They "resolve" this diffi-
culty by valuing their inner voices almost exclusively in level
2, subjective knowledge. In level 3, procedural knowledge, the
outer voice again becomes salient, now telling students how to
think rather than what to think. Level 4, constructed knowl-
edge, describes the integration of inner and outer voices. The
metaphor of listening favors interaction with others as a way of
knowing. In contrast, Perry's interviewees developed objectiv-
ity and distance as ways of knowing, implying an underlying
metaphor of seeing (Belenky et al. 1986).
Yet another difference is the discovery by Belenky and asso-
ciates of a perspective that precedes dualism/received knowl-
edge. They call this perspective "silence." It is a powerless,
dependent view of the self in which the women feared the
power of words and cowered in the face of male authority.
These women accepted sex-role stereotypes unquestioningly
and accepted violence and brutality from men rather than live
without them. Escape from silence often occurred when, as
new mothers, they visited children's health centers where
knowledgeable, supportive professionals treated them with re-
spect and helped them develop confidence in their ability to
learn. Silence was not found among women in the college. sam-

Critical Thinking 57

73
 pie, but the researchers found that many female students had a
history of abuse by male authority figures, perhaps accounting
for their reluctance to speak and their failure to identify readily
with academic authority figures who are so often male (Be-
lenky et al. 1986). Silent knowers share characteristics of illit-
erate peasants (Freire 1985). Like the women who discovered
their own powers of learning, these peasants were "liberated"
when they discovered that words could be used to shape the
en"irunment they had once thought of as immutable.
A final difference is the discovery of "connected knowl-
edge" as a procedure used to understand unfamiliar ideas. Con-
nected knowledge enables students to develop the supportive
relationships that facilitate honest criticism. When teaching stu-
dents who do not trust or identify with authorities, professors
may find an emphasis on connected knowledge breaks down
barriers to partic;pation.

Criticisms
Perry's model, although widely used and appreciated by faculty
in many disciplines, is not ' .thout its critics. For example,
Perry himself notes that the beliefs clustered here as "level 4"
cease to be epistemological, reflecting instead issues of per-
sonal identity, or in Perry's words, "emotional and aesthetic
assessments" (p. 205). A proposed alternative, reflective judg-
ment, is a seven-stage model that is more rigorously epistemo-
logical (Kitchener and King 1981). The reflective judgment
interview asks students to reason about four epistemological di-
lemmas, such as how one would decide whether a particular
food additive is safe. Responses arc categorized on three "di-
mensions" (e.g., cognitive complexity, openness) and seven
"content areas" (e.g., view of the nature of knowledge, role of
authority, use of evidence) (King 1977, pp. 217-57; see ttl&..
Kitchener 1977).
The reflective judgment interview has been extensively vali-
dated and has provided longitudinal data suggesting a clear di-
rectional trend in epistemological development and a significant
influence of educational experiences (King et al. 1983; King,
Kitchener, and Wood 1985).
Perry's scheme is often taken to mean that students' develop-
ment is unified, coherent, and linear. Perry himself made no
such ciaim. His choice of the term "positions" reflects his de-
sire to avoid the implications of coherence and endurance im-
plicit in the dev..lopmental construct of a "stage." He reports

58
a study in which students' "positions" were rated in five
"content-sectors"(acaCemic, extracurricular, interpersonal,
vocational, and religious) as well as in overall development or
central tendency. The "ratings revealed a considerable disparity
in the student's development from sector to sector . . . " (p.
48). Similarly, in another study, stu "ents' comprehension of
short passages sequenced according to Perry's model was not
consistent across a set of five topics related to academic learn-
ing and personal decision making (Kurfiss 1977). Another re-
searcher found that women's responses on different ;.,?ics
failed to fall neatly into categories outlined by Perry (Benack
1982). Perhaps disparities in students' understanding of the
same position when presented in different content areas reflects
differences in their experience in each area (Kurfiss 1977).
Some criticisms of developmental theory are based on mis-
conceptions about what the theories themselves claim. For ex-
ample, Perry's model has been criticized as suggesting a rigidly
linear, maturationist view of intellectual growth (Berthoff
1984), for being insensitive to cultural differences (Fizell 1984,
1986), and for confusing "development" with knowledge of
the "conventions" of academic discourse, particularly argu-
mentation (Kogen 1986). These criticisms and related miscon-
ceptions about developmental models in general have be,:n
analyzed in detail (Hays 1987).
Hays refutes the view that developmental models imply rigid
tracking of students in the sense of restricting their intellectual
diet to a "comfortable" level. According to Hays, an English
professor and composition researcher, developmental theory
provides zeful insights about why some pedagogics (for exam-
ple, the highly unstructured "naturai process" method of teach-
ing writing) are less effective with some students (for example,
dualists/received knowers) because they fail to meet their devel-
opmental needs (in this case, the need for structure at least in
the initial stages of learning). Developmental theory illuminates
students' difficulties in learning to write arguments (Hays 1987;
Hays, Brandt, and Chantry 1988); it also suggests how a cur-
riculum might be sequenced to address students' needs more ef-
fectively. But r..-,tegorizing students on the basis of fragmentary
evidence is risky business and should oe approached responsi-
bly, with the aim of understanding and teaching students more
effectively (Hays 1987).
Finally, the two developmental models described here have
been criticized for their individualistic view of epistemology.

Criticel Thinking 59
 Perry's concept of contextual relativism does not address the
socially constructed nature of the contexts themselves (Brough-
ton 1975). Nor does it question the narrow "drive to advance
the self" implied by Perry's highest positions (Harding 1987).
"The study's sample includes no women who had the experi-
ence of acting collectively in order to change social conditions:
Shouldn't this gap make us question the authors' claims about
the 'highest' modes of knowledge seeking? Don't they miss
something important herethe voices of women aware of the
power of women thinking and working together to improve our
lives?" (Harding 1987, p. 7). The gap is ironic, as the research
was clearly a collaborative project (Harding 1987). The ques-
tion implies that if cooperative learning becomes more com-
monplace in schools (as many educators predict or at least hope
that it will), epistemological conceptions of future college stu-
dentsand their professorswill be radically altered.

Relationship to Critical Thinking

Critical thinking skills (as measured by the Watson-Glaser Crit-
ical Thinking Appraisal) are probably necessary but not suffi-
cient for progress to the higher levels of epistemological
development. One researcher compared reflective judgment
scores of students who scored either very high or very low on
the Watson-Glaser assessment (Brabeck 1983). Four educa-
tional levels from high school to masters' program were rep-
resented; pairs were matched on educational level but differed
in assessed critical thinking ability. The two measures were
moderately correlated (r = .40). Low scorers on the critical
thinking test generally scored no higher than stage 4 on the re-
flective judgment interview. In contrast, 30 percent of the high
critical thinking group scored above stage 4 (late multiplicity in
Perry's terms). Low-scoring critical thinkers scored no higher
than stage 4; the high-scoring groups' maximum was stage 5
(early contextual relativism in Perry's scheme).
The findings support the hypothesis that students who have
not learned the "basic skills" of critical thinking subscribe to
epistemological views no higher than multiplicity. Students
who have learned these skills may indeed progress into a stage
equivalent to relativism but do not necessarily do so.
The study illustrates the limitations of instruction in the skills
of analyzing and constructing arguments: Learning these skills
does not necessarily alter students' beliefs about the nature of

60
76
truth or abo:!, their role in the construction of knowledge. Epis-
temological beliefs change slowly (at most one stage in two
yearsKing et al. 1983), and under present educational condi- Students who
tions, contextual relativism is uncommon even among college
seniors (Belenky et al. 1986; King et al. 1983; King, Kitch-
do not realize
ener, and Wood 1985; Kitchener and King 1981; Welfel 1982). that
Researchers have found evidence, however, that higher levels knowledge is
of development can be achieved in developmentally supportive
contexts (e.g., Clinchy, Lief, and Young 1977) and using de-
contextual
velopmental principles to plan disciplinary or interdisciplinary may use
instruction (Knefelkamp 1974; Knefelkamp and Slepitza 1976; critical
Widick, Knefelkamp, and Parker 1975; Widick and Simp-
son 1978). thinking
techniques to
Relationship to Other Behaviors bolster their
Some "novice" behaviors described in the section on cognitive
psychology have ben linked experimentally to students' prog-
preconceived
ress on Perry's scheme. Relationships hes,e been demonstrated ideas of what
between students' beliefs about knowledge and their reading is right.
habits, writing standards and performance, and performance in
a survey course in psychology (Ryan 1984a, 1984b). Students
who agreed with dualistic statements about learning reported
reading textbooks for factual knowledge. Their preferred read-
ing strategy was to "recall information from text in response to
study guide questions" (Ryan 1984b, p. 252). In contrast,
students who disagreed with the dualistic statements, and
were thus inferred to subscribe to a more relativistic epistemol-
ogy, read textbooks in search of conceptual relationships and
meaning.
Further, students classified as relativists received higher
course grades than those classified as dualists, with the effects
of previous academic experience and SAT scores removed
(Ryan 1984b). Perhaps, therefore, students' epistemological be-
liefs generate standards for monitoring text comprehension
(Ryan 1984b). Higher standards yield greater comprehension,
resulting in superior grades in survey courses where mastery of
the text is a major element of performance.
Further, relativistic students used mature criteria for judging
organization in written texts (Ryan 1984a). Relativists more
often stated that a text must have an organizing principle, either
a logical sequence of ideas or a unifying thesis. Dualists more
often expressed criteria reflecting informativeness or a simple

Critical Thinking 61
l'
 grouping of information. And relativists produced more coher-
ent prose when writing a short informative essay in response to
a probe about their study behaviors.
A strong association was found to exist between students'
epistemological assumptions and the rhetorical strategies they
used to persuade a hostile audience of the value of their posi-
tion on a controversial topic, implementation of tougher drunk
driving laws (Hays, Brandt, and Chantry 1988). Rhetorical cat-
egories included dogmatic assertions, emotional appeals (in-
cluding dramatic anecdotes), appeal to facts, logical analysis,
and appeal to ethical principles or values. Dualistic students
used dogmatic, moralistic assertions and some factual informa-
tion but no logical analysis, as "presumably their assertions
were grounded in a priori truth and needed no such justifica-
tion" (p. 44). Multiplists offered factual information and
problem-solving strategies but seldom used logical analysis.
Students whose level of intellectual development included rela-
tivistic beliefs used logical analysis and some ethical appeals.
They also used more effective audience strategies: building
bridges of agreement with the audience, developing their argu-
ments by anticipating possible objections, and offering abun-
dant evidence to support their views. Their responses reflect
awareness of context and realization that the assumptions one
makes in presenting an argument are not necessarily shared by
readers, especially opponents.
Developmental level was a more significant factor in the
overall quality of students' writing than was the students' edu-
cational level (high school senior to college senior) (Hays.
Brandt, and Chantry 1988). Thus, "genuine cognitive thresh-
olds" make it difficult for some students to argue effectively.
Sequenced writing instruction and attention to strategies for re-
sponding to oppositional readers are recommended to "force
writers to explore perspectives and people different from them-
selves and so loosen their ontological rigidity. Such processes
would also of necessity engage them in dialectical thinking,
and increases in such thinking should strengthen their argumen-
tative writing" (Hays, Brandt, and Chantry 1988, p. 46).
Another study suggests a strong relationship between relativ-
ism and empathy (Benack 1984). The counseling techniques of
graduate students classified as "dualistic" or "relativistic" on
the basis of interviews conducted at the start of a counseling
course revealed that in counseling sessions, dualistic student-

62
78
 counselors failed to focus on the current experiences of the
client. In contrast, relativistic student-counselors oriented the
conversation toward internal aspects of the client's experience.
They used empathic counseling techniques, actively attempting
to construct an accurate, flexible model of the client's experi-
ence. Relativists were more tentative than dualists, offering hy-
potheses about the client's concerns and modifying them in
response to the client's statements.
The techniques used by the relativistic student-counselors re-
flect many features of expert problem-solving behavior de-
scribed in the previous section of this report. They also suggest
a genuine attempt to understand the other person, characteristic
of connected knowledge, as described by Belenky and associ-
ates. Learning to take another person's point of view is impor-
tant in critical thinking, persuasive writing, and argumentation
as well as in counseling.
Mature moral reasoning, which also requires taking a per-
spective, may depend on epistemological development. A six-
year longitudinal study found that reflective judgment interview
scores were moderately correlated with a measure of moral de-
velopment (.48 to .61) (King, Kitchener, and Wood 1985). The
level of moral development was found to be "attributable, at
least in part, to development of reflective judgment' (p. 9).
Similarly, a two-year study of high school students' progress
on both moral and epistemological measures found that higher
stages of moral development presupposed higher position rat-
ings on Peny's scheme (Clinchy, Lief, and Young 1977). In
that study, extraordinarily high levels of both moral and epis-
temological reasoning were observed in students who were
enrolled in a "progressive" high school that emphasized demo-
cratic student participation in policy making and active argu-
mentation in classes.

Changing Students' Beliefs about Knowledge

Developmental models help to understand critical thinking as
students experience it. Students' resistance to critical thinking
frequently arises from one of two fundamental epistemological
belief systems: dualism/received knowledge and multiplicity/
subjective knowledge. These belief systems are so powerful
and pervasive that they can rightly be considered "core mis-
conceptions" comparable in strength to the Aristotelian notions
of science identified by cognitive psychologists among college

Critical Thinking 63
7,
 students and other adults. From the perspective of informal
logic, dualism and multiplicity may be construed as fallacies
(distortions of reasoning) of a very high order.
Virtually every decision involved in planning a course can be
viewed through an epistemological lens. For example, the
choice of a textand in fact the decision to use a textbook as
opposed to primary source materialis one such decision.
Textbooks that present subject matter as nonproblematic rein-
II
force dualistic thinking. In contrast, primary documents or text-
books :nat present controversies within a discipline challenge
students to investigate diverse points of view. Moreover, the
kinds of assignments, evaluation criteria, and examinations a
professor chooses let students know whether they will have to
"think" (i.e., be "relativists"), offer opinions (be "multi-
plists" o "subjectivists"), or simply memorize in the familiar
dualistic fashion. The decision to lecture, use discussions, or
employ experiential methods like role play or laboratory or
field work similarly contributes to the epistemological structure
of the course. Finally, the character of discussion in the class-
room communicates important information to students about the
view of knowledge the course embodies.
A mismatch between students' epistemological beliefs and
the developmental challenges of a course can lead to surprising
results. For example, an attempt to teach highly "authoritar-
ian" (dualistic) students the techniques of critical thinking re-
sulted in gains on a test of critical thinking, but it also
prompted "internecine warfare" in the class. Students sought
evidence to "prove" their points and disregarded evidence fa-
voring their opponents' views. They also demanded a great
deal of structure from the instructor, a teaching assistant who
was unaware that he was involved in an experiment. Two other
groups of students, whose beliefs as described by the authors
corresponded more closely to epistemological levels 2 and 3,
had no difficulty learning the techniques and applying them ra-
tionally; all three groups were taught by the same instructor
(Stern and Cope 1956, cited in Jacob 1957, p. 74). Students
who do not realize that knowledge is contextual may use criti-
cal thinking techniques to bolster their preconceived ideas of
what is right (Nickerson 1986b). They may also claim that
the professor who attempts to teach them to think is neglect-
ing a fundamental responsibility: to prese .it the "facts" of
the subject.
Developm-..ntalists hold that beliefs about knowledge can be

64

80
 influenced toward greater complexity by challenging students'
simplistic conceptions while supporting their attempts to man-
age complexity to the degree necessary to foster intellectual
risk taking (Sanford 1966). Challenges appeal to what Perry
terms "the urge to progress," while supports honor "the urge
to conserve" or retain one's current identity (Perry 1970, p.
52). Optimal challenge occurs when instruction embodies epis-
temological assumptions one level beyond the students' present
belief system (Hunt 1966; Knefelkamp and Slepitza 1976; Kttr-
fiss 1975; Widick 1975; Widick, Knefelkamp, and Parker
1975; Widick and Simpson 1978). Thus, for students whose
beliefs correspond to those of level 1, the optimal challenge is
the idea that diverse views can be legitimate. For level 2, the
expectation that opinions must have reasons and can Ile chal-
lenged on rational grounds optimally challenges their subjectiv-
ist assumptions. At level 3, affirming a position amid uncer-
tainty is a challenge that requires courage and integrity as well
as rationality.
What counts as support also differs for students at different
developmental levels. Received knowers benefit from affirma-
tion of the worth of their own inner resources. Reassurances
and guidelines reduce the risks of openness to w.tw ideas. A co-
operative, peer-oriented %...assroom atmosphere is valued by stu-
dents in multiplicity, and peers become increasingly important
sources of learning as students develop (Baxter-Magolda 1987).
Procedural knowers benefit from recognizing that disciplinary
methods supplement and enhance their inner voice rather than
supplanting or silencing it (Belenky et al. 1986). A caring, in-
terested teacher who respects the student is valued in some
form at all levels (Baxter-Magolda 1987). A sense of commu-
nity with others engaged in a common quest, de :ved "from re-
ciprocal acts of recognition and confirmation" of the risks
students take in caring, provides important support, especially
at higher levels (Perry 1970, p. 213).
To provide an "optimal" balance of challenge and support,
it helps to have an idea of the developmental levels of students
in the course. Formal assessments include the measure of intel-
lectual development (Knefelkamp and Moore n.d.), the mea-
sure of epistemological reflection (Baxter-Magolda and Porter-
field 1985), and the reflective judgment interview described
earlier. Instructors can estimate their students' developmental
perspectives using a short questionnaire like the one devised by
Ryan (1984a, 1984b) or one tailored to the content of the

Critical Thinking 65

81
 course (Mortensen and Moreland 1985). A measure under de-
velopment, called the instructional strategics inventory, pro-
vides a profile of students' instructional preferences as a class,
which can be compared to the professors' assesstnent of the dc-
vclopmcntal requirements of the c.'" 'tiss 1987).
Virtually every model for tea' and fostering in-
tellectual development advocate, L Ault-teacher and
student-student discussion, but engailing ..,,dents in classroom
dialogue is not always easy. Dialogt,e in college classrooms is
scarce; teachers' questions are domina,..d by requests for fac-
tual information (Barnes 1983; Boyer 037; Hamblen 1984).
Class discussions often stay at the level of "quiz shows,
"rambling bull" sessions, or "wrangling bull" sessions (Roby
1983, 1985). In quiz shows, students answer information ques-
tions posed by the teacher. Quiz shows reinforce dualism and
received knowledge. Opinion-sharing conversations are called
"rambling bull" sessions. If the discussion leader or a student
introduces a "controversial turn" (a question that invites dis-
agreement), the discussion becomes an argument in which par-
ticipants ardently advocate the correctness of their opinions;
this type of dialogue is called a "wrangling bull" session. Bull
sessions reinforce multiplicity/subjective knowledge. In these
quasi-discussions, no true exchange or thoughtful evaluation of
ideas takes place.
True discussions (informational, problematical, dialectical,
and reflexive) provide valuable experiences in reasoned discus-
sion of complex, open-ended questions for students in the first
three developmental levels. In an informational discussion, the
teacher encourages students to speak, defers controversy,
and lets students know their ideas will not be evaluated. A
"problem-posing" query can shift discussion to consideration
of the broader base of information or values needed to address
the issue intelligently; this type is a "problematical" discus-
sion. The "devil's advocate" is a request that participants state
opposing views accurately and sympathetically. The devil's
advocate encourages "dialectical discussion," in which stu-
dents synthesize diverse opinions into a new formulation of the
issue or agree to disagree but with a better understanding of
the nature of their differences. Finally, discussion may be "re-
flexive" in that participants discuss their own discussion in an
attempt to learn from the process (Roby 1983, 1985).
By sequencing questions to guide discussion through these
four types, the professor provides structure and clarification of

66

82
 divergent views needed by level 1 students. The opportunity to
express their opinions, initially without evaluatio, s supports
level 2 students as well. Requests for elaboration saep up the
challenge of the discussion for all students; use of the devil's
advocate "cools down" the conversation, providing reassur-
ance that nobody will be 'made wrong." Reflecting on the
discussion, perhaps using the categories presented here, enables
students to learn about the process of argumentation and en-
courages them to take greater icsponsibility for their contribu-
tion to the quality of classroom discourse (Roby 1983). Using
this model, instruction can cycle through a developmental se-
quence many times during a semester, allowing students gradu-
ally to become more comfortable and more adept in the use of
relativistic thinking. (For examples of questions for each form
of discussion, see Roby 1983 and 1985, as well as Alvermann,
Dillon, and O'Brien 1987 and Dillon 1984).
In any discussion, the professor's responses to students' con-
tributions influence their willingness to contribute further. Ef-
fective response strategies include praising and building on
students' responses (Smith 1977), directing comments and
_questions-to-other students, and remaining silent (Dillon 1984).

Conclusion
Developmental theories describe how students learn to step out-
side their frame of reference, to recognize that they are reason-
ing from within a specific context. Understanding students'
progressive transformations as knowers enables faculty to ap-
preciate the gradual and often painful path students must tread
to recognize the uncertainty of what was once truth for them
and to acknowledge legitimacy in perspectives that differ from
their own.
To engage students in critical thinking thus calls upon educa-
tors to ,do more than teach the mechanics of analyzing argu-
ments. They must entice students who await "received know-
ledge" in a dualistic world to entertain the notion that diverse
points of view on a subject exist and are legitimate; having
achieved this step, they must persuade "subjective knowers"
that the existence of inner truth and pluralism does not preclude
substantive judgment. They must encourage students to take the
point of view of others, even when students object. To inten
sify students' involvement in learning, they must facilitate inte-
gration of students' personal concerns with their quest for
deeper knowledge of the subject.

Critical Thaa,ing
 IMINEMINIMMILIW.

The epistemological journe:. involved cannot be accom-

plished with textbook exercises in analysis of arguments. Ex-
tended, thoughtfully sequenced discourse about multifaceted
issues in a socially supportive but intellectually challenging
classroom appears to help, but it carries no guarantees. Devel-
opment thrives in a richly interactive and personalized environ-
ment, a hothouse for intellectual growth. The potential for such
growth remains largely untapped in most institutions of higher
learning, with the possible exception of small, usually private,
residential liberal arts colleges (Boyer 1987; Chick..r:ng 1974).
Two significant pedagogical challenges arise from considera-
tion of deliberate developmental education. First is the pressing
question of how to increase students' recognition of cultural
contexts outside their own expel icnce. Second is the broader
question of how education for critical thinking influences ethi-
cal reasoning and action.
Expanding contextual awareness
While reading and classroom discussion can shake some stu-
dents loose from simplistic thinking and ethnocentric biases,
real-world experiences may be a still more potent source of de-
centering. Within the confines of the classroom, much may be
acconi^r -,1 by having students reflect on the meaning of their
own Ay experiences, for example, work and relation-
ships Anority, using material generated by the students
(Shor 1980, 1987) or love and loneliness as illustrated in clas-
sic texts (Gamson and Associates 1984; see especially pp. 96-
101). Field experiences linked with instruction pro ide a bridge
between concrete and abstract learning (Hursh and 13orzak
1979; Wulff and Nyquist 1988).
Beyond the classroom, internsWps that take students into cul-
tural settings different from their own (preferably both to live
and work) have been a central feature of education at some
institutions, most notably Antioch College, which requires
students to alternate between on-campus stuey quarters and co-
open .;ve work experiences away from campus. Multicultural
experiences close to home can often be arranged, particularly
on urban campuses. Experiences abroad are a traditional and
respected means of awakening students to the diversity of hu-
man culture and contexts.
Critical thinking, values, and action
Educators are generally reluctant to encourage more and ethi-
cal deliberation in their classrooms (Morrill 1980; Saiveu

68

R4
 1980), yet it is difficult to mid questions of values when
teaching for critical thinking. Frequently, value questions are
viewed as extraneous to instruction and may be brushed aside.
when they do arise. For example, students in a marketing class
began a case analysis by discussing strategies for marketing
birth control pills in an underdeveloped Catholic country but
ended up debating the morality of such activity. The "section
man" intervened, saying that the discussion was "not appropri-
ate" in a marketing class, where the central problem of the
case is how the company should distribute its product. As a
consequence, "no further 'social-ethical' questions were
raised" in the class that semester (Christensen 1987, p. 186).
No context (even that of the supposedly "value-neutral" sci-
entific mell!od) is free of value assumptions, but the place of
values and enica! deliberations in the curriculum is problematic
(see Collins 1983 for discussion). Ethical questions arise "at
the 'nargins between different professional enterprises or at the
points where professional and private lives meet and overlap"
(Toulmin, Rieke, and Janik 1979, p. 310). If instruction in crit-
ical thinking is to influence behavior, it must address these
points of intersection. Teaching students technical skills to
achieve goals while excluding discussion of the values those
goals imply reduces critical thinking to a narrow set of techni-
cal skills, violating a fundamental purpose of instruction in crit-
ical thinking.
Conversations about ethical questions call upon skills that
many faculty are not accustomed to using in the classroom
(Morrill 1980). Deliberations about how an individual, group,
or nation ought to act on matters of personal and social impor-
tance, however, give purpose to learning and energize class
discussions. Ouided discussion of moral dilemmas and reflec-
tion on self in relation to others pays off in growth toward con-
textual moral reasoning (Schlaefli, Rest, and Thoma 1985).
Educators' reluctance to engage students in ethical deliberations
muy account for the finding that moral development lags be-
hind intellectual development. Under different educational
circumstances, contextual reasoning in both the moral and
intellectual domain might be more common and more closely
intertwined.
When they avoid such deliberations, educators widen the
chasm between "school learning" and "real life." They re-
duce the probability that students' knowledge will influence
their personal and professional actions toward rational, socially

Critical Thinking
R5
 responsible ends. Education for critiLal thinking, v'ewed devel-
opmentaliy, challenges students, but it also challenges faculty:
.e.
to extend their own intellectual inquiries beyond traditional dis-
ciplinary boundaries, to make room for extended inquiries in
their teaching, and to encourage students to consider critical is-
sues arising from the subject matter of the course. To the ex-
tent that a wider, developmental view of critical thinking is
adopted, the prospects for greater intellectual and ethical matu-
rity of college graJuates will be greatly improved.

70

R6
 TEACHING CRITICAL THINKING
IN THE DISCIPLINES
Critical thinking can now be seen as the pros uct of knowledge, a-
skills, cognitive and metacognitive processes, an epistemologi-
cal stance, and the purposes of the learner. In the classroom, The
these elements ebb and flow, become dominant and recede, de-
pending on the agenda set by the teacher and the kind of com- characteristically
munity that develops amcng the students. American
This section describes classroom approaches to critical think- view that
ing as reported, for the most part, by the teachers who de-
signed them. Science, mathematics, and engineering projects
there is not
emphasize solving problems; they illustrate methods based pri- "time" to
marily on col titive research. Developmental themes dominate allow students
in the humanities projects. Projects in the social sciences and
teacher education draw from all three theoretical frameworks.
to think has
Some of the courses described here were designed on the ba- probably done
sis of principles inferred from theory and research. Others vete considerable
not, although they can be understood in terms of one or more
of the three frameworks described here. Theory and research
damage to
are not prescriptive; they not dictate instructional methods. learning and
They are a resource fot thinking about how students interpret appreciating
their learning experiences and how the classroom might be or-
ganized to achieve particular educational goals. The diverse
science in the
projects described below testify to the truism that when it United States.
comes to designing instruction, there is no one right answer.
Some "answers," however, increase rather than restrict stu-
dents' possibilities for growth and are therefore "better." Edu-
cating for intellectual growth is the unifying theme of the
examples described here.

The Sciences, Mathematics, and Engineering

Science educators have taken a number of steps to counteract
the "novice" problem-solving strategies of their students. in-
struction in problem solving, formal reasoning, and scientific
experimentation can be integrated with learning content, as the
following examples illustrate.

Prefreshman skill development

Metacognition in reading and problem ,,olving and formal oper-
ational reasoning are the target skills in a prefreshman prog,im
at Xavier University called SOAR (Stress on Analytical . e.
soning). The course is intensive: five weeks, five hours a day
plus study time. Classes are very small and staff thoroughly
trained. This program pays off for students in terms of comple-

Critical Thinking 71
R
 tion of a science degree and enrollment in medical school (Car-
michael 1982).
To develop metacognitive skills, students use the "Thinking-
Aloud Pair Problem Solving" (TAPPS) b.iethod, taking turns
verbalizing their thoughts while reading or solving progres-
sively more difficult problems. Weekly team competitions
foster cooperative learning and extra studying. Reading compre-
hension and PSAT scores increase as a result of the program
(Lochhead and Whimbey 1987; Whimbey et al. 1980; Whim-
bey and Lochhead 1979).
To develop formal operational reasoning skills, students
spent three hours a day completing laboratory exercises using
the "learning cycle" format (Karp lus 1974). In the laboratory,
the student/faculty ratio was held to roughly 7:1. Faculty were
trained to respond to students' questions and written work with
questions to promote independent thinking. The program suc-
cessfully cultivated formal reasoning skills in students who
lacked them when they began (Carmichael et a;. 1980). The
learning cycle nnethoid was so successful that faculty introduced
it into the general chemistry laboratory program. Standard
verification-type labs were replaced by problem based labs; stu-
dents were en )uraged to discuss conflicting results. The re-
vised labs enhanced formal reasoning skills with no decrease in
performance on final examination practicals. Attendance in the
learning cycle sections was superior .o that in the traditional
section, and students were uniformly positive in their ratings of
the course (Ryan, Robinson, and Carmichael 1980).
As noted in the section on historical background, discussed
earlier, the ADAPT program successfully used learning Lycles
in many disciplines (philosophy, English, history, algebra, an-
thropology, and oth,,$). ADAPT students demonstrated signifi-
cant improvement in both formal reasoning and critical thinking
skills (Tomlinson-Keasey and Eisert 1978).

Integrated science
Matter and energy are the major content themes of an interdis-
ciplinary general ducation science course at Alvan() College.
The course aims to develop skills in scientific reasoning (obser-
vation, recognizing patterns, raising questions, formulating hy-
potheses, and designing experiments) and to foster a critical
attitude toward popular scientific literature (Loacker et al.
1984). Students work in pairs, thinking aloud while solving
problems in a guided sequence from instructor-posed problems

72

88
to design of experiments to test student-generated hypotheses.
Peer questioning and articulation of reasoning processes are
emphasized throughout the course. Students report formally to
"investi-
the class on both the processes and outcomes of their
their
gative learning" laboratory projects. Having conducted
of scientific
own scientific inquiry, students recognize the value
initial habit
analysis in many aspects of their lives and lose their
1984, p. 52).
of "being intimidated by science" (Loacker et al.

Biology the aim

Basic skills of scientific reasoning and methodology are
majors at a
of a year-long lower-division course for biology
description
two-year college (Logan 1987). Target skills are
induction.
and definition, application, deductive inference, and
how they are
The professor defines these skills and illustrates
thinking is described and evaluated
used or misused; students'
the scientific
in terms of the skill model. Students also learn
method: how to formulate a hypothesis, analyze and interpret
experimental data, construct models, identify alternative con-
further investigations, and consider
clusions that might suggest
skills are also
wider applications of results. Critical thinking
multiple-choice examinations (sce Lo-
tested on both essay and
gan 1987 for examples of test items).
Learning by doing and talking in science
learning by hav-
The methods described here stimulate science
and reason with scientific concepts
ing students do science
about it and completing formulaic labo-
rather than by hearing
rejected E , fa-
ratory exercises. Pure "discovery" methods are
that nonetheless
vor of systematic guided learning experiences
reasoning. High
put students in charge and engage scientific
common theme. These methods
levels of peer interaction are a
in
allow students to figure out scientific processes and concepts
their own way, at their own pace. Traditional methods, with
their excessive and premr A re emphasis on scientific terminol-
understanding
ogy, often preclude development of genuine
(Lochhead 1979). The characteristically American view that
there is not "time" to allow students to think has probably
science
done considerable damage to learning and appreciating
can be said of mathematics.
in the United States. The same

Mathematics in math-
Metacognitive skills are the primary focus of a course
taught by Schoenfeld (1985a, 1985b).
ematical problem solving
73
Critical Thinking
R9
 Students learn to make conscious, justifiable
decisions in the
process of solving problems. In class, students solve
"reasona-
bly difficult" problems that may take as long as 50 minutes.
When working with the whole class, Schoenfeld
takes on the
role of metacognitive monitor. He raises questions
about sug-
gestions students offer for solving the problem
and encourages
them to identify and evaluate several approaches
before they try
one. After five minutes or so of working on a solution,
them to evaluate their progress. Even after a problem he asks
is solved,
the class goes back to alternatives to see where
they lead. He
does not try to prevent students from going off
in an incorrect
direction "as long as tt.e decision [is] reasonably
(1985b, p. 373). made"
When students work in small groups, the
professor functions
as a "roving 'consultant' "; responsibility for the role of "ex-
ternal manager" shifts to the students (1985b,
p. 374). A
poster on the classroom wall proclaims three key
reminder to students: questions as a

What (exactly) are you doing?

(Can you describe it precisely?)
Why are you doing it?
(How does it fit into the solution?)
How does it help you?
(What will you do with the outcome when
you obtain it ?)
(1985a, p. 222; 1985b, p. 374).

When the course begins, students cannot

answer these ques-
tions. Upon completing the course, students spend
much more
time planning their solution strategies and
monitor their prog-
ress more consistently. Students who complete the
course also
become more like experts in their categorization
of problems,
although it is not an explicit focus of the
course (Schoenfeld
and Herrmann 1982).
Schoenfeld claims that traditional education in
mathematics
creates and reinforces students' view of themselves
as nonquan-
titative thinkers (Schoenfeld 1983a, 1985a, 1985b).
Mathemat-
ics instruction has also been criticized for its
use of exercises
"unrelated to the math one actually uses in everyday
life"
(Frankenstein 1987, p. 194). When mathematics is
taught in an
authoritarian manner and problems are irrelevant to real life,
students learn to be intimidated by numbers.

74

S
 Statistics
Students often believe that statistics are "objective." Drawing
on the work of Freire (e.g., Freire 1985), Frankenstein (1987)
describes a course on statistics for the social sciences in which
students learn to question this belief. By investigating the data
on which statistics are based, they learn to recognize social
biases in "official" statistics used to justify decisions of major
corporations or the federal government. For example, how are
unemployment data gathered? What distinguishes "welfare"
from "tax subsidies" in governmental budget reports? Learning
to answer such questions counteracts uncritical acceptance of
quantitative information.

Chemical engineering
Real-world problem solving is the target intellectual skill of an
introductory chemical engineering course (Wales 1979). The
model developed for this course has been successfully adapted
in other disciplines where complex problem solving is impor-
tant, for example, geography (Martinson 1981) and industrial
psychology (Miller 1981).
Students in the course learn a systematic approach for think-
ing about problems and making decisions. The model, called
guided design, slows down the decision process by having stu-
dents work through a series of steps in teams, pausing after
each step to compare their results with those of an imaginary
team working on the same problem. The imaginary team is not
a group of experts who have "found the right answer." Their
"reports" can be incorporated into the team's work or dis-
regarded.
Students who completed exercises in guided design during
their first year in chemical engineering were more likely than
nonparticipants to complete the full engineering program, and
their grade point averages in subsequent courses were higher
than those of previous classes (Wales 1979). Participants also
showed gains on a test of decision making, while students who
were instructed in the model but did not complete the exercises
showed no comparable gains (Hursh et al. n.d.).

Problem-solving skill courses

Transferable problem-solving skills are the goal of an interdis-
ciplinary course taught by a host of faculty at UCLA since
1969. The course, which is housed in the School of Engineer-

Critical Thinking 75
91_
 ing, arose from concerns about the increasing need for techno-
logical literacy (Rubinstein 1980).
The 10-week course emphasizes both conceptual foundations
of problem solving and specific problem-solving techniques,
such as tree diagramming, problem representation, and proba-
bility. Students also examine their problem-solving style. Deci-
sion making and values are also emphasized in the course,
which takes an interdisciplinary approach. In addition to work-
ing on problems in the text (Patterns of Problem Solving
Rubinstein 1975; see also Rubinstein 1986), student. complete
a project of their own choosing. A peer teaching program,
using trained peer teachers, supplements class instruction. Al-
though the course has not been extensively evaluated, Ruben-
stein reports a small study demonstrated significant gains on an
intelligence test for participants in a similar course at St. Louis
University (Bartlett, cited in Rubinstein 1980, pp. 35-36).
The Humanities
Courses in the humanities aim to teach students to find mean-
ing in human creations and to articulate the basis for their re-
sponses. Developmental issues often surface in these courses.
Some students fail to understand that texts or works of art must
be "interpreted." Viewed developmentally, these responses are
those of "received knowers" (Belenky et al. 1986) or "dual-
ists" (Perry 1970). Other students believe that interpretation is
"purely" subjective and that judgment is therefore inappro-
priate. They are "subjective knowers" or "multiplists." Ma-
ture appreciation of the humanities recognizes that while inter-
pretations and judgments differ, some are more firmly grounded
in the work than others and hence more "plausible" if not
more "true" or "correct."
Interpretation or evaluation may begin with personal re-
sponses to a work, but students must learn to articulate the ba-
sis for their response by analyzing the work using methods
appropriate to the medium. This is the task of "procedural
knowing" (Belenky et al. 1986). That analysis suggests that
students may approach works in the humanities either by "con-
necting" with the intent of the artist or author or by distancing
themselves from it, using analytical techniques ("separate
knowledge").
Literature
To encourage students to connect with literary works, they
were asked to create metaphors to describe a character or other

76
92
 aspect of the text (Muellerleile 1936). The researcher alternated
the assignment on metaphors with assignments requiring tradi-
tional analysis of the works (e.g., describe a character and
specify facts from the text that support the description). Com-
paring results of the two methods, she concluded that meta-
phors fostered better understanding of the texts, greater inte-
gration of personal perspectives into students' experience of the
work, better writing, and "a new kind of intellectual excite-
ment, challenge, and pleasure" (p. 31). The indirect, "con-
necting" strategy of finding metaphors thus engaged students in
thinking about the works more fully than did analytical ques-
tions usually associated with critical thinking.
Journals provide another method to encourage students to
connect with works of literature, art, music, or philosophy. In
an introductory poetry course, VanDeWeghe (1986) posed
problems for students to address in journal entries. As the term
progressed, they began to pose and respond to problems they
discovered in their reading. Writing often fostered insights and
fresh interpretations of the material. Students overcame their in-
itial reluctance to explore poetry in this way and developed
confidence in-their ability to "make sense" of literary works.
Leahy (1985) offe:s a model for grading to counteract multi-
plistic students' concerns about "subjectivity" or instructors'
"bias" in grading critical thinking assignments. In his literature
course, grading was based exclusively on journals in which stu-
dents responded to course material that was also discussed in
class. With assistance from the class, he devised grading crite-
ria that included a minimum number of entries (about five per
week, about 300 words per entry); use of "a variety of strate-
gies for learning: summary, questioning, speculation, synthesis,
problem solving, and relating of subject matter to the writer's
prior knowledge and experience"; and reference to specific de-
tails in the works studied (p. 110). Students' grades were based
on responses from five peers, a self-evaluation, and the profes-
sor's final judgment. Students were realistic in assigning their
own grades, and disagreements about grades were not an issue
in the course. Journals should be checked frequently to monitor
students' progress and to foster accountability.
Professors' responses to students' writing communicate inter-
est; they can also be tailored to "optimally" challenge and
support students' growth. Recognizing development .1 assump-
tions implicit in students' work, the professor can offer sugges-
tions and raise questions that encourage the student to think in

Critical Thinking 77

93
 new channels, while supporting the progress evident in what
they have accomplished. (See Schmidt and Davison 1983 for
guidelines for developmental responding.)

Philosophy
In philosophy classes, professors often encounter students who
subscribe to dualism/received knowledge. These students place
primary value on knowledge received directly from the author-
ity ir, rite course; they want the professor to provide the inter-
pretatton of texts or the synthesis of historical "facts." Many
students embrace dogmatic rules about ethical and moral situa-
tions (Riordan 1986). For such students, the questioning of
truth-and values-that-is the core of philosophy is challenging
and, for many, disturbing and even frightening, especially
when it directly confronts their core values (Reinsmith 1987).
Rather than attack dogmatic thinking (and by implication, his
students' core values) directly, Riordan assigns students read-
ing that

. . . somehow helps them experience the limitations of their

dogmatism. John Stuart Mill's essay, "On the Subjection of
Women," for example, does an excellent job of illustrating
how narrow, unquestioned thinking has led to the oppression
of women and others. When students begin to see that dog-
matism has affected their lives [his students are all women]
in rather profound and sometimes tragic ways, they are more
likely to raise questions about their own points of view and
be open to thinkers who do the same (Riordan 1986, p. 22).

This indirect, supportive approach enables students to maintain

their dignity and self-respect, while freeing them to ackiiowl-
edge legitimacy in ideas different from their own. From this
foundation, they can approach the ideas and interpretive frame-
works and methods of philosophy more receptively.
Developing transferable critical thinking skills is the goal of
one humanities course (Wolters 1986). To transfer understand-
ing from familiar situations to new ones, students must be able
to perceive commonalities in diverse situations, recognize the
ways in which rules or principles are modified in specific situa-
tions, and understand a situation from many perspectives. Wol-
ters uses assessment to foster these abilities, reflecting a theme
in Alverno's institutional approach (described later). Students in
his ethics course study six theorists. At the beginning of the

78

94
 course, they write an essay describing how they would respond
to a dramatic situation that poses an ethical dilemma. The same
situation reappears on each examination in the course; each
time, students describe the situation as it would be viewed from
the perspective of the ethicist just studied. They also respond to
the analysis. Students' essays show continued growth through-
out the term, especially when they are informed that the ques-
tion will be repeated. The method probably works best when
the units of the course are relatively similar so that a common
problem can be identified for repeated use (Wolters 1986).

Foreign languages
nstruction-in-foreign-languages-opens the door to appreciation
of cultural differences, freeing students from the bondage of
ethnocentrism. Trends in language instruction, however, have
led many educators to teach from "culturally sanitized" texts
chosen or rewritten to reflect theoretical concepts about the
level of difficulty students can handle. The result, in one view,
is that "not meaningfulness but sentence length and syllable
counts become the decisive factors" in assembling anthologies
for foreign language instruction (Swaffer 1986, p. 80).
Deploring the increasing emphasis on mechanical aspects of
instruction in a second language, one instructor uses active ap-
proaches that help students understand the culture while they
use the language in meaningful ways (Terrio 1986). Fo. exam-
ple, students keep a simulated travel diary and hold mock
press conference. The instructor also advocates using ap-
proaches similar to those used in process-centered English
composition courses. In her French courses, students use pre-
writing, sentence-combining exercises (in which students con-
struct complex sentences from a given set of short declarative
sentences), critical reading of texts, peer exchange and review
of work in progress on compositions in the language, sequenced
assignments, and journals. Techniques like these, which require
skills of inquiry and collaboration among students, are highly
effective in teaching first-language writing skills (Hillocks
1984, 1986). Immersing students in realistic language use en-
hances the cross-cultural benefit of language study.

Art criticism
Teachers' questioning techniques determine the critical thinking
skills students use in a classroom. One instructor reviews lit-
erature on questioning and demonstrates its relevance in teach-

Critical Thinking 79

g5
 7

ing art criticism (Hamblen 1984). She contends that in art

classes, as in other disciplines, low-level questions that empha-
size factual recall are the norm. She points out that formats for
art criticism require "ever-increasing complex levels of thinking
that closely parallel the categories of many learning models,"
generally beginning with description, analysis, and interpreta-
tion and culminating in an evaluation or judgment (p. 19).
These categories can be used to guide questioning in "art dia-
logues" between students and teachers. Probing questions to
stimulate elaboration of students' ideas should also be used.
The instructor notes that students need time to respond to ques-
tions and urges teachers to encourage students to ask high-level
questions. Her sequenced approach guides students toward
judgment, while strengthening their understanding of the work
to be evaluated.

Interdisciplinarr study of literature

Fostering progress on the Perry scheme was the deliberate aim
of an interdisciplinary course, "Themes in Human Identity,"
which combined theoretical perspectives in psychology with the
study of identity in literary works (Knefelkamp 1974; Stephen-
son and Hunt 1977; Widick, Knefelkamp, and Parker 1975). In
one study, two sections of the course were created, one for
dualistic students and another for relativists. Instruction was or-
ganized to provide optimal levels of diversity, experience,
structure, and personalism, using the developmental design
model described earlier in this report. Fir example, in the
study of Zarba the Greek, characters' conflicting world view',
offered one kind of challenge; analyzing characters using all
three of the psychological frameworks studied offered another.
Students were persistently asked, "Are there other ways to ex-
plain that?" Journals, interviews, class debates, and fantasy
immersion in characters provided direct experience of diversity
with the intent of fostering empathy. A personal atmosphere
and the instructor's control of course- related decisions provided
support. In the relativistic "intervention," students confronted
the issue of commitment in the literature studied and had con-
trol over decisions, such as when to turn in journals.
Students in the section that "matched" their developmental
needs made significant progress (approaching a full stage) on
Perry's scheme, while those who were "mismatched" pro-
gressed less (Widick, Knefelkamp, and Parker 1975). A moat-
fication of the dualistic intervention was replicated in a second

80
96
............r..v aroromm.l.
course, this time with two control groups for comparison. Stu-
dents in the developmentally designed course progressed, on
the aerige, nearl) a full position on a Perry scheme measure. Understanding
Students in a humanities course taught by a supportive instruc-
tor progressed less than half a position; students in a traditional the grading
English course progressed roughly one-tenth of a position (Ste- criteria used
phenson and Hunt 1977). to evaluate
Instruction in critical thinking in the humanities involves ex-
tensive use of discussion and writing about topics that can be their work is
understood from many perspectives. The problems posed to a primary
students give purpose to their reading. Attention to students'
developmental needs is a factor in the success of several
task for
courses &scribed here. students
learning to
Social Sciences
Subject matter in the social sciences is problematic and often
think
controversial, offering numerous opportunities for critical critically.
thinking.

Research methods
In psychology, scientific methods are an important tool for crit-
ical thinking. In a fourth-year honors research methods course,
psychology majors experience critical thinking in a realistic
context: the submission of research results to a "journal." The
course simulates three aspects of academic research: collabora-
tion, criticism, and constraints upon acceptance of completed
work. Students share work in progress in seminars beginning
early in the course; peer questions and criticisms provide prac-
tice in formulating, evaluating, and defending ideas. Faculty in
the department review papers for the course. Strict deadlines
increase the realism of the simulation. About half of these pa-
pers result in conference papers or publications (Furedy and
Furedy 1979).

History
Understanding history requires the ability to perceive multiple
causes and to interpret historical accounts. History is often
taught, however, as if it were a straightforward record of well-
documented events. An extended simulation used to teach con-
temporary world history challenged students' simplistic ideas
about history. The simulation approach was compared with the
traditional lecture method to test the hypothesis that students
who had not achieved formal operational reasoning might bene-

Critical Thinking 81

97
 fit from the concrete experiences provided by a simulation
game (Laveault and Corbeil 1985).
The game invited students to "participate" in the interna-
tional politics of the first half of this century. Teams of stu-
dents acted as leaders of various countries. The instructor
provided scenarios that students responded to with plans or
"orders." Students evaluated the outcomes of their plans in
writing. The game stimulated motivation beyond the demands
of the course, :ventually taking on characteristics of true inter-
national politics. Students held meetings outside of class to
plan their strategies, negotiated with and spied on other teams,
and conducted library research to devise winning strategies.
The simulation gave students an experiential basis for discuss-
ing important but potentially abstract political issues, such as
alternatives to warfare. On a measure of factual knowledge,
students in the simulation scored as well as students in a tradi-
tional version of the course. The course facilitated students'
ability to identify the context of historical documents and was
effective for students at both the concrete and formal opera-
tional levels (Laveault and Corbeil 1985).

Political science
Countering ethnocentrism is the goal of a political science
course in which students study multinational perspectives on an
issue. For example, they learn about the Cuban missile crisis
from the American, Soviet, and Cuban points of view. As they
study each perspective, they are asked to "believe" it insofar
as possible. After they have heard all three views, they evalu-
ate them in class discussion and writing. This approach lets stu-
dents experience the legitimacy of alternative interpretations
without requiring them to give up their own position (Freie
1987). Having three points of view avoids polarization of the
issues, which, from an epistemological angle, suggests a useful
way to counteract dualistic responses.

Social sciences
Analytical skills, recognition of social patterns, and an under-
standing of how social systems shape behavior are the goals of
the introductory social sciences course at Alverno (Loacker et
al. 1984). Students reflect on their experience in educational
systems, discovering patterns (such as social hierarchies) that
have influenced them and that reflect concepts used by social
scientists to understand experience. Having gained an experien-

82
,1 u
'')
 tial foundation and a working vocabulary of principles, students
spend five weeks in group work identifying a social problem
and developing their own approach to it. They become a
"small-scale social system" (p. 66), which itself becomes an
object of study in the course. Journals, readings, drawings, and
class discussions provide multiple opportunities for expression
and learning in the course.

Psychology
To foster critical thinking skills in psychology, Halonen (1985,
1986) offers a model developed by a team of psychologists
from several campuses. According to the model, "discrepant
events" introduced in a course challenge students' "personal
theories" (schemas or "stories" that explain particular phe-
nomena), motivating them to resolve the discrepancy by re-
vising the theory. The model is illustrated in a variety of
psychology courses.
For example, to practice application of knowledge and both
divergent and critical thinking, students in a course on psycho-
logical testing design a simple test of intelligence and test it on
10 people. Discussion of the results and problems, both proce-
dural and ethical, reveals grounds for skepticism about such
tests. The exercise, which .s especially discrepant (surprising)
when introduced on the first day of class, provides an experien-
tial foundation for subsequent conceptual learning (Halonen
1986, pp. 77-79).

Social issues
Students learn to integrate conflicting information to construct a
reasonable position on social issues in a method called "coop-
erative controversy" (Johnson and Johnson 1985). Students
study issues in groups of fours. Pairs within each group study
materials favoring opposing points of view, then present their
findings to each other. They then switch sides, study additional
materials, and make a second presentation. Team members ar-
rive at a consensus on the topic and write a report representing
the group's views. Finally, students write individual reports ar-
guing for their position on the issue.
Students who learned in this fashion incorporated more op-
posing ideas into their final arguments and more frequently en-
gaged in active search for additional information on the topic,
when compared with groups taught in a debate team format or
through individualized instruction (Johnson and Johnson 1985).

Critical Thinking 83
g?
 The method was tested on middle-school children, but it offers
both supportive and challenging elements for dualistic and mul-
tiplistic students in lower-division courses. (See Cohen 1986,
Feichtner and Davis 1984-85, and Johnson et al. 1084 for sug-
gestions for organizing group work.)

Anthropology
Alerting students to the influence of an observer's frame of ref-
erence is the aim of a unit in anthropology designed for high
school students (Swartz 1986). The teacher provides a visual
model of the concept, "frame of reference," showing how it
influences the choice of subject, information seen as relevant,
guiding hypothesis, and use of evidence. Students then study
two anthropological descriptions of women in !Kung society,
answer questions on male-female dominance in each account,
and identify descriptive terms used by the authors. In compar-
ing the two accounts, some discrepancies can be understood
easily, but others cannot, leading students to the question, "So
whom do we believe?" (Swartz 1986, p. 116). The frame-of-
reference model is reintroduced to guide the remaining discus-
sion. Support derives from the realization that some facts can
be agreed upon, but the instructor does not seek to reduce the
complexity of the question. She does, however, emphasize the
model as a tool for understanding rather than cynically "un-
masking" an author's biases.

Field work
A model for field-based comes was shown to foster relativistic
thinking (Hursh and Borzak 1979). Students in two internship
programs in community service agencies wrote papers, com-
pleted readings in research and theory, kept field journals, and
attended weekly seminars to discuss their learning. Comparison
of pre- and postseminar assessments revealed increased flexibil-
ity in taking different points of view, less separation of aca-
demic life from the "real world," and more realistic views of
possibilities for change in organizations. And some students be-
gan to recognize the value of course work outside their profes-
sional area of interest.
The examples described here illustrate the use of contro-
versy, problems, and students' experiences to foster involve-
ment in learning. Writing, work in small groups, and extended
discussion are common features of these courses. These courses
arc developmentally "optimal" for dualist and multiplist stu-

84

100
 dents because they invite exploration of multiple points of view
and support students as they formulate their own views.

Teacher Education
Students in teacher education frequently share the "common
sense" view that "experience is the best teacher." They see
nothing wrong with the fact that teachers learn primarily by
doing, unsupported by the elaborate socialization and training
required of other, higher- status professionals (Zeuli and Buch-
mann 1986). They are often highly context bound, attending
college and planning to teach in their home state.
At Michigan State University, two goals were identified for
the required social foundations course: to broaden students' un-
derstanding of the context of teaching and to increase their ca-
pacity for reflective rather than habitual practice based on
personal inclination and experience as a student (Zeuli and
Buchmann 1986). Students studied research and theory relevant
to these goals (using Lortie's Schoolteacher). They compared
teacher socialization to that of other professions, and they ex-
amined instances of satisfaction in teaching and learning
through interviews and personal accounts. Although students
recognized the personal nature of both professional preparation
and practice in education, they failed to recognize the limita-
tions of self-socialization and habitual practice.
Developing the capacity for critical reflection through student
teaching is the goal of an inquiry-oriented program at the Uni-
versity of WisconsinMadison. Three levels of reflection are
identified: technical competence, which is the efficient applica-
tion of known methods to achieve unquestioned ends in teach-
ing; analytical practice, in which the consequences of teaching
actions are assessed; and critical reflection, which examines so-
cial and moral implications of both ends and means within an
acknowledged cultural context. The program supplements tradi-
tional student teaching experience with an inquiry project, jour-
nals, a reflective seminar, and supervisory conferences (Zeich-
ner and Liston 1987). An important element of the program is
"respect for cultural diversity" (p. 37). Studencs are encour-
aged to evaluate curricular materials for cultural bias and mod-
ify them when necessary.
Evaluation of the program indicates that students do not
change levels but become more articulate about whatever per-
spective they held when they entered the program. The pro-
gram "stems the onrushing move toward a more custodial

Critical Thinking
85
10
 view" that frequently develops during student teaching (p. 36).
The impact of the program may be more visible as the students
progress in their careers (Zeichner and Liston 1987).
Several reasons have been offered for the limited influence
of the program (Zeichner and Liston 1987). First, the students'
technical orientation fosters resistance to reflection, which is
seen as conflicting with time spent on "the more important
tasks of applying and demonstrating knowledge and skills" (p.
41). Time pressures on faculty in the program also limit the de-
velopment of close supervisory relationships that might have
enhanced the program's impact. Finally, the context of student
teaching does not encourage critical analysis, as criticism on
the part of the student could easily threaten the supervising
teacher and damage the students' chances for a favorable
evaluation.
Two courses illustrate the use of controversy, writing, and
work in small groups to help students understand the nature of
idence and argument in addressing educational issues. In a
research design course based on Freire's pedagogical concepts,
students reflect on readings in structured journals. In small
groups, they debate issues based on the material. A formal
evaluation of the course is planned; students' informal re-
sponses to the course have been consistently positive (Mar-
tuza 1987).
An introductory course in educational foundations, designed
and evaluated using Perry's model, also uses controversy to
stimulate contextual reasoning about dilemmas in educational
practice (Mortensen and Moreland 1985). Students analyze the
role of school in society by studying selected issues (e.g., com-
pulsory education) represented in articles, survey data, histori-
cal material, and information .)11 laws and court cases included
in a text developed by a faculty team. Students write papers in
which they consider evidence for competing positions on the is-
sues. The writing component "help[s] students clarify their
thinking and [gives] invaluable feedback to faculty about stu-
dent progress in critical thinking," as well as holding students
accountable for ideas expressed less formally in class discus-
sion (pp. 88-89).
The course apparently provided an optimal match for the pri-
marily multiplistic students who completed it. A sample of 100
students were pre- and posttested on a paper-and-pencil mea-
sure based on Perry's model. In this measure, which is based
on Kitchener and King's reflective judgment interview format,

86
1(12
students explained how they would resolve questions about test-
ing practices and early schooling. The measure was scored us-
ing criteria developed at Alverno College (Mentkowski, Moe-
ser, and Strait 1983). Students progressed from predominantly
multiplistic to predominantly relativistic responses to the ques-
tions. The measure designed for this study provides a good ex-
ample of how developmental assessment can be tailored to re-
flect discipline-specific content, increasing the match between
measures of evaluation and instruction.
The apparent success of the course may be attributable to the
course designers' use of the developmental challenge-and-
support model targeted toward multiplistic students, as well as
to their choice of a context-specific (and therefore relatively
sensitive) evaluation instrument. Providing many experiences of
this sort, beginning early in the education curriculum as well
as in other courses, might enhance teacher education students'
progress toward critical reflection.

Evaluation in Critical Thinking Courses

Evaluating students' work in courses that require critical think-
ing involves qualitative judgment by the professor. For dualistic
and multiplistic students in the course, who do not yet under-
stand the evaluative process, qualitative judgments appear sub-
jective. They may believe they are being graded on "mere
opinions" and that matters such as style, clarity, or agreement
with the professor's opinion are the primary grading "criteria."
Understanding the grading criteria used to evaluate their
work is a primary task for students learning to think critically.
As a first step, grading criteria must be made explicit. The cri-
teria should indicate the relative importance of factors such as
accuracy and quantity of factual information, "balance" in pre-
senting several points of view, or use of an organizing claim
and supporting evidence.
But stating criteria is only a starting point, because students
(especially those "in" multiplicity/subjective knowledge) will
argue that "it's just a matter of opinion whether the criteria
have been met." To make the criteria meaningful and credible
to students, the professor may find it necessary to illustrate
their application to specific examples of students' work. A
guided discussion of good and not-so-good examples of
student-produced arguments helps to make the grounds for the
professor's judgment explicit to students. Students can also
work in groups to evaluate examples produced by their prede-

Critical Thinking 87
1(13
 cessors in the class, then discuss their group judgments and ra-
tionale as a class. The professor can provide the criteria or help
students generate them by pointing out the reasons they use to
judge the work of others. An approach similar to that used in
"holistic scoring" of essays can be used to involve students in
applying or developing criteria (White 1984, 1985). In a soci-
ology course requiring several critical thinking assignments,
students rated class activities directed at clarifying both the
process and the criteria for critical thinking assignments most
helpful (Pittendrigh and Jobes 1984).
When students participate in development of grading criteria,
they are more likely to understand and accept those criteria.
Leahy's approach to evaluation in his journal-based literature
course (1985), described earlier, exemplifies joint development
of criteria for evaluation. Such methods invite students to be
responsible for and committed to meeting the demands of the
course, while helping them develop skills needed to participate
in the "community of scholars."

Common Features of Critical Thinking

Courses in the Disciplines
The methods presented here illustrate disciplinary diversity but
also reveal a common pedagogical vocabulary for teaching crit-
ical thinking. In each case, the professor establishes an agenda
that includes learning to think about subject matter. Students
are active, involved, consulting and arguing with each other,
and responsible for their own learning.
Several principles can be extracted from this brief review of
teaching practices that support critical thinking.

1. Critical thinking is a learnable skill; the instructor and

peers are resources in developing critical thinking skills.
2. Problems, questions, or issues are the point of entry into
the subject and a source of motivation for sustained in-
quiry.
3. Successful courses balance challenges to think critically
with support tailored to students' developmental needs.
4. Courses are assignment centered rather than text and lec-
ture centered. Goals, methods, and evaluation emphasize
using content rather than simply acquiring it.
5. Students are required to formulate and justify their ideas
in writing or other appropriate modes.
6. Students collaborate to learn and to stretch their thinking,

88
 for example, in pair problem solving and small group
work.
7. Several courses, particularly those that teach problem-
solving skills, nurture students' metacognitive abilities.
8. The developmental needs of students are acknowledged
and used as information in the design of the course.
Teachers in these courses make standards explicit and
then help students learn how to achieve them.

A single course can influence students' use of thinking skills

and may increase epistemological sophistication in a restricted
domain. Intellectual maturity, however, requires many experi-
ences investigating subjects from several perspectives and for-
mulating a personal perspective on the subject in writing.
Campuswide attention to students' intellectual development will
accelerate students' escape from the confines of dualism and
the illusory freedom of multiplicity. The next section describe
institutional-level efforts to achieve this goal.

Critical Thinking 89

1 n5
INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES AND APPROACHES
While individual faculty frequently emphasize critical thinking
in their courses, students' thinking abilities will remain limited
unless faculty combine forces to cultivate thinking skills delib- Student's
erately throughout the curriculum. In recognition, many institu-
tions have identified critical thinking as a collcgcwidc responsi-
thinking
bility. Using approaches suited to their respective organizational abilities will
cultures and students' characteristics, they are demonstrating remain
what can be accomplished when a common faculty concern be-
comes an institutional project.
limited unless
This section reviews institutional approaches to critical think- faculty
ing, illustrating how several institutions have used critical combine
thinking as an organizing theme for curricular and instructional
innovation. The review first describes several curricular ap-
forces to
proaches to the development of skill in critical thinking on a cultivate
continuum from single courses to curriculumidc integration. thinking skills
The section then describes organizational strategics for develop-
ing critical thinking programs and identifies characteristics of
deliberately
current programs. throughout
the
Curricular Approaches
Critical thinking skills can be formally introduced into a curric-
curriculum.
ulum in a single course, in an integrated freshman-year pro-
gram, or in a program that spans the undergraduate curriculum.

Freshman course
Many institutions offer a single course to teach students the
basic skills of critical thinking. Such courses are designed for
freshmen and are sometimes required or offered as an alterna-
tive in a freshman core program. They generally focus on skills
of argument. In some casts, critical thinking and writing skills
are combined in a single course.
These courses are structured in a variety of ways, reflecting
each institution's concern with particular aspects of critical
thinking. For example, SUNYBuffalo offers a three- credit
course based on the methodology of "Learning to Learn."
Stressing methods of disciplinary inquiry, the course uses as-
signments drawn from students' other ^- rses to promote trans-
fer of reasoning skills to a variety of contexts. Clayton State
College offers a basic course emphasizing cognitive processes
and focusing on two kinds of critical thinking: for solving
structured probicms, the course teaches problem-solving and
decision- making skills; for addressing "contanplative" or
more open-ended problems, the course teaches skills of inquiry.

Critical Thinking 91

lo '6
 (See Carpenter and Doig 1088 for evaluation criteria and a
brief course description.) Like many institutions that have be-
come conscious of the need for explicit attention to critical
thinking, the faculty at Clayton State plans to implement criti-
cal thinking in courses across the discipline.
In the early 1980s, faculty at SUNYFredonia developed a
freshman-year program, the General Liberal Educati(sa P7ogram
(GLEP), which included a course on analytical thinking using
methods of informal logic described earlier in this report. The
program also included a freshman orientation course and sym-
posia designed to help students integrate their learning experi-
ences through hut:Aim:Windt) discussion of current issues and
problems. Experience wash this program led faculty to realize
the "primacy of reasoning, its intimate involvement in reading
and writing, and the inadequacy of a single course devoted
openly to the subject" (of reasoning) (Anti= 1956, p. 4, em-
phasis added). As a result, the faculty designed a curriculum-
ide, developmentally structured general education program
(described below) and phased out the GLEP.
Developing a single introductory course is perhaps the least
complicated institutional strategy to implementand in many
cases may also be the hest place to begin. This appro,..th may
lead to complacency, however, if faculty assume the "prob-
lem" of students' poor reasoning is being "taken care of" by
whoever offers the course. In many institutions, the weight of
preparatory instruction in thinking as well as writing is carried
by the English department in the freshman composition pro-
gram. Experience with that structure has led to the realization
that wider participation by faculty is needed for writing skills to
flourishhence the growing number of "writing across the
curriculum" programs nationally. Faculty response at SUNY
Frcdonia and at Clayton State College illustrates that a parallel
case can be made for the teaching of reasoning. Involving fac-
ulty in designing an introductory critical thinking course offers
a wly to promote understanding of critical thinking and ulti-
mately to stimulate faculty to incorporate critical thinking goals
and teaching strategies into their regular courses.

Freshman year experiences

A step beyond the single introductory course or pair of courses
is an integrative approach to the freshman year. In some cases,
this approach is the extent of the program; in others, the fresh-

92

1 (1 7
man year provides a bridge to a curriculumwide program to de-
velop and refine students' reasoning abilities in many contexts.
The ADAPT program, offered as an option to freshmen at
the University of NebraskaLincoln since the early 1970s, for
example, helps students develop formal thinking as defined by
Piaget. Faculty who teach introductory courses in several disci-
plines agree to organize their sections around a common core
of reasoning skillsfor example, observing, recording, classi-
fying, comparing, and contrastingand critical tests. Origi-
nally, each skill was emphasized during the same peiiod in all
courses in the program so that participating students could prac-
tice using the same skill in multiple contexts (Fuller 1978), but
this practice seems to have been abandoned. The primary peda-
gogical method, however, remains the "learning cycle," an
inductive, hands-on approach based on Piaget's theory of
cognitive development. Evaluations during the first three years
of the program indicated a positive influence on students' for-
mal reasoning abilities as well as critical thinking skills (see
Fuller 1980 for details).
In the intervening years, many institutions have developed
programs based on Piagetian concepts. Integration of Piagetian
strategies with more recent developments in cognitive psychol-
ogy is exemplified in the SOAR program at Xavier University
(Carmichael 1982). SCAR offers preparation for college
courses, especially in science, in special summer sessions for
entering freshmen at this historically black college. Results
have been positive in terms of students' persistence in caege
and admission to medical schools. These programs have tr
cally been implemented outside the regular curriculum.
Reasoning that the bureaucratic nature of university settings
distorts the conditions for critical thinkli.b, a professor of soci-
ology designed a program to create a distinct "freshman learn-
ing community" within the University of WisconsinOshkosh
(Stark 1987). In this residential program, four groups of 30 stu-
dents take clusters of three general education courses offered by
faculty specially selected for the program. The courses are or-
ganized around a theme, "Tradition and the Modern World";
participating faculty work together to develop integrative, inno
vative approaches to their courses. Released time allows faculty
to collaborate with each other and to interact informally with
students outside the classroom. he evaluation will address
both qualitative and quantitative aspects of the program, which

Critical Thinking
 is funded by the Fund for Improvement of Post-Secondary Edu-
cation (FIPSE).
Freshman-year programs can stand alone, as the above de-
scriptions suggest, or they may serve as a bridge to a curricu-
lum that self-consciously attempt-, to develop critical thinking
and other abilities valued in college graduates. The freshman
"core curriculum" at King's College exemplifies the bridge ap-
proach. Faculty at King's College view the "curriculum as a
plan of learning rather than as a ,nere collection of courses"
(Farmer 1988, p. 61). Eight transferable skills of liberal learn-
ing, including critical thinking, define the core curriculum.
Several core courses to teach these skills have been designed
by faculty teams, which also monitor implementation of the
courses. Faculty in every discipline have developed "compe-
tence growth plans" that link core skills with disciplinary
learning and specify how those skills will be further developed
in advanced courses in the major. The critical thinking course
is already in place. In a recent survey of faculty, the critical
thinking team found that faculty want the course to emphasize
argument skills, writing argumentative essays, and sensitivity to
disciplinary differences in critical thinking.
In addition to serving as a bridge to future courses, freshman-
year experiences can help freshmen integrate their current learn-
ing. This principle is exemplified by Alverno College's curricu-
lum for the freshman year. All general education courses
introduce students to the critical thinking skills of analysis and
communication. This instruction is supplemented by required
"integrative seminars" designed to motivate involvement in
learning, stimulate reflection on learning, and teach students
how to integrate their learning. In the seminars, students ana-
lyze their :warning needs and career possibilities to set the stage
for college work. Students learn a strategy for analyzing the
frameworks found in readings for their other courses. Struc-
tured journal assignments teach basic skills and terminology of
analysis, such as observation and generalization. Students also
learn group problem-solving skills (Loacker et al. 1984).

"Thinking across the curriculum"

Integrated instruction in critical thinking at the curricular level
remains a rare phenomenon. Several small colleges, however,
have achieved a relatively high degree of curricular coherence
by focusing on the development of students' thinking skills.

9,,
V)
 Within larger institutions, special programs provide opportuni-
ties for the development of cross-curricular thinking skills.
At King's College, departments identify selected courses in
the major to incorporate objectives of critical thinking. Growth
plans developed by faculty specify required courses at the
freshman through senior levels and state specific objectives for
critical thinking that will be addressed in them. Feedback from
course-embedded assessment and diagnostic projects keeps stu-
dents aware of their progress. (See Appendix A in Farmer 1988
for a sample growth plan for students in marketing.)
Similarly, at Alverno College, course-embedded assessment
of sequenced analytical abilities fosters curricular coherence
and helps students learn to use critical thinking abilities in
many situations. For analysis and communication as well as the
other abilities emphasized at Alverno, faculty have identified
levels of achievement and criteria for evaluating students' per-
formance at each level. Rather than viewing critical thinking as
a "generic" ability, Alverno faculty teach students to become
aware of the context ot. of which their thinking arises and to
use contextual informatio.. like political or social forces to un-
derstand particular problems or phenomena. The curriculum
also helps students understand and reason within multiple
frameworks, modes of communication, and learning methodol-
ogies. Finally, the curriculum individualizes learning by help-
ing students learn to assess their own learning and performance
and to build upon it (Loacker et al. 1984).
In the King's College and Alverno College programs, assess-
ment is a central aspect of the learning process. In each case,
however, global, "discipline-neutral" assessments are rejected
in favor of assessments embedded in the learning process and
tied to students' developing knowledge base. Methods such as
portfolio evaluation (Belanoff and Elbow 1986) give faculty an
overview of the quality of students' work while providing stu-
dents with feedback on their progress. (See Farmer 1988 for a
brief description of portfolio evaluation in finance.) Standard-
ized "generic" measures may not reflect the influence of spe-
cific educational experiences on students' intellectual growth
(Mentkowski and Rogers 1985).
At St. Joseph's College (Indiana), thinking and communica-
tion are also integral parts of an unusual core curriculum that
extends over four years. Core courses challenge students to
confront diversity, to contrast alternative world views such as

Critical Thinking 95
i1o
those of science and religion, to integrate their learning, and to
question accepted views. Sixty percent of the faculty teach in
the core program; they lecture on topics in their disciplines but
often lead discussions in areas where they have less background
(Gamson and Associates 1984). In contrast to King's College
and Alverno, assessment is not a major theme in the program;
rather, the emphasis is on interdisciplinary dialogue among stu-
dents and faculty, with faculty learning and growth as much a
part of the community as that of students. Students claim the
program has taught them to "think and define problems bet-
ter," to be "more inquisitive," to examine their values, to
look at alternatives, and to be more compassionate (pp. 38-39).
One student said specifically, "Core has taught me that there
are no easy solutions to most problems." Faculty, too, report
growth. For example, one faculty member, commenting on
teaching in a cross-disciplinary context, told evaluators, "Fif-
teen years ago I was king of the mountain. Now I have to lis-
ten to my colleagues" (p. 36).
At SUNYStony Brook, an integrative approach capitalizes
on the rich environment of a university while providing the
benefits of a cross-curricular model and sidestepping the prob-
lems of curricular reform in university settings. "Federateu
learning communities" (FLCs) are the vehicle for this strategy,
which takes the existing curriculum as given. FLCs are struc-
tured around three to fifteen courses over a period of one to
three semesters. Themes unify this collection of existing
courses, and students in the community "travel as a subgroup
through the courses, which also include students not enrolled in
the full FLC program" (Gamson and Associates 1984, p. 85).
Faculty who teach the courses meet weekly for planning and
discussion. One additional faculty member, designated a "mas-
ter learner," and one graduate student take the courses and
teach an integrative seminar; all participating faculty team teach
a monthly core course intended to "integrate and apply" course
content. Students gradually take over responsibility for the
course. Students may continue their involvement with the
theme of the FLC by registering for an interdisciplinary project
guided by two participating faculty members (Gamson and As-
sociates 1984).
At SUNYFredonia, the General College Program has re-
placed the earlier first-year program, the General Liberal Edu-
cation Program. The new program is structured in three
developmentally sequenced tiers rather than along disciplinary

14 j
 lines. In the first tier, students complete courses that emphasize
skill areas identified as central by faculty; reasoning is an inte-
gral part of all these courses. The second tier includes introduc-
tory disciplinary courses. To be included in the program, a
course must include writing and reasoning requirements and at-
tention to implications for other fields. In the third tier, inter-
disciplinary or cross-cultural courses emphasize reasoning,
writing, and values; students must complete term pape:-Q that
demonstrate critical, integrative, and independent thinking. Fac-
ulty at the college are developing their own measures of stu-
dents' growth in a major FIPSE-funded project currently in
progress (Amiran 1986).
Many other strategies for teaching "thinking across the cur-
riculum" are possible. The few presented here indicate the
diverse possibilities that exist, even within the confines of rela-
tively traditional academic institutions. How do such programs
come into being? Strategies for organizational change are dis-
cussed in the following section.

Organizational Strategies
Strategies for organizational change can be formal and volun-
tary or moderately formal and "strongly encouraged." Informal
organizational strategies may help to establish a climate for in-
novation, but major curricular change is unlikely to occur with-
out formal structures and leadership bolstered by administrative
support.

Informal strategies
Informal strategies depend on faculty interest and initiative.
They include voluntary professional development seminars,
consortia, and networks. Seminars may take the form of ex-
tended study groups, often with an emphasis on developing and
testing applications of critical thinking in specific disciplinary
courses (Meyers 1986; Michalak 1986). Many programs em-
ploy faculty development seminars, both to stimulate and to
supplement more formal curriculum development projects
(Amiran 1986; Farmer 1988).
Like seminars, regional consortia provide opportunities for
faculty to learn relevant concepts and offer peer support for im-
plementation. The East Central College Consortium Critical
Thinking Project, directed by Larry Grimes of Bethany College
and funded by FIPSE, uses William Perry's theory of develop-
ment to help faculty understand students' reasoning and to help

Critical Thinking
97
14 2
 them consider how their teaching might foster intellectual
growth. In a three-college consortium project, faculty met to
study material on critical thinking, then planned courses based
on what they learned, and reconvened after the courses were
taught to discuss what they had found (Michalak 1986). The
Minnesota Community College System supports a systemwide
Writing Across the Curriculum program that has recently begun
to investigate the use of writing to promote development of stu-
dents' critical thinking and intellectual abilities. Another state-
level initiative is the Task Force on Thinking Skills in New Jer-
sey, which recently produced a report (Daly 1986) and is work-
ing with the Educational Testing Service to develop definitions
and assessments in many disciplines. Finally, Alverno College
developed a series of discipline-based networks to study critical
thinking in science, arts and humanities, psychology, and man-
agement. Network members from across the country met in the
summer to ddine critical thinking and develop strategies for
teaching and assessing it in the disciplines. The network con-
cept, which was funded by FIPSE, has produced two books to
date (Cromwell 1986; Halonen 1986).

Formal institutionally sponsored strategies

Formal strategies generally focus on curriculum development.
Campus leaders organize faculty committees or teams to study
critical thinking skills specifically, or the teams may be as-
signed to identify needed changes in general education pro-
grams or develop curricular goals and assessment strategies,
out of which a concern with critical thinking skills frequently
emerges.
Drawing on its experience with a formal planning model
(Bergquist and Armstrong 1986), King's College has made ex-
tensive use of faculty "project teams" that not only study and
make recommendations but also implement, monitor, and sup-
port curricular changes. Faculty attend conferences in teams so
that innovators will have a support group on campus. Teams
create course syllabi together, first identifying learning out-
comes, then specifying assignments, examinations, and appro-
priate pedagogy. Its initiator describes the change process as
"organic." "General goals have been set forth for the design
and implementation of an outcomes-oriented curriculum sup-
ported by a course-embedded assessment model." Within this
broad, flexible framework, faculty have initiated "virtually a
hundred experiments," with varying degrees of success but an

98
,1 3
 overall spirit of cooperation and colleagueship (Farmer 1988,
p. 160).
A program called "Development of Thinking Skills," or
DOTS, is the product of a five-phase curriculum development
process used by faculty at Kapiolani Community College in
Hawaii. In phase 1, Exploration and Assessment, the "essential
task" was to study concepts of thinking and approaches to
teaching thinking. Phase 2, Focusing and Setting Directions,
posed the question, "Given the possibilities, what can KCC do
to help its students develop and refine their thinking skills?" A
steering committee developed a comprehensive three-year insti-
tutional plan and definitions of key terms, such as "critical
thinking" and "cognitive operations." The goals included pro-
viding information and activities on thinking skills for students
and faculty, assessing students' performance and disseminating
the data for "collegewide discussions, suggestions, and ac-
tions" (p. 16), and evaluating the project to learn what activi-
ties foster student and faculty development.
In phase 3, Organize and Prepare, the committee sought fac-
ulty input and observations about students' needs in thinking
skills, set up project management and priorities, developed
demonstration activities in several courses, and tested an as-
sessment instrument. In phase 4, Implement and Observe, the
project was formally initiated for a three-year period. Evi lila-
tion of the first project year revealed that sharing project infor-
mation stimulated wider participation by faculty and that
participation and acceptance resulted from its emphasis on
discipline-specific teaching goals and careful use of research in
all project phases. "Open institutional support for this process
makes it easier for faculty to take risks, try the new and differ-
ent, and be creative" (Lanzilotti n.d., p. 17).
Institutional assessment of learning outcomes has recently re-
ceived attention as a way to stimulate curricular and instruc-
tional reform generally and may have some usefulness for
critical thinking outcomes. Assessment of baccalaureate out-
comes, including critical thinking skills, was the focus of a ma-
jor project supported by the American Association of State
Colleges and Universities (1986). Participating collies used a
systematic model to define desired outcomes and develop as-
sessments. Participants sometimes found themselves confronted
by an unexpected challenge, however: "Much controversy and
more than a little impatience were evident as we discovered we
often differed widely on what students should know and be

Critical Thinking 99
--.1)4
able to do. Perhaps more frustrating, we found ourselves in fre-
quent disagreement about pedagogical values, styles, and philo-
sophies. Faculty members perhaps assume too much about
campus consistency on such issues when not faced directly with
empirical evidence of diversity" (AASCU 1986, p. 41).
Contentiousness can arise if faculty are uncertain how
institutional-level assessment data will be used. Assessment
should be clearly distinguished from program evaluation, but
often the two terms are used interchangeably. Assessment im-
plies "sitting down beside or together (from late Latin ad +
sedere) to render an "expert judgment . . . on the basis of
careful observation" (Loacker, Cromwell, and O'Brien 1986,
p. 47). It is descriptive rather than quantitative; its purpose is
to help individual learners improve upon and internalize criteria
for judging their own performance. In contrast, evaluation aims
to make conclusions about groups of students to render judg-
ment on programs (Loacker, Cromwell, and O'Brien 1986).
Assessment is most useful to students when it is embedded
within courses and is , 'madly intended to help them monitor
their progress. This philosophy is evident at both King's Col-
lege and Alverno. (For further discussions of assessment, see
Jacobi, Astin, and Ayala 1987 and McMillan 1988.)
Faculty may accept assessment of critical thinking most read-
ily if it supports an innovative program that is already under
way. For example, among AASCU's projects, Chico State Uni-
versity reported success in part because program revisions in
general education had already been initiated by faculty. Simi-
larly, at SUNYFredonia, faculty are actively involved in de-
veloping and validating their own assessments for the eight
core skills in their General College Program.
Proponents of institutional-level assessment report that even
"generic" assessments have had noteworthy effects on teaching
practices relevant to critical thinking. Specifically, feedback
from assessment programs in Tennessee colleges and universi-
ties has prompted faculty to be more explicit about course ob-
jectives, to align instruction and testing more closely with
stated objectives, to increase writing assignments, to demand
more higher-order thinking skills in their courses, and to pro-
vide more opportunities for students to apply knowledge
through active learning methods (Banta and Fisher 1986).
 Features of Current Programs
Institutional programs to develop students' critical thinking
skills share a number of features, although they are not uniform
in their history, structure, or methods. A few are suggested
here; more experience with such programs is needed to identify
necessary and sufficient conditions of innovation aimed at stu-
dents' intellectual growth.

1. Faculty ownership and voluntary participation in equilib-

rium with administrative support and direction. Time for
planning and faculty collaboration are provided by a sup-
portive administration or external grant. Faculty and insti-
tutional development are intertwined with a common
focus on development of curriculum for students' growth.
2. Small college setting or special program within a large
university. Facilities for informal, out-of-class conversa-
tion are desirable, especially for programs at commuter
colleges (Gamson and Associates 1984).
3. Focus on critical thinking outcomes within a broad opera-
tional framework adaptable to disciplinary variations.
4. Assessment used for feedback to students rather than for
program evaluation. Consequently, assessment is embed-
ded in disciplinary courses, assessments are locally devel-
oped to reflect the curriculum, assessments are qualitative
as well as quantitative, incorporating oral and written stu-
dent performance and products, criteria are publicly stated
and known to students, and multiple occasions for assess-
ment keep students informed of their growth.
5. Alignment of goals, methods, and evaluation procedures.
Thus, goals of instruction are explicitly stated within a
broad framework, instructional methods are active and
participatory so students can practice reasoning skills
specified in the curriculum, and evaluation more closely
reflects what is to be learned.
6. Interdisciplinary discussion of the aims and methods of
education in both formal and informal programs.

Consequences for Academic Life

Participants and leaders of the programs described here empha-
size colleagueship and consciously seek to foster community.
Studer.ts expressly acknowledge the community they experience
in these programs. Building intellectual communities "does not
take a lot of money or a residential institution . . . . Rather, at-

Critical Thinking 101

11,G
tention to how the curriculum is structured to affect social rela-
tionships is critical" (Gamson and Associates 1984, p. 90; se.
also Stark 1987). A student in one of Stony Brook's federated
learning communities says, "I have come to appreciate the im-
portance of academic discussion with my fellow students. I
spend much more time discussing what I learn in schools with
my friends" (Gamson and Associates 1984, p. 86). Faculty,
too, emphasize the intellectually stimulating and motivating as-
pects of cooperative inquiry.
What are the effects of these programs on students' abilities
to think critically? Too few programs have been implemented
to draw a firm conclusion. Students' own reports and reports
from faculty observers, however, suggest that program "gradu-
ates" are more aggressive learners than the "passive" students
faculty often describe. They question. They inquire. They re-
fuse to "take things at face value" (Gamson and Associates
1984, p. 90). These observations support the hope that broad-
based, collaboratively developed programs can help students
develop both abilities and dispositions of critical thinkers.
 CONCLUSION
The r, odel of education for critical thinking suggested in this
report emphasizes curriculumwide integration of content and
reasoning. TIere are no shortcuts: Participating in sustained,
guided, collaborative inquiry is the only way to learn its meth-
A high
ods, its epistemology, and its value. Excessiw. emphasis on priority is
"efficient" transmission of large quantities of information is
costly in the long run, because it crowds out time stuoents need
research on
to transform information into meaningful, usable knowledge.
the
Students will respond to instruction that invites them to use effectiveness
knowledge to make sense of important human questions.
All of which is not to say that every course must become
of preparatory
forum for debating global issues or questions of personal iden-
a
courses in
tity. It does suggest, however, that educators must help stu- critical
dents discover purpose in learning. A problem or question that
arouses students' sense of wonder can provoke the desire to un-
thinking
derstand a subject more fully and provide the motivation for skills.
sustained inquiry (Meyers 1986). Moreover, critical thinking
need not, and probably should not, be an isolated, individual
activity. Motivation to think deeply thrives in a supportive
community of peers, guided by a teacher who is willing to step
off stage a good deal of the time to let students figure things
out for themselves (Finkel and Monk 1978, 1983).
Teaching for critical thinking does not take place in a vac-
uum. Students frequently bring with them both a home culture
and a peer culture with norms that may be antithetical to criti-
cal questioning. Uncritical thinking, either as dualism/received
knowledge or as multiplicity/subjective knowledge, is a perva-
sive and resilient counterforce that does not evaporate when
students enter the classroom.
Throughout this report, the reader has found examples of
teachers and researchers who have fostered critical thinking
with diverse students and in diverse educational settings. Their
efforts provide inspiration and direction for future research and
practice.

Needed Research
Teaching thinking, especially in the disciplines, is a field wide
open for research. Research is needed on the effectiveness of
general introductory courses in critical thinking skills, on rela-
tionships between knowledge and reasoning abilities, and on in-
structional and institutional conditions that nurture critical in-
quiry. Individual differences in approaches to critical thinking
merit exploration, particularly those related to gender, ethnic-

Critical Thinking
103
ity, and learning style. Studies of critical thinking and behavior
offer a promising area for research.
A high priority is research on the effectiveness of preparatory
courses in critical thinking skills. Currently, evidence of their
effectiveness is primarily anecdotal. Research is needed to as-
sess the effects of various approaches on reading skills and rea-
sol,',:.g abilities (including construction as well as analysis of
arguments) and on performance in subsequent courses. Re-
search is also needed on relationships between knowledge and
reasoning abilities and on instructional and institutional condi-
tions that nurture critical inquiry.
Teacher-init:ated classroom studies offer inquisitive instruc-
tors a means to explore their questions about learning in their
classrooms. Questions might range from "What do students al-
ready know, or think they know, about this subject when they
start the course?" to "What happens to class dynamics when I
introduce value-laden questions early in the term as opposed to
late?" Answering such questions does not require elaborate in-
strumentation. The primary requisite is a reasonably well-
formulated question and a strategy for gathering information
about it (see Cross and Angelo 1988 for examples). Such stud-
ies can present unexpected challenges and inevitably raise new
questions, however (Erickson and Erickson 1988).
Naturalistic studies of students at work on actual class as-
signments, using the "think-aloud" method or working in
pairs, would provide a much-needed balance to the artificiality
of many laboratory studies on problem solving, particularly if
students were observed over a period of weeks as their investi-
gations progressed. Extended observation would clarify the
mutual influences of reading, writing, and discussion in com-
pleting actual critical thinking projects.
Many questions suggest themselves with respect to the role
of knowledge, cognition, and metacognition in critical thinking.
Analysis of the nature and structure of knowledge in the disci-
plines and research on how this knowledge is acquired and
used has only begun to scratch the surface of this important
field of inquiry. Much needed are discipline-based studies of
the role of knowledge in thinking and of methods of instruction
that increase understanding, organization, and accessibility of
knowledge for critical thinking. Few studies examine methods
for teaching discipline-specific strategic knowledge, yet it is
precisely this knowledge that theoretically must be made more
explicit in teaching. Collaborations between disciplinary experts

119
 and cognitive researchers afford both a fresh and stimulating
view of their subjects.
Questions remain about metacognition, for example, its
transferability and the extent to which it can increase access to
knowledge. Many composition textbooks include rhetorical
"invention" strategies to help students generate ideas for es-
says. They function as metacognitive prompts; their persistence
since Aristotle compiled them suggests that they are a valuable
resource in thinking. Strategies for analyzing characteristics of
audiences and anticipating objections may also serve a meta-
cognitive function. They impose constraints that may help or
hinder development of arguments, depending on what stage of
the process they ate introduced. The role of such devices in ac-
cessing knowledge and promoting objectivity merits study.
Peers are now recognized as a valuable resource in learning.
Questions of how to organize classes for peer collaboration per-
sist among teachers; classroom studies are needed at the college
level. Important research is needed to pursue Vygotsky's hy-
pothesis (1978) tliPt students "internalize" reasoning processes
gleaned from collaborations with peers.
Research is needed to reveal how the disposition to think
critically arises. Studies of student-faculty interactions have al-
ready demonstrated a significant role of faculty in students' ac-
ademic commitment (Pascarella 1980). Closer analysis of such
interactions could reveal factors that encourage critical think-
ing, for example, the teacher's role as a model for students.
More studies of relationships between knowledge, beliefs about
knowledge, and learning strategies might provide a better un-
derstanding of how this disposition develops. For example,
what kinds of discipline-related questions are most likely to
arouse students' curiosity? What misconceptions do students
commonly share, and how can they be dislodged? The role of
affect in critical thinking merits much greater attention (Mc-
Leod 1985).
The "culture" of a classroom can also be studied to under-
stand how participants give meaning to their interactions and
how those meanings shape the learning situation (Bolster
1983). Cultural studies would help to unravel the complex in-
teractions that arise when students experience unaccustomed ex-
pectations for independent , r collaborative inquiry.
The context for critical thinking, too, must be examined
more fully. Undergraduates' minimal devotion to studies and
the infrequency of library use have been documented (Boyer

Critical Thinking
105

120
 1987). What factors in students' environment foster these be-
haviors? How can they be counteracted? How can the cocur-
riculum of the institution be designed to encourage mature
"habits of the mind" among students?
Expert practice in teaching is also an important subject of
study for understanding how critical thinking can be taught.
Much can be learned by identifying teachers who successfully
emphasize thinking skills, talking with them, studying their
planning processes, observing their classes, talking with their
students, and reviewing their students' work.

Support and Dissemination

Institutional support for instruction in critical thinking in the
disciplines entails sensitivity to the kind of classroom environ-
ment in which teaching takes place. Class size is a considera-
tion, for although large classes can be adapted to allow critical
thinking, faculty who tackle this challenge often put in long
hours wading papers and talking with students. When large
classes are unavoidable, teaching assistants and/or graders are a
wise institutional investment. Advanced undergraduates can
often fill these roles. Training and supervision of teaching as-
sistants is essential, regardless of their educational level. Large
classes that do not have discussion sections can employ small
groups to personalize the learning environment (Michaelsen
1983; Monk 1983). Professors who emphasize thinking should
be acknowledged and supported in the promotion and tenure re-
view process.
Nationally, faculty can share information about teaching in
general, and critical thinking in particular, in both disciplinary
and interdisciplinary forums. Administrators who want to see
more instruction in critical thinking on their campuses can set
aside funds to send a team of faculty to one or more confer-
ences. They may also want to establish a fund to support class-
room and laboratory studies on teaching thinking.
Many disciplinary associations have divisions and journals
devoted to education. In some cases, however, little attention is
paid to development of thinking skills in the discipline. More
professional activism in this direction is needed to increase the
legitimacy of teaching research and provide outlets for the ex-
change of ideas and experimental work on instruction (Mauksch
and flowery 1986).
A worthwhile project for disciplinary associations to under-
take is the close scrutiny of textbooks in their fields used in

106
 public schools. Textbooks provide the background knowledge
students bring with them to college; many arc dull, poorly writ-
ten. ,.00 abstract or too simplistic, and misleading (see Kahane
1984 for examples). Associations might support model projects
for cooperative evaluation of textbooks in local and regional
schools, or they might establish national projects to attract at-
tention to the problem of poor texts.
Institutions are situated within communities, and educators
cannot afford to ignore the social context in which attempts to
foster critical thinking are embedded. The popular media do not
favor extended discussion of significant questions (Postman
1985a, 1985b). Educational institutions, by the example they
set in their programs, can exacerbate or counteract this tend-
ency. When educational institutions sponsor public programs
with a single authoritative speaker, they reinforce simplistic
concepts of knowledge. Programs that feature several speakers,
each with a different point of view, embody a more pluralistic
epistemology. The educational value of such programs is en-
hanced if both speakers and audience exchange ideas, perhaps
guided by ground rules to ensure thoughtful discussion.
There is no shortage of work to be done in this arena. The
path is a long one, surrounded by thickets, but it is wide
enough to accommodate a diverse community of travelers. All
educators can contribute to understanding and promoting criti-
cal thinking, simply by turning in the direction of their own
teaching learning and recognizing the challenges their stu-
dents face. A journey of this kind has no end. But it promises
deeper understanding oaf one's discipline and greater apprecia-
tion of its meaning for students and for society. Along the way
are the many satisfactions of helping students discover the mo-
tivating force of intellectual purpose.

Critical Thinking 107

122
 REFERENCES
The Educational Resources Information Ccntcr (ERIC) Clearinghouse
on Higher Education abstracts and indexes the current literature
higher education for inclusion in ERIC's data base and announcement
in ERIC's monthly bibliographic journal, Resources in Education
(RIE). Most of these publications arc available through the ERIC
Document Reproduction Service (EDRS). For publications cited in this
bibliography that are available from EDRS, ordering number and price
arc included. Readers who wish to order a publication should write to
the ERIC "lent Reproduction Service, 3900 Wheeler Avenue,
Alexandr;a, 1,1 :Ania 22304. (Phone orders with VISA or MasterCard are
taken at 80 ERIC or 703/823-0500.) When ordering, please specify
the document (ED or HE) number. Documents are available as noted in
microfiche (MF) and paper copy (PC). Because prices arc subject to
change, it is advisable to check the latest issue of Resourcesin Education for
current cost based on the number of pages in the publication.

Alvcrmann, Donna E., D.R. Dillon, and D.G. O'Brien. 1987. Using
Discussion to Promote Reading Comprehension. Newark, Del.: In-
ternational Reading Association.
American Association of State Colleges and Universities. 1986. Defin-
ing and Assessing Baccalaureate Skills: A Report on the Academic
Program Evaluation Project. Washington, D.C.: Author. ED 293
379. 81 pp. MFS1.07; PC not available EDRS.
Amiran, Minda Rac. May 1986. "Improving Undergraduate Educa-
tion: The Development of Collegewide Measures of Progress toward
Goals of General Education." Proposal to the Fund for the Im-
provement of Post - Secondary Education. SUNY Fredonia. ED 280
331. 13 pp. MFS1.07; PCS3.85.
Anderson, John R. 1985. Cognitive Psychology and Its bnplications.
2d ed. New York: W.H. Freeman.
Argyris, Chris, Robert Putnam, and Diana McLain Smith. 1985. Ac-
tion Science: Concepts, Methods, and Skills for Research and Inter-
vention. San Francisco: Jossey -Bass.
Armbruster, Bonnie B. 1984. "The Problem of 'Inconsiderate
Text.' " In Comprehension Instruction, edited by G. Duffy, L.
Rochler, and J. Mason. Ncw York: Longman.
Arons, Arnold. 1976. "Cultivating the Capacity for Formal Reasoning:
Objectives and Procedures in an Introductory Physical Science
Course." American Journal of Physics 44(9): 834-38.
. Summer 1985. " 'Critical Thinking' and the Baccalaureate
Curriculum." Liberal Education 71: 141-57.
Banta, Trudy, and Homer S. Fisher. 1986. "Assessing Outcomes:
Real Value Added Is in the Process." In Legislative Action and As-
sessment: Reason and Reality, compiled by Kathleen McGuinness.
Proceedings from the Conference on Legislative Action and Assess-
ment: Reason and Reality. George Mason University and AASCU,
Arlington, Virginia.

Critical Thinking

123
 Barnes, Carol P. 1983. "Questioning in College Classrooms." In
Studies of College Teaching, cditcd by Carolyn L. Ell= and Carol
P. Barnes. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books.
Barry, Vincent. 1983. Good Reason for Writing. Belmont, Cal.:
Wadsworth.
Bartlett, F.C. 1932. Remembering: An taperimental and Social Study.
Ncw York: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Baxter- Magolda, Marcia. 1987. "Tha Affective Dimension of Learn-
ing: Faculty - Student Relationships that Enhance Intellectual Develop-
ment." Miami Univ. (Ohio).
Baxter- Magolda, Marcia, and William D. Porterfield. 1985. "A
Ncw Approach to Assess Intellectual Development on the Perry
Scheme." Journal of College Student Personnel 26(4): 343-51.
Bean, John C., and John D. Ramagc. 1986. Form and Surprise in
Composition: Writing and Thinking across the Crur:culum. Ncw
York: Macmillan.
Beardsley, Monroe C. 1975. Thinking Straight: Principles of Reason-
ing for Readers and Writers. 4th cd. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prcn-
ticc-Hall.
Bclanoff, Pat, and Peter Elbow. 1986. "Using :'ortfolios to Increase
Collaboration and Community in a Writing Program." Writing Pro-
gram Administrator 9(3): 27-39.
Belenky, Mary F., Blythe M. Clinchy, Nancy R. Goldberger, and Jill
M. Tarulc. 1985. "Epistemological Development and the Politics of
Talk in Family Life." Journal of Educca/m 167(3): 9-27.
. 1986. Women's Ways of Knowing: The Development of Self,
Voice, and Mind. Ncw York: Basic Books.
Bcnack, Suzanne. 1982. "The Coding of Dimensions of Epistemo-
logical Thought in Young Mcn and Women." Moral Education
Forum 7(2): 3-23.
1984. "Postformal Epistemologies and the Growth of Empa-
thy." In Beyond Fonnal Operations: Late Adolescent and Adult
Cognitive Development, cditcd by M.L. Commons, F. Richards,
and C. Armon. Ncw York: Pracgcr.
Bcnack, Suzanne, and Michael Basscchcs. 1987. "Dialectical Think-
ing and Relativistic Epistemology." In Advances in the Study of
Adult Cognition. Ncw York: Pracgcr.
Ben ware, Carl A., and Edward L. Dcci. 1984. "Quality of Learning
with an Active versus Passive Motivational Set." American Educa-
tional Research Journ,1 21(4): 775-65.
Bcrgquist, Wm. H., and Jack L. Armstrong. 1986. Planning Effec-
tively for Educational Quality. San Francisco: Josscy-Bass.
Bernstein, David. 1988. "When Inquiry Gocs Wrong: Some Biases in
Students' Reasoning and Their Usc of Evidence." Paper presented
at-the-Symposium on the Role of Inquiry and the Scientific Method,
University of Sarajevo and Grand Valley State University, April.

110
 Bernstein, David A., and Rosanne Brouwer. 1986. "Evaluating a
Critical Thinking Course in Psychology." Proceedings of the 5th
National Conference on Intellectual Skills Development, November,
Kalamazoo, Michigan.
Bcrthoff, Anne E. 1984. "Is Teaching Still Possible? Writing, Mean-
ing, and Higher-Order Reasoning." College English 46: 743-55.
Bizet!, Patricia. September 1984. "William Perry and Liberal Educa-
tion." College English 46: 447-54.
. 1986. "What Happens When Basic Writers Come to Col-
lege?" College Composition and Communication 37(3): 294-301.
Bloom, Allan. 1987. The Closing of the American Mind: How Higher
Education Has Failed Democracy and Impoverished the Souls of
Today's Students. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Bloom, Benjamin S., and Lois J. Brodcr. 1950. Problem-Solving
Processes of College Students: An Exploratory Investigation. Sup-
plementary Educational Monographs No. 73. Chicago: Univ. of
Chicago Press.
Bolster, Arthur S. 1983. "Toward a More Effective Model of Re-
search on Teaching." Harvard Educational Review 53(3): 294-308.
Boyer, Ernest L. 1987. College: The Undergraduate Experience in
America. New York: Harper & Row.
Boylan, Michael. 1988. The Process of Argument. Englewood Cliffs,
N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
Brabeck, Mary. 1983. "Critical Thinking Skills and Reflective Judg-
ment Development: Redefining the Aims of Higher Education."
Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 4: 23-34.
Bransford, J., R. Sherwood, N. Vyc, and J. Rieser. 1986. "Teaching
Thinizing and Problem Solving: Research Foundations." American
Psychologist 41(10): 1078-89.
Brookfield, Stephen D. 1987. Developing Critical Thinkers: Chal-
lenging Adults to Explore Alternative Ways of Thinking and Acting.
San Francisco: Josscy-Bass.
Broughton, John M. 1975. "The Development of Natural Epistemol-
ogy in Adolescence and Early Adulthood." Ph.D. dissertation,
Harvard Univ.
Browne, M.N., and S.M. Keeley. 1986. Asking the Right Questions:
A Guide to Critical Thinking. 2d ed. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Pren-
tice-Hall.
Carey, Susan. 1986. "Cognitive Science and Science Education."
American Psychologist 41(10): 1123-30.
Carmichael, J.W., Jr. 1982. "Improving Problem-Solving Skills:
Minority Students and the Health Professions." In Summer Pro-
grams for Underprepared Freshmen, edited by K.V. Lauridsen and
C.F. Myers. New Directions in College Learning Assistance r0.
10. San Francisco: Josscy-Bass.

Critical Thinking 111

12
 Carmichael, J.W., Johnette Hassell, Jacqueline T. Hunter, Lester
Jones, Mary Ann Ryan, and Harold Vincent. 1980. "Project SOAR
(Stress on Analytical Reasoning)." American Biology Teacher
42(3): 169-73.
Carpenter, C. Blaine, and James C. Doig. 1988. "Assessing Critical
Thinking across the Curriculum." In Assessing Students' Learning,
edited by James H. McMillan. New Directions for Teaching and
Learning No. 34. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Carpenter, Elizabeth T. 1980. "Piagetian Interviews of College Stu-
dents." In Piagetian Programs in Higher Education, edited by
Robert G. Fuller. Lincoln: Univ. of NebraskaLincoln.
Cerbin, B. 1988. "The Nature and Development of Informal Reasoning
Skills in College Students." Paper presented at the 12th National
Institute on Issues in Teaching and Learning, "Teaching Critical
Thinking: Campus Practice, Emerging Connections," April 24-27,
Chicago, Illinois. HE 021 666. 17 pp. MFS1.07; PCS3.85.
Chase, W.G., and Herbert A. Simon. 1973. "The Mind's Eye in
Chess." In Visual Information Processing, edited by W.G. Chase.
New York: Academic Press.
Chi, Michelene T.H., Paul J. Feltovich, and Robert Glaser. 1981.
"Categorization and Representation of Physics Problems by Experts
and Novices." Cogni'ive Science 5: 121-52.
Chickering, Arthur. 1969. Education and Identity. San Francisco: Jos-
sey-Bass.
. 1974. Commuting vs. Resident Students: Overcoming the
Inequities of Living Off Campus. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Christensen, C. Roland. 1987. Teaching with the Case Method: Text,
Cases, and Reading. Boston: Harvard Business School.
Claxton, Charles S., and Patricia Murrell. 1987. Learning Styles: Im-
plications for Educational Practices. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education
Report No. 4. Washington, D.C.: Association for the Study of
Higher Education. HE 021 434. 106 pp. MFS1.07; PCS12.07.
Claxton, Charles S., and Yvonne Ralston. 1978. Learning Styles:
Their Impact on Teaching and Administration. AAHE-ERIC Higher
Education Report No. 10. Washington, D.C.: American Association
for Higher Education. ED 167 065. 74 pp. MFS1.07; PCS7.73.
Clement, J. 1983. "A Conceptual Model Discussed by Galileo and
Used Intuitively by Physics Students." In Mental Models, edited by
Dedre Gentner and Albert L. Stevens. Hillsdale, N.J.: Eribaum As-
sociates.
Clinchy, Blythe, Judy Lief, and Pamela Young. 1977. "Epistemo-
logical and Moral Development in Girls from a Traditional and a
Progressive High School." Journil of Educational Psychology
69(4): 337 43.
Clinchy, Blythe, and Claire Zimmerman. 1982. "Epistemology and
Agency in the Development of Undergraduate Women." In The

112

1 "6
 Undergraduate Woman: Issues in Educational Equity, edited by Pa-
mela J. Pcrun. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books.
Cohen, Elizabeth. 1986. Designing Groupwork: Strategies for the Het-
erogeneous Classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.
Collins, Allan, John S. Brown, and Susan E. Newman. 1986. "Cog-
nitive Apprenticeship: Teaching the Craft of Reading, Writing, and
Mathematics." In Cognition and Instntction: Issues and Agendas,
edited by Lauren B. Resnick. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum Associates.
Collins, Allan, and Albert L. Stevens. 1982. "Goals and Strategics of
Inquiry Teachers." In Advances in Instntctional Psychology, vol. 2,
edited by Robert Glaser. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum Associates.
Collins, Michael J., ed. 1983. Teaching Values and Ethics in College.
Ncw Directions for Teaching and Learning No. 13. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Copi, Irving M. 1986. Informal Logic. Ncw York: Macmillan.
Coward, Pat, and Jo Taylor. 1983. "Composition and Science: A
Symbiotic Relationship." Paper presented at the meeting of the
Midwest Writing Centers Conference, October, Iowa City, Iowa.
ED 238 001. 12 pp. MFS1.07; ?CS3.85.
Cromwell, Lucy, ed. 1986. Teaching Critical Thinking in the Arts and
Humanities. Milwaukee: Alverno Productions.
Cross, K. Patricia, and Thomas A. Angelo. 1988. Classroom Assess-
ment Techniques: A Handbook for Faculty. Technical Report No.
88-A-004.0. Ann Arbor: Univ. of Michigan, NCRIPTAL.
Cuban, Larry. 1984. "Policy and Research Dilemmas in the Teaching
of Reasoning: Unplanned Designs." Review of Educational Re-
search 54(4): 655-81.
Daly, William T. March 1986. Thinking Skills: An Overview. Trenton:
Ncw Jersey Basic Skills Council, Dept. of Higher Education. ED
272 442. 68 pp. MFS1.07: PCS7.73.
Dewey, John. 1933. How We Think. Chicago: Henry Regnery.
1938. Experience and Education. Ncw York: Collier Books.
Dillon, J.T. 1984. "Rcscarch on Questioning and Discussion." Edu-
cational Leadership 42(3): 50 56.
diScssa, Andrea A. 1983. "Phenomenology and the Evolution of Intu-
ition." In Mental Models, cditcd by Dedre Gcntncr and Albert L.
Stevens. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum Associates.
Dressel, Paul L., and Irvin J. Lehmann. Summer 1965. "The Impact
of Higher Education on Student Attitudes, Values, and Critical
Thinking Abilities." Educational Record: 248-58.
Duncker, K. 1945. "On Problem Solving." Psychological Mono-
graphs 58: 1-110.
Durst, Russel K. 1987. "Cognitive and Linguistic Demands of Ana-
lytic Writing." Research in the Teaching of English 21(4): 347-76.
Ennis, Robert H. 1962. "A Concept of Critical Thinking." Harvard
Educational Review 32(1): 81-111.

Critical Thinking 113

 . October 1985. "A Logical Basis for Measuring Critical
Thinking Skills." Educational Leadership: 44 48.
. 1986. "A Taxonomy of Critical Thinking Dispositions and
Abilities." In Teaching Thinking Skills, edited by Joan B. Baron
and Robert J. Sternberg. New York: W.H. Freeman.
Ennis, Robert H., and Jason Millman. 1985. Cornell Tests of Critical
Thinking. Pacific Grove, Cal.: Midwest Publications.
Erickson, Bette, and Glenn R. Erickson. 1988. "Notes on a Class-
room Research Program." In To Improve the Academy, vol. 7, ed-
ited by Joanne Kurfiss, Linda Hilsen, Susan Kahn, Mary Deane
Sorcinelli, and Richard Tiberius. Stillwater, Okla: POD/New For-
ums Press.
Eylon, Bat-Sheva, and F. Reif. 1984. "Effects of Knowledge Organi-
zation on Task Performance." Cognition and Instruction 1(1):
5 44.
Facione, Peter A. 1984. "Toward a Theory of Critical Thinking."
Liberal Education 70(3): 253-61.
. 1986. "Testing College-Level Critical Thinking." Liberal

Education 72(3): 221-31.

Faigley, Lester, and Stephen Witte. 1981. "Analyzing Revision."
College Composition and Communication 32: 400 14.
Farmer, D.W. 1988. Enhancing Student Learning: Emphasizing Es-
sential Competencies in Academic Programs. Wilkes-Barre, Pa.:
King's College.
Feichtner, Susan B., and Elain A. Davis. 1984-85. "Why Some
Groups Fail: A Survey of Students' Experiences with Learning
Groups." Organizational Behavior Teaching Review 9(1): 58-73.
Finkel, Donald L., and G. Stephen Monk. 1978. "Contexts for Learn-
ing: A Teacher's Guide to the Design of Intellectual Experience."
Olympia, Wash.: Evergreen State College.
1983. "Teaching and Learning in Groups: Dissolution of the
Atlas Complex." In Learning in Groups, edited by Clark Bouton
and Russell Y. Garth. New Directions for Teaching and Learning
No. 14. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Flavell, John. 1976. "Metacogiitive Aspects of Problem Solving." In
The Nature of Intelligence, edited by Lauren Resnick. Hillsdale,
N.J.: Erlbaum Associates.
1979. "Metacognition and Cognitive Monitoring." American
Psychologist 34: 906 11.
Flower, Linda, and John R. Hayes. February 1980. "The Cognition of
Discovery: Defining a Rhetorical Problem." College Composition
and Communication 31: 21-32.
Flower, Linda, John R. Hayes, Linda Carey, Karen Schriver, and
James Stratman. 1986. "Detection, Diagnosis, and the Strategies of
Revision." College Composition and Communication 37(1): 16-55.

114
ip3
Foos, Paul W., and Cherie M. Clark. 1983. "Learning from Text: Ef-
fects of Input Order and Expected Test." Human Learning 2: 177-
85.
Frankenstein, Marilyn. 1987. "Critical Mathematics Education: An
Application of Paulo Freire's Epistemology." In Freire for the
Classroom: A Sourcebook for Liberator), Teaching, edited by Ira
Shor. Portsmouth, N.H.: Heinemann Educational Books.
Fide, John F. 1987. "Thinking rnd Believing." College Teaching
35(3): 89-91.
Freire, Paulo. 1985. The Politics of Education. South Hadley, Mass.:
Bergin & Garvey.
Fuller, Robert G., ed. 1978. Multidisciprnary Piagetian-Based Pro-
grams for College Freshmen. 3d ed. Lincoln: Univ. of Nebraska
Lincoln.
ed. 1980. Piageiian Programs in Higher Education. Lincoln:
Univ. of NebraskaLincoln.
Furcdy, John J., and Chris Furedy. 1979. "Course Design for Critical
Thinking." Improving College and University Teaching 27(3):
99-101.
Gage, John T. 1987. The Shape of Reason: Argumentative Writing in
College. New York: Macmillan.
Gamson, Zelda F., and Associates. 1984. Liberating Education. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Gardner, Howard. 1985. The Mind's New Science: A History of the
Cognitive Revolution. New York: Basic Books.
Girls, Roderic A. 1983. "A Top-Down Approach to the Teaching of
Reasoning Skills." In Thinking: The Expanding Frontier, edited by
William Maxwell. Philadelphia: Franklin Institute Press.
Glaser, Edward M. 1941. An Experiment in the Development of Criti-
cal Thinking. New York: Teachers College of Columbia Univ.,
Bureau of Publications.
Glaser, Robert. 1984. "Education and Thinking: The Role of Knowl-
edge." American Psychologist 13(9): 5-10.
Goldberger, Nancy R. 1981. "Developmental Assumptions Under-
lying Models of General Education." Liberal Education 67(3):
223 43.
Greenfield, Lois Broder. 1987. "Teaching Thinking through Problem
Solving." In Developing Critical Thinking and Problem-Solving
Abilities, edited by James E. Stice. New Directions for Teaching
and Learning No. 30. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Greeno, James G. 1980. "Some Examples of Cognitive Task Analysis
with Instructional Implications." In Aptitude, Learning, and Instruc-
tion, edited by R.E. Snow, P. Frederico, and W.E. Montague.
Hillsdale, N.J.: Eribaum Associates.
Guyton, Edith M. 1982. "Critical Thinking and Political Participation:

Critical Thinking 115

:9
 The Development and Assessment of a Causal Model." Paper prc-
scntcd at the annual mccting of the National Council for the Social
Studies, November, Boston, Massachusetts. ED 228 116. 51 pp.
MF S1.07; PCS7.73.
1984. "An Analysis of the Cognitive Antecedents of Politi-
cal Variables." Paper presented at the annual mccting of the Ameri-
can Educational Rcscarch Association, April, New Orleans,
Louisiana. ED 245 951. 24 pp. MFS1.07; PCS3.85.
Halonen, Jane S. 1985. "Critical Thinking throughout the Under-
graduate Psychology Curriculum." Paper presented at the Mid -
America Conference for Teachers of Psychology, October, Indiana.
ED 269 281. 27 pp. MFS1.07; PCS5.79.
1986. Teaching Critical Thinking in Psychology. Milwaukee:
Alvcrno Productions.
Hamblen, Karen A. 1984. "The Application of Questioning Strategy
Rcscarch to Art Criticism Instruction." Paper presented at the an-
nual mccting of the American Educational Rcscarch Association,
April, Ncw Orleans, Louisiana. ED 243 787. 30 pp. MFS1.07;
PCS5.79.
Harding, Sandra. 1987. "Struggling for Self-Definition." Women's
Review of Books 4(6): 6-7.
Hays, Janice N. 1987. "Models of Intellectual Development and Writ-
ing: A Response to Myra Kogcn ct al." Journal of Basic Writing
6(1): 11-27.
Hays, Janice N., Kathleen S. Brandt, and Kathryn H. Chantry. 1988.
"The Impact of Friendly and Hostile Audiences upon the Argumen-
tative Writing of High School and College Students." Research in
the Teaching of English. In press.
Heiman, Marcia, and Joshua Slomianko. 1984. Learning to Learn:
Some Questions and Answers. Cambridge, Mass.: Learning Skills
Consultants.
Hcrrnstcin, Richard J., Raymond S. Nickerson, Margarita de Sanchez,
and John A. Swots. 1986. "Teaching Thinking Skills." American
Psychologist 41(11): 1279-89.
Hillocks, George, Jr. Novcmbcr 1984. "What Works in Teaching
Composition: A Meta-Analysis of Experimental Treatment Stud-
ies." American Journal of Education 93(1): 133-69.
1986. Research on Written Composition: New Directions for
Teaching. Urbana, Ill.: ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading and Com-
munication Skills and National Conference on Rcscarch in English.
Hillocks, Gcorgc, Jr., Elizabeth A. Kahn, and Larry R. Johannessen.
1983. "Teaching Defining Strategics as a Mode of Inquiry: Some
Effects on Student Writing." Research in the Teaching of English
17(3): 275-84.
Hunt, D.E. 1966. "A Conceptual System Change Morin; and Its Ap-

116
 plication to Education." In Erperience, Structure, and Adaptability,
edited by O.J. Harvcry. New York: Springer.
Hursh, Barbara A., and Lenore Borzak. 1979. "Toward Cognitive
Development through Field Studies." Journal of Higher Education
50(1): 63-78.
Hursh, Daniel E., Claudia B. VanArsdale, Franklin J. Mcdio, and
Rogers McAvoy. n.d. "The Effects of Guided Design on Decision-
Making Skills."
Inhelder, Barbel, and Jean Piaget. 1958. The Growth of Logical
Thinking from Childhood to Adolescence. New York: Basic Books.
Jacob, Philip E. 1957. Changing Values in College: An Erploratmy
Study of the Impact of College Teaching. New York: Harper &
Row.
Jacobi, Maryann, Alexander Astin, and Frank Ayala. 1987. College
Student Outcomes Assessment: A Talent Development Perspective.
ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 7. Washington, D.C.:
Association for the Study of Higher Education. HE 021 900. 145
pp. MF S1.07; PCS14.01.
James, Helen J., and L. Nelson. 1981. "A Classroom Learning
Cycle: Using Diagrams to Classify Matter." Journal of Chemical
Education 58: 476-77.
Johnson, David W., and Roger T. Johnson. 1985. "Classroom Con-
flict: Controversy versus Debate in Learning Groups." American
Educational Research Jounial 22(2): 237-56.
Johnson, David W., Roger T. Johnson, Edythe J. Holubcc, and
Patricia Roy. 1984. Circles of Learning: Cooperation in the
Classroom. Alexandria, Va.: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development. ED 241 516. 89 pp. MF S1.07; PC
not available EDRS.
Johnson, Ralph H., and J. Anthony Blair. 1980. "The Recent Devel-
opment of Informal Logic." In Informal Logic: The First inter-
national Symposium, edited by Ralph H. Johnson and J. Anthony
Blair. Inverness, Cal.: Edgepress.
Kahane, Howard. 1980. "The Nature and Classification of Fallacies."
In Informal Logic: The First Inteniational Symposium, edited by
R.H. Johnson and J.A. Blair. Inverness, Cal.: Edgepress.
. 1984. Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric: The Use of Reason
in Everyday Life. 4th ed. Belmont, Cal.: Wadsworth.
Kahncman, Daniel, Paul Slovic, and Amos Tvcrsky, eds. 1982. Judg-
ment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. New York: Cam-
bridge Univ. Press.
Karplus, Robcrt. 1974. Science Curriculum Improvement Study:
Teacher's Handbook. Berkeley: Univ. of CaliforniaBerkeley.
1977. "Science Teaching and the Development of Reason-
ing." Jounial of Research in Science Teaching 4: 169-75.

Critical Thinking
117
 Keeley, Stuart M., M. Neil Browne, and Jeffrey S. Kreutzer. 1982.
"A Comparison of Freshmen and Seniors on General and Specific
Essay Tests of Critical Thinking." Research in Higher Education
17(2): 139-54.
Kelly, David. 1988. The Art of Reasoning. New York: W.W. Norton.
King, Patricia M.B. 1977. "The Dcvclopmcnt of Reflective Judg-
ment and Formal Operational Thinking in Adolescents and Young
Adults." Ph.D. dissertation, Univ. of Minnesota.
1978. "William Perry's Theory of Intcllcctual and Ethical
Dcvclopmcnt." In Applying New Developmental Findings, edited by
Lee Kncfclkamp, Carole Widick, and Clyde A. Parker. New Direc-
tions for Student Services No. 4. San Francisco: Josscy -Bass.
1985. "Thinking about Critical Thinking: Some New Devel-
opments." Paper presented at the National Invitational Conference
on Pedagogy and Practice for Student Intcllcctual Dcvclopmcnt:
High School /Collcgc Partnership, Davidson Collcgc, June, David-
son, North Carolina.
King, Patricia M., K.S. Kitchener, M.L. Davison, C.A. Parker, and
P.K. Wood. 1983. "The Justification of Beliefs in Young Adults:
A Longitudinal Study." Human Development 26:106-16.
King, Patricia M., K.S. Kitchener, and Phillip K. Wood. 1985. "The
Development of Intellect and Character: A Longitudinal-Sequential
Study of Intcllcctual and Moral Dcvclopmcnt in Young Adults."
Moral Education Fontm 10(1): 1-13.
Kitchener, Karen S. 1977. "Intcllcctual Development in Late Ado-
lescents and Young Adults: Reflective Judgment and Verbal Rea-
soning." Ph.D. dissertation, Univ. of Minnesota.
1983. "Cognition, Metacognition, and Epistcmic Cogni-
tion." Human Development 26: 222-32.
Kitchener, Karen S., and Patricia M. King. 1981. "Concepts of Justi-
fication and Their Relationship to Age and Education." Journal of
Applied Developmental Psychology 2: 89-116.
Kneedler, Peter. 1985. "California Assesses Critical Thinking." In
Developing Minds, edited by Arthur L. Costa. Alexa-dria, Va.: As-
sociation for Supervision and Curriculum Dcvclopmcnt.
Kncfclkamp, L. Lee. 1974. "Developmental Instruction: Fostering In-
tcllcctual and Personal Growth of Collcgc Students." Doctoral dis-
sertation, Univ. of Minnesota.
Kncfclkamp, L. Lee, and William S. Moore. n.d. "Measure of Intcl-
lcctual Development." Athens, Ga.: Author.
Kncfclkamp, L. Lee, and Ron Slepitza. 1976. "A Cognitive Develop-
mental Model of Career Dcvclopmcnt and Adaptation of the Perry
Scheme." Counseling Psychologist 6(3): 53-58.
Kogen, Myra. 1986. "The Conventions of Expository Writing." Jour-
nal of Basic Writing 5(1): 24-37.

118

112
Kurfiss, Joanne. 1975. "Late Adolcsccnt Development: A Structural-
Epistcmological Perspective." Ph.D. dissertation, Univ. of Wash-
ington.
. 1976. "A Nco-Piagctian Analysis of Erikson's 'Identity' Pc-
riod of Late Adolescent Development." In Piagetian Research:
Compilation and Commentary, vol. 5, cditcd by S. Modgil and C.
Modgil. Berkshire, Eng.: NFER Publishing.
. 1977. "Scqucntiality and Structure in a Cognitive Model of
College Student Development." Developmental Psychology 13:
565-71.
1982. "Notes on the Design of Effective Learning Cycles."
Proceedings of the Conference on Reasoning, Piagct, and Higher
Education. Denver, Colorado.
1987. "Instructional Strategics Inventory." Newark: Univ.
of Delaware.
Lanzilotti, S.S. n.d. "Administrating a Thinking Skills Project: A De-
velopmental Perspective." Teaching Thinking and Problem Solving
9(3): 16-18.
Larkin, Jill H. 1979. "Information Processing Models and Science In-
struction." In Cognitive Process Instruction: Research on Teaching
Thinking Skills, cditcd by Jack Lochhcad and John Clement. Phila-
delphia: Franklin Institute Press.
1980. "Teaching Problem Solving in Physics: The Psycho-
logical Laboratory and the Practical Classroom." In Problem Solv-
ing and Education: Issues in Teaching and Research, cditcd by
D.T. Tuma and F. Reif. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum Associates.
Larkin, Jill H., Joan I. Heller, and James G. Grccno. 1980. "Instruc-
tional Implications of Research on Problem Solving." In Learning,
Cognition, and College Teaching, cditcd by Wilbert J. McKeachie.
Ncw Directions for Teaching and Learning No. 2. San Francisco:
Josscy-Bass.
Larkin, Jill IL, J. McDermott, D. Simon, and H.A. Simon. 1980.
"Expert and Novice Performance in Solving Physics Problems."
Science 208: 1335-42.
Larkin, J.H., and F. Reif. 1979. "Understanding and Teaching Prob-
lem Solving in Physics." European Journal of Science Education
1(2): 191-203.
Lavcault, Dany, and Pierre Corbcil. 1985. "Educational and Episte-
mological Foundations of Simulation Games as a Method of Teach-
ing." Sintgamesaimjeux 11(3 & 4): 20-53.
Lawson, A.E. 1978. "The Development and Validation of a Class-
room Test of Formal Reasoning." Journal of Research in Science
Teaching 15: 11.
Lawson, A.E., and J.W. Renner. 1974. "A Quantitative Analysis of
Responses to Piagctian Tasks and Its Implications for Education."
Science Education 58: 545-59.

Critical Thinking 119

113
 Lcahy, Rick. 1985. "The Power of the Student Journal." College
Teaching 33(3): 108-12.
Linn, Marcia C. 1986. "Science." In Cognition and Instruction, cd-
itcd by Ronna F. Dillon and Robert J. Sternberg. Ncw York: Aca-
demic Press.
Loacker, Gcorginc, Lucy Cromwell, Joyce Fcy, and Diane Ruther-
Cot d. 1984. Analysis and Conununication at Alverno: An Approach
to Critical Thinking. Milwaukee: Alvcrno Productions.
Loacker, Gcorginc, Lucy Cromwell, and Kathleen O'Brien. 1986.
"Assessment in Higher Education: To Scrvc the Learner." In As-
sessment in American Higher Education: Issues and Contorts, cd-
itcd by Clifford Adelman. OR 86-301. Washington, D.C.: Office of
Educational Rcscarch and Improvement. ED 273 197. 90 pp. MF
S1.07; PCS10.13.
Lochhcad, Jack. 1979. "On Learning to Balance Perceptions by Con-
ceptions: A Dialogue between Two Science Students." In Cognitive
Process Instruction, edited by Jack Lochhcad and John Clement.
Philadelphia: Franklin Institute Press.
Lochhcad, Jack, and Arthur Whimbcy. 1987. "Teaching Analytical
Reasoning through Thinking-Aloud Pair Problem Solving." In De-
veloping Critical Thinking and Problem-Solving Abilities, cditcd by
James E. Sticc. Ncw Directions for Teaching and Lcarning No. 30.
San Francisco: Josscy-Bass.
Logan, Ruth. 1987. "Teaching Critical Thinking Using the Scientific
Process as a Model System." Santa Monica, Cal. ED 279 384. 12
pp. MFS1.07; PCS3.85.
Lord, Charles G., Lee Ross, and Mark R. Leper. 1979. "Biased As-
similation and Attitude Polarization: The Effects of Prior Theories
on Subsequently Considered Evidence." Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology 37(11): 2098-2109.
McKinnon, J.W. 1976. "The College Student and Formal Opera-
tions." In Teaching and Learning with the Piaget Model, cditcd by
J.W. Renner. Norman: Univ. of Oklahoma Press.
McLcod, Douglas B. 1985. "Affective Issues in Rcscarch on Teach-
ing Mathematical Problem Solving." In Teaching and Learning
Mathematical Problem Solving: Multiple Research Perspectives, ed-
ited by Edward A. Silver. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum Associates.
McMillan, Jamcs 1-1. 1987. "Enhancing College Students' Critical
Thinking: A Review of Studies." Research in Higher Education
26(1): 3-29.
1988. Assessing Student Learning Outcomes. New Directions
for Teaching and Lcarning No. 34. San Francisco: Josscy-Bass.
McPeck, John. 1981. Critical Thinking and Education. Ncw York: St.
Martin's Press.
Malone, Thomas \V. 1981. "Toward a Theory of Intrinsically Moti-
vating Instruction." Cognitive Science 4: 333-69.

120
 Martinson, Tom L. 1981. "Teaching Effective Thinking with Guided
Design in Latin American Geography Courses." Indiana Social
Studies Quarterly 34(3): 5-14.
Martuza, Victor It 1987. "Introduction to the Three R's: Reading,
Reflecting, and Reacting." Mimeographed. Univ. of Delaware,
Dept. of Educational Studies.
Mauksch, flans 0., and C.B. flowery. 1986. "Social Change for
Teaching: The Case of One Disciplinary Association." Teaching
Sociology 14: 73-82.
Mcntkowski, Marcia, M. Moeser, and M.J. Strait. 1983. Using the
Perry Scheme of Intellectual and Ethical Development as a College
Outcomes Measure: A Process and Criteria for Judging Student
Performance. Milwaukee: Alverno College, Office of Research and
Evaluation.
Mcntkowski, Marcia, and Glen P. Rogers. 1985. "Longitudinal As-
sessment of Critical Thinking in College: What Measures Assess
Curricular Impact?" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
Mid-Western Educational Research Association, October, Chicago,
Illinois.
. 1986. "Assessing Critical Thinking." In
Teaching Critical
Thinking in the Arts and Thum:titles, edited by Lucy S. Cromwell.
Milwaukee: Alverno Productions.
Meyers, Chet. 1986. Teaching Students to Think Critically. San Fran-
cisco: Josscy-Bass.
Michaelson, Larry. 1983. "Team Learning in Large Classes." In
Learning in Groups, edited b1 Clark Bouton and Russel Y. Garth.
Ncw Directions for Teaching and Learning No. 14. San Francisco:
Josscy-Bass.
Michalak, Stanley J., Jr. 1986. "Enhancing Critical-Thinking Skills in
Tracttional Liberal Arts Courses: Report on a Faculty Workshop."
Liberal Education 72(3): 253-62.
Miller, Duane 1.1981. Experience in Decision Making for Students of
Industrial Psychology. Washington, D.C.: Univ. Press of America.
Monk, Stephen G. 1983. "Student Engagement and Teacher Power in
Large Classes." In Learning in Groups, edited by Clark Bouton and
Russel Y. Garth. New Directions for Teaching and Learning No.
14. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Morrill, Richard L. 1980. Teaching Values in College. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Mortensen, Lynn, and Willis D. Moreland. 1985. "Critical Thinking
in a Freshman lwroductoty Course: A Case Study." In To Improve
the Academy, vol. 5, edited by Julie Roy Jeffrey and Glenn R. Er-
ickson. Stillwater, Okla.: POD/New Forums Press.
Muellerleile, Mary Alice. 1986. "Thinking in Images." In Teaching
Critical Thinking in the Arts and Humanities, edited by Lucy Crom-
well. Milwaukee: Alverno Productions.

Critical Thinking
121
1.-i5
Muscatine, Charlcs. Scptcmbcr/Octobcr 1986. "Faculty Rcsponsibility
for the Curriculum." Academe: 18-21.
Ncwcll, A., and Hcrbcrt A. Simon. 1972. ihanan Problem Solving.
Englcwood Cliffs, N.J.: Prcnticc-liall.
Ncwcll, Gcorgc. 1984. "Learning from Writing in Two Contcnt
Areas: A Case Study/Protocol Analysis." Research in the Teaching
of English 18(3): 265-87.
Nickcrson, Raymond S. 1985. "Undcrstanding Undcrstanding."
American Journal of Education 93(2): 201-39.
. 19863. "utoicct Intelligence: An Account and Some Reflec-
tions." In r Cognitive Development: International Per-
spectives, ''rrrantr, and Practices, cditcd by M. Schwcbc1 and
C.A. Maim. Ncw York: Haworth.
1986b. "Re, ning." In Cognition and Instruction, cditcd
by Ronna F. Dillon and Robcrt J. Stcrnbcrg. Ncw York: Acadcmic
Press.
. 1986c. "Why Teach Thinking?" In Teaching Thinking
Skills: Theory and Practice, cditcd by Joan B. Baron and Robcrt J.
Stcrnbcrg. Ncw York: W.H. Freeman.
Nickcrson, Raymond S., David N. Perkins, and Edward E. Smith.
1985. The Teaching of Thinking. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum Associ-
atcs.
Nisbctt, Richard E., Gcoffrcy T. Fong, Darrin R. Lehman. and Patri-
cia \V. Chong. October 1987. "Teaching Reasoning." Science 238:
625-31.
Norton, Sylvia, and othcrs. 1985. "Thc Effccts of an tndcpcndcnt
Laboratory Investigation on the Critical Thinking Ability and Scien-
tific Attitudcs of Studcnts in a Gcncral Microbiology Class." Paper
prcscntcd at thc annual =cling of thc Mid-South Research Associa-
tion, November, Biloxi, Mississippi. ED 264 291. 18 pp. Mr--
51.07; PC S3.65.
Organ, T.W. 1965. The Art of Critical Thinking. Boston: Boughton
Mifflin.
Palincsar, Annamaric S., and Ann L. Brown. 1984. "Rcciproca!
Teaching of Comprehcnsion Fostering and Comprchcnsion Monitor-
ing Activities." Cognition and Instruction 1(2): 117-75.
Palmer, Parkcr J. 1987. "Community, Conflict, and Ways of Know-
ing: Ways to Dccpen Our Educational Agenda." Change 19(5):
20 25.
Pascarella, Eugcnc T. 1980. "Student - Faculty Informal Contact and
College Outcomes." Review of Educational Research 50: 545-95.
Paul, Richard. 1982. "Teaching Critical Thinking in the 'Strong'
Sense: A Focus on Sclf-Deccption, World Views, :..id a Dialcctical
Mode of Analysis." Informal Logic 4: 3-7.
. 1986. "Dialogical Thinking: Critical Thought Essential to

16
 the Acquisition of Rational Knowledge and Passions." In Teaching
Thinking Skills, edited by Joan B. Baron and Robert J. Sternberg.
New York: W.H. Freeman.
Perfetto, Greg A., John D. Bransford, and Jeffery J. Franks. 1983.
"Constraints on Access in a Problem-Solving Context." Memo?),
and Cognition 11(1): 24-31.
Perkins, David N. 1981. The Mind's Best Work. Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard Univ. Press.
. 1985. "Postprimaty Education Has Little Impact on Informal
Reasoning." Journal of Educational Psychology 77(5): 562-71.
. 1986. "Reasoning as It Is and Could Be: An Empirical Per-
spective." Paper presented at the annual conference of the Ameri-
can Educational Research Association, April, San Francisco,
California.
Perkins, D.N., R. Allen, and J. Hafner. 1983. "Difficulties in Every-
thy Reasoning." In Thinking: The Expanding Frontier, edited by
William Maxwell. Proceedings of the International, Interdisciplinary
Conference on Thinking held it the Univ. of the South Pacific, Jan-
uary 1982. Philadelphia: Franklin Institute Press.
Perry, William G., Jr. 1970. Forms of Intellectual and Ethical Devel-
opment in the College Years: A Scheme. New York: Holt, Rinehart.
1981. "Cognitive and Ethical Growth: The Making of
Meaning." In The Modern American College, edited by Arthur
Chickering. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Piaget, Jean. 1968. "The Role of the Concept of Equilibration in Psy-
chological Explication." In Six Psychological Studies, edited by
David Elkind. New York: Vintage Books.
Pittendrigh, Adele S., and Patrick C. Jobes 1984. "Teaching across
the Curriculum: Critical Communication in the Sociology Class-
room." Teaching Sociology 11(3): 281-96.
Polya, G. 1957. How to Solve It: A New Aspect of Mathematical
Method. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday/Anchor Books.
Postman, Neil. 1985a. Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse
in the Age of Entertainment. New York: Viking.
. 19856. "Critical Thinking in the Electronic Era." National
Form 65(1): 4-8+.
Powers, Donald E., and Mary K. Enright. 1987. "Analytical Reason-
ing Skills in Graduate Study: Perceptions of Faculty in Six Fields."
Journal of Higher Education 58(6): 658-82.
Reinsmith, William A. 1987. "Educating for Change: A Teacher Has
Second Thoughts." College Teaching 35(3): 83-88.
Resnick, Lauren B. 1987. Education and Learning to Think. Wash-
ington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
Riordan, Timothy. 1986. "Obstacles to the Development of Critical
Thinking and Ways to Overcome Them." In Teaching Critical

Critical Thinking 123

1 f-i
er,70.

Thinking in Arts and Humanities, edited by Lucy Cromwell. Mil-

waukee: Alverno Productions.
Roby, Thomas W. 1983. "Thc Other Side of Questioning: Controvers-
ial Turns, the Devil's Advocate, and the Reflective Student Re-
sponses." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, April, Montreal, Ontario.
1985. "The Problematics of Classroom Discussion." Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Re-
search Association, April, Chicago, Illinois.
Ross, Lee, and Craig A. Anderson. 1982. "Shortcomings in the Attri-
bution Process: On the Origins and Maintenance of Erroneous So-
cial Assessments." In Judgment under lJnrertainty: Heuristics and
Biases, edited by Daniel Kahneman, Paul Slovic, and Amos Tvcr-
sky. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Rubinstein, Moshe F. 1975. Patterns of Problem Solving. Englewood
Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
1980. "A Decade of Experience in Teaching an Inte:disci-
plinaty Problem-Solving Course." In Problem Solving and Educa-
tion: Issues in Teaching and Research, edited by D.T. Tama and r.
Reif. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum Associates.
. 1986. Tools for Thinking and Problem Solving. Englewood
Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
Rubinstein, Moshe F., and Iris R. Firstenberg. 1987. "Tools for
Thinking." In Developing Critical Thinking and Problem-Solving
Abilities, edited by James E. Sticc. New Directions for Teaching
and Learning No. 30. San Francisco: Josscy-Bass.
Ruggierio, Vincent R. 1984. The Art of Thinking: A Guide to Critical
and Creative Thought. New York: Harper & Row.
Rumelhart, D.E. 1977. Introduction to Human Information Proces-
sing. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Ryan, Mary Ann, Donald Robinson, and J.W. Carmichael, Jr. 1980.
"A Piagetian-Based General Chemistry Laboratory Program for Sci-
ence Majors." Journal of Chemical Education 57(9): 642 45.
Ryan, Michael P. 1984a. "Conceptions of Prose Coherence: Individ-
ual Differences in Epistemological Standards." Journal of Educa-
tional Psychology 76(6): 1226-38.
. 1984b. "Monitoring Text Comprehension: Individual Differ-
enc,s in Epistemological Standards." Journal of Educational Psy-
chology 76(2): 248-58.
Sanford, Nevitt. 1966. Self and Society: Social Change and Individual
Development. New York: Atherton Press.
Scardamalia, Marlene, and Carl Bereiter. 1986. "Writing." In Cogni-
tion and Inst uction, edited by Ronna F. Dillon and Robert J. Stern-
berg. New !ork: Academic Press.
Schank, R.C., and R. Abelson. 1977. Scripts, Plans, Goas, and Un-
derstanding. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum Associates.
Schlaefli, Andre, James R. Rest, and Stephen J. Thoma. 1985. "Does
Moral Education Improve Moral Judgment? A Meta- Analysis of In-
tervention Studies Using the Defining Issues Test." Review of Edu-
cational Research 55(3): 319-52.
Schmidt, Janc A., and Mark L. Davison. 1983. "Helping Students
Think." Personnel and Guidance Journal 61(9): 563-69.
Schmidt, Julie A., John P. McLaughlin, and Patricia Leighten. n.d.
"Novice Strategics for Understanding Paintings." Applied Cognitive
Psychology. In press.
Schoenfeld, Allen H. 1983a. "Beyond the Purely Cognitive: Bclicf
Systems, Social Cognitions, and Mctacognitions as Driving Forces
in Intellectual Performance." Cognitive Science 7: 329-63.
19836. Problem Solving in the Mathematics Curriculum: A
Report, Recommendations, and an Annotated Bibliography. M.A.A.
Notes No. 1. Washington, D.C.: Mathematical Association of
America.
. 1985a. Mathematical Problem Solving. New York: Aca-
demic Press.
19856. "Mctacognitivc and Epistemological Issues in Mathe-
matical Understanding." In Teaching and Learning Mathematical
Problem Solving: Multiple Research Perspectives, edited by Edward
A. Silver. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum Associates.
Schoenfeld, Allen H., and Douglas J. Herrmann. 1982. "Problem
Perception and Knowledge Structure in Expert and Nuvice Mathe-
matical Problem Solvers." Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Learning Memory, and Cognition 8(5): 484 -9".
Schon, Donald. 1983. The Reflective Practitioner. New York: Basic
Books.
. 1987. Educating the Reflective Practitioner. San Francisco:
Josscy-Bass.
Scrivcn, Michael. 1980. "Prescriptive and Descriptive Approaches to
Problem Solving." In Problem Solving and Education: Issues in
Teaching and Research, edited by D.T. Tuma and F. Reif. Hills-
dale, N.J.: Erlbaum Associates.
Shor, Ira. 1980. Critical Teaching and Everyday Life. Boston: South
End Press.
ed. 1987. Freire for the Classroom: A Sourcebook for Liber-
ator), Teaching. Portsmouth, N.H.: Heinemann Educational Books.
Shulman, L.S., and N.B. Carey. 1984. "Psychology and the Limita-
tions of Individual Rationality: Implications for the Study of Reason-
ing and Civility." Review of Educational Research 54(4): 501-24.
Simon, Dorothea P., and Herbert A. Simon. 1979. "A Talc of Two
Protocols." In Cognitive Process Instruction, edited by J. Lochhcad
and John Clement. Philadelphia: Franklin Institute Press.
Simon, Herbert A. 1980. "Problem Solving and Education." In Prob-

Critical Thinking 125

 lem Solving and Education: Issues in Teaching and Research, edited
by D.T. Tuma and F. Reif. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum Associates.
Slater, Wayne H., Michael Graves, Sherry B. Scott. and Teresa M.
Redd-Boyd. 1988. "Discourse Structure and College Freshmen's
Recall Production of Expository Text." Research in the Teaching of
English 22(1): 45-61.
Smith, Daryl G. 1977. "College Classroom Interactions and Critical
Thinking." Journal of Educational Psychology 69: 180-90.
Sommers, Nancy. 1980. "Revision Strategies of Student Writers and
Experienced Adult Writers." College Composition and Communi-
cation 31(4): 378-91.
Spilich, G.J., G.T. Vesonder, H.L. Chiesi, and J.F. Voss. 1979.
"Text Processing of Domain-Rclated Information for Individuals
with High and Low Domain Kncwledge." Journal of Verbal Learn-
ing and Verbal Behavior 18: 275-90.
Spur lin, Joni E., Donald F. Danscrcau, Celia 0. Larson, and Larry
W. Brooks. 1984 "Cooperative Learning Strategies in Processing
Descriptive Text: Effects of Role and Activity Level of the Learn-
er." Cognition and Instruction 1(4): 451-63.
Stark, Jerry. 1987. "On Academic Preconditions of Critical Theory:
Conditions, Possibilities, and Proposals." Paper prepared for the
annual meeting of the Midwest Sociological Sock.: y, April, Chi-
cago, Illinois.
Stasz, Bird B., and Assocwes. 1985. "A Problem-Solving Model for
Teaching Reading Proficiency!' Forum for Reading 16(2): 56-60.
ED 262 377. 7 pp. MFS1.07; PCS3.85.
Statkiewicz, Walter R., and Robert D. Allen. 1983. "Practice Exer-
cises to De'elop Critical Thinking Skills." Journal of College Sci-
ence Teaching 12(4): 262 66.
Stephenson, Bud W., and Christine Hunt. 1977. "Intellectual and
Ethical Development: A Dualistic Curriculum Intervention for Col-
lege Students." Counseling Psychologist 6(4): 39-42.
Stern, G.C., and A.H. Cope. 1956. "Differences in Educability be-
tween Stereopaths, Nonstereopaths, and Rationals." Cited in Philip
E. Jacob, Changing Values in College: An Exploratory Study of the
Impact of College Teaching. New York: Harper & Row.
Stevens, Albert L., and Dedre Gentner. 1983. "Introduction." In
Mental Models, edited by Dedre Gentner and Albert L. Stevens.
Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum Associates.
Stonewater, Jerry, and Harry M. Daniels. 1983. "Psychosocial and
Cognitive Development in a Career Decision-making Course."
Journal of College Student Personnel 24: 403-10.
Swaffer, Janet K. 1986. "Reading and Cultural Literny." Journal of
General Education 38(2): 70 84.
Swartz, Robert J. 1986. "Teaching for Thinking: A Developmental

126
 Model for the Infusion of Thinking Skills into Mainstream
Hon." In Teaching Thinking Skills: Theory and Practice, edited by
Joan B. Baron and Robert J. Sternberg. Ncw York: W.H. Freeman.
Terri°, Susan J. 1986. "Building Critical Thinking Skills through
Writing in the Foreign Language Classroom." Paper presented at
the annual mccting of the Northeast Conference on the Tcaching of
Foreign Languages, April, Washington, D.C. ED 276 263. 16 pp.
MFS1.07; PCS3.85.
Tomlinson-Kcasey, Carol, and Debra C. Eiscrt. 1978. "Can Doing
Promote Thinking in the College Classroom?" Journal of College
Student Personnel 19: 99-105.
Touchton, Judith G., Loretta C. Wertheimer, Janct L. Cornfeld, and
Karen H. Harrison. 1977. "Career Planning and Decision Making:
A Developmental Approach to the Classroom." Counseling Psy-
chologist 6(4): 42-47.
Toulmin, Stcphcn E. 1958. The Uses of Argument. Cambridge, Eng.:
Cambridge Univ. Press.
Toulmin, Stcphcn, Richard Rickc, and Allan Janik. 1979. An Intro-
duction to Reasoning. Ncw York: Macmillan.
Twcency, R.D. 1981. "Confirmatory and Disconfirmatory Heuristics
in Michael Faraday's Scientific Research." Paper presented at a
mccting of the Psychonomic Society. Cited in Voss, Grccnc, Post,
and Pcnncr 1983.
VanDeWeghe, Rick. 1986. "From Problem Solving to Problem Find-
ing through Purposeful, Informal Writing." Paper presented at the
Annual Conference on College Composition and Communication,
New Orleans, Louisiana.
Vcrdcrbcr, Rudolph. 1967. "Tcaching Reasoning in the Beginning
High School and College Speech Course." Ohio Speech Journal 5:
26 32.
Vosniadou, Stella, and William F. Brewer. 1987. "'Theories of Knowl-
edge ReC7ucturing in Development." Review of Educational Re-
search 57(1): 51-68.
Voss, J.F., J. Blais, M.L. Mcans, T.R. Greene, and E. Ahwesh.
1986. "Informal Reasoning and Subject Matter Knowledge in the
Solving of Economics Problems by Naive and Novice Individuals."
Cognition and Instruction 3(4): 269-302.
Voss, James F., Terry R. Greene, Timothy A. Post, and Barbara C.
Pcnncr. 1983. "Problem-Solving Skill in the Social Sciences." The
Psychology of Learning 'vie! Motivation: Advances in Research and
Theory, vol. 17, cditcd by G.H. Bower. Ncw York: Academic
Press.
Voss, James F., Sherman W. Tyler, and Laurie A. Ycngo. 1983.
"Individual Differences in the Solving of Social Science Prob-
lems." In Individual Differences in C )gnition, vol. 1, cditcd by
R.F. Dillon and R.R. Schmcck. Ncw fork: Academic Press.

Critical Thinking 127

1 41
 Vygotsky, Lev. 1978. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher
Pryhological Processes, edited by Michael Cole, Vera John-Stei-
ner, Sylvia Scribner, and Ellen Souberman. Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard Univ. Press.
Wales, Charles E. 1979. "Does How You Tcach Make a Differ-
ence?" Engineering Education 69(5): 394-98.
Wales, Charles E., Anne H. Nardi, and Robert A. Stagcr. 1986.
Professional Decision Making. Morgantown, W. Va.: Univ. Center
for Guided Design.
Walters, Kcrry S. 1986. "Critical Thinking in Liberal Education: A
Case of Overkill?" Liberal Education 72(3): 233-44.
Watson, G., and E.M. Glaser. 1980. "The Watson-Glaser Critical
Thinking Appraisal." Cleveland: Psychology Corporation.
Weinstein, Claire, and Brenda Rogers. 1985. "Comprehension Moni-
toring: The Neglected Learning Strategy." Journal of Develop-
mental Education 9(1): 6 9+.
Wclfel, Elizabeth R. November 1982. "How Students Make Judg-
ments: Do Educational Level and Academic Major Make a Differ-
ence?" Journal of College Student Personnel 23(6): 490 97.
Whimbey, Arthur, J.W. Carmichael, Jr., Lester W. Jones, Jacqueline
T. Hunter, and Harold A. Vincent. October 1980. "Teaching Criti-
cal Reading and Analytical Rcasoning in Project SOAR." Journal
of Reading 24(1): 5-10.
Whimbcy, Arthur, and Jack Lochhead. 1979. Problem Solving and
Comprehension: A Short Course in Analytical Reasoning. Philadel-
phia: Franklin Institute Press.
1982. Problem Solving and Comprehension. 3d ed. Philadel-
phia: Franklin Institute Press.
White, Edward M. 1984. "Holisticism." College Composition and
Communication 35(4): 400 409.
. 1985. Teaching and Assessing Writing. San Francisco: Jos-
scy-Bass.
Whitman, Neal A., David C. Spendlovc, and Claire H. Clark. 1984.
Student Stress: Effects and Solutions. ASHE-ERIC Higher Educa-
tion Report No. 2. Washington, D.C.: Association for the Study of
Higher Education. ED 246 832. 115 pp. MF$1.0?; PC-412.07.
1936. Increasing Students' Learning: A Faculty Guide to Re-
ducing Stress among Students. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Re-
port No. 4. Washington, D.C.: Association for the Study of Higher
Education. ED 274 264. 101 pp. MF S1.07; PC-412.07.
Widick, Carole. 1975. An Evaluation of Developmental Instruction.
Doctoral dissertation, Univ. of Minnesota.
Widick, Carole L., L. Lee Knefelkamp, and Clyde A. Parker. 1975.
"The Counselor as a Developmental Instructor." Counselor Educa-
tion and Supervision 14: 286 96.

128

142
Widick, Carole, and Debra Simpson. 1978. "Developmental Concepts
in College Instruction." In Encouraging Development in College
Students, edited by Clyde A. Parker. Minneapolis: Univ. of Minne-
sota Press.
Winter, David G., David C. McClelland, and Abigail J. Stewart.
1981. A New Case for the Liberal Arts. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Wolters, Richard. 1986. "Critical Thinking and Transference across
Time." In Teaching Critical Thinking in Arts and Humanities, ed-
ited by Lucy Cromwell. Milwaukee: Alverno Productions.
Wulff, Donald, and Jody Nyquist. 1988. "Using Field Methods as an
Instructional Tool." In To Improve the Academy, vol. 7, edited by
Joanne Kurfiss, Linda Hilsen, Susan Kahn, Mary Deane Sorcinelli,
and Richard Tiberius. Stillwater, Okla.: POD/New Forums Press.
Zcichner, Kenneth M., and Daniel P. Liston. 1987. "Teaching Stu-
dent Teachers to Reflect." Harvard Educatial Review 57(1): 23-
48.
Zculi, John S., and Margret Buchmann. 1986. "Implementation of
Teacher Thinking Research as Curriculum Deliberation." Occa-
sional Paper No. 107. East Lansing: Michigan State Univ., Institute
for Research on Teaching. ED 275 644. 27 pp. MFS1.07; PC
S5.79.

Critical Thinkir^ 129

14.3
INDEX
A
AASCU (see American Association of State Colleges and Universities)
Academic disciplines
common features: critical thinking courses, 88-89
focus, 5
humanities, 76-81
sciences/mathematics/engineering, 71-76
social sciences, 81-85
specificity for critical thinking, 21
teacher education, 85-87
teaching in, 71
Academic success
chemical engineering, 75
metacognitive programs, 72
interdisciplinary literature study, 81
minority students, 44, 93
Access to knowledge, 37
Ad hominem, 16
ADAPT reasoning skills program, 10, 72, 93
Affective factors, 47-48
Alverno College
assessment, 78, 86, 95, 96, 100
discipline-based networks, 98
freshman curriculum, 94
integrated science, 72
social science instructions, 83
American Association of State colleges and Universities (AASCU),
99, 100
Anthropology instruction, 84
Antioch College: internships, 68
Argumentation
analysis of in textbooks, 17
classroom use, 67
common elements, 19
criticism of critical thinking as analysis, 21-23
transferable aspects, 19-21
types, 14-15
value, 13
writing, 20, 94
Art criticism, 79-80
Art history
problem solving, 31
procedural knowledge, 40
The Art of Reasoning, 17
The Art of Thinking: A Guide to Critical and Creative Thought, 18
Artificial intelligence, 11

Critical Thinking 131

144
.
 Asking the Right Questions, 17
Assessment
baccalaureate outcomes, 99
course-embedded, 95
discipline-neutral, 95
for feedback, 101
institutional approach, 78
student monitoring, 100
usefulness, 100
Attention: metacognition, 42

B
Backing: element of argument, 19
Basic skills courses, 91
Begging the question, 16
Beliefs
about knowledge, 46-47, 0-67
changes, 60.61
resilience of, 45
Belenky, Mary F., 52, 53, 57
Bethany College, 97
Biased assimilation, 45
Biology: basic skills, 73

C
California: programs/testing, 1
Campuswide attention, 89
Challenges, 47, 65
Chemical engineering instruction, 75
Chico State University, 100
"Chunks" (information), 27
Circularity, 16
Claim: element of argument, 19
Classroom approach
assignments, 4
declarative knowledg:, 35
discussion, 66
evaluation criteria, 64
examinations, 64
metacognition strategies, 43-44
peer-oriented atmosphere, 65
sciences/mathematics/engineering, 71-76
size, 106
teaching in the disciplines, 71
Classroom culture, 105
Clayton State College, 91, 92

132
145
 Closing of the American Mind, 2
Coaching, 48, 49
Cogent arguments, 15
Cognition
"cognitive apprenticeship," 49
epistemic, 46-47
scientific development, 11
Cognitive processes
assumptions, 25-28
context of justification/discovery, 25
perspectivL_, 4
Collaboration, 88
Communication
perspectives, 5
"Competence growth plans," 94
Composition
instructional perspectives, 5
problem solving approach, 31-32
procedural knowledge approach, 41
Computer science: procedural knowledge, 40
"Consider the opposite" approach, 45
Consortia, 97-98
Consumer Reports, 17
Contextual awareness, 68
"Contextual relativism," 55
Controversial issues, 22, 83, 86
Core curriculum, 94
Cornell Tests of Critical Thinking Ability, 8
Counseling Techniques, 62.63
Courses
common features, 88.89
controversial issues, 22
.arly, 8, 10
educational implications, 23-24
evaluation, 87-88
freshman, 91-92
lack of empirical support for, 23 I

planning for, 64
preparatory, 104
problem-solving skills, 75-76
thinking vs. skill development, 21-22
Critical thinking
cognitive processes, 25-49
courses on, 21-23, 91-92
current emphasis, 1-2
definition, 2-3

Critical Thinking 133

1 4-6
 developmental foundations, 51-70
historical background, 7-11
informal logic, 13-24
major perspectives, 4-5
program features, 101
teaching challenges, 3-4
Critical Thinking Project, 97
Curiosity, 47-48
Curricular approaches
formal introduction, 91
formal strategies, 98
freshman course, 91-94
"thinking across the curriculum," 94-97

D
Declarative knowledge, 27, 28,
accessibility, 27-38
acquisition, 33-34
understanding, 34-36
Deduction
formal arguments, 14
historical analysis, 37
Definition, 2-3
"Development of Thinking Skills" (DOTS), 99
Developmental models: differences, 56-60
Devil's advocate approach, 45-46, 66
Dewey, John, 7, 67
Dialectical discussions, 66
Disciplines (see Academic disciplines)
Discussion/dialogue, 66, 67, 81, 84
Dogmatism, 78
DOTS (see "Development of Thinking Skills")
Dualism, 52-53, 57,
Dualists, 61, 62, 76

E
East Central College Consortium, 97
Economics: procedural knowledge, 40
Educational Testing Service, 98
Elementary education, 7
Empathy: relationship to relativism, 62
English instruction, 3, 8, 92
Ennis, Robert H., 8-9, 10
Enthymemes, 15
Epistemology
cognition, 46-47

134

147
 "critical," 55
development, 51-52
relationship to critical thinking, 60.61
relationship to other behaviors, 61-63
Escape, 56
Ethical questions, 69
Ethnicity, 103-104
Evidence: contrary, 45
Experts
development of, 27
vs. novice reasoning processes, 30-33

F
Faculty
development, 97
ownership, 101
participation, 99
released time, 93
role, 4, 70, 77-78
student interactions, 105
supervision of students, 86
support groups, 98
Fallacies
dualism/multiplicity, 64
informal reasoning, )5.16
textbook focus, 18
False dilemma, 16
Fantasy, 47
Faraday, Michael, 20
Federated learning communities (FLC), 96
Feedback, 48, 86, 95
Field experience courscwork, 68, 84
FIPSE (see Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education)
FLC (see Federated learning communities)
Foreign language instruction, 79
Frame of reference concept, 84
Freirc, Paul, 6, 86
Freshman courses
critical thinking, 91-92
study skills, 37
Freshmanyear experiences, 92-94
Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education (FIPSE), 94,
97

G
Galileo, 34
Gender issues, 103

Critical Thinking 135

 Gcncral College Program, 96, 100
Gcncral education courses, 94
Gcncral Liberal Education Program (GLEP), 92, 96
Generalization, 16
Glaser, Edward M., 7-8, 10
GLEP (see Gcncral Liberal Education Program)
Good Reason for Writing, 18
Grade point average, 44, 75
Grading
"holistic scoring," 88
model, 77
understanding criteria, 87
Grime, Larry, 97
Guided Learning/design, 73, 75

H
Harvard developmental studies, 51, 57
Hays, Janice N., 59
Hierarchies
instructional use, 48
structure of knowledge, 36-37
Historical baes:ground, 7-11
History
analysis of, 37
declarative knowledge acquisition, 36
instruction, 81-82
Humanities instructions, 76-81

I
Identification, 57
Individual development, 56-57
Induction: informal arguments. 14-15
Informal Logic, 17
Informality: logic /reasoning, 14-16
Inhelder, Barbel, 9
Inquiry methods, 35-36, 41, 47, 48
Institutional programs: early, 9.10
Instruction
critical thinking courses, 88-89
declarative knowledge implications, 38-39
goals, 101
humanities, 76-81
inquiry approach, 35-36
metacognition implications, 42.46
sciences/mathematics/engineering, 71-76
social sciences, 81-85

136
139
 teacher education, 85-87
Integrated science course. 72-73
Intellectual communities, 101
intellectual development
alternatives to growth, 56
Perry model, 51
perspectives, 5
stages, 52
Interdisciplinary approach
literature, 80.81
planning, 61
problem-solving skill courses, 75-76
program features, 101
study of coenition, 25
"thinking across the curriculum," 96
Internships, 68, 84
An Introduction to Reasonings, 17
Introductory courses in disciplines, 93

3
Judgment: Dewey definition, 7

K
Kapiolani Community Colic Ige, 99
King's College, 94, 95, 96, 98, 100
Kitchener/King model, 86
Knowledge
acquisition through critical thinking, 33.46
beliefs about, 46, 63.67
"connected," 55
declarative, 33-39
definition, 26
forms, 27-28
implications for instruction, 42-46
mctacognition, 42-46
organization in memory, 26.27
procedural, 40-42, 54-55
received (dualism), 52-53, 57
"relative/constructed" commitment, 55.56
subjective (multiplicity), 53.54

L
Laboratory exercises, 72, 83-84
Learning
achievement, 10

Critical Thinking
137
150
 goals, 44
guided, 73
involvement, 67
styles, 5, 103
"Learning to Learn" methodology, 91
Limitations: expert-novice comparisons, 33
Literature instruction, 76-78, 80-81
Logic
formal, 14
informal, 5, 13-24
Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric, 18

M
Mathematics
counteracting novice strategies, 71
metacognitive skills, 44, 73-74
procedural knowledge, 40
student intimidation, 74
Metacognition
control strategies, 27
implications for instruction, 42-46
instructional prompts, 48
SOAR program, 71
Memory
metacognition, 42
organization of, 26-27, 34
short-term vs. long-term, 26
Michigan State University, 85
Mill, John Stuart. 17
Minnesota Community College System, 98
Minority student success, 44
Misconceptions: persistence of, 34
Modality: element of argument, 19
Modeling, 48, 49
Moral reasoning, 63
Motivation, 47, 48
Multiplicity, 53-54, 65
Multiplists, 61, 76, 86, 87

N
Negative outcomes, 22
New Jersey Task Force on Thinking Skills, 98
New York: programs/centers, 1
Non sequiturs, 16
Novices
behaviors, 61

138
 problem-solving strategies, 71-72
vs. expert reasoning processes, 30-33

0
Objectivity development, 45
Opinions, 54
Organization
declarative knowledge, 36-37
instruction, 39
memory, 26-27, 34
Organizational change, 97
Organizational strategies
formal/institutionally sponsored, 98-100
informal, 97-98
types, 97

P
Peers
faculty collaboration, 1045
teaching, 47, 73, 76, 79
Perry, William, 51, 52 .
Perry development model, 11, 55, 58-60, 86, 97
Persistence, 44, 75, 93
Philosophy
instruction, 78-79
perspectives, 5
Physics
declarative knowledge acquisition, 36
problem solving, 32
procedural knowledge, 40
Piagetian approach, 9-10, 34, 44, 93
Planning: metacognition, 43
Political science
instruction, 82
problem solving, 32-33
procedural knowledge, 40
Practice, 48
Prefreshman skill development, 71-72
Pretests, 39
Problem solving
art history, 32
composition, 31-32
critical thinking as, 28-30
declarative knowledge, 33-39
matheinatics, 31
metacognition, 42-46

Critical Thinking 139

152
 "pair" approach, 44, 72
physics, 32
political science, 32-33
procedural knowledge, 40-42
reading comprehension, 32
situation model, 28-29
skill courses, 75-76
Procedural knowledge, 40-42
The Process of Argument, 17
Program features, 101
Provincialism, 15-16
Psychology instruction, 20, 83
Purpose, 47, 48

Q
Question formulation, 44, 79

R
Radcliff developmental studies, 51, 57
Reading
instruction, 20-21
metacognition role, 43, 71
problem solving, 32
Reasoning
in the professions, 29-30
informal: fallacies, 15-16
moral, 63
novices vs. experts, 30-33
skills, 8, 9
Rebuttal: element of argument, 19
"Received knowers" (see Dualists)
Reflective thinking
definition, 7
expert reasoning, 31
Relativism
classroom use, 67
commitment in, 55
contextual, 55
counseling techniques, 62, 63
growth, 87
procedural belief system, 54
relativistic thinking, 67, 84
student classification, 61
Research
methods, 81
needs, 103-106

140

15
 Resistance to critical thinking, 63, 86
Retreat, 56
Rhetoric
comparison to logic, 14
instructional perspectives, 5
Rolling Stone, 17
Rote learning
college freshme, reliance, 9
discouragement, 10
knowledge acquired by, 34

St. Joseph's College (Indiana), 95, 96

St. Louis University, 76
SAT (see Scholastic Aptitude Test)
Schemas (see Scripts)
Schoenfeld, Allen H., 44, 74
Scholastic Aptitude Test, 61
Sciences
biology, 73
counteracting novice strategies, 71
guided learning, 73
prefreshmen skill development, 71-72
Scientific method, 40-41, 73,81
Scripts (knowledge patterns), 26, 29, 34, 36, 39
Secondary education, 7
Seminars
informal organizational strategies, 97
integrative, 94
Sex differences, 52, 57
The Shape of Reason: Argumentative Writing in College, 18
"Silence perspective, 57-58
Simulation instructional approach, 81-82
Skepticism: reflective, 55
Skills
acquisition, 4
prefreshmen development, 71
problem-solving courses, 75-76
vs. thinking, 21-22
Sma' group instruction, 44, 84, 86
SOAR program
cognitive psychology adaptation, 11, 93
minority student success, 44
target skills, 71-72
Social context, 106
Social issues instruction, 83-84

Critical Thinking
. . 141

154
MI
 Social sciences
Alverno introductory course, 82-83
instruction, 20, 81-85
Sociology
student involvement, 88
perspectives, 5
Socratic approach, 47
Speech instruction, 20
State initiatives, 98
Statistics instruction, 75
Straw men, 16
Stress on Analytical Reasoning (see SOAR program)
Student teaching, 85-86
Students
belief changes, 60-61, 63-67
developmental perspectives survey, 65
faculty interactions, 105
freshman-year experiences, 92-94
involvement in evaluation, 88
minority success, 44
prefreshman, 71-71
relativists vs. dualists, 61, 62
thinking skills, 94
transformation as knowers, 67-69
value of critical thinking courses, 23-24
Study skills programs, 44
"Subjective knowers" (see Multiplists)
Subjectivity, 2, 77
SUNY-Buffalo, 91
SUNY-Fredonia, 92, 96, 100
SUNY-Stony Brook, 96, 102
Supports, 65

T
TAPPS method (see Thinking Aloud Pair Problem Solving)
Task Force on Thinking Skills (New Jersey), 98
Teacher education, 85-87
Teaching (see also Instruction)
challenges for critical thinking, 3-4
cognitive processes, 48-49
individual courses vs. institutional programs, 5
metacognitive methods, 44-46
supportive practices, 88-89
Technological literacy, 76
Temporizing, 56
Tennessee colleges' assessment, 100

142
15 5
Tests
science, 73
reasoning skills, 8, 9
Textbooks
choice of, 64
common approaches, 13, 14
overview, 16-19
scrutiny of public school, 106-107
"Themes in Human Identity" (course), 80
Thinking
"across the curriculum," 94-97
aloud, 42, 72, 104
dogmatic, 78
reflective, 7, 31
vs. skills, 21-22
Thinking Aloud Pair Problem Solving (TAPPS) method, 72
Thinking Straight, 17
"Tradition and the Modem World" theme, 93
Transferable skills
argumentation, 19-21
philosophy, 78-79
"Triggering event," 43

U
UCLA (see University of California-Los Angeles)
Understanding for problem solving, 34-36
University of California-Los Angeles, 75
University of Nebraska-Lincoln, 10, 93
University of Wisconsin-Madison, 85
University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh, 93

V
Values, 68-70
Vygotsky, Lev, 6, 105

NV
Warrant: element of argument, 19
Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal, 8, 10, 60
Women
epistemological development, 52, 59, 60
intellectual perspectives, 11
opinion development, 55
Women's Ways of Knowing, 56
Writing (sec also Composition)
argumentative: instruction, 20

Critical Thinking 143

156
 field work, 84
identification, 57
integration with reasoning, 18, 81
journal entries, 77
mastering information, 38-39
quality, 62
sequenced instruction, 62
usefulness of, 86
Writing Across the Curriculum, 98

X
Xavier University
SOAR p:ogram, 11, 44, 71-72, 93

Z
Zorba the Greek, 80

144
Pi
 ASHE-ERIC HIGHER EDUCATION REPORTS
Sincc 1983, the Association for the Study of Higher Education (ASHE) and the
ERIC Clearinghouse on Highcr Education, a sponsorcd projcct of thc School of
Education and Human Development at thc Gcorgc Washington University, havc
cosponsors' thc ASHE-ERIC Highcr Education Rcport serics. Thc 1988 series
is the seventeenth overall, with the American Association for Ilighcr Education
having served as cosponsor before 1983.
Each monograph is the definitive analysis of a tough highcr caucation
problem, bascd on thorough rcscarch of pertinent Iitcraturc and institutional
experiences. After topics arc identified by a national sun ;.y, noted practitioners
and scholars writc thc rcports, with experts reviewing each manuscript before
publichtion.
Eight monographs (10 monographs bcforc 1985) in the ASHE -ERIC Higher
Education Rcport scrics arc publishcd cach ycar, availablc individually or by
subscription. Subscription to cight issues is S60 regular; S50 for members of
AERA, AAHE, and AIR; S40 for mcmbers of ASHE (add 510.00 for postagc
outsidc thc United Statcs).
Priccs for single copies, including 4th class postagc and handling, arc 515.00
rcgular and SI: 25 for members of AERA, AAHE, MR, and ASHE (S10.00
regular and 57.50 for members for 1985 to 1987 rcports, 57.50 rcgular and
56.00 for mcmbcrs for 1983 and 1984 rcports, 56.50 rcgular and 55.00 for
mcmbcrs for rcports publishcd bcforc 1983). If faster postagc is desired for
U.S. and Canadian orders, add 51.00 for cach publication ordcrcd; overseas,
4.1d S5.00. For VISA and MasterCard payments, includc card number,
cxpiration datc, and signature. Ordcrs undcr S25 must be prepaid. Bulk
discounts arc availablc on ordcrs of 15 or morc rcports (not applicable to
subscriptions). Ordcr from thc Publications Department. ASHE -ERIC Highcr
Education Reports, Thc Gcorgc Washington University, One Dupont Circle,
Suite 630, Washington, D.C. 20036-1183, or phonc us at 202/296.2597. Writc
for a publications list of all thc Higher Education Reports availablc.

1988 ASHE -ERIC Higher Education Reports

1. The Invisible Tapestry: Culture in American Colleges and Universities
George D. Kith and Elizabeth J. Whitt
2. Critical Thinking: Theory, Rcscarch, Practice, and Possibilities
Joanne Gainer: Kurfiss

1987 ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Reports

1. Incentive Early Retirement Programs for Faulty: Innovative Responses
to a Changing Environment
Jay L. Chronister and Thomas R. Kepp le, Jr.

2. Working Effectively with Trustccs: Building Cooperative Campus

Leadership
Barbara E. Taylor
3. Formal Recognition cf Employcr-Sponsorcd Instruction: Conflict and
Collegiality in Postsecondary Education
Nancy S. Nash and Elizabeth M. Hawthorne
4. Learning Styles: Implications for Improving Educational Practices
Charles S. Claxton and Patricia H. Murrell
5. Higher Education Leadership: Enhancing Skills through Professional

Critical Thinking
145
l_Fis
 Development Programs
Sharon A. McDade
6. Higher Education and the Public Trust: Improving Stature in Colleges and
Universities
Richard L. Alfred and Julie Weissman
7. College Student Outcomes Assessment: A Talent Development
Perspective
Maryann Jacobi, Alexander Astin, and Frank Ayala, Jr.
8. Opportunity from Strength: Strategic Planning Clarified with Case
Examples
Robert G. Cope

1986 ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Reports

1. Post-tenure Faculty Evaluation: Threat or Opportunity?
Christine M. Licata
2. Blue Ribbon Commissions and Higher Education: Changing Academe
from the Outside
Janet R. Johnson and Lawrence R. Marcus
3. Responsive Professional Education: Balancing Outcomes and
Opportunities
Joan S. Stark, Malcolm A. Lowther, and Bonnie M.K. Hagerty
4. Increasing Students' Learning: A Faculrj Guide to Reducing Stress
among Students
Neal A. Whitman, David C. Spendlore, and Claire II. Clark
5. Student Financial Aid and Women: Equity Dilemma?
Mary Moran
6. The Master's Degree: T adition, Diversity, Innovation
Judith S. Glazer
7. The College, the Constitution, and the Consumer Student. Implications
for Policy and Practice
Robert M. Hendrickson and Annette Gibbs
8. Selecting College and University Personnel: The Quest and the Questions
Richard A. Kaplowitz

1985 ASHE -ERIC Higher Education Reports

1. Flexibility in Academic Staffing: Effective Policies and Practices
Kenneth P. Mortimer, Marque Bagshaw, and Andrew T. Masland
2. Associations in Action: The Washington, D.C., Highcr Education
Community
Harland G. Bloland
3. And on the Seventh Day: Faculty Consulting and Supplemental Income
Carol M. Boyer and Darrell R. Lewis
4. Faculty Research Performance: Lessons from the Sciences and Social
Sciences
John W. Creswell
5. Academic Program Reviews: Institutional Approaches, Expectations, and

146
.Vi 9
 Controversies
Clifton F. Conrad and Richard F. Wilson
6. Students in Urban Settings: Achieving the Baccalaureate Degree
Richard C. Richardson, Jr., and Louis IV. Bender
7. Serving More Than Students: A Critical Need for College Student
Personnel Services
Peter H. Garland
8. Faculty Participation in Decision Making: Necessity or Luxury?
Carol E. Floyd

1984 ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Reports

1. Adult Learning: State Policies and Institutional Practices
K. Patricia Cross and Anne-Marie McCanan
2. Student Stress: Effects and Solutions
Neal A. Whitman, David C. Spendlove, and Claire H. Clark
3. Part -time Faculty: Higher Education at a Crossroads
Judith M. Gappa
4. Sex Discrimination Law in Higher Education: The Lessons of the Past
Decade
J. Ralph Lindgren, Patti T. Ota, Perry A. Zirkel, and Nan Van Gieson
5. Faculty Freedoms and Institutional Accountability: Interactions and
Conflicts
Steven G. Olswang and Barbara A. Lee
6. The High-Technology Connection: Academic/Industrial Cooperation for
Economic Growth
Lynn G. Johnson
7. Employee Educational Programs: Implications for Industry and Higher
Education
Suzanne W. Morse
8. Academic Libraries: Thc Changing Knowledge Centers of Colleges and
Universities
Barbara B. Moran
9. Futures Research and the Strategic Planning Process: Implicdtions
for
Higher Education
James L. Morrison, William L. Renfro, and Wayne L Boucher
10. Faculty Workload: Research, Theory, and Interpretation
Harold E. Yuker

1983 ASHE -ERIC Higher Education Reports

1. Thc Path to Excellence: Quality Assurance in Higher Education
Laurence R. Marcus, Anita 0. Leone, and Edward D. Goldberg
2. Faculty Recruitment, Retention, and Fair Employment: Obligations and
Opportunities
John S. IYaggatnart
3. Meeting the Challenges: Developing Faculty Careers'
Michael C.T. Brookes and Katherine L German

'Out-of-print. Available through EDRS.

Critical Thinking
147

160
4. Raising Academic Standards: A Guide to Learning Improvement
Ruth Talbott Keit*
5. Serving Learners at a Distance: A Guide to Program Practices
Charles E. Fees ley
6. Competence, Admissions, and Articulation: Returning to the Basics in
Higher Education
Jean L. Freer
7. Public Service iu Higher Education: Practices and Priorities
Patricia 11. Cmsson
8. Academic Employment and Retrenchment: Judicial Review and
Administrative Action
Robert M. Hendrickson and Barbara A. Lee
9. Burnout: The New Academic Disease*
Winifred Albin Melendez and Rafael M. de Guyndn
10. Academic Workplace: New Demands, Heightened Tensions
Ann E. Austin and Zelda F. Gamson

'Out -of- print. Available through EDRS.

!1
Order Form
QUANTITY AMOUNT
Please enter my subscription to ;le 1988 ASHE-ERIC
Higher Education Reports at S60.00, 50% off the cover
price, beginning with Report I, 1988.
Please enter my subscription to the 1989 ASHE-ERIC
Higher Education Reports at S80.00, 33% off the cover
price, beginning with Report 1, 1989.
Outside U.S., add S10.00 per series for postage.
Individual reports arc available at the following prices:
1988 and forward, $15.00 per copy. 1983 and 1984, $7.50 per copy.
1985 to 1987, S10.00 per copy. 1982 and back, S6.50 per copy.
Book rate postage, U.S. only, is included in the price.
For fast U.P.S. shipping within the U.S., add $1.00 per book.
Outside U.S., please add $1.00 per book for surface shipping.
For air mail service outside U.S., add $5.00 per book.
All orders under $25 must be prepaid.
PLEASE SEND ME THE FOLLOWING REPORTS:

QUANTITY TITLE AMOUNT

Report NO ( )
Report NO ( )
Report NO ( )
SUBTOTAL.
POSTAGE (see above)
TOTAL AMOUNT DUE _
Please check one of the following:
0 Check enclosed, payable to ASHE.
0 Purchase order attached.
0 Charge my credit card indicated below:
0 VISA 0 MasterCard

11111111111111111
Expiration date

Name

Title
Institution
Address

City State Zip

Phone Signature

ALL ORDERS SHOULD BE SENT TO:

ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Reports
The George Washington University
One Dupont Circle, Suite 630, Dept. RC
Wishington, DC 20036-1483
Phone: 202/296-2597
__i_____:m
 PRAISE FOR PAST REPORTS:
"I welcome ,he ASHE-ERIC monograph series. It is a service
to those who need brief but dependable analyses of key issues
in higher education."
(Rev.) Theodore M. Hesburgh, C.S.C.
President Emeritus, University of Notre Dame

"Running a successful institution requires mastering details

quickly. The ASHE -ERIC Higher Education Reports are
valuable because they give a national perspective that helps me
meet my own responsibilities."
Milton Greenberg, Provost, American University

"The first books off my shelf when I'm looking for answers.
Keep me aware of potential problems and offer
recommendations that really work."
Kathryn M. Moore, Professor, Michigan State
University

"The monographs make excellent textbooks, and their

bibliographies arc essential for graduate students."
Eileen Kuhns, Coordinator, Education Administration
Program, Cathlic University of America

"Excellent publications, authoritative and well researched, on

timely topics."
Ronald W. Collins, Provost and Vice President
for Academic Affairs, Eastern Michigan University

"A godsend to an administrator of a brand-new doctoral

program with caps on resources for course development."
Antonio Donofrio, Director, Higher Education
Program Widener University

"Excellentscholarly, informative, enlighteningsuperb for

administrative and faculty development."
Robert Gleason, Director of Library Services
Rockland Community College

"An invaluable resource which gets me on top of a topic in a

very efficient manner."
Donald Reichard, Professor
University of North Carolina at Greensboro

113
JOANNE GAINEN KURFISS is a teaching consultant in the Center
for Teaching Effectiveness at the University of Delaware. She
earned her Ph.D. from the University of Washington, specializ-
ing in developmental psychology and comp! ,zing research for
her dissertation on William Perry's model of college students'
intellectual and ethical development. She taught psychology for
several years at Eastern Oregon State College, where she
became involved in writing across the curriculum. Before as-
suming her present position, she directed the instructional de-
velopment program at Weber State College in Utah. She has
served for many years on the core committee of the Profes-
sional and Organizational Development (POD) Network in
Higher Education and for two years edited the network's jour-
nal, To Improve the Academy. Her current research interest is
the development of critical thinking skills through discipline-
based instruction, particularly using collaborative learning and
writing.

ISBN 0-913317-44-6>>1015.00