barriers to critical thinking slideshare

• Career Advice
• Job Search & Interview
• Productivity
• Public Speaking and Presentation
• Social & Interpersonal Skills
• Professional Development
• Remote Work
• Our Products

Eggcellent Work

12 common barriers to critical thinking (and how to overcome them).

As you know, critical thinking is a vital skill necessary for success in life and work. Unfortunately,  barriers to critical thinking  can hinder a person’s ability. This piece will discuss some of the most common  internal and external barriers to critical thinking  and what you should do if one of them hinders your ability to think critically.

Table of Contents

Critical Thinking Challenges

You already know that  critical thinking  is the process of analyzing and evaluating a situation or person so that you can make a sound judgment. You normally use the judgment you derive from your critical thinking process to make crucial decisions, and the choices you make affect you in workplaces, relationships, and life’s goals and achievements.

Several  barriers to critical thinking  can cause you to skew your judgment. This could happen even if you have a large amount of data and information to the contrary. The result might be that you make a poor or ineffective decision instead of a choice that could improve your life quality. These are some of the top obstacles that hinder and distort the ability to think critically:

1. Using Emotions Instead of Logic

Failing to remove one’s emotions from a critical thinking analysis is one of the hugest barriers to the process. People make these mistakes mainly in the relationship realm when choosing partners based on how they “make them feel” instead of the information collected.

The correct way to decide about a relationship is to use all facts, data, opinions, and situations to make a final judgment call. More times than not, individuals use their hearts instead of their minds.

Emotions can hinder critical thinking in the employment realm as well. One example is an employee who reacts negatively to a business decision, change, or process without gathering more information. The relationship between that person and the employer could become severed by her  lack of critical thinking  instead of being salvaged by further investigations and rational reactions.

2. Personal Biases

Personal biases can come from past negative experiences, skewed teachings, and peer pressure. They create a huge obstacle in critical thinking because they overshadow open-mindedness and fairness.

One example is failing to hire someone because of a specific race, age, religious preference, or perceived attitude. The hiring person circumvents using critical thinking by accepting his or her biases as truth. Thus, the entire processes of information gathering and objective analysis get lost in the mix.

3. Obstinance

Stubbornness almost always ruins the critical thinking procedure. Sometimes, people get so wrapped up in being right that they fail to look at the big picture. Big-picture thinking is a large part of critical thinking; without it, all judgments and choices are rash and incomplete.

4. Unbelief

It’s difficult for a person to do something he or she doesn’t believe in. It’s also challenging to engage in something that seems complex. Many people don’t think critically because they believe they must be scholarly to do so. The truth is that  anyone  can think critically by practicing the following steps:

• 1. Gather as much data as possible.
• 2. Have an opinion, but be open to changing it.
• 3. Understand that assumptions are not the truth, and opinions are not facts.
• 4. Think about the scenario, person, or problem from different angles.
• 5. Evaluate all the information thoroughly.
• 6. Ask simple, precise, and abundant questions.
• 7. Take time to observe.
• 8. Don’t be afraid to spend time on the problem or issue.
• 9. Ask for input or additional information.
• 10. Make it make sense.

5. Fear of Failure or Change

Fear of change and failure often hinders a person’s critical thinking process because it doesn’t allow thinking outside the box. Sometimes, the most efficient way to resolve a problem is to be open to changing something.

That change might be a different way of doing something, a relationship termination, or a shift of positions at a workplace. Fear can block out all possible scenarios in the critical thinking cycle. The result is often one-dimensional thinking, tunnel vision, or proverbial head-banging.

6. Egocentric Thinking

Egocentric thinking is also one of the main barriers to critical thinking. It occurs when a person examines everything through a “me” lens. Evaluating something properly requires an individual to understand and consider other people’s perspectives, plights, goals, input, etc.

7. Assumptions

Assumptions are one of the negative  factors that affect critical thinking . They are detrimental to the process because they cause distortions and misguided judgments. When using assumptions, an individual could unknowingly insert an invalid prejudgment into a stage of the thought process and sway the final decision.

It’s never wise to assume anything about a person, entity, or situation because it could be 100 percent wrong. The correct way to deal with assumptions is to store them in a separate thought category of possibilities and then use the data and other evidence to validate or nullify them.

XYZ  might  be why ABC happened, but there isn’t enough information or data to conclude it. The same concept is true for the rest of the possibilities, and thus, it’s necessary to research and analyze the facts before accepting them as truths.

8. Group Thinking

Group thinking is another one of the  barriers to critical thinking  that can block sound decisions and muddy judgments. It’s similar to peer pressure, where the person takes on the viewpoint of the people around him or her to avoid seeming “different.”

This barrier is dangerous because it affects how some people think about right and wrong. It’s most prevalent among teens. One example is the “everybody’s doing it (drugs, bullying), so I should too” mindset.

Unfortunately, this barrier can sometimes spill over into the workplace and darken the environment when workers can’t think for themselves. Workers may end up breaking policies, engaging in negative behavior, or harassing the workers who don’t conform.

Group thinking can also skew someone’s opinion of another person before the individual gets a chance to collect facts and evaluate the person for himself. You’ve probably heard of smear campaigns. They work so well against targets because the parties involved don’t use the critical thinking process at all.

9. Impulsivity

Impulsivity is the tendency to do things without thinking, and it’s a bona fide critical thinking killer. It skips right by  every  step in the critical thinking process and goes directly to what feels good in the moment.

Alleviating the habit takes practice and dedication. The first step is to set time aside when impulsive urges come to think about all aspects of the situation. It may take an impulsive person a while to develop a good critical thinking strategy, but it can work with time.

10. Not Knowing What’s Fact and Opinion

Critical thinking requires the thinker to know the difference between facts and opinions. Opinions are statements based on other people’s evaluative processes, and those processes may not be critical or analytical. Facts are an unemotional and unbiased piece of data that one can verify. Statistics and governmental texts are examples.

11. Having a Highly Competitive Nature

A “winning” mindset can overshadow the fair and objective evaluation of a problem, task, or person and undermine critical thinking. People who  think competitively  could lose sight of what’s right and wrong to meet a selfish goal that way.

12. Basing Statements on Popularity

This problem is prevalent in today’s world. Many people will accept anything a celebrity, political figure, or popular person says as gospel, but discredit or discount other people’s input. An adept critical thinker knows how to separate  what’s  being said from  who  said it and perform the necessary verification steps.

• The Ultimate Guide To Critical Thinking
• Is Critical Thinking A Soft Skill Or Hard Skill?
• How To Improve Critical Thinking Skills At Work And Make Better Decisions
• 5 Creative and Critical Thinking Examples In Workplace
• 10 Best Books On Critical Thinking And Problem Solving
• 12 Critical Thinking Interview Questions and Scenarios With Sample Answers
• How To Promote Critical Thinking In The Workplace

How To Overcome Barriers in Critical Thinking

If you can identify any of the above-mentioned  barriers , your critical thinking may be flawed. These are some tips for overcoming such barriers:

1. Know your flaws.

The very first step toward improving anything is to know and admit your flaws. If you can do that, you are halfway to using better critical thinking strategies.

2. Park your emotions.

Use logic, not emotion, when you are evaluating something to form a judgment. It’s not the time to think with your heart.

3. Be mindful of others.

Try to put yourself in other people’s shoes to understand their stance. A little empathy goes a long way.

4. Avoid black-and-white thinking.

Understand that there’s always more than one way to solve a problem or achieve a goal. Additionally, consider that not every person is all bad or all good.

5. Dare to be unpopular.

Avoid making decisions to please other people. Instead, evaluate the full lot of information and make the decision you feel is best.

6. Don’t assign unjustified merit.

Don’t assume someone is telling the truth or giving you more accurate information because of his or her name or status. Evaluate  all  people’s input equally.

7. Avoid judging others.

Try to keep biases and prejudices out of your decision-making processes. That will make them fair and just.

8. Be patient with yourself.

Take all the days you need to pick apart a situation or problem and resolve it. Don’t rush to make hasty decisions.

9. Accept different points of view.

Not everyone will agree with you or tell you what you want to hear.

10. Embrace change.

Don’t ever be afraid of changing something or trying something new. Thinking outside the box is an integral part of the critical thinking process.

Now you know the answers to the question,  “What are the challenges of critical thinking?”  Use the information about the  barriers to critical thinking  to improve your critical thinking process and make healthier and more beneficial decisions for everyone.

• Critical Thinking vs Problem Solving: What’s the Difference?
• Is Critical Thinking Overrated?  Disadvantages Of Critical Thinking
• 25 In-Demand Jobs That Require Critical Thinking and Problem-Solving Skills
• Brainstorming: Techniques Used To Boost Critical Thinking and Creativity
• 11 Principles Of Critical Thinking  

Jenny Palmer

Founder of Eggcellentwork.com. With over 20 years of experience in HR and various roles in corporate world, Jenny shares tips and advice to help professionals advance in their careers. Her blog is a go-to resource for anyone looking to improve their skills, land their dream job, or make a career change.

Further Reading...

From Good To Great: 20 Examples Of Exceeding Expectations

15 Examples of Confidence in the Workplace to Unlock Success

9 Most Sought-After Soft Skills In The Workplace

No comments, leave a reply cancel reply.

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

How To List Skills That I Taught Myself On Resume

12 critical thinking interview questions and scenarios with sample answers  .

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

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

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• PMC10300824

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

Associated data.

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

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

1. Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

2. Barriers to Critical Thinking

2.1. inadequate skills and dispositions.

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

2.2. Epistemological (Mis)Understanding

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2.3. Intuitive Judgment

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

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

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

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

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

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

2.4. Bias and Emotion

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

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

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

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

3. Discussion

3.1. interpretations.

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

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

3.2. Further Implications and Future Research

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

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

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

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

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

4. Conclusions

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

Acknowledgments

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

Funding Statement

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Data availability statement, conflicts of interest.

The author declares no conflict of interest.

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

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

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

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

TheBalanceWork

11 Common Barriers To Critical Thinking – A Simple Guide

Critical thinking is the capacity to think in a clear and rational way . It’s a perspective related to what one should do and what one believes.

But what makes critical thinking a harder task to do. There are some barriers that come in the way of critical thinking.

Critical thinking is just not about collecting information. If you have a good IQ and know a lot of things, you can totally nail it.

A person can do critical thinking only if he can conclude results from his knowledge.

11 Most Common Barriers To Critical Thinking

Critical thinking is a skill that everyone should have. It helps you make decisions and solve problems, but it can be difficult to use when there are barriers in your way.

In this blog post, we’ll talk about the most common barriers to critical thinking and how you can overcome them.

1. Not Being Able To Tell The Difference Between A Fact And An Opinion

The first barrier to critical thinking is confusing facts with opinions. Facts are indisputable and indubitable , whereas opinions are not.

Everyone has different opinions about things, so it’s important to understand the difference between facts and opinions.

Here are some examples of facts you can easily check:

– The distance from the earth to the sun is approximately 93 million miles.

– The sky is blue.

– The human population was 7 billion in 2012.

2. The Person Is Too Self-Obsessed To See Anything Else:

It is the most difficult barrier that makes a person see nothing but themselves. These people consider themselves as an important asset for the world.

This barrier won’t let you acknowledge other people. 

They just want to create a sense of authority .

Critical thinking demands to analyze different aspects to test their validity. Also, finding good aspects of these perspectives is a portion of critical thinking.

But being self-obsessed is the most difficult barrier to overcome.

SEE ALSO: 7 Barriers To Effective Listening

3. A Trend Of Brainstorming Together – A Barrier To Critical Thinking:

The nature of critical thinking stands on famous objectives, beliefs, and ideas. When people think collectively, it hardens for everyone to think in their own space.

Everyone relies on what the majority decides and thinks in that direction.

Critical thinking requires that people have to think differently while in a group.

To break this barrier, everyone in the group must maintain their individuality .

Everyone should think according to their own style even if they are working in a group.

SEE ALSO: Groupthink Vs Group Polarization – Healthy Discussion

4. Barriers To Critical Thinking – Emotions Are Heavier Than The Logic:

People are becoming more sensitive to the opposite views as time passes. So when people have to face the challenge of disagreement , logic flies out of the window.

And then irrelevant reactions take the place of logic that defies reason and disturbs management.

It’s a barrier to deciding based on emotions and emotion-based decision-making is bad for organizations.

5. The Competition Is Real Hard:

This obstacle treats conversations and discourages competitive sports. The main aim of everyone is to win, not to seek learning.

The greater interest of both sides is in winning the argument than in reaching the truth.

Though this concept has its function in a courtroom. And it has nothing to do with the other real life. But even then this is an important barrier to consider.

6. Barriers To Critical Thinking – Overly Relying On Experiences: 

When this barrier comes to the table of discussion, there are many people who get defensive.

It doesn’t mean that there is no value for the experience. Of course, experience has its own place, but one should not rely only on experience.

An individual’s experience is his own experience. It doesn’t define what others experience or what happens outside his sphere.

Every person is different. Even the geographical regions are different. So you need to consider experience as an individual’s experience.

7. Accepting Statements Of Superhumans:

This barrier occurs when we test statements based on who said it rather than merit. In such cases, people accept statements to be true.

If someone they respect or like said these. They don’t pay attention to whether the statement is true or not.

Contrary to that, people would reject a statement if it comes from a person they don’t like.

Removing this barrier is difficult. Because people have already made up their minds. They would accept something from a respected person and vice versa.

8. Intellect Is Greater Than Excellence:

For a very long period of time, IQ i.e. intelligence quotient was a measure for intelligence.

But the passing time told us that intelligence has a different number of dimensions.

T here is no longer only one perspective to look at intelligence.

Still, some companies consider IQ the only measurement for intelligence. This can be a barrier when companies would miss out on people who could prove to be excellent.

If they got a chance and their intelligence got measured in a correct way.

9. Blindly Going Behind What A Myth Says:

Following myths is something that relates to accepting things based on stereotyping.

As we know that stereotypes and assumptions ignore individualistic thinking. These are the factors that hinder the person’s will to analyze the facts and figures.

It also makes people believe what they are doing is right. So they won’t be able to recognize and accept that they are making assumptions.

In such conditions, people can never identify that their judgments base on stereotypes.

10. Barriers To Critical Thinking – Grinding In The Same Cycle:

It happens when an individual falls into a routine. Even the most open-minded people can fell prey to this.

We don’t mean that routine is a bad thing. But it lessens one’s ability to think in an analytical way.

If a person has to do the same thing day after day, week after week, or even for his whole life.

He would forget how to respond to new situations and lose leadership. Moreover, he would begin to shy away from new situations.

So convenience can be great but it can take a toll on the capability of critical thinking.

11. Following The Power:

This barrier is about accepting someone’s view or assertion based on their level of authority.

You may be accepting your boss’ views about a certain topic and you think the opposite to that.

But you are doing so because of the authority of the boss and the discipline of the organization.

It involves the factor of respect or admiration while the former involves accepting views based on authority.

Now the problem is not with accepting the view of a boss or an expert. The real problem comes when we are not allowed to question it.

Conclusion:

Remember neither to confuse critical thinking with being argumentative. Nor it relates to being critical about others.

Critical thinking is so important because it exposes fallacies and bad reasoning.

It also plays an important role in cooperative reasoning and constructive tasks.

The barriers discussed in this article are important to note. But it’s not impossible or difficult at all to remove these barriers.

Do mention in a comment which barrier you think you are facing.

Last Updated on 12 hours by Assma Riaz

• Recent Posts

• 7 Great Signs Your Boss Wants to Help You - October 8, 2023
• How To Explain Dropping Out Of Law School? Detailed Guide - September 6, 2023
• 10 Reasons Employees Get Fired in Workplace - August 27, 2023

5 Levels Of Communication – A Proceeding Guide

What Is Behavioral Skills Training? – 7 Skills To Develop

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

At TheBalanceWork, we always put our readers first. Simply reach out to us and we’ll do everything we can to assist you.

Quick Links

• Privacy Policy
• Terms & Condition
• Communication
• Office Address
• Postal Address
• Operation Manager

Chapter 9: Critical Thinking

Aug 06, 2012

370 likes | 1.05k Views

Chapter 9: Critical Thinking. Bridging the Gap, 9/e Brenda Smith. In this chapter you will answer the questions:. What is thinking? What is critical thinking? What are the characteristics of critical thinkers? What are the barriers to critical thinking?

Share Presentation

• elementary school students
• famous actor
• draw conclusions
• new management
• causal relationship

Presentation Transcript

Chapter 9: Critical Thinking Bridging the Gap, 9/eBrenda Smith 2008 Pearson Education, Inc., publishing as Longman Publishers

In this chapter you will answer the questions: • What is thinking? • What is critical thinking? • What are the characteristics of critical thinkers? • What are the barriers to critical thinking? • How do critical thinkers analyze an argument? • What is the difference between inductive and deductive reasoning? • What does creative thinking add to critical thinking? 2008 Pearson Education, Inc., publishing as Longman Publishers

What is Thinking? • Thinking is an organized and controlled mental activity that helps you solve problems, make decisions, and understand ideas. • Good thinkers form a plan and systematically try different solutions. 2008 Pearson Education, Inc., publishing as Longman Publishers

What is Critical Thinking? • Critical thinking is deliberating in a purposeful, organized manner to assess the value of information, both old and new. Critical thinkers: • Search • Compare • Analyze • Clarify • Evaluate • Conclude 2008 Pearson Education, Inc., publishing as Longman Publishers

Critical Thinking Skills and College Goals • Think systematically. • Evaluate. • Draw conclusions based on logic. 2008 Pearson Education, Inc., publishing as Longman Publishers

Reader’s Tip: Four Habits of Effective Critical Thinkers • Be willing to plan. • Be flexible. • Be persistent. • Be willing to self-correct. 2008 Pearson Education, Inc., publishing as Longman Publishers

Terminology for Critical Thinking 2008 Pearson Education, Inc., publishing as Longman Publishers

Barriers to Critical Thinking • Frame of reference. • Wishful thinking. • Hasty moral judgments. • Reliance on authority. • Labels. 2008 Pearson Education, Inc., publishing as Longman Publishers

Critical Thinkers: • Hold their own opinions up to scrutiny. • Drive to the heart of the issues. • Assess reasons for opposing views. • Solve problems. • Gain knowledge. • Justify their own positions. • Gain confidence. 2008 Pearson Education, Inc., publishing as Longman Publishers

Courtroom Analogy • What is the issue? • What are the arguments? • What is the evidence? • What is the verdict? 2008 Pearson Education, Inc., publishing as Longman Publishers

Review: How to Think Critically • Be willing to plan. Think first & write later. Don’t be impulsive. Develop a habit of planning. • Be flexible. Be open to new ideas. Consider new solutions for old problems. • Be persistent. Continue to work even when you are tired and discouraged. Good thinking is hard work. • Be willing to self-correct. Don’t be defensive about errors. Figure out what went wrong and learn from your mistakes. 2008 Pearson Education, Inc., publishing as Longman Publishers

Recognizing an Argument • An argument is an assertion that supports a conclusion and is intended to persuade. • To identify arguments, use inferential skills and recognize the underlying purpose or intent of the author. 2008 Pearson Education, Inc., publishing as Longman Publishers

Recognizing an Argument • An argument is an assertion that supports a conclusion and is intended to persuade. • Ex: “You should water the grass tonight because rain is not predicted for several days.” • Non-argumentative statements do not question truth but simply offer information to explain and thereby help us understand. • Ex: “The grass is wet because it rained last night.” 2008 Pearson Education, Inc., publishing as Longman Publishers

Steps in Analyzing an Argument • Identify the position on the issue. • Identify the support in the argument. • Evaluate the support. • Evaluate the argument. 2008 Pearson Education, Inc., publishing as Longman Publishers

Signal Words to Identify the Position on an Issue • As a result • Consequently • Finally • For these reasons • In summary • It follows that • Therefore • Thus, should 2008 Pearson Education, Inc., publishing as Longman Publishers

Signal Words to Identify the Support in the Argument • Because • Since • If • First, second, finally • Assuming that • Given that 2008 Pearson Education, Inc., publishing as Longman Publishers

Reader’s Tip: Types of Support for Arguments • Facts: Objective truths. • Ask: How were the facts gathered? Are they true? • Examples: Anecdotes to demonstrate the truth. • Ask: Are the examples true and relevant? • Analogies: Comparisons to similar cases. • Ask: Are the analogies accurate and relevant? • Authority: Words from a recognized expert. • Ask: What are the credentials and biases of the expert? 2008 Pearson Education, Inc., publishing as Longman Publishers

Reader’s Tip: Types of Support for Arguments • Causal relationship: Saying one thing caused another. • Ask: Is it an actual cause or merely an association? • Common knowledge claim: Assertion of wide acceptance. • Ask: Is it relevant? Does everyone really believe it? • Statistics: Numerical data. • Ask: Do the numbers accurately describe the phenomenon? • Personal experiences: Personal anecdotes. • Ask: Is the experience applicable to other situations? 2008 Pearson Education, Inc., publishing as Longman Publishers

Evaluate the Support • Fallacy - An inference that appears to be reasonable at first glance, but closer inspection proves it to be unrelated, unreliable, or illogical. • Relevance fallacies • Believability fallacies • Consistency fallacies 2008 Pearson Education, Inc., publishing as Longman Publishers

Relevance Fallacies: Is the Support Related to the Conclusion? - Part (1) • Ad hominem: An attack on the person rather than the issue in hopes that if the person is opposed, the idea will be opposed. • Ex: Do not listen to Mr. Hite’s views on education because he is a banker. • Bandwagon: The idea that everybody is doing it and you will be left out if you do not quickly join the crowd. • Ex: Everybody around the world is drinking Coke, so you should too. • Misleading analogy: A comparison of two things suggesting that they are similar when they are in fact distinctly different. • Ex: College students are just like elementary school students; they need to be taught self-discipline. 2008 Pearson Education, Inc., publishing as Longman Publishers

Relevance Fallacies: Is the Support Related to the Conclusion? - Part (2) • Straw person: A distorted or exaggerated form of the opponent’s argument is introduced and knocked down as if to represent a totally weak opposition. • Ex: When a teenage daughter is told she cannot go out on the weeknight before a test, she replies with “It’s unreasonable to say that I can never go out on a weeknight.” • Testimonials: Opinions of agreement from respected celebrities who are not actually experts. • Ex: A famous actor endorses a headache pill. 2008 Pearson Education, Inc., publishing as Longman Publishers

Relevance Fallacies: Is the Support Related to the Conclusion? - Part (3) • Transfer: An association with a positively or negatively regarded person or thing in order to lend the same association to the argument (also guilt or virtue by association). • Ex: A local politician quotes President Lincoln in a speech as if Lincoln would have agreed with and voted for the candidate. 2008 Pearson Education, Inc., publishing as Longman Publishers

Believability Fallacies: Is the support believable or highly suspicious? – Part (1) • Incomplete facts or cards stacking: Factual details are omitted to misrepresent reality. • Ex: Buy stock in this particular restaurant chain because it is under new management and people eat out a lot. • Misinterpreted statistics: Numerical data are applied to unrelated populations that the numbers were never intended to represent. • Ex: More than 20 percent of people exercise daily and thus do not need fitness training. 2008 Pearson Education, Inc., publishing as Longman Publishers

Believability Fallacies: Is the support believable or highly suspicious? – Part (2) • Overgeneralizations: Examples and anecdotes are asserted as if they apply to all cases rather than a select few. • Ex: High school students do little work during their senior year and thus are overwhelmed at college. • Questionable authority: A testimonial suggests that people who are not experts actually do have authority in a certain area. • Ex: Dr. Lee, a sociology professor, testified that the DNA reports were 100 percent accurate. 2008 Pearson Education, Inc., publishing as Longman Publishers

Consistency Fallacies: Does the Support Hold Together or Does it Fall Apart & Contradict Itself? – Part (1) • Appeals to emotions: Highly charged language is used for emotional manipulation. • Ex: Give money to our organization to help these children—these starving orphans---who are in desperate need of medical attention. • Appeals to pity: Pleas to support the underdog are made on behalf of a person or issue. • Ex: Please give me an A for the course because I need it to get into law school. • Begging the question or circular reasoning: Support for the conclusion merely restates the conclusion. • Ex: Drugs should not be legalized because it should be against the law to take illegal drugs. 2008 Pearson Education, Inc., publishing as Longman Publishers

Consistency Fallacies: Does the Support Hold Together or Does it Fall Apart & Contradict Itself? – Part (2) • Oversimplification: An issue is reduced to two simple choices, without consideration of other alternatives. • Ex: The choices are very simple in supporting our foreign-policy decision to send troops. You are either for America or against it. • Slippery slope: Objections to an issue are raised because unless dealt with, it will lead to greater evil and disastrous consequences. • Ex: Support for assisting the suicide of a terminally ill patient will lead to the ultimate disposal of the marginally sick and elderly. 2008 Pearson Education, Inc., publishing as Longman Publishers

Evaluate the Argument: Four degrees of support • Unrelated reasons give no support. • A few weak reasons do not adequately support. • Many weak reasons can support. • Strong related reasons provide support. Is there really global warming? 2008 Pearson Education, Inc., publishing as Longman Publishers

Inductive Inductive reasoning: Starts by gathering data. Considers all available material. Formulates a conclusion. Deductive Deductive reasoning: Starts with the conclusion of a previous experience. Applies it to a new situation. Inductive & Deductive Reasoning 2008 Pearson Education, Inc., publishing as Longman Publishers

Creative and Critical Thinking • Vertical thinking is straightforward and a logical way of thinking. • Lateral thinking is a way of thinking around a problem or even redefining the problem. • Creative thinking involves both vertical and lateral thinking. 2008 Pearson Education, Inc., publishing as Longman Publishers

Summary Points • What is thinking? • What is critical thinking? • What are the characteristics of critical thinkers? • What are the barriers to critical thinking? • How do critical thinkers analyze an argument? • What is the difference between inductive and deductive reasoning? • What does creative thinking add to critical thinking? 2008 Pearson Education, Inc., publishing as Longman Publishers

Search the Net • For suggested Web sites and other research activities about critical thinking, go to: • http://www.ablongman.com/smith/ 2008 Pearson Education, Inc., publishing as Longman Publishers

Vocabulary Booster • Complete the vocabulary exercises for “Lights, Camera, Action!” from your textbook. 2008 Pearson Education, Inc., publishing as Longman Publishers

• More by User

Promoting Critical Thinking in the Classroom

Promoting Critical Thinking in the Classroom Presented by Dr. Zachary Goodell, Co-Director Center for Teaching Excellence

1.07k views • 25 slides

Cooperative Strategy

Chapter 10. Cooperative Strategy. Robert E. Hoskisson Michael A. Hitt R. Duane Ireland. The Strategic Management Process. Chapter 1 Introduction to Strategic Management. Chapter 2 Strategic Leadership. Strategic Thinking. Chapter 3 The External Environment. Chapter 4 The Internal

3.96k views • 38 slides

Strategic Entrepreneurship

Chapter 12. Strategic Entrepreneurship. Robert E. Hoskisson Michael A. Hitt R. Duane Ireland. The Strategic Management Process. Chapter 1 Introduction to Strategic Management. Chapter 2 Strategic Leadership. Strategic Thinking. Chapter 3 The External Environment. Chapter 4

1.85k views • 25 slides

International Strategy

Chapter 9. International Strategy. Robert E. Hoskisson Michael A. Hitt R. Duane Ireland. The Strategic Management Process. Chapter 1 Introduction to Strategic Management. Chapter 2 Strategic Leadership. Strategic Thinking. Chapter 3 The External Environment. Chapter 4 The Internal

2.53k views • 26 slides

Security &amp; Loss Prevention: An Introduction

Security &amp; Loss Prevention: An Introduction. 5 th Edition Philip Purpura. Part 1. INTRODUCTION TO SECURITY AND LOSS PREVENTION. Chapter 1. The History of Security and Loss Prevention: A Critical Perspective. Chapter 1. WHY CRITICAL THINKING? HOW CAN WE THINK CRITICALLY?

1.63k views • 86 slides

Critical Thinking in Nursing

Critical Thinking in Nursing. Sheryl Abelew MSN RN. Chapter 4. Priority Setting. Priority Setting. Important step in the critical thinking process Includes effective time management

2k views • 64 slides

Corporate Governance

Chapter 11. Corporate Governance. Robert E. Hoskisson Michael A. Hitt R. Duane Ireland. The Strategic Management Process. Chapter 1 Introduction to Strategic Management. Chapter 2 Strategic Leadership. Strategic Thinking. Chapter 3 The External Environment. Chapter 4 The Internal

2.05k views • 37 slides

Critical Thinking Skills for Nurses

Critical Thinking Skills for Nurses. Develop your Problem Solving Skills! Kindred Hospital Louisville Shannon Ash, RN, BSN. Objectives. 1. Define critical thinking. 2. Identify critical thinking tools to use in nursing practice.

1.88k views • 40 slides

Foundations of Critical Thinking

Foundations of Critical Thinking. Critical Thinking. What is It? Why is it Important? How Does it Improve Teaching and Learning?. Critical Thinking is the art of analyzing and assessing thinking in order to improve it. Crit.

1.75k views • 73 slides

Math and Thinking Maps

Math and Thinking Maps. Presented by : Bonnie Jones [email protected] August 3, 2006. What do you hope to walk away with today? Why did you choose this session?. Thinking and Math. What type of thinking occurs daily in math? . Thinking done in math class.

1.33k views • 19 slides

Supply Chain Management: From Vision to Implementation

Supply Chain Management: From Vision to Implementation. Chapter 3: Process Thinking: SCM’s Foundation. Chapter 3: Learning Objectives. Identify and describe the challenges created by functional thinking. Discuss the anatomy of a typical process. Describe the flows that comprise a process.

1.36k views • 50 slides

Critical Thinking

Critical Thinking. All of the following examples came from Daniel Kahneman’s book Thinking, Fast and Slow . Question #1. Here is a simple puzzle. Do not try to solve it but listen to your intuition: A bat and ball cost $1.10. The bat costs one dollar more than the ball.

967 views • 84 slides

Tuesday 10/8/13

Tuesday 10/8/13. Collect Critical Thinking activities from Unit 1 Introduction to Unit 2: Enlightenment Revolutions Glorious Revolution notes, read Prologue Section 3 HW: Finish GR notes?. Tuesday 10/8/13. Find the critical thinking activities listed on the small sheet

977 views • 88 slides

COMPLEX THINKING

WELCOME Complex Thinking: DOE: TS 167844 BRANDMAN: EDDU 9193 . COMPLEX THINKING. Look at the following words on the next slide and read the words aloud as soon as the slide appears. COMPLEX THINKING. Red Green Blue Yellow Black White. COMPLEX THINKING.

1.59k views • 124 slides

Using Non-Fiction as a Critical Thinking Exercise

Using Non-Fiction as a Critical Thinking Exercise. Jayne Braman, CSU San Marcos and Palomar College Leanne Maunu, Palomar College Martha Stoddard-Holmes, CSU San Marcos Sue Zolliker, Palomar College Strengthening Student Success Conference October 4, 2007 San Jose. Background on our Group.

1.23k views • 95 slides

Critical Thinking &amp; Problem Solving Strategies

Critical Thinking &amp; Problem Solving Strategies. Debbie Dillman, MSRS, RT(R) Program Chair, Radiologic Technology Ivy Tech Community College, Marion, IN. Objectives. Define critical thinking Discuss the major elements of critical thinking Name the components of critical thinking

6.59k views • 78 slides

Thinking for a Change

Thinking for a Change. Dr. John C. Maxwell. The Value of Good Thinking. Good Thinking Creates the Foundation for Good Results Good Thinking Increases Your Potential Good Thinking Produces More Good Thinking IF…You Make It a Habit. Thinking &amp; Quality of Results.

1.5k views • 65 slides

Creative and Critical Thinking

Creative and Critical Thinking. Keri Harris Cameron ISD Teacher &amp; GT Coordinator. Stories With Holes. Stories With Holes. Inspire Creative Thinking Students only ask questions that I can answer with a yes/no answer www.storieswithholes.com By Nathan Levy Not Just Schoolwork (gr. 3-12).

1.58k views • 72 slides

Chapter 8: Thinking and Language Case Study: Can Animals Talk to Us?

Chapter 8: Thinking and Language Case Study: Can Animals Talk to Us? Section 1: Understanding Thinking Section 2: Problem Solving Section 3: Reasoning and Decision Making Section 4: Language Lab: Applying What You’ve Learned. Language Studies with Animals. Conclusions.

1.1k views • 74 slides

Chapter 9 Critical Parameters in WDM Technology

Chapter 9 Critical Parameters in WDM Technology. 9.2 Multiplexers and Demultiplexers 9.2.1 Channel Band Channel Spacing and Bandwidth Isolation and Crosstalk Ripple on the Peak 9.2.2 Polarization Dependent Effects Polarization Dependent Loss (PDL) Polarization Mode Dispersion

1.2k views • 80 slides

Chapter 7: Process Synchronization

Chapter 7: Process Synchronization. Background The Critical-Section Problem Synchronization Hardware Semaphores Classical Problems of Synchronization Critical Regions Monitors Synchronization in Solaris 2 &amp; Windows 2000. Background.

1.31k views • 81 slides

Thinking Mathematically

Thinking Mathematically. Chapter 11: Counting Methods and Probability Theory. Thinking Mathematically. Section 1: The Fundamental Counting Principle. The Fundamental Counting Principle.

1.34k views • 106 slides

• International
• Schools directory
• Resources Jobs Schools directory News Search

Introduction to Critical Thinking (PPTX)

Subject: Philosophy and ethics

Age range: 14 - 18

Resource type: Lesson (complete)

Last updated

16 January 2023

• Share through email
• Share through twitter
• Share through linkedin
• Share through facebook
• Share through pinterest

This 30-slide PowerPoint has been carefully designed with both the teacher and the student in mind. It is aesthetically pleasing, informative without being too “wordy,” and arranged so that there is an organic flow to the presentation. Also of importance, it is based on an online chapter titled, “What is Critical Thinking?” on OSU’s website that is available to anyone. For this reason, the reading can be assigned in advance so that the students can read about the subject before the presentation. Other websites were also used in a supplementary manner to build this PowerPoint.

Here are a few topics that are covered:

What is Critical Thinking? What is Critical Thinking not? Attitudes That Are Obstacles to Critical Thinking 7 Thinking Habits That Characterize Critical Thinking Examples of Critical Thinking Questions to Encourage Critical Thinking

Tes paid licence How can I reuse this?

Your rating is required to reflect your happiness.

It's good to leave some feedback.

Something went wrong, please try again later.

This resource hasn't been reviewed yet

To ensure quality for our reviews, only customers who have purchased this resource can review it

Report this resource to let us know if it violates our terms and conditions. Our customer service team will review your report and will be in touch.

Not quite what you were looking for? Search by keyword to find the right resource:

• My presentations

Auth with social network:

Download presentation

We think you have liked this presentation. If you wish to download it, please recommend it to your friends in any social system. Share buttons are a little bit lower. Thank you!

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Critical Thinking. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/excellence-e-learning-asking-right-questions-ken-turner-lion-?trk=hb_ntf_MEGAPHONE_ARTICLE_POST.

Published by Henry Watkins Modified over 8 years ago

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Critical Thinking. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/excellence-e-learning-asking-right-questions-ken-turner-lion-?trk=hb_ntf_MEGAPHONE_ARTICLE_POST."— Presentation transcript:

Stepping it Up: Combining TBL and Critical Thinking Strategies Harry Meeuwsen University of Texas at el Paso.

SCIENCE LET’S INVESTIGATE.

By Anthony Campanaro & Dennis Hernandez

CT is a self-directed process by which we take deliberate steps to think at the highest level of quality. CT is skillful, responsible thinking that is.

You’re the author – what were your intentions?  A dot point outline of unrelated, random thoughts loosely connected to your writing  A plan for your.

Evaluating Thinking Through Intellectual Standards

CRITICAL THINKING………... Critical Thinking What is critical thinking??? …..”the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing,

Critical Thinking Course Introduction and Lesson 1

Critical Thinking. Critical thinking Critical Thinking Critical thinking has to do with evaluating information and determining how to interpret information:

Dr Jim Briggs Masterliness Not got an MSc myself; BA DPhil; been teaching masters students for 18 years.

Critical Thinking: Does It Mean What You Think?. On Conjugation of Cyclically-Generated Banach Spaces.

Minnesota State Community and Technical College Critical Thinking Assignment Example and Assessment.

Demonstrating Critical Thinking in Writing Assignments

INTRODUCTION TO CRITICAL THINKING. “There are multiple decisions which you have to make entirely by yourself. You can’t lean on anybody else. And a good.

Definitions – John Dewey

Critical Thinking in Nursing. Definition  Critical thinking is an active, organized, cognitive process used to carefully examine one’s thinking and the.

Using Situational awareness and decision making

AIG PD The Gifted Learner in the 21 st Century A Total School Approach Critical Thinking.

Creative and Critical Thinking A Cognitive Process for Problem Solving Originally offered in Fall 2006 Cora Dzubak Jim Valkenburg Penn State –York Delta.

Analytical Thinking.

About project

© 2024 SlidePlayer.com Inc. All rights reserved.