CRITICAL THINKING: Definition and Structure

CRITICAL THINKING:

Denition and Structure

Jonathan Heard, Claire Scoular, Daniel Duckworth,

Dara Ramalingam and Ian Teo

The Australian Council for Educational Research Ltd

19 Prospect Hill Road

Camberwell VIC 3124

Phone: (03) 9277 5555

ABN 19 004 398 145

www.acer.org

ISBN 978-1-74286-587-4

the Copyright Act 1968 of Australia and subsequent amendments, and any exceptions

permitted under the current statutory licence scheme administered by Copyright Agency

(www.copyright.com.au), this publication (or any part thereof) may not be reproduced,

adapted, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted, broadcast or communicated in any

form or by any means, optical, digital, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or

otherwise, without the written permission of the copyright holder.

If any such permission is given, the Australian Council for Educational Research Ltd

must be attributed as the copyright holder of this publication, and Jonathan Heard, Claire

Scoular, Daniel Duckworth, Dara Ramalingam and Ian Teo as the authors.

Recommended APA citation

Heard J., Scoular, C., Duckworth, D., Ramalingam, D., & Teo, I. (2020). Critical thinking:

Denition and structure. Australian Council for Educational Research.

https://research.acer.edu.au/ar_misc/38

Critical Thinking: Denition and Structure 1

1 CRITICAL THINKING FOR

THE 21ST CENTURY

The development of critical thinking as an essential skill in 21st-century learning is uncontested

within educational and professional settings. The degree to which it is operationally dened,

taught and assessed, however, is not well documented. This complicates efforts to develop

critical thinking in students, as well as devise intervention techniques and assessment tools.

The ACER critical thinking framework has been developed to address the challenges associated

with teaching and assessing critical thinking. While there are many denitions of the skill,

few provide a means to operationalise critical thinking in the classroom. The framework

outlines critical thinking processes along prescribed strands and aspects informed by a sound

evidentiary basis. The aspects contained within the framework are designed to provide foci for

teaching and the basis of assessment.

Aligned with the nature of the classroom, the proposed framework characterises critical thinking

as cognitive processes that are ultimately goal directed and purpose driven. Whether that

purpose is to solve a problem, support a theory or statement, conduct an experiment, formulate

an argument, present an interpretation, undertake a critique, better understand a topic or decide

on a course of action, the skills here presented assume that critical thinking is not simply

reflective thought; it is also applied and generative.

As a teaching and assessment resource, the ACER critical thinking framework describes critical

thinking both as generally applicable sets of skills, and as they tend to be operationalised

in practice. The skill can be described and understood in a generalisable way that can be

applied across disciplines with this framework providing a consistent terminology with which

to do so. The aspects can be used to write or map assessment items, or the aspects can be

integrated into lesson plans. The aspects of critical thinking need to be embedded within the

methodologies, conventions and ‘ways of knowing’ of each of the disciplines to give their

application context, to ensure they are relevant, and that they can be sustainably integrated.

The full framework paper, which outlines the literature behind the framework can be accessed at

https://research.acer.edu.au/ar_misc/41

Critical Thinking: Denition and Structure 2

2 THE ACER CRITICAL THINKING

FRAMEWORK

The ACER critical thinking framework describes critical thinking within strands (core

elements) that are then further qualied as aspects (sub-elements). Specically, a strand

refers to the overarching conceptual category for framing the skills and knowledge addressed

by critical thinking assessments, while an aspect refers to the specic content category

within a strand. Specically, the ACER framework comprises three strands, with each strand

containing three aspects (summarised in Figure 1 and described in detail). The aspects

encompass the set of knowledge, skills, and understanding held in common by a range of

denitions in the literature.

Accordingly, the formal denition provided holds that:

To think critically is to analyse and evaluate information, reasoning and situations, according

to appropriate standards, for the purpose of constructing sound and insightful new knowledge,

understandings, hypotheses and beliefs. Critical thinking encompasses the subject’s ability to

process and synthesise information in such a way that it enables them to apply it judiciously to

tasks for informed decision-making and effective problem-solving.

An assumption that underpins the ACER framework is that while it may be theoretically possible

in denitions of critical thinking to distinguish underlying abstract skills (e.g. Facione, 2015),

these skills in practice become operationalised simultaneously, or in a near-simultaneous

manner, when authentic critical thinking tasks are performed. Though there is much agreement

in the literature that critical thinking comprises at least the abilities of inference and evaluation,

as well as analysis, interpretation, explanation and self-regulation (Thomas & Lok, 2015),

it is often the case that, in our natural, everyday use of critical thinking, these (and other) skills

are employed in parallel with each other rather than discretely or in isolation. For example,

in practice, to evaluate an argument is the near-simultaneous result of reading or listening,

interpreting, analysing and inferring from it, while also continually judging it against criteria, and

monitoring and self-correcting one’s own evaluation. Further to this, it is not necessarily the

case that to ‘analyse’, to ‘self-regulate’ or to ‘evaluate’ are the same skill in all applied contexts;

being able to evaluate a source of information for reliability is not the same as being able to

evaluate the logic of an argument or one’s options within a decision. Functionally, the same

abstract skill manifests as different skills within different applications. Thus, for the purpose

of assessment, the strands are each delineated based upon different applications of critical

thinking: to construct knowledge, to evaluate reasoning and to make decisions. Within the

aspects of each of these, it is assumed a combination of core critical thinking skills are being

applied simultaneously to produce the desired outcome.

Critical Thinking: Denition and Structure 3

Aspect 2.1:

Applies

logic

Aspect 2.2:

Identiﬁes

assumptions and

motivations

Aspect 3.2:

Evaluates

options

Aspect 3.1:

Identiﬁes criteria

for decision-making

Aspect 1.1:

Identiﬁes gaps

in knowledge

Aspect 1.2:

Discriminates

amongst

information

Aspect 1.3:

Identiﬁes

patterns and makes

connections

Aspect 2.3:

Justiﬁes

arguments

Aspect 3.3:

Tests and monitors

implementation

Critical

Thinking

Strand 1:

Knowledge

construction

Strand 2:

Evaluating

reasoning

Strand 3:

Decision-

making

Figure 1 ACER’s critical thinking framework

Critical Thinking: Denition and Structure 4

Strand 1 Knowledge construction

Knowledge construction relates to the kind of reflective and evaluative engagement with

information that is required to make accurate sense of it. It involves establishing what we know

and what we need to know, what information seems plausible, useful and reliable, and how it

can best be organised to derive explanatory sense and meaning from it.

Aspect 1.1 Identies gaps in knowledge

Identifying gaps in knowledge is about discerning what information or evidence one needs in order

to know or believe something, to understand an issue, or to address a problem or task (Kuhn, 1999;

American Libraries Association, 1989). It involves analysing and evaluating what one already knows,

and recognising that one may not have all of the information required (Bent & Stubbings, 2011), or

that one may be operating under certain misconceptions. Acknowledging possible deciencies in

one’s own understanding may take the form of posing questions to prompt further investigation

and enquiry (Ennis, 2018). It also involves a disposition towards considering, if not necessarily

incorporating, information from different sources or differing perspectives to bridge gaps in

understanding and gain a fuller picture of the situation or issue (Facione, 1990; Glaser, 1941).

Aspect 1.2 Discriminates amongst information

Once information has been sourced, collected and read, in order to think critically about its

content, it needs to be evaluated via the application of criteria (Grafstein, 2017; Paul & Elder,

2007). Discriminating amongst information and evidence includes identifying and evaluating

factors such as the currency, reliability, relevance, authorship, completeness or veracity of it.

It may include distinguishing fact from opinion, determining the strength of evidence provided

for a given claim and discerning information that is directly useful for one’s purposes from that

which is not (Brookeld, 1997; Fisher & Scriven, 1997; Sternberg, 1986).

Aspect 1.3 Identies patterns and makes connections

This aspect refers to the act of reflecting on and organising information such as data, evidence,

statements, questions, concepts, opinions, and other forms of representation, in order to create

sense and meaning from it (Sternberg, 1986; Watson & Glaser, 1964). It requires the ability to

analyse and sort information to nd patterns and construct conceptual relationships within it

(Fisher & Scriven, 1997). This often leads to the formulation via induction of tentative ‘rules’

or theories to best explain these patterns, on the basis of generalisations derived from them

(Ennis, 2018). It also involves the recognition of exceptions and counter-examples, and the

possible signicance of these.

Strand 2 Evaluating reasoning

Evaluating reasoning refers to the thinking required to discern the validity of arguments, scientic

theories, statements, proofs and other formulations of ideas. It involves analysing and evaluating

verbally-constructed arguments, sets of propositions and other non-verbal representations

of information and relationships to identify the premises that underpin a conclusion or truth

claim, judging the logic of how conclusions are reached, and ensuring one’s own arguments or

formulations are sound. Reasoning itself can be represented in a variety of forms such as verbal,

Critical Thinking: Denition and Structure 5

spatial, abstract, numerical, mechanical, algorithmic and graphical. When working in complex

problem-solving contexts, a variety of representations of reasoning may be present.

Aspect 2.1 Applies logic

Applying logic involves being able to reason through sets of propositions, rules, conditions,

statements, and premises to arrive at a true or valid conclusion (Dewey, 1933; Ennis, 2018;

Facione, 1990; Glaser, 1941). It requires the ability to apply concepts of propositional logic such

as inference, causality, contradiction, and consistency. Applying logic can be done reflectively to

evaluate the truth or validity of a given conclusion. It can also be applied predictively (i.e. beyond

the parameters of a given argument or set of conditions) in order to make sound predictions as

to what an argument or set of conditions mean – or whether they are still valid – in a different

context (Ong et el., 2018). It entails the ability to identify fallacies and technical flaws in various

representations of reasoning (Paul & Elder, 1999a; 1999b).

Aspect 2.2 Identies assumptions and motivations

Beyond evaluating the technical aspects of an argument (or other representations of reasoning)

as it is presented, critical thinking also requires the ability to identify and evaluate the un-

presented elements that operate within one’s own – or someone else’s – reasoning. It involves

identifying where certain conclusions are predicated on assumptions, what assumptions these

are, and whether they are reasonable (Ennis, 2018; Glaser, 1941). Related to this, it entails the

ability to think sceptically about opinions, explanations or propositions made, in order to identify

possible biases that may be governing the line of reasoning presented, and the values or beliefs

that may be motivating these (McPeck, 1981; Mezirow, 2009).

Aspect 2.3 Justies arguments

Justifying arguments involves the ability to formulate one’s ideas, and hold one’s own claims

and opinions to account by supporting them with evidence and sound reasoning, and avoid

biases in one’s own reasoning (Fisher & Scriven, 1997). It also demands the ability to predict,

both accurately and logically, the consequences of what one is proposing. It requires an ability

to explain the evidence and reasoning that leads one to make a claim (Newmann, 1990) and

includes the capacity to rebut challenges to one’s argument, but also to acknowledge the

potential limitations of it (Siegel, 1980).

Strand 3 Decision-making

While related to problem-solving, decision-making is distinct in that it only necessarily requires

the analytical and evaluative – rather than the generative or creative – aspects of problem-solving,

thus aligning more neatly within a framework of critical thinking.

Aspect 3.1 Identies criteria for decision-making

To make an effective decision, one rst needs to understand the problem or situation about

which a decision needs to be made, in order to derive criteria for judging the decision (Ennis,

1985; Moore, 2010). Understanding the criteria for a decision, therefore, requires not only the

analysis of the current situation in terms of constraints and demands but the ability to recognise

what would constitute an ideal outcome (Facione, 1990; Lipman, 1987).

Critical Thinking: Denition and Structure 6

Aspect 3.2 Evaluates options

Having established, or been given, criteria against which to judge possible conclusions, an

ability to analyse and evaluate the strengths and limitations of each possible course of action

is fundamental to decision-making (Ennis, 1985) and an aspect of applied critical thinking

(Glaser, 1941). It involves assessing how well certain options will satisfy the demands of a

given challenge or problem while still operating within the conditions or constraints imposed

by the situation (Jimenez-Aleixandre & Puig, 2012). Even when all available options have

been evaluated, an ideal solution may still not emerge; a crucial aspect of evaluating options,

therefore, is determining which option will ‘increase the probability of a desirable outcome’

(Halpern, 1998).

Aspect 3.3 Tests and monitors implementation

Having made a decision, or come to a conclusion, after formulating a sound theoretical

justication for it (see Aspect 2.3: Justifying arguments), a critical thinker tests the

effectiveness of their decision, by monitoring its actual impacts and implications (Ennis, 1985;

Glaser, 1941; Sternberg, 1986). This requires the ability to analyse objectively and accurately the

positive and negative effects of a decision or conclusion, comparing these results or feedback

against the intended outcomes, fairly identifying factors that may be causing any unintended

and/or undesirable outcomes, and re-evaluating the decision or conclusion, making adjustments

where possible.

3 REFERENCES

Bent, M., & Stubbings, R. (2011). The SCONUL

seven pillars of information literacy:

The core model. In SCONUL (Ed.),

SCONUL Working Group on Information

Literacy. SCONUL.

Brookeld, S.D. (1997). Assessing critical

thinking. New Directions for Adult and

Continuing Education. 75 (Fall), 17–29.

Dewey, J. (1933). How we think. A

restatement of the relation of reflective

thinking to the educative process

(Rev. ed.). D. C. Heath.

Ennis, R.H. (1985). A logical basis for

measuring critical thinking skills.

Educational Leadership, 43(2), 44–48.

Ennis, R.H. (2018). Critical thinking across the

curriculum: A vision. Topoi, 37, 165–184.

Facione, P.A. (1990). Critical thinking: A

statement of expert consensus for

purposes of educational assessment

and instruction. California Academic

Press.

Facione, P. (2015). 2015 Update on the critical

thinking mindset from Delphi Report

principle investigator, Dr. Peter Facione.

https://insightassessment.com/

wp-content/uploads/ia/pdf/Delphi-

Research-Table-1-Ideal-Critical-

Thinker.pdf

Fisher, A., & M. Scriven (1997). Critical

thinking: Its denition and assessment.

Edgepress and Centre for Research

in Critical Thinking, University of East

Anglia.

Critical Thinking: Denition and Structure 7

Glaser, E.M. (1941). An experiment in the

development of critical thinking.

Columbia University Teachers College.

Grafstein, A. (2017). Information literacy

and critical thinking: context and

practice. In D. Sales & M. Pinto (Eds.),

Pathways into information literacy and

communities of practice (pp. 3–28).

https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-

100673-3.00001-0

Halpern, D. F. (1998). Teaching critical

thinking for transfer across domains:

Dispositions, skills, structure training,

and metacognitive monitoring.

American Psychologist, 53(4), 449–455.

Jimenez-Aleixandre, M.P., & Puig, B. (2012).

Argumentation, evidence and critical

thinking. In B. Fraser, K. Tobin & C.

McRobbie (Eds.), Second international

handbook for science education Vol 2

(pp. 1001–1017). Springer.

Kuhn, D. (1999). A developmental model

of critical thinking. Educational

Researcher, 28(2), 218–239.

Lipman, M. (1987). Critical thinking: What can

it be? Analytic Thinking, 8(1), 5–12.

McPeck, J.E. (1981). Critical thinking and

education. Routledge.

Mezirow, J. (2009). Transformative learning

theory. In J. Mezirow & E. W. Taylor

& (Eds.), Transformative learning in

practice: Insights from community,

workplace, and higher education

(pp. 18–32). Jossey-Bass.

Newmann, F.M. (1990). Higher order thinking

in teaching social studies: A rationale

for the assessment of classroom

thoughtfulness. Journal of Curriculum

Studies, 22(1), 41–56.

Ong, T., Normand, M.P., & Merritt, S.J.

(2018). Using equivalence-based

instruction to teach college students

to identify logical fallacies. Behavioural

Interventions, 33(2), 122–135.

Paul, R.W., & Elder, L. (1999a). Critical

thinking: Teaching students to

seek the logic of things. Journal of

Developmental Education, 23(1), 34–35.

Paul, R.W., & Elder, L. (1999b). Critical

thinking: Teaching students to seek

the logic of things, Part 2. Journal of

Developmental Education, 23(2), 34–35.

Paul, R.W. & Elder, L. (2007). Critical thinking

competency standards: Standards,

principles, performance indicators, and

outcomes with a critical thinking master

rubric. http://www.criticalthinking.org/

les/SAM_Comp%20Stand_07opt.pdf

Paul, R.W., Elder, L., Bartell, T. (1997). A brief

history of the idea of critical thinking.

https://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/

a-brief-history-of-the-idea-of-critical-

thinking/408

Siegel, H. (1980). Critical thinking as an

educational ideal. The Educational

Forum, 45(1), 7–23.

Sternberg, R. J. (1986). Critical thinking: Its

nature, measurement, and improvement.

National Institution of Education.

https://les.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/

ED272882.pdf

Thomas, K., & Lok, B. (2015). Teaching

critical thinking: an operational

framework. In M. Davies & R. Barnett

(Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of critical

thinking in higher education

(pp. 93–105). Macmillan.

Watson, G. & Glaser, E.M. (1964). Watson-

Glaser critical thinking appraisal

manual. Psychological Corporation.