Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Copyright 2013 Renate Kahlke, Jonathan White. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative
Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly cited. In accordance of the Creative Commons Attribution License all
Copyrights 2013 are reserved for SCIRP and the owner of the intellectual property Renate Kahlke, Jonathan
White. All Copyright 2013 are guarded by law and by SCIRP as a guardian.
Historically, health science education has focused on content knowledge. However, there has been in-
creasing recognition that education must focus more on the thinking processes required of future health
professionals. In an effort to teach these processes, educators of health science students have looked to the
concept of critical thinking. But what does it mean to think critically? Despite some attempts to clarify
and define critical thinking in health science education and in other fields, it remains a complex and con-
troversial notion that is difficult to define and, consequently, difficult to study (Abrami et al., 2008, p.
1103). This selected review offers a roadmap of the various understandings of critical thinking currently
in circulation. We will survey three prevalent traditions from which critical thinking theory emerges and
the major features of the discourses associated with them: critical thinking as a set of technical skills, as a
humanistic mode of accessing creativity and exploring self, and as a mode of ideology critique with a goal
of emancipation. The goal of this literature review is to explore the various ways in which critical think-
ing is understood in the literature, how and from where those understandings emerge, and the debates that
shape each understanding.
Keywords: Critical Thinking; Medical Education; Nursing Education; Higher Education; Adult Education;
Social Work Education; Higher-Order Learning
Introduction: What Is Critical Thinking? ing and styles of reasoning (Mason, 2009, p. 13), each ema-
Over the years, many attempts have been made to create a nating from different theoretical and normative positions, and
general definition of critical thinking (e.g. Black, 2008; Facione, different disciplinary and practice contexts. Each critical think-
1990). Given analytic philosophys emphasis on reasoning and ing tradition, with its attendant assumptions, will have strengths
logic, many departments of philosophy have claimed expertise and weaknesses for educational theory; thus, like Yanchar, Slife,
over critical thinking (Brookfield, 2012). However, there are & Warne (2008), we hold that no approach is likely to be uni-
many different ways of understanding critical thinking, ema- versally accepted or to provide sufficient resources for critical
analysis across all fields and under all circumstances (p. 269).
nating from a wide variety of epistemological and theoretical
Rather, it is important to understand the roots and assumptions
positions (Brookfield, 2012). Many authors have lamented that
behind these various perspectives in order to understand and
critical thinking means many different things to different peo-
critically evaluate them in context. In introducing her edited
ple, and that there is a lack of consensus (e.g. Black, 2008;
book on critical thinking, Re-thinking Reason, Walters (1994a)
Fischer, Spiker, & Riedel, 2009). However, we believe that the
proposes an historical progression of critical thinking scholar-
fragmentation of discourses on critical thinking may be repre- ship beginning with a first wavewhere critical thinking is
sentative of fundamental differences in epistemological and understood as a set of logical procedures that are analytical,
normative beliefsthat is, what critical thinking means varies abstract, universal, and objective (p. 1). The first wave fo-
depending on what people believe about how and why we en- cuses on improving reasoning processes. Because this approach
gage in thought. Further, individuals understandings of critical largely looks at critical thinking as a set of skills, techniques or
thinking may vary depending on the disciplinary and practice procedures, it has also been referred to as the technical or in-
contexts in which the thinking takes place. The term critical strumental approach (Jones-Devitt & Smith, 2007); we will
thinking can hold many different meanings, both within and refer to it as the technical approach here.
between traditions. The second wave of critical thinking scholarship is led by
Thus, instead of attempting to define critical thinking, em- scholars who believe that purely technical approaches amount
bracing some traditions while excluding others, this literature to a reduction of critical thinking to a set of procedures. Second
review will treat critical thinking as an array of kinds of think- wave scholars seek to emphasize the creative, affective, theo-
Open Access 1
R. KAHLKE, J. WHITE
retical, and normative presuppositions (Walters, 1994a, p. 2) however, not all approaches will fit squarely within one wave
that they believe to be inherent in critical thinking. The second or another. Many approaches draw on elements of more than
wave offers a constructivist critique of the idea that knowledge
one wave, and understandings may shift depending on the
can be objectively accessed; it seeks to embrace the liberal
practice context. Moreover, these waves might be better
humanist assertion that critical thinking be understood contex-
thought of as traditions, since they do not occur as a linear his-
tually (McLaren, 1994, p. xii). Critical thinking in the second
torical progression. For example, Walters first wavewhere
wave becomes a highly contextual and creative process. Be-
critical thinking is a set of technical skills, understood through
cause of this interest in reasserting the role of human unique-
ness, self-exploration, and social interaction, like McLaren analytic philosophys concern with reasoning processesis
(1994), we have called Walterss (1994a) second wave the still very much the dominant understanding today (Brookfield,
humanist tradition in critical thinking. 2012). Similarly, McLarens (1994) third wave does not neces-
In his forward to Walterss book, McLaren (1994) suggests sarily follow on the heels of the second wave, particularly given
the addition of a third wave of critical thinking theory, that it emanates from much earlier ideas about critical thinking
which speak[s] to critical pedagogys concern with reasoning linked to critical pedagogy, such as Paulo Freires concept of
as a sociopolitical practice (p. xii), drawing on the deconstruc- critical consciousness first developed in Pedagogy of the Op-
tionism in critical theory and critical pedagogy. Like Walterss pressed (Freire, 1996) and first published in Portuguese in 1968.
(1994a) second wave, McLarens (1994) third wave under- The remainder of this review will look at each wave in Wal-
stands knowledge as inherently constructed, and takes social ters and McLarens framework, attending to how these dis-
deconstruction as its guiding philosophy. The normative di- courses have been taken up in the health sciences.
mension of the third wave is emphasized, understanding
thinking as always-already a political project. Since the third Technical Critical Thinking
wave is linked to issues of social justice and emancipation, I
The technical approach to critical thinking is still the domi-
have called it the emancipatory approach to critical thinking.
Figure 1 maps these three traditions in critical thinking theory nant approach today (Brookfield, 2012; Jones-Devitt & Smith,
and indicates their relationship to other concepts that will be 2007; Yanchar, Jackson, Hansen & Hansen, 2012). This ap-
discussed later in this paper. proach is derived from the discipline of analytic philosophy
Because of its applicability across disciplinary contexts, Wal- (Brookfield, 2012) andthough some definitions of critical think-
ters and McLarens framework will be used in this review as a ing within this category also recognize that there may be dispo-
way of positioning various approaches to critical thinking ac- sitions or attitudes that contribute to critical thinking (e.g. Faci-
cording to their epistemological and normative assumptions; one, 2011; Fischer, Spiker, & Reidel, 2009; Halpern, 2009)pri-
marily looks at critical thinking as a set of techniques or general
Figure 1.
Three traditions in critical thinking.
skills that can be taught. ness, honesty in evaluating ones own biases and prejudices,
Technical understandings of critical thinking are connected prudence in judgement, willingness to reconsider or re-evaluate
to specific techniques such as recognizing logical fallacies, judgments, clarity, orderliness, diligence, reasonableness, care,
distinguishing between bias and fact, opinion and evidence, persistence, and precision (Facione, 1990). These skills and
judgement and valid inference, and becoming skilled at using attitudes provide a starting point for a definition of critical
different forms of reasoning (inductive, deductive, formal, in- thinking in the technical tradition, though these are contested
formal, analogical, and so on) (Brookfield, 2012, pp. 32-33). It even within this tradition. The sections below look at the many
is heavily linked tosometimes overlapping or encompass- ing ways in which the meaning of critical thinking is contested
other constructs, such as reasoning (Black, 2008; Bowell & both within and between traditions.
Kemp, 2001; Facione, 2011; Lipman, 1988; Mason, 2009;
Missimer, 1994; Nosich, 2005; Thomson, 2001), problem-
Major Debates
solving (Mason, 2009; Nosich, 2005), evidence appraisal
(Brookfield, 2012; Halpern, 2003; Thomson, 2001), and reflec- Several major debates exist within the technical critical
tion (Abu-Dabat, 2011; Black, 2008; Garrison, 1992; Halpern, thinking tradition. First, scholars in the technical tradition ques-
2003; Nosich, 2005). This approach is present in the majority tion the extent to which critical thinking requires the affective
of critical thinking self-help resources, offering solutions for dispositions or attitudes discussed aboveas opposed to in-
teaching and learning critical thinking skills (e.g., Bowell & cluding only reasoning skills. Although the Delphi report de-
Kemp, 2001; Epstein, 2003; Halpern, 2003; Nosich, 2005, fined critical thinking as encompassing both skills and disposi-
Thomson, 2001). tions, the contributors were quite divided on this issueonly a
two-thirds majority agreed that dispositions could be included
The Delphi Consensus: A Definition in a definition of critical thinking (Facione, 1990). Perhaps the
reason that this issue is so contentious is that a focus on affec-
The technical understanding of critical thinking is far from tive dispositions to some extent takes critical thinking away
conceptually coherent. Definitions of critical thinking within from the domain of purely technical reasoning procedures, a
this tradition abound (e.g., Black, 2008; Ennis, 1962; Facione, hallmark of critical thinking in this tradition. Instead, critical
1990, Lipman, 1988); recent reviews of the literature have re- thinking is at least in part a quality of the thinker, rather than
vealed many different conceptions of CT [critical thinking] strictly a behaviour. While technical critical thinking skills
with only a modest degree of overlap (Fischer et al., 2009, p. might be teachable, the educational processes involved in
5). In 1990, Peter Facione (1990) published the American Phi- changing attitudes or dispositionsif, in fact, dispositions can
losophical Associations Delphi Report, to which many major be changedcontinues to be murky ground (Tishman, Jay, &
critical thinking theorists contributed (including Robert Ennis, Perkins, 1993).
Mathew Lipman, Stephen Norris, Richard Paul and Mark Second, debates continue to rage around the extent to which
Weinstein). Although the Delphi Report has not served to pro- critical thinking skills are domain specific, as opposed to a set
vide a single definition for critical thinking (Fischer et al., of general and transferable skills and abilities. Many early criti-
2009), it is likely the most widely recognized and contributed to cal thinking scholars argued that critical thinking is comprised
definition of critical thinking in circulation; moreover, it covers of a general set of skills that, once learned, can be applied to
many concepts that consistently reappear in debates about any subject. Ennis (1989, 1990) is credited with championing
critical thinking in the technical tradition. this approach. McPeck (1990, 1994), on the other hand, argues
The report defines critical thinking broadly, as that critical thinking skills are particular to a subject and disci-
purposeful, self-regulatory judgment which results in in- pline; a certain amount of disciplinary fluency is required in
terpretation, analysis, evaluation, and inference, as well as order to engage in critical thinking in any subject, and critical
explanation of the evidential, conceptual, methodological, thinking in one domain does not necessarily transfer to others.
criteriological, or contextual considerations upon which However, more recent scholars dealing with these debates often
that judgment is based. CT [critical thinking] is essential conclude that critical thinking is both a set of skills and disposi-
as a tool of inquiry. (Facione, 1990, p. 2) tions (Halpern, 2003; Simpson & Courtney, 2002), and that it is
to an extent subject specific, but that there are also aspects of
This definition focuses on critical thinking as reasoning, critical thinking that can cross disciplinary boundaries (Brook-
evaluation and judgment. The Delphi Report also indicates a set field, 2012; Gambrill, 2012; Halpern, 2003; Nosich, 2005).
of six critical thinking skills required to make such judgments, Technical understandings of critical thinking have also come
including interpretation, analysis, evaluation, inference, expla- under fire from the quarters of feminist and cultural studies
nation and self-regulation. The majority of these skills are un- (Norris, 1995). According to critics, a technical approach to
derstood as part of the reasoning processin order to think critical thinking is inherently tied to western logocentric con-
through a problem or issue, the thinker goes through a process ceptions of rationality that exclude feminist ways of knowing
of gathering, interpreting, analyzing and evaluating information, (Thayer-Bacon, 1000; Walters, 1994(b); Warren, K. 1994) and
making inferences and generating an explanation or decision knowledges of non-Western cultures (Norris, 1995; Thayer-
based on that information. Like other conceptualizations of Bacon, 2000). Critics from critical theory and critical pedagogy
critical thinking, the report also lists a series of affective dispo- suggest that the technical approach to critical thinking fails to
sitions, which are said to support critical thinking, these include: provide an adequate normative dimension, a sense of the in-
inquisitiveness, concern to become well-informed, alertness, herently political goals of critical thinking (Giroux, 1994;
trust in the inquiry process, self-confidence in ones reasoning McLaren, 1994; Kaplan, 1994; Warren, T. 1994). These cri-
skill, open-mindedness, flexibility in considering alternatives tiques have spawned the second and third waves of critical
and opinions, understanding of others opinions, fair-minded- thinking scholarship and will be discussed further below.
Technical Critical Thinking in the Health Sciences These thinkers see critical thinking as subjective in that the
As in the broader literature, technical approaches to critical thinker is always present in the act of thinking, and it is pre-
thinking dominate the literature on critical thinking in the cisely her active participation, with its attendant affective,
health sciences (Morrall & Goodman, 2012; Walthew, 2004; theoretical, and normative presuppositions, from which any
Yanchar et al., 2008). This model of critical thinking takes as analysis of fair-mindedness must proceed (Walters, 1994a, p.
its premise that critical thinking is a set of skills that can be 2). This understanding of critical thinking often stems from a
taught and learned through a series of rational systems of evi- feminist position that seeks to understand critical thinking
dence analysis (Yanchar et al., 2008). In the health sciences, through nonanalytic modes of thinking, such as imagination
technical critical thinking takes on particular characteristics and empathic intuition, as well as the straightforwardly logical
related to the thought processes engaged by health professionals. ones defended by conventional critical thinking (Walters,
Most often, it is connected to clinical and diagnostic thinking 1994a, p. 11). In general, scholars in this tradition seek either to
processes. Critical thinking as clinical or diagnostic thinking is overturn or modify dominant discourses about critical thinking
directly linked to terms such as clinical reasoning (Alfaro-Le- which stress the importance (and possibility) of individual ra-
Fevre, 2013; Crosby, 2011; Gambrill, 2012; Jones-Devitt & tional thought by emphasizing the subjectivity of thought, in-
Smith, 2007; Kreiter & Bergus, 2009; Krupat, Sprague, Wol- cluding a reclamation of individual creativity (Walters, 1994a)
paw, Haidet, & OBrien, 2011), clinical judgement (Alfaro- and an understanding that there are multiple ways of thinking
LeFevre, 2013; Brunt, 2005; Gambrill, 2012), clinical decision- and knowing (Thayer-Bacon, 2000).
making (Aberegg, OBrien, Lucarelli, & Terry, 2008; Gambrill, This claim to subjectivity also means that critical thinking is
2012; Macpherson & Owen, 2010; Simpson & Courtney, 2002; not an abstract process that can claim an objective Truth, but is
Worrell & Profetto-McGrath, 2007), diagnostic reasoning (Kru- highly contextual: just as subjects cannot be separated from
pat et al., 2011), scientific reasoning, (Gambrill, 2012), problem the process of thinking, so thinking itself cannot be separated
solving (Gambrill, 2012; Heron, 2006; Jones-Devitt & Smith, from the context in which it arises (Walters, 1994a, p. 16).
2007; Krupat et al., 2011; Simpson & Courtney, 2002; Worrell Critical thinking is always a biased activity, predicated on a
& Profetto-McGrath, 2007) and, in the discipline of Nursing, particular worldview and drawing on particular normative as-
nursing process (Gordon, 2000; Staib, 2003; Worrell & Pro- sumptions (Paul, 1994; Warren, T, 1994). Thinking takes place
fetto-McGrath, 2007). in a particular time and place, and under particular social condi-
All of these terms relate to the process of taking in and eva- tions. Critical thinking is far from abstract and universal, but is
luating complex clinical information from a variety of sources, ambiguous, malleable and contextual.
As much as humanist critical thinking theorists emphasize
but differ slightly depending on what is being thought in
the subjectivity and individual creativity of thinking, humanist
critical thinkingwhether or not critical thinking requires a
critical thinking is also often linked to a constructivist episte-
problem, for example (Simpson & Courtney, 2002)or the
mology. The context within which the individual thinks and
outcome of critical thinkingwhether or not critical thinking
constructs his or her ways of knowing is a social one. Thus,
requires a decision (Martin, 2002). Sometimes these terms are
construction of knowledge is always a social process and can-
synonymous with critical thinking; at other times distinctions
not be disconnected from the broad social constructs within
are made. For example, Alfaro-Lefevre suggests that clinical
which it is embedded (Warren, 1994). Thayer-Bacon (2000), in
reasoning is a type of critical thinking particular to the clinical particular, seeks to replace the image of the contemplative,
context. Simpson and Courtney (2002) posit that problem solv- solitary thinker with the image of critical thinking as a quilting
ing is a decision-focussed process that is not synonymous with bee, where construction of knowledgeor quiltsoccurs in a
critical thinking, but requires critical thinking in order to be social setting, and where the contributions of individual think-
done effectively. Although scholars and researchers disagree on ersor quiltersmay be quite different, but all contribute
the relationship between these terms and critical thinking, there pieces to the construction of knowledge and ideas and cannot
is significant overlap in the literature to the extent that the be understood in isolation. In this understanding of thought and
above terms often appear as almost synonymous with critical knowledge, there is no objective Truth out there, but multiple
thinking (Simpson & Courtney, 2002; Victor-Schmil, 2013). socially produced and co-created truths.