Critical Thingking
Critical Thingking
Critical Thingking
Abstract
This is Part I of a two-part reflection by Robert Ennis on his involvement in the critical thinking
movement. Part I deals with how he got started in the movement and with the development of his
influential definition of critical thinking and his conception of what critical thinking involves. Part
II of the reflection will appear in the next issue of INQUIRY, Vol. 26, No. 2 (Summer 2011), and it
will cover topics concerned with assessing critical thinking, teaching critical thinking, and what the
future may hold.
Key words: critical thinking definition, rigor, criteria, logic, looseness, progressive education, Vietnam
War protests, subject matter, critical thinking movement
“I am uneasy to think I … decide concerning truth and falsehood, reason and folly, without
knowing upon what principles I proceed.” (David Hume)
It is an honor to have received Editor Frank Fair’s decided to obtain a bachelor’s degree in philosophy rather
request to write a personal historical report about the than engineering, having done no investigating about the
development of critical thinking education.1 My response nature of academic philosophy.
emphasizes the period 1950-2010, but does reach further MIT at that time had no philosophy courses, so I
into the past, and is by no means a historian’s history of cautiously took a leave of absence, never to return. I
critical thinking. It is a personal view of the critical thinking transferred to the University of Wisconsin, Madison. There
movement and my involvement in it. Part I deals with how the contemporary philosophy to which I was exposed was
I became involved in the critical thinking movement and logical positivism, but also some of John Dewey’s work.
how my definition and conception of critical thinking have Neither satisfied me. Logical positivism seemed to be an
evolved. Part II will deal with efforts to assess and to teach interesting, challenging system, like chess, but without
critical thinking and with problems and future prospects. relevance to wisdom; and Dewey’s defense of his positions,
as well as some of his positions, seemed weak. Further-
My Background: How I Arrived at more, even though his advocacy of “reflective thinking”
Critical Thinking (Dewey, 1933) would later appeal to me, that was not part
of what was presented to me as Dewey’s philosophy. Nor
Although in my K-12 years I was exposed to an ex- did I see relevance to wisdom in my history of philosophy
cellent traditional education, I, like Gerald Nosich (2010), courses. The content came too thick and fast for me to
was quite ignorant and naive in making my early decisions. grapple with and to discuss what I now see as important
Because I did well in high school math and physics, and ideas and issues. Grappling and discussing were not part
because of the encouragement of my teachers and parents, I of the total curriculum that I experienced, though they are
went to MIT in 1945, right at the end of World War II, plan- what I now think are crucial elements in critical thinking
ning to become an engineer. Although I did well for four instruction, though of course not in themselves sufficient.
semesters in the math, engineering, and science aspects of As a result of frustration in my search for wisdom,
the curriculum, I developed some misgivings. For those I instead considered a career in the theater because my
and other personal reasons, I interrupted my studies and extra-curricular experiences there were exciting and fun,
joined the US Army, serving in the Army of Occupation and the theater actually is a way of promoting wisdom
in Japan in 1947. There I experienced a 19-year-old-type (e.g., Twelve Angry Men, a timeless play). But I rejected
total revision of my goals and interests. The war-making the theater, partly because I saw so many unemployed
technology and its effects (including what I saw in Hi- actors and dancers who were much more talented than I.
roshima during a visit there on the second anniversary There was a bit of critical thinking here: making observa-
of the bomb) convinced me that the world did not need tions and using the information in considering and being
engineers or more science and technology. It needed a open to alternatives (to some extent) when making deci-
population suffused with wisdom. At the time I thought sions. But these practices were not part of my traditional
that philosophy was the ultimate repository of wisdom, so I education.
SPRING 2011, VOL. 26, NO. 1 5
In 1950 I managed to get a BA in philosophy without the supplementation of our subject-matter courses and oth-
any knowledge of the ordinary-language philosophical er courses with a heavy dose of critical thinking instruction.
developments associated with the later Wittgenstein. More Notice that I said “supplementation,” not “supplanting.” A
ignorance. Then I heard about philosophy of education. It necessary condition for thinking critically about anything is
struck me (still naively, given what I believed about phi- being well informed, which includes subject-matter content
losophy) that what I had learned and had not yet learned where relevant. Unfortunately, aside from simple deduc-
about philosophy could somehow help the field of educa- tion, principles of critical thinking were not included in the
tion. There was some equivocation going on in my head content that I encountered — with two minor exceptions:
regarding ‘philosophy,’ but I had not been sensitized to In high school English I was taught to make classification
equivocation or ambiguity in my logic course, or any other (genus-differentia) definitions, and in college physics labs
courses. And I rightly believed that education could have an I was taught to make three measurements (instead of just
important role in developing a world population suffused one) and average the three in order to secure a more reliable
with wisdom. I decided to go into philosophy of education. measure of a quantity. In my undergraduate deductive logic
I then received some wise (though unrequested) course I was not shown that strict deductive logic rarely
advice: Learn first-hand as a teacher what goes on in applies to everyday reasoning (including that of scholars,
our education system before launching into a career in voters, and Supreme Court Justices). However, imprecise
educational theory. Though I had not sought that advice, derivation or qualified reasoning (Ennis, 1969a & 1969b,
I followed it and became a high school physical science 1981a, 1996a, 2004; discussed later in this essay) does
teacher, who also had to teach two sections of a combina- apply to everyday reasoning. Fortunately, material impli-
tion of English and social studies. It was called a “core” cation and its implausible cohorts were, as I remember it,
or “common learnings” course in progressive education not promoted in that logic course.
parlance, and it was a precursor to “writing across the The fact that I did receive advice from an experienced
curriculum.” In the process, I heard about critical thinking person about how to pursue my career is not to my credit.
from the progressive-education movement’s advocacy of it, I did not know enough to seek it out. It was in effect im-
and realized that the promotion of critical thinking would posed on me by the father of a high school friend. In none
be very important for our personal, vocational, and civic of my courses was I told the critical thinking principle that
lives, and that the survival of a democratic way of life de- one needs to make a special effort to get all the relevant
pended on the critical thinking of the voters. I still believe information appropriate for a decision, and to seek, con-
this, even more strongly, and am pleased that I have been sider, and get informed about alternatives before making
able to spend as much time as I have on critical thinking, an important decision.
only wishing that I could have accomplished more. In sum, in my K-12 and undergraduate education there
I tried to incorporate critical thinking in my teaching. was virtually no attention to the principles, procedures,
But I had little notion of how to teach it or even of what and criteria for thinking critically in or out of the subjects
critical thinking was — other than propaganda analysis I studied. Basically I was engaged in acquiring, and was
(Institute for Propaganda Analysis, 1938), which was tested on, straight subject-matter knowledge only.
heavily negative and oversimplified in its approach (as is
commonly the case with the current fallacies approach to The Critical Thinking Movement as I Saw It
teaching critical thinking). and Associated with It:
After three years of high school teaching I became From Progressive Education and the
a graduate student at the University of Illinois, and en- Later Wittgenstein to the Present
rolled in a philosophy of education program with minors
in philosophy and educational measurement. I was lucky Early philosophical concerns about critical thinking
to get an assistantship with the Illinois Project for the Im- can be found, among other places, in Socrates, Plato,
provement of Thinking under the leadership of B. Othanel Aristotle, Bacon, Hume, and especially John Stuart Mill,
Smith and Kenneth Henderson. We tried to help three but John Dewey (Dewey, 1933, first edition 1910) was the
Chicago-area high schools embed critical thinking in their source of inspiration for the progressive-education K-12
subject-matter instruction, physics being the area on which critical thinking movement of which the Illinois Project
I focused. I also found myself immersed in, and fascinated for the Improvement of Thinking was a part.
by, the later-Wittgenstein movement in philosophy, which I
saw and still see to be quite relevant to education, wisdom, The Progressive Education Movement
and critical thinking, in spite of its excesses. I had finally The progressive-education movement, which was
found a home combining philosophy and education. strong in the United States from the 1920’s through the
The above-described background is, among other 1950’s, adopted and developed Dewey’s emphasis on
things, a generalizable argument-by-example in support of reflective thinking. Tests called Interpretation of Data,
6 INQUIRY: CRITICAL THINKING ACROSS THE DISCIPLINES
Application of Principles of Science, Application of Prin- war (1941-1945 for the United States) when the Eight-Year
ciples of Logical Reasoning, and Nature of Proof (Smith Study’s results appeared; the excesses that inevitably occur
and Tyler, 1942, pp. 35-156) were developed to appraise in any movement; the strong criticisms of the movement
students in the Progressive Education Association’s monu- by academic subject-matter specialists (especially Arthur
mental “Eight-Year Study,” which took place in the 1930’s. Bestor of the University of Illinois); and (the final nail
(See Aiken, 1942, for an overview.) In that study, the words in the coffin) Russia’s beating the USA to having a suc-
“critical thinking” and “clear thinking” replaced “reflec- cessful satellite, Sputnik, in 1957. Sputnik’s appearing
tive thinking” (Smith & Tyler, pp. 35-37), and a 1942 before the USA’s first satellite was blamed by many on
yearbook of the National Council for Social Studies used the schools, which were still somewhat under the influ-
“critical thinking” in its title, Teaching Critical Thinking ence of progressive education. I have a vivid recollection
in the Social Studies (Anderson, 1942). My first published of the large front-page headline in the Chicago Tribune
article was about the teaching of critical thinking (“Critical right after Sputnik, “What went wrong with U.S. schools?”
Thinking: More on Its Motivation,” Ennis, 1956), and ap- According to popular insight, the schools had failed to
peared in the journal, Progressive Education. I submitted to teach science to their students. Progressive education
that journal because the progressive-education movement was held by many to be the problem. As a result, straight
was the primary promoter of critical thinking at the time. subject-matter acquisition became very popular, and was
In addition to my focus on the teaching of critical the theme in former scientist and Harvard President James
thinking, I became the statistician for the Illinois Project for B. Conant’s influential The American High School Today
the Improvement of Thinking, and produced conclusions (Conant, 1959).
from the data obtained with the tests we used and from In spite of the opposition to, and the disintegration
our observations in the classrooms. I saw the importance of, the progressive-education movement, there were con-
of having valid tests of critical thinking, and I realized the tinuing expressions of interest in critical thinking in the
dependence of such tests on one’s conception of critical 1930’s through the 1970’s, mostly by philosophers. Cohen
thinking. As a result, my Ph.D. dissertation topic was “The and Nagel’s Introduction to Logic and Scientific Method
Development of a Critical Thinking Test” (Ennis, 1959b). (1934) introduced me as a graduate student to many aspects
Given the state of critical thinking theory in use at the time, of critical thinking. Max Black’s Critical Thinking: An
I believed that the development of a critical thinking test Introduction to Logic and Scientific Method (1946) and
required the prior development and specification of a con- W. H. Werkmeister’s An Introduction to Critical Thinking
ception of critical thinking. So my dissertation combined (1948) were college textbooks that to my knowledge were
the development of a conception with the development of the earliest college textbooks that used the words “critical
a test. The conception leaned heavily on my philosophi- thinking” in their titles. Another early text was Monroe
cal forbears, as well as this question: “How do people go Beardsley’s Practical Logic (1950). All four of these early
wrong in their thinking?” Because of my assistantship and works were guides used by the staff of the Illinois Project
thesis work I was able at the time to contribute directly to for the Improvement of Thinking, of which I was a member
the literature on the teaching of (Ennis, 1956), the nature from 1954 to 1957.
of (Ennis, 1962, 1964b), and assessment of (Ennis, 1958, Even Conant was a participant in the early promotion
1959b) critical thinking. In particular, my 1962 article of critical thinking at the college level with his general
on the nature of critical thinking, “A Concept of Critical editorship of the series, Harvard Case Histories in Experi-
Thinking,” has received much attention. Michael Roth mental Science (Conant, 1950-1954), and his authorship of
(Roth, 2010), in an article in the Chronicle of Higher On Understanding Science (Conant, 1951). Using detailed
Education challenging critical thinking, attributed critical cases from the history of science, his series and his book
thinking’s becoming popular to this article. Harvey Seigel illustrated “certain principles in the strategy and tactics of
(Siegel, 1988) deemed the article “highly influential” (p. science” (Conant, 1951, pp. 102-111). A principal theme of
5). John McPeck (McPeck, 1981), perhaps the critical Conant’s in these works was opposition to a simple five-
thinking movement’s most vociferous critic, treated this step concept of the scientific method (promoted I believe
article as presenting “the prevailing view of the conception by the progressive-education movement), which he felt
of critical thinking” (pp. 39-57). vastly oversimplified how scientists think. I agreed with
him in his emphasis on principles in scientific thinking
From Progressive Education to Emphasizing Subject (Ennis, 1974b, 1979, 1991a, 1991b), and his complaint
Matter about oversimplification.
Results of the Eight-Year Study were published in From Sputnik through the mid-1970s, I was part of the
1942, when everyone was focused on World War II. I philosophically-oriented minority pressing for the incor-
believe that the progressive-education movement disin- poration of critical thinking in K-12 and higher education.
tegrated because of the overwhelming importance of the During this period (1959-1970), I authored 12 articles
SPRING 2011, VOL. 26, NO. 1 7
and two books concerned with the nature, teaching, and not as part of a rejuvenation of the progressive-education
assessment of critical thinking. movement. Critical thinking was advocated because it
provided the rigor, reflection, and reasonableness that both
The Vietnam War Protests the anti- and pro-war forces had ignored, as evidenced by
From the mid-1960s to the mid-1970s, the Vietnam Howard Kahane’s influential efforts.
War and student-based concerns about relevance, authen- Around 1980, interest in critical thinking suddenly ex-
ticity, and the war itself overwhelmed the subject-matter ploded. The First International Conference on Informal Log-
emphasis of Conant and others. But it was not only students ic was held at the University of Windsor in 1978. Canada,
who challenged the academic establishment. I vividly re- as I understand it, had not experienced the extreme reaction
member a scholarly professor in the English Department against academia that we had in the United States. Never-
at Cornell University in 1968 expressing at a university theless, there was some, and emphasis on critical thinking
faculty meeting his contempt for the academic establish- and informal logic was a step back to rigor and reflection.
ment by gravely pronouncing, “We’re in bad trouble.” Significant establishment institutions contributed. The
“Bad trouble” is not the sort of expression I expected to Commission on the Humanities (1980), sponsored by the
hear from a scholar in the English Department at a Uni- Rockefeller Foundation, placed heavy emphasis on critical
versity Faculty meeting. It was protest language. To use it thinking, as did the Carnegie Foundation’s Ernest Boyer
in those circumstances in 1968 was a powerful expression (Boyer, 1983). The College Board (College Board, 1983),
from within of a rejection of academia. which is responsible for the SAT test, specified reasoning
In that context, critical thinking struggled along, as one of the six basic academic competencies in Aca-
but was not very popular because of its emphasis on demic Preparation for College. In 1983, Executive Order
rigor, reflection, and, alternatives, as opposed to action # 338 in the California State University System required
now. For example, the activists of the period judged that that in order to graduate from one of the State University
neutrality by our educational institutions was impossible units, a student must have had nine hours of instruction
(generally, in that period, neutrality toward the Vietnam in communication and in critical thinking. At the Second
War, and in one instance, toward the administration in the International Conference on Informal Logic at Windsor
late 1960’s by some colleges and universities of a draft- in 1983, The Association for Informal Logic and Critical
exemption examination, an unpopular action in the eyes Thinking (AILACT) was established, the membership of
of most activists because it constituted what they felt was which then consisted mostly of philosophers from Canada
complicity in the war effort). Though I opposed the war, and the United States — and it still does. The American
I disagreed with the judgment that neutrality for colleges Philosophical Association’s Board of Officers (1985) urged
and universities was impossible. I argued that neutrality philosophers to help with attempts to test for critical think-
on any specific issue (though not on every issue at once) ing and attempts to include critical thinking in elementary
was possible, unless the argument assumed from its begin- and secondary curricula.
ning that its position and recommendation on the specific This explosion of interest was neither a return to
issue were correct, in which case the argument became straight subject matter exclusively, nor to the progressive-
essentially circular (Ennis, 1969d, an improvement on an education movement. It was a marriage of subject matter
early version, 1959a). My argument in this case involved and one important feature of the progressive movement,
an ordinary-language sensitivity to reported definition and critical thinking, a marriage that to this day we struggle to
equivocation, sub-aspects of the definition aspect of critical implement. In going beyond straight subject-matter acquisi-
thinking to be considered later and listed in the appendix tion, The College Board exhibited this attempted marriage
(Abilities 9b1 and 9d). in its Academic Preparation for College: “The learning
outcomes described here [including reasoning] are rigorous
Renewed Emphasis on Critical Thinking as well as comprehensive” (College Board, 1983, p. 3).
In the late 1970’s, concern about critical thinking The roots of three current, philosopher-led, criti-
moved back into the foreground, I believe because of the cal-thinking-promoting organizations developed in the
excesses of the protest movement, because the war was 1980’s. One, led by Richard Paul (and currently also
over, and because the protestor’s emphasis on relevance Linda Elder), developed at Sonoma State University,
had strong appeal. Howard Kahane’s popular Logic and California, with large annual conferences of educators at
Contemporary Rhetoric (1971) contributed to the revival the K-12 and university levels at which many of us in
of attention to critical thinking at the time. It “was written AILACT made presentations. Its current titles are Foun-
. . . in an attempt to raise the level of political argument dation for Critical Thinking, Center for Critical Think-
and reasoning by acquainting students with the devices and ing, and The National Council for Excellence in Critical
ploys which drag that level down” (Kahane, 1971, Pref- Thinking. A second, led by Robert Swartz, developed at
ace). But the renewed emphasis on critical thinking was the University of Massachusetts-Boston with a masters
8 INQUIRY: CRITICAL THINKING ACROSS THE DISCIPLINES
program in critical and creative thinking, and is currently The multiplicity of critical-thinking-promoting activi-
titled the National Center for Teaching Thinking (NCTT). ties from 1980 through the present involved not only phi-
I have participated in some of its workshops. A third, led losophers, but also people in all subject-matter areas. The
by Peter Facione, had its origins at Santa Clara Univer- principal academics with whom I interacted at workshops
sity, California, where Facione led an effort to arrive and conferences were philosophers, psychologists, and
at an agreement by mail among forty-six specialists in speech/communication experts, each with a somewhat dif-
critical thinking (of which I was one) on a fairly-detailed ferent emphasis. To oversimplify, the philosophers tended
dispositions-and-abilities definition of ‘critical thinking.’ to emphasize seeking the truth (or the rightness or correct-
Facione called the results “The Delphi Report” (Facione, ness of a process or result), and using rational methods of
1990). His organization operates under the title Insight doing so; psychologists tended to emphasize empirical
Assessment. The first two of these organizations focus on relationships, such as what causes what, including such
teaching, and the third focuses on a conception of and on processes as metacognition, transfer of critical thinking
the assessment of critical thinking, although all are con- learning to a new area of application, and problem solving.
cerned with all three elements. All three have extensive Speech/communication experts tended to emphasize effec-
web sites. The first and second claim “national” status, tive persuasion. But all three were generally interested at
but I see no interaction or cooperation between them. least to some extent in the others’ emphases. During this
AILACT, of which I am a member and past pres- period I contributed to general critical thinking and criti-
ident, is open to new members on application, has elec- cal thinking in science, and authored some 41 articles and
tions for its leaders, and is not publicized as well as the one book, as well as co-authoring two articles, one book,
above three, though it is trying to catch up. On its web site three published tests, and several unpublished tests, each
at http://ailact.mcmaster.ca, it provides material dealing relevant to at least one of the above-listed controversial
with the nature of, teaching of, and assessment of criti- areas in critical thinking.
cal thinking and informal logic, lists available consultants In the 1980’s, the critical thinking movement em-
from its membership, lists institutions providing advanced phasized critical thinking in K-12, as well as at the un-
instruction in critical thinking, and will be listing avail- dergraduate level. Extending into the 1990’s and the first
able critical thinking tests. AILACT also sponsors criti- decade of the twenty-first century, emphasis on critical
cal thinking and informal logic sessions at annual APA thinking increased in college and universities, at least
meetings. More information about all four of these critical in mission statements. This occurred partly at the behest
thinking organizations can be found on their web sites. of accrediting agencies and partly because people real-
Throughout the 1980’s there was a large amount ized that critical thinking is important and that existing
of activity in critical thinking: workshops, conferences, subject-matter acquisition generally did not adequately
test development, new curricula, restatement of goals, prepare people to think critically in their vocational, civic,
books, articles, etc., accompanied by controversies about and personal lives. All the controversies I have mentioned
all aspects of the movement. These controversies live continue today, though progress has been made. Because
on, and include the basic nature of critical thinking; the critical thinking is so important, I have devoted much of
details of the nature of critical thinking; the relationship my career to the task.
between critical thinking and subject matter; promoting
critical thinking in the different subjects as opposed to My Contributions to the Content of the
doing it in separate critical thinking courses (often unfor- Critical Thinking Movement
tunately assumed to be mutually-exclusive alternatives);
the role of metacognition (being aware of and thinking Because I am probably best known for my develop-
about one’s own thinking) in critical thinking; the nature ment of a conception of critical thinking, and because
of the deduction involved in critical thinking; the role teaching and assessment both assume a conception of
of persuasion in critical thinking; the relation between critical thinking, the nature of critical thinking is the first
critical thinking and problem solving; the degree to which topic to be addressed. It will be followed in Part II in the
critical thinking is broader than argumentation — and next issue of Inquiry by discussions of assessment,
deduction, if at all; the possibility of assessing critical teaching (including incorporation in a curriculum), and
thinking; how to assess critical thinking — on a large future prospects.
scale and on a small scale; the possibility of teaching
critical thinking; the role of critical thinking principles The Nature of Critical Thinking
in critical thinking instruction; whether to seek and how Early on I developed a definition and an associated
to achieve transfer of the learning of critical thinking to elaborated conception of critical thinking (Ennis, 1962).
topics other than those used in instruction; and of course, I am here employing the distinction between ‘concept’
the value of critical thinking. and ’conception’ that John Rawls offered (Rawls, 1971,
SPRING 2011, VOL. 26, NO. 1 9
p. 5), following H. L. A. Hart (Hart, 1961, pp. 155-159): teaching experience. It is that in order to do critical think-
A concept is that which different, more detailed concep- ing, students need criteria for making decisions. These
tions of a particular idea have in common. But I use the criteria would give them guidance that is as precise as is
terms “definition” and “conception” instead of “concept” feasible in making decisions. That meant, for example, not
and “conception” in order to minimize confusion. In 1962 just that students should learn or know that they should
I was not aware of the distinction and called the whole take into account the credibility of their sources, or that
presentation “a concept of critical thinking” (Ennis, 1962, they should judge a hypothesis by looking at the evidence;
p. 81), though a more appropriate title might have been “a but also that they should learn or know criteria (and ac-
definition and a conception of critical thinking.” companying distinctions) for deciding whether a source is
As a result not only of the intense discussions of the credible, or for judging whether the evidence supports the
late 1970s and the early 1980s, but also further investiga- hypothesis. As a high school teacher I had no such criteria
tion from 1962 to 1987 of a number of critical thinking to promote with my students.
aspects, my first definition and conception of critical
thinking developed into a new pair (Ennis 1987b, 1991c, (b) Good Judgment: Qualifications, Tolerating Lack
1996a, 2002), which I shall call my second definition and of Precision, and SEBKUS
conception. In this section, I shall present and discuss the One cannot expect the application of these criteria
features of the two pairs, the second conception having to yield a result automatically, except in mathematics
evolved from the first, and the second definition being and deductive logic. And even deductive logic in real life
radically different from the first, though they both treat applications usually has to deal with implicit or explicit
critical thinking as a term of approbation. An unexempli- qualifying words like ‘ceteris paribus’ (other things be-
fied presentation of the total second definition/conception ing equal), ‘probably,’ ‘tends to,’ ‘roughly,’ etc., making
can be found in the appendix to this essay. the application of criteria not logically necessary in most
cases (Ennis, 1969b); hence, in a way, imprecise or loose.
My First Critical Thinking Definition and the So good judgment in applying the criteria is needed
Associated First Conception of Critical Thinking as well. Criteria used in making a good judgment are
The critical thinking definition that was presented generally aided by Sensitivity, Experience, Background
to me as a graduate student was the one advanced by B. Knowledge, and Understanding of the Situation, that is,
Othanel Smith (Smith, 1953), my advisor, mentor, teacher, “SEBKUS” (an acronym I developed fairly recently (En-
model, and supervisor in the Illinois Project for the Im- nis, 2004)).
provement of Thinking. Smith held that critical thinking is These emphases on criteria and good judgment (ex-
both determining the meaning of statements and assessing pressed with varying degrees of qualification, and made
these statements (p. 130). with SEBKUS) have permeated all my work on critical
For my first definition, I amended Smith’s definition thinking, even my work on operational definition (En-
by holding that critical thinking is “the correct assessing nis, 1964a), but the basic ideas started to develop when
of statements” (Ennis, 1962, p. 83). The key change from I was a graduate student involved in the Illinois Project
Smith’s definition was the addition of the word “correct.” for the Improvement of Thinking. They are key features
I felt that the determining-the-meaning part was implicit, of my 1962 concept article. Many of my articles since
although I now would make it explicit because it is so then have elaborated these emphases in different contexts
important. I added “correct” because I believed and still and with respect to different aspects of critical thinking.
do believe (somewhat under the ordinary-language influ- If I am right about the need for good judgment (which
ence of the later Wittgenstein) that “critical thinking,” as often requires a tolerance of some lack of precision,
used in the critical thinking movement, was not merely a that is, tolerance of some looseness), then I see no hope
descriptive term, but also a term of approbation. for computerizing critical thinking, though I admit that
This approbation feature of the first definition is one expert computer systems can probably ((!) — See my
of several features of particular note in the 1962 defini- paper “Probably” (Ennis, 2006) for a discussion of some
tion/conception. Three other features are (a) emphasis on details of imprecision.) do a better job in tight time limits
detailed criteria, (b) emphasis on good judgment in an than many professionals.
imprecise environment because criteria do not automati- The emphases on qualifications, tolerance of impreci-
cally yield critical thinking decisions, and (c) attention to sion, and SEBKUS are not original. For example, Aristotle
credibility of sources. I shall elaborate. suggested them in The Nichomachean Ethics (I, 3). I have
attempted to implement them in numerous places (Ennis,
(a) Criteria 1964a, 1969b Ch. 5, 1981a, 1987a, 1987b, 1991c, 1996a,
One basic idea in both the first and second of my 2001, 2004, 2006, 2007). But although they seem obvious
conceptions of critical thinking came from my high school to me, they are controversial, both in and out of philosophy.
10 INQUIRY: CRITICAL THINKING ACROSS THE DISCIPLINES
C. I., 1912 and Strawson, P. F., 1952). Criteria for useful First with regard to a confusion, IBE basically consists
deduction have not been specified in most versions of my of an approach to evaluation of hypotheses that considers
second conception of critical thinking in order to save the explanatory power of the hypothesis and the inability
space, but can be found in a few places (Ennis, 1969a, of competitors to explain evidence or the outright incon-
1969b, 1981a, 1996a, with further application discussed sistency of the alternatives with the evidence. There are
in 2004). details that are more controversial. But calling it “infer-
Deduction is usually included in attempts by phi- ence” might misleadingly suggest that it is a set of rules for
losophers to teach critical thinking. What is unique in generating hypotheses, that is, of inferring the hypothesis
my conception is my emphasis on qualifying deductive directly from the evidence, which it is not. Rather IBE is an
reasoning so as to accommodate the implicit and explicit approach containing a set of rules or criteria for evaluating
use of words like ‘probably’ and ‘ceteris paribus.’ The a hypothesis, and in many situations is the evaluation part
explicit rejection of material implication and its cohorts is of the exploratory process of refining and developing a final
not unique, but is controversial. Keeping deduction simple hypothesis, which is also evaluated by IBE.
is also a feature of my approach, but it is not unique in the However, ‘IBE’ can also be used as a label for the
field of critical thinking. intuitive leap from the known facts in a situation to a
hypothesis which should then be judged for its adequacy
(d) Assumption Ascription by the rules or criteria of IBE. Thus IBE is both an intui-
This second conception goes more deeply into types tive generation and an approach to evaluating the product
of assumptions and criteria for ascribing assumptions than resulting from this intuitive process. This dual meaning
is widely advocated, perhaps because of the complexity can be confusing.
of the topic. Ordinarily students are urged to identify their Second, as far as applicability is concerned, IBE ap-
and others’ assumptions, but are not told how to do this. plies not only to scientific hypotheses, but also to historical
There are different sorts of assumptions, which need claims about what happened, such as, “Napoleon died of
to be distinguished from each other because different arsenic poisoning”; interpretive claims in literature, such
criteria apply to each. Some are presuppositions, which as the claim that in Othello, Desdemona’s maid, Emelia,
must be true for another proposition to make sense (but “never dreamed he [Iago] was a villain.” (Bradley, 1937,
see Donnellan, 1966,1968). Some are assumptions in the p. 213 — an example suggested to me by Bruce Warner).
pejorative sense. Some are also needed assumptions (called It also applies to test validity claims, such as a claim I have
“assumptions of the argument” by Hitchcock, 1985), made to the effect that a particular critical thinking test is
which, however, are not logically necessary conditions a substantially valid test of college-level critical thinking
for drawing the conclusion, as some people think. And ability under standard conditions (Ennis, 2009). I have
some are used assumptions (called “assumptions of the discussed the Napoleon and Emelia examples elsewhere
arguer” by Hitchcock, 1985), that is, those that someone (Ennis, 1996a).
cognitively used, either explicitly or implicitly. Reason- Third, to consider IBE in relation to causality, as I
able space limits preclude giving more details here, but the see it, all explanatory hypotheses that account for an oc-
distinctions and criteria for ascribing assumptions can be currence or type of occurrence are implicitly or explicitly
found most completely in “Identifying Implicit Assump- causal. There are some, including Bertrand Russell, who
tions” (Ennis, 1982c), and to a lesser extent also in Critical have urged abandoning causality in our disciplined think-
Thinking (Ennis, 1996a), “Argument Appraisal Strategy” ing, and there are various views about what it is and how
(Ennis, 2001), and “Applying Soundness Standards to we identify it. This is a controversial area. In the past, I
Qualified Reasoning” (Ennis, 2004). have argued that we should not abandon causality (Ennis,
1982a), and that being a necessary condition for an effect
(e) Inference-to-best-explanation is not necessarily necessary (Ennis, 1982b), contrary to
Although inference-to-best-explanation (IBE) is well necessary-condition and counterfactual analyses of specific
known in the philosophical literature as exemplified by (singular) causal claims, e.g., the analyses of John Mackie
Gilbert Harman (Harman, 1965, 1973), a discussion by (1974) and David Lewis (1973). I have also tried to sketch
me of one feature of Harman’s approach (Ennis, 1968) out a broad picture of causality (Ennis, 1973), especially
with a reply by him, and Peter Lipton’s book (Lipton, specific causal claims like ‘The bad decisions by BP caused
2004). But outside of my work (Ennis, 1996a), IBE is not the 2010 Gulf oil spill’ and ‘Lack of adequate regulation
generally advocated in the critical thinking literature. There caused the spill’ (two seemingly inconsistent claims),
are three features about IBE that I should mention: (1) the and am now working on a sufficient-condition speech-act
confusion that might be introduced by the name, (2) its interpretation of specific causal claims. However, I am
widespread applicability in fields other than science, and convinced that causality itself is an irreducible notion.
(3) its relation to causality. There is still much work to be done here.
12 INQUIRY: CRITICAL THINKING ACROSS THE DISCIPLINES
Domain” (Bloom, 1956) is inspiring, but not very helpful Anderson, H. R. (1942). Teaching critical thinking in the social
as guidance. Among other things, its six categories do studies. Washington: The National Council for the Social
not have useful criteria that can be applied across top- Studies.
ics and subject-matter areas. For example, his category, Bailin, S. (1985). Creativity and quality. In E. Robertson (Ed.),
Philosophy of education 1984 (Proceedings of the fortieth
analysis, covers a range of important activities that vary
annual meeting of the Philosophy of Education Society).
considerably from, for example, chemistry to literature,
Normal, IL: Philosophy of Education Society.
with not much in common that is worth teaching as criti- Beardsley, M. (1950). Practical logic. New York: Prentice Hall.
cal thinking or “higher-order thinking” (a term in use by Black, M. (1946). Critical thinking. New York: Prentice Hall.
Bloom’s followers). There is not much to teach in general Bloom, B. S. (Ed.), (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives
about analysis, making Bloom’s taxonomy vulnerable to – The classification of educational goals – Handbook 1:
McPeck’s (1981, 1990a) complaints about the emptiness The cognitive domain. New York: Longmans Green and Co.
of attempts to teach general thinking. However, in provid- Boyer, E. (1983). High school. New York: Harper & Rowe.
ing a list with a five-to-one ratio of thinking categories to Bradley, A. C. (1937). Shakespearean tragedy. London: Mac-
“knowledge” (Bloom behaviorally defined “knowledge” millan.
as ‘recall,’ but most people have taken it in its ordinary Cohen, M. B., & Nagel, E. (1934). An introduction to logic and
scientific method. New York: Harcourt Brace.
sense), his taxonomy is an apparently persuasive counter to
College Board (1983). Academic preparation for college. New
demands for exclusive attention to subject-matter knowl-
York College Entrance Examination Board.
edge, as opposed to higher-order thinking. Commission on the Humanities (1980). The humanities in
American life. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Other Topics Conant, J. B. (1951). On understanding science. New York,
Related to the second conception, though not explic- Mentor.
itly mentioned in it, is the relationship between critical Conant, J. B. (Ed.) (1950-1954). Harvard case histories in experi-
thinking and creativity. In agreement with Sharon Bailin mental science, #1 through #8. Cambridge, MA: Harvard.
(1985), I hold that they are somewhat interdependent Conant, J. B. (1959). The American high school today: A first
(Ennis, 1985). Judgments that some act of thinking is report to interested citizens. New York: McGraw-Hill Book
creative generally assume a positive evaluation of the Company.
Dewey, J. (1933, first edition 1910). How we think. Boston: D.
thinking (thus requiring critical thinking). Furthermore,
C. Heath.
creativity is needed in generating hypotheses, definitions,
Donnellan, K. S. (1966). Reference and definite descriptions.
and alternatives, in planning experiments, and conceiving The Philosophical Review, 75, 281-304.
of counter-examples. Donnellan, K. S. (1968). Putting Humpty Dumpty together again.
Another so-far-undiscussed topic in this essay is the The Philosophical Review, 77, 203-315.
possibility of critical thinking’s being gender or culturally Ennis, R. H. (May, 1956). Critical thinking: More on its motiva-
biased (Wheary & Ennis, 1995; Ennis, 1998). My view is tion. Progressive Education, 75-78.
that critical thinking is basically not gender or culturally Ennis, R. H. (1958). An appraisal of the Watson-Glaser critical
biased, as can be seen in a point-by-point examination of thinking appraisal. Journal of Educational Research, 52,
the second conception in the Appendix. 155-158.
Later, in the section labeled “Teaching Critical Think- Ennis, R. H. (1959a). The “impossibility” of neutrality. Harvard
Educational Review, 29, 128-136. Reprinted as “Is it impos-
ing” in Part II, I will consider the question of whether
sible for the schools to be neutral?” (1961), Language and
critical thinking is subject-specific, and the question of
concepts in education, 1961, B. O. Smith, & R. H. Ennis
the appropriate allocation of responsibility for teaching (Eds.), Chicago: Rand McNally and Company, pp. 102-111;
critical thinking among various teachers, subject-matter and (1971) “¿Es imposible que las escueles sean neutrales?”
areas, and other units. Both questions are related to one’s in B. O. Smith, & R. H. Ennis (Eds.), Lenguaje y conceptos
conception of critical thinking, but perhaps better consid- en la educacion, 1971, Buenos Aires: Al Ateneo, 113-123.
ered under teaching. Ennis, R. H. (1959b). The development of a critical thinking test.
[To be continued in INQUIRY Vol. 26, No. 2 (Sum- Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Urbana-Champaign, IL:
mer 2011).] University of Illinois, University Microfilms #59-00505.
Ennis, R. H. (1961). “Assumption-finding.” In B. O. Smith, &
References R. H. Ennis (Eds.), Language and concepts in education.
Chicago: Rand McNally and Company, pp. 161-178. Re-
printed as La identificacion de supestos, in B. O. Smith, &
Aiken, W. M. (1942). The story of the eight-year study. New
R. H. Ennis (Eds.), Lenguaje y conceptos en la educacion,
York: Harper & Brothers.
1971, Buenos Aires: El Ateneo, 177-194.
The American Philosophical Association (1985). Board of Of-
ficers’ statement on critical thinking. Proceedings of the
American Philosophical Association, 58, 484.
14 INQUIRY: CRITICAL THINKING ACROSS THE DISCIPLINES
Ennis, R. H. (1962). A concept of critical thinking. Harvard Ennis, R. H. (1987a). A taxonomy of critical thinking dispositions
Educational Review, 32, pp. 81-111. Reprinted in B. P. and abilities. In J. Baron & R. Sternberg (Eds.), Teaching
Komisar, & C. J. B. Macmillan (Eds.), Psychological thinking skills: Theory and practice. New York: W. H.
concepts in education, 1967, Chicago: Rand McNally and Freeman, 9-26.
Company, 114-148. Ennis, R. H. (1987b). A conception of critical thinking — With
Ennis, R. H. (1964a). Operational definitions. American Educa- some curriculum suggestions. APA Newsletter on Teaching
tional Research Journal, 1, 183-201. Philosophy, Summer, 1-5.
Ennis, Robert H. (1964b). A definition of critical thinking. The Ennis, R. H. (1991a). The State of Illinois goals and sample learn-
Reading Teacher, 17(8), 599-612. ing objectives for scientific thinking and methods: Strengths,
Ennis, R. H. (1968). Enumerative induction and best explanation. weaknesses and suggestions. Spectrum, 17(1), 10-16.
The Journal of Philosophy, 65, 523-530. Ennis, R. H. (1991b). An elaboration of a cardinal goal of science
Ennis, R. H. (1969a). Logic in teaching. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: instruction: Scientific thinking. Educational Philosophy and
Prentice-Hall. Theory, 23(1), 31-45.
Ennis, R. H. (1969b). Ordinary logic. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Ennis, R. H. (1991c). Critical thinking: A streamlined conception.
Prentice-Hall. Teaching Philosophy, 14(1), 5-25.
Ennis, R. H. (1969c). Operationism can and should be divorced Ennis, R. H. (1996a) Critical thinking. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
from covering law assumptions (a reprint of Operational Prentice-Hall.
Definitions (1964). In L. I. Krimerman (Ed.), The nature Ennis, R. H. (1996b). Critical thinking dispositions: Their nature
and scope of social science: A critical anthology, 1969, New and assessability. Informal Logic, 18(2 & 3), 165-182 .
York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 431-444. Ennis, R. H. (March, 1998). Is critical thinking culturally biased?
Ennis, R. H. (1969d). The possibility of neutrality. Journal of Teaching Philosophy, 21(1), 15-33.
Educational Theory, 19, 347-356. Ennis, R. H. (2001). Argument appraisal strategy: A comprehen-
Ennis, R. H. (1973). On causality. Educational Researcher, sive approach. Informal Logic, 21(2), 97-140.
2(6), 4-11. Ennis, Robert H. (2002). Goals for a critical thinking curriculum
Ennis, R. H. (1974a). The believability of people. Educational and its assessment. In A. L. Costa (Ed.), Developing minds
Forum, 38, 347-354. (3rd Edition). Alexandria, VA: ASCD, 44-46.
Ennis, R. H. (1974b). Definition in science teaching. Instructional Ennis, R. H. (2004). Applying soundness standards to qualified
Science, 3, 285-298. reasoning. Informal Logic, 24(1), 23-39.
Ennis, R. H. (1979). Research in philosophy of science and Ennis, R. H. (2006). ‘Probably’. In D. Hitchcock, & B. Verheij
science education. In P. Asquith, & H. Kyburg (Eds.), Cur- (Eds.), Arguing on the Toulmin model. Dordrecht, Nether-
rent research in philosophy of science. East Lansing, MI: lands: Springer, 145-164.
Philosophy of Science Association, 138-170. Ennis, R. H. (2007). ‘Probable’ and its equivalents. In H. V.
Ennis, R. H. (1980). Presidential address: A conception of rational Hansen & R. C. Pinto (Eds.), Reason reclaimed: Essays in
thinking. In J. Coombs (Ed.), Philosophy of education 1979. honor of J. Anthony Blair and Ralph H. Johnson. Newport
Bloomington, IL: Philosophy of Education Society, 1-30. News, VA: Vale Press, 243-256.
Ennis, R. H. (1981a). A conception of deductive logic compe- Ennis, R. H. (2009). Investigating and assessing multiple-choice
tence. Teaching Philosophy, 4, 337-385. critical thinking tests. In J. Sobocan, & L. Groarke (Eds.),
Ennis, R. H. (1981b) Rational thinking and educational practice. Critical thinking education and assessment: Can higher
In J. Soltis (Ed.), Philosophy of education 1981 (Eightieth order thinking be tested? London, Ontario, CA: Althouse,
yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Educa- 75-97.
tion, Part I). Chicago: The National Society for the Study Ennis, R. H. (in process). Situational test validity.
of Education, 143-183. Facione, P. A. (1990). Critical thinking: A statement of expert
Ennis, R. H. (1981c). Eight fallacies in Bloom’s taxonomy. In consensus for purposes of educational assessment and
C. J. B. Macmillan (Ed.), Philosophy of education 1980. instruction (Executive summary of “The Delphi Report”)
Bloomington, IL: Philosophy of Education Society, 269- Millbrae, CA: California Academic Press.
273. Harman, G. (1965). The inference to the best explanation. Philo-
Ennis, R. H. (1982a). Abandon causality? Educational Re- sophical Review, 74(1), 88-95.
searcher, 11(7), 25-27. Harman, G. (1968). Enumerative induction as inference to the
Ennis, R. H. (1982b). Mackie’s singular causality and linked best explanation. Journal of Philosophy, 65(18), 529-533.
overdetermination. In P. D. Asquith, & T. Nickles (Eds.), Harman, G. (1973). Thought. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univer-
PSA 1982. East Lansing, MI: Philosophy of Science As- sity Press.
sociation, 55-64. Hart, H. L. A. (1961). The concept of law. Oxford: The Claren-
Ennis, R. H. (1982c). Identifying implicit assumptions. Synthese, don Press.
51, 61-86. Hitchcock, D. (1985). Enthymematic arguments. Informal Logic,
Ennis, R. H. (1985). Quality and creativity. In E. Robertson (Ed.), 7(2 & 3), 83-97.
Philosophy of education, 1984 (pp. 323-328). Bloomington, Institute for Propaganda Analysis (1938). Propaganda analysis.
IL: Philosophy of Education Society. New York: Columbia University Press.
Kahane, H. (1971). Logic and contemporary rhetoric. Belmont,
CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company.
SPRING 2011, VOL. 26, NO. 1 15
Lewis, C. I. (1912). Implication and the algebra of logic. Mind, outline. For the sake of brevity, clarification in the form of
522-531. examples, qualifications, and more detail, including more
Lewis, D. (1973). Causation. Journal of Philosophy, 70, 556–567. criteria, are omitted, but can be found in sources listed
Lipton, P. (2004). Inference to best explanation. London: Rout- below, but most fully in my Critical Thinking (1996a).
ledge.
This outline is the encapsulation of many years of
Mackie, J. L. (1974). The cement of the universe. Oxford: Clar-
work in the elaboration of the simple definition of critical
endon Press.
McPeck, J. (1981). Critical thinking and education. New York: thinking given above, and it distinguishes between critical
St. Martin’s Press. thinking dispositions and abilities.
McPeck, J. (1990a). Teaching critical thinking. New York: It is only a critical thinking content outline. It does not
Routledge. specify grade level, curriculum sequence, emphasis, teach-
McPeck, J. (1990b). Critical thinking and subject specificity: ing approach, or type of subject-matter content involved
A reply to Ennis. Educational Researcher, 19(4), 10-12. (standard subject-matter content, general knowledge
Nosich, G. (2010). From argument and philosophy to critical content, streetwise-knowledge content, special knowledge
thinking across the curriculum. INQUIRY: Critical Thinking content, etc.). For assessment purposes it can only provide
Across the Disciplines, 25(3), 4-13. a basis for developing a table of specifications and the
Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: The
preparation of assessment rubrics.
Belknap Press.
Roth, M. (2010). Beyond critical thinking. The Chronicle of
Higher Education, January 3. Critical Thinking Dispositions
Siegel, H. (1988). Educating reason. New York: Routledge.
Smith, B. O. (March, 1953). The improvement of critical think- Ideal critical thinkers are disposed to
ing. Progressive Education, 30(5), 130.
Smith E. R., & Tyler, R. W. (1942). Appraising and recording 1. Care that their beliefs be true,4 and that their decisions
student progress. New York: Harper & Brothers. be justified; that is, care to “get it right” to the extent
Strawson, P. F. (1952). Introduction to logical theory. London: possible; including to
Methuen & Co. a. Seek alternative hypotheses, explanations, conclu-
Werkmeister, W. H. (1948). An introduction to critical thinking, sions, plans, sources, etc.; and be open to them
2nd Edition. Lincoln, NE: Johnsen Publishing Co.
b. Consider seriously other points of view than their
Wheary, J., & Ennis, R. H. (1995). Gender bias in critical think-
own
ing: continuing the dialogue. Educational Theory, 45(2),
213-224. c. Try to be well informed
Wigmore, J. H. (1942). Wigmore’s code of the rules of evidence d. Endorse a position to the extent that, but only to the
in trials at law, 3rd Edition. Boston: Little Brown and Co, extent that, it is justified by the information that is
available
Web sites e. Use their critical thinking abilities
AILACT Web Site: ailact.mcmaster.ca/ 2. Care to understand and present a position honestly
Ennis, Robert H. Academic Web Site: faculty.ed.uiuc.edu/rhennis and clearly, theirs as well as others’; including to
Ennis, Robert H. Critical Thinking Web Site: www.criticalth- a. Discover and listen to others’ view and reasons
inking.net b. Be clear about the intended meaning of what is
said, written, or otherwise communicated, seeking
Appendix as much precision as the situation requires
c. Determine, and maintain focus on, the conclusion
The Nature of Critical Thinking: An Outline of or question
Critical Thinking Dispositions and Abilities3 d. Seek and offer reasons
e. Take into account the total situation
Critical thinking is reasonable and reflective think- f. Be reflectively aware of their own basic beliefs
ing focused on deciding what to believe or do. This
definition I believe captures the core of the way the term 3. Care about every person. (This one is an auxiliary,
is used in the critical thinking movement. In deciding what not constitutive, disposition. Although this concern
to believe or do, one is helped by the employment of a set for people is not constitutive, critical thinking can be
of critical thinking dispositions and abilities that I shall dangerous without it.) Caring critical thinkers
outline. These can serve as a set of comprehensive goals a. Avoid intimidating or confusing others with their
for a critical thinking curriculum and its assessment. Use- critical thinking prowess, taking into account others’
fulness in curriculum decisions, teaching, and assessment, feelings and level of understanding
not elegance or mutual exclusiveness, is the purpose of this b. Are concerned about others’ welfare
16 INQUIRY: CRITICAL THINKING ACROSS THE DISCIPLINES
b. Seeking evidence and counterevidence, in- 10. Attribute unstated assumptions (an ability that belongs
cluding statistical significance under both basic clarification (2b) and inference (7bif)
c. Seeking other possible explanations a. Pejorative flavor (dubiousness or falsity): com-
iii. Criteria, the first four being essential, the fifth monly but not always associated to some degree
being desirable with the different types. Criteria: See #8 above.
a. The proposed conclusion would explain or b. Types:
help explain the evidence i. Presuppositions (required for a proposition to
b. The proposed conclusion is consistent with make sense)
all known facts ii. Needed assumptions (needed by the reasoning
c. Competitive alternative explanations are to be at its strongest, but not logically necessary
inconsistent with facts (Ennis 1982)), (called “assumptions of the argu-
d. A competent sincere effort has been made ment” by Hitchcock (1985))
to find supporting and opposing data, and iii. Used assumptions (judged by hypothesis-testing
alternative hypotheses criteria, Ennis 1982), called “assumptions of the
e. The proposed conclusion seems plausible and arguer” by Hitchcock (1985)
simple, fitting into the broader picture
(Supposition and Integration, 11 and 12)
8.Make and judge value judgments 11. Consider and reason from premises, reasons, assump-
Important factors: tions, positions, and other propositions with which
a. Background facts they disagree or about which they are in doubt, without
b. Consequences of accepting or rejecting the judg- letting the disagreement or doubt interfere with their
ment thinking (“suppositional thinking”)
c. Prima facie application of acceptable principles
d. Alternatives 12. Integrate the dispositions and other abilities in making
e. Balancing, weighing, deciding and defending a decision
In presenting this outline of critical thinking disposi- for critical thinking research, and the invaluable help
tions and abilities, I have only attempted to depict, rather of my students and colleagues at both universities and
than defend, them. The defense would require much more in AILACT.
space than is available, but would follow two general paths:
1) examining the traditions of good thinking in existing 2. ‘Assessing,’ not ‘assessment,’ thus avoiding the pro-
successful disciplines of inquiry, and 2) seeing how we go cess-product ambiguity of ‘assessment,’ an ambiguity
wrong when we attempt to decide what to believe or do. that John McPeck (1981, pp. 44-46), and others in his
In any teaching situation for which critical thinking footsteps have tried to exploit after misquoting me as
is a goal, whether it be a separate critical thinking course saying “assessment”. If one says “assessment” and
or module, or one in which the critical thinking content assumes the result (product) sense of “assessment,”
is infused in (making critical thinking principles explicit) then “correct assessment,” if it were in the definition,
or immersed in (not making critical thinking principles would fail “to recognize that what makes some bit of
explicit) standard subject-matter content, or some mixture thinking critical is a function not of the result but of
of these; all of the dispositions, as well as the suppositional the way in which a particular result is pursued” (p.
and integrational abilities (# 11 and #12) and auxiliary 44). After misquoting me, McPeck (p. 44) mistakenly
abilities (#13 through #15) are applicable all the time and attributed this sort of failure to my first definition.
should permeate the instruction to the extent that time and
student ability permit. 3. This is a thoroughly revised version of a presentation
I have only attempted to outline a usable and de- at the Sixth International Conference on Thinking at
fensible set of critical thinking goals, including criteria MIT, Cambridge, MA, July, 1994. Last revised Janu-
for making judgments. Space limitations have precluded ary, 2011. Developed by Robert H. Ennis, University
exemplifying their application to curriculum, teaching, and of Illinois. [email protected]
assessment, though I have done so elsewhere.5 However,
goals are the place to start. I hope that this outline provides 4. With respect to epistemological constructivism (the
a useful basis on which to build curriculum, teaching, and view that truth is constructed): In expressing a concern
assessment procedures. about true belief, this conception of critical thinking
accepts the view that our concepts and vocabulary
Sources of exemplification, elaboration, and more are constructed by us, but also that (to oversimplify
criteria. somewhat) the relationships among the referents of
The meaning, significance, and application of some our concepts and terms are not constructed by us. We
of the above aspects might not be apparent to some, who can have true or false beliefs about these.
might find the following items, which contain many ex- With respect to pedagogical constructivism (the view
amples, to be of help. Furthermore criteria for deduction, that students learn best when they construct their own
assumption ascription and definition are not provided in answers to problems and questions): For some (but not
the above outline of the nature of critical thinking because all) goals and types of learning, this view has empirical
they are too complex for a brief listing. Elaboration of support, but it should not be confused with episte-
these criteria and this conception by me are listed in “Ref- mological constructivism. In particular, the validity
erences” (above): 2007, 2006, 2004, 2002, 2001, 1991c, of pedagogical constructivism (to the extent that it is
1987a, 1987b, 1982b, 1982a, 1981a, 1980, 1974a, 1974b, valid) does not imply the validity of epistemological
1973, 1969a, 1969b, 1969c, 1968, 1964a, 1964b, and constructivism. They are totally different ideas.
1962, but most comprehensively in three others (1996a,
1991, 1987a.) 5. My complete list of publications is to be found in
the publications sections of my academic web site,
Endnotes faculty.ed.uiuc.edu/rhennis