critical thinking is an active process of discovery

Constructivism Learning Theory & Philosophy of Education

Saul McLeod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul McLeod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Associate Editor for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education

Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.

On This Page:

Constructivism is a learning theory that emphasizes the active role of learners in building their own understanding. Rather than passively receiving information, learners reflect on their experiences, create mental representations , and incorporate new knowledge into their schemas . This promotes deeper learning and understanding.

Constructivism is ‘an approach to learning that holds that people actively construct or make their own knowledge and that reality is determined by the experiences of the learner’ (Elliott et al., 2000, p. 256).

In elaborating on constructivists’ ideas, Arends (1998) states that constructivism believes in the personal construction of meaning by the learner through experience and that meaning is influenced by the interaction of prior knowledge and new events.

Constructivism Philosophy

Knowledge is constructed rather than innate, or passively absorbed.

Constructivism’s central idea is that human learning is constructed, that learners build new knowledge upon the foundation of previous learning.

This prior knowledge influences what new or modified knowledge an individual will construct from new learning experiences (Phillips, 1995).

Learning is an active process.

The second notion is that learning is an active rather than a passive process.

The passive view of teaching views the learner as ‘an empty vessel’ to be filled with knowledge, whereas constructivism states that learners construct meaning only through active engagement with the world (such as experiments or real-world problem-solving).

Information may be passively received, but understanding cannot be, for it must come from making meaningful connections between prior knowledge, new knowledge, and the processes involved in learning.

John Dewey valued real-life contexts and problems as an educational experience. He believed that if students only passively perceive a problem and do not experience its consequences in a meaningful, emotional, and reflective way, they are unlikely to adapt and revise their habits or construct new habits, or will only do so superficially.

All knowledge is socially constructed.

Learning is a social activity – it is something we do together, in interaction with each other, rather than an abstract concept (Dewey, 1938).

For example, Vygotsky (1978) believed that community plays a central role in the process of “making meaning.” For Vygotsky, the environment in which children grow up will influence how they think and what they think about.

Thus, all teaching and learning is a matter of sharing and negotiating socially constituted knowledge.

For example, Vygotsky (1978) states cognitive development stems from social interactions from guided learning within the zone of proximal development as children and their partners co-construct knowledge.

All knowledge is personal.

Each individual learner has a distinctive point of view, based on existing knowledge and values.

This means that same lesson, teaching or activity may result in different learning by each pupil, as their subjective interpretations differ.

This principle appears to contradict the view the knowledge is socially constructed.

Fox (2001, p. 30) argues:

• Although individuals have their own personal history of learning, nevertheless they can share in common knowledge, and
• Although education is a social process powerfully influenced by cultural factors, cultures are made up of sub-cultures, even to the point of being composed of sub-cultures of one.
• Cultures and their knowledge base are constantly in a process of change and the knowledge stored by individuals is not a rigid copy of some socially constructed template. In learning a culture, each child changes that culture.

Learning exists in the mind.

The constructivist theory posits that knowledge can only exist within the human mind, and that it does not have to match any real-world reality (Driscoll, 2000).

Learners will be constantly trying to develop their own individual mental model of the real world from their perceptions of that world.

As they perceive each new experience, learners will continually update their own mental models to reflect the new information, and will, therefore, construct their own interpretation of reality.

Types of Constructivism

Typically, this continuum is divided into three broad categories: Cognitive constructivism, based on the work of Jean Piaget ; social constructivism, based on the work of Lev Vygotsky; and radical constructivism.

According to the GSI Teaching and Resource Center (2015, p.5):

Cognitive constructivism states knowledge is something that is actively constructed by learners based on their existing cognitive structures. Therefore, learning is relative to their stage of cognitive development.

Cognitivist teaching methods aim to assist students in assimilating new information to existing knowledge, and enabling them to make the appropriate modifications to their existing intellectual framework to accommodate that information.

According to social constructivism, learning is a collaborative process, and knowledge develops from individuals” interactions with their culture and society.

Social constructivism was developed by Lev Vygotsky (1978, p. 57), who suggested that:

Every function in the child’s cultural development appears twice: first, on the social level and, later on, on the individual level; first, between people (interpsychological) and then inside the child (intrapsychological).

The notion of radical constructivism was developed by Ernst von Glasersfeld (1974) and states that all knowledge is constructed rather than perceived through senses.

Learners construct new knowledge on the foundations of their existing knowledge. However, radical constructivism states that the knowledge individuals create tells us nothing about reality, and only helps us to function in your environment. Thus, knowledge is invented not discovered.

Radical constructivism also argues that there is no way to directly access an objective reality, and that knowledge can only be understood through the individual’s subjective interpretation of their experiences.

This theory asserts that individuals create their own understanding of reality, and that their knowledge is always incomplete and subjective.

The humanly constructed reality is all the time being modified and interacting to fit ontological reality, although it can never give a ‘true picture’ of it. (Ernest, 1994, p. 8)

Constructivism Teaching Philosophy

Constructivist learning theory underpins a variety of student-centered teaching methods and techniques which contrast with traditional education, whereby knowledge is simply passively transmitted by teachers to students.

What is the role of the teacher in a constructivist classroom?

Constructivism is a way of teaching where instead of just telling students what to believe, teachers encourage them to think for themselves. This means that teachers need to believe that students are capable of thinking and coming up with their own ideas. Unfortunately, not all teachers believe this yet in America.

The primary responsibility of the teacher is to create a collaborative problem-solving environment where students become active participants in their own learning.

From this perspective, a teacher acts as a facilitator of learning rather than an instructor.

The teacher makes sure he/she understands the students” preexisting conceptions, and guides the activity to address them and then build on them (Oliver, 2000).

Scaffolding is a key feature of effective teaching, where the adult continually adjusts the level of his or her help in response to the learner’s level of performance.

In the classroom, scaffolding can include modeling a skill, providing hints or cues, and adapting material or activity (Copple & Bredekamp, 2009).

What are the features of a constructivist classroom?

A constructivist classroom emphasizes active learning, collaboration, viewing a concept or problem from multiple perspectives, reflection, student-centeredness, and authentic assessment to promote meaningful learning and help students construct their own understanding of the world.

Tam (2000) lists the following four basic characteristics of constructivist learning environments, which must be considered when implementing constructivist teaching strategies:

1) Knowledge will be shared between teachers and students. 2) Teachers and students will share authority. 3) The teacher’s role is one of a facilitator or guide. 4) Learning groups will consist of small numbers of heterogeneous students.

What are the pedagogical (i.e., teaching) goals of constructivist classrooms?

Honebein (1996) summarizes the seven pedagogical goals of constructivist learning environments:

• To provide experience with the knowledge construction process (students determine how they will learn).
• To provide experience in and appreciation for multiple perspectives (evaluation of alternative solutions).
• To embed learning in realistic contexts (authentic tasks).
• To encourage ownership and a voice in the learning process (student-centered learning).
• To embed learning in social experience (collaboration).
• To encourage the use of multiple modes of representation, (video, audio text, etc.)
• To encourage awareness of the knowledge construction process (reflection, metacognition).

Brooks and Brooks (1993) list twelve descriptors of constructivist teaching behaviors:

• Encourage and accept student autonomy and initiative. (p. 103)
• Use raw data and primary sources, along with manipulative, interactive, and physical materials. (p. 104)
• When framing tasks, use cognitive terminology such as “classify,” analyze,” “predict,” and “create.” (p. 104)
• Allow student responses to drive lessons, shift instructional strategies, and alter content. (p. 105)
• Inquire about students’ understandings of the concepts before sharing [your] own understandings of those concepts. (p. 107)
• Encourage students to engage in dialogue, both with the teacher and with one another. (p. 108)
• Encourage student inquiry by asking thoughtful, open-ended questions and encouraging students to ask questions of each other. (p. 110)
• Seek elaboration of students’ initial responses. (p. 111)
• Engage students in experiences that might engender contradictions to their initial hypotheses and then encourage discussion. (p. 112)
• Allow wait time after posing questions. (p. 114)
• Provide time for students to construct relationships and create metaphors. (p. 115)
• Nurture students’ natural curiosity through frequent use of the learning cycle model. (p. 116)

Critical Evaluation

Constructivism promotes a sense of personal agency as students have ownership of their learning and assessment.

The biggest disadvantage is its lack of structure. Some students require highly structured learning environments to be able to reach their potential.

It also removes grading in the traditional way and instead places more value on students evaluating their own progress, which may lead to students falling behind, as without standardized grading teachers may not know which students are struggling.

Summary Tables

What is constructivism in the philosophy of education?

Constructivism in the philosophy of education is the belief that learners actively construct their own knowledge and understanding of the world through their experiences, interactions, and reflections.

It emphasizes the importance of learner-centered approaches, hands-on activities, and collaborative learning to facilitate meaningful and authentic learning experiences.

How would a constructivist teacher explain 1/3÷1/3?

They might engage students in hands-on activities, such as using manipulatives or visual representations, to explore the concept visually and tangibly.

The teacher would encourage discussions among students, allowing them to share their ideas and perspectives, and guide them toward discovering the relationship between dividing by a fraction and multiplying by its reciprocal.

Through guided questioning, the teacher would facilitate critical thinking and help students arrive at the understanding that dividing 1/3 by 1/3 is equivalent to multiplying by the reciprocal, resulting in a value of 1.

Arends, R. I. (1998). Resource handbook. Learning to teach (4th ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.

Brooks, J., & Brooks, M. (1993). In search of understanding: the case for constructivist classrooms, ASCD. NDT Resource Center database .

Copple, C., & Bredekamp, S. (2009). Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood programs . Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.

Dewey, J. (1938) Experience and Education . New York: Collier Books.

Driscoll, M. (2000). Psychology of Learning for Instruction . Boston: Allyn& Bacon

Elliott, S.N., Kratochwill, T.R., Littlefield Cook, J. & Travers, J. (2000). Educational psychology: Effective teaching, effective learning (3rd ed.) . Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill College.

Ernest, P. (1994). Varieties of constructivism: Their metaphors, epistemologies and pedagogical implications. Hiroshima Journal of Mathematics Education, 2 (1994), 2.

Fox, R. (2001). Constructivism examined . Oxford review of education, 27(1) , 23-35.

Honebein, P. C. (1996). Seven goals for the design of constructivist learning environments. Constructivist learning environments : Case studies in instructional design, 11-24.

Oliver, K. M. (2000). Methods for developing constructivism learning on the web. Educational Technology, 40 (6)

Phillips, D. C. (1995). The good, the bad, and the ugly: The many faces of constructivism . Educational researcher, 24 (7), 5-12.

Tam, M. (2000). Constructivism, Instructional Design, and Technology: Implications for Transforming Distance Learning. Educational Technology and Society, 3 (2).

Teaching Guide for GSIs. Learning: Theory and Research (2016). Retrieved from http://gsi.berkeley.edu/media/Learning.pdf

von Glasersfeld, E. V. (1974). Piaget and the radical constructivist epistemology . Epistemology and education , 1-24.

von Glasersfeld, E. (1994). A radical constructivist view of basic mathematical concepts. Constructing mathematical knowledge: Epistemology and mathematics education, 5-7.

Von Glasersfeld, E. (2013).  Radical constructivism  (Vol. 6). Routledge.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Further Reading

Constructivist Teaching Methods

Constructivism Learning Theory: A Paradigm for Teaching and Learning Strategies Which Can be Implemented by Teachers When Planning Constructivist Opportunities in the Classroom

Translate this page from English...

*Machine translated pages not guaranteed for accuracy. Click Here for our professional translations.

Defining Critical Thinking

• Programs & Services
• Delphi Center

Ideas to Action (i2a)

• What is Critical Thinking?

The ability to think critically calls for a higher-order thinking than simply the ability to recall information.

Definitions of critical thinking, its elements, and its associated activities fill the educational literature of the past forty years. Critical thinking has been described as an ability to question; to acknowledge and test previously held assumptions; to recognize ambiguity; to examine, interpret, evaluate, reason, and reflect; to make informed judgments and decisions; and to clarify, articulate, and justify positions (Hullfish & Smith, 1961; Ennis, 1962; Ruggiero, 1975; Scriven, 1976; Hallet, 1984; Kitchener, 1986; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991; Mines et al., 1990; Halpern, 1996; Paul & Elder, 2001; Petress, 2004; Holyoak & Morrison, 2005; among others).

After a careful review of the mountainous body of literature defining critical thinking and its elements, UofL has chosen to adopt the language of Michael Scriven and Richard Paul (2003) as a comprehensive, concise operating definition:

Critical thinking is the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action.

Paul and Scriven go on to suggest that critical thinking is based on: "universal intellectual values that transcend subject matter divisions: clarity, accuracy, precision, consistency, relevance, sound evidence, good reasons, depth, breadth, and fairness. It entails the examination of those structures or elements of thought implicit in all reasoning: purpose, problem, or question-at-issue, assumptions, concepts, empirical grounding; reasoning leading to conclusions, implication and consequences, objections from alternative viewpoints, and frame of reference. Critical thinking - in being responsive to variable subject matter, issues, and purposes - is incorporated in a family of interwoven modes of thinking, among them: scientific thinking, mathematical thinking, historical thinking, anthropological thinking, economic thinking, moral thinking, and philosophical thinking."

This conceptualization of critical thinking has been refined and developed further by Richard Paul and Linder Elder into the Paul-Elder framework of critical thinking. Currently, this approach is one of the most widely published and cited frameworks in the critical thinking literature. According to the Paul-Elder framework, critical thinking is the:

• Analysis of thinking by focusing on the parts or structures of thinking ("the Elements of Thought")
• Evaluation of thinking by focusing on the quality ("the Universal Intellectual Standards")
• Improvement of thinking by using what you have learned ("the Intellectual Traits")

Selection of a Critical Thinking Framework

The University of Louisville chose the Paul-Elder model of Critical Thinking as the approach to guide our efforts in developing and enhancing our critical thinking curriculum. The Paul-Elder framework was selected based on criteria adapted from the characteristics of a good model of critical thinking developed at Surry Community College. The Paul-Elder critical thinking framework is comprehensive, uses discipline-neutral terminology, is applicable to all disciplines, defines specific cognitive skills including metacognition, and offers high quality resources.

Why the selection of a single critical thinking framework?

The use of a single critical thinking framework is an important aspect of institution-wide critical thinking initiatives (Paul and Nosich, 1993; Paul, 2004). According to this view, critical thinking instruction should not be relegated to one or two disciplines or departments with discipline specific language and conceptualizations. Rather, critical thinking instruction should be explicitly infused in all courses so that critical thinking skills can be developed and reinforced in student learning across the curriculum. The use of a common approach with a common language allows for a central organizer and for the development of critical thinking skill sets in all courses.

• SACS & QEP
• Planning and Implementation
• Why Focus on Critical Thinking?
• Paul-Elder Critical Thinking Framework
• Culminating Undergraduate Experience
• Community Engagement
• Frequently Asked Questions
• What is i2a?

Copyright © 2012 - University of Louisville , Delphi Center

mySmowltech

Discovery learning: what it is and how to apply its theory

Learning and Development

Discover our proctoring plans

Receive an ebook on proctoring solutions. SMOWL is the most complete and customizable proctoring software.

Recent posts

Training vs teaching: differences and similarities

HR technology trends: the future landscapes

Critical thinking: definition and how to improve its skills

Ghosting after interviews: tips and ideas to avoid it

In the realm of education, the concept of discovery learning has gained considerable attention for its effective approach to fostering meaningful understanding and knowledge retention . 

This article delves into the core principles of discovery learning , its definition , and the influence of Jerome Bruner’s contributions . 

If you’re seeking an engaging and efficient method to enhance your learning or teaching experience, read on to uncover the essence of discovery learning and its practical applications.

What is Discovery Learning?

Discovery learning is a form of constructivist learning that emphasizes students acquiring knowledge on their own through active roles and direct experience . This approach doesn’t rely on linear or final knowledge transmission; instead, it encourages students to discover knowledge through their own curiosity. 

This constructivist methodology, also known as heuristic learning , was championed by American psychologist and educator Jerome Bruner in the 1960s and is rooted in cognitive psychology . It aligns perfectly with the disruptive education strategy, as we will explore further.

Before deciding on the resources to employ in implementing discovery learning in your classes, it’s important to consider the following needs:

• Clear framing of the activity.
• Student comprehension and adoption of the practice, making it interesting for them.
• Setting and communicating objectives and the means to achieve them.
• Student familiarity with the work methodology, observation processes, and result measurement and control systems.

Why is Discovery Learning important?

Discovery learning advocates for active learning , where students construct their own knowledge more naturally than other traditional methodologies, such as linear knowledge transmission. 

Among its benefits are the promotion of self-esteem and the r einforcement of creativity when finding solutions . This pedagogical strategy can be greatly facilitated by the advancement of technology , which is why we aim to provide you with a detailed insight into it. 

Key Principles of Bruner’s Discovery Learning

Jerome Bruner asserts that discovery learning should lead to meaningful learning, where students construct their own knowledge . 

This methodology is based on the following principles:

Active Knowledge Acquisition and Motivation

Self-acquired knowledge holds a stronger place in learning and is better retained. 

Furthermore, personalizing content increases student motivation by acknowledging their interests.

Subscribe today to SMOWL’s weekly newsletter!

Discover the latest trends in eLearning, technology, and innovation, alongside experts in assessment and talent management. Stay informed about industry updates and get the information you need.

Simply fill out the form and stay up-to-date with everything relevant in our field.

Investigation and Experimentation

Both investigating and experimenting are vital empirical dimensions of discovery learning. 

They facilitate the consolidation of knowledge and represent the most natural way, according to Bruner, to acquire competencies .

Content Organization

By making students the origin and driving force of learning , they promote a better organization of acquired knowledge in their minds, making it readily available for future use .

Long-Term Retention

Throughout the process, experiences reinforce each other over time, promoting effective information retention. 

This active learning approach places responsibility on the student, aligning with the learning-by-doing methodology.

Benefits of Discovery Learning

Discovery learning offers several advantages in a process where the teacher guides the student toward the desired outcome:

• Overcomes the drawbacks of more traditional mechanistic learning, such as student demotivation and lack of meaningful learning.
• Stimulates student intuition, which they subsequently verify by solidifying the learning themselves.
• The “learn to learn” principle encourages metacognitive strategies and critical thinking.
• Cultivates creativity in problem-solving.
• Bolsters student confidence and self-esteem.
• Facilitates content assimilation and cognitive maturity.
• Due to its dynamic nature, this type of learning yields excellent results in foreign language acquisition, for instance.

How to Implement Discovery Learning?

If you’re interested in applying discovery learning theory, you can utilize some of the tools outlined below:

Workshops facilitate direct student experimentation , with observation and exploration taking the spotlight. 

Studying cause-and-effect processes allows students to naturally and dynamically solidify their learning.

Debates and Team Projects

Debates and team projects encourage idea exchanges and are excellent for finding alternative solutions collaboratively. 

They enable knowledge sharing, diversify perspectives, and encourage critical thinking.

Contexts that enable students to observe their environment and interact with it, such as fieldwork , integrate l earning into their reality . This dynamic becomes a driving force for learning.

Applying Discovery Learning theory

Incorporating discovery learning into the educational landscape requires a delicate balance between guidance and autonomy. Here’s how you can effectively apply this theory:

1. Design Engaging Tasks

Craft assignments that stimulate curiosity and compel students to explore. These tasks should provoke inquiry and demand active problem-solving.

2. Provide a Supportive Environment

Foster an environment where learners feel safe to explore and make mistakes. This encourages risk-taking and creativity, key aspects of discovery-based learning.

3. Encourage Collaboration

Promote group activities that encourage peer interaction and the exchange of diverse perspectives. Collaborative learning enhances the discovery process by exposing learners to alternative viewpoints.

4. Facilitate Reflection

Allocate time for students to reflect on their findings and experiences. Reflection aids in solidifying newfound knowledge and extracting meaningful insights.

Given its empirical nature, discovery learning is substantially influenced by ICT (Information and Communication Technologies) today. 

It adapts well to virtual environments, which help diversify practices in education for the future through augmented reality, virtual reality, and Learning Management Systems (LMS) .

In this virtual sphere, our proctoring plans become essential allies to your educational strategy, creating secure environments that respect your students’ privacy. 

Request a free demo to understand why we’re leaders in the proctoring sector.

Download now!

8 interesting

about proctoring

Discover everything you need about online proctoring in this book to know how to choose the best software.

Fill out the form and download the guide now.

And subscribe to the weekly SMOWL newsletter to get exclusive offers and promotions .

You will discover all the trends in eLearning, technology, innovation, and proctoring at the hands of evaluation and talent management experts .

Discover how SMOWL works

• Register in mySmowltech indicating your LMS.
• Check your email and follow the steps to integrate the tool.
• Enjoy your free trial of 25 licenses.

Request a free demo with one of our experts

In addition to showing you how SMOWL works, we will guide and advise you at all times so that you can choose the plan that best suits your company or institution.

• Copyright © 2024 all rights reserved SMOWLTECH

Write below what you are looking for

Knowledge is a process of discovery: how constructivism changed education

Researcher for the University of Queensland Critical Thinking Project; and Online Teacher at Education Queensland's IMPACT Centre, The University of Queensland

Disclosure statement

Luke Zaphir does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

University of Queensland provides funding as a member of The Conversation AU.

View all partners

This is the second of two essays exploring key theories – cognitive load theory and constructivism – underlying teaching methods used today.

Constructivism is an educational philosophy that deems experience as the best way to acquire knowledge.

We truly understand something – according to a constructivist – when we filter it through our senses and interactions. We can only understand the idea of “blue” if we have vision (and if we aren’t colour blind).

Constructivism is an education philosophy , not a learning method. So while it encourages students to take more ownership of their own learning, it doesn’t specify how that should be done. It is still being adapted to teaching practice.

The philosophy underpins the inquiry-based method of teaching where the teacher facilitates a learning environment in which students discover answers for themselves.

Read more: Explainer: what is inquiry-based learning and how does it help prepare children for the real world?

How developmental psychology shapes learning

One of the earliest proponents of constructivism was Swiss psychologist Jean Piaget , whose work centred around children’s cognitive development.

Piaget’s theories (popularised in the 1960s) on the developmental stages of childhood are still used in contemporary psychology. He observed that children’s interactions with the world and their sense of self corresponded to certain ages.

For instance, through sensations from birth, a child has basic interactions with the world; from two years old, they use language and play; they use logical reasoning from age seven, and abstract reasoning from age eleven.

Before Piaget, there had been little specific analyses on the developmental psychology of humans. We understood that humans became more cognitively sophisticated as they aged, but not exactly how this occurred.

Piaget’s theory was further developed by his contemporary, Lev Vygotsky (1925-1934), who saw all tasks as fitting into :

tasks we can do on our own

tasks we can do with guidance

tasks we can’t do at all.

There’s not a lot of meaningful learning to be made in the first category. If we know how to do something, we don’t gain too much from doing it again.

Similarly, there’s not much to be gained from the third category. You could throw a five year old into a calculus class run by the most brilliant teacher in the world but there just isn’t enough prior understanding and cognitive development for the child to learn anything.

Most of our learning occurs in category two. We’ve got enough prior knowledge to make sense of the topic or task, but not quite enough to fully comprehend it. In developmental psychology, this idea is known as the zone of proximal development – the place between our understanding and our ignorance.

Using the zone for learning

Imagine asking ten-year-old students to go about adding every number from 1 to 100 (1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 and onwards). They could theoretically do this by brute force addition which will likely bore and frustrate them.

A constructivist inspired teacher might instead ask: “is there a faster way of doing it?” and “is there a pattern of numbers?”

With a bit of help, some students might see that every number pairs with a corresponding number to add to 101 (1 + 100, 2 + 99, 3 + 98). They end up with 50 pairs of 101, for a much easier, faster sum of 50 x 101.

The pattern and easy multiplication might not have come intuitively (or even at all) to most students. But facilitation by the teacher pushes their existing knowledge into a meaningful learning experience – using a completely mundane problem. It then becomes a process of discovery rather than monotonous addition.

Medical students began using constructivist pedagogies in US and Australian universities in the 1960s. Instead of teachers showing students exactly how to do something and having them copy it (known as explicit instruction), tutors prompted students to form hypotheses and directed them to critique one another.

Constructivist pedagogy is now a common basis for teaching across the world . It is used across subjects, from maths and science to humanities , but with a variety of approaches.

Read more: Don’t just solve for x: letting kids explore real-world scenarios will keep them in maths class

The importance of group works

Learning methods based on constructivism primarily use group work. The emphasis is on students building their understanding of a topic or issue collaboratively.

Imagine a science class exploring gravity. The question of the day is: do objects drop at different speeds? The teacher could facilitate this activity by asking:

“what could we drop?”

“what do you think will happen if we drop these two objects at the same time?”

“how could we measure this?”

Then, the teacher would give students the chance to conduct this experiment themselves. By doing this, teachers allow students to build on their individual strengths as they discover a concept and work at their own pace.

Experiments in science class, excursions to cultural landmarks in history class, acting out Shakespeare in English – these are all examples of constructivist learning activities.

What’s the evidence?

Constructivist principles naturally align with what we expect of teachers. For instance, teacher professional standards require them to build rapport with students to manage behaviour, and expert teachers tailor lessons to students’ specific cultural, social and even individual needs.

Explicit instruction is still appropriate in many instances – but the basic teaching standard includes a recognition of students’ unique circumstances and capabilities.

Taking the constructivist approach means students can become more engaged and responsible for their own learning. Research since the 1980s shows it encourages creativity .

Constructivism can be seen as merely a descriptive theory , providing no directly useful teaching strategies. There are simply too many learning contexts (cultures, ages, subjects, technologies) for constructivism to be directly applicable, some might say.

And it’s true constructivism is a challenge. It requires creative educational design and lesson planning. The teacher needs to have an exceptional knowledge of the subject area, making constructivist approaches much harder for primary school teachers who have broader general knowledge.

Teacher-directed learning (the explicit teaching of content) has been used for a lot longer, and it’s shown to be very effective for students with learning disabilities .

Read more: Explainer: what is explicit instruction and how does it help children learn?

A major challenge for constructivism is the current outcomes-focused approach to learning. Adhering to a curricular requirement for assessment at certain times (such as end-of-term tests) takes the focus away from student-centred learning and towards test preparation.

Explicit instruction is more directly useful for teaching to the test , which can be an unfortunate reality in many educational contexts.

An an education philosophy, constructivism has a lot of potential. But getting teachers to contextualise and personalise lessons when there are standardised tests, playground duty, health and safety drills, and their personal lives, is a big ask.

Read more: I had an idea in the 1980s and to my surprise, it changed education around the world

• Developmental psychology
• Inquiry learning
• Inquiry-based learning
• learning theories

Research Fellow in Coastal Numerical Modelling

Director of STEM

Community member - Training Delivery and Development Committee (Volunteer part-time)

Chief Executive Officer

Head of Evidence to Action

Discovery Method of Teaching: A Student-Centered Approach to Learning

Table of Contents

The Discovery Learning or The Discovery Method of Teaching

It was introduced by an American Psychologist, Jerome Brunner, in the 1960s, who supported the constructivism paradigm and learning by doing. In his theory, Bruner’s Theory of Development clearly explains how students learn and the impact of the environment on the students learning.

The discovery learning method is a student-centred teaching approach that stresses problem-solving, critical thinking, and inquiry-based learning.

This strategy h as the potential to increase student engagement and motivation significantly. In this teaching method, the teachers must offer a supportive learning environment to ensure that all students benefit from this technique.

The discovery method of teaching, also known as discovery learning, is a form of education that places students at the centre of the learning process. Rather than depending on the teacher’s direct teaching, this technique enables students to actively participate in their learning process by investigating topics via inquiry and exploration.

Students can discover new ideas and concepts by problem-solving, questioning, and exploring their surroundings in exploration learning. The discovery teaching style features student-centeredness, critical thinking, problem-solving, exploration, and inquiry-based learning.

Discovery learning focuses on each student’s unique needs and talents, allowing them to explore new ideas and concepts in their distinctive manner. This strategy is ideal for naturally interested and self-motivated children since it helps them build critical thinking and problem-solving skills.

Discovery Method of Teaching (Discovery Learning)

The discovery teaching style has the potential to boost student involvement and motivation. Allowing students to participate actively in their learning makes them more involved in the topic and increases their chances of long-term retention.

Discovery learning may also assist students in developing a better knowledge of issues and ideas by allowing them to explore them more meaningfully.

But still, there are several drawbacks to using the discovery approach of teaching. Some children, for example, may struggle with the open-ended nature of discovery learning and get overwhelmed by the absence of structure.

Moreover, discovery learning takes time and may only sometimes result in the intended learning results. Instructors must balance guided and open-ended exploration learning to ensure that all children benefit from this method.

The discovery method of teaching may be implemented in various ways, depending on the subject matter and the individual requirements of the students. In mathematics, for example, students may be required to tackle a complicated issue by experimenting with several techniques and solutions independently.

Students in science may be encouraged to create their own experiments and observations about the natural world. Whatever the topic, the most important thing is to offer kids a secure and supportive learning environment where they can explore and learn at their speed.

What is the Discovery Method of Teaching?

The discovery teaching technique is a teaching and learning strategy that encourages students to learn via inquiry and experimentation. It is also known as the “investigative learning approach.” By providing students with opportunities to take an active role in their learning, this approach strongly focuses on developing critical thinking and problem-solving abilities.

Students are not simply told material; teachers encourage them to find ideas and principles independently through guided inquiry and investigation.

Types of Discovery Method of Teaching / Learning

There are two main types of discovery learning: unguided and guided discovery learning.

Unguided Discovery Learning

Students in an unguided discovery learning environment are free to autonomously explore and experiment without receiving any direction from the instructor. During guided discovery learning, the instructor offers students approaches and assistance to encourage them to investigate and uncover new ideas autonomously.

Guided Discovery Learning

Guided discovery learning is a more organized method that gives students help and direction as they explore and figure things out independently. This strategy often entails teaching students in their inquiry by asking questions, providing prompts, and providing clues to assist them in making connections between various ideas and concepts.

Steps in Discovery Method of Teaching

The discovery method of instruction consists of three phases to assist pupils in autonomously discovering and investigating various topics. The following items are normally included in these steps:

Exploration

Exploration is the first stage of the discovery method of teaching students. Students are allowed to investigate a subject or idea at this stage of the process by engaging in activities such as reading, watching, and participating in experiments, amongst other activities. In addition to laying a foundation of knowledge for the students to build upon in the next parts of the discovery process, this stage aims to foster a sense of natural curiosity and interest in the subject matter the class is studying.

As students are in the discovery phase of the unit, their instructors may utilise a range of materials, such as films, articles, and hands-on activities, to keep their attention and interest.

For instance, in a science lesson, the teacher would invite the students to watch a chemical reaction demonstration and write down their thoughts in a notebook about what they saw. Students taking a literature class may be assigned to read a short tale and then do an analysis of the narrative’s themes and characters.

The exploration phase is essential because it lets students get acquainted with the subject matter and develop a fundamental comprehension of the subject’s main ideas. Also, it helps to build interest and enthusiasm among students, which might drive them to participate in the succeeding parts of the discovery process.

The invention process is the second phase of the discovery method of teaching. At this stage, you will allow the students to apply their prior knowledge and imagination to develop original thoughts and answers to connect the subject.

This phase is intended to be completed for students to improve their ability to think critically and independently, as well as their problem-solving skills.

During the innovation phase, instructors may give students a provocation or challenge connected to the subject and then ask them to think of their ideas and develop their own answers. Students in a social studies class must devise a strategy for combating poverty in their neighbourhood as an assigned project.

Students in a math class could be invited to create a game that illustrates a mathematical subject via play.

Since it allows students to generate their concepts and approaches to the problem, the innovation phase is an essential part of the process. Students could benefit from this not just in terms of gaining self-assurance and independence but also in terms of developing a more in-depth comprehension of the material.

The actual process of discovery learning is the last stage in the discovery method of instruction. At this stage, you will guide students through putting their thoughts and ideas to the test by having them do experiments and conduct analyses.

Students will benefit from this phase by developing a more in-depth grasp of the material and strengthening their ability to solve problems in various contexts.

During the discovery phase, a teacher may give students a task or issue relevant to the subject and then invite students to use materials to solve the problem.

To put a theory to the test, for instance. The students in a science class can be asked to design and carry out their very own experiments. Throughout their history study, students are sometimes tasked with evaluating primary materials and drawing judgments on a particular historical occurrence.

Since it allows students to test their ideas and solutions in the context of the real world, the discovery phase is a crucial part of the process. Both their ability to solve problems and their grasp of the material may improve due to this activity.

It also allows children to take ownership of their work and feel pleasure in their accomplishments, which is a powerful motivator.

5 Principles of Discovery Learning Method

The Discovery Method of Instruction is an effective strategy that centres the educational experience on the student. Educators may assist students in developing critical thinking abilities, self-direction, and resilience by combining the five processes of Problem Solving, Learner Management, Integration and Connection, Information Analysis and Interpretation, and Failure and Feedback. This strategy empowers students to take charge of their own education , resulting in a more engaged and effective learning experience.

You want your students to succeed as teachers, yet conventional teaching approaches sometimes fall short. Here is where the Discovery Teaching Approach comes in. This method places the power in the hands of the students, enabling them to direct their education and enjoy the gratification that comes from self-discovery.

Principal  1: Problem-Solving 

Problem-solving is the first phase of the Discovery method of instruction. Students must identify an issue, question, or difficulty and then brainstorm possible solutions or responses in this stage. The emphasis is on the mental process and critical thinking abilities required to arrive at a solution rather than the “correct” or “wrong” answer. Students grow more skilled at problem-solving and are better prepared to manage complicated situations in the future when they are encouraged to think creatively and evaluate some possibilities.

Principal  2: Learner Management

The second phase in the Discovery Way of Teaching is learner management. The significance of student autonomy and self-direction is emphasised at this level. Learners are empowered to take charge of their education by defining objectives and measuring their progress toward those goals. This stage also enables students to acquire time management skills and learn how to prioritize things to meet their objectives.

Principle  3: Integration and Connection

Integration and Connection is the third phase in the Discovery Way of Teaching. Students are encouraged to apply what they learn in other aspects of their lives at this level. This integration and connectivity may take numerous forms, such as using new information in real-world situations or integrating concepts across disciplines. Creating these connections gives students a more comprehensive grasp of the world and how various ideas fit together.

Principle 4:  Information Analysis and Interpretation

Information analysis and interpretation are the fourth and final phases. In the classroom , students can explore the topic further and critically assess information sources. Students learn to recognize prejudice, analyse facts, and make sound decisions. This level promotes students becoming more selective information consumers while developing strong analytical and research abilities.

Principle 5: Failure and Feedback

Failure and feedback are the last steps in the discovery method of teaching. This stage highlights the significance of trial and error in learning. Teachers may help students learn from their mistakes and build resilience by allowing them to fail and offering constructive criticism. This phase also teaches pupils to see learning as a journey rather than a goal.

3 Modes of Representation in Jerome Bruner’s Constructivist Theory Of Learning And Cognitive Development

The Discovery Learning Method or Bruner’s 3 Steps of Learning in a Spiral Curriculum

• Enactive Mode
• Iconic Mode
• Symbolic Mode

Jerome Bruner’s constructivist theory of learning and cognitive development is an outstanding contribution to education that has transformed how we think about teaching and learning. Bruner felt that learning should be an active process in which students actively develop their own knowledge via interaction with their surroundings. This educational technique empowers and frees pupils by giving them agency and control over their learning.

Bruner’s theory is intensely emotional since it recognizes each learner’s unique experiences and views. It acknowledges that everyone has a unique perspective on the world and that this perspective is continually developing and changing. Bruner thought education should be adapted to each learner’s requirements rather than a one-size-fits-all approach that overlooks the complexities of human intellect and growth.

The constructivist learning and cognitive development paradigm supports critical thinking, problem-solving, and creativity. It understands that education is more than simply gathering information; it is also about applying that information meaningfully. Bruner felt students should be allowed to investigate new ideas and concepts and participate in open-ended inquiry and experimentation.

Bruner’s constructivist approach also highlights the significance of social contact and cooperation in learning. It acknowledges that we learn not just from our own viewpoints and experiences but also from the perspectives and experiences of others. This social component of education is a strong source of emotional engagement and connection because it helps us to meaningfully connect with others and build a better knowledge of ourselves and the world around us. He introduced the tree models for discovery learning, which are explained below.

Enactive Mode In the Discovery Learning (0 to 1 Year)

The discovery learning technique relies on the active mode, which emphasises the value of hands-on experience and active participation in the learning process. It encourages students to learn by doing and to relate their experiences to the taught principles. This learning method is productive and exciting, enabling students to thoroughly immerse themselves in the subject matter and take ownership of their learning.

Learners participate in physical activities that assist them in understanding the topics being taught in the method of discovery learning. This might include creating models, performing experiments, or participating in simulations. By actively engaging in these activities, students may gain personal experience with the ideas and concepts being taught, resulting in a stronger grasp and recall of the information.

Enactive learning is especially effective for those who struggle with typical classroom learning approaches such as lectures and texts. It offers a different method that enables students to actively engage in their education and take charge of their learning. Learners may build a personal connection to the subject by leveraging their experiences and observations, which can help them better absorb and recall the content.

Iconic Mode In the Discovery Learning Method (1 to 6 Years)

For young learners aged 1 to 6 years, the iconic mode is essential to the exploration learning process. It enables individuals to learn via visual representation and investigate their surroundings through their senses. This learning method is interesting and engaging because it allows youngsters to use their ideas and creativity to find new things and relate their experiences to the topics taught.

Children employ visual aids such as drawings, diagrams, and movies to explore and comprehend the world around them in the iconic mode of exploration learning. They may use their senses to study and learn about many items and occurrences, including touch, smell, taste, sight, and sound. They may build a personal connection to the subject matter by engaging these senses, resulting in stronger comprehension and retention of the content.

The iconic mode is especially useful for young learners still working on their language abilities. It enables people to communicate and comprehend topics using visual signals rather than exclusively through spoken communication. This bridges the gap between their present level of language development and the subjects being taught, making it easier for children to learn and create connections.

Symbolic Mode In the Discovery Learning Method (for seven and Above Years)

For older learners to understand complex ideas and develop critical thinking abilities, the symbolic mode of the discovery learning approach is important. It teaches students to create links between abstract concepts and the actual world by representing ideas and theories using symbols and words. This form of learning is fascinating and powerful since it enables students to express themselves and comprehend complicated topics in innovative and relevant ways.

Students utilise symbols like letters, numbers, and mathematical formulae to express ideas and concepts in the symbolic style of discovery learning. They use language to explain and analyse these symbols and relate them to the actual world. Students may better comprehend complicated topics and apply this knowledge to real-world issues and circumstances by employing symbols and words.

The symbolic method is especially valuable for older students because it enables them to practice critical thinking and problem-solving abilities. Students may improve their analytical and problem-solving skills by using symbols and words to express abstract ideas. Students may also enhance their communication abilities by using language to express themselves clearly and effectively.

Discovery Method of Teaching Advantages and Disadvantages

Advantages:

• Encourages Active Learning: Discovery learning enables students to actively participate in the learning process, which increases motivation and interest in the topic.
• Students build critical thinking and problem-solving abilities through solving issues and exploring new ideas, which are vital for their future academic and professional success.
• Customised Learning: By allowing students to explore ideas and answers quickly, personalized learning is promoted, and individual needs and interests are catered to.
• Long-term Retention: Since discovery learning is hands-on, it enhances long-term knowledge retention and improves memory recall.
• Encourages Curiosity: Since students actively research and study new ideas and concepts, the discovery learning technique fosters curiosity and a quest for knowledge.

Disadvantages:

Time-consuming: Compared to other teaching approaches, the discovery learning method may be time-consuming since students may need more time to investigate and discover topics.

Resources required: To perform experiments or investigations, discovery learning necessitates using resources such as equipment, materials, and enough space.

Students may feel overwhelmed or confused when investigating new concepts and ideas if they need to be properly guided and structured.

Possible Misconceptions: Students who explore subjects without good direction may acquire misconceptions or misunderstandings, leading to wrong conclusions and incomplete learning.

Assessment Difficulties: Evaluating student learning and comprehension in discovery learning may be difficult since quantifying a student’s understanding and knowledge level can be difficult.

• Active learning and critical thinking abilities are encouraged.
• Curiosity and drive to study are encouraged.
• Improves idea retention and comprehension.
• Aids in the development of problem-solving abilities.
• It encourages independence and self-directed learning.
• It promotes creativity and inventiveness.
• Encourages the use of knowledge in real-world circumstances.
• Opportunities for cooperation and communication are provided.
• Improves student interest and participation in learning.
• Allows learners to take charge of their learning.
• Planning and execution need a large amount of time and resources.
• It may only be appropriate for some learners, particularly those who demand structure and assistance.
• It might be difficult for pupils who do not have previous knowledge or core abilities.
• Sufficient supervision and feedback may result in a partial or accurate grasp of topics.
• Learning outcomes assessment may require more work to evaluate and quantify.

What is Discovery Learning?

Discovery Learning is a student-centred teaching and learning strategy that promotes problem-solving, critical thinking, and discovery. Students actively participate in the learning process with this technique, finding topics via inquiry and exploration.

What are the benefits of using the Discovery Learning Method?

The Discovery Learning Method promotes active participation and critical thinking, fosters creativity, improves problem-solving abilities, encourages cooperation and teamwork, and provides a more real and meaningful learning experience.

What are the characteristics of Discovery Learning?

Discovery Learning has a student-centred approach, active involvement in the learning process, problem-solving and critical thinking, exploration and experimentation, and an emphasis on generating real and meaningful learning experiences.

What are the discovery method of teaching examples?

Pure discovery learning, guided discovery learning, and problem-based learning are all examples of discovery learning.

How does the Discovery Learning Method promote active learning?

The Discovery Learning Method encourages active learning by enabling students to take ownership of their education and actively participate in the learning process via inquiry and experimentation.

What are some examples of hands-on learning activities used in discovery learning?

Experiments, simulations, case studies, and problem-based learning activities are some hands-on learning activities utilised in Discovery Learning.

How does the Discovery Learning Method encourage collaboration among students?

The Discovery Learning Method promotes cooperation and group work activities, such as collaborative problem-solving and group presentations, to increase student participation.

How does the Discovery Learning Method promote problem-solving skills?

The Discovery Learning Method encourages students to participate in learning, develop critical thinking abilities, and apply problem-solving techniques to real-world situations and circumstances.

How can teachers evaluate student learning in the Discovery Learning Method?

Instructors may assess student learning using several assessment techniques in the Discovery Learning Method, such as formative assessments, self-assessments, and peer assessments. Teachers may also use rubrics to measure student performance on particular learning goals.

How does the Discovery Learning Method align with educational innovation?

The Discovery Learning Method promotes student-centred learning, active involvement, and real and meaningful learning experiences, which connect with educational innovation. This method of teaching and learning fosters creativity, critical thinking, and problem-solving abilities, all of which are necessary for success in today’s fast-changing world.

Discovery Method of Teaching – ppt

Find the discovery method of teaching – ppt by visiting our  Instagram

Discovery Method of Teaching pdf

Find the discovery method of teaching discovery method of teaching pdf u=join our Facebook Group 

You may also like

ROLE OF EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY IN TEACHING –...

Educational Psychology: Definition, Nature, Scope, and...

What is Psychology? Meaning and Nature of Psychology

13 Scientific Strategies to Help Students and...

Innovative teaching strategies to enhance...

Exploring 4 Classroom Management Styles

29 comments.

[…] the promising nature of team teaching as a method that promotes effective […]

[…] emphasizes hands-on learning and active exploration over passive listening or rote memorization. The Realism teaching method encourages students to participate in activities that help them connect their learning to the real […]

[…] learning is a teaching approach that engages students in the learning process by having them think, discuss, and solve problems. It […]

[…] ground rules in the classroom. Teachers can promote responsible behavior and cultivate a positive learning environment by implementing a progressive discipline approach, ensuring the proportionality of consequences, and consistently enforcing them. Establishing values […]

[…] Assessment is an evaluation method used to measure students’ learning outcomes and achievements at the end of a particular course, unit, or instructional period. It is […]

[…] for Learning (AFL) is a teaching approach that focuses on checking for understanding and making adjustments accordingly. This approach […]

[…] these five educational philosophies share some common goals, they significantly differ in their teaching and learning approaches. Essentialism emphasizes the acquisition of essential knowledge and skills; Perennialism emphasizes […]

[…] another emphasizes the collaboration of those involved in the learning process. This collaborative learning approach helps build and strengthen the interdependence between peers. Also, it encourages them to develop a […]

[…] Philosophy and the aims of education are interrelated, and it is essential to understand the connection between them. Philosophy provides the foundation for educational theories, methods, and practices. It shapes the values, beliefs, and attitudes that educators bring to the classroom. The philosophy of education informs the aims of education, which serve as a guide for educational practices. Aims of education define what educators hope to achieve through teaching and learning. Philosophy is the study of fundamental questions about existence, knowledge, values, and reality. It provides a framework for understanding the world around us and our place in it. In the context of education, philosophy is concerned with the study of the nature and purpose of education, the role of the teacher and student, and the methods of teaching and learning. […]

[…] this method to help students better understand the world. An integrated curriculum is a type of teaching approach that unifies various subjects into a logical whole. This method promotes a comprehensive worldview […]

[…] as a process of obtaining information, educators can make informed decisions to tailor their teaching approaches and support individual student […]

[…] knowledge and skill acquisition. It provides educators with crucial information to improve teaching methods and support students’ Learning. By incorporating both formative and summative assessments, educators can ensure a comprehensive […]

[…] As We have learned in Discovery Learning, Classroom organization is vital in effective classroom management as it contributes to a structured and efficient learning environment. Organizing physical space, instructional materials, and resources in a logical and accessible manner helps minimize distractions and maximizes instructional time. Well-organized classrooms also support smooth transitions between activities, facilitate student movement, and promote a sense of order and predictability, which is essential for maintaining a focused and productive learning environment. […]

[…] has proven to be a game-changer in education, revolutionizing how students learn and teachers teach. This innovative online platform combines the power of technology with the expertise of educators, […]

[…] education, pragmatism facilitates an interdisciplinary approach to teaching and learning. This strategy acknowledges that real-world issues frequently necessitate diverse views and areas […]

[…] determining the proper approaches and strategies to reach educational goals most successfully. The teaching techniques should be founded on solid pedagogical concepts and consider students’ lea… styles and abilities. The instructor should be informed about the subject topic and skilful in […]

[…] naturalist education. Montessori education, for example, is a good instance of this because in this method of teaching the child learns even reading and writing through play. Scouting is another activity in which the child is taught […]

[…] research paradigm contrasts with positivism, which takes an objective approach to research by using quantitative methods such as surveys and experiments to test hypotheses. Interpretive research typically includes […]

[…] research is an approach that uses non-quantitative methods to gather data. This type of research is often used in the social sciences to gain deeper insight […]

[…] child learns by active work, either in group activity or individual activity. This is known as the method of learning by doing. The learner has to learn not from the educator’s experience but from his own […]

[…] examining how knowledge is acquired and evaluated, students can learn to approach the material more critically and develop a deeper appreciation for the complexity of knowledge and […]

[…] It provides a framework for understanding the world around us and our place in it. In the context of education, philosophy is concerned with the study of the nature and purpose of education, the role of the teacher and student, and the methods of teaching and learning. […]

[…] Assigning homework is a gateway to lifelong learning, enabling students to reinforce content independently at home. Tasks promote self-directed study and deeper understanding. Students are already familiar with this practice, having been exposed to problem-based learning approaches. […]

[…] instruction is a teaching approach that recognizes and accommodates the diverse learning needs, interests, and abilities of students. Educators tailor their instruction to meet the […]

[…] dualism, avoiding forced dichotomies like postpositivism and constructivism. Empirical approaches are preferred over idealistic or rationalistic methods. Pragmatist researchers emphasize the effectiveness of an inquiry in achieving its purposes, with a […]

[…] that involves far more than simply prescribing rules and enforcing penalties. It is a comprehensive approach that aims to cultivate a positive learning environment, encourage student responsibility, and promote academic success. Effective behavior […]

[…] The benefits of early childhood education are endless, but the most important benefit is that it teaches the child how to learn. It also prepares them for a lifetime of […]

[…] interdisciplinary projects that center around real-world challenges or problems. Unlike traditional teaching methods that prioritize memorization and rote learning, PBL emphasizes inquiry, collaboration, and hands-on experiences, enabling students to apply their […]

[…] the teaching-learning process. It provides theoretical knowledge for a better understanding of the teaching and learning process within the context of all its complexities and […]

Leave a Comment X

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

• e-Learning Glossary

What is Discovery Learning? Exploring the Interactive Approach to Education

Discover the essence of Discovery Learning: a student-centered educational method fostering critical thinking, problem-solving, and active engagement. Ideal for educators and learners.

Discovery Learning is a significant educational approach that encourages students to actively engage with the material , leading to a deeper grasp of the subject matter.

This method, embedded in cognitive psychology, highlights the importance of problem-solving and critical thinking skills. This overview will explore the intricacies of this learning approach, examining its benefits, applications, and potential challenges.

The Concept of Discovery Learning

Developed in the 1960s by psychologist Jerome Bruner , discovery learning is an instructional theory that involves students interacting with their environment. This includes exploring and manipulating objects, face with questions and controversies, or conducting experiments.

At its core, discovery learning posits that students learn more effectively and retain information longer when they discover facts and relationships on their own. This contrasts with traditional instruction methods , where facts are directly presented or demonstrated to students without their active involvement.

Key Principles of Discovery Learning

Several key principles underpin discovery learning. Primarily, learning is seen as an active process that demands learner engagement and participation. It is most impactful when relevant to the learner's life and interests, and is enhanced through problem-solving and critical thinking activities.

A critical aspect of discovery learning is its student-centered nature. The educator's role is to guide and facilitate learning, not merely to transmit knowledge. This can involve providing resources, posing thought-provoking questions, or aiding students in reflecting on their experiences.

Benefits of Discovery Learning

This approach offers numerous benefits. It enhances motivation, curiosity, and a passion for learning. Students deeply engage with material, leading to a profound understanding of the subject matter and the development of crucial skills like problem-solving, critical thinking, and creativity.

Discovery Learning also nurtures autonomy and self-direction. Students learn to take charge of their learning, fostering self-confidence and a positive learning attitude. They also hone collaborative skills, benefiting communication and interpersonal abilities.

Impact on Cognitive Development

Discovery Learning significantly affects cognitive development. Engaging in problem-solving and critical thinking fosters cognitive abilities like reasoning, memory, and attention. It also promotes independent and critical thinking, crucial for success in various academic and professional contexts.

Additionally, this approach aids in developing metacognitive skills, enabling students to reflect on their thinking processes. This fosters improved self-awareness and self-regulation, key to lifelong learning and personal growth.

Challenges and Considerations in Discovery Learning

Despite its advantages, discovery learning poses certain challenges. Some students might find the open-ended nature of these activities daunting and require more structured guidance. Also, it can be more time-consuming than traditional instruction methods, posing a challenge in time-constrained educational settings.

Role of the Educator

In discovery learning, educators play a vital role. They must establish a supportive environment, supply necessary resources, and guide students through their learning journey. This requires a deep understanding of the subject and strong skills in facilitating learning.

Assessing students’ progress in such an environment can be challenging, as learning is often nonlinear and personalized. However, effective assessment strategies can ensure comprehensive learning for all students.

Implementing Discovery Learning

Implementing this approach requires careful planning and preparation. Educators must create engaging, relevant, and challenging activities, providing the needed resources and support.

Flexibility, creativity, and a profound understanding of the learning process are essential for educators to adapt their teaching strategies according to student needs and responses.

Examples of Discovery Learning Activities

Discovery Learning can be implemented in various ways. Project-based learning, for example, involves students in extended, complex tasks or projects, allowing them to delve deep into a topic and apply knowledge in practical contexts.

Inquiry-based learning, where students explore a question or problem, fosters analytical reasoning and information-seeking. Other methods include case studies, simulations, and experiments.

In summary, discovery learning stands out as a transformative educational approach that transcends traditional teaching methods by prioritizing student engagement , curiosity, and active participation in the learning process.

Its foundation in cognitive psychology and emphasis problem-solving equips students with not only knowledge but also essential life skills. While it presents certain logistical and instructional challenges,

Properly implemented, discovery learning can be a powerful tool in cultivating a generation of learners who are not just knowledgeable but are also critical thinkers and problem solvers, ready to face the complexities of the real world.

Create engaging and interactive courses at scale. Start today.

Related learning terms

Learn about customer service training for companies to teach employees how to communicate and help customers. Tips for finding the best program and the average cost of training.

What is H5P? Discover in our in-depth article. Uncover the benefits, features, and applications of this free, interactive e-learning tool that's reshaping digital education.

Discover the essentials of Extended Enterprise Training: learn what it is, explore its key benefits, and understand best practices for implementation.

Discover the benefits of structured workplace training with our comprehensive guide. Learn about implementing formal learning programs in your organization to enhance skill development, boost productivity, and improve employee satisfaction.

We empower online academies to launch engaging learning experiences and improve learning outcomes through our social learning platform.

• White Label LMS
• LMS for Nonprofits
• Integrations
• Comparisons
• eLearning Glossary
• Request a demo
• Cohort-based learning
• Collaborative learning
• Corporate training
• Capability academy
• Group coaching
• Course creators platform
• Community-based learning
• Free course pricing calculator
• Free course revenues calculator
• Become a partner
• Privacy Policy
• Product Updates
• System Status

Ready to get started?

Constructivist Learning Theory

Our understanding of how people learn is ever-growing and changing. Likewise, the way that we process what we learn is an ongoing process—a constant update to our view of the world.

Few learning theories better embody this concept than constructivism. One of the most influential learning theories today, it has been used in classrooms and other learning environments around the world for decades, and it continues to be a powerful tool for teachers and learners alike.

Constructivism in education is an approach that focuses on allowing students to construct their own understanding of a subject by actively engaging with the material presented to them.

This theory emphasizes learner-centric approaches where the student takes ownership of their knowledge and experiences as they progress through a course or program. It encourages exploration, experimentation, collaboration, critical thinking, and reflection—all essential components of effective education systems today. 

This article will leave you with a better understanding of constructivism as well as a handful of methods you can use to implement this learning theory in your learning management system.

• What is constructivist learning theory?

The constructivist learning theory refers to the method of learning that allows learners to “construct” their knowledge and skills through meaningful interactions and empowers them through their own self-directed learning.

This educational theory leans in to the idea that each individual learner develops their own understanding through experience and reflection. Rather than memorizing facts from a teacher or external source, learners actively construct meaning for themselves.

At the core of constructivism is discovery—a crucial aspect of the learning process.

Learners take new information and internalize it, integrating it with their prior knowledge and experiences. The constructivist theory of learning emphasizes the importance of social interaction in the learning process, as learners absorb information in two ways:

Assimilation: Learners take in information from their environment and integrate it into what they already know.

Accommodation: Learners adjust their existing understanding to incorporate new knowledge or experiences. 

These two methods of learning are used either interchangeably or simultaneously by all learners to better comprehend their environment and those in it. 

• Principles of constructivism

The principles of constructivist learning theory revolve around facilitating meaningful learning. They are:

1. Learners construct meaning. Learning is an active process where students build upon their existing knowledge to make sense of new information. Through constructivism, learners formulate and modify their opinions regularly.

2. Learning is inherently social. Social interaction plays an essential role in helping learners understand, evaluate, and internalize ideas and concepts. Learners are far more likely to encounter new information when they interact with others and their environment.

3. Knowledge is situated. Meaningful learning takes place when knowledge can be applied to real-world or relevant contexts. You don’t just learn for the sake of learning—your education is meant to assist you.

4. Reflection plays a key role. Constructivism also stresses the importance of reflecting on one’s learning process and understanding. Through reflection, learners can assess their current level of knowledge and identify areas where they need to improve or gain further insight. 

5. Mistakes are part of the process. Making mistakes is an important aspect of learning, as it allows for opportunities for growth and development. Experimentation with different strategies often leads to successful outcomes later on down the line.

These aspects make up a learning theory that leaves learners with their own evolving paradigm with which to process future information.

3 main types of constructivism

There are three main types of constructivism that have been identified, each having a significant (and slightly altered) impact on the way learners interact with their environment. 

• 1. Social constructivism

This type of constructivism emphasizes the importance of social interaction in learning. It suggests that learners understand and internalize new concepts and ideas through collaboration, dialogue, and discourse with other people. 

• 2. Cognitive constructivism

This type of constructivism focuses on the individual learner’s ability to form meaning from their experiences. It views learning as an active process where knowledge is constructed by each individual through reflection, exploration, experimentation, problem-solving, and critical thinking. 

Note: Constructivism vs. Cognitivism

Cognitive constructivism should not be confused with cognitivism—another important learning theory. While similar, the difference in cognitivism vs constructivism has to do with the theory’s approach.

Cognitivism explains the internal, psychological processes that occur when information is absorbed. By contrast, constructivism explores the social and collaborative aspects of learning.

• 3. Radical constructivism

This type of constructivism stresses the idea that knowledge is subjective and personal. Knowledge cannot be shared or transferred between individuals because their unique perspective will cause them to interpret information differently.

• Using constructivist learning theory in your employee training programs

Constructivist learning theory has been used in a variety of educational settings, such as classrooms, museums, libraries, and online environments. However, it can also be used to improve employee training programs in a number of ways. Here are some constructivism examples being used in the workplace:

1. Break down traditional learning models. Traditional learning models rely heavily on lectures and memorization. However, constructivism encourages experiential learning, which encourages learners to actively engage with the material presented to them. Provide learners with opportunities to experiment and explore the material through projects, simulations, or other activities .

2. Provide feedback. Constructivism emphasizes the importance of reflection and feedback. Make sure to create a learning environment where learners feel comfortable providing feedback on their own experiences as well as offering constructive criticism or suggestions to their peers.

3. Encourage collaboration. As mentioned earlier, constructivist learning theory emphasizes the importance of social interaction in the learning process. Encourage learners to work together and share their experiences in order to better comprehend the material.

4. Facilitate meaningful conversations. Constructivism is all about making meaningful connections between ideas. Encourage conversations between learners and instructors that go beyond memorization and focus on discussing and exploring the material.

As you create your employee training program, remember that mistakes are part of the learning process. Don’t be afraid to try new approaches in order to create the most effective learning environment for your employees.

Criticisms of constructivism

While constructivism has its merits, it is not without its criticisms.

• 1. Subjective truth

One major criticism of this learning theory is that it can be difficult to assess learner comprehension since there aren’t inherently right or wrong answers in a constructivist approach. Incorporating incorrect information into your understanding of a topic is more than a puzzle missing a piece—you’re more likely to miss future pieces, too.

• 2. Constant attention

Additionally, constructivism is often a self-directed method of learning but demands a great deal from mentors. Constructivism requires educators to remain attentive and provide learners with guidance complementary to their individual needs. However, this can be especially difficult (and time-consuming) if there are multiple learners involved.

• 3. Culturally biased

Some have also argued that constructivism does not take into account cultural or social differences between learners, and it can often be biased towards one group or another. The theory doesn’t offer an efficient way of teaching large groups at once, which increases the likelihood of unequal outcomes.

Constructivism’s Role in Shaping Future Training

Constructivism is an essential component of modern training, providing a framework within which learners can explore new concepts in a meaningful way.

Through exploration, experimentation, problem-solving and collaboration, learners are able to construct their own understanding of a subject, and find solutions that work best for them. 

Although it has its critics, constructivism remains a powerful tool for teachers and learners alike—one that is ever-evolving as our understanding of learning grows.

By understanding how this learning theory works and how it can be applied effectively in your organization’s training program, you can create an environment that fosters growth and development among your employees.

Sign up to get the latest industry tips, insights, and trends from our team of learning experts.

Share this article:

• Constructivism's Role in Shaping Future Training

The ELM L&D Hub

Instructional design knowledge for all.

• Table of Contents
• New in this Archive
• Chronological
• Editorial Information
• About the SEP
• Editorial Board
• How to Cite the SEP
• Special Characters
• Support the SEP
• PDFs for SEP Friends
• Make a Donation
• SEPIA for Libraries
• Entry Contents

Bibliography

Academic tools.

• Friends PDF Preview
• Author and Citation Info
• Back to Top

Critical Thinking

Critical thinking is a widely accepted educational goal. Its definition is contested, but the competing definitions can be understood as differing conceptions of the same basic concept: careful thinking directed to a goal. Conceptions differ with respect to the scope of such thinking, the type of goal, the criteria and norms for thinking carefully, and the thinking components on which they focus. Its adoption as an educational goal has been recommended on the basis of respect for students’ autonomy and preparing students for success in life and for democratic citizenship. “Critical thinkers” have the dispositions and abilities that lead them to think critically when appropriate. The abilities can be identified directly; the dispositions indirectly, by considering what factors contribute to or impede exercise of the abilities. Standardized tests have been developed to assess the degree to which a person possesses such dispositions and abilities. Educational intervention has been shown experimentally to improve them, particularly when it includes dialogue, anchored instruction, and mentoring. Controversies have arisen over the generalizability of critical thinking across domains, over alleged bias in critical thinking theories and instruction, and over the relationship of critical thinking to other types of thinking.

2.1 Dewey’s Three Main Examples

2.2 dewey’s other examples, 2.3 further examples, 2.4 non-examples, 3. the definition of critical thinking, 4. its value, 5. the process of thinking critically, 6. components of the process, 7. contributory dispositions and abilities, 8.1 initiating dispositions, 8.2 internal dispositions, 9. critical thinking abilities, 10. required knowledge, 11. educational methods, 12.1 the generalizability of critical thinking, 12.2 bias in critical thinking theory and pedagogy, 12.3 relationship of critical thinking to other types of thinking, other internet resources, related entries.

Use of the term ‘critical thinking’ to describe an educational goal goes back to the American philosopher John Dewey (1910), who more commonly called it ‘reflective thinking’. He defined it as

active, persistent and careful consideration of any belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the grounds that support it, and the further conclusions to which it tends. (Dewey 1910: 6; 1933: 9)

and identified a habit of such consideration with a scientific attitude of mind. His lengthy quotations of Francis Bacon, John Locke, and John Stuart Mill indicate that he was not the first person to propose development of a scientific attitude of mind as an educational goal.

In the 1930s, many of the schools that participated in the Eight-Year Study of the Progressive Education Association (Aikin 1942) adopted critical thinking as an educational goal, for whose achievement the study’s Evaluation Staff developed tests (Smith, Tyler, & Evaluation Staff 1942). Glaser (1941) showed experimentally that it was possible to improve the critical thinking of high school students. Bloom’s influential taxonomy of cognitive educational objectives (Bloom et al. 1956) incorporated critical thinking abilities. Ennis (1962) proposed 12 aspects of critical thinking as a basis for research on the teaching and evaluation of critical thinking ability.

Since 1980, an annual international conference in California on critical thinking and educational reform has attracted tens of thousands of educators from all levels of education and from many parts of the world. Also since 1980, the state university system in California has required all undergraduate students to take a critical thinking course. Since 1983, the Association for Informal Logic and Critical Thinking has sponsored sessions in conjunction with the divisional meetings of the American Philosophical Association (APA). In 1987, the APA’s Committee on Pre-College Philosophy commissioned a consensus statement on critical thinking for purposes of educational assessment and instruction (Facione 1990a). Researchers have developed standardized tests of critical thinking abilities and dispositions; for details, see the Supplement on Assessment . Educational jurisdictions around the world now include critical thinking in guidelines for curriculum and assessment. Political and business leaders endorse its importance.

For details on this history, see the Supplement on History .

2. Examples and Non-Examples

Before considering the definition of critical thinking, it will be helpful to have in mind some examples of critical thinking, as well as some examples of kinds of thinking that would apparently not count as critical thinking.

Dewey (1910: 68–71; 1933: 91–94) takes as paradigms of reflective thinking three class papers of students in which they describe their thinking. The examples range from the everyday to the scientific.

Transit : “The other day, when I was down town on 16th Street, a clock caught my eye. I saw that the hands pointed to 12:20. This suggested that I had an engagement at 124th Street, at one o'clock. I reasoned that as it had taken me an hour to come down on a surface car, I should probably be twenty minutes late if I returned the same way. I might save twenty minutes by a subway express. But was there a station near? If not, I might lose more than twenty minutes in looking for one. Then I thought of the elevated, and I saw there was such a line within two blocks. But where was the station? If it were several blocks above or below the street I was on, I should lose time instead of gaining it. My mind went back to the subway express as quicker than the elevated; furthermore, I remembered that it went nearer than the elevated to the part of 124th Street I wished to reach, so that time would be saved at the end of the journey. I concluded in favor of the subway, and reached my destination by one o’clock.” (Dewey 1910: 68-69; 1933: 91-92)

Ferryboat : “Projecting nearly horizontally from the upper deck of the ferryboat on which I daily cross the river is a long white pole, having a gilded ball at its tip. It suggested a flagpole when I first saw it; its color, shape, and gilded ball agreed with this idea, and these reasons seemed to justify me in this belief. But soon difficulties presented themselves. The pole was nearly horizontal, an unusual position for a flagpole; in the next place, there was no pulley, ring, or cord by which to attach a flag; finally, there were elsewhere on the boat two vertical staffs from which flags were occasionally flown. It seemed probable that the pole was not there for flag-flying.

“I then tried to imagine all possible purposes of the pole, and to consider for which of these it was best suited: (a) Possibly it was an ornament. But as all the ferryboats and even the tugboats carried poles, this hypothesis was rejected. (b) Possibly it was the terminal of a wireless telegraph. But the same considerations made this improbable. Besides, the more natural place for such a terminal would be the highest part of the boat, on top of the pilot house. (c) Its purpose might be to point out the direction in which the boat is moving.

“In support of this conclusion, I discovered that the pole was lower than the pilot house, so that the steersman could easily see it. Moreover, the tip was enough higher than the base, so that, from the pilot's position, it must appear to project far out in front of the boat. Morevoer, the pilot being near the front of the boat, he would need some such guide as to its direction. Tugboats would also need poles for such a purpose. This hypothesis was so much more probable than the others that I accepted it. I formed the conclusion that the pole was set up for the purpose of showing the pilot the direction in which the boat pointed, to enable him to steer correctly.” (Dewey 1910: 69-70; 1933: 92-93)

Bubbles : “In washing tumblers in hot soapsuds and placing them mouth downward on a plate, bubbles appeared on the outside of the mouth of the tumblers and then went inside. Why? The presence of bubbles suggests air, which I note must come from inside the tumbler. I see that the soapy water on the plate prevents escape of the air save as it may be caught in bubbles. But why should air leave the tumbler? There was no substance entering to force it out. It must have expanded. It expands by increase of heat, or by decrease of pressure, or both. Could the air have become heated after the tumbler was taken from the hot suds? Clearly not the air that was already entangled in the water. If heated air was the cause, cold air must have entered in transferring the tumblers from the suds to the plate. I test to see if this supposition is true by taking several more tumblers out. Some I shake so as to make sure of entrapping cold air in them. Some I take out holding mouth downward in order to prevent cold air from entering. Bubbles appear on the outside of every one of the former and on none of the latter. I must be right in my inference. Air from the outside must have been expanded by the heat of the tumbler, which explains the appearance of the bubbles on the outside. But why do they then go inside? Cold contracts. The tumbler cooled and also the air inside it. Tension was removed, and hence bubbles appeared inside. To be sure of this, I test by placing a cup of ice on the tumbler while the bubbles are still forming outside. They soon reverse” (Dewey 1910: 70–71; 1933: 93–94).

Dewey (1910, 1933) sprinkles his book with other examples of critical thinking. We will refer to the following.

Weather : A man on a walk notices that it has suddenly become cool, thinks that it is probably going to rain, looks up and sees a dark cloud obscuring the sun, and quickens his steps (1910: 6–10; 1933: 9–13).

Disorder : A man finds his rooms on his return to them in disorder with his belongings thrown about, thinks at first of burglary as an explanation, then thinks of mischievous children as being an alternative explanation, then looks to see whether valuables are missing, and discovers that they are (1910: 82–83; 1933: 166–168).

Typhoid : A physician diagnosing a patient whose conspicuous symptoms suggest typhoid avoids drawing a conclusion until more data are gathered by questioning the patient and by making tests (1910: 85–86; 1933: 170).

Blur : A moving blur catches our eye in the distance, we ask ourselves whether it is a cloud of whirling dust or a tree moving its branches or a man signaling to us, we think of other traits that should be found on each of those possibilities, and we look and see if those traits are found (1910: 102, 108; 1933: 121, 133).

Suction pump : In thinking about the suction pump, the scientist first notes that it will draw water only to a maximum height of 33 feet at sea level and to a lesser maximum height at higher elevations, selects for attention the differing atmospheric pressure at these elevations, sets up experiments in which the air is removed from a vessel containing water (when suction no longer works) and in which the weight of air at various levels is calculated, compares the results of reasoning about the height to which a given weight of air will allow a suction pump to raise water with the observed maximum height at different elevations, and finally assimilates the suction pump to such apparently different phenomena as the siphon and the rising of a balloon (1910: 150–153; 1933: 195–198).

Diamond : A passenger in a car driving in a diamond lane reserved for vehicles with at least one passenger notices that the diamond marks on the pavement are far apart in some places and close together in others. Why? The driver suggests that the reason may be that the diamond marks are not needed where there is a solid double line separating the diamond line from the adjoining lane, but are needed when there is a dotted single line permitting crossing into the diamond lane. Further observation confirms that the diamonds are close together when a dotted line separates the diamond lane from its neighbour, but otherwise far apart.

Rash : A woman suddenly develops a very itchy red rash on her throat and upper chest. She recently noticed a mark on the back of her right hand, but was not sure whether the mark was a rash or a scrape. She lies down in bed and thinks about what might be causing the rash and what to do about it. About two weeks before, she began taking blood pressure medication that contained a sulfa drug, and the pharmacist had warned her, in view of a previous allergic reaction to a medication containing a sulfa drug, to be on the alert for an allergic reaction; however, she had been taking the medication for two weeks with no such effect. The day before, she began using a new cream on her neck and upper chest; against the new cream as the cause was mark on the back of her hand, which had not been exposed to the cream. She began taking probiotics about a month before. She also recently started new eye drops, but she supposed that manufacturers of eye drops would be careful not to include allergy-causing components in the medication. The rash might be a heat rash, since she recently was sweating profusely from her upper body. Since she is about to go away on a short vacation, where she would not have access to her usual physician, she decides to keep taking the probiotics and using the new eye drops but to discontinue the blood pressure medication and to switch back to the old cream for her neck and upper chest. She forms a plan to consult her regular physician on her return about the blood pressure medication.

Candidate : Although Dewey included no examples of thinking directed at appraising the arguments of others, such thinking has come to be considered a kind of critical thinking. We find an example of such thinking in the performance task on the Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA+), which its sponsoring organization describes as

a performance-based assessment that provides a measure of an institution’s contribution to the development of critical-thinking and written communication skills of its students. (Council for Aid to Education 2017)

A sample task posted on its website requires the test-taker to write a report for public distribution evaluating a fictional candidate’s policy proposals and their supporting arguments, using supplied background documents, with a recommendation on whether to endorse the candidate.

Immediate acceptance of an idea that suggests itself as a solution to a problem (e.g., a possible explanation of an event or phenomenon, an action that seems likely to produce a desired result) is “uncritical thinking, the minimum of reflection” (Dewey 1910: 13). On-going suspension of judgment in the light of doubt about a possible solution is not critical thinking (Dewey 1910: 108). Critique driven by a dogmatically held political or religious ideology is not critical thinking; thus Paulo Freire (1968 [1970]) is using the term (e.g., at 1970: 71, 81, 100, 146) in a more politically freighted sense that includes not only reflection but also revolutionary action against oppression. Derivation of a conclusion from given data using an algorithm is not critical thinking.

What is critical thinking? There are many definitions. Ennis (2016) lists 14 philosophically oriented scholarly definitions and three dictionary definitions. Following Rawls (1971), who distinguished his conception of justice from a utilitarian conception but regarded them as rival conceptions of the same concept, Ennis maintains that the 17 definitions are different conceptions of the same concept. Rawls articulated the shared concept of justice as

a characteristic set of principles for assigning basic rights and duties and for determining… the proper distribution of the benefits and burdens of social cooperation. (Rawls 1971: 5)

Bailin et al. (1999b) claim that, if one considers what sorts of thinking an educator would take not to be critical thinking and what sorts to be critical thinking, one can conclude that educators typically understand critical thinking to have at least three features.

• It is done for the purpose of making up one’s mind about what to believe or do.
• The person engaging in the thinking is trying to fulfill standards of adequacy and accuracy appropriate to the thinking.
• The thinking fulfills the relevant standards to some threshold level.

One could sum up the core concept that involves these three features by saying that critical thinking is careful goal-directed thinking. This core concept seems to apply to all the examples of critical thinking described in the previous section. As for the non-examples, their exclusion depends on construing careful thinking as excluding jumping immediately to conclusions, suspending judgment no matter how strong the evidence, reasoning from an unquestioned ideological or religious perspective, and routinely using an algorithm to answer a question.

If the core of critical thinking is careful goal-directed thinking, conceptions of it can vary according to its presumed scope, its presumed goal, one’s criteria and threshold for being careful, and the thinking component on which one focuses As to its scope, some conceptions (e.g., Dewey 1910, 1933) restrict it to constructive thinking on the basis of one’s own observations and experiments, others (e.g., Ennis 1962; Fisher & Scriven 1997; Johnson 1992) to appraisal of the products of such thinking. Ennis (1991) and Bailin et al. (1999b) take it to cover both construction and appraisal. As to its goal, some conceptions restrict it to forming a judgment (Dewey 1910, 1933; Lipman 1987; Facione 1990a). Others allow for actions as well as beliefs as the end point of a process of critical thinking (Ennis 1991; Bailin et al. 1999b). As to the criteria and threshold for being careful, definitions vary in the term used to indicate that critical thinking satisfies certain norms: “intellectually disciplined” (Scriven & Paul 1987), “reasonable” (Ennis 1991), “skillful” (Lipman 1987), “skilled” (Fisher & Scriven 1997), “careful” (Bailin & Battersby 2009). Some definitions specify these norms, referring variously to “consideration of any belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the grounds that support it and the further conclusions to which it tends” (Dewey 1910, 1933); “the methods of logical inquiry and reasoning” (Glaser 1941); “conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication” (Scriven & Paul 1987); the requirement that “it is sensitive to context, relies on criteria, and is self-correcting” (Lipman 1987); “evidential, conceptual, methodological, criteriological, or contextual considerations” (Facione 1990a); and “plus-minus considerations of the product in terms of appropriate standards (or criteria)” (Johnson 1992). Stanovich and Stanovich (2010) propose to ground the concept of critical thinking in the concept of rationality, which they understand as combining epistemic rationality (fitting one’s beliefs to the world) and instrumental rationality (optimizing goal fulfillment); a critical thinker, in their view, is someone with “a propensity to override suboptimal responses from the autonomous mind” (2010: 227). These variant specifications of norms for critical thinking are not necessarily incompatible with one another, and in any case presuppose the core notion of thinking carefully. As to the thinking component singled out, some definitions focus on suspension of judgment during the thinking (Dewey 1910; McPeck 1981), others on inquiry while judgment is suspended (Bailin & Battersby 2009), others on the resulting judgment (Facione 1990a), and still others on the subsequent emotive response (Siegel 1988).

In educational contexts, a definition of critical thinking is a “programmatic definition” (Scheffler 1960: 19). It expresses a practical program for achieving an educational goal. For this purpose, a one-sentence formulaic definition is much less useful than articulation of a critical thinking process, with criteria and standards for the kinds of thinking that the process may involve. The real educational goal is recognition, adoption and implementation by students of those criteria and standards. That adoption and implementation in turn consists in acquiring the knowledge, abilities and dispositions of a critical thinker.

Conceptions of critical thinking generally do not include moral integrity as part of the concept. Dewey, for example, took critical thinking to be the ultimate intellectual goal of education, but distinguished it from the development of social cooperation among school children, which he took to be the central moral goal. Ennis (1996, 2011) added to his previous list of critical thinking dispositions a group of dispositions to care about the dignity and worth of every person, which he described as a “correlative” (1996) disposition without which critical thinking would be less valuable and perhaps harmful. An educational program that aimed at developing critical thinking but not the correlative disposition to care about the dignity and worth of every person, he asserted, “would be deficient and perhaps dangerous” (Ennis 1996: 172).

Dewey thought that education for reflective thinking would be of value to both the individual and society; recognition in educational practice of the kinship to the scientific attitude of children’s native curiosity, fertile imagination and love of experimental inquiry “would make for individual happiness and the reduction of social waste” (Dewey 1910: iii). Schools participating in the Eight-Year Study took development of the habit of reflective thinking and skill in solving problems as a means to leading young people to understand, appreciate and live the democratic way of life characteristic of the United States (Aikin 1942: 17–18, 81). Harvey Siegel (1988: 55–61) has offered four considerations in support of adopting critical thinking as an educational ideal. (1) Respect for persons requires that schools and teachers honour students’ demands for reasons and explanations, deal with students honestly, and recognize the need to confront students’ independent judgment; these requirements concern the manner in which teachers treat students. (2) Education has the task of preparing children to be successful adults, a task that requires development of their self-sufficiency. (3) Education should initiate children into the rational traditions in such fields as history, science and mathematics. (4) Education should prepare children to become democratic citizens, which requires reasoned procedures and critical talents and attitudes. To supplement these considerations, Siegel (1988: 62–90) responds to two objections: the ideology objection that adoption of any educational ideal requires a prior ideological commitment and the indoctrination objection that cultivation of critical thinking cannot escape being a form of indoctrination.

Despite the diversity of our 11 examples, one can recognize a common pattern. Dewey analyzed it as consisting of five phases:

• suggestions , in which the mind leaps forward to a possible solution;
• an intellectualization of the difficulty or perplexity into a problem to be solved, a question for which the answer must be sought;
• the use of one suggestion after another as a leading idea, or hypothesis , to initiate and guide observation and other operations in collection of factual material;
• the mental elaboration of the idea or supposition as an idea or supposition ( reasoning , in the sense on which reasoning is a part, not the whole, of inference); and
• testing the hypothesis by overt or imaginative action. (Dewey 1933: 106–107; italics in original)

The process of reflective thinking consisting of these phases would be preceded by a perplexed, troubled or confused situation and followed by a cleared-up, unified, resolved situation (Dewey 1933: 106). The term ‘phases’ replaced the term ‘steps’ (Dewey 1910: 72), thus removing the earlier suggestion of an invariant sequence. Variants of the above analysis appeared in (Dewey 1916: 177) and (Dewey 1938: 101–119).

The variant formulations indicate the difficulty of giving a single logical analysis of such a varied process. The process of critical thinking may have a spiral pattern, with the problem being redefined in the light of obstacles to solving it as originally formulated. For example, the person in Transit might have concluded that getting to the appointment at the scheduled time was impossible and have reformulated the problem as that of rescheduling the appointment for a mutually convenient time. Further, defining a problem does not always follow after or lead immediately to an idea of a suggested solution. Nor should it do so, as Dewey himself recognized in describing the physician in Typhoid as avoiding any strong preference for this or that conclusion before getting further information (Dewey 1910: 85; 1933: 170). People with a hypothesis in mind, even one to which they have a very weak commitment, have a so-called “confirmation bias” (Nickerson 1998): they are likely to pay attention to evidence that confirms the hypothesis and to ignore evidence that counts against it or for some competing hypothesis. Detectives, intelligence agencies, and investigators of airplane accidents are well advised to gather relevant evidence systematically and to postpone even tentative adoption of an explanatory hypothesis until the collected evidence rules out with the appropriate degree of certainty all but one explanation. Dewey’s analysis of the critical thinking process can be faulted as well for requiring acceptance or rejection of a possible solution to a defined problem, with no allowance for deciding in the light of the available evidence to suspend judgment. Further, given the great variety of kinds of problems for which reflection is appropriate, there is likely to be variation in its component events. Perhaps the best way to conceptualize the critical thinking process is as a checklist whose component events can occur in a variety of orders, selectively, and more than once. These component events might include (1) noticing a difficulty, (2) defining the problem, (3) dividing the problem into manageable sub-problems, (4) formulating a variety of possible solutions to the problem or sub-problem, (5) determining what evidence is relevant to deciding among possible solutions to the problem or sub-problem, (6) devising a plan of systematic observation or experiment that will uncover the relevant evidence, (7) carrying out the plan of systematic observation or experimentation, (8) noting the results of the systematic observation or experiment, (9) gathering relevant testimony and information from others, (10) judging the credibility of testimony and information gathered from others, (11) drawing conclusions from gathered evidence and accepted testimony, and (12) accepting a solution that the evidence adequately supports (cf. Hitchcock 2017: 485).

Checklist conceptions of the process of critical thinking are open to the objection that they are too mechanical and procedural to fit the multi-dimensional and emotionally charged issues for which critical thinking is urgently needed (Paul 1984). For such issues, a more dialectical process is advocated, in which competing relevant world views are identified, their implications explored, and some sort of creative synthesis attempted.

If one considers the critical thinking process illustrated by the 11 examples, one can identify distinct kinds of mental acts and mental states that form part of it. To distinguish, label and briefly characterize these components is a useful preliminary to identifying abilities, skills, dispositions, attitudes, habits and the like that contribute causally to thinking critically. Identifying such abilities and habits is in turn a useful preliminary to setting educational goals. Setting the goals is in its turn a useful preliminary to designing strategies for helping learners to achieve the goals and to designing ways of measuring the extent to which learners have done so. Such measures provide both feedback to learners on their achievement and a basis for experimental research on the effectiveness of various strategies for educating people to think critically. Let us begin, then, by distinguishing the kinds of mental acts and mental events that can occur in a critical thinking process.

• Observing : One notices something in one’s immediate environment (sudden cooling of temperature in Weather , bubbles forming outside a glass and then going inside in Bubbles , a moving blur in the distance in Blur , a rash in Rash ). Or one notes the results of an experiment or systematic observation (valuables missing in Disorder , no suction without air pressure in Suction pump )
• Feeling : One feels puzzled or uncertain about something (how to get to an appointment on time in Transit , why the diamonds vary in frequency in Diamond ). One wants to resolve this perplexity. One feels satisfaction once one has worked out an answer (to take the subway express in Transit , diamonds closer when needed as a warning in Diamond ).
• Wondering : One formulates a question to be addressed (why bubbles form outside a tumbler taken from hot water in Bubbles , how suction pumps work in Suction pump , what caused the rash in Rash ).
• Imagining : One thinks of possible answers (bus or subway or elevated in Transit , flagpole or ornament or wireless communication aid or direction indicator in Ferryboat , allergic reaction or heat rash in Rash ).
• Inferring : One works out what would be the case if a possible answer were assumed (valuables missing if there has been a burglary in Disorder , earlier start to the rash if it is an allergic reaction to a sulfa drug in Rash ). Or one draws a conclusion once sufficient relevant evidence is gathered (take the subway in Transit , burglary in Disorder , discontinue blood pressure medication and new cream in Rash ).
• Knowledge : One uses stored knowledge of the subject-matter to generate possible answers or to infer what would be expected on the assumption of a particular answer (knowledge of a city’s public transit system in Transit , of the requirements for a flagpole in Ferryboat , of Boyle’s law in Bubbles , of allergic reactions in Rash ).
• Experimenting : One designs and carries out an experiment or a systematic observation to find out whether the results deduced from a possible answer will occur (looking at the location of the flagpole in relation to the pilot’s position in Ferryboat , putting an ice cube on top of a tumbler taken from hot water in Bubbles , measuring the height to which a suction pump will draw water at different elevations in Suction pump , noticing the frequency of diamonds when movement to or from a diamond lane is allowed in Diamond ).
• Consulting : One finds a source of information, gets the information from the source, and makes a judgment on whether to accept it. None of our 11 examples include searching for sources of information. In this respect they are unrepresentative, since most people nowadays have almost instant access to information relevant to answering any question, including many of those illustrated by the examples. However, Candidate includes the activities of extracting information from sources and evaluating its credibility.
• Identifying and analyzing arguments : One notices an argument and works out its structure and content as a preliminary to evaluating its strength. This activity is central to Candidate . It is an important part of a critical thinking process in which one surveys arguments for various positions on an issue.
• Judging : One makes a judgment on the basis of accumulated evidence and reasoning, such as the judgment in Ferryboat that the purpose of the pole is to provide direction to the pilot.
• Deciding : One makes a decision on what to do or on what policy to adopt, as in the decision in Transit to take the subway.

By definition, a person who does something voluntarily is both willing and able to do that thing at that time. Both the willingness and the ability contribute causally to the person’s action, in the sense that the voluntary action would not occur if either (or both) of these were lacking. For example, suppose that one is standing with one’s arms at one’s sides and one voluntarily lifts one’s right arm to an extended horizontal position. One would not do so if one were unable to lift one’s arm, if for example one’s right side was paralyzed as the result of a stroke. Nor would one do so if one were unwilling to lift one’s arm, if for example one were participating in a street demonstration at which a white supremacist was urging the crowd to lift their right arm in a Nazi salute and one were unwilling to express support in this way for the racist Nazi ideology. The same analysis applies to a voluntary mental process of thinking critically. It requires both willingness and ability to think critically, including willingness and ability to perform each of the mental acts that compose the process and to coordinate those acts in a sequence that is directed at resolving the initiating perplexity.

Consider willingness first. We can identify causal contributors to willingness to think critically by considering factors that would cause a person who was able to think critically about an issue nevertheless not to do so (Hamby 2014). For each factor, the opposite condition thus contributes causally to willingness to think critically on a particular occasion. For example, people who habitually jump to conclusions without considering alternatives will not think critically about issues that arise, even if they have the required abilities. The contrary condition of willingness to suspend judgment is thus a causal contributor to thinking critically.

Now consider ability. In contrast to the ability to move one’s arm, which can be completely absent because a stroke has left the arm paralyzed, the ability to think critically is a developed ability, whose absence is not a complete absence of ability to think but absence of ability to think well. We can identify the ability to think well directly, in terms of the norms and standards for good thinking. In general, to be able do well the thinking activities that can be components of a critical thinking process, one needs to know the concepts and principles that characterize their good performance, to recognize in particular cases that the concepts and principles apply, and to apply them. The knowledge, recognition and application may be procedural rather than declarative. It may be domain-specific rather than widely applicable, and in either case may need subject-matter knowledge, sometimes of a deep kind.

Reflections of the sort illustrated by the previous two paragraphs have led scholars to identify the knowledge, abilities and dispositions of a “critical thinker”, i.e., someone who thinks critically whenever it is appropriate to do so. We turn now to these three types of causal contributors to thinking critically. We start with dispositions, since arguably these are the most powerful contributors to being a critical thinker, can be fostered at an early stage of a child’s development, and are susceptible to general improvement (Glaser 1941: 175)

8. Critical Thinking Dispositions

Educational researchers use the term ‘dispositions’ broadly for the habits of mind and attitudes that contribute causally to being a critical thinker. Some writers (e.g., Paul & Elder 2006; Hamby 2014; Bailin & Battersby 2016) propose to use the term ‘virtues’ for this dimension of a critical thinker. The virtues in question, although they are virtues of character, concern the person’s ways of thinking rather than the person’s ways of behaving towards others. They are not moral virtues but intellectual virtues, of the sort articulated by Zagzebski (1996) and discussed by Turri, Alfano, and Greco (2017).

On a realistic conception, thinking dispositions or intellectual virtues are real properties of thinkers. They are general tendencies, propensities, or inclinations to think in particular ways in particular circumstances, and can be genuinely explanatory (Siegel 1999). Sceptics argue that there is no evidence for a specific mental basis for the habits of mind that contribute to thinking critically, and that it is pedagogically misleading to posit such a basis (Bailin et al. 1999a). Whatever their status, critical thinking dispositions need motivation for their initial formation in a child—motivation that may be external or internal. As children develop, the force of habit will gradually become important in sustaining the disposition (Nieto & Valenzuela 2012). Mere force of habit, however, is unlikely to sustain critical thinking dispositions. Critical thinkers must value and enjoy using their knowledge and abilities to think things through for themselves. They must be committed to, and lovers of, inquiry.

A person may have a critical thinking disposition with respect to only some kinds of issues. For example, one could be open-minded about scientific issues but not about religious issues. Similarly, one could be confident in one’s ability to reason about the theological implications of the existence of evil in the world but not in one’s ability to reason about the best design for a guided ballistic missile.

Critical thinking dispositions can usefully be divided into initiating dispositions (those that contribute causally to starting to think critically about an issue) and internal dispositions (those that contribute causally to doing a good job of thinking critically once one has started) (Facione 1990a: 25). The two categories are not mutually exclusive. For example, open-mindedness, in the sense of willingness to consider alternative points of view to one’s own, is both an initiating and an internal disposition.

Using the strategy of considering factors that would block people with the ability to think critically from doing so, we can identify as initiating dispositions for thinking critically attentiveness, a habit of inquiry, self-confidence, courage, open-mindedness, willingness to suspend judgment, trust in reason, wanting evidence for one’s beliefs, and seeking the truth. We consider briefly what each of these dispositions amounts to, in each case citing sources that acknowledge them.

• Attentiveness : One will not think critically if one fails to recognize an issue that needs to be thought through. For example, the pedestrian in Weather would not have looked up if he had not noticed that the air was suddenly cooler. To be a critical thinker, then, one needs to be habitually attentive to one’s surroundings, noticing not only what one senses but also sources of perplexity in messages received and in one’s own beliefs and attitudes (Facione 1990a: 25; Facione, Facione, & Giancarlo 2001).
• Habit of inquiry : Inquiry is effortful, and one needs an internal push to engage in it. For example, the student in Bubbles could easily have stopped at idle wondering about the cause of the bubbles rather than reasoning to a hypothesis, then designing and executing an experiment to test it. Thus willingness to think critically needs mental energy and initiative. What can supply that energy? Love of inquiry, or perhaps just a habit of inquiry. Hamby (2015) has argued that willingness to inquire is the central critical thinking virtue, one that encompasses all the others. It is recognized as a critical thinking disposition by Dewey (1910: 29; 1933: 35), Glaser (1941: 5), Ennis (1987: 12; 1991: 8), Facione (1990a: 25), Bailin et al. (1999b: 294), Halpern (1998: 452), and Facione, Facione, & Giancarlo (2001).
• Self-confidence : Lack of confidence in one’s abilities can block critical thinking. For example, if the woman in Rash lacked confidence in her ability to figure things out for herself, she might just have assumed that the rash on her chest was the allergic reaction to her medication against which the pharmacist had warned her. Thus willingness to think critically requires confidence in one’s ability to inquire (Facione 1990a: 25; Facione, Facione, & Giancarlo 2001).
• Courage : Fear of thinking for oneself can stop one from doing it. Thus willingness to think critically requires intellectual courage (Paul & Elder 2006: 16).
• Open-mindedness : A dogmatic attitude will impede thinking critically. For example, a person who adheres rigidly to a “pro-choice” position on the issue of the legal status of induced abortion is likely to be unwilling to consider seriously the issue of when in its development an unborn child acquires a moral right to life. Thus willingness to think critically requires open-mindedness, in the sense of a willingness to examine questions to which one already accepts an answer but which further evidence or reasoning might cause one to answer differently (Dewey 1933; Facione 1990a; Ennis 1991; Bailin et al. 1999b; Halpern 1998, Facione, Facione, & Giancarlo 2001). Paul (1981) emphasizes open-mindedness about alternative world-views, and recommends a dialectical approach to integrating such views as central to what he calls “strong sense” critical thinking.
• Willingness to suspend judgment : Premature closure on an initial solution will block critical thinking. Thus willingness to think critically requires a willingness to suspend judgment while alternatives are explored (Facione 1990a; Ennis 1991; Halpern 1998).
• Trust in reason : Since distrust in the processes of reasoned inquiry will dissuade one from engaging in it, trust in them is an initiating critical thinking disposition (Facione 1990a, 25; Bailin et al. 1999b: 294; Facione, Facione, & Giancarlo 2001; Paul & Elder 2006). In reaction to an allegedly exclusive emphasis on reason in critical thinking theory and pedagogy, Thayer-Bacon (2000) argues that intuition, imagination, and emotion have important roles to play in an adequate conception of critical thinking that she calls “constructive thinking”. From her point of view, critical thinking requires trust not only in reason but also in intuition, imagination, and emotion.
• Seeking the truth : If one does not care about the truth but is content to stick with one’s initial bias on an issue, then one will not think critically about it. Seeking the truth is thus an initiating critical thinking disposition (Bailin et al. 1999b: 294; Facione, Facione, & Giancarlo 2001). A disposition to seek the truth is implicit in more specific critical thinking dispositions, such as trying to be well-informed, considering seriously points of view other than one’s own, looking for alternatives, suspending judgment when the evidence is insufficient, and adopting a position when the evidence supporting it is sufficient.

Some of the initiating dispositions, such as open-mindedness and willingness to suspend judgment, are also internal critical thinking dispositions, in the sense of mental habits or attitudes that contribute causally to doing a good job of critical thinking once one starts the process. But there are many other internal critical thinking dispositions. Some of them are parasitic on one’s conception of good thinking. For example, it is constitutive of good thinking about an issue to formulate the issue clearly and to maintain focus on it. For this purpose, one needs not only the corresponding ability but also the corresponding disposition. Ennis (1991: 8) describes it as the disposition “to determine and maintain focus on the conclusion or question”, Facione (1990a: 25) as “clarity in stating the question or concern”. Other internal dispositions are motivators to continue or adjust the critical thinking process, such as willingness to persist in a complex task and willingness to abandon nonproductive strategies in an attempt to self-correct (Halpern 1998: 452). For a list of identified internal critical thinking dispositions, see the Supplement on Internal Critical Thinking Dispositions .

Some theorists postulate skills, i.e., acquired abilities, as operative in critical thinking. It is not obvious, however, that a good mental act is the exercise of a generic acquired skill. Inferring an expected time of arrival, as in Transit , has some generic components but also uses non-generic subject-matter knowledge. Bailin et al. (1999a) argue against viewing critical thinking skills as generic and discrete, on the ground that skilled performance at a critical thinking task cannot be separated from knowledge of concepts and from domain-specific principles of good thinking. Talk of skills, they concede, is unproblematic if it means merely that a person with critical thinking skills is capable of intelligent performance.

Despite such scepticism, theorists of critical thinking have listed as general contributors to critical thinking what they variously call abilities (Glaser 1941; Ennis 1962, 1991), skills (Facione 1990a; Halpern 1998) or competencies (Fisher & Scriven 1997). Amalgamating these lists would produce a confusing and chaotic cornucopia of more than 50 possible educational objectives, with only partial overlap among them. It makes sense instead to try to understand the reasons for the multiplicity and diversity, and to make a selection according to one’s own reasons for singling out abilities to be developed in a critical thinking curriculum. Two reasons for diversity among lists of critical thinking abilities are the underlying conception of critical thinking and the envisaged educational level. Appraisal-only conceptions, for example, involve a different suite of abilities than constructive-only conceptions. Some lists, such as those in (Glaser 1941), are put forward as educational objectives for secondary school students, whereas others are proposed as objectives for college students (e.g., Facione 1990a).

The abilities described in the remaining paragraphs of this section emerge from reflection on the general abilities needed to do well the thinking activities identified in section 6 as components of the critical thinking process described in section 5 . The derivation of each collection of abilities is accompanied by citation of sources that list such abilities and of standardized tests that claim to test them.

Observational abilities : Careful and accurate observation sometimes requires specialist expertise and practice, as in the case of observing birds and observing accident scenes. However, there are general abilities of noticing what one’s senses are picking up from one’s environment and of being able to articulate clearly and accurately to oneself and others what one has observed. It helps in exercising them to be able to recognize and take into account factors that make one’s observation less trustworthy, such as prior framing of the situation, inadequate time, deficient senses, poor observation conditions, and the like. It helps as well to be skilled at taking steps to make one’s observation more trustworthy, such as moving closer to get a better look, measuring something three times and taking the average, and checking what one thinks one is observing with someone else who is in a good position to observe it. It also helps to be skilled at recognizing respects in which one’s report of one’s observation involves inference rather than direct observation, so that one can then consider whether the inference is justified. These abilities come into play as well when one thinks about whether and with what degree of confidence to accept an observation report, for example in the study of history or in a criminal investigation or in assessing news reports. Observational abilities show up in some lists of critical thinking abilities (Ennis 1962: 90; Facione 1990a: 16; Ennis 1991: 9). There are items testing a person’s ability to judge the credibility of observation reports in the Cornell Critical Thinking Tests, Levels X and Z (Ennis & Millman 1971; Ennis, Millman, & Tomko 1985, 2005). Norris and King (1983, 1985, 1990a, 1990b) is a test of ability to appraise observation reports.

Emotional abilities : The emotions that drive a critical thinking process are perplexity or puzzlement, a wish to resolve it, and satisfaction at achieving the desired resolution. Children experience these emotions at an early age, without being trained to do so. Education that takes critical thinking as a goal needs only to channel these emotions and to make sure not to stifle them. Collaborative critical thinking benefits from ability to recognize one’s own and others’ emotional commitments and reactions.

Questioning abilities : A critical thinking process needs transformation of an inchoate sense of perplexity into a clear question. Formulating a question well requires not building in questionable assumptions, not prejudging the issue, and using language that in context is unambiguous and precise enough (Ennis 1962: 97; 1991: 9).

Imaginative abilities : Thinking directed at finding the correct causal explanation of a general phenomenon or particular event requires an ability to imagine possible explanations. Thinking about what policy or plan of action to adopt requires generation of options and consideration of possible consequences of each option. Domain knowledge is required for such creative activity, but a general ability to imagine alternatives is helpful and can be nurtured so as to become easier, quicker, more extensive, and deeper (Dewey 1910: 34–39; 1933: 40–47). Facione (1990a) and Halpern (1998) include the ability to imagine alternatives as a critical thinking ability.

Inferential abilities : The ability to draw conclusions from given information, and to recognize with what degree of certainty one’s own or others’ conclusions follow, is universally recognized as a general critical thinking ability. All 11 examples in section 2 of this article include inferences, some from hypotheses or options (as in Transit , Ferryboat and Disorder ), others from something observed (as in Weather and Rash ). None of these inferences is formally valid. Rather, they are licensed by general, sometimes qualified substantive rules of inference (Toulmin 1958) that rest on domain knowledge—that a bus trip takes about the same time in each direction, that the terminal of a wireless telegraph would be located on the highest possible place, that sudden cooling is often followed by rain, that an allergic reaction to a sulfa drug generally shows up soon after one starts taking it. It is a matter of controversy to what extent the specialized ability to deduce conclusions from premisses using formal rules of inference is needed for critical thinking. Dewey (1933) locates logical forms in setting out the products of reflection rather than in the process of reflection. Ennis (1981a), on the other hand, maintains that a liberally-educated person should have the following abilities: to translate natural-language statements into statements using the standard logical operators, to use appropriately the language of necessary and sufficient conditions, to deal with argument forms and arguments containing symbols, to determine whether in virtue of an argument’s form its conclusion follows necessarily from its premisses, to reason with logically complex propositions, and to apply the rules and procedures of deductive logic. Inferential abilities are recognized as critical thinking abilities by Glaser (1941: 6), Facione (1990a: 9), Ennis (1991: 9), Fisher & Scriven (1997: 99, 111), and Halpern (1998: 452). Items testing inferential abilities constitute two of the five subtests of the Watson Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal (Watson & Glaser 1980a, 1980b, 1994), two of the four sections in the Cornell Critical Thinking Test Level X (Ennis & Millman 1971; Ennis, Millman, & Tomko 1985, 2005), three of the seven sections in the Cornell Critical Thinking Test Level Z (Ennis & Millman 1971; Ennis, Millman, & Tomko 1985, 2005), 11 of the 34 items on Forms A and B of the California Critical Thinking Skills Test (Facione 1990b, 1992), and a high but variable proportion of the 25 selected-response questions in the Collegiate Learning Assessment (Council for Aid to Education 2017).

Experimenting abilities : Knowing how to design and execute an experiment is important not just in scientific research but also in everyday life, as in Rash . Dewey devoted a whole chapter of his How We Think (1910: 145–156; 1933: 190–202) to the superiority of experimentation over observation in advancing knowledge. Experimenting abilities come into play at one remove in appraising reports of scientific studies. Skill in designing and executing experiments includes the acknowledged abilities to appraise evidence (Glaser 1941: 6), to carry out experiments and to apply appropriate statistical inference techniques (Facione 1990a: 9), to judge inductions to an explanatory hypothesis (Ennis 1991: 9), and to recognize the need for an adequately large sample size (Halpern 1998). The Cornell Critical Thinking Test Level Z (Ennis & Millman 1971; Ennis, Millman, & Tomko 1985, 2005) includes four items (out of 52) on experimental design. The Collegiate Learning Assessment (Council for Aid to Education 2017) makes room for appraisal of study design in both its performance task and its selected-response questions.

Consulting abilities : Skill at consulting sources of information comes into play when one seeks information to help resolve a problem, as in Candidate . Ability to find and appraise information includes ability to gather and marshal pertinent information (Glaser 1941: 6), to judge whether a statement made by an alleged authority is acceptable (Ennis 1962: 84), to plan a search for desired information (Facione 1990a: 9), and to judge the credibility of a source (Ennis 1991: 9). Ability to judge the credibility of statements is tested by 24 items (out of 76) in the Cornell Critical Thinking Test Level X (Ennis & Millman 1971; Ennis, Millman, & Tomko 1985, 2005) and by four items (out of 52) in the Cornell Critical Thinking Test Level Z (Ennis & Millman 1971; Ennis, Millman, & Tomko 1985, 2005). The College Learning Assessment’s performance task requires evaluation of whether information in documents is credible or unreliable (Council for Aid to Education 2017).

Argument analysis abilities : The ability to identify and analyze arguments contributes to the process of surveying arguments on an issue in order to form one’s own reasoned judgment, as in Candidate . The ability to detect and analyze arguments is recognized as a critical thinking skill by Facione (1990a: 7–8), Ennis (1991: 9) and Halpern (1998). Five items (out of 34) on the California Critical Thinking Skills Test (Facione 1990b, 1992) test skill at argument analysis. The College Learning Assessment (Council for Aid to Education 2017) incorporates argument analysis in its selected-response tests of critical reading and evaluation and of critiquing an argument.

Judging skills and deciding skills : Skill at judging and deciding is skill at recognizing what judgment or decision the available evidence and argument supports, and with what degree of confidence. It is thus a component of the inferential skills already discussed.

Lists and tests of critical thinking abilities often include two more abilities: identifying assumptions and constructing and evaluating definitions.

In addition to dispositions and abilities, critical thinking needs knowledge: of critical thinking concepts, of critical thinking principles, and of the subject-matter of the thinking.

We can derive a short list of concepts whose understanding contributes to critical thinking from the critical thinking abilities described in the preceding section. Observational abilities require an understanding of the difference between observation and inference. Questioning abilities require an understanding of the concepts of ambiguity and vagueness. Inferential abilities require an understanding of the difference between conclusive and defeasible inference (traditionally, between deduction and induction), as well as of the difference between necessary and sufficient conditions. Experimenting abilities require an understanding of the concepts of hypothesis, null hypothesis, assumption and prediction, as well as of the concept of statistical significance and of its difference from importance. They also require an understanding of the difference between an experiment and an observational study, and in particular of the difference between a randomized controlled trial, a prospective correlational study and a retrospective (case-control) study. Argument analysis abilities require an understanding of the concepts of argument, premiss, assumption, conclusion and counter-consideration. Additional critical thinking concepts are proposed by Bailin et al. (1999b: 293), Fisher & Scriven (1997: 105–106), and Black (2012).

According to Glaser (1941: 25), ability to think critically requires knowledge of the methods of logical inquiry and reasoning. If we review the list of abilities in the preceding section, however, we can see that some of them can be acquired and exercised merely through practice, possibly guided in an educational setting, followed by feedback. Searching intelligently for a causal explanation of some phenomenon or event requires that one consider a full range of possible causal contributors, but it seems more important that one implements this principle in one’s practice than that one is able to articulate it. What is important is “operational knowledge” of the standards and principles of good thinking (Bailin et al. 1999b: 291–293). But the development of such critical thinking abilities as designing an experiment or constructing an operational definition can benefit from learning their underlying theory. Further, explicit knowledge of quirks of human thinking seems useful as a cautionary guide. Human memory is not just fallible about details, as people learn from their own experiences of misremembering, but is so malleable that a detailed, clear and vivid recollection of an event can be a total fabrication (Loftus 2017). People seek or interpret evidence in ways that are partial to their existing beliefs and expectations, often unconscious of their “confirmation bias” (Nickerson 1998). Not only are people subject to this and other cognitive biases (Kahneman 2011), of which they are typically unaware, but it may be counter-productive for one to make oneself aware of them and try consciously to counteract them or to counteract social biases such as racial or sexual stereotypes (Kenyon & Beaulac 2014). It is helpful to be aware of these facts and of the superior effectiveness of blocking the operation of biases—for example, by making an immediate record of one’s observations, refraining from forming a preliminary explanatory hypothesis, blind refereeing, double-blind randomized trials, and blind grading of students’ work.

Critical thinking about an issue requires substantive knowledge of the domain to which the issue belongs. Critical thinking abilities are not a magic elixir that can be applied to any issue whatever by somebody who has no knowledge of the facts relevant to exploring that issue. For example, the student in Bubbles needed to know that gases do not penetrate solid objects like a glass, that air expands when heated, that the volume of an enclosed gas varies directly with its temperature and inversely with its pressure, and that hot objects will spontaneously cool down to the ambient temperature of their surroundings unless kept hot by insulation or a source of heat. Critical thinkers thus need a rich fund of subject-matter knowledge relevant to the variety of situations they encounter. This fact is recognized in the inclusion among critical thinking dispositions of a concern to become and remain generally well informed.

Experimental educational interventions, with control groups, have shown that education can improve critical thinking skills and dispositions, as measured by standardized tests. For information about these tests, see the Supplement on Assessment .

What educational methods are most effective at developing the dispositions, abilities and knowledge of a critical thinker? Abrami et al. (2015) found that in the experimental and quasi-experimental studies that they analyzed dialogue, anchored instruction, and mentoring each increased the effectiveness of the educational intervention, and that they were most effective when combined. They also found that in these studies a combination of separate instruction in critical thinking with subject-matter instruction in which students are encouraged to think critically was more effective than either by itself. However, the difference was not statistically significant; that is, it might have arisen by chance.

Most of these studies lack the longitudinal follow-up required to determine whether the observed differential improvements in critical thinking abilities or dispositions continue over time, for example until high school or college graduation. For details on studies of methods of developing critical thinking skills and dispositions, see the Supplement on Educational Methods .

12. Controversies

Scholars have denied the generalizability of critical thinking abilities across subject domains, have alleged bias in critical thinking theory and pedagogy, and have investigated the relationship of critical thinking to other kinds of thinking.

McPeck (1981) attacked the thinking skills movement of the 1970s, including the critical thinking movement. He argued that there are no general thinking skills, since thinking is always thinking about some subject-matter. It is futile, he claimed, for schools and colleges to teach thinking as if it were a separate subject. Rather, teachers should lead their pupils to become autonomous thinkers by teaching school subjects in a way that brings out their cognitive structure and that encourages and rewards discussion and argument. As some of his critics (e.g., Paul 1985; Siegel 1985) pointed out, McPeck’s central argument needs elaboration, since it has obvious counter-examples in writing and speaking, for which (up to a certain level of complexity) there are teachable general abilities even though they are always about some subject-matter. To make his argument convincing, McPeck needs to explain how thinking differs from writing and speaking in a way that does not permit useful abstraction of its components from the subject-matters with which it deals. He has not done so. Nevertheless, his position that the dispositions and abilities of a critical thinker are best developed in the context of subject-matter instruction is shared by many theorists of critical thinking, including Dewey (1910, 1933), Glaser (1941), Passmore (1980), Weinstein (1990), and Bailin et al. (1999b).

McPeck’s challenge prompted reflection on the extent to which critical thinking is subject-specific. McPeck argued for a strong subject-specificity thesis, according to which it is a conceptual truth that all critical thinking abilities are specific to a subject. (He did not however extend his subject-specificity thesis to critical thinking dispositions. In particular, he took the disposition to suspend judgment in situations of cognitive dissonance to be a general disposition.) Conceptual subject-specificity is subject to obvious counter-examples, such as the general ability to recognize confusion of necessary and sufficient conditions. A more modest thesis, also endorsed by McPeck, is epistemological subject-specificity, according to which the norms of good thinking vary from one field to another. Epistemological subject-specificity clearly holds to a certain extent; for example, the principles in accordance with which one solves a differential equation are quite different from the principles in accordance with which one determines whether a painting is a genuine Picasso. But the thesis suffers, as Ennis (1989) points out, from vagueness of the concept of a field or subject and from the obvious existence of inter-field principles, however broadly the concept of a field is construed. For example, the principles of hypothetico-deductive reasoning hold for all the varied fields in which such reasoning occurs. A third kind of subject-specificity is empirical subject-specificity, according to which as a matter of empirically observable fact a person with the abilities and dispositions of a critical thinker in one area of investigation will not necessarily have them in another area of investigation.

The thesis of empirical subject-specificity raises the general problem of transfer. If critical thinking abilities and dispositions have to be developed independently in each school subject, how are they of any use in dealing with the problems of everyday life and the political and social issues of contemporary society, most of which do not fit into the framework of a traditional school subject? Proponents of empirical subject-specificity tend to argue that transfer is more likely to occur if there is critical thinking instruction in a variety of domains, with explicit attention to dispositions and abilities that cut across domains. But evidence for this claim is scanty. There is a need for well-designed empirical studies that investigate the conditions that make transfer more likely.

It is common ground in debates about the generality or subject-specificity of critical thinking dispositions and abilities that critical thinking about any topic requires background knowledge about the topic. For example, the most sophisticated understanding of the principles of hypothetico-deductive reasoning is of no help unless accompanied by some knowledge of what might be plausible explanations of some phenomenon under investigation.

Critics have objected to bias in the theory, pedagogy and practice of critical thinking. Commentators (e.g., Alston 1995; Ennis 1998) have noted that anyone who takes a position has a bias in the neutral sense of being inclined in one direction rather than others. The critics, however, are objecting to bias in the pejorative sense of an unjustified favoring of certain ways of knowing over others, frequently alleging that the unjustly favoured ways are those of a dominant sex or culture (Bailin 1995). These ways favour:

• reinforcement of egocentric and sociocentric biases over dialectical engagement with opposing world-views (Paul 1981, 1984; Warren 1998)
• distancing from the object of inquiry over closeness to it (Martin 1992; Thayer-Bacon 1992)
• indifference to the situation of others over care for them (Martin 1992)
• orientation to thought over orientation to action (Martin 1992)
• being reasonable over caring to understand people’s ideas (Thayer-Bacon 1993)
• being neutral and objective over being embodied and situated (Thayer-Bacon 1995a)
• doubting over believing (Thayer-Bacon 1995b)
• reason over emotion, imagination and intuition (Thayer-Bacon 2000)
• solitary thinking over collaborative thinking (Thayer-Bacon 2000)
• written and spoken assignments over other forms of expression (Alston 2001)
• attention to written and spoken communications over attention to human problems (Alston 2001)
• winning debates in the public sphere over making and understanding meaning (Alston 2001)

A common thread in this smorgasbord of accusations is dissatisfaction with focusing on the logical analysis and evaluation of reasoning and arguments. While these authors acknowledge that such analysis and evaluation is part of critical thinking and should be part of its conceptualization and pedagogy, they insist that it is only a part. Paul (1981), for example, bemoans the tendency of atomistic teaching of methods of analyzing and evaluating arguments to turn students into more able sophists, adept at finding fault with positions and arguments with which they disagree but even more entrenched in the egocentric and sociocentric biases with which they began. Martin (1992) and Thayer-Bacon (1992) cite with approval the self-reported intimacy with their subject-matter of leading researchers in biology and medicine, an intimacy that conflicts with the distancing allegedly recommended in standard conceptions and pedagogy of critical thinking. Thayer-Bacon (2000) contrasts the embodied and socially embedded learning of her elementary school students in a Montessori school, who used their imagination, intuition and emotions as well as their reason, with conceptions of critical thinking as

thinking that is used to critique arguments, offer justifications, and make judgments about what are the good reasons, or the right answers. (Thayer-Bacon 2000: 127–128)

Alston (2001) reports that her students in a women’s studies class were able to see the flaws in the Cinderella myth that pervades much romantic fiction but in their own romantic relationships still acted as if all failures were the woman’s fault and still accepted the notions of love at first sight and living happily ever after. Students, she writes, should

be able to connect their intellectual critique to a more affective, somatic, and ethical account of making risky choices that have sexist, racist, classist, familial, sexual, or other consequences for themselves and those both near and far… critical thinking that reads arguments, texts, or practices merely on the surface without connections to feeling/desiring/doing or action lacks an ethical depth that should infuse the difference between mere cognitive activity and something we want to call critical thinking. (Alston 2001: 34)

Some critics portray such biases as unfair to women. Thayer-Bacon (1992), for example, has charged modern critical thinking theory with being sexist, on the ground that it separates the self from the object and causes one to lose touch with one’s inner voice, and thus stigmatizes women, who (she asserts) link self to object and listen to their inner voice. Her charge does not imply that women as a group are on average less able than men to analyze and evaluate arguments. Facione (1990c) found no difference by sex in performance on his California Critical Thinking Skills Test. Kuhn (1991: 280–281) found no difference by sex in either the disposition or the competence to engage in argumentative thinking.

The critics propose a variety of remedies for the biases that they allege. In general, they do not propose to eliminate or downplay critical thinking as an educational goal. Rather, they propose to conceptualize critical thinking differently and to change its pedagogy accordingly. Their pedagogical proposals arise logically from their objections. They can be summarized as follows:

• Focus on argument networks with dialectical exchanges reflecting contesting points of view rather than on atomic arguments, so as to develop “strong sense” critical thinking that transcends egocentric and sociocentric biases (Paul 1981, 1984).
• Foster closeness to the subject-matter and feeling connected to others in order to inform a humane democracy (Martin 1992).
• Develop “constructive thinking” as a social activity in a community of physically embodied and socially embedded inquirers with personal voices who value not only reason but also imagination, intuition and emotion (Thayer-Bacon 2000).
• In developing critical thinking in school subjects, treat as important neither skills nor dispositions but opening worlds of meaning (Alston 2001).
• Attend to the development of critical thinking dispositions as well as skills, and adopt the “critical pedagogy” practised and advocated by Freire (1968 [1970]) and hooks (1994) (Dalgleish, Girard, & Davies 2017).

A common thread in these proposals is treatment of critical thinking as a social, interactive, personally engaged activity like that of a quilting bee or a barn-raising (Thayer-Bacon 2000) rather than as an individual, solitary, distanced activity symbolized by Rodin’s The Thinker . One can get a vivid description of education with the former type of goal from the writings of bell hooks (1994, 2010). Critical thinking for her is open-minded dialectical exchange across opposing standpoints and from multiple perspectives, a conception similar to Paul’s “strong sense” critical thinking (Paul 1981). She abandons the structure of domination in the traditional classroom. In an introductory course on black women writers, for example, she assigns students to write an autobiographical paragraph about an early racial memory, then to read it aloud as the others listen, thus affirming the uniqueness and value of each voice and creating a communal awareness of the diversity of the group’s experiences (hooks 1994: 84). Her “engaged pedagogy” is thus similar to the “freedom under guidance” implemented in John Dewey’s Laboratory School of Chicago in the late 1890s and early 1900s. It incorporates the dialogue, anchored instruction, and mentoring that Abrami (2015) found to be most effective in improving critical thinking skills and dispositions.

What is the relationship of critical thinking to problem solving, decision-making, higher-order thinking, creative thinking, and other recognized types of thinking? One’s answer to this question obviously depends on how one defines the terms used in the question. If critical thinking is conceived broadly to cover any careful thinking about any topic for any purpose, then problem solving and decision making will be kinds of critical thinking, if they are done carefully. Historically, ‘critical thinking’ and ‘problem solving’ were two names for the same thing. If critical thinking is conceived more narrowly as consisting solely of appraisal of intellectual products, then it will be disjoint with problem solving and decision making, which are constructive.

Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives used the phrase “intellectual abilities and skills” for what had been labeled “critical thinking” by some, “reflective thinking” by Dewey and others, and “problem solving” by still others (Bloom et al. 1956: 38). Thus, the so-called “higher-order thinking skills” at the taxonomy’s top levels of analysis, synthesis and evaluation are just critical thinking skills, although they do not come with general criteria for their assessment (Ennis 1981b). The revised version of Bloom’s taxonomy (Anderson et al. 2001) likewise treats critical thinking as cutting across those types of cognitive process that involve more than remembering (Anderson et al. 2001: 269–270). For details, see the Supplement on History .

As to creative thinking, it overlaps with critical thinking (Bailin 1987, 1988). Thinking about the explanation of some phenomenon or event, as in Ferryboat , requires creative imagination in constructing plausible explanatory hypotheses. Likewise, thinking about a policy question, as in Candidate , requires creativity in coming up with options. Conversely, creativity in any field needs to be balanced by critical appraisal of the draft painting or novel or mathematical theory.

• Abrami, Philip C., Robert M. Bernard, Eugene Borokhovski, David I. Waddington, C. Anne Wade, and Tonje Person, 2015, “Strategies for Teaching Students to Think Critically: A Meta-analysis”, Review of Educational Research , 85(2): 275–314. doi:10.3102/0034654314551063
• Aikin, Wilford M., 1942, The Story of the Eight-year Study, with Conclusions and Recommendations , Volume I of Adventure in American Education , New York and London: Harper & Brothers. [ Aikin 1942 available online ]
• Alston, Kal, 1995, “Begging the Question: Is Critical Thinking Biased?”, Educational Theory , 45(2): 225–233. doi:10.1111/j.1741-5446.1995.00225.x
• –––, 2001, “Re/Thinking Critical Thinking: The Seductions of Everyday Life”, Studies in Philosophy and Education , 20(1): 27–40. doi:10.1023/A:1005247128053
• American Educational Research Association, 2014, Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing / American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, National Council on Measurement in Education , Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
• Anderson, Lorin W., David R. Krathwohl, Peter W. Airiasian, Kathleen A. Cruikshank, Richard E. Mayer, Paul R. Pintrich, James Raths, and Merlin C. Wittrock, 2001, A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives , New York: Longman, complete edition.
• Bailin, Sharon, 1987, “Critical and Creative Thinking”, Informal Logic , 9(1): 23–30. [ Bailin 1987 available online ]
• –––, 1988, Achieving Extraordinary Ends: An Essay on Creativity , Dordrecht: Kluwer. doi:10.1007/978-94-009-2780-3
• –––, 1995, “Is Critical Thinking Biased? Clarifications and Implications”, Educational Theory , 45(2): 191–197. doi:10.1111/j.1741-5446.1995.00191.x
• Bailin, Sharon and Mark Battersby, 2009, “Inquiry: A Dialectical Approach to Teaching Critical Thinking”, in Juho Ritola (ed.), Argument Cultures: Proceedings of OSSA 09 , CD-ROM (pp. 1–10), Windsor, ON: OSSA. [ Bailin & Battersby 2009 available online ]
• –––, 2016, “Fostering the Virtues of Inquiry”, Topoi , 35(2): 367–374. doi:10.1007/s11245-015-9307-6
• Bailin, Sharon, Roland Case, Jerrold R. Coombs, and Leroi B. Daniels, 1999a, “Common Misconceptions of Critical Thinking”, Journal of Curriculum Studies , 31(3): 269–283. doi:10.1080/002202799183124
• –––, 1999b, “Conceptualizing Critical Thinking”, Journal of Curriculum Studies , 31(3): 285–302. doi:10.1080/002202799183133
• Berman, Alan M., Seth J. Schwartz, William M. Kurtines, and Steven L. Berman, 2001, “The Process of Exploration in Identity Formation: The Role of Style and Competence”, Journal of Adolescence , 24(4): 513–528. doi:10.1006/jado.2001.0386
• Black, Beth (ed.), 2012, An A to Z of Critical Thinking , London: Continuum International Publishing Group.
• Bloom, Benjamin Samuel, Max D. Engelhart, Edward J. Furst, Walter H. Hill, and David R. Krathwohl, 1956, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Handbook I: Cognitive Domain , New York: David McKay.
• Casserly, Megan, 2012, “The 10 Skills That Will Get You Hired in 2013”, Forbes , Dec. 10, 2012. Available at https://www.forbes.com/sites/meghancasserly/2012/12/10/the-10-skills-that-will-get-you-a-job-in-2013/#79e7ff4e633d ; accessed 2017 11 06.
• Center for Assessment & Improvement of Learning, 2017, Critical Thinking Assessment Test , Cookeville, TN: Tennessee Technological University.
• Cohen, Jacob, 1988, Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences , Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2nd edition.
• College Board, 1983, Academic Preparation for College. What Students Need to Know and Be Able to Do , New York: College Entrance Examination Board, ERIC document ED232517.
• Commission on the Relation of School and College of the Progressive Education Association, 1943, Thirty Schools Tell Their Story , Volume V of Adventure in American Education , New York and London: Harper & Brothers.
• Council for Aid to Education, 2017, CLA+ Student Guide . Available at http://cae.org/images/uploads/pdf/CLA_Student_Guide_Institution.pdf ; accessed 2017 09 26.
• Dalgleish, Adam, Patrick Girard, and Maree Davies, 2017, “Critical Thinking, Bias and Feminist Philosophy: Building a Better Framework through Collaboration”, Informal Logic , 37(4): 351–369. [ Dalgleish et al. available online ]
• Dewey, John, 1910, How We Think , Boston: D.C. Heath. [ Dewey 1910 available online ]
• –––, 1916, Democracy and Education: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Education , New York: Macmillan.
• –––, 1933, How We Think: A Restatement of the Relation of Reflective Thinking to the Educative Process , Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath.
• –––, 1936, “The Theory of the Chicago Experiment”, Appendix II of Mayhew & Edwards 1936: 463–477.
• –––, 1938, Logic: The Theory of Inquiry , New York: Henry Holt and Company.
• Dominguez, Caroline (coord.), 2018a, A European Collection of the Critical Thinking Skills and Dispositions Needed in Different Professional Fields for the 21st Century , Vila Real, Portugal: UTAD. Available at http://bit.ly/CRITHINKEDUO1 ; accessed 2018 04 09.
• ––– (coord.), 2018b, A European Review on Critical Thinking Educational Practices in Higher Education Institutions , Vila Real: UTAD. Available at http://bit.ly/CRITHINKEDUO2 ; accessed 2018 04 14.
• Dumke, Glenn S., 1980, Chancellor’s Executive Order 338 , Long Beach, CA: California State University, Chancellor’s Office. Available at https://www.calstate.edu/eo/EO-338.pdf ; accessed 2017 11 16.
• Ennis, Robert H., 1958, “An Appraisal of the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal”, The Journal of Educational Research , 52(4): 155–158. doi:10.1080/00220671.1958.10882558
• –––, 1962, “A Concept of Critical Thinking: A Proposed Basis for Research on the Teaching and Evaluation of Critical Thinking Ability”, Harvard Educational Review , 32(1): 81–111.
• –––, 1981a, “A Conception of Deductive Logical Competence”, Teaching Philosophy , 4(3/4): 337–385. doi:10.5840/teachphil198143/429
• –––, 1981b, “Eight Fallacies in Bloom’s Taxonomy”, in C. J. B. Macmillan (ed.), Philosophy of Education 1980: Proceedings of the Thirty-seventh Annual Meeting of the Philosophy of Education Society , Bloomington, IL: Philosophy of Education Society, pp. 269–273.
• –––, 1984, “Problems in Testing Informal Logic, Critical Thinking, Reasoning Ability”. Informal Logic , 6(1): 3–9. [ Ennis 1984 available online ]
• –––, 1987, “A Taxonomy of Critical Thinking Dispositions and Abilities”, in Joan Boykoff Baron and Robert J. Sternberg (eds.), Teaching Thinking Skills: Theory and Practice , New York: W. H. Freeman, pp. 9–26.
• –––, 1989, “Critical Thinking and Subject Specificity: Clarification and Needed Research”, Educational Researcher , 18(3): 4–10. doi:10.3102/0013189X018003004
• –––, 1991, “Critical Thinking: A Streamlined Conception”, Teaching Philosophy , 14(1): 5–24. doi:10.5840/teachphil19911412
• –––, 1996, “Critical Thinking Dispositions: Their Nature and Assessability”, Informal Logic , 18(2–3): 165–182. [ Ennis 1996 available online ]
• –––, 1998, “Is Critical Thinking Culturally Biased?”, Teaching Philosophy , 21(1): 15–33. doi:10.5840/teachphil19982113
• –––, 2011, “Critical Thinking: Reflection and Perspective Part I”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking across the Disciplines , 26(1): 4–18. doi:10.5840/inquiryctnews20112613
• –––, 2013, “Critical Thinking across the Curriculum: The Wisdom CTAC Program”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking across the Disciplines , 28(2): 25–45. doi:10.5840/inquiryct20132828
• –––, 2016, “Definition: A Three-Dimensional Analysis with Bearing on Key Concepts”, in Patrick Bondy and Laura Benacquista (eds.), Argumentation, Objectivity, and Bias: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA), 18–21 May 2016 , Windsor, ON: OSSA, pp. 1–19. Available at http://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive/OSSA11/papersandcommentaries/105 ; accessed 2017 12 02.
• –––, 2018, “Critical Thinking Across the Curriculum: A Vision”, Topoi , 37(1): 165–184. doi:10.1007/s11245-016-9401-4
• Ennis, Robert H., and Jason Millman, 1971, Manual for Cornell Critical Thinking Test, Level X, and Cornell Critical Thinking Test, Level Z , Urbana, IL: Critical Thinking Project, University of Illinois.
• Ennis, Robert H., Jason Millman, and Thomas Norbert Tomko, 1985, Cornell Critical Thinking Tests Level X & Level Z: Manual , Pacific Grove, CA: Midwest Publication, 3rd edition.
• –––, 2005, Cornell Critical Thinking Tests Level X & Level Z: Manual , Seaside, CA: Critical Thinking Company, 5th edition.
• Ennis, Robert H. and Eric Weir, 1985, The Ennis-Weir Critical Thinking Essay Test: Test, Manual, Criteria, Scoring Sheet: An Instrument for Teaching and Testing , Pacific Grove, CA: Midwest Publications.
• Facione, Peter A., 1990a, Critical Thinking: A Statement of Expert Consensus for Purposes of Educational Assessment and Instruction , Research Findings and Recommendations Prepared for the Committee on Pre-College Philosophy of the American Philosophical Association, ERIC Document ED315423.
• –––, 1990b, California Critical Thinking Skills Test, CCTST – Form A , Millbrae, CA: The California Academic Press.
• –––, 1990c, The California Critical Thinking Skills Test--College Level. Technical Report #3. Gender, Ethnicity, Major, CT Self-Esteem, and the CCTST , ERIC Document ED326584.
• –––, 1992, California Critical Thinking Skills Test: CCTST – Form B, Millbrae, CA: The California Academic Press.
• –––, 2000, “The Disposition Toward Critical Thinking: Its Character, Measurement, and Relationship to Critical Thinking Skill”, Informal Logic , 20(1): 61–84. [ Facione 2000 available online ]
• Facione, Peter A. and Noreen C. Facione, 1992, CCTDI: A Disposition Inventory , Millbrae, CA: The California Academic Press.
• Facione, Peter A., Noreen C. Facione, and Carol Ann F. Giancarlo, 2001, California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory: CCTDI: Inventory Manual , Millbrae, CA: The California Academic Press.
• Facione, Peter A., Carol A. Sánchez, and Noreen C. Facione, 1994, Are College Students Disposed to Think? , Millbrae, CA: The California Academic Press. ERIC Document ED368311.
• Fisher, Alec, and Michael Scriven, 1997, Critical Thinking: Its Definition and Assessment , Norwich: Centre for Research in Critical Thinking, University of East Anglia.
• Freire, Paulo, 1968 [1970], Pedagogia do Oprimido . Translated as Pedagogy of the Oppressed , Myra Bergman Ramos (trans.), New York: Continuum, 1970.
• Glaser, Edward Maynard, 1941, An Experiment in the Development of Critical Thinking , New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University.
• Halpern, Diane F., 1998, “Teaching Critical Thinking for Transfer Across Domains: Disposition, Skills, Structure Training, and Metacognitive Monitoring”, American Psychologist , 53(4): 449–455. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.53.4.449
• –––, 2016, Manual: Halpern Critical Thinking Assessment , Mödling, Austria: Schuhfried. Available at https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzUoP_pmwy1gdEpCR05PeW9qUzA/view ; accessed 2017 12 01.
• Hamby, Benjamin, 2014, The Virtues of Critical Thinkers , Doctoral dissertation, Philosophy, McMaster University. [ Hamby 2014 available online ]
• –––, 2015, “Willingness to Inquire: The Cardinal Critical Thinking Virtue”, in Martin Davies and Ronald Barnett (eds.), The Palgrave Handbook of Critical Thinking in Higher Education , New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 77–87.
• Haynes, Ada, Elizabeth Lisic, Kevin Harris, Katie Leming, Kyle Shanks, and Barry Stein, 2015, “Using the Critical Thinking Assessment Test (CAT) as a Model for Designing Within-Course Assessments: Changing How Faculty Assess Student Learning”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines , 30(3): 38–48. doi:10.5840/inquiryct201530316
• Hitchcock, David, 2017, “Critical Thinking as an Educational Ideal”, in his On Reasoning and Argument: Essays in Informal Logic and on Critical Thinking , Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 477–497. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-53562-3_30
• hooks, bell, 1994, Teaching to Transgress: Education as the Practice of Freedom , New York and London: Routledge.
• –––, 2010, Teaching Critical Thinking: Practical Wisdom , New York and London: Routledge.
• Johnson, Ralph H., 1992, “The Problem of Defining Critical Thinking”, in Stephen P, Norris (ed.), The Generalizability of Critical Thinking , New York: Teachers College Press, pp. 38–53.
• Kahane, Howard, 1971, Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric: The Use of Reason in Everyday Life , Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
• Kahneman, Daniel, 2011, Thinking, Fast and Slow , New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
• Kenyon, Tim, and Guillaume Beaulac, 2014, “Critical Thinking Education and Debasing”, Informal Logic , 34(4): 341–363. [ Kenyon & Beaulac 2014 available online ]
• Krathwohl, David R., Benjamin S. Bloom, and Bertram B. Masia, 1964, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook II: Affective Domain , New York: David McKay.
• Kuhn, Deanna, 1991, The Skills of Argument , New York: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511571350
• Lipman, Matthew, 1987, “Critical Thinking–What Can It Be?”, Analytic Teaching , 8(1): 5–12. [ Lipman 1987 available online ]
• Loftus, Elizabeth F., 2017, “Eavesdropping on Memory”, Annual Review of Psychology , 68: 1–18. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-010416-044138
• Martin, Jane Roland, 1992, “Critical Thinking for a Humane World”, in Stephen P. Norris (ed.), The Generalizability of Critical Thinking , New York: Teachers College Press, pp. 163–180.
• Mayhew, Katherine Camp, and Anna Camp Edwards, 1936, The Dewey School: The Laboratory School of the University of Chicago, 1896–1903 , New York: Appleton-Century. [ Mayhew & Edwards 1936 available online ]
• McPeck, John E., 1981, Critical Thinking and Education , New York: St. Martin’s Press.
• Nickerson, Raymond S., 1998, “Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises”, Review of General Psychology , 2(2): 175–220. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175
• Nieto, Ana Maria, and Jorge Valenzuela, 2012, “A Study of the Internal Structure of Critical Thinking Dispositions”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking across the Disciplines , 27(1): 31–38. doi:10.5840/inquiryct20122713
• Norris, Stephen P., 1985, “Controlling for Background Beliefs When Developing Multiple-choice Critical Thinking Tests”, Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice , 7(3): 5–11. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3992.1988.tb00437.x
• Norris, Stephen P. and Robert H. Ennis, 1989, Evaluating Critical Thinking (The Practitioners’ Guide to Teaching Thinking Series), Pacific Grove, CA: Midwest Publications.
• Norris, Stephen P. and Ruth Elizabeth King, 1983, Test on Appraising Observations , St. John’s, NL: Institute for Educational Research and Development, Memorial University of Newfoundland.
• –––, 1984, The Design of a Critical Thinking Test on Appraising Observations , St. John’s, NL: Institute for Educational Research and Development, Memorial University of Newfoundland. ERIC Document ED260083.
• –––, 1985, Test on Appraising Observations: Manual , St. John’s, NL: Institute for Educational Research and Development, Memorial University of Newfoundland.
• –––, 1990a, Test on Appraising Observations , St. John’s, NL: Institute for Educational Research and Development, Memorial University of Newfoundland, 2nd edition.
• –––, 1990b, Test on Appraising Observations: Manual , St. John’s, NL: Institute for Educational Research and Development, Memorial University of Newfoundland, 2nd edition.
• Obama, Barack, 2014, State of the Union Address , January 28, 2014. [ Obama 2014 available online ]
• OCR [Oxford, Cambridge and RSA Examinations], 2011, AS/A Level GCE: Critical Thinking – H052, H452 , Cambridge: OCR. Information available at http://www.ocr.org.uk/qualifications/as-a-level-gce-critical-thinking-h052-h452/ ; accessed 2017 10 12.
• OECD [Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development] Centre for Educational Research and Innovation, 2018, Fostering and Assessing Students’ Creative and Critical Thinking Skills in Higher Education , Paris: OECD. Available at http://www.oecd.org/education/ceri/Fostering-and-assessing-students-creative-and-critical-thinking-skills-in-higher-education.pdf ; accessed 2018 04 22.
• Ontario Ministry of Education, 2013, The Ontario Curriculum Grades 9 to 12: Social Sciences and Humanities . Available at http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/curriculum/secondary/ssciences9to122013.pdf ; accessed 2017 11 16.
• Passmore, John Arthur, 1980, The Philosophy of Teaching , London: Duckworth.
• Paul, Richard W., 1981, “Teaching Critical Thinking in the ‘Strong’ Sense: A Focus on Self-Deception, World Views, and a Dialectical Mode of Analysis”, Informal Logic , 4(2): 2–7. [ Paul 1981 available online ]
• –––, 1984, “Critical Thinking: Fundamental to Education for a Free Society”, Educational Leadership , 42(1): 4–14.
• –––, 1985, “McPeck’s Mistakes”, Informal Logic , 7(1): 35–43. [ Paul 1985 available online ]
• Paul, Richard W. and Linda Elder, 2006, The Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking: Concepts and Tools , Dillon Beach, CA: Foundation for Critical Thinking, 4th edition.
• Payette, Patricia, and Edna Ross, 2016, “Making a Campus-Wide Commitment to Critical Thinking: Insights and Promising Practices Utilizing the Paul-Elder Approach at the University of Louisville”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines , 31(1): 98–110. doi:10.5840/inquiryct20163118
• Possin, Kevin, 2008, “A Field Guide to Critical-Thinking Assessment”, Teaching Philosophy , 31(3): 201–228. doi:10.5840/teachphil200831324
• –––, 2013a, “Some Problems with the Halpern Critical Thinking Assessment (HCTA) Test”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking across the Disciplines , 28(3): 4–12. doi:10.5840/inquiryct201328313
• –––, 2013b, “A Serious Flaw in the Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA) Test”, Informal Logic , 33(3): 390–405. [ Possin 2013b available online ]
• –––, 2014, “Critique of the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal Test: The More You Know, the Lower Your Score”, Informal Logic , 34(4): 393–416. [ Possin 2014 available online ]
• Rawls, John, 1971, A Theory of Justice , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, 1762, Émile , Amsterdam: Jean Néaulme.
• Scheffler, Israel, 1960, The Language of Education , Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
• Scriven, Michael, and Richard W. Paul, 1987, Defining Critical Thinking , Draft statement written for the National Council for Excellence in Critical Thinking Instruction. Available at http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/defining-critical-thinking/766 ; accessed 2017 11 29.
• Sheffield, Clarence Burton Jr., 2018, “Promoting Critical Thinking in Higher Education: My Experiences as the Inaugural Eugene H. Fram Chair in Applied Critical Thinking at Rochester Institute of Technology”, Topoi , 37(1): 155–163. doi:10.1007/s11245-016-9392-1
• Siegel, Harvey, 1985, “McPeck, Informal Logic and the Nature of Critical Thinking”, in David Nyberg (ed.), Philosophy of Education 1985: Proceedings of the Forty-First Annual Meeting of the Philosophy of Education Society , Normal, IL: Philosophy of Education Society, pp. 61–72.
• –––, 1988, Educating Reason: Rationality, Critical Thinking, and Education , New York: Routledge.
• –––, 1999, “What (Good) Are Thinking Dispositions?”, Educational Theory , 49(2): 207–221. doi:10.1111/j.1741-5446.1999.00207.x
• Simpson, Elizabeth, 1966–67, “The Classification of Educational Objectives: Psychomotor Domain”, Illinois Teacher of Home Economics , 10(4): 110–144, ERIC document ED0103613. [ Simpson 1966–67 available online ]
• Skolverket, 2011, Curriculum for the Compulsory School, Preschool Class and the Recreation Centre , Stockholm: Ordförrådet AB. Available at http://malmo.se/download/18.29c3b78a132728ecb52800034181/pdf2687.pdf ; accessed 2017 11 16.
• Smith, B. Othanel, 1953, “The Improvement of Critical Thinking”, Progressive Education , 30(5): 129–134.
• Smith, Eugene Randolph, Ralph Winfred Tyler, and the Evaluation Staff, 1942, Appraising and Recording Student Progress , Volume III of Adventure in American Education , New York and London: Harper & Brothers.
• Splitter, Laurance J., 1987, “Educational Reform through Philosophy for Children”, Thinking: The Journal of Philosophy for Children , 7(2): 32–39. doi:10.5840/thinking1987729
• Stanovich Keith E., and Paula J. Stanovich, 2010, “A Framework for Critical Thinking, Rational Thinking, and Intelligence”, in David D. Preiss and Robert J. Sternberg (eds), Innovations in Educational Psychology: Perspectives on Learning, Teaching and Human Development , New York: Springer Publishing, pp 195–237.
• Stanovich Keith E., Richard F. West, and Maggie E. Toplak, 2011, “Intelligence and Rationality”, in Robert J. Sternberg and Scott Barry Kaufman (eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 3rd edition, pp. 784–826. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511977244.040
• Tankersley, Karen, 2005, Literacy Strategies for Grades 4–12: Reinforcing the Threads of Reading , Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
• Thayer-Bacon, Barbara J., 1992, “Is Modern Critical Thinking Theory Sexist?”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines , 10(1): 3–7. doi:10.5840/inquiryctnews199210123
• –––, 1993, “Caring and Its Relationship to Critical Thinking”, Educational Theory , 43(3): 323–340. doi:10.1111/j.1741-5446.1993.00323.x
• –––, 1995a, “Constructive Thinking: Personal Voice”, Journal of Thought , 30(1): 55–70.
• –––, 1995b, “Doubting and Believing: Both are Important for Critical Thinking”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking across the Disciplines , 15(2): 59–66. doi:10.5840/inquiryctnews199515226
• –––, 2000, Transforming Critical Thinking: Thinking Constructively , New York: Teachers College Press.
• Toulmin, Stephen Edelston, 1958, The Uses of Argument , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Turri, John, Mark Alfano, and John Greco, 2017, “Virtue Epistemology”, in Edward N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2017 Edition). URL = < https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2017/entries/epistemology-virtue/ >
• Warren, Karen J. 1988. “Critical Thinking and Feminism”, Informal Logic , 10(1): 31–44. [ Warren 1988 available online ]
• Watson, Goodwin, and Edward M. Glaser, 1980a, Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal, Form A , San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
• –––, 1980b, Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal: Forms A and B; Manual , San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation,
• –––, 1994, Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal, Form B , San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
• Weinstein, Mark, 1990, “Towards a Research Agenda for Informal Logic and Critical Thinking”, Informal Logic , 12(3): 121–143. [ Weinstein 1990 available online ]
• –––, 2013, Logic, Truth and Inquiry , London: College Publications.
• Zagzebski, Linda Trinkaus, 1996, Virtues of the Mind: An Inquiry into the Nature of Virtue and the Ethical Foundations of Knowledge , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139174763

How to cite this entry . Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society . Look up this entry topic at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO). Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers , with links to its database.

• Association for Informal Logic and Critical Thinking (AILACT)
• Center for Teaching Thinking (CTT)
• Critical Thinking Across the European Higher Education Curricula (CRITHINKEDU)
• Critical Thinking Definition, Instruction, and Assessment: A Rigorous Approach (criticalTHINKING.net)
• Critical Thinking Research (RAIL)
• Foundation for Critical Thinking
• Insight Assessment
• Partnership for 21st Century Learning (P21)
• The Critical Thinking Consortium
• The Nature of Critical Thinking: An Outline of Critical Thinking Dispositions and Abilities , by Robert H. Ennis

abilities | bias, implicit | children, philosophy for | civic education | decision-making capacity | Dewey, John | dispositions | education, philosophy of | epistemology: virtue | logic: informal

Copyright © 2018 by David Hitchcock < hitchckd @ mcmaster . ca >

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

• Info about mirror sites

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is copyright © 2016 by The Metaphysics Research Lab , Center for the Study of Language and Information (CSLI), Stanford University

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

Critical Inquiry: Creative Movement and Embodied Cognition

• First Online: 29 March 2022

Cite this chapter

• Shay Welch 2  

273 Accesses

In Chap. 2 , I highlight the role of creativity in the embodied mind account of cognition. The enactive account of embodied cognition rests on the supposition of the phenomenological body as a dynamic force in its situated contexts. Similarly, the accounts of creativity most closely associated with cognitive processes are dynamic factors related to one’s phenomenological relationship to their context. Given that my account of embodied critical inquiry is grounded in the specific process of movement creation, rather than memorization, an understanding of cognition as embodied, creative, and dynamic is essential.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

The difference between critical thinking and critical inquiry is one merely of purpose. Critical thinking is inherently creative and involves the analysis, synthesis, analogizing, metaphorizing, etc. of ideas. Critical inquiry is one kind of critical thinking that is the creative and innovative approach to asking questions. All critical thinking is done in response to one kind of question or another. Critical inquiry is the critical thinking activity of pursuing and constructing the questions that the critical thinking activity of answering follows.

See also: James Kaufman and Robert Sternberg (eds.). The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019. Margaret Boden (ed.). Dimensions of Creativity. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1994.

These cognitive tasks do not require a specific kind of cognitive normativity because creativity does not require all of these conditions. One can be creative solely through imagination, or affect, or what not. But also, the other higher cognitive skills in the list are also relatively available to cognitive and neuro diverse people.

See also: Thomas Ward and Yuliya Kolomyts. “Creative Cognition”. In The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity . Kaufman, James and Robert Sternberg (eds.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019: 175–199.

For the specific role of moods, rather than affect, see: Matthijs Baas. “In the Mood for Creativity”. In The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity . Kaufman, James and Robert Sternberg (eds.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019: 257–272.

See: Karen Barbour. “Embodied Ways of Knowing: Revisiting Feminist Epistemology”. In The Palgrave Handbook of Feminism and Sport, Leisure, and Physical Education . Louise Mansfield et al. (eds). New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2018: 209–226. Michael Gard. “Movement, Art, and Culture: Problem-Solving and Critical Inquiry in Dance”. In Critical Inquiry and Problem-Solving in Physical Education . Wright, Jan, Doune McDonald, and Lisette Burrows (eds.). New York: Routledge Press 2004. Ann Thomas Moffet. Dance as Inquiry: Critical Thinking in Dance Education. Thesis. Department of Dance. Graduate School of the University of Oregon, 2010; Anna Pakes. “Original Embodied Knowledge: The Epistemology of the New in Dance Practice as Research”. Research in Dance Education , 4, no. 2 (2003): 127–149; Catherine Stevens. “Trans-disciplinary Approaches to Research into Creation, Performance, and Appreciation of Contemporary Dance”. In Thinking in Four Dimensions: Creativity and Cognition in Contemporary Dance . Robin Grove, Catherin Stevens, and Shirley McKechnie (eds.). Melbourne: Melbourne University Press, 2005: 154–168.

See also: Susan Leigh Foster. “Making a Dance/ Researching through Movement”. In Mapping Landscapes for Performance as Research: Scholarly Acts and Creative Cartographies . Shannon Rose Riley and Lynette Hunter (eds.). London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009: 91–98; Catherine Hale. “The Science of Making Dances: Report on Choreography and Cognition Event at Winchester Festival”. Dance Gazette 2 (2004): 16–19; Shirley McKechnie. “Choreography as Research”. In Creative Investigations: Redefining Research in the Arts and Humanities . Stoljar, Margaret (ed.). Symposium of the Australian Academy of the Humanities, 1995.

See also: Ivar Hagendoorn. “Dance Perception and the Brain”. In Thinking in Four Dimensions: Creativity and Cognition in Contemporary Dance . Robin Grove, Catherin Stevens, and Shirley McKechnie (eds.). Melbourne: Melbourne University Press, 2005: 137–148.

Bibliography

Albright, Ann Cooper. “Life Practices”. In Oxford Handbook of Improvisation in Dance . Midgelow, Vida (ed). New York: Oxford University Press, 2019: 25–36.

Google Scholar  

Barbour, Karen. Dancing Across the Page: Narrative and Embodied Ways of Knowing . Chicago: Intellect: University of Chicago Press, 2011.

Benedek, Mathias and Emanual Jauk. “Creativity and Cognitive Control”. In The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity . Kaufman, James and Robert Sternberg (eds.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019: 200–223.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Bull, Cynthia Jean Cohen. “Sense, Meaning, and Perception in Three Dance Cultures”. In Meaning in Motion . Desmond, Jane (ed.). Durham: Duke University Press, 1997: 269–287.

Carr, Jane. “Embodiment and Dance: Puzzles of Consciousness and Agency”. In Thinking Through Dance: The Philosophy of Dance Performance and Practices . Bunker, Jenny, Anna Pakes, and Bonnie Rowell (eds.) Hampshire: Dance Books, Ltd., 2013: 63–81.

Dunagan, Colleen, Roxane Fenton, and Evan Dorn. “Modelling Improvisation as Emergence: A Critical Investigation of the Practice of Cognition”. “Life Practices”. In Oxford Handbook of Improvisation in Dance . Midgelow, Vida (ed). New York, 2019: 545–562.

Finke, Ronald, Ward, Thomas, and Steven Smith. Creative Cognition: Theory, Research, and Applications . Cambridge: MIT Press, 1996.

Book   Google Scholar  

Gallagher, Shaun. How the Body Shapes the Mind . Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2006.

———. Enactivist Interventions: Rethinking the Mind . Cambridge: Oxford University Press, 2017.

Gallagher, Shaun, Lauren Reinerman-Jones, Bruce Janz, Patricia Bockelman, and Jörg Trempler. A Neurophenomenology of Awe and Wonder: Towards a Non-Reductionist Cognitive Science . New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015.

Gotlieb, Rebecca, Elizabeth Hyde, Mary Hellen Immordino-Yang, and Scott Barry Kaufman. “Imagination is the Seed of Creativity”. In The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity . Kaufman, James and Robert Sternberg (eds.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019: 709–731.

Grove, Robin. “Show Me What You Just Did”. In Thinking in Four Dimensions: Creativity and Cognition in Contemporary Dance . Robin Grove, Catherin Stevens, and Shirley McKechnie (eds.). Melbourne: Melbourne University Press, 2005: 37–49.

Grove, Robin and Shirley McKechnie. “Introduction”. In Thinking in Four Dimensions: Creativity and Cognition in Contemporary Dance . Robin Grove, Catherin Stevens, and Shirley McKechnie (eds.). Melbourne: Melbourne University Press, 2005: 1–8.

Hanna, Judith Lynne. Dancing to Learn: The Brain’s Cognition, Emotion, and Movement . London: Rowman and Littlefield, 2015.

Iris Marion Young. “Asymmetrical Reciprocity: On Moral Respect, Wonder, and Enlarged Thought”. In Constellations 3, no. 1 (1997): 340–363.

Ivcevic, Zorana and Jessica Hoffman. “Emotions and Creativity: From Process to Person and Product”. In The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity . Kaufman, James and Robert Sternberg (eds.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019: 273–295.

Leung, Angela K.-Y., Suntae Kim, Evan Polman, Lay See Ong, Lin Qiu, Jack Goncalo and Jeffrety Sanchez-Burks. “Embodied Metaphors and Creative “Acts””. Psychological Science 23, no. 5 (2012): 502–509.

McCarthy, Rosaleen, Alan Blackwell, Scott de Lahunta, Alan Wing, Kristen Hollands, Phillip Barnard, Ian Nimmo-Smith, and A.J. Marcel. “Bodies Meet Minds: Choreography and Cognition”. Leonardo , 39, no. 5 (2006): 475–477.

McKechnie, Shirley and Catherine Stevens. “Visible Thought: Choreographic Cognition in Creating, Performing, and Watching Contemporary Dance”. In Contemporary Choreography: A Critical Reader . Butterworth, Jo and Liesbeth Wildschut (eds.). New York: Routledge Press, 2009: 38–51.

McNeil, David. 1992. Hand and mind: What gestures reveal about thought . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Montero, Barbara Gail. Thought in Action: Expertise and the Conscious Mind . Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016.

Plucker, Jonathan, Matthew Makel, and Meihua Qian. “Assessment of Creativity”. In The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity . Kaufman, James and Robert Sternberg (eds.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019: 44–68.

Rothfield, Philipa. “Chance Encounters, Nietzschean Philosophy, and the Question of Improvisation”. In Oxford Handbook of Improvisation in Dance . Midgelow, Vida (ed). New York, 2019: 89–102.

Sternberg, Robert. “Enhancing People’s Creativity”. In The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity . Kaufman, James and Robert Sternberg (eds.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019: 88–103.

Stevens, Catherine. “Minds in Motion: Dynamical Systems in Choreography, Creativity and Dance”. Tanzforschung , 15 (2005b): 241–252.

Stinson, Susan. “Body of Knowledge”. Educational Theory 45, no. 1 (1995): 43–55.

Article   Google Scholar  

Tweney, Ryan. “Cognitive Science and the ‘Dancing Brain’”. In Thinking in Four Dimensions: Creativity and Cognition in Contemporary Dance . Robin Grove, Catherin Stevens, and Shirley McKechnie (eds.). Melbourne: Melbourne University Press, 2005: 149–153.

Young, Iris Marion. “Communication and the Other: Beyond Deliberative Democracy”. In Democracy and Difference: Contesting the Boundaries of the Political . Edited by Seyla Benhabib, 120–135. Princeton University Press, 1996.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Dept of Philosophy & Religious Studies, Spelman College, Atlanta, GA, USA

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Welch, S. (2022). Critical Inquiry: Creative Movement and Embodied Cognition. In: Choreography as Embodied Critical Inquiry. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-93495-8_2

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-93495-8_2

Published : 29 March 2022

Publisher Name : Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-93494-1

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-93495-8

eBook Packages : Religion and Philosophy Philosophy and Religion (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research