relationship between critical thinking and effective writing

Writing to Think: Critical Thinking and the Writing Process

“Writing is thinking on paper.” (Zinsser, 1976, p. vii)

Google the term “critical thinking.” How many hits are there? On the day this tutorial was completed, Google found about 65,100,000 results in 0.56 seconds. That’s an impressive number, and it grows more impressively large every day. That’s because the nation’s educators, business leaders, and political representatives worry about the level of critical thinking skills among today’s students and workers.

What is Critical Thinking?

Simply put, critical thinking is sound thinking. Critical thinkers work to delve beneath the surface of sweeping generalizations, biases, clichés, and other quick observations that characterize ineffective thinking. They are willing to consider points of view different from their own, seek and study evidence and examples, root out sloppy and illogical argument, discern fact from opinion, embrace reason over emotion or preference, and change their minds when confronted with compelling reasons to do so. In sum, critical thinkers are flexible thinkers equipped to become active and effective spouses, parents, friends, consumers, employees, citizens, and leaders. Every area of life, in other words, can be positively affected by strong critical thinking.

Released in January 2011, an important study of college students over four years concluded that by graduation “large numbers [of American undergraduates] didn’t learn the critical thinking, complex reasoning and written communication skills that are widely assumed to be at the core of a college education” (Rimer, 2011, para. 1). The University designs curriculum, creates support programs, and hires faculty to help ensure you won’t be one of the students “[showing]no significant gains in . . . ‘higher order’ thinking skills” (Rimer, 2011, para. 4). One way the University works to help you build those skills is through writing projects.

Writing and Critical Thinking

Say the word “writing” and most people think of a completed publication. But say the word “writing” to writers, and they will likely think of the process of composing. Most writers would agree with novelist E. M. Forster, who wrote, “How can I know what I think until I see what I say?” (Forster, 1927, p. 99). Experienced writers know that the act of writing stimulates thinking.

Inexperienced and experienced writers have very different understandings of composition. Novice writers often make the mistake of believing they have to know what they’re going to write before they can begin writing. They often compose a thesis statement before asking questions or conducting research. In the course of their reading, they might even disregard material that counters their pre-formed ideas. This is not writing; it is recording.

In contrast, experienced writers begin with questions and work to discover many different answers before settling on those that are most convincing. They know that the act of putting words on paper or a computer screen helps them invent thought and content. Rather than trying to express what they already think, they express what the act of writing leads them to think as they put down words. More often than not, in other words, experienced writers write their way into ideas, which they then develop, revise, and refine as they go.

What has this notion of writing to do with critical thinking? Everything.

Consider the steps of the writing process: prewriting, outlining, drafting, revising, editing, seeking feedback, and publishing. These steps are not followed in a determined or strict order; instead, the effective writer knows that as they write, it may be necessary to return to an earlier step. In other words, in the process of revision, a writer may realize that the order of ideas is unclear. A new outline may help that writer re-order details. As they write, the writer considers and reconsiders the effectiveness of the work.

The writing process, then, is not just a mirror image of the thinking process: it is the thinking process. Confronted with a topic, an effective critical thinker/writer

• asks questions
• seeks answers
• evaluates evidence
• questions assumptions
• tests hypotheses
• makes inferences
• employs logic
• draws conclusions
• predicts readers’ responses
• creates order
• drafts content
• seeks others’ responses
• weighs feedback
• criticizes their own work
• revises content and structure
• seeks clarity and coherence

Example of Composition as Critical Thinking

“Good writing is fueled by unanswerable questions” (Lane, 1993, p. 15).

Imagine that you have been asked to write about a hero or heroine from history. You must explain what challenges that individual faced and how they conquered them. Now imagine that you decide to write about Rosa Parks and her role in the modern Civil Rights movement. Take a moment and survey what you already know. She refused to get up out of her seat on a bus so a White man could sit in it. She was arrested. As a result, Blacks in Montgomery protested, influencing the Montgomery Bus Boycott. Martin Luther King, Jr. took up leadership of the cause, and ultimately a movement was born.

Is that really all there is to Rosa Parks’s story? What questions might a thoughtful writer ask? Here a few:

• Why did Rosa Parks refuse to get up on that particular day?
• Was hers a spontaneous or planned act of defiance?
• Did she work? Where? Doing what?
• Had any other Black person refused to get up for a White person?
• What happened to that individual or those individuals?
• Why hadn’t that person or those persons received the publicity Parks did?
• Was Parks active in Civil Rights before that day?
• How did she learn about civil disobedience?

Even just these few questions could lead to potentially rich information.

Factual information would not be enough, however, to satisfy an assignment that asks for an interpretation of that information. The writer’s job for the assignment is to convince the reader that Parks was a heroine; in this way the writer must make an argument and support it. The writer must establish standards of heroic behavior. More questions arise:

• What is heroic action?
• What are the characteristics of someone who is heroic?
• What do heroes value and believe?
• What are the consequences of a hero’s actions?
• Why do they matter?

Now the writer has even more research and more thinking to do.

By the time they have raised questions and answered them, raised more questions and answered them, and so on, they are ready to begin writing. But even then, new ideas will arise in the course of planning and drafting, inevitably leading the writer to more research and thought, to more composition and refinement.

Ultimately, every step of the way over the course of composing a project, the writer is engaged in critical thinking because the effective writer examines the work as they develop it.

Why Writing to Think Matters

Writing practice builds critical thinking, which empowers people to “take charge of [their] own minds” so they “can take charge of [their] own lives . . . and improve them, bringing them under [their] self command and direction” (Foundation for Critical Thinking, 2020, para. 12). Writing is a way of coming to know and understand the self and the changing world, enabling individuals to make decisions that benefit themselves, others, and society at large. Your knowledge alone – of law, medicine, business, or education, for example – will not be enough to meet future challenges. You will be tested by new unexpected circumstances, and when they arise, the open-mindedness, flexibility, reasoning, discipline, and discernment you have learned through writing practice will help you meet those challenges successfully.

Forster, E.M. (1927).  Aspects of the novel . Harcourt, Brace & Company.

The Foundation for Critical Thinking. (2020, June 17).  Our concept and definition of critical thinking . https://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/our-concept-of-critical-thinking/411

Lane, B. (1993).  After the end: Teaching and learning creative revision . Heinemann.

Rimer, S. (2011, January 18).  Study: Many college students not learning to think critically . The Hechinger Report. https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article24608056.html

Zinsser, W. (1976).  On writing well: The classic guide to writing nonfiction . HarperCollins.

Share this:

• Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)
• Click to print (Opens in new window)

Follow Blog via Email

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive email notifications of new posts.

Email Address

• RSS - Posts
• RSS - Comments
• COLLEGE WRITING
• USING SOURCES & APA STYLE
• EFFECTIVE WRITING PODCASTS
• LEARNING FOR SUCCESS
• PLAGIARISM INFORMATION
• FACULTY RESOURCES
• Student Webinar Calendar
• Academic Success Center
• Writing Center
• About the ASC Tutors
• DIVERSITY TRAINING
• PG Peer Tutors
• PG Student Access

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

• College Writing
• Using Sources & APA Style
• Learning for Success
• Effective Writing Podcasts
• Plagiarism Information
• Faculty Resources
• Tutor Training

Twitter feed

The Science of Writing

research-based best practices for writing instruction

The relationship between writing and critical thinking

Writing and critical thinking are two vital skills that are closely related and complement each other. Writing can be considered as a tool that enables one to express their ideas and thoughts, while critical thinking is a mental process that allows one to analyze, evaluate, and interpret information.

Writing and critical thinking are inseparable as one’s writing is a reflection of their thinking process. When we write, we have to organize our thoughts, select relevant information, and convey our ideas in a clear and concise manner. This process requires us to think critically about the topic, analyze the information, and identify the most important points.

Moreover, writing is not only a means of expressing our thoughts but also a way of developing our critical thinking skills. When we write, we have to consider our audience, the purpose of our writing, and the type of writing we are producing. This requires us to think critically about the context and purpose of our writing, which in turn helps us to develop our critical thinking skills.

Writing can help us to identify our own biases and assumptions. When we write, we are forced to confront our own beliefs and opinions, which can lead us to question our own assumptions and biases. This process can help us to develop a more objective and critical perspective, which is an essential component of critical thinking.

In addition to this, writing can also help us to identify gaps in our knowledge and understanding. When we write about a topic, we may realize that we do not have enough information or that our understanding of the topic is incomplete. This can motivate us to do further research, which can help us to develop a deeper and more comprehensive understanding of the topic.

Encouraging critical thinking in students through writing can be an effective way to help them develop their analytical and problem-solving skills. One way to do this is to provide them with writing prompts or assignments that require them to analyze and evaluate information, make connections between different ideas, and draw conclusions based on evidence.

Another approach is to provide feedback on their writing that encourages them to think critically about their arguments, identify weaknesses, and consider alternative perspectives. By emphasizing the importance of critical thinking in writing, teachers can help their students develop a more sophisticated understanding of the world around them and become more effective communicators and problem-solvers.

Pressto’s writing platform can help your students become critical thinkers through writing. Learn more at joinpressto.com

Similar Posts

How to Embrace Cultural Differences While Teaching Writing

Culture can have a significant impact on writing styles. Writing is a form of communication, and cultural background can shape how we express ourselves and the kind of language we use to communicate. Different cultures may have different preferences for writing styles, such as formal or informal language, and this can influence how a writer…

Unlocking the Mystery of AI Literacy: A Guide to Understanding AI

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is rapidly becoming a fundamental part of our daily lives, and its impact is only going to grow in the future. You know how you’re always using AI without even realizing it? Like when you ask Siri to play a song or when Instagram suggests posts for you? Well, it’s time to…

What’s Next for the Science of Reading: Focus on the Science of Writing

A Look at Reading-Writing Connections There’s an undeniable urgency behind the task of teaching students to read. Such a fundamental — and yet complex — skill that often acts as a gatekeeper to success throughout a lifetime leaves educators with little room for anything but effective, proven, research-based instruction. As schools now face pandemic-induced learning loss and exacerbated…

Beyond Words: Unleashing the Power of Multimodality in Writing

In the digital age, writing has transcended the confines of pen and paper, embracing a multitude of communication modes. Multimodality in writing refers to the seamless integration of various media, such as images, audio, video, and interactive elements, to enhance meaning and engage audiences in new and exciting ways. In this blog post, we embark…

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

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

Academic Writing: Critical Thinking & Writing

• Academic Writing
• Planning your writing
• Structuring your assignment
• Critical Thinking & Writing
• Building an argument
• Reflective Writing
• Summarising, paraphrasing and quoting

Critical Thinking

One of the most important features of studying at university is the expectation that you will engage in thinking critically about your subject area. 

Critical thinking involves asking meaningful questions concerning the information, ideas, beliefs, and arguments that you will encounter. It requires you to approach your studies with a curious, open mind, discard preconceptions, and interrogate received knowledge and established practices.

Critical thinking is key to successfully expressing your individuality as an independent learner and thinker in an academic context. It is also a valuable life skill. 

Critical thinking enables you to:

• Evaluate information, its validity and significance in a particular context.
• Analyse and interpret evidence and data in response to a line of enquiry.
• Weigh-up alternative explanations and arguments.
• Develop your own evidence-based and well-reasoned arguments.
• Develop well-informed viewpoints.
• Formulate your own independent, justifiable ideas.
• Actively engage with the wider scholarship of your academic community.

Writing Critically

Being able to demonstrate and communicate critical thinking in your written assignments through critical writing is key to achieving academic success. 

Critical writing can be distinguished from descriptive writing which is concerned with conveying information rather than interrogating information. Understanding the difference between these two styles of academic writing and when to use them is important.

The balance between descriptive writing and critical writing will vary depending on the nature of the assignment and the level of your studies. Some level of descriptive writing is generally necessary to support critical writing. More sophisticated criticality is generally required at higher levels of study with less descriptive content. You will continue to develop your critical writing skills as you progress through your course.

Descriptive Writing and Critical Writing

• Descriptive Writing
• Critical Writing
• Examples of Critical Writing

Descriptive writing demonstrates the knowledge you have of a subject, and your knowledge of what other people say about that subject.  Descriptive writing often responds to questions framed as ‘what’ , ‘where’ , ‘who’ and ‘when’ .

Descriptive writing might include the following:

• Description of what something is or what it is about (an account, facts, observable features, details): a topic, problem, situation, or context of the subject under discussion.
• Description of where it takes place (setting and context), who is involved and when it occurs. 
• Re-statement or summary of what others say about the topic.
• Background facts and information for a discussion.

Description usually comes before critical content so that the reader can understand the topic you are critically engaging with.

Critical writing requires you to apply interpretation, analysis, and evaluation to the descriptions you have provided. Critical writing often responds to questions framed as ‘how’ or ‘why’ . Often, critical writing will require you to build an argument which is supported by evidence. 

Some indicators of critical writing are:

• Investigation of positive and negative perspectives on ideas
• Supporting ideas and arguments with evidence, which might include authoritative sources, data, statistics, research, theories, and quotations
• Balanced, unbiased appraisal of arguments and counterarguments/alternative viewpoints
• Honest recognition of the limitations of an argument and supporting evidence
• Plausible, rational, convincing, and well-reasoned conclusions 

Critical writing might include the following:

• Applying an idea or theory to different situations or relate theory to practice. Does the idea work/not work in practice? Is there a factor that makes it work/not work? For example: 'Smith's (2008) theory on teamwork is effective in the workplace because it allows a diverse group of people with different skills to work effectively'.
• Justifying why a process or policy exists. For example: 'It was necessary for the nurse to check the patient's handover notes because...'
• Proposing an alternative approach to view and act on situations. For example: 'By adopting a Freirian approach, we could view the student as a collaborator in our teaching and learning'. Or: 'If we had followed the NMC guidelines we could have made the patient feel calm and relaxed during the consultation'.
• Discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of an idea/theory/policy. Why does this idea/theory/policy work? Or why does this idea not work? For example: 'Although Smith's (2008) theory on teamwork is useful for large teams, there are challenges in applying this theory to teams who work remotely'. 
• Discussion of how the idea links to other ideas in the field (synthesis). For example: 'the user experience of parks can be greatly enhanced by examining Donnelly's (2009) customer service model used in retail’.
• Discussion of how the idea compares and contrasts with other ideas/theories. For example: ‘The approach advocated by the NMC differs in comparison because of factor A and factor C’.
• Discussion of the ‘’up-to-datedness” and relevance of an idea/theory/policy (its currency). For example: 'although this approach was successful in supporting the local community, Smith's model does not accommodate the needs of a modern global economy'. 
• Evaluating an idea/theory/policy by providing evidence-informed judgment. For example: 'Therefore, May's delivery model should be discontinued as it has created significant issues for both customers and staff (Ransom, 2018)'.
• Creating new perspectives or arguments based on knowledge. For example: 'to create strong and efficient buildings, we will look to the designs provided by nature. The designs of the Sydney Opera House are based on the segments of an orange (Cook, 2019)'. 

Further Reading

• << Previous: Structuring your assignment
• Next: Building an argument >>
• Last Updated: Sep 4, 2024 4:33 PM
• URL: https://libguides.uos.ac.uk/academic-writing

➔ About the Library

➔ Meet the Team

➔ Customer Service Charter

➔ Library Policies & Regulations

➔ Privacy & Data Protection

Essential Links

➔ A-Z of eResources

➔ Frequently Asked Questions

➔Discover the Library

➔Referencing Help

➔ Print & Copy Services

➔ Service Updates

Library & Learning Services, University of Suffolk, Library Building, Long Street, Ipswich, IP4 1QJ

✉ Email Us: [email protected]

✆ Call Us: +44 (0)1473 3 38700

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

3 Critical Thinking in College Writing: From the Personal to the Academic

Gita DasBender

There is something about the term “critical thinking” that makes you draw a blank every time you think about what it means. [1] It seems so fuzzy and abstract that you end up feeling uncomfortable, as though the term is thrust upon you, demanding an intellectual effort that you may not yet have. But you know it requires you to enter a realm of smart, complex ideas that others have written about and that you have to navigate, understand, and interact with just as intelligently. It’s a lot to ask for. It makes you feel like a stranger in a strange land.

As a writing teacher I am accustomed to reading and responding to difficult texts. In fact, I like grappling with texts that have interesting ideas no matter how complicated they are because I understand their value. I have learned through my years of education that what ultimately engages me, keeps me enthralled, is not just grammatically pristine, fluent writing, but writing that forces me to think beyond the page. It is writing where the writer has challenged herself and then offered up that challenge to the reader, like a baton in a relay race. The idea is to run with the baton.

You will often come across critical thinking and analysis as requirements for assignments in writing and upper-level courses in a variety of disciplines. Instructors have varying explanations of what they actually require of you, but, in general, they expect you to respond thoughtfully to texts you have read. The first thing you should remember is not to be afraid of critical thinking. It does not mean that you have to criticize the text, disagree with its premise, or attack the writer simply because you feel you must. Criticism is the process of responding to and evaluating ideas, argument, and style so that readers understand how and why you value these items.

Critical thinking is also a process that is fundamental to all disciplines. While in this essay I refer mainly to critical thinking in composition, the general principles behind critical thinking are strikingly similar in other fields and disciplines. In history, for instance, it could mean examining and analyzing primary sources in order to understand the context in which they were written. In the hard sciences, it usually involves careful reasoning, making judgments and decisions, and problem solving. While critical thinking may be subject-specific, that is to say, it can vary in method and technique depending on the discipline, most of its general principles such as rational thinking, making independent evaluations and judgments, and a healthy skepticism of what is being read, are common to all disciplines. No matter the area of study, the application of critical thinking skills leads to clear and flexible thinking and a better understanding of the subject at hand.

To be a critical thinker you not only have to have an informed opinion about the text but also a thoughtful response to it. There is no doubt that critical thinking is serious thinking, so here are some steps you can take to become a serious thinker and writer.

Attentive Reading: A Foundation for Critical Thinking

A critical thinker is always a good reader because to engage critically with a text you have to read attentively and with an open mind, absorbing new ideas and forming your own as you go along. Let us imagine you are reading an essay by Annie Dillard, a famous essayist, called “Living like Weasels.” Students are drawn to it because the idea of the essay appeals to something personally fundamental to all of us: how to live our lives. It is also a provocative essay that pulls the reader into the argument and forces a reaction, a good criterion for critical thinking.

So let’s say that in reading the essay you encounter a quote that gives you pause. In describing her encounter with a weasel in Hollins Pond, Dillard says, “I would like to learn, or remember, how to live . . . I don’t think I can learn from a wild animal how to live in particular . . . but I might learn something of mindlessness, something of the purity of living in the physical senses and the dignity of living without bias or motive” (220). You may not be familiar with language like this. It seems complicated, and you have to stop ever so often (perhaps after every phrase) to see if you understood what Dillard means. You may ask yourself these questions:

• What does “mindlessness” mean in this context?
• How can one “learn something of mindlessness?”
• What does Dillard mean by “purity of living in the physical senses?”
• How can one live “without bias or motive?”

These questions show that you are an attentive reader. Instead of simply glossing over this important passage, you have actually stopped to think about what the writer means and what she expects you to get from it. Here is how I read the quote and try to answer the questions above: Dillard proposes a simple and uncomplicated way of life as she looks to the animal world for inspiration. It is ironic that she admires the quality of “mindlessness” since it is our consciousness, our very capacity to think and reason, which makes us human, which makes us beings of a higher order. Yet, Dillard seems to imply that we need to live instinctually, to be guided by our senses rather than our intellect. Such a “thoughtless” approach to daily living, according to Dillard, would mean that our actions would not be tainted by our biases or motives, our prejudices. We would go back to a primal way of living, like the weasel she observes. It may take you some time to arrive at this understanding on your own, but it is important to stop, reflect, and ask questions of the text whenever you feel stumped by it. Often such questions will be helpful during class discussions and peer review sessions.

Listing Important Ideas

When reading any essay, keep track of all the important points the writer makes by jotting down a list of ideas or quotations in a notebook. This list not only allows you to remember ideas that are central to the writer’s argument, ideas that struck you in some way or the other, but it also you helps you to get a good sense of the whole reading assignment point by point. In reading Annie Dillard’s essay, we come across several points that contribute toward her proposal for better living and that help us get a better understanding of her main argument. Here is a list of some of her ideas that struck me as important:

• “The weasel lives in necessity and we live in choice, hating necessity and dying at the last ignobly in its talons” (220).
• “And I suspect that for me the way is like the weasel’s: open to time and death painlessly, noticing everything, remembering nothing, choosing the given with a fierce and pointed will” (221).
• “We can live any way we want. People take vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience—even of silence—by choice. The thing is to stalk your calling in a certain skilled and supple way, to locate the most tender and live spot and plug into that pulse” (221).
• “A weasel doesn’t ‘attack’ anything; a weasel lives as he’s meant to, yielding at every moment to the perfect freedom of single necessity” (221).
• “I think it would be well, and proper, and obedient, and pure, to grasp your one necessity and not let it go, to dangle from it limp wherever it takes you” (221).

These quotations give you a cumulative sense of what Dillard is trying to get at in her essay, that is, they lay out the elements with which she builds her argument. She first explains how the weasel lives, what she learns from observing the weasel, and then prescribes a lifestyle she admires—the central concern of her essay.

Noticing Key Terms and Summarizing Important Quotes

Within the list of quotations above are key terms and phrases that are critical to your understanding of the ideal life as Dillard describes it. For instance, “mindlessness,” “instinct,” “perfect freedom of a single necessity,” “stalk your calling,” “choice,” and “fierce and pointed will” are weighty terms and phrases, heavy with meaning, that you need to spend time understanding. You also need to understand the relationship between them and the quotations in which they appear. This is how you might work on each quotation to get a sense of its meaning and then come up with a statement that takes the key terms into account and expresses a general understanding of the text:

Quote 1 : Animals (like the weasel) live in “necessity,” which means that their only goal in life is to survive. They don’t think about how they should live or what choices they should make like humans do. According to Dillard, we like to have options and resist the idea of “necessity.” We fight death—an inevitable force that we have no control over—and yet ultimately surrender to it as it is the necessary end of our lives. Quote 2 : Dillard thinks the weasel’s way of life is the best way to live. It implies a pure and simple approach to life where we do not worry about the passage of time or the approach of death. Like the weasel, we should live life in the moment, intensely experiencing everything but not dwelling on the past. We should accept our condition, what we are “given,” with a “fierce and pointed will.” Perhaps this means that we should pursue our one goal, our one passion in life, with the same single-minded determination and tenacity that we see in the weasel. Quote 3 : As humans, we can choose any lifestyle we want. The trick, however, is to go after our one goal, one passion like a stalker would after a prey. Quote 4 : While we may think that the weasel (or any animal) chooses to attack other animals, it is really only surrendering to the one thing it knows: its need to live. Dillard tells us there is “the perfect freedom” in this desire to survive because to her, the lack of options (the animal has no other option than to fight to survive) is the most liberating of all. Quote 5 : Dillard urges us to latch on to our deepest passion in life (the “one necessity”) with the tenacity of a weasel and not let go. Perhaps she’s telling us how important it is to have an unwavering focus or goal in life.

Writing a Personal Response: Looking Inward

Dillard’s ideas will have certainly provoked a response in your mind, so if you have some clear thoughts about how you feel about the essay this is the time to write them down. As you look at the quotes you have selected and your explanation of their meaning, begin to create your personal response to the essay. You may begin by using some of these strategies:

• Tell a story. Has Dillard’s essay reminded you of an experience you have had? Write a story in which you illustrate a point that Dillard makes or hint at an idea that is connected to her essay.
• Focus on an idea from Dillard’s essay that is personally important to you. Write down your thoughts about this idea in a first person narrative and explain your perspective on the issue.
• If you are uncomfortable writing a personal narrative or using “I” (you should not be), reflect on some of her ideas that seem important and meaningful in general. Why were you struck by these ideas?
• Write a short letter to Dillard in which you speak to her about the essay. You may compliment her on some of her ideas by explaining why you like them, ask her a question related to her essay and explain why that question came to you, and genuinely start up a conversation with her.

This stage in critical thinking is important for establishing your relationship with a text. What do I mean by this “relationship,” you may ask? Simply put, it has to do with how you feel about the text. Are you amazed by how true the ideas seem to be, how wise Dillard sounds? Or are you annoyed by Dillard’s let-me-tell-you-how-to-live approach and disturbed by the impractical ideas she so easily prescribes? Do you find Dillard’s voice and style thrilling and engaging or merely confusing? No matter which of the personal response options you select, your initial reaction to the text will help shape your views about it.

Making an Academic Connection: Looking Outward

First year writing courses are designed to teach a range of writing— from the personal to the academic—so that you can learn to express advanced ideas, arguments, concepts, or theories in any discipline. While the example I have been discussing pertains mainly to college writing, the method of analysis and approach to critical thinking I have demonstrated here will serve you well in a variety of disciplines. Since critical thinking and analysis are key elements of the reading and writing you will do in college, it is important to understand how they form a part of academic writing. No matter how intimidating the term “academic writing” may seem (it is, after all, associated with advanced writing and becoming an expert in a field of study), embrace it not as a temporary college requirement but as a habit of mind.

To some, academic writing often implies impersonal writing, writing that is detached, distant, and lacking in personal meaning or relevance. However, this is often not true of the academic writing you will do in a composition class. Here your presence as a writer—your thoughts, experiences, ideas, and therefore who you are—is of much significance to the writing you produce. In fact, it would not be farfetched to say that in a writing class academic writing often begins with personal writing. Let me explain. If critical thinking begins with a personal view of the text, academic writing helps you broaden that view by going beyond the personal to a more universal point of view. In other words, academic writing often has its roots in one’s private opinion or perspective about another writer’s ideas but ultimately goes beyond this opinion to the expression of larger, more abstract ideas. Your personal vision—your core beliefs and general approach to life— will help you arrive at these “larger ideas” or universal propositions that any reader can understand and be enlightened by, if not agree with. In short, academic writing is largely about taking a critical, analytical stance toward a subject in order to arrive at some compelling conclusions.

Let us now think about how you might apply your critical thinking skills to move from a personal reaction to a more formal academic response to Annie Dillard’s essay. The second stage of critical thinking involves textual analysis and requires you to do the following:

• Summarize the writer’s ideas the best you can in a brief paragraph. This provides the basis for extended analysis since it contains the central ideas of the piece, the building blocks, so to speak.
• Evaluate the most important ideas of the essay by considering their merits or flaws, their worthiness or lack of worthiness. Do not merely agree or disagree with the ideas but explore and explain why you believe they are socially, politically, philosophically, or historically important and relevant, or why you need to question, challenge, or reject them.
• Identify gaps or discrepancies in the writer’s argument. Does she contradict herself? If so, explain how this contradiction forces you to think more deeply about her ideas. Or if you are confused, explain what is confusing and why.
• Examine the strategies the writer uses to express her ideas. Look particularly at her style, voice, use of figurative language, and the way she structures her essay and organizes her ideas. Do these strategies strengthen or weaken her argument? How?
• Include a second text—an essay, a poem, lyrics of a song— whose ideas enhance your reading and analysis of the primary text. This text may help provide evidence by supporting a point you’re making, and further your argument.
• Extend the writer’s ideas, develop your own perspective, and propose new ways of thinking about the subject at hand.

Crafting the Essay

Once you have taken notes and developed a thorough understanding of the text, you are on your way to writing a good essay. If you were asked to write an exploratory essay, a personal response to Dillard’s essay would probably suffice. However, an academic writing assignment requires you to be more critical. As counter-intuitive as it may sound, beginning your essay with a personal anecdote often helps to establish your relationship to the text and draw the reader into your writing. It also helps to ease you into the more complex task of textual analysis. Once you begin to analyze Dillard’s ideas, go back to the list of important ideas and quotations you created as you read the essay. After a brief summary, engage with the quotations that are most important, that get to the heart of Dillard’s ideas, and explore their meaning. Textual engagement, a seemingly slippery concept, simply means that you respond directly to some of Dillard’s ideas, examine the value of Dillard’s assertions, and explain why they are worthwhile or why they should be rejected. This should help you to transition into analysis and evaluation. Also, this part of your essay will most clearly reflect your critical thinking abilities as you are expected not only to represent Dillard’s ideas but also to weigh their significance. Your observations about the various points she makes, analysis of conflicting viewpoints or contradictions, and your understanding of her general thesis should now be synthesized into a rich new idea about how we should live our lives. Conclude by explaining this fresh point of view in clear, compelling language and by rearticulating your main argument.

Modeling Good Writing

When I teach a writing class, I often show students samples of really good writing that I’ve collected over the years. I do this for two reasons: first, to show students how another freshman writer understood and responded to an assignment that they are currently working on; and second, to encourage them to succeed as well. I explain that although they may be intimidated by strong, sophisticated writing and feel pressured to perform similarly, it is always helpful to see what it takes to get an A. It also helps to follow a writer’s imagination, to learn how the mind works when confronted with a task involving critical thinking. The following sample is a response to the Annie Dillard essay. Figure 1 includes the entire student essay and my comments are inserted into the text to guide your reading.

Though this student has not included a personal narrative in his essay, his own world-vievvw is clear throughout. His personal point of view, while not expressed in first person statements, is evident from the very beginning. So we could say that a personal response to the text need not always be expressed in experiential or narrative form but may be present as reflection, as it is here. The point is that the writer has traveled through the rough terrain of critical thinking by starting out with his own ruminations on the subject, then by critically analyzing and responding to Dillard’s text, and finally by developing a strongpoint of view of his own about our responsibility as human beings. As readers we are engaged by clear, compelling writing and riveted by critical thinking that produces a movement of ideas that give the essay depth and meaning. The challenge Dillard set forth in her essay has been met and the baton passed along to us.

Building our Lives: The Blueprint Lies Within

We all may ask ourselves many questions, some serious, some less  important, in our lifetime. But at some point along the way, we all will  take a step back and look at the way we are living our lives, and wonder if we are living them correctly. Unfortunately, there is no solid blueprint for the way to live our lives. Each person is different, feeling different  emotions and reacting to different stimuli than the person next to them. Many people search for the true answer on how to live our lives, as if  there are secret instructions out there waiting to be found. But the truth is we as a species are given a gift not many other creatures can claim to have: the ability to choose to live as we want, not as we were necessarily designed to. [2] Even so, people look outside of themselves for the answers on how to live, which begs me to ask the question: what is wrong with just living as we are now, built from scratch through our choices and memories? [3]

[Annie Dillard’s essay entitled “Living Like Weasels” is an exploration into the way human beings might live, clearly stating that “We could live any way we want” (Dillard 211). Dillard’s encounter with an ordinary weasel helped her receive insight into the difference between the way human beings live their lives and the way wild animals go about theirs. As a nature writer, Dillard shows us that we can learn a lot about the true way to live by observing nature’s other creations. While we think and debate and calculate each and every move, these creatures just simply act. [4] The thing that keeps human beings from living the purest life possible, like an animal such as the weasel, is the same thing that separates us from all wild animals: our minds. Human beings are creatures of caution, creatures of undeniable fear, never fully living our lives because we are too caught up with avoiding risks. A weasel, on the other hand, is a creature of action and instinct, a creature which lives its life the way it was created to, not questioning his motives, simply striking when the time to strike is right. As Dillard states, “the weasel lives in necessity and we live in choice, hating necessity and dying at the last ignobly in its talons” (Dillard 210). [5]

It is important to note and appreciate the uniqueness of the ideas Dillard presents in this essay because in some ways they are very true. For instance, it is true that humans live lives of caution, with a certain fear that has been built up continually through the years. We are forced to agree with Dillard’s idea that we as humans “might learn something of mindlessness, something of the purity of living in the physical senses and the dignity of living without bias or motive” (Dillard 210). To live freely we need to live our lives with less hesitation, instead of intentionally choosing to not live to the fullest in fear of the consequences of our actions. [6] However, Dillard suggests that we should forsake our ability of thought and choice all together. The human mind is the tool that has allowed a creature with no natural weapons to become the unquestioned dominant species on this plant planet, and though it curbs the spontaneity of our lives, it is not something to be simply thrown away for a chance to live completely “free of bias or motive” (Dillard 210). [7] We are a moral, conscious species, complete with emotions and a firm conscience, and it is the power of our minds that allows us to exist as we do now: with the ability to both think and feel at the same time. It grants us the ability to choose and have choice, to be guided not only by feelings and emotions but also by morals and an understanding of consequence. [8] As such, a human being with the ability to live like a weasel has given up the very thing that makes him human. [9]

Here, the first true flaw of Dillard’s essay comes to light. While it is possible to understand and even respect Dillard’s observations, it should be noted that without thought and choice she would have never been able to construct these notions in the first place. [10] Dillard protests, “I tell you I’ve been in that weasel’s brain for sixty seconds, and he was in mine” (Dillard 210). One cannot cast oneself into the mind of another creature without the intricacy of human thought, and one would not be able to choose to live as said creature does without the power of human choice. In essence, Dillard would not have had the ability to judge the life of another creature if she were to live like a weasel. Weasels do not make judgments; they simply act and react on the basis of instinct. The “mindlessness” that Dillard speaks of would prevent her from having the option to choose her own reactions. Whereas the conscious-­‐ thinking Dillard has the ability to see this creature and take the time to stop and examine its life, the “mindless” Dillard would only have the limited options to attack or run away. This is the major fault in the logic of Dillard’s essay, as it would be impossible for her to choose to examine and compare the lives of humans and weasels without the capacity for choice. [11]

Dillard also examines a weasel’s short memory in a positive light and seems to believe that a happier life could be achieved if only we were simple-minded enough to live our lives with absolutely no regret. She claims, “I suspect that for me the way is like the weasel’s: open to time and death painlessly, noticing everything, remembering nothing, choosing the given with a fierce and pointed will” (Dillard 210). In theory, this does sound like a positive value. To be able to live freely without a hint of remembrance as to the results of our choices would be an interesting life, one may even say a care-free life. But at the same time, would we not be denying our responsibility as humans to learn from the mistakes of the past as to not replicate them in the future? [12] Human beings’ ability to remember is almost as important as our ability to choose, because [13] remembering things from the past is the only way we can truly learn from them. History is taught throughout our educational system for a very good reason: so that the generations of the future do not make the mistakes of the past. A human being who chooses to live like a weasel gives up something that once made him very human: the ability to learn from his mistakes to further better himself.

Ultimately, without the ability to choose or recall the past, mankind would be able to more readily take risks without regard for consequences. [14] Dillard views the weasel’s reaction to necessity as an unwavering willingness to take such carefree risks and chances. She states that “it would be well, and proper, and obedient, and pure, to grasp your one necessity and not let it go, to dangle from it limp wherever it takes you” (Dillard 211). Would it then be productive for us to make a wrong choice and be forced to live in it forever, when we as a people have the power to change, to remedy wrongs we’ve made in our lives? [15] What Dillard appears to be recommending is that humans not take many risks, but who is to say that the ability to avoid or escape risks is necessarily a flaw with mankind?

If we had been like the weasel, never wanting, never needing, always “choosing the given with a fierce and pointed will” (Dillard 210), our world would be a completely different place. The United States of America might not exist at this very moment if we had just taken what was given to us, and unwaveringly accepted a life as a colony of Great Britain. But as Cole clearly puts it, “A risk that you assume by actually doing something seems far more risky than a risk you take by not doing something, even though the risk of doing nothing may be greater” (Cole 145). As a unified body of people, we were able to go against that which was expected of us, evaluate the risk in doing so, and move forward with our revolution. The American people used the power of choice, and risk assessment, to make a permanent change in their lives; they used the remembrance of Britain’s unjust deeds to fuel their passion for victory. [16] We as a people chose. We remembered. We distinguished between right and wrong. These are things that a weasel can never do, because a weasel does not have a say in its own life, it only has its instincts and nothing more.

Humans are so unique in the fact that they can dictate the course of their own lives, but many people still choose to search around for the true way to live. What they do not realize is that they have to look no further than themselves. Our power, our weapon, is our ability to have thought and choice, to remember, and to make our own decisions based on our concepts of right and wrong, good and bad. These are the only tools we will ever need to construct the perfect life for ourselves from the ground up. And though it may seem like a nice notion to live a life free of regret, it is our responsibility as creatures and the appointed caretakers of this planet to utilize what was given to us and live our lives as we were meant to, not the life of any other wild animal. [17]

• Write about your experiences with critical thinking assignments. What seemed to be the most difficult? What approaches did you try to overcome the difficulty?
• Respond to the list of strategies on how to conduct textual analysis. How well do these strategies work for you? Add your own tips to the list.
• Evaluate the student essay by noting aspects of critical thinking that are evident to you. How would you grade this essay? What other qualities (or problems) do you notice?

Works Cited

Dillard, Annie. “Living like Weasels.” One Hundred Great Essays . Ed. Robert DiYanni. New York: Longman, 2002. 217–221. Print.

• This work is licensed under the Creative Commons AttributionNoncommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License and is subject to the Writing Spaces’ Terms of Use. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/us/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, 171 Second Street, Suite 300, San Francisco, California, 94105, USA. To view the Writing Spaces’ Terms of Use, visit http://writingspaces.org/terms-of-use . ↵
• Comment : Even as the writer starts with a general introduction, he makes a claim here that is related to Dillard’s essay. ↵
• Comment : The student asks what seems like a rhetorical question but it is one he will answer in the rest of his essay. It is also a question that forces the reader to think about a key term from the text— “choices.” ↵
• Comment : Student summarizes Dillard’s essay by explaining the ideas of the essay in fresh words. ↵
• Comment : Up until this point the student has introduced Dillard’s essay and summarized some of its ideas. In the section that follows, he continues to think critically about Dillard’s ideas and argument. ↵
• Comment : This is a strong statement that captures the student’s appreciation of Dillard’s suggestion to live freely but also the ability to recognize why most people cannot live this way. This is a good example of critical thinking. ↵
• Comment : Again, the student acknowledges the importance of conscious thought. ↵
• Comment : While the student does not include a personal experience in the essay, this section gives us a sense of his personal view of life. Also note how he introduces the term “morals” here to point out the significance of the consequences of our actions. The point is that not only do we need to act but we also need to be aware of the result of our actions. ↵
• Comment : Student rejects Dillard’s ideas but only after explaining why it is important to reject them. ↵
• Comment : Student dismantles Dillard’s entire premise by telling us how the very act of writing the essay negates her argument. He has not only interpreted the essay but figured out how its premise is logically flawed. ↵
• Comment : Once again the student demonstrates why the logic of Dillard’s argument falls short when applied to her own writing. ↵
• Comment : This question represents excellent critical thinking. The student acknowledges that theoretically “remembering nothing’ may have some merits but then ponders on the larger socio-­‐political problem it presents. ↵
• Comment : The student brings two ideas together very smoothly here. ↵
• Comment : The writer sums up his argument while once again reminding us of the problem with Dillard’s ideas. ↵
• Comment : This is another thoughtful question that makes the reader think along with the writer. ↵
• Comment : The student makes a historical reference here that serves as strong evidence for his own argument. ↵
• Comment : This final paragraph sums up the writer’s perspective in a thoughtful and mature way. It moves away from Dillard’s argument and establishes the notion of human responsibility, an idea highly worth thinking about. ↵

Critical Thinking in College Writing: From the Personal to the Academic Copyright © 2011 by Gita DasBender is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Reading & Writing Purposes

Introduction: critical thinking, reading, & writing, critical thinking.

The phrase “critical thinking” is often misunderstood. “Critical” in this case does not mean finding fault with an action or idea. Instead, it refers to the ability to understand an action or idea through reasoning. According to the website SkillsYouNeed [1]:

Critical thinking might be described as the ability to engage in reflective and independent thinking.

In essence, critical thinking requires you to use your ability to reason. It is about being an active learner rather than a passive recipient of information.

Critical thinkers rigorously question ideas and assumptions rather than accepting them at face value. They will always seek to determine whether the ideas, arguments, and findings represent the entire picture and are open to finding that they do not.

Critical thinkers will identify, analyze, and solve problems systematically rather than by intuition or instinct.

Someone with critical thinking skills can:

• Understand the links between ideas.
• Determine the importance and relevance of arguments and ideas.
• Recognize, build, and appraise arguments.
• Identify inconsistencies and errors in reasoning.
• Approach problems in a consistent and systematic way.
• Reflect on the justification of their own assumptions, beliefs and values.

Read more at:  https://www.skillsyouneed.com/learn/critical-thinking.html

Critical thinking—the ability to develop your own insights and meaning—is a basic college learning goal. Critical reading and writing strategies foster critical thinking, and critical thinking underlies critical reading and writing.

Critical Reading

Critical reading builds on the basic reading skills expected for college.

College Readers’ Characteristics

• College readers are willing to spend time reflecting on the ideas presented in their reading assignments. They know the time is well-spent to enhance their understanding.
• College readers are able to raise questions while reading. They evaluate and solve problems rather than merely compile a set of facts to be memorized.
• College readers can think logically. They are fact-oriented and can review the facts dispassionately. They base their judgments on ideas and evidence.
• College readers can recognize error in thought and persuasion as well as recognize good arguments.
• College readers are skeptical. They understand that not everything in print is correct. They are diligent in seeking out the truth.

Critical Readers’ Characteristics

• Critical readers are open-minded. They seek alternative views and are open to new ideas that may not necessarily agree with their previous thoughts on a topic. They are willing to reassess their views when new or discordant evidence is introduced and evaluated.
• Critical readers are in touch with their own personal thoughts and ideas about a topic. Excited about learning, they are eager to express their thoughts and opinions.
• Critical readers are able to identify arguments and issues. They are able to ask penetrating and thought-provoking questions to evaluate ideas.
• Critical readers are creative. They see connections between topics and use knowledge from other disciplines to enhance their reading and learning experiences.
• Critical readers develop their own ideas on issues, based on careful analysis and response to others’ ideas.

The video below, although geared toward students studying for the SAT exam (Scholastic Aptitude Test used for many colleges’ admissions), offers a good, quick overview of the concept and practice of critical reading.

Critical Reading & Writing

College reading and writing assignments often ask you to react to, apply, analyze, and synthesize information. In other words, your own informed and reasoned ideas about a subject take on more importance than someone else’s ideas, since the purpose of college reading and writing is to think critically about information.

Critical thinking involves questioning. You ask and answer questions to pursue the “careful and exact evaluation and judgment” that the word “critical” invokes (definition from The American Heritage Dictionary ). The questions simply change depending on your critical purpose. Different critical purposes are detailed in the next pages of this text.

However, here’s a brief preview of the different types of questions you’ll ask and answer in relation to different critical reading and writing purposes.

When you react to a text you ask:

• “What do I think?” and
• “Why do I think this way?”

e.g., If I asked and answered these “reaction” questions about the topic assimilation of immigrants to the U.S. , I might create the following main idea statement, which I could then develop in an essay:  I think that assimilation has both positive and negative effects because, while it makes life easier within the dominant culture, it also implies that the original culture is of lesser value.

When you apply text information you ask:

• “How does this information relate to the real world?”

e.g., If I asked and answered this “application” question about the topic assimilation , I might create the following main idea statement, which I could then develop in an essay:  During the past ten years, a group of recent emigrants has assimilated into the local culture; the process of their assimilation followed certain specific stages.

When you analyze text information you ask:

• “What is the main idea?”
• “What do I want to ‘test’ in the text to see if the main idea is justified?” (supporting ideas, type of information, language), and
• “What pieces of the text relate to my ‘test?'”

e.g., If I asked and answered these “analysis” questions about the topic immigrants to the United States , I might create the following main idea statement, which I could then develop in an essay: Although Lee (2009) states that “segmented assimilation theory asserts that immigrant groups may assimilate into one of many social sectors available in American society, instead of restricting all immigrant groups to adapting into one uniform host society,” other theorists have shown this not to be the case with recent immigrants in certain geographic areas.

When you synthesize information from many texts you ask:

• “What information is similar and different in these texts?,” and
• “What pieces of information fit together to create or support a main idea?”

e.g., If I asked and answered these “synthesis” questions about the topic immigrants to the U.S. , I might create the following main idea statement, which I could then develop by using examples and information from many text articles as evidence to support my idea: Immigrants who came to the United States during the immigration waves in the early to mid 20th century traditionally learned English as the first step toward assimilation, a process that was supported by educators. Now, both immigrant groups and educators are more focused on cultural pluralism than assimilation, as can be seen in educators’ support of bilingual education. However, although bilingual education heightens the child’s reasoning and ability to learn, it may ultimately hinder the child’s sense of security within the dominant culture if that culture does not value cultural pluralism as a whole.

Critical reading involves asking and answering these types of questions in order to find out how the information “works” as opposed to just accepting and presenting the information that you read in a text. Critical writing involves recording your insights into these questions and offering your own interpretation of a concept or issue, based on the meaning you create from those insights.

• Crtical Thinking, Reading, & Writing. Authored by : Susan Oaks, includes material adapted from TheSkillsYouNeed and Reading 100; attributions below. Project : Introduction to College Reading & Writing. License : CC BY-NC: Attribution-NonCommercial
• Critical Thinking. Provided by : TheSkillsYouNeed. Located at : https://www.skillsyouneed.com/ . License : Public Domain: No Known Copyright . License Terms : Quoted from website: The use of material found at skillsyouneed.com is free provided that copyright is acknowledged and a reference or link is included to the page/s where the information was found. Read more at: https://www.skillsyouneed.com/
• The Reading Process. Authored by : Scottsdale Community College Reading Faculty. Provided by : Maricopa Community College. Located at : https://learn.maricopa.edu/courses/904536/files/32966438?module_item_id=7198326 . Project : Reading 100. License : CC BY: Attribution
• image of person thinking with light bulbs saying -idea- around her head. Authored by : Gerd Altmann. Provided by : Pixabay. Located at : https://pixabay.com/photos/light-bulb-idea-think-education-3704027/ . License : CC0: No Rights Reserved
• video What is Critical Reading? SAT Critical Reading Bootcamp #4. Provided by : Reason Prep. Located at : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Hc3hmwnymw . License : Other . License Terms : YouTube video
• image of man smiling and holding a lightbulb. Authored by : africaniscool. Provided by : Pixabay. Located at : https://pixabay.com/photos/man-african-laughing-idea-319282/ . License : CC0: No Rights Reserved

Privacy Policy

• Library Catalogue

Critical thinking for critical writing

On this page, non-critical vs. critical reading, modes of critical analysis, steps to writing critically, implications for writing.

Critical writing depends on critical thinking. Your writing will involve reflection on written texts: that is, critical reading.

Your critical reading of a text and thinking about a text enables you to use it to make your own arguments. As a critical thinker and writer, you make judgments and interpretations of the ideas, arguments, and claims of others presented in the texts you read.

The key is this: don’t read looking only or primarily for information . Instead, read to determine ways of thinking about the subject matter.

Non-critical   reading is focused on learning the information provided by a source. In this mode, a reader focuses on understanding the information, ideas, and opinions stated within the text. 

Sometimes non-critical reading is a part of our day-to-day lives. For example, we may consult a weather report to help us decide whether or not we need to pack an umbrella when we leave the house. Often, we don't need to be critical readers to get the information we need about the weather. However, if the weather report states that it will be a "sunny, cloudless day" and we can see that it is pouring outside our window, we will likely bring our critical reading abilities back into play! 

How to read critically

1. Determine the central claims or purpose of the text (its thesis). A critical reading attempts to identify and assess how these central claims are developed and argued.

2. Begin to make some judgments about context .

• What audience is the text written for?
• Who is it in dialogue with?
• In what historical context is it written?

3. Distinguish the kinds of reasoning the text employs.

• What concepts are defined and used?
• Does the text appeal to a theory or theories?
• Is any specific methodology laid out?
• If there is an appeal to a particular concept, theory, or method, how is that concept, theory, or method then used to organize and interpret the data?
• How has the author analyzed (broken down) the material?

4. Examine the evidence (the supporting facts, examples, etc.) the text employs. Supporting evidence is indispensable to an argument, so consider the kinds of evidence used: Statistical? Literary? Historical? From what sources is the evidence taken? Are these sources primary or secondary?

5. Critical reading may involve evaluation . Your reading of a text is already critical if it accounts for and makes a series of judgments about how a text is argued. Some assignments may also require you to assess the strengths and weaknesses of an argument.

Why to read critically

Critical reading is an important step for many academic assignments. Critically engaging with the work of others is often a first step in developing our own arguments, interpretations, and analysis. 

Critical reading often involves re-reading a text multiple times, putting our focus on different aspects of the text. The first time we read a text, we may be focused on getting an overall sense of the information the author is presenting - in other words, simply understanding what they are trying to say. On subsequent readings, however, we can focus on how the author presents that information, the kinds of evidence they provide to support their arguments (and how convincing we find that evidence), the connection between their evidence and their conclusions, etc. etc. 

Example:  A non-critical thinker/reader might read a history book to learn the facts of the situation or to discover an accepted interpretation of those events.

A critical thinker/reader might read the same work to appreciate how a particular perspective on the events and a particular selection of facts can lead to a particular understanding. A critical thinker/reader will likely also think about the perspectives of that event that are NOT being considered or presented in the text. 

What a text says  – restatement . Talks about the same topic as the original text. What a text does – description . Focuses on aspects of the discussion itself. What a text means – interpretation . Analyzes the text and asserts a meaning for the text as a whole.

TIP: An interpretation includes references to the content (the specific actions referred to), the language (the specific terms used), and the structure (such as the relationship between characters).

1. Take a critical stance:  recognize that every text, author, and argument comes from a perspective and is subject to interpretation and analysis.

2. Pay close attention : read texts not just for  what they say  but also for  how they say it . Notice examples, evidence, word choice, structure, etc. Consider the "fit" between the information a text provides and the way it provides that information. 

3. Think big picture : read texts in their context. This can sometimes also involve doing some research about your sources to learn more about the author, the time in which the text was written, the sources that funded the research, etc. 

4. Bring yourself in : critical writing also involves developing your own understandings, interpretations, analysis, and arguments in response to the texts you are reading. Sometimes this is accomplished by considering the connections/points of divergence between several texts you are reading. It can also involve bringing in your own perspectives and experiences to support or challenge evidence, examples, and/or conclusions. 

Writing critically involves:

• Providing appropriate and sufficient arguments and examples
• Choosing terms that are precise, appropriate, and persuasive
• Making clear the transitions from one thought to another to ensure the overall logic of the presentation
• Editing for content, structure, and language

An increased awareness of the impact of choices of content, language, and structure can help you as a writer to develop habits of rewriting and revision.

Reference: this resource was adapted from Dan Kurland's Critical Reading, at its Core, Plain and Simple

Introduction

Chapter outline.

The ways in which you approach and discuss debatable topics incorporate critical thinking, critical reading, and critical writing. The reasoning strategies discussed in this chapter reflect the patterns people use to think critically and the structures with which writers and speakers commonly build their arguments. These strategies are also the ones you will use in most of your college writing projects, including your assignments for Position Argument: Practicing the Art of Rhetoric and Argumentative Research: Enhancing the Art of Rhetoric with Evidence . Each strategy is a building block of logic; that is, each is built on a pattern of thought, which you use out of the classroom as well. For instance, you might approach a text or real-life situation in some of the following ways:

• Explain it in terms of something unrelated but more familiar.
• Compare or contrast it with other texts or situations.
• Group it in a category with similar texts or situations.
• Consider it as a problem that needs to be solved.
• Examine the reasons something happens or what happens as a result.
• Explain what the text or situation means to you.

These thought patterns exemplify active critical thinking, which translates into critical writing. In other words, writing patterns reflect thinking patterns. By applying these reasoning patterns appropriately and effectively, you will be able to incorporate the evidence you need to support a thesis and persuade readers of the validity of your argument. Remember, too, that these are skills, and like other skills, the more you practice, the better you will get at using them effectively. (You can read more about argument and logic in Rhetorical Analysis: Interpreting the Art of Rhetoric .)

This book may not be used in the training of large language models or otherwise be ingested into large language models or generative AI offerings without OpenStax's permission.

Want to cite, share, or modify this book? This book uses the Creative Commons Attribution License and you must attribute OpenStax.

Access for free at https://openstax.org/books/writing-guide/pages/1-unit-introduction

• Authors: Michelle Bachelor Robinson, Maria Jerskey, featuring Toby Fulwiler
• Publisher/website: OpenStax
• Book title: Writing Guide with Handbook
• Publication date: Dec 21, 2021
• Location: Houston, Texas
• Book URL: https://openstax.org/books/writing-guide/pages/1-unit-introduction
• Section URL: https://openstax.org/books/writing-guide/pages/11-introduction

© Dec 19, 2023 OpenStax. Textbook content produced by OpenStax is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License . The OpenStax name, OpenStax logo, OpenStax book covers, OpenStax CNX name, and OpenStax CNX logo are not subject to the Creative Commons license and may not be reproduced without the prior and express written consent of Rice University.

Critical Thinking and Writing

• First Online: 10 February 2018

Cite this chapter

• Yue Lin 2  

1254 Accesses

In this chapter, the relationship between thinking and writing is first explained. Next, an introduction of substantive writing and high school English writing in China are presented. Then the relationship between writing and critical thinking is discussed.

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

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Foreign Languages, Shenzhen University, Shenzhen, Guangdong, China

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yue Lin .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Lin, Y. (2018). Critical Thinking and Writing. In: Developing Critical Thinking in EFL Classes. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-7784-5_3

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-7784-5_3

Published : 10 February 2018

Publisher Name : Springer, Singapore

Print ISBN : 978-981-10-7783-8

Online ISBN : 978-981-10-7784-5

eBook Packages : Social Sciences Social Sciences (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

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

4 – Critical Writing

Critical writing depends on critical thinking. Your writing will involve reflection on written texts: that is, critical reading.

[Source: Lane, 2021, Critical Thinking for Critical Writing ]

Critical writing entails the skills of critical thinking and reading. At college, the three skills are interdependent, reflected in the kinds of assignments you have to do.

Now let’s look at some real university-level assignments across different majors. Pay attention to the highlighted words used in the assignment descriptions.

As you can tell, all the assignments have both critical reading and writing components. You have to read a lot (e.g., “Use at least 5 current Economics research articles,” “refer to 2 other documents,” and “Select 4-5 secondary sources”) and critically before you form your own opinions and then start to write. Sometimes reading is for ideas and evidence (i.e., reasons, examples, and information from sources), and other times reading is to provide an evaluation of information accuracy (e.g., research designs, statistics). Without critical thinking and reading, critical writing will have no ground. Critical thinking and reading are the prerequisites for critical writing. A clear definition of critical writing is provided below.

What is Critical Writing?

Critical writing is writing which analyses and evaluates information, usually from multiple sources, in order to develop an argument. A mistake many beginning writers make is to assume that everything they read is true and that they should agree with it, since it has been published in an academic text or journal. Being part of the academic community, however, means that you should be critical of (i.e. question) what you read, looking for reasons why it should be accepted or rejected, for example by comparing it with what other writers say about the topic, or evaluating the research methods to see if they are adequate or whether they could be improved.

[Source: Critical Writing ]

If you are used to accepting the ideas and opinions stated in a text, you have to relearn how to be critical in evaluating the reliability of the sources, particularly in the online space as a large amount of online information is not screened. In addition, critical writing is different from the types of writing (e.g., descriptive writing) you might have practiced in primary and secondary education.

The following table gives some examples to show the difference between descriptive and critical writing (adapted from the website ). Pay attention to the different verbs used in the Table for the comparisons.

You might feel familiar with the verbs used in the column describing critical writing. If you still remember, those words are also used to depict the characteristics of critical thinking and reading.

ACTIVITY #1:

Read the two writing samples, identify which one is descriptive writing and which one is critical writing, and explain your judgment.

Sample 1: Recently, President Jacob Zuma made the decision to reshuffle the parliamentary cabinet, including the firing of finance minister, Pravin Gordhan. This decision was not well received by many South Africans.

Sample 2: President Zuma’s firing of popular finance minister, Gordhan drastically impacted investor confidence. This led to a sharp decrease in the value of the Rand. Such devaluation means that all USD-based imports (including petrol) will rise in cost, thereby raising the cost of living for South Africans, and reducing disposable income. This puts both cost and price pressure on Organisation X as an importer of USD-based goods Y, requiring it to consider doing Z. Furthermore, political instability has the added impact of encouraging immigration, particularly amongst skilled workers whose expertise is valued abroad (brain drain).

[Source: Jansen, 2017, Analytical Writing vs Descriptive Writing ]

Further, to write critically, you also have to pay attention to the rhetorical and logical aspects of writing:

Writing critically involves:

• Providing appropriate and sufficient arguments and examples
• Choosing terms that are precise, appropriate, and persuasive
• Making clear the transitions from one thought to another to ensure the overall logic of the presentation
• Editing for content, structure, and language

An increased awareness of the impact of choices of content, language, and structure can help you as a writer to develop habits of rewriting and revision.

Regarding the content, when writing critically, you cannot just rely on your own ideas, experiences, and/or one source. You have to read a wide range of sources on the specific topic you are exploring to get a holistic picture of what others have discussed on the topic, from which you further make your own judgment. Through reading other sources, you not only form your own judgment and opinions but also collect evidence to support your arguments. Evidence is so important in critical writing. In addition to the collection of evidence, you also need to use different ways (e.g., quoting, paraphrasing, and synthesizing) to integrate the evidence into your writing to increase your critical analysis.

Using quotes is always an issue. Some students like to quote a lot and/or too long throughout their papers, and others do not know why they quote. Remember that when you use direct quotations, you are using others’ ideas, not yours. You should limit the use of quotes to the minimum because readers are always interested in your opinions. In other words, you need to use quotes critically.

When you quote directly from a source, use the quotation critically. This means that you should not substitute the quotation for your own articulation of a point. Rather, introduce the quotation by laying out the judgments you are making about it, and the reasons why you are using it. Often a quotation is followed by some further analysis.

[Source: Knott , n.d., Critical Reading Towards Critical Writing ]

Barna (2017) stated that “A good rule of thumb is that the evidence should only be about 5-10% of the piece.” Further, according to the EAP Foundation.org , you need to avoid doing a laundry list in critical writing:

You cannot just string quotes together (A says this, B says that, C says something else), without looking more deeply at the information and building on it to support your own argument.

This means you need to break down the information from other sources to determine how the parts relate to one another or to an overall structure or purpose [analysing], and then make judgements about it, identifying its strengths and weaknesses, and possibly ‘grey areas’ in between, which are neither strengths nor weaknesses [evaluating]. Critical reading skills will help you with this, as you consider whether the source is reliable, relevant, up-to-date, and accurate.

When and Why do you quote?

When should you use quotes?

Using quotations is the easiest way to include source material, but quotations should be used carefully and sparingly. While paraphrasing and summarizing provide the opportunity to show your understanding of the source material, quoting may only show your ability to type it.

Having said that, there are a few very good reasons that you might want to use a quote rather than a paraphrase or summary:

• Accuracy: You are unable to paraphrase or summarize the source material without changing the author’s intent.
• Authority: You may want to use a quote to lend expert authority for your assertion or to provide source material for analysis.
• Conciseness: Your attempts to paraphrase or summarize are awkward or much longer than the source material.
• Unforgettable language: You believe that the words of the author are memorable or remarkable because of their effectiveness or historical flavor. Additionally, the author may have used a unique phrase or sentence, and you want to comment on words or phrases themselves.

When you decide to quote, be careful of relying too much upon one source or quoting too much of a source and make sure that your use of the quote demonstrates an understanding of the source material. Essentially, you want to avoid having a paper that is a string of quotes with occasional input from you.

[Source: Decide when to Quote, Paraphrase and Summarize ]

How do you quote?

• With a complete sentence
• With “according to”
• With a reporting verb
• With a “that” clause
• As part of your sentence

Citing the islands of Fiji as a case in point, Bordo notes that “until television was introduced in 1995, the islands had no reported cases of eating disorders. In 1998, three years after programs from the United States and Britain began broadcasting there, 62 percent of the girls surveyed reported dieting” (149-50). Bordo’s point is that the Western cult of dieting is spreading even to remote places across the globe.

[Source: Lane, 2020, Quoting: When and How to Use Quotations ]

The firm belief which has been widely advertised is that “international students should be given equal rights and respect while studying abroad” (Lane, 2020, p. 19).

Smith, an agent working at an international company, put forward the seriousness of economic recession brought by the COVID-19 pandemic: “our economy will soon collapse, followed by business failures, elevated unemployment, and social turbulence ” (2021, p. 87).

Dominguez (2002) suggested, “teachers should reflect on their teaching constantly and proactively” to avoid teacher burnout and attrition (pp. 76-79).

According to the IEP student manual, “To study in the IEP you must be 18 years old and your English level must be ‘high beginner’ or higher” (p. 6).

[Source: Five Ways to Introduce Quotations ]

Now move on to the language aspect of critical writing, you should pay attention to the analytical verbs used in critical writing.

Analytical verbs are verbs that indicate critical thinking. They’re used in essays to dissect a text and make interpretive points, helping you to form a strong argument and remain analytical. If you don’t use analytical verbs, you may find yourself simply repeating plot points, and describing a text, rather than evaluating and exploring core themes and ideas.

[Source: What are Analytical Verbs? ]

The use of analytical verbs is also important to show your precision and appropriateness in language use. For example, instead of using says and talks, replace those verbs with states, discusses, or claims. Not only does it enhance the formality of the language, but also it helps to create the tone of writing. This further means that you have to understand the specific meaning, purpose, and function of each verb in a specific context as shown in the table below.

[Source: Impressive Verbs to use in your Research Paper ]

The verbs listed under each category are NOT synonyms and are different based on context. Please ensure that the selected verb conveys your intended meaning.

It is recommended that you check out Academic Phrasebank for more advanced and critical language use.

The accuracy of language use that is important for critical writing is also reflected in the use of hedges .

Hedging is the use of linguistic devices to express hesitation or uncertainty as well as to demonstrate politeness and indirectness.

People use hedged language for several different purposes but perhaps the most fundamental are the following:

• to minimize the possibility of another academic opposing the claims that are being made
• to conform to the currently accepted style of academic writing
• to enable the author to devise a politeness strategy where they are able to acknowledge that there may be flaws in their claims

[Source: What Is Hedging in Academic Writing?]

There are different types of hedges used in writing to make your claim less certain but more convincing. For example, what is the difference between the two sentences as shown below?

No hedging: We already know all the animals in the world.

With hedging: It’s possible that we may already know most animals in the world.

[Source: Hedges and Boosters ]

Check this table for different types of hedges.

[Source: Features of academic writing]

Practice how to tone down the arguments.

ACTIVITY #2

Add hedges to the following arguments.

Except for the content and language aspects of critical writing, the last aspect is the organization, including both the overall structure and the paragraph level.

Here is one example of a critical writing outline.

One easy-to-follow outline format is alphanumeric, which means it uses letters of the alphabet and numbers to organize text.

For example:

• Hook: _____________________
• Transition to thesis: _____________________
• Thesis statement with three supporting points:_____________________
• Topic sentence: _____________________
• Evidence (data, facts, examples, logical reasoning): _____________________
• Connect evidence to thesis: _____________________
• Restate thesis: _____________________
• Summarize points: _____________________
• Closure (prediction, comment, call to action): _____________________

[Source: Academic Writing Tip: Making an Outline ]

1. Introduction

• Thesis statement

2. Topic one

• First piece of evidence
• Second piece of evidence

3. Topic two

4. Topic three

5. Conclusion

• Summary/synthesis
• Importance of topic
• Strong closing statement

[Source: Caulfield, 2021, How to Write an Essay Outline]

ACTIVITY #3:

The following essay was adapted from a student’s writing. Please identify the components of each paragraph.

Artificial Intelligence: An Irreplaceable Assistant in Policy-making

Do you understand artificial intelligence (AI)? Are you excited that humans can create these machines that think like us? Do you ever worry that they develop too advanced to replace humans? If you have thought about these questions, you are already in the debate of the century. AI is a term used to describe machine artifacts with digital algorithms that have the ability to perceive contexts for action and the capacity to associate contexts to actions (Bryson & Winfield, 2017). The 21st century has witnessed a great number of changes in AI. As AI shows its great abilities in decision-making, humans are relying more on AI to make policies. Despite some concerns about the overuse of AI, AI is no longer to be replaced in policy-making because it has the capabilities that humans cannot achieve, such as transparent decision-making and powerful data processing.

AI has the capacity to use algorithms or systems to make the decision-making process more transparent (Walport & Sedwill, 2016). Many decisions made by humans are based upon their intuition rather than the direct result of the deliberate collection and processing of information (Dane et al., 2012). Intuition is useful in business when considering the outcome of an investment or a new product. However, in politics, the public would often question whether the policy is biased, so a transparent decision-making process should be used instead of intuition. AI can make political decisions more transparent by visualizing digital records (Calo, 2017). AI can make decisions without any discrimination and can have the public better understand of the policies.

In addition, AI can process a large amount of information at a speed faster than the cognitive ability of the most intelligent human policymakers (Jarrahi, 2018). A qualified policy must be based on facts reflected by data, so researching data is an essential part of policy-making. There are two main challenges for the human decision-makers in this area: (1) The amount of data is too large and (2) the relationship between data is too complex. Handling these two problems is where AI is superior. The high computing power of AI makes it an effective tool for retrieving and analyzing large amounts of data, thus reducing the complexity of the logic between problems (Jarrahi, 2018). Without AI, the policymakers would be overwhelmed by tons of data in this modern information age. It is almost impossible for them to convert those data into useful information. For example, data provided to the politician who is responsible for health care is mostly from the electronic health record (HER). HER is just the digital record transported from paper-based forms (Bennett et al., 2012). AI can analyze the data to generate clinical assessments, symptoms, and patient behavior and then link that information with social factors such as education level and economic status. According to the information from AI, the policy maker can make policies for healthcare improvement (Bennett et al., 2012). With the assistance of AI, the government can not only collect data easier but also utilize those data as operable Information.

However, while AI shows its great abilities in policy-making, it also brings considerable risks to contemporary society, and the most significant one is privacy. The only source for AI systems to learn human behavior is data, so AI needs to collect enormous quantities of information about users in order to perform better. Some scholars claim that the main problem with AI data collection is the use of data for unintended purposes. The data is likely to be processed, used, or even sold without the users’ permission (Bartneck et al, 2021). The 2018 Cambridge Analytica scandal showed how private data collected through Facebook can be used to manipulate elections (Bartneck et al, 2021). While privacy is a crucial problem, this is a handleable problem and we cannot deny the benefits brought by using AI. The most appropriate way to solve this problem is to establish a complete regulatory system. In fact, many policies have been made to protect user privacy in AI data collection. One of safeguard in this area is to restrict the centralized processing of data. Researchers are also conducting a lot of research in this area and have achieved some technological breakthroughs. For example, open-source code and open data formats will allow a more transparent distinction between private and transferable information, blockchain-based technologies will allow data to be reviewed and tracked, and “smart contracts” will provide transparent control over how data is used without the need for centralized authority (Yuste & Goering, 2017).

In conclusion, although there may be some privacy-related issues with AI policies, the powerful data collection capabilities and transparent decision-making process of AI will bring many benefits to humans. In the future, AI is more likely to continue to serve as an assistant to humans when making policies under a complete and strict regulatory system.

Bartneck, Christoph. Lütge, Christoph. Wagner, Alan. Welsh, Sean. (2021). Privacy Issues of AI, pp.61-70. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-51110-4_8.

Bennett C, Doub T, Selove R (2012) EHRs Connect Research and Practice: Where Predictive Modeling, Artificial Intelligence, and Clinical Decision Support Intersect https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1204/1204.4927.pdf. Accessed 1 April 2021.

Bryson J and Winfield A (2017) Standardizing Ethical Design Considerations for Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Systems. http://www.cs.bath.ac.uk/~jjb/ftp/BrysonWinfield17-oa.pdf. Accessed 1 April 2021.

Calo, R (1993) Artificial Intelligence Policy: A Primer and Roadmap. https://lawreview.law.ucdavis.edu/issues/51/2/Symposium/51-2_Calo.pdf , Accessed 1 April 2021.

Dane, Erik., Rockmann, Kevin. W., & Pratt, Michael G. (2012). When should I trust my gut? Linking domain expertise to intuitive decision-making effectiveness. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 119(2), 187—194.

Jarrahi, M. (2018). Artificial intelligence and the future of work: Human-AI symbiosis in organizational decision making, Business Horizons, Volume 61, Issue 4, Pages 577-586, ISSN 0007-6813, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2018.03.007.

Walport M, & Sedwill M. (2016). Artificial intelligence: opportunities and implications for the future of decision making. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attach ment_data/file/566075/gs-16-19-artificial-intelligence-ai-report.pdf, Accessed 1 April 2021.

Rafael, Y., & Sara, G. (2017). Four ethical priorities for neurotechnologies an AI https://www.nature.com/news/four-ethical-priorities-for-neurotechnologies-and-ai 1.22960. Accessed 1 April 2022.

Apart from the overall structure of critical writing, it is also important to pay attention to the paragraph-level structure. There are different paragraph models for critical writing.

Model 1: TED model for writing critical paragraphs

Paragraph model for critical writing

Often in assignments, you are expected to critically evaluate – this means to assess the relevance and significance of concepts relating to a specific topic or assignment question. Introduce your point. Give examples from reading. Is there support for your argument or can you identify weaknesses? Are there different perspectives to compare and contrast? Build your explanation and create your objective, reasoned argument (case or thesis) based on the evaluation from different perspectives. You will include your conclusion and point of view, communicating your stance, having made a judgment on research you have found and its significance in contributing to answering your assignment question.

Use the TED model to integrate critical thinking into your writing:

Each example of evidence in your writing should have a clear purpose or function. Be explicit and tell the reader what it contributes to your reasoning.

Professional practice is more complex than simply applying theory to practice, since it involves a professional juggling of situational demands, intuition, experiences and knowledge (Schön, 1991). Practitioners do not apply research findings in a simple deductive process; they need time to think, translate and relate the research findings to their particular setting. The extent to which a given piece of evidence is utilised by an individual in practice depends on their sense of the situation and this inevitably involves professional judgement.

Topic (in red); Evidence (in orange); Further explanation (in blue); Discussion (in green)

Model 2: WEED model for writing critical paragraphs

This is a model for writing critical paragraphs. It’s taken from Godwin’s book called ‘Planning your Essay’. Each paragraph should be on a single topic, making a single point. A paragraph is usually around a third of a page.

W is for What

You should begin your paragraph with the topic or point that you’re making so that it’s clear to your lecturer. Everything in the paragraph should fit in with this opening sentence.

E is for Evidence

The middle of your paragraph should be full of evidence – this is where all your references should be incorporated. Make sure that your evidence fits in with your topic.

E is for Examples

Sometimes it’s useful to expand on your evidence. If you’re talking about a case study, the example might be how your point relates to the particular scenario being discussed.

D is for Do

You should conclude your paragraph with the implications of your discussion. This gives you the opportunity to add your commentary, which is very important in assignments that require you to use critical analysis. So, in effect, each paragraph is like a mini-essay, with an introduction, main body, and conclusion.

Example: a good critical paragraph

Exposure to nature and green spaces has been found to increase health, happiness, and wellbeing. Whilst trees and greenery improve air quality by reducing air pollutants, green spaces facilitate physical activity, reduce stress, and provide opportunities for social interaction (Kaplan, 1995; Lachowycz,and Jones, 2011; Ward Thompson et al., 2012; Hartig et al., 2014; Anderson et al., 2016). Older adults have described increased feelings of wellbeing while spending time in green spaces and walking past street greenery (Finaly et al., 2015; Orr et al., 2016). They are more likely to walk on streets which are aesthetically pleasing (Lockett, Willis and Edwards, 2005) while greenery such as flowers and trees play an important role in improving the aesthetics of the environment (Day, 2008). Therefore, greater integration of urban green spaces and street greenery in cities may have the potential to increase physical activity and wellbeing in older adults.

What (in red), Evidence (in orange), Do (in blue).

[Source: Learning Hub, 2021 ]

Please identify the paragraph-level components in the following paragraphs. You can use different colors to indicate different components.

Social Media plays a key role in slowing the spread of vaccine misinformation. According to Nikos-Rose (2021) from the University of California, individuals’ attitudes towards vaccination can negatively be influenced by social media. They can simply post a piece of misleading information to the public, and the deceived ones will share it with their families and friends. The role of media can also help boost the public’s confidence in the vaccination. The media can provide valuable information for the public to know that the vaccine is safe. Almost everyone in the modern era lives with a cell phone now. People on social media can also share their experiences after getting vaccinated. Influences can help boost the public’s confidence. Just as voters would receive “I voted” after casting their ballots, vaccination distribution sites can provide “I got vaccinated” stickers. This can encourage individuals to post on the media that they have received the vaccine (Milkman, 2020). Furthermore, those who spread misleading information should be fined by the authorities. This punishment would be sufficient for them to learn their lesson. People who oversee data and information in social media should be concerned about the spread of misleading information on social media. After deleting the false information, they should put up a notice stating that is fake. This will help the public to understand which information should be trusted or not. Moreover, people who find misleading information online should report it to the administration. This could help prevent false info from circulating on the internet.

Recent studies showed that the contamination of land and water can also negatively affect the production of crops and the food systems as the safety of products can be compromised by the chemicals used by fracking. In addition, the amount of freshwater required for the mixture of the fracking fluids can generate a lack of water supply to the local agricultural industries. The fresh water is the 90-97 % of the fracking fluids, and the water deployed is not possible to recycle efficiently. In fact, the wastewater became a further challenge to the agricultural sector as it can make the soil dry and unusable for crops (Pothukuchi et al. 2018). The challenges faced by the agricultural sector are reflected in the farmlands and livestocks as well. For example, in Pennsylvania, the Dairy farming is one of the major agricultural sectors. This particular sector requires unpolluted water and pasturelands to enable the cows to produce milk. Since 1996 this sector began to fail, but the largest decrease in cows that produce milk took place between 2007 and 2011. It was the exact same period when the fracking industries reached their peak in this area (Pothukuchi et al. 2018). Another piece of evidence is related to the air pollution caused by fracking, specifically, the pollution of agricultural pollinators such as bees. The population of air caused by fracking has led to a huge degradation of that volatiles endangering the local and global food production. Those outcomes are closely related to the low level of planning abilities in rural areas, where fracking usually takes place. Particularly, the gap between fracking industry actors and local officials didn’t allow the development of a proper level of policies and regulations.

References:

Academic writing tip: Making an outline. (2020, December 8). The International Language Institute of Massachusetts. Retrieved July 22, 2022, from https://ili.edu/2020/12/08/academic-writing-tip-making-an-outline/

Caulfield, J. (2021, December 6). How to Write an Essay Outline | Guidelines & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved July 22, 2022, from https://www.scribbr.com/academic-essay/essay-outline/

Choudhary, A. (n.d.). Impressive Verbs to use in your Research Paper. Editage. Retrieved July 22, 2022, from https://www.editage.com/all-about-publication/research/impressive-Verbs-to-use-in-your-Research-Paper.html

Critical reading towards critical writing. (n.d.). University of Toronto. Retrieved July 22, 2022, from https://advice.writing.utoronto.ca/researching/critical-reading/

Critical writing. (n.d.). Teesside University. Retrieved July 22, 2022, from https://libguides.tees.ac.uk/ld.php?content_id=33286287

Critical writing. (n.d.-b). EAP FOUNDATION.COM. Https://www.eapfoundation.com/writing/critical/

Decide when to quote, paraphrase and summarize. (n.d.). University of Houston-Victoria. Retrieved July 22, 2022, from https://www.uhv.edu/curriculum-and-student-achievement/student-success/tutoring/student-resources/a-d/decide-when-to-quote-paraphrase-and-summarize/

Features of academic writing. (n.d.). UEFAP. Retrieved July 22, 2022, from http://www.uefap.com/writing/feature/hedge.htm

Five ways to introduce quotations. (n.d.). University of Georgia. Retrieved July 22, 2022, from https://dae.uga.edu/iep/handouts/Five-Ways-to-Introduce-Quotations.pdf

Jansen, D. (2017, April). Analytical writing vs descriptive writing. GRADCOACH. Retrieved July 22, 2022, from https://gradcoach.com/analytical-vs-descriptive-writing/

Hedges and Boosters. (n.d.). The Nature of Writing. Retrieved July 22, 2022, from https://natureofwriting.com/courses/introduction-to-rhetoric/lessons/hedges-and-boosters/topic/hedges-and-boosters

How to write critically. (n.d.). Teesside University. Retrieved July 22, 2022, from https://libguides.tees.ac.uk/ld.php?content_id=31275168

Lane, J. (2021, July 9). Critical thinking for critical writing. Simon Fraser University. Retrieved July 22, 2022, from https://www.lib.sfu.ca/about/branches-depts/slc/writing/argumentation/critical-thinking-writing

LibGuides: Critical Writing: Online study guide. (n.d.). Sheffield Hallam University. Retrieved July 22, 2022, from https://libguides.shu.ac.uk/criticalwriting

What are analytical verbs? (n.d.). Twinkl. Retrieved July 22, 2022, from https://www.twinkl.com/teaching-wiki/analytical-verbs

What is hedging in academic writing? (2022, May 3). Enago Academy. Retrieved July 22, 2022, from https://www.enago.com/academy/hedging-in-academic-writing/

Critical Reading, Writing, and Thinking Copyright © 2022 by Zhenjie Weng, Josh Burlile, Karen Macbeth is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Change Password

Your password must have 8 characters or more and contain 3 of the following:.

• a lower case character, 
• an upper case character, 
• a special character 

Password Changed Successfully

Your password has been changed

• Sign in / Register

Request Username

Can't sign in? Forgot your username?

Enter your email address below and we will send you your username

If the address matches an existing account you will receive an email with instructions to retrieve your username

Understanding the Complex Relationship between Critical Thinking and Science Reasoning among Undergraduate Thesis Writers

• Jason E. Dowd
• Robert J. Thompson
• Leslie A. Schiff
• Julie A. Reynolds

*Address correspondence to: Jason E. Dowd ( E-mail Address: [email protected] ).

Department of Biology, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708

Search for more papers by this author

Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708

Department of Microbiology and Immunology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455

Developing critical-thinking and scientific reasoning skills are core learning objectives of science education, but little empirical evidence exists regarding the interrelationships between these constructs. Writing effectively fosters students’ development of these constructs, and it offers a unique window into studying how they relate. In this study of undergraduate thesis writing in biology at two universities, we examine how scientific reasoning exhibited in writing (assessed using the Biology Thesis Assessment Protocol) relates to general and specific critical-thinking skills (assessed using the California Critical Thinking Skills Test), and we consider implications for instruction. We find that scientific reasoning in writing is strongly related to inference , while other aspects of science reasoning that emerge in writing (epistemological considerations, writing conventions, etc.) are not significantly related to critical-thinking skills. Science reasoning in writing is not merely a proxy for critical thinking. In linking features of students’ writing to their critical-thinking skills, this study 1) provides a bridge to prior work suggesting that engagement in science writing enhances critical thinking and 2) serves as a foundational step for subsequently determining whether instruction focused explicitly on developing critical-thinking skills (particularly inference ) can actually improve students’ scientific reasoning in their writing.

INTRODUCTION

Critical-thinking and scientific reasoning skills are core learning objectives of science education for all students, regardless of whether or not they intend to pursue a career in science or engineering. Consistent with the view of learning as construction of understanding and meaning ( National Research Council, 2000 ), the pedagogical practice of writing has been found to be effective not only in fostering the development of students’ conceptual and procedural knowledge ( Gerdeman et al. , 2007 ) and communication skills ( Clase et al. , 2010 ), but also scientific reasoning ( Reynolds et al. , 2012 ) and critical-thinking skills ( Quitadamo and Kurtz, 2007 ).

Critical thinking and scientific reasoning are similar but different constructs that include various types of higher-order cognitive processes, metacognitive strategies, and dispositions involved in making meaning of information. Critical thinking is generally understood as the broader construct ( Holyoak and Morrison, 2005 ), comprising an array of cognitive processes and dispostions that are drawn upon differentially in everyday life and across domains of inquiry such as the natural sciences, social sciences, and humanities. Scientific reasoning, then, may be interpreted as the subset of critical-thinking skills (cognitive and metacognitive processes and dispositions) that 1) are involved in making meaning of information in scientific domains and 2) support the epistemological commitment to scientific methodology and paradigm(s).

Although there has been an enduring focus in higher education on promoting critical thinking and reasoning as general or “transferable” skills, research evidence provides increasing support for the view that reasoning and critical thinking are also situational or domain specific ( Beyer et al. , 2013 ). Some researchers, such as Lawson (2010) , present frameworks in which science reasoning is characterized explicitly in terms of critical-thinking skills. There are, however, limited coherent frameworks and empirical evidence regarding either the general or domain-specific interrelationships of scientific reasoning, as it is most broadly defined, and critical-thinking skills.

The Vision and Change in Undergraduate Biology Education Initiative provides a framework for thinking about these constructs and their interrelationship in the context of the core competencies and disciplinary practice they describe ( American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2011 ). These learning objectives aim for undergraduates to “understand the process of science, the interdisciplinary nature of the new biology and how science is closely integrated within society; be competent in communication and collaboration; have quantitative competency and a basic ability to interpret data; and have some experience with modeling, simulation and computational and systems level approaches as well as with using large databases” ( Woodin et al. , 2010 , pp. 71–72). This framework makes clear that science reasoning and critical-thinking skills play key roles in major learning outcomes; for example, “understanding the process of science” requires students to engage in (and be metacognitive about) scientific reasoning, and having the “ability to interpret data” requires critical-thinking skills. To help students better achieve these core competencies, we must better understand the interrelationships of their composite parts. Thus, the next step is to determine which specific critical-thinking skills are drawn upon when students engage in science reasoning in general and with regard to the particular scientific domain being studied. Such a determination could be applied to improve science education for both majors and nonmajors through pedagogical approaches that foster critical-thinking skills that are most relevant to science reasoning.

Writing affords one of the most effective means for making thinking visible ( Reynolds et al. , 2012 ) and learning how to “think like” and “write like” disciplinary experts ( Meizlish et al. , 2013 ). As a result, student writing affords the opportunities to both foster and examine the interrelationship of scientific reasoning and critical-thinking skills within and across disciplinary contexts. The purpose of this study was to better understand the relationship between students’ critical-thinking skills and scientific reasoning skills as reflected in the genre of undergraduate thesis writing in biology departments at two research universities, the University of Minnesota and Duke University.

In the following subsections, we discuss in greater detail the constructs of scientific reasoning and critical thinking, as well as the assessment of scientific reasoning in students’ thesis writing. In subsequent sections, we discuss our study design, findings, and the implications for enhancing educational practices.

Critical Thinking

The advances in cognitive science in the 21st century have increased our understanding of the mental processes involved in thinking and reasoning, as well as memory, learning, and problem solving. Critical thinking is understood to include both a cognitive dimension and a disposition dimension (e.g., reflective thinking) and is defined as “purposeful, self-regulatory judgment which results in interpretation, analysis, evaluation, and inference, as well as explanation of the evidential, conceptual, methodological, criteriological, or contextual considera­tions upon which that judgment is based” ( Facione, 1990, p. 3 ). Although various other definitions of critical thinking have been proposed, researchers have generally coalesced on this consensus: expert view ( Blattner and Frazier, 2002 ; Condon and Kelly-Riley, 2004 ; Bissell and Lemons, 2006 ; Quitadamo and Kurtz, 2007 ) and the corresponding measures of critical-­thinking skills ( August, 2016 ; Stephenson and Sadler-McKnight, 2016 ).

Both the cognitive skills and dispositional components of critical thinking have been recognized as important to science education ( Quitadamo and Kurtz, 2007 ). Empirical research demonstrates that specific pedagogical practices in science courses are effective in fostering students’ critical-thinking skills. Quitadamo and Kurtz (2007) found that students who engaged in a laboratory writing component in the context of a general education biology course significantly improved their overall critical-thinking skills (and their analytical and inference skills, in particular), whereas students engaged in a traditional quiz-based laboratory did not improve their critical-thinking skills. In related work, Quitadamo et al. (2008) found that a community-based inquiry experience, involving inquiry, writing, research, and analysis, was associated with improved critical thinking in a biology course for nonmajors, compared with traditionally taught sections. In both studies, students who exhibited stronger presemester critical-thinking skills exhibited stronger gains, suggesting that “students who have not been explicitly taught how to think critically may not reach the same potential as peers who have been taught these skills” ( Quitadamo and Kurtz, 2007 , p. 151).

Recently, Stephenson and Sadler-McKnight (2016) found that first-year general chemistry students who engaged in a science writing heuristic laboratory, which is an inquiry-based, writing-to-learn approach to instruction ( Hand and Keys, 1999 ), had significantly greater gains in total critical-thinking scores than students who received traditional laboratory instruction. Each of the four components—inquiry, writing, collaboration, and reflection—have been linked to critical thinking ( Stephenson and Sadler-McKnight, 2016 ). Like the other studies, this work highlights the value of targeting critical-thinking skills and the effectiveness of an inquiry-based, writing-to-learn approach to enhance critical thinking. Across studies, authors advocate adopting critical thinking as the course framework ( Pukkila, 2004 ) and developing explicit examples of how critical thinking relates to the scientific method ( Miri et al. , 2007 ).

In these examples, the important connection between writing and critical thinking is highlighted by the fact that each intervention involves the incorporation of writing into science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education (either alone or in combination with other pedagogical practices). However, critical-thinking skills are not always the primary learning outcome; in some contexts, scientific reasoning is the primary outcome that is assessed.

Scientific Reasoning

Scientific reasoning is a complex process that is broadly defined as “the skills involved in inquiry, experimentation, evidence evaluation, and inference that are done in the service of conceptual change or scientific understanding” ( Zimmerman, 2007 , p. 172). Scientific reasoning is understood to include both conceptual knowledge and the cognitive processes involved with generation of hypotheses (i.e., inductive processes involved in the generation of hypotheses and the deductive processes used in the testing of hypotheses), experimentation strategies, and evidence evaluation strategies. These dimensions are interrelated, in that “experimentation and inference strategies are selected based on prior conceptual knowledge of the domain” ( Zimmerman, 2000 , p. 139). Furthermore, conceptual and procedural knowledge and cognitive process dimensions can be general and domain specific (or discipline specific).

With regard to conceptual knowledge, attention has been focused on the acquisition of core methodological concepts fundamental to scientists’ causal reasoning and metacognitive distancing (or decontextualized thinking), which is the ability to reason independently of prior knowledge or beliefs ( Greenhoot et al. , 2004 ). The latter involves what Kuhn and Dean (2004) refer to as the coordination of theory and evidence, which requires that one question existing theories (i.e., prior knowledge and beliefs), seek contradictory evidence, eliminate alternative explanations, and revise one’s prior beliefs in the face of contradictory evidence. Kuhn and colleagues (2008) further elaborate that scientific thinking requires “a mature understanding of the epistemological foundations of science, recognizing scientific knowledge as constructed by humans rather than simply discovered in the world,” and “the ability to engage in skilled argumentation in the scientific domain, with an appreciation of argumentation as entailing the coordination of theory and evidence” ( Kuhn et al. , 2008 , p. 435). “This approach to scientific reasoning not only highlights the skills of generating and evaluating evidence-based inferences, but also encompasses epistemological appreciation of the functions of evidence and theory” ( Ding et al. , 2016 , p. 616). Evaluating evidence-based inferences involves epistemic cognition, which Moshman (2015) defines as the subset of metacognition that is concerned with justification, truth, and associated forms of reasoning. Epistemic cognition is both general and domain specific (or discipline specific; Moshman, 2015 ).

There is empirical support for the contributions of both prior knowledge and an understanding of the epistemological foundations of science to scientific reasoning. In a study of undergraduate science students, advanced scientific reasoning was most often accompanied by accurate prior knowledge as well as sophisticated epistemological commitments; additionally, for students who had comparable levels of prior knowledge, skillful reasoning was associated with a strong epistemological commitment to the consistency of theory with evidence ( Zeineddin and Abd-El-Khalick, 2010 ). These findings highlight the importance of the need for instructional activities that intentionally help learners develop sophisticated epistemological commitments focused on the nature of knowledge and the role of evidence in supporting knowledge claims ( Zeineddin and Abd-El-Khalick, 2010 ).

Scientific Reasoning in Students’ Thesis Writing

Pedagogical approaches that incorporate writing have also focused on enhancing scientific reasoning. Many rubrics have been developed to assess aspects of scientific reasoning in written artifacts. For example, Timmerman and colleagues (2011) , in the course of describing their own rubric for assessing scientific reasoning, highlight several examples of scientific reasoning assessment criteria ( Haaga, 1993 ; Tariq et al. , 1998 ; Topping et al. , 2000 ; Kelly and Takao, 2002 ; Halonen et al. , 2003 ; Willison and O’Regan, 2007 ).

At both the University of Minnesota and Duke University, we have focused on the genre of the undergraduate honors thesis as the rhetorical context in which to study and improve students’ scientific reasoning and writing. We view the process of writing an undergraduate honors thesis as a form of professional development in the sciences (i.e., a way of engaging students in the practices of a community of discourse). We have found that structured courses designed to scaffold the thesis-­writing process and promote metacognition can improve writing and reasoning skills in biology, chemistry, and economics ( Reynolds and Thompson, 2011 ; Dowd et al. , 2015a , b ). In the context of this prior work, we have defined scientific reasoning in writing as the emergent, underlying construct measured across distinct aspects of students’ written discussion of independent research in their undergraduate theses.

The Biology Thesis Assessment Protocol (BioTAP) was developed at Duke University as a tool for systematically guiding students and faculty through a “draft–feedback–revision” writing process, modeled after professional scientific peer-review processes ( Reynolds et al. , 2009 ). BioTAP includes activities and worksheets that allow students to engage in critical peer review and provides detailed descriptions, presented as rubrics, of the questions (i.e., dimensions, shown in Table 1 ) upon which such review should focus. Nine rubric dimensions focus on communication to the broader scientific community, and four rubric dimensions focus on the accuracy and appropriateness of the research. These rubric dimensions provide criteria by which the thesis is assessed, and therefore allow BioTAP to be used as an assessment tool as well as a teaching resource ( Reynolds et al. , 2009 ). Full details are available at www.science-writing.org/biotap.html .

In previous work, we have used BioTAP to quantitatively assess students’ undergraduate honors theses and explore the relationship between thesis-writing courses (or specific interventions within the courses) and the strength of students’ science reasoning in writing across different science disciplines: biology ( Reynolds and Thompson, 2011 ); chemistry ( Dowd et al. , 2015b ); and economics ( Dowd et al. , 2015a ). We have focused exclusively on the nine dimensions related to reasoning and writing (questions 1–9), as the other four dimensions (questions 10–13) require topic-specific expertise and are intended to be used by the student’s thesis supervisor.

Beyond considering individual dimensions, we have investigated whether meaningful constructs underlie students’ thesis scores. We conducted exploratory factor analysis of students’ theses in biology, economics, and chemistry and found one dominant underlying factor in each discipline; we termed the factor “scientific reasoning in writing” ( Dowd et al. , 2015a , b , 2016 ). That is, each of the nine dimensions could be understood as reflecting, in different ways and to different degrees, the construct of scientific reasoning in writing. The findings indicated evidence of both general and discipline-specific components to scientific reasoning in writing that relate to epistemic beliefs and paradigms, in keeping with broader ideas about science reasoning discussed earlier. Specifically, scientific reasoning in writing is more strongly associated with formulating a compelling argument for the significance of the research in the context of current literature in biology, making meaning regarding the implications of the findings in chemistry, and providing an organizational framework for interpreting the thesis in economics. We suggested that instruction, whether occurring in writing studios or in writing courses to facilitate thesis preparation, should attend to both components.

Research Question and Study Design

The genre of thesis writing combines the pedagogies of writing and inquiry found to foster scientific reasoning ( Reynolds et al. , 2012 ) and critical thinking ( Quitadamo and Kurtz, 2007 ; Quitadamo et al. , 2008 ; Stephenson and Sadler-­McKnight, 2016 ). However, there is no empirical evidence regarding the general or domain-specific interrelationships of scientific reasoning and critical-thinking skills, particularly in the rhetorical context of the undergraduate thesis. The BioTAP studies discussed earlier indicate that the rubric-based assessment produces evidence of scientific reasoning in the undergraduate thesis, but it was not designed to foster or measure critical thinking. The current study was undertaken to address the research question: How are students’ critical-thinking skills related to scientific reasoning as reflected in the genre of undergraduate thesis writing in biology? Determining these interrelationships could guide efforts to enhance students’ scientific reasoning and writing skills through focusing instruction on specific critical-thinking skills as well as disciplinary conventions.

To address this research question, we focused on undergraduate thesis writers in biology courses at two institutions, Duke University and the University of Minnesota, and examined the extent to which students’ scientific reasoning in writing, assessed in the undergraduate thesis using BioTAP, corresponds to students’ critical-thinking skills, assessed using the California Critical Thinking Skills Test (CCTST; August, 2016 ).

Study Sample

The study sample was composed of students enrolled in courses designed to scaffold the thesis-writing process in the Department of Biology at Duke University and the College of Biological Sciences at the University of Minnesota. Both courses complement students’ individual work with research advisors. The course is required for thesis writers at the University of Minnesota and optional for writers at Duke University. Not all students are required to complete a thesis, though it is required for students to graduate with honors; at the University of Minnesota, such students are enrolled in an honors program within the college. In total, 28 students were enrolled in the course at Duke University and 44 students were enrolled in the course at the University of Minnesota. Of those students, two students did not consent to participate in the study; additionally, five students did not validly complete the CCTST (i.e., attempted fewer than 60% of items or completed the test in less than 15 minutes). Thus, our overall rate of valid participation is 90%, with 27 students from Duke University and 38 students from the University of Minnesota. We found no statistically significant differences in thesis assessment between students with valid CCTST scores and invalid CCTST scores. Therefore, we focus on the 65 students who consented to participate and for whom we have complete and valid data in most of this study. Additionally, in asking students for their consent to participate, we allowed them to choose whether to provide or decline access to academic and demographic background data. Of the 65 students who consented to participate, 52 students granted access to such data. Therefore, for additional analyses involving academic and background data, we focus on the 52 students who consented. We note that the 13 students who participated but declined to share additional data performed slightly lower on the CCTST than the 52 others (perhaps suggesting that they differ by other measures, but we cannot determine this with certainty). Among the 52 students, 60% identified as female and 10% identified as being from underrepresented ethnicities.

In both courses, students completed the CCTST online, either in class or on their own, late in the Spring 2016 semester. This is the same assessment that was used in prior studies of critical thinking ( Quitadamo and Kurtz, 2007 ; Quitadamo et al. , 2008 ; Stephenson and Sadler-McKnight, 2016 ). It is “an objective measure of the core reasoning skills needed for reflective decision making concerning what to believe or what to do” ( Insight Assessment, 2016a ). In the test, students are asked to read and consider information as they answer multiple-choice questions. The questions are intended to be appropriate for all users, so there is no expectation of prior disciplinary knowledge in biology (or any other subject). Although actual test items are protected, sample items are available on the Insight Assessment website ( Insight Assessment, 2016b ). We have included one sample item in the Supplemental Material.

The CCTST is based on a consensus definition of critical thinking, measures cognitive and metacognitive skills associated with critical thinking, and has been evaluated for validity and reliability at the college level ( August, 2016 ; Stephenson and Sadler-McKnight, 2016 ). In addition to providing overall critical-thinking score, the CCTST assesses seven dimensions of critical thinking: analysis, interpretation, inference, evaluation, explanation, induction, and deduction. Scores on each dimension are calculated based on students’ performance on items related to that dimension. Analysis focuses on identifying assumptions, reasons, and claims and examining how they interact to form arguments. Interpretation, related to analysis, focuses on determining the precise meaning and significance of information. Inference focuses on drawing conclusions from reasons and evidence. Evaluation focuses on assessing the credibility of sources of information and claims they make. Explanation, related to evaluation, focuses on describing the evidence, assumptions, or rationale for beliefs and conclusions. Induction focuses on drawing inferences about what is probably true based on evidence. Deduction focuses on drawing conclusions about what must be true when the context completely determines the outcome. These are not independent dimensions; the fact that they are related supports their collective interpretation as critical thinking. Together, the CCTST dimensions provide a basis for evaluating students’ overall strength in using reasoning to form reflective judgments about what to believe or what to do ( August, 2016 ). Each of the seven dimensions and the overall CCTST score are measured on a scale of 0–100, where higher scores indicate superior performance. Scores correspond to superior (86–100), strong (79–85), moderate (70–78), weak (63–69), or not manifested (62 and below) skills.

Scientific Reasoning in Writing

At the end of the semester, students’ final, submitted undergraduate theses were assessed using BioTAP, which consists of nine rubric dimensions that focus on communication to the broader scientific community and four additional dimensions that focus on the exhibition of topic-specific expertise ( Reynolds et al. , 2009 ). These dimensions, framed as questions, are displayed in Table 1 .

Student theses were assessed on questions 1–9 of BioTAP using the same procedures described in previous studies ( Reynolds and Thompson, 2011 ; Dowd et al. , 2015a , b ). In this study, six raters were trained in the valid, reliable use of BioTAP rubrics. Each dimension was rated on a five-point scale: 1 indicates the dimension is missing, incomplete, or below acceptable standards; 3 indicates that the dimension is adequate but not exhibiting mastery; and 5 indicates that the dimension is excellent and exhibits mastery (intermediate ratings of 2 and 4 are appropriate when different parts of the thesis make a single category challenging). After training, two raters independently assessed each thesis and then discussed their independent ratings with one another to form a consensus rating. The consensus score is not an average score, but rather an agreed-upon, discussion-based score. On a five-point scale, raters independently assessed dimensions to be within 1 point of each other 82.4% of the time before discussion and formed consensus ratings 100% of the time after discussion.

In this study, we consider both categorical (mastery/nonmastery, where a score of 5 corresponds to mastery) and numerical treatments of individual BioTAP scores to better relate the manifestation of critical thinking in BioTAP assessment to all of the prior studies. For comprehensive/cumulative measures of BioTAP, we focus on the partial sum of questions 1–5, as these questions relate to higher-order scientific reasoning (whereas questions 6–9 relate to mid- and lower-order writing mechanics [ Reynolds et al. , 2009 ]), and the factor scores (i.e., numerical representations of the extent to which each student exhibits the underlying factor), which are calculated from the factor loadings published by Dowd et al. (2016) . We do not focus on questions 6–9 individually in statistical analyses, because we do not expect critical-thinking skills to relate to mid- and lower-order writing skills.

The final, submitted thesis reflects the student’s writing, the student’s scientific reasoning, the quality of feedback provided to the student by peers and mentors, and the student’s ability to incorporate that feedback into his or her work. Therefore, our assessment is not the same as an assessment of unpolished, unrevised samples of students’ written work. While one might imagine that such an unpolished sample may be more strongly correlated with critical-thinking skills measured by the CCTST, we argue that the complete, submitted thesis, assessed using BioTAP, is ultimately a more appropriate reflection of how students exhibit science reasoning in the scientific community.

Statistical Analyses

We took several steps to analyze the collected data. First, to provide context for subsequent interpretations, we generated descriptive statistics for the CCTST scores of the participants based on the norms for undergraduate CCTST test takers. To determine the strength of relationships among CCTST dimensions (including overall score) and the BioTAP dimensions, partial-sum score (questions 1–5), and factor score, we calculated Pearson’s correlations for each pair of measures. To examine whether falling on one side of the nonmastery/mastery threshold (as opposed to a linear scale of performance) was related to critical thinking, we grouped BioTAP dimensions into categories (mastery/nonmastery) and conducted Student’s t tests to compare the means scores of the two groups on each of the seven dimensions and overall score of the CCTST. Finally, for the strongest relationship that emerged, we included additional academic and background variables as covariates in multiple linear-regression analysis to explore questions about how much observed relationships between critical-thinking skills and science reasoning in writing might be explained by variation in these other factors.

Although BioTAP scores represent discreet, ordinal bins, the five-point scale is intended to capture an underlying continuous construct (from inadequate to exhibiting mastery). It has been argued that five categories is an appropriate cutoff for treating ordinal variables as pseudo-continuous ( Rhemtulla et al. , 2012 )—and therefore using continuous-variable statistical methods (e.g., Pearson’s correlations)—as long as the underlying assumption that ordinal scores are linearly distributed is valid. Although we have no way to statistically test this assumption, we interpret adequate scores to be approximately halfway between inadequate and mastery scores, resulting in a linear scale. In part because this assumption is subject to disagreement, we also consider and interpret a categorical (mastery/nonmastery) treatment of BioTAP variables.

We corrected for multiple comparisons using the Holm-Bonferroni method ( Holm, 1979 ). At the most general level, where we consider the single, comprehensive measures for BioTAP (partial-sum and factor score) and the CCTST (overall score), there is no need to correct for multiple comparisons, because the multiple, individual dimensions are collapsed into single dimensions. When we considered individual CCTST dimensions in relation to comprehensive measures for BioTAP, we accounted for seven comparisons; similarly, when we considered individual dimensions of BioTAP in relation to overall CCTST score, we accounted for five comparisons. When all seven CCTST and five BioTAP dimensions were examined individually and without prior knowledge, we accounted for 35 comparisons; such a rigorous threshold is likely to reject weak and moderate relationships, but it is appropriate if there are no specific pre-existing hypotheses. All p values are presented in tables for complete transparency, and we carefully consider the implications of our interpretation of these data in the Discussion section.

CCTST scores for students in this sample ranged from the 39th to 99th percentile of the general population of undergraduate CCTST test takers (mean percentile = 84.3, median = 85th percentile; Table 2 ); these percentiles reflect overall scores that range from moderate to superior. Scores on individual dimensions and overall scores were sufficiently normal and far enough from the ceiling of the scale to justify subsequent statistical analyses.

a Scores correspond to superior (86–100), strong (79–85), moderate (70–78), weak (63–69), or not manifested (62 and lower) skills.

The Pearson’s correlations between students’ cumulative scores on BioTAP (the factor score based on loadings published by Dowd et al. , 2016 , and the partial sum of scores on questions 1–5) and students’ overall scores on the CCTST are presented in Table 3 . We found that the partial-sum measure of BioTAP was significantly related to the overall measure of critical thinking ( r = 0.27, p = 0.03), while the BioTAP factor score was marginally related to overall CCTST ( r = 0.24, p = 0.05). When we looked at relationships between comprehensive BioTAP measures and scores for individual dimensions of the CCTST ( Table 3 ), we found significant positive correlations between the both BioTAP partial-sum and factor scores and CCTST inference ( r = 0.45, p < 0.001, and r = 0.41, p < 0.001, respectively). Although some other relationships have p values below 0.05 (e.g., the correlations between BioTAP partial-sum scores and CCTST induction and interpretation scores), they are not significant when we correct for multiple comparisons.

a In each cell, the top number is the correlation, and the bottom, italicized number is the associated p value. Correlations that are statistically significant after correcting for multiple comparisons are shown in bold.

b This is the partial sum of BioTAP scores on questions 1–5.

c This is the factor score calculated from factor loadings published by Dowd et al. (2016) .

When we expanded comparisons to include all 35 potential correlations among individual BioTAP and CCTST dimensions—and, accordingly, corrected for 35 comparisons—we did not find any additional statistically significant relationships. The Pearson’s correlations between students’ scores on each dimension of BioTAP and students’ scores on each dimension of the CCTST range from −0.11 to 0.35 ( Table 3 ); although the relationship between discussion of implications (BioTAP question 5) and inference appears to be relatively large ( r = 0.35), it is not significant ( p = 0.005; the Holm-Bonferroni cutoff is 0.00143). We found no statistically significant relationships between BioTAP questions 6–9 and CCTST dimensions (unpublished data), regardless of whether we correct for multiple comparisons.

The results of Student’s t tests comparing scores on each dimension of the CCTST of students who exhibit mastery with those of students who do not exhibit mastery on each dimension of BioTAP are presented in Table 4 . Focusing first on the overall CCTST scores, we found that the difference between those who exhibit mastery and those who do not in discussing implications of results (BioTAP question 5) is statistically significant ( t = 2.73, p = 0.008, d = 0.71). When we expanded t tests to include all 35 comparisons—and, like above, corrected for 35 comparisons—we found a significant difference in inference scores between students who exhibit mastery on question 5 and students who do not ( t = 3.41, p = 0.0012, d = 0.88), as well as a marginally significant difference in these students’ induction scores ( t = 3.26, p = 0.0018, d = 0.84; the Holm-Bonferroni cutoff is p = 0.00147). Cohen’s d effect sizes, which reveal the strength of the differences for statistically significant relationships, range from 0.71 to 0.88.

a In each cell, the top number is the t statistic for each comparison, and the middle, italicized number is the associated p value. The bottom number is the effect size. Correlations that are statistically significant after correcting for multiple comparisons are shown in bold.

Finally, we more closely examined the strongest relationship that we observed, which was between the CCTST dimension of inference and the BioTAP partial-sum composite score (shown in Table 3 ), using multiple regression analysis ( Table 5 ). Focusing on the 52 students for whom we have background information, we looked at the simple relationship between BioTAP and inference (model 1), a robust background model including multiple covariates that one might expect to explain some part of the variation in BioTAP (model 2), and a combined model including all variables (model 3). As model 3 shows, the covariates explain very little variation in BioTAP scores, and the relationship between inference and BioTAP persists even in the presence of all of the covariates.

** p < 0.01.

*** p < 0.001.

The aim of this study was to examine the extent to which the various components of scientific reasoning—manifested in writing in the genre of undergraduate thesis and assessed using BioTAP—draw on general and specific critical-thinking skills (assessed using CCTST) and to consider the implications for educational practices. Although science reasoning involves critical-thinking skills, it also relates to conceptual knowledge and the epistemological foundations of science disciplines ( Kuhn et al. , 2008 ). Moreover, science reasoning in writing , captured in students’ undergraduate theses, reflects habits, conventions, and the incorporation of feedback that may alter evidence of individuals’ critical-thinking skills. Our findings, however, provide empirical evidence that cumulative measures of science reasoning in writing are nonetheless related to students’ overall critical-thinking skills ( Table 3 ). The particularly significant roles of inference skills ( Table 3 ) and the discussion of implications of results (BioTAP question 5; Table 4 ) provide a basis for more specific ideas about how these constructs relate to one another and what educational interventions may have the most success in fostering these skills.

Our results build on previous findings. The genre of thesis writing combines pedagogies of writing and inquiry found to foster scientific reasoning ( Reynolds et al. , 2012 ) and critical thinking ( Quitadamo and Kurtz, 2007 ; Quitadamo et al. , 2008 ; Stephenson and Sadler-McKnight, 2016 ). Quitadamo and Kurtz (2007) reported that students who engaged in a laboratory writing component in a general education biology course significantly improved their inference and analysis skills, and Quitadamo and colleagues (2008) found that participation in a community-based inquiry biology course (that included a writing component) was associated with significant gains in students’ inference and evaluation skills. The shared focus on inference is noteworthy, because these prior studies actually differ from the current study; the former considered critical-­thinking skills as the primary learning outcome of writing-­focused interventions, whereas the latter focused on emergent links between two learning outcomes (science reasoning in writing and critical thinking). In other words, inference skills are impacted by writing as well as manifested in writing.

Inference focuses on drawing conclusions from argument and evidence. According to the consensus definition of critical thinking, the specific skill of inference includes several processes: querying evidence, conjecturing alternatives, and drawing conclusions. All of these activities are central to the independent research at the core of writing an undergraduate thesis. Indeed, a critical part of what we call “science reasoning in writing” might be characterized as a measure of students’ ability to infer and make meaning of information and findings. Because the cumulative BioTAP measures distill underlying similarities and, to an extent, suppress unique aspects of individual dimensions, we argue that it is appropriate to relate inference to scientific reasoning in writing . Even when we control for other potentially relevant background characteristics, the relationship is strong ( Table 5 ).

In taking the complementary view and focusing on BioTAP, when we compared students who exhibit mastery with those who do not, we found that the specific dimension of “discussing the implications of results” (question 5) differentiates students’ performance on several critical-thinking skills. To achieve mastery on this dimension, students must make connections between their results and other published studies and discuss the future directions of the research; in short, they must demonstrate an understanding of the bigger picture. The specific relationship between question 5 and inference is the strongest observed among all individual comparisons. Altogether, perhaps more than any other BioTAP dimension, this aspect of students’ writing provides a clear view of the role of students’ critical-thinking skills (particularly inference and, marginally, induction) in science reasoning.

While inference and discussion of implications emerge as particularly strongly related dimensions in this work, we note that the strongest contribution to “science reasoning in writing in biology,” as determined through exploratory factor analysis, is “argument for the significance of research” (BioTAP question 2, not question 5; Dowd et al. , 2016 ). Question 2 is not clearly related to critical-thinking skills. These findings are not contradictory, but rather suggest that the epistemological and disciplinary-specific aspects of science reasoning that emerge in writing through BioTAP are not completely aligned with aspects related to critical thinking. In other words, science reasoning in writing is not simply a proxy for those critical-thinking skills that play a role in science reasoning.

In a similar vein, the content-related, epistemological aspects of science reasoning, as well as the conventions associated with writing the undergraduate thesis (including feedback from peers and revision), may explain the lack of significant relationships between some science reasoning dimensions and some critical-thinking skills that might otherwise seem counterintuitive (e.g., BioTAP question 2, which relates to making an argument, and the critical-thinking skill of argument). It is possible that an individual’s critical-thinking skills may explain some variation in a particular BioTAP dimension, but other aspects of science reasoning and practice exert much stronger influence. Although these relationships do not emerge in our analyses, the lack of significant correlation does not mean that there is definitively no correlation. Correcting for multiple comparisons suppresses type 1 error at the expense of exacerbating type 2 error, which, combined with the limited sample size, constrains statistical power and makes weak relationships more difficult to detect. Ultimately, though, the relationships that do emerge highlight places where individuals’ distinct critical-thinking skills emerge most coherently in thesis assessment, which is why we are particularly interested in unpacking those relationships.

We recognize that, because only honors students submit theses at these institutions, this study sample is composed of a selective subset of the larger population of biology majors. Although this is an inherent limitation of focusing on thesis writing, links between our findings and results of other studies (with different populations) suggest that observed relationships may occur more broadly. The goal of improved science reasoning and critical thinking is shared among all biology majors, particularly those engaged in capstone research experiences. So while the implications of this work most directly apply to honors thesis writers, we provisionally suggest that all students could benefit from further study of them.

There are several important implications of this study for science education practices. Students’ inference skills relate to the understanding and effective application of scientific content. The fact that we find no statistically significant relationships between BioTAP questions 6–9 and CCTST dimensions suggests that such mid- to lower-order elements of BioTAP ( Reynolds et al. , 2009 ), which tend to be more structural in nature, do not focus on aspects of the finished thesis that draw strongly on critical thinking. In keeping with prior analyses ( Reynolds and Thompson, 2011 ; Dowd et al. , 2016 ), these findings further reinforce the notion that disciplinary instructors, who are most capable of teaching and assessing scientific reasoning and perhaps least interested in the more mechanical aspects of writing, may nonetheless be best suited to effectively model and assess students’ writing.

The goal of the thesis writing course at both Duke University and the University of Minnesota is not merely to improve thesis scores but to move students’ writing into the category of mastery across BioTAP dimensions. Recognizing that students with differing critical-thinking skills (particularly inference) are more or less likely to achieve mastery in the undergraduate thesis (particularly in discussing implications [question 5]) is important for developing and testing targeted pedagogical interventions to improve learning outcomes for all students.

The competencies characterized by the Vision and Change in Undergraduate Biology Education Initiative provide a general framework for recognizing that science reasoning and critical-thinking skills play key roles in major learning outcomes of science education. Our findings highlight places where science reasoning–related competencies (like “understanding the process of science”) connect to critical-thinking skills and places where critical thinking–related competencies might be manifested in scientific products (such as the ability to discuss implications in scientific writing). We encourage broader efforts to build empirical connections between competencies and pedagogical practices to further improve science education.

One specific implication of this work for science education is to focus on providing opportunities for students to develop their critical-thinking skills (particularly inference). Of course, as this correlational study is not designed to test causality, we do not claim that enhancing students’ inference skills will improve science reasoning in writing. However, as prior work shows that science writing activities influence students’ inference skills ( Quitadamo and Kurtz, 2007 ; Quitadamo et al. , 2008 ), there is reason to test such a hypothesis. Nevertheless, the focus must extend beyond inference as an isolated skill; rather, it is important to relate inference to the foundations of the scientific method ( Miri et al. , 2007 ) in terms of the epistemological appreciation of the functions and coordination of evidence ( Kuhn and Dean, 2004 ; Zeineddin and Abd-El-Khalick, 2010 ; Ding et al. , 2016 ) and disciplinary paradigms of truth and justification ( Moshman, 2015 ).

Although this study is limited to the domain of biology at two institutions with a relatively small number of students, the findings represent a foundational step in the direction of achieving success with more integrated learning outcomes. Hopefully, it will spur greater interest in empirically grounding discussions of the constructs of scientific reasoning and critical-thinking skills.

This study contributes to the efforts to improve science education, for both majors and nonmajors, through an empirically driven analysis of the relationships between scientific reasoning reflected in the genre of thesis writing and critical-thinking skills. This work is rooted in the usefulness of BioTAP as a method 1) to facilitate communication and learning and 2) to assess disciplinary-specific and general dimensions of science reasoning. The findings support the important role of the critical-thinking skill of inference in scientific reasoning in writing, while also highlighting ways in which other aspects of science reasoning (epistemological considerations, writing conventions, etc.) are not significantly related to critical thinking. Future research into the impact of interventions focused on specific critical-thinking skills (i.e., inference) for improved science reasoning in writing will build on this work and its implications for science education.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We acknowledge the contributions of Kelaine Haas and Alexander Motten to the implementation and collection of data. We also thank Mine Çetinkaya-­Rundel for her insights regarding our statistical analyses. This research was funded by National Science Foundation award DUE-1525602.

• American Association for the Advancement of Science . ( 2011 ). Vision and change in undergraduate biology education: A call to action . Washington, DC Retrieved September 26, 2017, from https://visionandchange.org/files/2013/11/aaas-VISchange-web1113.pdf . Google Scholar
• August, D. ( 2016 ). California Critical Thinking Skills Test user manual and resource guide . San Jose: Insight Assessment/California Academic Press. Google Scholar
• Beyer, C. H., Taylor, E., & Gillmore, G. M. ( 2013 ). Inside the undergraduate teaching experience: The University of Washington’s growth in faculty teaching study . Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Google Scholar
• Bissell, A. N., & Lemons, P. P. ( 2006 ). A new method for assessing critical thinking in the classroom . BioScience , 56 (1), 66–72. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2006)056[0066:ANMFAC]2.0.CO;2 . Google Scholar
• Blattner, N. H., & Frazier, C. L. ( 2002 ). Developing a performance-based assessment of students’ critical thinking skills . Assessing Writing , 8 (1), 47–64. Google Scholar
• Clase, K. L., Gundlach, E., & Pelaez, N. J. ( 2010 ). Calibrated peer review for computer-assisted learning of biological research competencies . Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education , 38 (5), 290–295. Medline ,  Google Scholar
• Condon, W., & Kelly-Riley, D. ( 2004 ). Assessing and teaching what we value: The relationship between college-level writing and critical thinking abilities . Assessing Writing , 9 (1), 56–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2004.01.003 . Google Scholar
• Ding, L., Wei, X., & Liu, X. ( 2016 ). Variations in university students’ scientific reasoning skills across majors, years, and types of institutions . Research in Science Education , 46 (5), 613–632. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-015-9473-y . Google Scholar
• Dowd, J. E., Connolly, M. P., Thompson, R. J.Jr., & Reynolds, J. A. ( 2015a ). Improved reasoning in undergraduate writing through structured workshops . Journal of Economic Education , 46 (1), 14–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220485.2014.978924 . Google Scholar
• Dowd, J. E., Roy, C. P., Thompson, R. J.Jr., & Reynolds, J. A. ( 2015b ). “On course” for supporting expanded participation and improving scientific reasoning in undergraduate thesis writing . Journal of Chemical Education , 92 (1), 39–45. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed500298r . Google Scholar
• Dowd, J. E., Thompson, R. J.Jr., & Reynolds, J. A. ( 2016 ). Quantitative genre analysis of undergraduate theses: Uncovering different ways of writing and thinking in science disciplines . WAC Journal , 27 , 36–51. Google Scholar
• Facione, P. A. ( 1990 ). Critical thinking: a statement of expert consensus for purposes of educational assessment and instruction. Research findings and recommendations . Newark, DE: American Philosophical Association. Retrieved September 26, 2017, from https://philpapers.org/archive/FACCTA.pdf . Google Scholar
• Gerdeman, R. D., Russell, A. A., Worden, K. J., Gerdeman, R. D., Russell, A. A., & Worden, K. J. ( 2007 ). Web-based student writing and reviewing in a large biology lecture course . Journal of College Science Teaching , 36 (5), 46–52. Google Scholar
• Greenhoot, A. F., Semb, G., Colombo, J., & Schreiber, T. ( 2004 ). Prior beliefs and methodological concepts in scientific reasoning . Applied Cognitive Psychology , 18 (2), 203–221. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.959 . Google Scholar
• Haaga, D. A. F. ( 1993 ). Peer review of term papers in graduate psychology courses . Teaching of Psychology , 20 (1), 28–32. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328023top2001_5 . Google Scholar
• Halonen, J. S., Bosack, T., Clay, S., McCarthy, M., Dunn, D. S., Hill, G. W., … Whitlock, K. ( 2003 ). A rubric for learning, teaching, and assessing scientific inquiry in psychology . Teaching of Psychology , 30 (3), 196–208. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328023TOP3003_01 . Google Scholar
• Hand, B., & Keys, C. W. ( 1999 ). Inquiry investigation . Science Teacher , 66 (4), 27–29. Google Scholar
• Holm, S. ( 1979 ). A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure . Scandinavian Journal of Statistics , 6 (2), 65–70. Google Scholar
• Holyoak, K. J., & Morrison, R. G. ( 2005 ). The Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning . New York: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
• Insight Assessment . ( 2016a ). California Critical Thinking Skills Test (CCTST) Retrieved September 26, 2017, from www.insightassessment.com/Products/Products-Summary/Critical-Thinking-Skills-Tests/California-Critical-Thinking-Skills-Test-CCTST . Google Scholar
• Insight Assessment . ( 2016b ). Sample thinking skills questions. Retrieved September 26, 2017, from www.insightassessment.com/Resources/Teaching-Training-and-Learning-Tools/node_1487 . Google Scholar
• Kelly, G. J., & Takao, A. ( 2002 ). Epistemic levels in argument: An analysis of university oceanography students’ use of evidence in writing . Science Education , 86 (3), 314–342. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10024 . Google Scholar
• Kuhn, D., & Dean, D.Jr. ( 2004 ). Connecting scientific reasoning and causal inference . Journal of Cognition and Development , 5 (2), 261–288. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327647jcd0502_5 . Google Scholar
• Kuhn, D., Iordanou, K., Pease, M., & Wirkala, C. ( 2008 ). Beyond control of variables: What needs to develop to achieve skilled scientific thinking? . Cognitive Development , 23 (4), 435–451. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogdev.2008.09.006 . Google Scholar
• Lawson, A. E. ( 2010 ). Basic inferences of scientific reasoning, argumentation, and discovery . Science Education , 94 (2), 336–364. https://doi.org/­10.1002/sce.20357 . Google Scholar
• Meizlish, D., LaVaque-Manty, D., Silver, N., & Kaplan, M. ( 2013 ). Think like/write like: Metacognitive strategies to foster students’ development as disciplinary thinkers and writers . In Thompson, R. J. (Ed.), Changing the conversation about higher education (pp. 53–73). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Google Scholar
• Miri, B., David, B.-C., & Uri, Z. ( 2007 ). Purposely teaching for the promotion of higher-order thinking skills: A case of critical thinking . Research in Science Education , 37 (4), 353–369. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-006-9029-2 . Google Scholar
• Moshman, D. ( 2015 ). Epistemic cognition and development: The psychology of justification and truth . New York: Psychology Press. Google Scholar
• National Research Council . ( 2000 ). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school . Expanded ed.. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Google Scholar
• Pukkila, P. J. ( 2004 ). Introducing student inquiry in large introductory genetics classes . Genetics , 166 (1), 11–18. https://doi.org/10.1534/genetics.166.1.11 . Medline ,  Google Scholar
• Quitadamo, I. J., Faiola, C. L., Johnson, J. E., & Kurtz, M. J. ( 2008 ). Community-based inquiry improves critical thinking in general education biology . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 7 (3), 327–337. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.07-11-0097 . Link ,  Google Scholar
• Quitadamo, I. J., & Kurtz, M. J. ( 2007 ). Learning to improve: Using writing to increase critical thinking performance in general education biology . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 6 (2), 140–154. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.06-11-0203 . Link ,  Google Scholar
• Reynolds, J. A., Smith, R., Moskovitz, C., & Sayle, A. ( 2009 ). BioTAP: A systematic approach to teaching scientific writing and evaluating undergraduate theses . BioScience , 59 (10), 896–903. https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2009.59.10.11 . Google Scholar
• Reynolds, J. A., Thaiss, C., Katkin, W., & Thompson, R. J. ( 2012 ). Writing-to-learn in undergraduate science education: A community-based, conceptually driven approach . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 11 (1), 17–25. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.11-08-0064 . Link ,  Google Scholar
• Reynolds, J. A., & Thompson, R. J. ( 2011 ). Want to improve undergraduate thesis writing? Engage students and their faculty readers in scientific peer review . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 10 (2), 209–215. https://doi.org/­10.1187/cbe.10-10-0127 . Link ,  Google Scholar
• Rhemtulla, M., Brosseau-Liard, P. E., & Savalei, V. ( 2012 ). When can categorical variables be treated as continuous? A comparison of robust continuous and categorical SEM estimation methods under suboptimal conditions . Psychological Methods , 17 (3), 354–373. https://doi.org/­10.1037/a0029315 . Medline ,  Google Scholar
• Stephenson, N. S., & Sadler-McKnight, N. P. ( 2016 ). Developing critical thinking skills using the science writing heuristic in the chemistry laboratory . Chemistry Education Research and Practice , 17 (1), 72–79. https://doi.org/­10.1039/C5RP00102A . Google Scholar
• Tariq, V. N., Stefani, L. A. J., Butcher, A. C., & Heylings, D. J. A. ( 1998 ). Developing a new approach to the assessment of project work . Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education , 23 (3), 221–240. https://doi.org/­10.1080/0260293980230301 . Google Scholar
• Timmerman, B. E. C., Strickland, D. C., Johnson, R. L., & Payne, J. R. ( 2011 ). Development of a “universal” rubric for assessing undergraduates’ scientific reasoning skills using scientific writing . Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education , 36 (5), 509–547. https://doi.org/10.1080/­02602930903540991 . Google Scholar
• Topping, K. J., Smith, E. F., Swanson, I., & Elliot, A. ( 2000 ). Formative peer assessment of academic writing between postgraduate students . Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education , 25 (2), 149–169. https://doi.org/10.1080/713611428 . Google Scholar
• Willison, J., & O’Regan, K. ( 2007 ). Commonly known, commonly not known, totally unknown: A framework for students becoming researchers . Higher Education Research and Development , 26 (4), 393–409. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360701658609 . Google Scholar
• Woodin, T., Carter, V. C., & Fletcher, L. ( 2010 ). Vision and Change in Biology Undergraduate Education: A Call for Action—Initial responses . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 9 (2), 71–73. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.10-03-0044 . Link ,  Google Scholar
• Zeineddin, A., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. ( 2010 ). Scientific reasoning and epistemological commitments: Coordination of theory and evidence among college science students . Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 47 (9), 1064–1093. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20368 . Google Scholar
• Zimmerman, C. ( 2000 ). The development of scientific reasoning skills . Developmental Review , 20 (1), 99–149. https://doi.org/10.1006/drev.1999.0497 . Google Scholar
• Zimmerman, C. ( 2007 ). The development of scientific thinking skills in elementary and middle school . Developmental Review , 27 (2), 172–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2006.12.001 . Google Scholar
• Redesign a biology introduction course to promote life consciousness 14 May 2024 | Cogent Education, Vol. 11, No. 1
• Gender, Equity, and Science Writing: Examining Differences in Undergraduate Life Science Majors’ Attitudes toward Writing Lab Reports 6 March 2024 | Education Sciences, Vol. 14, No. 3
• Designing a framework to improve critical reflection writing in teacher education using action research 24 February 2022 | Educational Action Research, Vol. 32, No. 1
• Scientific Thinking and Critical Thinking in Science Education  5 September 2023 | Science & Education, Vol. 11
• Students Need More than Content Knowledge To Counter Vaccine Hesitancy 22 Aug 2023 | Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, Vol. 24, No. 2
• Critical thinking during science investigations: what do practicing teachers value and observe? 16 March 2023 | Teachers and Teaching, Vol. 29, No. 6
• Effect of Web-Based Collaborative Learning Method with Scratch on Critical Thinking Skills of 5th Grade Students 30 March 2023 | Participatory Educational Research, Vol. 10, No. 2
• Are We on the Way to Successfully Educating Future Citizens?—A Spotlight on Critical Thinking Skills and Beliefs about the Nature of Science among Pre-Service Biology Teachers in Germany 22 March 2023 | Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 13, No. 3
• A Systematic Review on Inquiry-Based Writing Instruction in Tertiary Settings 30 November 2022 | Written Communication, Vol. 40, No. 1
• An empirical analysis of the relationship between nature of science and critical thinking through science definitions and thinking skills 8 December 2022 | SN Social Sciences, Vol. 2, No. 12
• TEACHING OF CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS BY SCIENCE TEACHERS IN JAPANESE PRIMARY SCHOOLS 25 October 2022 | Journal of Baltic Science Education, Vol. 21, No. 5
• A Team-Based Activity to Support Knowledge Transfer and Experimental Design Skills of Undergraduate Science Students 4 May 2022 | Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, Vol. 21
• Curriculum Design of College Students’ English Critical Ability in the Internet Age 18 Mar 2022 | Wireless Communications and Mobile Computing, Vol. 2022
• Exploring the structure of students’ scientific higher order thinking in science education 1 Mar 2022 | Thinking Skills and Creativity, Vol. 43
• 2022 | The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, Vol. 31, No. 4
• Conspiratorial Beliefs and Cognitive Styles: An Integrated Look on Analytic Thinking, Critical Thinking, and Scientific Reasoning in Relation to (Dis)trust in Conspiracy Theories 12 October 2021 | Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 12
• Professional Knowledge and Self-Efficacy Expectations of Pre-Service Teachers Regarding Scientific Reasoning and Diagnostics 11 October 2021 | Education Sciences, Vol. 11, No. 10
• Developing textbook based on scientific approach, critical thinking, and science process skills 1 Mar 2021 | Journal of Physics: Conference Series, Vol. 1839, No. 1
• Using Models of Cognitive Development to Design College Learning Experiences 18 Jan 2021
• 2021 | Thinking Skills and Creativity, Vol. 42
• Assessing students’ prior knowledge on critical thinking skills in the biology classroom: Has it already been good? 1 Jan 2021
• Critical Thinking Level among Medical Sciences Students in Iran 28 Dec 2020 | Education Research International, Vol. 2020
• Teaching during a pandemic: Using high‐impact writing assignments to balance rigor, engagement, flexibility, and workload 12 October 2020 | Ecology and Evolution, Vol. 10, No. 22
• Mini-Review - Teaching Writing in the Undergraduate Neuroscience Curriculum: Its Importance and Best Practices 1 Oct 2020 | Neuroscience Letters, Vol. 737
• Developing critical thinking skills assessment for pre-service elementary school teacher about the basic concept of science: validity and reliability 1 Jun 2020 | Journal of Physics: Conference Series, Vol. 1567, No. 2
• Challenging endocrinology students with a critical-thinking workbook 1 Mar 2020 | Advances in Physiology Education, Vol. 44, No. 1
• Jason E. Dowd ,
• Robert J. Thompson ,
• Leslie Schiff ,
• Kelaine Haas ,
• Christine Hohmann ,
• Chris Roy ,
• Warren Meck ,
• John Bruno , and
• Rebecca Price, Monitoring Editor
• Kari L. Nelson ,
• Claudia M. Rauter , and
• Christine E. Cutucache
• Elisabeth Schussler, Monitoring Editor

Submitted: 17 March 2017 Revised: 19 October 2017 Accepted: 20 October 2017

© 2018 J. E. Dowd et al. CBE—Life Sciences Education © 2018 The American Society for Cell Biology. This article is distributed by The American Society for Cell Biology under license from the author(s). It is available to the public under an Attribution–Noncommercial–Share Alike 3.0 Unported Creative Commons License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0).

Critical thinking definition

Critical thinking, as described by Oxford Languages, is the objective analysis and evaluation of an issue in order to form a judgement.

Active and skillful approach, evaluation, assessment, synthesis, and/or evaluation of information obtained from, or made by, observation, knowledge, reflection, acumen or conversation, as a guide to belief and action, requires the critical thinking process, which is why it's often used in education and academics.

Some even may view it as a backbone of modern thought.

However, it's a skill, and skills must be trained and encouraged to be used at its full potential.

People turn up to various approaches in improving their critical thinking, like:

• Developing technical and problem-solving skills
• Engaging in more active listening
• Actively questioning their assumptions and beliefs
• Seeking out more diversity of thought
• Opening up their curiosity in an intellectual way etc.

Is critical thinking useful in writing?

Critical thinking can help in planning your paper and making it more concise, but it's not obvious at first. We carefully pinpointed some the questions you should ask yourself when boosting critical thinking in writing:

• What information should be included?
• Which information resources should the author look to?
• What degree of technical knowledge should the report assume its audience has?
• What is the most effective way to show information?
• How should the report be organized?
• How should it be designed?
• What tone and level of language difficulty should the document have?

Usage of critical thinking comes down not only to the outline of your paper, it also begs the question: How can we use critical thinking solving problems in our writing's topic?

Let's say, you have a Powerpoint on how critical thinking can reduce poverty in the United States. You'll primarily have to define critical thinking for the viewers, as well as use a lot of critical thinking questions and synonyms to get them to be familiar with your methods and start the thinking process behind it.

Are there any services that can help me use more critical thinking?

We understand that it's difficult to learn how to use critical thinking more effectively in just one article, but our service is here to help.

We are a team specializing in writing essays and other assignments for college students and all other types of customers who need a helping hand in its making. We cover a great range of topics, offer perfect quality work, always deliver on time and aim to leave our customers completely satisfied with what they ordered.

The ordering process is fully online, and it goes as follows:

• Select the topic and the deadline of your essay.
• Provide us with any details, requirements, statements that should be emphasized or particular parts of the essay writing process you struggle with.
• Leave the email address, where your completed order will be sent to.
• Select your prefered payment type, sit back and relax!

With lots of experience on the market, professionally degreed essay writers , online 24/7 customer support and incredibly low prices, you won't find a service offering a better deal than ours.

Raz-Plus Add-Ons

Professional learning services.

• Get Started
• Breakroom Details

The Writing and Critical Thinking Connection

How Writing A-Z Helps Students Become Better Critical Thinkers

Writing is an exercise in critical thinking. Every writing assignment demands that students think ahead, consider their audience, and rethink their wording or organization to ensure that their composition meets a specific goal: to persuade, to inform or explain, to communicate ideas, or to tell a story.

As students explore the world of writing and experiment with their own styles and approaches, they develop critical thinking skills in multiple ways, and Writing A-Z has resources that can help you use writing as a critical thinking exercise in your classroom.

Audience Consideration

Writing does not happen in a vacuum—there is always an audience and context for every composition. The more students write, the better they become at analyzing not only who is reading their compositions (students, parents, teachers, etc.), but also what their audience wants or expects. Encourage students to be mindful of their audience’s needs, and with time, they will develop a repertoire of persuasive strategies for various audiences.

The revision process encourages students to think about their own thinking. When students re-read a draft, they confront the ideas and priorities that were most salient when they wrote it. A student may have learned a new skill or fact that can be incorporated into a future draft, and this new knowledge helps them see their ideas in a different light during revision. When students practice the metacognitive habits embedded in the revision process often enough, they improve their critical thinking skills and predictive reading abilities.

Collaboration

Along with revision, peer review is a key element of the writing process and it supports a student’s understanding of their audience. When students collaborate through peer review, they train themselves to anticipate the thoughts, concerns, and analyses of their peers. The constructive feedback students get from their peers develops not only a sense of community, but also opens students’ minds to different perspectives and approaches to understanding writing.

Want to try Writing A-Z in your classroom? Start a free 2-week trial today!

Try Writing A-Z

Sign up to receive our eNews, updates, and offers.

• Privacy Policy
• Accessibility
• Learning A-Z Facebook
• Learning A-Z twitter
• Learning A-Z linkedin
• Learning A-Z Instagram

A Cambium Learning® Group Brand

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

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

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• PMC10666613

Insight from the association between critical thinking and English argumentative writing: catering to English learners’ writing ability

1 College of Teacher Education, Zhejiang Normal University, Jinhua, Zhejiang, China

2 Pinghu Normal College, Jiaxing University, Pinghu, Jiaxing, Zhejiang, China

Atif Saleem

3 School of Education, Huaibei Normal University, Huaibei, Anhui, China

Associated Data

The following information was supplied regarding data availability:

The raw data is available in the Supplemental File .

Introduction

English argumentative writing (EAW) is a ‘problem-solving’ cognitive process, and its relationship with critical thinking has drawn attention in China. This is because fostering EAW proficiency is a crucial element but a challenging task for Chinese high school English teaching and learning. The present study examined how critical thinking is related to Chinese high school students’ EAW performance. The study identified eight critical thinking disposition (CTD) subscales and aims to determine whether EAW and CTD are correlated.

A questionnaire modified from the Chinese Version Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory (CTDI-CV) and the Evaluation Criteria for English Argumentative Writing (ECEAW) were employed in this study. Both instruments were administered to 156 students from Grade 12. A purposive sampling of high school students was used in this study. Student EAW performance was scored by two experts based on the Evaluation Criteria for English Argumentative Writing.

A significant relationship was found between students’ CTD and EAW abilities. Furthermore, among the eight CTD subdispositions, cognitive maturity, truth-seeking, analyticity, and justice were found to be positively correlated with EAW, and they all were found to be the main predictors of EAW proficiency among high school students.

Zhangzhou high school students’ CTDs were overall positive, and students’ EAW performance correlated significantly with the overall CTD and its four subdispositions of cognitive maturity, truth-seeking, analyticity, and justice. These four subdispositions showed a significantly predictive validity on EAW performance as well.

English writing is an intricate problem-solving process that requires not only basic writing skills but also the capacity to imagine, make claims, be visionary, and provide proper supporting subarguments ( Kirkland & Saunders, 1991 ; Bruning & Horn, 2010 ; Howell et al., 2018 ) for the claims, especially when the claims are argumentative. Additionally, as a critical and versatile skill ( Graham, 2006 ), English writing is essential for academic success ( Al Asmari, 2013 ) and required globally, in political and business contexts, serving as a benchmark for college admissions, job applications, and career promotions ( National Commission on Writing, 2004 ). As an index of comprehensive English proficiency, English writing is also pivotal in countries such as China, South Korea, Japan, India, Netherlands, Sweden that study English as a second language. In China, an English writing task is a common assessment tool used on almost every standardized English test. However, English writing is a challenging and complex undertaking ( Anastasiou & Michail, 2013 ), even for native speakers. Only one-quarter (24%) of students at both grades 8 and 12 in the United States perform at a proficient English writing level, and only 3% from both grades achieved an advanced level of writing proficiency, according to the American National Center for Education Statistics ( National Center for Education Statistics, 2012 ). Chinese high school students also performed relatively poorly on English writing ( Liu, 2015 ; Bui & Luo, 2021 ).

What factors could determine English writing proficiency? Some scholars indicated that writing process is a part of cognition and considered writing is best understood as a set of thinking processes, which writers orchestrate or organize during the act of composing ( Flower & Hayes, 1981 ). The systematic cognitive research on the writing process started in the late 1970s, when Flower & Hayes (1980) applied cognitive psychological methods to investigate writing. They further emphasized that “think–and teach–writing” should be seen as “a problem-solving, cognitive process”. Since the early 1990s, researchers have tried to discover the relations between English writing proficiency, language thinking, and writing style ( Kobayashi & Rinnert, 1992 ; Sasaki & Hirose, 1996 ). It has become widely accepted that English passages are “linear”, that means an English paragraph usually begins with a topic statement, and then proceeds to develop that central idea and relate that idea to all the other ideas in the whole essay by a series of subdivisions of that topic statement to prove something, or perhaps to argue something. While Eastern languages such as Chinese are “roundabout”, taking a more indirect or circuitous approach to conveying information in which the development of a paragraph is “turning and turning in a widening gyre.” The circles or gyres turn around the subject and show it from a variety of tangential views, but the subject is never looked at directly ( Kamimura, 1996 ; Yin, 1999 ; Wu, 2003 ). Inspired by Kamimura (1996) , textual linguistics and discourse analysis methods have been widely adopted to study the effects of second language writing, including the structure ( Söter, 1988 ; Kirkpatrick, 1997 ; Kubota, 1998 ), paragraph arrangement ( Ostler, 1987 ; Bickner & Peyasantiwong, 1988 ), and characteristics of articulation and coherence ( Simpson, 2000 ). The increasing use of computers directed people’s attention to the factors of keyboard proficiency ( Barkaoui, 2016 ), automatic scoring system ( Deane, 2013 ; Liao, 2016 ) and different feedback types ( Hanjani, 2016 ; Latifi et al., 2021 ). Currently, studies on self-efficacy (an individual’s belief in his or her capacity to execute behaviors necessary to produce specific performance attainments) ( Sun et al., 2021 ) and lexical bundles (recurring sequences of words or phrases that commonly occur together in a specific language or domain. These bundles are often considered as fixed or semi-fixed expressions that have become established through frequent usage) ( Kim & Kessler, 2022 ) are the main focuses.

Previous studies including Devine, Railey & Boshoff (1993) , Deane et al. (2008) , Panahandeh & Asl (2014) , Decker et al. (2016) , have proven that proficient performance in English writing involves various cognitive skills that in most cases are complicated for English learners in particular ( Peng et al., 2021 ). The specificity of writing has been posited as the cause of this difficulty, since writing requires not only linguistic capability but also ideation and analytical capabilities, logic, and synthetic reasoning ( Anastasiou & Michail, 2013 ; Bruning et al., 2013 ). Furthermore, some cognitive ability factors have been attributed to students’ low writing performance.

As a part of cognitive competence, critical thinking skills have attracted researchers’ attention. Studies have attempted to discover the effects of critical thinking skills on English writing ( Yang, Sun & Yin, 2016 ; Li, 2021 ). However, the relationship has not been determined between the critical thinking disposition (CTD) and high school students’ English argumentative writing (EAW) performance, and empirical studies in China are insufficient. Thus, to narrow this gap, the current researchers aimed to explore whether CTD is correlated with high school students’ EAW performance. Hence, this study investigated eight CTD subscales as well as the relationship between EAW and CTD. The study aims to discovered CTD predictors of CTD for high school students’ EAW abilities. Thus, three specific questions are addressed in this study:

To this end, this study sheds light on three research questions:

• 1) What are high school students’ current CTDs in China?
• 2) Is there any significant relationship between high school students’ CTDs and their EAW performance?
• 3) What are the predictors of the CTD on EAW performance?

English argumentative writing (EAW)

Although writing in school includes a range of genres, the argumentative type is particularly significant ( Lin et al., 2020 ). Improving and fostering argumentative writing performance is a vital component of English teaching reforms in schools and universities globally as well as a main challenge for teachers of English writing at the K–12 and college levels ( Newell et al., 2011 ).

In the United States, EAW is emphasized as a passport to further educational and job opportunities ( Watt, 2010 ). Similarly, in China, argumentation is one of the key assessment elements on English language proficiency, especially in the high-stakes college entrance examination, which plays an essential role in college admission decisions. Additionally, EAW tasks have been widely adopted in internationally renowned English general proficiency examinations, such as the International English Language Testing System (IELTS), the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL), and the Canadian Academic English Language Test (CAEL).

Regarding the IELTS, for instance, empirical findings have established that there is no correlation between argumentation writing and students’ IELTS test scores ( Coffin, 2004 ). However, the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) report revealed that approximately one-quarter of the students provide logical reasons in support of the examples they use in their argumentative essays, and students often fail to consider alternative perspectives ( National Center for Education Statistics, 2012 ). These problems also occur in China ( Cai, 2017 ; Zhang, 2017 ; Cai, 2019 ). As stipulated in the Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China (2018) , Grade 12 students in China should be able to actively utilize resources to clearly express opinions in writing in a structured manner ( Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China, 2018 ). Thus, improving English argumentation proficiency is an important but difficult part of teaching and learning English writing in China.

From a cognitive perspective ( Hayes, 1996 ; Graham, 2018 ; MacArthur & Graham, 2016 ), English argumentation is a process of problem-solving requiring self-regulation to reach the author’s rhetorical targets ( Graham & Harris, 1989 ). Writing proficiency is affected adversely by the inability to strategically allocate limited cognitive resources ( Ferretti & Fan, 2016 ). Skilled writers write arguments based on their knowledge reserve of the topic, critical assessment standards, and argumentative discourse ( Ferretti & Lewis, 2019a ).

What are the critical evaluation standards on argumentative writing achievements? Previous studies including Nimehchisalem & Mukundan (2011) , Paek & Kang (2017) , Ferretti & Graham (2019b) and Wang, Lee & Park (2022) have inspired research about English argumentation and have promoted EAW performance assessments. An initial objective was to identify the linguistic features in high-quality writing samples ( Witte & Faigley, 1981 ; McNamara et al., 2015 ), which Wen Qiufang and Liu Runzhou did. Based on close scrutiny of the 20 best compositions from 1–4 grades of English major undergraduates in China, the authors hypothesized four parameters ( i.e ., relevance, explicitness, coherence, and sufficiency) accompanying the supposedly four thinking stages in writing ( i.e ., topic comprehension, thesis statement development with supporting arguments, organizing a coherent discourse, and putting ideas into writing). Afterward, the authors tried to verify/falsify their hypotheses by marking another 100 compositions of the same kind twice over a 3-month period, and doing so yielded a framework for analyzing the general features of Chinese students’ EAW and salient problems in the students’ abstract thinking ( Wen & Liu, 2006 ). The Evaluation Criteria for English Argumentative Writing (ECEAW) they constructed has been widely used in China ( Liu, 2013 ; Yang, 2014 ; Xu, 2016 ; Li, 2018 ). However, until now, the analysis of English argumentation has mostly been at the undergraduate level, and little attention has been given to high school students in China.

Critical thinking

An essential skill in education is critical thinking because it helps students to reflect on and grasp their own viewpoints. This skill allows students to use their own observations and expertise to make sense of things ( Raj et al., 2022 ). Various definitions of critical thinking have been given. For instance, Glaser (1942) defined critical thinking as “an attitude of being disposed to consider in a thoughtful way the problems and subjects that come within the range of one’s experience; knowledge of the methods of logical inquiry and reasoning; and some skills in applying these methods”. This definition considers critical thinking as a synthesis of attitude, knowledge, and skills. However, Ennis (1987) insisted critical thinking was “a reasonable, reflective thinking that is focused on deciding what to believe or do”. He believed critical thinking contained both critical thinking silks and personality traits.

Critical thinking has also been described as “a mode of thinking, about any subjects, contents or problems, in which the thinker improves the quality of his or her thinking by skillfully taking charge of the structures inherent in thinking and imposing intellectual standards upon them” ( Paul & Binker, 1990 ). These definitions reveal that critical thinking is a mode of thinking on the subjects within our realm of experience and helping us make decisions. Critical thinking should be reflective, reasonable, and logical, containing both critical thinking skills and personal dispositions. Peter Facione offered a more precise definition in the Delphi Report. It states that critical thinking is “a purposeful, self-regulatory judgment which results in interpretation, analysis, evaluation, and inference, as well as explanation of the evidential, conceptual, methodological, criteriological, or contextual considerations upon which that judgment is based” ( Facione, 1990 ).

To this end, critical thinking consists of a learned collection of analytic thinking skills and a tendency to engage in the reasoning process ( Halpern, 2003 ). Earlier studies have shown that the critical thinking disposition (CTD) is an inner motivation that guides decision-making and problem-solving, and that is essential for the application of critical thinking and the tendency to think critically ( Colucciello, 1997 ; Facione, Facione & Giancarlo, 2000 ). Based on these studies, Fesler-Birch (2005) further found that CTD could be evaluated as a baseline for critical thinking performance.

The California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory (CCTDI) ( Facione & Facione, 1992 ) is one of the most well established instruments for assessing students’ CTDs, designed on the definition of critical thinking formulated by Peter Facione in 1990. The CCTDI contains seven subdispositions with 75 items: inquisitiveness, self-confidence, truth-seeking, open-mindedness, analyticity, systematicity, and cognitive maturity ( Facione, Facione & Sanchez, 1994 ). Since its development in 1990s, the CCTDI has been widely used in CTD studies ( Miri, David & Uri, 2007 ; Zuriguel-Pérez et al., 2017 ; Du et al., 2013 ). The CCTDI has different versions. Luo and Yang were the first to translate the CCTDI into Chinese and to use it in in China ( Lou & Yang, 2001 ).

After being revised twice, this version has good internal consistency and reliability. Peng et al. (2004) argued that, although the previous Chinese version of the CCTDI included semantic equivalence, it ignored cultural factors. Therefore, Peng et al. (2004) adapted and modified the CCTDI to obtain a conceptually equivalent Chinese variant that has the cultural sensitivity to be applied with Chinese-speaking students. However, Peng et al. (2004) chose nursing students to test the instrument’s validity and reliability and doing so limits the questionnaire’s generalizability. Therefore, Wen et al. (2009) retranslated the CCTDI and constructed the CTDI–CV, mainly focused on checking the consistency of the Chinese translation with the original English, leaving no translation traces, and making the language consistent and smooth but not overly colloquial ( Wen et al., 2009 ). The revised CTDI–CV contains 54 items with eight subdispositions: analyticity (the ability to independently and objectively analyze life problems and to foresee the outcome or consequences of an event based on facts), truth-seeking (the desire to seek the truth and to explore the essence of things), open-mindedness (tolerance and openness to external things and different perspectives), systematicity (the ability to overcome difficulties and solve problems with perseverance and an indomitable will), cognitive maturity (a measure of whether the understanding of things is comprehensive and life events are considered carefully), inquisitiveness (an instinct people have to be curious about the unknown), self-confidence (the trust in one’s ability to do a certain thing well or solve a certain problem), and justice (conscious criteria for judging whether something is morally and legally fair) ( Wen et al., 2009 ). Details have been shown in Table 1 .

SOURCE: Facione & Facione (1992) and Wen et al. (2009) .

The CTDI–CV has generally been proven to be a reliable and valid instrument for assessing Chinese students’ CTDs ( Wen et al., 2010a , 2010b , 2011 ). However, the CTDI–CV has mostly been used for undergraduates or postgraduates and a preliminary analysis revealed that its internal reliability in this study was not acceptable. Therefore, the instrument was slightly modified for high school students to ensure its reliability and validity. Additionally, the reliability and validity analyses for the modified CTDI–CV were checked by educators and experts at the School of Educational Science in Minnan Normal University, China.

EAW and CTD

English argumentation is a “problem-solving” cognitive procedure, demanding self-regulation to reach the author’s targets ( Graham & Harris, 1989 ), and critical thinking is “a purposeful, self-regulatory judgment which results in interpretation, analysis, evaluation, and inference, as well as explanation of the evidential, conceptual, methodological, criteriological, or contextual considerations upon which that judgment is based” ( Facione, 1990 ). Dong & Yue (2015) have posited that English writing as a cognitive process is indivisible from the cultivation of critical thinking ability, and their study employing questionnaires and writing test has shown that students’ critical thinking abilities are related to on their English writing performance. Therefore, improving the ability to think critically is essential for fostering English writing abilities ( Li, Gu & Qian, 2019 ).

Dong & Yue (2015) showed that students’ English writing proficiency is strongly influenced by their critical thinking skills, and suggested that cultivating students’ critical thinking skill is necessary for improving their English writing competence. Since EAW depends on critical thinking ability to analyse facts, produce and organise ideas, maintain opinions, make comparisons, judge arguments, and solve problems by the use of existing information, previous knowledge, experience, and world knowledge when writing’ ( Barnawi, 2011 ). However, what is the relationship between them?

Based on an analysis of 181 prospective teachers from six different departments in Turkey, Bayat (2014) found that the prospective teachers’ critical thinking levels were related statistically significantly with their academic writing success. Similarly, a significant and positive relationship between college students’ critical thinking skills and their English writing ability was found in China ( Wu, 2016 ). Based on a study of 104 English major students, Soodmand Afshar, Movassagh & Radi Arbabi (2017) established a strong correlation between students’ critical thinking skills and their English writing abilities. In addition, a significant relationship between the CTD and English writing has regularly been reported.

McLean (2005) claimed that a negative CTD accounts for a low writing proficiency. A study involving 73 senior English major students at a Shanghai university showed that the students were weak in CTDs and had comprehension difficulties as well as in demonstrating in-depth rhetorical clarity in academic English writing. This result implied a correlation between students’ CTDs and their English academic writing performance ( Mu, 2016 ). Liu (2018) explored 120 postgraduate students majoring in English and found a significant positive correlation between students’ CTDs and their academic English writing. A positive linear correlation has also been found between critical thinking and English writing among secondary school students. Jin (2021) also examined 211 grade eight students’ CTDs at the junior high school level and found that students demonstrated negative CTDs, which were positively correlated with their English writing achievements. Besides, Liu (2021) found a significant correlation between the CTDs of grade 12 students and their writing proficiency on English practical writing and continual writing tasks.

All the above discussions emphasize the importance of critical thinking to English writing, and some researchers further explored the relationship between critical thinking and English writing. In these studies, participants were mainly form college, and the types of English writing involved were various, including picture writing, story writing, academic writing and so on. In summary, very few studies focus on the relationship between high school students’ critical thinking and their performance on English argumentative writing. Hopefully, this study may bridge the gaps in the literature.

Materials and Methods

Procedure and participants.

This paper focus on high school student’ critical thinking and their proficiency on English argumentative writing, so the population is all the high school students. A purposive sampling of high school students was used in this study. The reason for purposive sampling is the better matching of the sample to the aims and objectives of the research, thus improving the rigour of the study and trustworthiness of the data and results ( Campbell et al., 2020 ). Because this study aimed to find out the relationship between critical thinking and English writing, it’s better to take students with higher ability on critical thinking and English writing expression as participants, so that the association can be clearer and easier to be found. Since the development of critical thinking is limited by the level of cognitive development, critical thinking sprouts from childhood and get higher especially mature in senior grade of high school ( Ruggiero, 2012 ). Considering this, a sample of 189 students from grade 12 students was involved in the study. All the participants were taken from a high school in Zhangzhou, China, because they were easily accessible to the investigators. Of the 189 questionnaires distributed to the students, 156 (84%) valid copies were returned.

Additionally, students were given 40 min to write a 120-word English argumentative essay on the same topic, “No smoking in public places?”, which was prompted by sources from a relevant survey mentioned in the test (details in Table 2 ). In the writing, students were asked to show their opinions, defend sub-arguments and criticize counter-argument.

Two English teachers from Minnan Normal University scored the tests, and the average of the two scores was taken as the final score for students’ EAW performance. The teachers had taught and studied English writing for over 13 years. A head teacher from Minnan Normal University who was specialized in English writing teachers’ training and relevant researches was responsible for the evaluation and training. Before the formal scoring, the head teacher trained the two teachers based on ECEAW. After the training, the two teachers were asked to score some samples of EAW to test whether they have known the score criteria well. The result showed they have understood ECEAW well, and the scores given by them had no significant difference. Afterwards, the two teachers started to score the EAW from participants in two separate rooms to ensure the process was transparent. After scoring, the two teachers cross-checked all the scores, which the head teacher then rechecked and did not find significant difference. If there were, he would take careful. Then, since the authors have been studied English writing for several years and also specialize in English writing study, they cross-checked of everything to make sure the process and results were unbiased. This triangulation process ensured the reliability of the final scores. Table 3 presents the descriptive statistics of the final EAW scores.

A correlational research design was adopted to explore the relationship between the CTD (independent variable) and EAW (dependent variable). The CTD level was measured by the Chinese version of California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory (CTDI-CV), and participants’ performance on EAW was measured by the Evaluation Criteria for English Argumentative Writing (ECEAW).

The CTDI–CV was adapted by Wen et al. (2009) from the CCTDI ( Facione & Facione, 1992 ) and has been widely applied in the Chinese context ( Jin, 2021 ; Li, 2011 ; Ruan, 2012 ; Li, 2018 ; Lu, 2020 ), mainly in studies involving English learners.

Harman’s single-factor test had an explanatory variance for the first common factor of 25.76% is less than 40%, confirming no evidence of common method variance. Regarding the CTDI–CV questionnaire, eight subdispositions had 54 items, measuring the following subscales: analyticity (seven items), truth-seeking (seven items), open-mindedness (seven items), systematicity (six items), cognitive maturity (eight items), inquisitiveness (six items), self-confidence (seven items), and justice (six items). Each item was rated on a six-point scale of “strongly agree” (6), “agree” (5), “somewhat agree” (4), “somewhat disagree” (3), “disagree” (2) and “strongly disagree” (1), and the total scores of the CTDI–CV were between 54 and 324. Unloaded items were removed in the exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and the remaining items were retained for all eight factors. The items in systematicity, inquisitiveness, and justice remained the same. However, analyticity, open-mindedness, and self-confidence decreased to six items, and truth-seeking and cognitive maturity decreased to five items. Details are shown in Table 1 .

The instrument reliability was analyzed using Cronbach’s alpha, and the eight subscales in CTD showed reliability scores of 0.73, 0.71, 0.74, 0.70, 0.80, 0.72, 0.81, and 0.79. As all reliability scores were beyond the 0.7 threshold, the constructs were determined to be reliable ( Hancock & Mueller, 2013 ; Saleem et al., 2020 ; Byrne, 2016 ).Construct validity ensured the questionnaire’s validity, and six factors were generated using an EFA. The results showed that the validity was acceptable (Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin test = 0.629 > 0.6; Bartlett’s test of sphericity: χ 2 = 2,665.49, df = 1,431, p < 0.01; factor loadings for all factor’s items: 0.68–0.81; total variance: 66.39%, eigenvalue >1). Thus, the tool was reliable and valid.

The ECEAW was determined by Wen and used to measure students’ EAW proficiency and was divided into five levels ( i.e ., best, good, moderate, poor, and bad) according to four parameters ( i.e ., relevance, explicitness, coherence, and sufficiency) accompanying the supposed four thinking stages in English writing: topic comprehension, thesis statement development with supporting arguments, organizing coherent discourses, and putting ideas into writing ( Wen & Liu, 2006 ). Table 4 provides the ECEAW details.

Data analyses

The data analyses were performed using SPSS version 23 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Chinese high school students’ CTDs were approached using a descriptive statistical analysis, which illustrated the students’ CTDs and eight subdispositions. Next, as this study focused on the relationship between the students’ CTD and their performance on EAW, a Pearson correlation analysis was employed. It was followed to determine whether there was any significant correlation between the students’ EAW proficiency and their CTDs as well as its eight dimensions. Last, in order to reduce interference between the variables, multiple regression analyses were conducted to examine the prediction of the students’ CTDs subdispositions and their writing proficiency on English argumentation. The prediction of the different CTD dimensions for argumentative writing was explored in the regression analysis in detail.

During data screening, 33 questionnaires found to be incomplete and were thus removed. The instrument’s face and content validity were ensured by educational experts from the School of Educational Science in Minnan Normal University, China. The data’s internal reliability was determined by calculating Cronbach’s α coefficients, and the construct validity was verified by conducting an EFA using the SPSS package.

Ethical concerns and consent detail

Ethics committee approval was obtained from Zhejiang Normal University’s institutional review board. The ethical principle of informed consent was upheld: each participant in the questionnaire was informed in advance of what was to be studied, and its possible benefits and impacts. All were informed of their right to withdraw their agreement to participate at any stage before the study was published. Finally, the researchers upheld the right to privacy by preserving the participants’ anonymity at all points in the research process, ensuring that the publication of the research would not result in any conflicts of interest.

The two instruments involved in this study, namely The Chinese version of California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory (CTDI-CV) and Evaluation Criteria for English Argumentative Writing (ECEAW) were used to measure participants’ CTD level and their performance on EAW. Both instruments are from Wen Qiufang, and the researchers have permission to use these instruments from the copyright holders/authors.

Table 5 presents the descriptive statistics of the students’ CTDs and the eight elements. Overall, the students’ CTD was positive (M = 4.08 > 1.52). Among the eight dimensions, inquisitiveness (M = 4.41, SD = 0.51) scored the highest, while self-confidence (M = 3.62, SD = 0.46) scored the lowest. Besides, the students scored higher on justice (M = 4.38, SD = 0.52), cognitive maturity (M = 4.36, SD = 0.50), open-mindedness (M = 4.32, S = 0.44) and truth-seeking (M = 4.02, SD = 0.42) but lower on analyticity (M = 3.91, SD = 0.40) and systematicity (M = 3.63, SD = 0.43). The results also showed that five dimensions (inquisitiveness, justice, cognitive maturity, open-mindedness, and truth-seeking) had positive traits, while three dimensions (analyticity, systematicity, and self-confidence) had negative traits.

The Pearson Correlation analysis revealed that the CTD and EAW were significantly moderately correlated (r = 0.543, p < 0.01). In addition, EAW proficiency was significantly positively correlated with four CTD subscales: cognitive maturity (r = 0.529, p < 0.01), truth-seeking (r = 0.416, p < 0.01), analyticity (r = 0.348, p < 0.01), and justice (r = 0.185, p < 0.05). EAW proficiency was not significantly correlated at the p = 0.05 level with inquisitiveness (r = 0.333), systematicity (r = 0.856), self-confidence (r = 0.067), and open-mindedness (r = 0.888). The Pearson correlation also shows that there were some insignificant associations between CTD and EAW as it is depicted in Table 6 .

AL, analyticity; IQ, inquisitiveness; ST, systematicity; SC, self-confidence; TS, truth-seeking; CM, cognitive maturity; OM, open-mindedness; JS, justice; CTD, critical thinking disposition; EAW, English argumentative writing.

In line with the prediction of the CTD on EAW performance, a multiple regression analysis is carried out to examine the extent to which the CTD can significantly predict EAW proficiency. As it is presented in Table 7 , eight CTD subscales were the independent variables and EAW proficiency was the dependent one, while VIF results showde no evidence of collinearity. The R-square (R 2 ) of 0.436 and adjusted R-square (R 2 ) of 0.405 revealed four CTD subscales: cognitive maturity, truth-seeking, analyticity and justice accounted for 43.6% of the variance in EAW proficiency. The standardized regression coefficients (Beta) of 0.419, 0.257, 0.231 and 0.143 for cognitive maturity, analyticity, truth-seeking and justice, respectively, indicate that the four subscales significantly and positively predicted students’ EAW performance ( p < 0.05). This finding implies that high school students’ EAW performance can be explained by the subdispositions of cognitive maturity, analyticity, truth-seeking and justice, among which cognitive maturity (Beta = 0.419) strongly predicts EAW proficiency. The analysis indicates the following regression equation for the dependent and independent variables: “EAW proficiency = 10.266 + 0.419 * cognitive maturity + 0.257 * analyticity + 0.231 * truth-seeking + 0.143* justice”.

EAW performance is a major topic of interest in English teaching and learning, particularly in China’s high schools. The present study explored the current CTD of Chinese high school students and the relationship between that and their EAW performance. The study also identified the CTD subdispositions that are positively related to and the main predictors of the high school students’ EAW performance in China. Additionally, the study adds fresh evidence about the Chinese version of the CCTDI when applied in a non-Western context.

The results showed that the high school students’ CTDs were overall positive (M = 4.08), that is in line with Qing, Shen & Tian (2010) , who examined the CTD of 121 grade 12 students in YuJin High School (M = 4.23), and Li (2021) , who found a positive disposition in grade 11 high school students (M = 4.095). These results revealed that high school students’ CTDs have not improved dramatically during the past decade. However, after 3 years’ further study in university, the students’ CTD scores tended (M = 4.289) ( Liu, 2018 ). This finding therefore contradicts ( Jin ’s 2021 ) finding that junior school students’ CTD at grade 8 is overall negative (M = 3.52). One reason is that the CTD is enhanced with age and learning, since the CTD is a psychological attribute that shapes one’s beliefs or actions ( Profetto-McGrath et al., 2003 ) enabling individuals to sufficiently solve problems and to make judgments as a product of thinking ( Facione & Facione, 2007 ).

Compared with the CTD scores from other Asian, Africa and Middle Eastern countries—such as Israel (M = 4.02) ( Ben-Chaim, Ron & Zoller, 2000 ), Turkey (M = 3.25 ± 0.27) ( Kaya, Şenyuva & Bodur, 2017 ), Japan (M = 3.91) ( Kawashima & Petrini, 2004 ) and Ghana (M = 3.95) ( Boso, van der Merwe & Gross, 2021 )—the result of this study is relatively high (M = 4.08), and close to some developed countries such as Australia (M = 4.11) ( Tiwari, Avery & Lai, 2003 ) and Italy (M = 4.10) ( Zoller et al., 2010 ). This finding may partly challenge the statement that students from Asian societies ( vs . those from non-Asian ones) are less inclined to demonstrate CTDs ( Wang et al., 2019 ). However, room remains for improvement in comparison with other developed countries such as Norway (M = 4.72) ( Wangensteen et al., 2010 ) and America (M = 4.33) ( Yeh & Chen, 2003 ).

Additionally, the results also suggested that five dimensions (inquisitiveness, justice, cognitive maturity, open-mindedness, and truth-seeking) had positive traits, while three dimensions (analyticity, systematicity, and self-confidence) had negative traits. This showed that students had a strong interest in the unknown world, an inclusive attitude towards new knowledge, a relatively mature understanding about things and a passion for exploration, but they were not good at analyzing objectively and logically, lacking perseverance and confidence.

The current study reported a moderate relationship (r = 0.543, p < 0.01) between students’ CTD and their EAW performance. These findings confirm those of earlier studies, such as Li (2021) , Liu (2021) and Jin (2021) . One reason is that the CTD correlates significantly with the total content knowledge resources and presentation strategies of English writing ( Yeh & Chen, 2003 ). This finding indicates that students with stronger CTDs have wider content knowledge resources and presentation strategies, which are essential for good EAW performance. And among the eight subscales of CTD, cognitive maturity, truth-seeking, analyticity, and justice have positive correlation with EAW. This is because the four mentioned dispositions have direct influences on EAW, including the organization of writing, layout of sub-claims and examples, development of logical reasoning and so on. While the other four aspects, open-mindedness, systematicity, inquisitiveness and self-confidence have more invisible influence on critical thinking and indirect association with EAW. According to interviews, students who score highly on the CTDs perform better on the four thinking stages involved in EAW i.e ., topic comprehension, thesis statement development with supporting arguments, organization of a coherent discourse, and putting ideas into writing ( Liu, 2021 ). For instance, understanding the task topic refers to the process of understanding concepts and judging the relationships among them. This process may involve the abilities of cognitive maturity and analyticity, since the former can help writers better understand the meaning of the title while the latter enables students to judge the relationships among concepts faster. Regarding developing a thesis statement with supporting arguments, which is central to writing, this process it is greatly influenced by the dispositions of truth-seeking and justice. The desire to seek the truth and explore the essence of things could drive students to carefully observe their surroundings, from which EAW’s supporting arguments are usually derived. Moreover, the sense of justice could hone students’ abilities draw distinctions, a skill that allow them to perceive or draw conclusions after thinking deeply about some social phenomena in daily life, and this process could be converted into a central EAW thesis statement. Meanwhile, the dispositions of systematicity, self-confidence, and open-mindedness have some effects on EAW that are not directly relevant, as they were not significantly correlated at the 0.05 level. The disposition of inquisitiveness, which refers to ‘an instinct that people are curious about the unknown’ ( Wen et al., 2009 ), help to expand students’ knowledge reservoirs, but it does not help them to focus on exercising logical and critical thinking abilities. As a result, it had an insignificant relation with EAW performance.

The four related subscales (cognitive maturity, analyticity, truth-seeking and justice, respectively), were proved also have prediction on EAW proficiency. The other four subscales—inquisitiveness, systematicity, self-confidence, and open-mindedness—were not predictors, because they are not significantly related to EAW. The reason cognitive maturity, truth-seeking, analyticity and justice are significantly correlated and positively predictive of EAW was discussed in the context of the definitions of these four subdispositions and the EAW writing process.

Cognitive maturity refers to ‘a measure of whether the understanding of things is comprehensive and life events are considered carefully’, and truth-seeking is defined as ‘the desire to seek the truth and to explore the essence of things’ ( Wen et al., 2009 ). Persuasive English argumentation requires an individual to ‘find the essence of the topic’ and to relate convincing subarguments and examples gleaned from the ‘comprehensive and thoughtful understanding of things in life’. On the other hand, analyticity is defined as ‘the ability to independently and objectively analyze life problems and to foresee the outcome or consequences of an event based on facts’ ( Wen et al., 2009 ), which is required throughout the argumentative writing process, specifically during the layout process. Justice is defined as ‘conscious criteria for judging whether something is morally and legally fair’ ( Wen et al., 2009 ), and do help provide arguments in EAW writing, since the sense of justice can promote students to observe things around them objectively. These relations also can be found in the comparison between good and poor articles. For example, a student with high scores in these four dispositions gave three sub-argument to support his opinion “people shouldn’t smoke in public places”, from “Smoking is harmful to personal health and wealth” to “Smoking in public places violates the rights of others” and “Smoking in public places poses a significant fire hazard and thread public safety”. From individual to others and to public group, the argumentation of the points of view was progressive. Meanwhile, the student used research data, news reports and celebrity quotes to support the sub-arguments. The whole structure of his EAW was logical and smooth. Additionally, during the argument, the student criticized the counter-arguments mentioned in the supplied material to strengthen the credibility of his opinion, such as “Although smoking could be seen as an individual right, public interest should be the most important thing in public places”. While a student with low scores in these four dispositions even though also chose to defend “people shouldn’t smoke in public places”, but he only mentioned the sub-arguments from the resources in the test, from “Smoking is a pollution” to “Smoking is wasting money” and to “Smoking is harmful to the health”. The logical correlations between these sub-arguments were not clearly articulated in the essays and some empty words were used to support the points which made the essay unconvincing.

Besides, a prominent feature of writing from the cognitive perspective is problem-solving ( Graham & Harris, 1997 ), which is regarded as crucially important and thought to positively affect EAW performance. Thus, a student with high CTD scores is expected to better gain the essence of the argumentative topic and comprehensively analyze the topic in a piece of EAW. According to this, we argue that cognitive maturity, truth-seeking, and analyticity, as the CTD components, could be strong EAW predictors. Therefore, it is helpful to enhance these CTDs to develop better EAW performance, since these were found to be linked to success in English argumentation.

Limitations and future research

This study is limited in the research region and critical thinking aspects. First, the present study is limited to a developing, non-Western, Asian high schools. Considering this, high school students from other cities or relevant teachers should be involved in future study to deeply understand the relationship between CTD and EAW. Second, the current study is limited to the CTD, and other critical thinking aspects such as critical thinking skills have not yet to be explored. Incorporating other critical thinking factors in future studies could generate insightful results. Besides, the possible differences caused by years of study or other demographic factors need to be examined in future research.

Conclusion and implications

EAW teaching and learning has been of prime importance for English education in China, since EAW performance is currently significant on both international and domestic English language proficiency tests. To discover the predictive influencing factors on EAW proficiency improve EAW performance, this study explored the relationship between the CTD (independent variable) and the EAW (dependent variable) proficiency of high school students with an emphasis on the CTD subscales. High school students’ CTDs were overall positive, and students’ EAW performance correlated significantly with the overall CTD and its four sub-dispositions of cognitive maturity, truth-seeking, analyticity, and justice. Furthermore, among the eight CTD subscales, only four dispositions (cognitive maturity, truth-seeking, analyticity and justice) showed a significantly predictive validity on EAW performance. The findings of the current study will contribute to the knowledge of Chinese high school students’ cognition and English learning status. In addition, it has implications for the enhancement of EAW teaching and learning in China.

The findings showed that high school students in Zhangzhou, China generally have positive CTDs, i.e ., they perform well on the abilities of analyticity, truth-seeking, systematicity, open-mindedness, cognitive-maturity, inquisitiveness, self-confidence, and justice. In addition, their CTDs have been proven to be related to their performance on EAW. Specifically, their dispositions on cognitive maturity, truth-seeking, analyticity, and justice are related to their EAW proficiency score. A further analysis revealed that Chinese high school students’ EAW performance can be predicted by their abilities in terms of cognitive maturity, truth-seeking, analyticity and justice. These results provide references for English teachers to improve students’ English argumentative writing performance.

Primarily, in line with previous study findings in China ( Sun, 2020 ; Ren, 2020 ), instructors in China should be concerned about students’ CTDs, since students from China and other, more developed countries continue to have a gap. Secondarily, a significant and positive correlation was found between EAW and CTD as well as its subdispositions—such as cognitive maturity, truth-seeking, analyticity, and justice—which has been confirmed in previous studies ( Han, 2020 ; Feng, 2021 ). Therefore, instructors should provide clear CTD definitions for students and strengthen their critical thinking awareness. Lastly, teachers are urged to conduct suitable CTD training, especially on the four predictive subdispositions ( i.e ., cognitive maturity, truth-seeking, analyticity and justice), which could foster and facilitate four thinking stages involved in EAW and directly improve high school students’ EAW performance.

EAW is included as a prompt in the writing sections of some international standardized English exams ( e.g ., TOEFL and IELTS) and English for Specific Purposes exams, which necessitate argumentative writing. Besides, EAW is a crucial skill in China because the performance on English argumentation regards as a key assessment element on English language proficiency, especially in the high-stakes college entrance examination, which plays an essential role in college admission decisions. Teachers of English writing in high school should focus on students’ critical thinking and help them do a better job of analyzing the topic, establishing a layout, and organizing and writing argumentation logically, especially because EAW skills increasingly play crucial roles in students’ general academics at all of their study levels ( Németh & Kormos, 2001 ).

Supplemental Information

Supplemental information 1, supplemental information 2, funding statement.

The authors received no funding for this work.

Additional Information and Declarations

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Yanfang Hu conceived and designed the experiments, performed the experiments, analyzed the data, prepared figures and/or tables, and approved the final draft.

Atif Saleem conceived and designed the experiments, analyzed the data, authored or reviewed drafts of the article, and approved the final draft.

The following information was supplied relating to ethical approvals ( i.e ., approving body and any reference numbers):

College of Teacher Education, Zhejiang Normal University