What is Critical Thinking?
Critical thinking (CT) has become a very important term in global education discourse. It is mentioned as an important 21-st century skill and taken up as student competence or skill in many curricula worldwide. Ennis’ (1985, p. 45) widely embraced definition states that critical thinking is ‘reflective and reasonable thinking that is focused on deciding what to believe or do.‘ More specifically, CT is the ability to analyze, evaluate, and synthesize information to form reasoned judgments or make decisions. It involves questioning assumptions, assessing the reliability of sources and applying logical reasoning to solve problems effectively. Critical thinkers are adept at recognizing biases, identifying logical fallacies, and distinguishing between fact and opinion to arrive at well-informed conclusions. Especially in the present era with many sources of misinformation and fake news, CT plays a crucial role. It empowers individuals to discern credible sources, evaluate information’s reliability, and recognize bias and fallacies. By questioning assumptions and verifying claims, critical thinkers can navigate the digital landscape more effectively, making informed decisions and mitigating the spread of false information.
Whereas many have taken a more generic approach to CT, we propose that CT can only be done effectively when domain specific lines of reasoning are taken into account and by combining multiple perspectives. Educating CT is especially indispensable when using educational approaches that imply finding and using information such as task-based or problem-based education. When considering the didactic triangle (student, teacher, content) as proposed by Künzli (1998), the content part stands as a cornerstone, essential for effective teaching and learning. It serves as the focal point around which the interactions between student and teacher revolve. Quality content is essential for evoking curiosity, the willingness to learn as well as critical thinking, driving engagement and meaningful learning experiences.
One more generic approach that is used worldwide to decide what to believe or do (CT) is the widely accepted Toulmin model (1958). Toulmin’s model of argumentation emphasizes the provision of evidence (grounds) to support a certain claim, supported by a warrant (the logical reasoning or justification for why the grounds support the claim) (see figure 1, left part).

The Toulmin model is known to have a positive effect on the clarity, validity, and persuasiveness of arguments in various contexts (CT). However, based on the important role of content in CT, we propose that CT can be more effective when learners use domain-specific knowledge when questioning assumptions and applying logical reasoning to solve problems (see Tricot & Sweller,, 2014, Moore, 2011). Within domains, explanations hold a certain knowledge structure (e.g, biological thinking, historical thinking, geographical thinking) in which concepts are used productively. In the present Erasmus+ project, we have elaborated these ways of thinking into perspectives. We propose that when learners use and combine these domain-specific perspectives, they are better equipped to assess whether or not certain information is correct. In this way, perspectives enhance the effectivity of CT (figure 1, right part).
Teacher recommendations when using perspectives to CT
- Especially when using educational approaches that imply finding and using information such as task-based or problem-based education, spend time on learning your students how to think critically
- Part I: Assist students to assess the reliability of sources, especially in this era of fake news and AI
- Authorship and Credentials: Verify the author’s qualifications, their professional affiliations, and expertise in the subject area to establish credibility.
- Publication and Peer Review: Check if the source is published by a reputable publisher and whether it has undergone a peer-review process, indicating scholarly reliability.
- Relevance and Objectivity: Ensure the information aligns with your research topic and needs, while assessing its intent—whether it aims to inform or persuade, and if there is any detectable bias.
- Currency and Depth: Confirm that the information is up to date and offers in-depth analysis with detailed explanations, rather than superficial coverage, while comparing it to other credible sources for verification.
- Part II: Applying domain-specific reasoning to judge claims or decide what to believe or do
- Choose the appropriate perspective (e.g., biological, historical, language) and start by analyzing what question is answered by the claim (e.g. the claim could be: ‘COVID vaccines change your DNA’ – the underlying question would be: ‘How do vaccines help you recognize an infection more quickly next time?)
- Next, use the elaborated ways of thinking presented in the perspective and map out how the grounds lead to a certain claim (warrant). Is the authors’ warrant in line with how the perspective presents experts’ reasoning in this field? (e.g. ‘how does mRNA lead to protein production?’)
- Sometimes, the combination of several perspectives is needed to reason in interdisciplinary manner.
Literature
Ennis, R. (1985). A logical basis for measuring critical thinking skills. Educational Leadership, 43(2), 44–48.
Künzli, R. (1998). The common frame and the places of Didaktik. In B. B. Gundem & S. Hopmann (Eds.), Didaktik and/or curriculum (pp. 29–45). New York & London: Routledge.
Tricot, A., & Sweller, J. (2014). Domain-specific knowledge and why teaching generic skills does not work. Educational psychology review, 26(2), 265-283.
Moore, T. J. (2011). Critical thinking and disciplinary thinking: A continuing debate. Higher Education Research & Development, 30(3), 261–274.
Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.